That idea was unrelated to the Doctor Dance. But the Captain doesn’t brig himself by putting out a arrest warrant. He only gives his Exo the option to brig him if he thinks thats needed. It’s more a symbolic move and as I said I don’t like it since outstanding warrants are bad since the mutineers can abuse them and there is no reason for the Captain to think his Exo isn’t a mutineer at this point (unless they are mates as well).
C’mon peeker, aren’t you supposed to be eager to take one for the team?
OK, so both my assumptions were correct.
If the doc is switched out of his position during the day but after placing his examination order, the NEW doctor will get the result, not the original one.
And,
Rank-related roles will always be kept filled. (Unless the total number of players is too low.)
The rules need to be much much clearer that the person who orders the investigation is not necessarily the person who gets the information. The use of “Ship’s Doctor” in the rules regarding who gets the information sounds like a reference to the previous person and not a reference to who currently is the doctor. Not to mention that this interaction flies in the face of the typical Mafia rules set and thus should be explicitly mentioned.
Right. So I’m thinking, people should feel free to say what they think should be done (because otherwise it’s just obnoxious and quite possibly counterproductive), but the responsibility for each choice falls ultimately on the player who sends the order. He or she should not be able to refer to other people’s arguments as sole justification.
Gah, I messed that up, quoted the wrong part. I intended to reply to the first part of glowacks post.
That should be Chief of Security instead of Exo here.
I believe the standard reason is that “OMG it would give scum a chance to influence the decision!”.
That not part of my reasoning, actually. It’s more like, if the player involved is known or presumed to be town, then they’re TOWN. They’re the good guys. The good guys should not be bullied or pressured into taking certain actions at the behest of a group of players that includes not-good-guys. It’s not OMG scum get to have influence, it’s a perception that allowing scum into a decision that a known town could be taking alone is a bass-ackwards way to do things. And as far as the town players who want to do this, a large part of me feels like the player should be respected enough to use their own judgment. If they get it wrong, well that stinks. But they should be given the opportunity to get it right.
In situations where a given power role or claimed power role is of uncertain alignment, then I’m also usually against giving them a lot of advice, because allowing them to tune in too easily to what is expected of them might prevent them making logic-defying plays, and IMO scum are more likely to do that than town. I like giving people enough rope to hang themselves.
Maybe it’s just that the situation is so novel that despite all of this, I do think I want people to talk about power role actions here (heck I’ve been doing it myself), but I still think ultimate responsibility for making defensible decisions has to rest on the players who send the orders.
Day One Vote Count
All Votes by Voting Player
Hal Briston => fluiddruid(74), TexCat(74), peekercpa(74), Mahaloth(74).
fluiddruid => no votes.
TexCat => no votes.
peekercpa => [del]Normal Phase(65-126)[/del], [del]Stanislaus(65-126)[/del], [del]fubbleskag(65-126)[/del], Normal Phase(126), Hal Briston(126), Drain Bead(126).
Mahaloth => no votes.
Inner Stickler => no votes.
Red Skeezix => no votes.
glowacks => no votes.
Natlaw => no votes.
Normal Phase => [del]NAF1138(72-92)[/del], [del]Stanislaus(72-92)[/del], [del]peekercpa(72-92)[/del], [del]Drain Bead(72-92)[/del].
fubbleskag => no votes.
Crackrat => no votes.
Stanislaus => no votes.
Drain Bead => no votes.
Idle Thoughts => no votes.
NAF1138 => no votes.
Net Votes
peekercpa (1) <= Hal Briston.
fluiddruid (1) <= Hal Briston.
TexCat (1) <= Hal Briston.
Mahaloth (1) <= Hal Briston.
With 16 players eligible to vote, 8 votes are needed to space. With these votes, no one will be spaced.
Pleonast wrote me back about the doctor getting results while in the brig.
[quote]
No. By definition, the Doctor cannot be in the Brig.
[quote]
That’s it, but I think it’s expected.
Uh, I messed up the quote, there. Pleo said, " No. By definition, the Doctor cannot be in the Brig."
If it helps, try to think of the officers as uninhabited roles that we are shuffled into rather than any one person being The Captain, The Doctor, The Engineer, etc.
I haven’t thoroughly scrutinized the thread yet, but there are a couple of pieces that stick out to me.
- Hal Briston’s votes. If sach was here, he’d politely remind us that selecting any ~1/3 of the game and saying one of them is scum is a pointless statement. Furthermore, his votes are votes of no account. These votes always ring scummy to me. They often seem to be an easy way for scum to make a statement about the game that completely avoids any accountability for the votes themselves and they say zero about the player making the votes.
vote Hal Briston
2. I’m of the opinion that discussing what powers could do should not be shunned, but the ultimate responsibility relies on the player to make a decision. This provides two benefits: 1. It’s possible for other people to have good ideas that are worth hearing out. Lots of eyes minimize the effects of blind spots. 2. Requiring proper justification for actions is always important.
