This part, I disagree with. You are right in that the information is not useful now; however, it WILL be useful in the future. Obviously, we have no ability to effectively differentiate a truthful townie from a lying scum at this time, and so credence without good reasoning should be given to it yet. But once we discover the alignments of some of those involved, it may be worthwhile.
As I’m sure you know, I am generally anti-metagame as well. However, I’m not sure that qualifies in this case because this reset DIRECTLY effects the information distribution. It is possible that some people now have additional information. If the scum now somehow have extra information about a quirk that, say, John Connor or one of the Docs has, that will directly effect their play, and not by any fault of their own either. You can’t exactly expect them to learn that the Doc can’t self protect or that John Connor can only ask yes or no questions or something like that and not have it enter into their thought process when evaluating their situation.
We have a similar situation, except the information is not easily distributed. Learning about some quirk the the scum have will serve as useful information and it very well may already effect a pro-town individual’s perspective.
Yes, it’s unfortunate that extra information may have gotten into the game that wasn’t intended by the moderator, but its presence cannot be reset. As such, it is our obligation to take advantage of it or we will be at a disadvantage.
The only caution I want to put out there is that volunteering information about scum quirks, even those that have been confirmed by some other source does not make the source pro-town. EG, Player A says scum have quirk X, Player B confirms that scum have quirk X, Player B dies and turns up town. We can confirm that quirk X is true, but this says nothing about the alignment of Player A.
Since I saw this really quick, I would generally agree. FTR, I have not caught up, and he is the only one of whom I’m suspicious so far. I do not want to use filler votes simply because I think it will muddy the usefulness of the borda system. Regardless, I will do my best to fill it as soon as possible, even if the lower ones are very slight leanings. In the meantime, I’m satisfied that my suspicions will remain on record by virtue of the vote counts, even if they don’t officially count towards a lynch until my card is full.
However, this methodology that I’m employing now should be significantly lessened on future Days, lest more than one person on the list dies or is otherwise exonerated Overnight.
From my point of view, peeker is all over the place and is contradicting himself. I think that is pretty clear if you read my posts prior to peeker’s vote for me, our exchanges after the vote, and then the comment from Almost Human and peeker’s reaction to it.
I was not willing to put a vote down due to the OMGUS factor until the interaction with Almost Human.
I also don’t like Rugger’s views on Sarah Conner, with a little OMGUS thrown in with the whole stifling discussion comment, though it really isn’t OMGUS, imho.
Okay, I kind of touched on this in my previous post with my example, but this is an important concept, so I’m going to draw a direct analogy to the law of implications. That is:
T -> T = T
T -> F = F
F -> F = T
F -> T = T
The first three are obvious, in a true premise resulting in a true conclusion is logically sound; a true premise resulting in a false conclusion is illogical; a false premise resulting in a false conclusion is logically possible. It’s the last one that is important, that a false premise can still result in a true conclusion without violating and rules of logic.
Why do I bring this up? Because this directly ties back to motivation and, as is the case here, lying. Just because we know the conclusion it doesn’t tell us anything about the the premise. IOW, if we know that a statement is true (or any other pro-town motivated action), it could be a townie OR a scum by virtue of the first and fourth scenarios. We can only determine the premise from the conclusion if the conclusion is false and we know it because a Townie will not lie (or do an anti-town motivated action), while a scum may.
So, yes, it is possible that NAF is a truth telling scum, there is pro-town motivation for telling the truth (getting the info out there) as well as anti-town (gaining trust). It is very unlikely that he is scum, because there’s no pro-town motivation for lying, and the probability that he’s caught in the lie, unless all the others he listed are also scum and thus ALL will be caught, is very high. Thus, it’s fairly reasonable to conclude that his statements are most likely true and that we cannot make any judgment about his alignment one way or the other for offering up that information.
Hey, at least it wasn’t math; it was just first order logic.
EXACTLY! But if she’s a threat on Day 3, that means she’d have to be gone by Night 2 if she’s not going to affect any powers. Which means we have to kill her Today or Tomorrow, or hope that she’s taken out by a Vig or scum Tonight or Tomorrow Night. It seems that you’re agreeing with me; if nothing else you’re giving quite convincing arguments that it may not be a bad idea.
