For now, I’m keeping my vote where it is. I’d like to reiterate that calling scum wolves wasn’t the thrust of my argument against MentalGuy. We’ll know for sure what flavor of scum we’re fighting against on Day 2 (from the death scene). So for now, let’s not fixate on it.
[Undecided] Adrian, I’ve got two questions for you. First, you say that talking during the Day is the only explanation that makes sense. Why do you dismiss the possibility that masons can talk to each other, or that there’s a third faction that can communicate? Second, what part of Hero’s post #221 lead you to believe that he agrees with you? He only quoted the Mod, and said,
This doesn’t actually say what he thinks the rule change implies. So Hero, what were you trying to say in that post?
Really? I get the feeling town usually lynches the loud the first day, in the beginning it’s just too easy to sit in the shadows and lurk while occasionally posting stuff like, ‘I’ve been really busy the lasts couple of days guys, I’ll get into the game just as soon as I can’. THAT stuff isn’t acceptable to me, both cause it’s too easy for scum to hide with that and because I want even townies to show up and help. Not that you did any of that, just to answer the question ‘does random voting impel more useful dialogue?’…it seems to have worked for you.
1 - Almost Human ([Undecided] Adrian)
3 - MentalGuy (ok11, pedescribe, Almost Human)
2 - Oredigger77 (Pleonast, Seeker of Truth and Beauty)
1 - Pleonast (Oredigger77)
1 - Seeker of Truth and Beauty (Hero From Sector 7G)
1 - rexnervous (Sitnam)
1 - straggler (BillMC)
Well I know at this point it’s almost like a pile on but…
Straggler that is just a horrible idea. If you posit that scum can and will coordinate votes, I agree. But to allow them until the last minute when they would have less time to justify their reasoning just makes no sense. As well, as potentially giving a town role little or no time to defend themself. Not all of us are on 24/7 so nope. Poor idea.
But now I have to add that poor ideas are not, in and of theselves, indicators of alignment. Matter of fact, poor ideas are generally (in my experience) the result of a townie going down the wrong path. Scum will typically have vetted their ramblings with their partners and have already trouble shot potential potholes. So bad does not equate to scumminess. Of course, WIFOM. “Scum would never do that” is very dangerous. However, I would expect to see that from a grey beard and not a peach fuzz (no offense).
Greybeard would be a more experienced player. Even though typically males have beards it would apply to a female as well. Even if they don’t have a beard which would be kind of gross if you think about. I mean chicks may have kind a moustache thingy going on, but a beard not so much.
Peach fuzz would be a less experienced player. Kind of like guys before and during early puberty. Even though like above this is not a sexual distinction.
It was not the cross pollination that I was necessarily referring to. Absolutely, the addition of new folks is only going to be beneficial in the long run.
I was being more meta gamey. If we are on multiple boards with different roles and alignments is there any way to see changes in behavior from game to game/board to board and reach a conclusion. I don’t know but it’s just a thought.
Also with all the new blood it could be very easy to reach erroneous conclusions. For example, I know that nook is kind of stoic. Seeing him play certain folks might say that he is a lurker and needs to swing. But since I have been playing with him so long I kbow that it is just his style and is a null tell.
rex, ok11 - let me give my analysis of sachertorte’s explanation in detail, I think this is the crux of the matter:
The second sentence paraphrased:
[The original Simpletown] restricted scum talk to Night only. The [new] rules do not make that stipulation […]
This means to me that scum talk during the day was formerly forbidden, but is not anymore. Do you really deny that this is a reasonable interpretation?
I did not make any statements regarding other communication, as listed in ok11’s post, because I don’t think that the rules offer a clue about that one way or the other.
Whether masons or some other third party can communicate is entirely unrelated to the scum-talk-during-the-day issue.
I was hoping other people would analyze it and draw their own conclusions, but that didn’t happen so let me get Socratic:
My Interpretation:
Old Rule = Scum may talk at night.
New Rule = People who get a PM saying so may talk outside the game.
My Inference:
A) More than scum may talk outside the game
and/or
B) Scum may be able to talk all the time.
It seems people are landing on B and using it to justify their votes. I think it is more likely to be A. It could be both but thinking that makes me want to give up.
Remember “7 mislynches” ? What game setup would this require? If scum have low numbers what mechanics balance that? Is your conclusion consistent with the rule change? How about the title of the game?
So that is what I was thinking when I re-quoted the rules. It felt relevant because it tied two discussions together.
I just can’t agree with this reasoning. While I agree that scum talking during the Day is a possible and perhaps even likely explanation, it’s by no means a certainty. Let’s break it down.
Scum couldn’t talk during the Day in the last Simpletown game
The wording of the rules has now been changed
The rules don’t say whether they can or not this time.
At no point does it say scum can talk during the Day
At no point does it say the rules have in fact changed, simply the wording of them.