-
2, being said. I don’t think that those in power should forecast their actions. Or if they do forecast their actions, they should feel free to break those forecasts whenever they can justify it. Being a predictable power (Especially Head of Engineering) may open up options for scum.
-
This is a minor nitpick, Can we pick a common set of abbreviations for the ranking officers? When reading (I forget who at this point, I was thinking EO was Engineering Officer.) Maybe, CO, XO, SO, EO, MD. Honestly I don’t really care, but can we pick a set and stick to it? Reading dry strategy related posts and getting confused, makes them even harder to understand.
-
Since there is a vote minimum in this game, I would encourage everyone to be conscientious with all of their votes. Casting an “off/lazy vote” just so their other votes will count is a BAD idea, and opens the door for scum vote manipulation and others using that justification to cast crappy votes. (this is one reason that I hate enforced multivoting) .
Lastly, my future mother in law announced the other day that she was coming over for the weekend, and has arrived while I was typing this post, so I’ll be pretty scarce for the rest of the weekend. But I will be reading/ruminating when I get a chance.
Red, is there a point to your individual vote on Hal?
I guess I’m unsure where you think people ought to draw a line between not having any of one’s votes counted and having some not-so-greatly-considered votes cast. It seems silly to give up 3 solid votes just because you can’t some up with a decent 4th. Hell, put it on yourself if you have no better options and aren’t particularly in line to be lynched, but don’t let your voice go to waste given the vote minimum required.
NETA:
I suspect that you meant to urge people to be thoughtful with all their votes and not just their first one or two, but what stood out to me is that you seemed to suggest it’s better to not have your votes counted than be forced to make a half-hearted vote that could be manipulated. Because of the vote minimum we need to make sure we cast valid votes; I suppose you’re saying to make sure you don’t do something stupid in order to ensure that your vote is valid. So while the advice for thoughtfulness is perfectly valid, the way that it was expressed was a bit dodgy.
On that note, how the hell are we supposed to come up with four people to vote for this early? When following the Glasnost game, I had scum vibes from a ton of people who were making what were in my opinion incredibly bad arguments, but in general they didn’t turn out to be scum. Not everyone is as great an analyst as another, and I’m totally unfamiliar with the capabilities of people here so it will be quite difficult for me to tell the difference between a scum purposely using bad logic to mislead us and those who just weren’t thinking things all the way through.
I guess I see myself voting for people whose logic is most flawed, irrespective of what I think the motivation behind that logic is, perhaps taking into account those that are lurking and thus not providing any help at all. Lynching the lurkers may be trite and lynching those with poor analytical skills may be unfair, but we should be trying to eliminate those we feel are helping the town the least even if we don’t think they’re scum, right?
Sorry I’m a little late to the party. I am currently traveling, but will be home and situated well before the end of toDay. I will be around a bit in the evenings for the rest of the weekend.
Even though the doctor dance looks like it won’t work, it raised a question. Is brigging a confirmed town for their safety all that useful? That’s one town vote that is guaranteed not to help and a possibility of power roles that are unable to be used. In return, we get to keep them around, but we’re still losing a town each night (unless we’ve brigged all the scum). The confirmed town won’t have any new information to share. I can see some benefit from forcing scum to kill unconfirmed town, since we can then examine voting records and lynch arguments. Is that the whole trade-off?
In answer to Natlaw’s question, I’m male.
Lastly, a question about votes. Since everyone’s forced to multi-vote, and all the numbers are the same, does the power balance work out equivalently to a single-vote system, or does it mean that the balance shifts a lot when we brig or lynch someone? It seems intuitively obvious that it should be fairly equal, but I haven’t done any deep analysis, and I’m happy to let those with more experience save me the time.
<snipped>
just from my own viewpoint which may very well be in the minority so ymmv.
i think multi-voting (and especially borda) is too easy to manipulate. scum can and will work together. and depending on how participatory scum members are they can be talking right up to lynch deadline depending on which way the wind is blowing. i’d be highly surprised if they haven’t already had this discussion on their board.
generally there is at least a modicum of consenus on the top two or so lynch candidates. then you get some number of one and two offs. well in a forced multivote set up people are forced to pick secondary, tertiary and quateranary votes. at least initially. now early on a mass scum rush to flip the lynch probably is not going to happen. but at the end of the game if it seals the deal then for sure. and with the brigging mechanism even more so.
now pleo seems to think that this is a small town advantage. and it remains to be seen how it plays out. although the number of votes being changed depending on remaining scum does seem to mitigate the manipulation factor.
and unlike borda in a multi vote system, unless there is some general agreement outside of the ruleset, who is to say that i stack rank my votes from most to least scummy, least to most or in just some fracking random order.
I think it is the multi-lynch he considers a town advantage, but we don’t have that here. The multi-vote is for extra participation.
It helps town by providing more data but it is also more data for scum to hide in (for example if a town and scum up for lynch, a scum voting for both effectively votes neither).