Not necessarily, Rysto. It will all depend on the status of Sarah Connor in the game when (if) she suicides. For example, if we reach a point near the endgame where Sarah Connor is an UNKNOWN then suicide helps the town by removing an unknown (someone we would be looking to lynch and scum would be avoiding as a nightkill). If Sarah Connor becomes confirmed town, then, yes, the suicide would be like a half-mislynch.
As for the scum interview, I see that storyteller has outlined my reasoning. I’m sorry if my motivations were not perfectly clear to everyone from the outset, but explaining my reasoning and planning defeats the purpose of questioning in the first place.
From my point of view we now have 5 pre-reset scum all claiming “no quirk” (except for Rysto who is claiming “no PM”). I have no idea if this will be valuable information, but now we have it and hopefully it will become useful at some future date.
The implications as I see them are:
Either scum have no quirks (or the quirk is isolated to the T-1000). Or the pre-reset quirk-holding scum is still scum. Rysto’s “no PM” claim is problematic as there really isn’t any way to reason through if he is lying or not. While I agree with storyteller that claiming “no quirk” would be easier than claiming “no PM,” we don’t know the nature of the hypothetical quirk. Rysto might know that claiming “no quirk” would come back to bite him. Again these are just hypothecials that will need to be revisited later, if and when we have additional information.
And this is exactly the sort of cynical vigilance that I was hoping was going on. Not many of the posts being made earlier in the game contained much of that language.
I can’t help feeling all this: “vote early and complete” at this point in the game is resulting in all the quiet and non-posting players not getting any votes… And I’m really not comfortable with this.
I have little personal goals for myself every game. This game my goal is to try a little harder to get people to actually see things the way I do. I was very frustrated in Pleo’s game that I kept picking out scummy behavior but was totally unable to get anyone to see things my way. So I am going to try to be a little less shoot from the hip and a little more methodical this game.
I just did a speed re-read of the game so far. I had surprisingly few things ping me. Peeker seems to be just being peeker. It doesn’t exonerate him, but I don’t see it as being vote worthy. So people voting for him are right now getting a :dubious:.
Stroy has done 2 things that have pinged me a bit so far.
One is his case against NBC which I find to be troublingly weak for a vote casting case.
The other is the Rysto thing. And I know you have since reversed your position, story, but that doesn’t chance the fact that you held the position. It was an odd and questionably logical position to hold. And there is a bit of meta gaming going on because if anyone other than you had been suspicios of Rysto I might have written it off. But you normally think things through a little further than that.
The thing that pinged me hardest so far though, was this from Almost Human
Which seems to be a classic smudge based on really really shakey reasoning. Shakey reasoning isn’t a tell of any sort, using shakey reasoning in the way he used it above is…troubling.
Are people voting for you because they don’t like your Sarah Connor idea?
On Preview, it looks like CIAS is voting for you based on your sarah Connor idea. :dubious:
No votes from me yet. I want to wait for the Day to play out a little more. But I will vote before Wednesday (the Day ends on Friday right?) I want my vote to be solid in all three slots before I put it down. And right now it wouldn’t be.
Borda count is interesting, it’s playing with my head.
I’m inclined to believe it has no significance. Maybe she’s protecting herself. Maybe she knows who John is and is protecting him. Maybe she just picked someone at random. My guess is the last option, because it would just be silly to do one of the first two.
We don’t even know if she is required to use her power each Dawn or not, but if she is, and I’d be inclined to believe so by virtue of the fact that it was used Today, we really can’t put much stock in it.
On the plus side, we can take advantage of it. As long as she’s alive, she’ll be able to communicate directly to us who she finds most suspicious or least suspicious and we, as a town, won’t necessarily know if she’s right but we’ll at least know that it is an opinion from a pro-town player. This will only not be useful if the T-1000 copies her, but we’ll know that because there will be 2 of that effect at which point she should role-claim because she’ll know the scum already know who she is and any special quirks she may have.
Sorry that :dubious: wasn’t directed at you. It was at CIAS, throw it onto cookies too. I didn’t notice her vote for you based on the sarah thing either.
So much for what I thought I learned on re read. :smack:
Possibly why it didn’t stike me as strange the first time out. I will go back and re-re-read the last couple of pages at lunch since I don’t think I followed them closely enough.
