Some people still seem to be weighing switch plans because learning whether or not they are revealed upon death would have been new information. We can at least set this particular question aside.
I had also noticed sachertorte’s seeming certainty that one of our dead townies had been in possession of a switch, prior to the above mod clarification.
And you really think there are 28 or so switches out there? That strikes me as total moderation insanity, all on its own.
From where I’m sitting, brewha gets a little benefit of the doubt because his apparent plan would try to leash Batman or at least try to mitigate his compulsive killing. Everyone else gets null tells from me about their switches. It did make sense to me to redact the scummy bits because wolves would not want to waste killing the Mafia switch holder and vice versa.
So many good players not playing. So many in general not playing.
I’ve had an unexpected week off of work so I’m keeping up alright and re-reading Yesterday/night a bit.
Poking at Sario seems like a good idea for now but I will have more to say on substantive suspicions soon.
We had a 3rd party recently in a Giraffe game. **HookerChemical **was that 3rd party and had to identify the type of character each player was and move certain players based on that information. Mahaloth was a Town player urging everyone to claim character. Town won, but the 3rd party represented a serious danger.
I disagree. First, I don’t think Captain Klutz took into account septimus’s soft claim. Second, if I assume Captain Klutz did think septimus was a Town Power then scummy Captain Klutz would absolutely not vote for septimus. Voting for a Town Power after a claim?! If Klutz saw septimus’s post as a claim, he would assume others did too. No scum is going to vote that way since actually getting septimus lynched would be a long shot at best.
O dear God.
So what are you saying? That Zeriel and Idle are scum together? And that Zeriel decided to specifically comment on his scum buddy out of the blue?
What is the reasoning that only scum would mention a dead player?
I don’t like the apparent double standard here. (note the first TexCat quote is from Day 2, the second is from very early in Day 1.) TexCat is focused on Colby, but he (she? all kitties are she’s right?) absolutely put in a policy vote on Normal Phase for editing.
I like this analysis. Here are the relevant BILLMC posts:
BILLMC is clearly inconsistent here with regard to ToeJam. The problem I have is whether that inconsistency is scummy behavior or just regular-run-of-the-mill townie flakiness. Perhaps Bill can explain his thought process.
I don’t think your logic holds. In the state we’re in, a switch claim with no target attached can’t be meaningfully counterclaimed, and it seems like a very safe thing (since it’s not a 100% certainty even if we had all the info) for a scum to admit to owning “a switch”.
Elaborate if you can, but I don’t see any reason in your reasoning to believe a switch claimer is more likely to be town.
Meh. If one of the dead players was scum then I could see my being accused of PIS, but all of them were town with no way for any other player to know their possession of a switch or not.
I do think there are a lot of switches out there, and the Moderators are clearly insane.
Bolding mine. I’m not criticizing for casting suspicion - I’m criticizing because he just threw in a casual, oh look, I think these two are in cahoots, and then left it there. At least some explanation of a comment like that is warranted.
Okay, so not only do you want to form groups of unconfirmed people who vote as a block, but you want to do so willy-nilly based on people’s feelings?
When the voting record is a prime source of scumhunting, thereby diluting any potential scum tells from votes among 3-4 people any one of whom may or may not be anything?
That’s just superficially (because of your leadup with the switch nonsense) good enough and actually bad enough to merit this next move:
unvote AngeloftheNorth
vote paulwhoisaghost
There’s not a lot of good reason for scum to hunt switch holders qua switch holders, either–we already know some of those switch holders are able to block townie powers, and unless a scum faction holds the mate to a particular switch, killing one switch holder merely gives absolute power to the not-them entity that holds the other one. With no death reveal of switches, as I seem to remember being said, that is a big cup of WIFOM for scum teams to go after in lieu of hunting our power roles.
FOS remains on CaptainKlutz for making an unforced information error, and his defense of same doesn’t hold water to me.
FOS remains on AngeloftheNorth, because of her attempt to set up a way to excuse poor play (Oh, I didn’t read the rules tee hee).
I’m not accusing Zeriel and Idle of being scum together- in fact I don’t think they’re on the same team because if they were it would be imprudent for them to both vote me. I think they’re both non-town, and I think Zeriel is trying to get credit for not voting Idle if Idle flips town, and excuse himself from responsibility if Idle flips scum or PFK.