At no point does it say that if the rules have indeed changed that said change affects scum
It’s like saying “I forgot to buy cat litter and my cat peed on the carpet last week. This week I bought some cat litter.”
Buying the cat litter doesn’t mean the cat didn’t pee on the carpet this week too, simply that certain circumstances have changed. Hell for all we know in that statement the cat litter could have been used to make a pretty Japanese garden and the cat never got a look in.
Basically this is a very long-winded way of saying you’re making assumptions. Your assumptions may be right but you need to remember they’re only assumptions.
Not to mention the fact you’re so sure mentalguy is right in his thinking is pinging me big time.
AH, I think MentalGuy is right because I think the same way.
Hero, this is reasoning is not based on the rules themselves, but on the wording of the explanation.
Note that it mentions scum talk and only scum talk, so the talk about third parties is a distraction. We don’t know if there are any and if they can talk.
And a stipulation is a rule, isn’t it? Getting rid of it counts as a change, yes?
So since I make the assumption that scum can communicate at all (not unreasonable, yes?) and it is no longer forbidden during the day, they can talk during the day.
Perhaps his explanation was intentionally or unintentionally misleading. I don’t know sachertorte, but I don’t think the former is probable, and the wording seemed to be careful.
I am aware that I now talked much more about this than MentalGuy, who really is very quiet right now. Oh well.
The mod says the previous rule is that scum talk is restricted to Night only and that stipulation is not in this game. I may be wrong, but I think it is a valid assumption that scum can talk during the day (and I will be playing assuming that is the case).
From my point of view, it looks as if the scum have decided to try to start a pile-on. There are two reasons that they chose me:
I made a statement that could be spun as an example of PIS.
In post 196, I asked about Masons and they concluded that I am not a Mason, thus I have no one to vouch for me.
The main problem I see with this theory is that once I am lynched and shown to be a townie it will put whoever started the pile-on under a lot of suspicion. For that reason, I am slightly less suspicious of ok11 than I am of pedescribe and Almost Human. Since Almost Human is the one making the case that this is an obvious slip when it is not I will vote for him.
Vote Almost Human
I realize that this makes it look like [Undecided] Adrian and I are working together, but that is okay, since I think we are working together, just on the town side.
Also, this is the first opportunity I have had to use the computer since last night, so don’t make anything of my silence.
UA, I see the logic in your interpretation. It just feels like you’re projecting your thought process unto others (MentalGuy and Hero). In Mafia, just because someone agrees (or seems to agree) with you, it doesn’t mean that they’re on your side.
Perhaps they analyzed and drew conclusions, but just like you didn’t share them with the rest of us. Personally, I don’t like that type of post (221) because you’re not committing yourself to anything. If you’re scum, you can go back later and assign any meaning to it, depending on what suits you.
I find it very hard to believe that the town has 7 mislynches. Wouldn’t that mean that there are only 2 scum? Could someone check my math, please? If we lynch town 7 times and scum kill town 7 times, then there are 6 players left on Day 8. Half of them can’t be scum, or the game would have ended. Even with amazing powers, I don’t think that this kind of game setup would be balanced.
Adrian, I can see where you’re coming from but didn’t reach your conclusion from the rule change.
I replied to ok11 before I read the whole thread. I see the issue has been discussed in more detail and that is good. I would really like to know why you think talking about third parties is a distraction. What exactly is it distracting us from?
My reading of the rule change suggested a third party.
Pleo was the one who said 7 mis-lynches. Where this number came from is what interested me, as it had nothing to do with the rest of his post. I can imagine a game setup that has three scum, a third party, and 7 mislynches. However, I’m not comfortable running with my conclusion as it relies on too many assumptions. I was curious if anyone else would arrive where I did.
You have to admit, it is really interesting to see how people twisted my non-committed tiny post to their own means.
Sorry, Hero, I meant distracting only in the discussion at hand, since my argument wasn’t based on third parties at all. ok11 and Almost Human brought them up in that context. Of course they are very relevant in the overall game.
Good to see that my thought processes are shared by others, even if they are more cautious there. I agree that it is not 100% certain, but I think my interpretation is the most likely one, and my point was that MentalGuy’s post was not the scum tell that rex, AH - and you, ok11 - thought it was.
There was a pile-on going on there, I didn’t think it was justified and wanted to stop it, because I thought the discussion was skewed in that regard.
The pile-on has stopped now, the issue has been thoroughly discussed, so I see that as a step forward for the town.
MentalGuy and I are now quite closely aligned, which was to be expected after I took a stand for him originally, discussion with others along the same lines tends to bring you even closer together.
I disagree, however, if he thinks that the ones that voted for him where all wolves, that would be much too obvious.
I think that there is a good chance there was a bit of push-starting the bandwagon, so one of them might very well be one.