Catching on on the past 24 hours or so, I would like to say please keep it civil. We’re doing okay, but had a few close calls.
Meeko is making little to no sense to me. I do not grock his apparent Campaign To Appreciate And EqualIze The Playing Field For The Common Vanilla (Wo)Man ™, nor do I see Pizza as the Evil Vanilla-nessist Henchman ™.
Meeko, you do realize that Pizza’s plan was proposed in another game and other people brought it over here? I am opting out of it myself, but I can’t fathom how it is being interpreted as The One Mafia Ring that needs to be thrown into fires of Mt. Shoes. I see it more as a TPS report.
I kind of see Mahaloth’s points about Johnny’s language choices, but I’ve never played with him before and I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt as having a flair for the dramatic.
Ryjae’s “Lynch the Lurker” Day 1 I do not care for, but I already have a vote on him. Dollars to doughnuts there are far more non-participatory Town the Scum at this point in the game. And voting on absence of evidence is voting on a single datapoint and is a pathway to unaccountability.
Re: nonparticipatory players: I played in a game where the moderator modkilled three or four players for severe inactivity at the request of us remaining players. They were all town.
And, it’s still Day 1, with lots of time left. I think the time for dealing with lurkers comes much later in a game.
Sigh. Since I’m already set up to do vote counts in my game, it’s not that much of burden to do it for this one to. Especially since I like to have color-coded vote counts when I’m a player. And my script does nice things like keep track of unvotes and a list of who players are voting for (not just getting votes from).
Lynching them later is good (vigging them is better). But they should be prodded by players now.
Every Day a player isn’t active discussing and voting is a Day without the rest of us having something to evaluate them with. This is extremely anti-town and almost anti-game. So I am happy to see low participants being called out. If they get some heat, that’s good to.
But you’re right that blindly lynching players we no little about because they’re not playing is a bad idea.
Note- Heading off to work, no time to comment further, but just a reminder.
For those interested in following the framework, the nomination phase has passed.
New nominations can be accepted of course (the framework is flexible) but we should begin seriously discussing and weighing in on the candidates that already have votes.
Primarily, indicating which persons we think are a good lynch or a bad lynch, which ones we’d be willing to vote for. Of interest to me, who you’d be most willing, and least willing, to lynch.
In future rounds we still wouldn’t be dogpiling any candidates, because we’d do discussion and then wait for detective reveals or night action reports or other things that have been witheld from the discussion. Claiming is not encouraged (Especially not this early) but would be considered when folks are formulating their vote strategy.
vote Val Salva
Really nothing to go on Day 1 at all. We have to vote for someone because it is the way to play, I don’t really understand why but it is. To explain that a bit, how many times does a scum actually slip up Day 1? I imagine not that often the only thing we can do in a game is go back over actions and see the words as they were wrote after a town dies knowing they were truthful.
We have a better than not chance of hitting town Day 1 lynch, the scum have a much better chance nailing a townie Night 1. What benefit does the Day 1 lynch have again? We end up most likely with 2 dead town and a lil’ extra information based on nothing more than what the scum dictated. (Based on them trying to take out “power players”)
Day 2 and on then we have more information, but yeah Day 1 voting and calling someone scum is not a good plan in my opinion.
So getting back to that calling people scum Day 1 point… GuiriEnEspaña had me bothered after
and not removing the vote. But meh, doesn’t really matter as Day 1 is just trying to throw anything into the soup pan to call dinner. But his vicious scum calls on chloie makes me think he is town based on my own past plays*. So as much as I would love to throw a vote as a in yo face, I cannot.
Really, nothing at all has pinged me yet, and I refuse to vote for no reason this time around at least with a lurker I have a reason.
I still regret a few times, yes more than once I latched onto someone who turned out to be a townie like a pitbull and was ashamed at the reveal.
In short, I disapprove of any thing that is a “guilty until proven innocent” broad sweeping opening gambit.
Scum will have more of a defense than vanilla town. Vanilla town can only play the game as vanilla town. Scum can play the game as vanilla or as scum. The scum part of their play will give them the edge in any broad sweeping opening gambit. Vanilla townies, without a scum part will end up “looking more scummy”. As I’ve said before, the Pizza and Pleonast (each on their own, in seperate) modus-operandi will lynch innocents. God forbid if scum can manipulate these analyses entire.
We have precedent here.
COOKIES: would you like to share with the class the history of Chronis’ voting analysis program?
I don’t believe ever used it, don’t remember what it involves, nor could I tell you a single game that anyone used it in. I would be a horrible teacher.
The entire equalize the playing field for vanilla townie … You being against it pings me. The opposition of equalizing the field is ripe for scum motivation.
There is no equalizing necessary or desired. It is the Mod’s job to balance the game, not the players. The players play the game, which is to hunt scum if you’re a Townie and stay alive as long as possible if you’re Scum. It is no one’s job to try to lay out a bunch of soft pillows and booster seats for the people who don’t happen to have power roles. Vanilla players need no protecting. Power roles need no protecting. People die in this game, most of the time Townies. It is what makes the game a fun puzzle to play.
For someone who speaks in analogies, sometimes you don’t parse the analogies of others very well. That is what my ‘Campaign To Appreciate And EqualIze The Playing Field For The Common Vanilla (Wo)Man ™’ was. An analogy, with a little tongue and cheek humor thrown in. At the risk of overuse quixotic as a Meeko qualifier, the idea that vanilla players need a champion is about as close as you can get to seeing dragons where there are windmills.
You came out with some sort of muddy accusations against Pizza and Pleo because, apparently, when seen through the filters of some of your past games when you felt you had been a misunderstood vanilla player, you think their strategies make it somehow harder on the vanilla Townies. I don’t even know how you’d prove that to anyone in order to make it compelling. I have been in some of those games where you think you were misunderstood, and I didn’t understand it then. I still don’t understand it now, but most importantly, we are in THIS game now. And your arguments are lacking relevance and understandability. Hence my statement that I don’t grock you.
To clarify, ‘Vanilla players need no protecting. Power roles need no protecting.’ I mean the sort of meta strategic protection that Meeko is referring to. Not to be confused with role mechanics like Doc protections, which of course can and should be used on both Vanilla players and Power roles.
To answer** Guiri**'s question, this is what I mean by a vote with no accountability. Chucara has now said it was a joke vote, yes, I did know that but the person he voted for probably didn’t see it as such. Chucara has now turned the tables onto people that have voted for him by saying that they are lazy votes, perhaps, but at least they had a reason for their vote. I don’t see how he meant it to be a brilliant “Plan” but it does strike me as a way to get a vote in without a smidgen of suspicion against a person, to have a voting record without actually voting for someone he thinks is scummy. I didn’t like that vote and I still don’t as a matter of fact. I think a ‘pancake’ vote is from someone trying to look as if they are playing without really playing.
Chucara, why, in particular would you think that scum would jump at the chance to vote for you? Don’t you think that you gave Town a reason to think you look scummy?
Guiri, why the vote on Choie, is it really because she posted just after you called her on not checking in? Could it be that you are scum and are worried that she might notice a change in your playing style? A third possibility occurs to me too, is it revenge for a previous game?
I don’t think that lynching a lurker is such a good idea, in my experience most lurkers have flipped Town, of course there are always exceptions. As Pleo said though, prodding them would be good, it’s always more fun when everyone is playing.