The motivation for scum posting about dead players that flipped town after the flip is to say, “Look at me, I’m being so honest, there were my contemporaneous thoughts and I’m admitting I made a mistake.” Again, I have only ever seen scum do this.
There certainly can’t be a switch-pair for every power role, because it doesn’t make sense for all roles to be “switched off”. What would a switched-off Mason be, for instance? My guess would be that they’re only for power roles with active abilities, and not necessarily even all of those (the description for the Investigative Reporter, for instance, made it sound like her power was absolute, not stopped by anything).
I disagree. Multi-lynch gives us more Lynch opportunities. It isn’t as if we have some fixed number of lynches and that’s it. If we single-lynch each Day, we will have fewer Lynches in the game than if we multi-lynch. The number of Days in the game might be less, but the number of Lynches will still be greater.
I feel it falls under the same reasoning as why “No Lynch” is generally bad as well, which applies to the early game as well. Part of getting a better picture ‘later on’ is the vote record and results of the Lynch. More of that is better than less. I think of multi-lynch as sort of like two Days happening simultaneously. We wouldn’t “no Lynch” a Day, so why give up a second Lynch? And this ‘second-Lynch Day’ has the added bonus of no associated scum kills.
Ok sorry for my inability to articulate my thoughts last night. I just think its weird that if you were going to redact something you would redact the role completely and not insert that its a scum power. Mainly because if I were scum and I saw this that person had a switch to control one of our powers I would take that person out first. In my eyes doing that puts a giant target on your back. The only reason I can see someone doing this is because they have nothing to worry about. Just that you had the switch because at this point it would give scum lots of targets to choose from, and I realize i probably have a target on my back also at this point. I am hesitant to disclose what power i have a switch for only because I don’t want to help scum suss out the switch powers any more than we already have. I know it potentially hides information from town, and this is bad, but I think losing too many switch holders is also bad. however as you can see my role pm is pretty much verbatim for what brewha has disclosed.
[QUOTE=NAF1138]
Knock knock knock
There is someone at the door. It’s a delivery man! Sign here please. Thank you.
You open up your package.
Inside is a box with a label. The label says (redacted) switch. What does it do?
The switch is currently in the on position. You can toggle it if you like each Night. The next Night it will reset itself. Oh and there is also a note that there is another one of these out there. Huh. They may effect each other.
Have fun with your gift!
[/QUOTE]
However at least one of the other pm’s was quite a bit different wording but the meaning was the same. I however don’t have the same switch as what Brewha posted.
@Chronos, regarding too few suspicions, do you have a shortlist of 14? I’ve got 5-6 leans so far (toejam, crys, drain, inner, pleo, brewha, sario, oh and prof p, scathach, zeriel, and there’s that lingering N0 suspicion on boozy and jsgoddess), oh, now that I type them out, that’s actually more than 6, closer to 14 - so I see what you mean, and I’m only on page 1 toDay.
Yeah the more switchers out there stop claiming. It’s obviously not helping I claimed mostly because I don’t feel that Brewha is someone to worry about at the moment. I only claimed because my pm is verbatim to what Brewha’s is with the exception of the role.
Meh, he could simply realize that this is a game where every post, comment and punctuation mark is going to be scrutinized by 54 pairs of eyes and so he should be a little less careless in his wording if he wants to play and survive. It’s anti-game to keep on making slips that make him look like scum when he’s town and hand waving his behavior as “that’s just Colby” is enabling him and giving him cover for when he’s actually scum…
Back on D1.475, right after I had first pointed out the switch roles and speculated that each faction’s switches were controlled by the other two, he said
But now, he says that he does have evidence to the contrary: He says that he’s a Townie and has a switch for a Town power role.
Unless and until he comes up with a very good explanation of this, I will Vote brewha
Excuse nothin’. I explicitly think Idle is more likely than many to flip PFK, I just can’t prove it enough to vote for him with any kind of a coherent case.
This is strikingly Rovian–you accusing me of doing something that will allow me to excuse a bad decision when I have had a vote on you for exactly that same thing.
