I’m back from vacation and I’ve just completed a complete read (finally). I’m going to post a few comments on things I’ve seen, some of it from a while ago, some of it more recently. In an effort to stay organized, I’ll post them one at a time. Also, I still feel like I’m not really caught up, but I’ve got to start going with something, and smaller chunks will be easier for me.
There has already been some discussion of this quote:
(bolding mine)
I wanted to mention that this really stuck out to me on my read-through. There is a powerful meme from past SDMB games about Perfect Information Syndrome, which can be used to try to find Scum (by showing someone displaying knowledge they shouldn’t have as Town), but it has more often (IMO) been used as a tactic to throw suspicion on players. The above quote is a classic example of that. Paraphrase: “sachertorte seems to have some information he shouldn’t have. How is that possible?? wink wink What explanation for that could there be? nudge nudge”
It’s also ironic to me that sach is a target of this again, after it was used so effectively against him in Simpletown.
(bolding mine)
I’m not interested in getting in the middle of your fine tete-a-tete with CAIS, but your vehemence on this point caught my attention. I just wanted it noted that, if I understand the rules correctly, Sarah Conner’s power-destroying insanity can effect scum as well as Town, and might target Vanilla town (thus having no effect) and might target someone who has already been stripped of power (thus having no effect).
So while I agree that, in all odds, if she survives she’s likely to eventually strip some Town power roles of their power, particularly as the Days go on, it’s not nearly as certain or definite as you say, and if we get lucky she could hurt scum, too.
Well I am in the bottom quartile - or was it the top quartile?
Chasing storms sounds exotic until you realize that my IM director and I will be chsing this storm through our markets for the next week, it looks like.
Son of a gun - Kingsville to Alexandria. Garden spots, each and every one.
I still don’t think it’s a bad idea. Not as good as I originally thought, but I still give it a 6.5 on a scale of 1 to 10, with 5 being an idea with no advantages or disadvantages. I fail to see how being egotistical is scummy, though.
If we get lucky. But remember, there are more Town roles than Scum roles. Also, if a Vanilla Scum loses its powers, it doesn’t really lose value to the scum team, since the scum team would be able to use that person to lay down a gambit.
Just about everybody who’s replied to my theory/proposal has said they think the role is effectively neutral and/or a net negative (i.e. “in all odd she’ll strip some Town power roles…”), yet think lynching her is a bad idea.
Keep in mind that if she suicides, we’ll be lynching a (let’s agree) neutral person, preventing the lynch of a positive person, and we’ll still get all the info we normally get if she claims around 11:00 PM Tomorrow (i.e. the eleventh hour, where we still have time to switch our votes to her). I know how rough it is to agree to an artificial deadline, but still*.
*[oog]Has anybody ever run the numbers to see if those who wouldn’t follow the artificial deadline were more likely scum or if it was a null tell? For example DrainBead in the offboard game, it was so obviousto me that she was scum.[/oog]
Neither, quartile denotes quarters, while my data was in fifths. Regardless, you shouldn’t be helping scum (if you’re town, of course) narrow down what your role is. Unless you’re claiming Sarah Connor?
I find the Santo Rugger situation fascinating. While watching Conspiracy 2, I became convinced that CIAS was Town during the first day. His behavior on Day One promoting a course of action that everyone else disagreed with (and general vocal nature) was a big indicator of his townness to me. In the forbidden thread I got a lot of questions about “wouldn’t scum do that to act town?” My reply was that we keep tossing around the idea that scum will ‘act town’ but until we see a real scum ‘play town’ by espousing an unpopular idea to gain town credibility, I won’t believe it. Furthermore, scum won’t ‘play town’ this way until town successfully identifies a townie by this trait. My point was that in C2 CIAS would have only managed to fool me as I looked at his behavior and thought “Town.” But everyone else looked at CIAS and saw “scum” which led to his role-claim. In other words scum have no reason to act this way because the status quo is to look at such behavior and think “scum”
So here we have Santo Rugger bringing up an unpopular idea and getting heat for it. Looks like the same old formula to me. Now could Santo Rugger be trying to ‘act town’ in this manner? I guess anything is possible, but I find it unlikely. All he will have managed to do is fool me and convince the rest of you to lynch him. Doesn’t seem like a good idea for scum to play that game.
I find NAF’s statement peculiar. It’s a small thing, but I wonder why he flat out states that trying to get Rugger lynched is only pro-scum motivated. Trying to get Rugger lynched would only be pro-scum if Rugger is Town, which we don’t know. I’ve already said that I think Rugger is Town, but I don’t expect everyone else to think that way or act as though that is true.
CatInASuit, do you remember whether is was mostly scum or Town who was on your case in C2? I don’t remember, and I don’t want to look it up.
The final point I want to bring up is our Moderator, pedescribe. We’ve had an unusually high amount of interaction with our moderator, I’m a big fan of analyzing the Moderator because not only does he have perfect information, but we know he has perfect information.
Pedescribe has done several things that indicate to me he does not want Rysto lynched. First he backed Rysto after Rysto claimed “no PM.” Second, he explicitly stated he randomized the roles for the reset. Third, he posted the T-1000 role PM and essentially told us the T-1000 has no quirks. For each of these points, pedescribe could have quite justifiably stayed silent*, yet he did not. My impression is pedescribe doesn’t want us to lynch Rysto. My big question is why.
*Point 2 pretty much had to be answered the way it was, even if the roles were assigned “mostly random”.
He might be feeling a little guilty that he hung me out to dry by stating outright that I received the PM when he couldn’t be entirely sure that the PM had gotten through.
After having slept on it, I now agree with story’s implied argument from yesterday; if being wrong is not in and of itself a scumtell, then being obstinately wrong can’t be, either. I think it really is just a difference in temprament and personal style.
Without wanting to bring GD into the Game Room, we certainly see this same thing in politics; some people like leaders who are “tough” and “stick to their principles”, while others prefer those who are willing to change their positions if what they’re doing isn’t working and/or a compelling argument can be made for an alternative position. But both sides really have the best interests of the country at heart (something I often find very hard to remember IRL in the heat of an election season!:p).
I remember in my last game (I was Town) I said some things early on that were not well thought through, and got called on them. I thought I was being a good little Townie by admitting my errors and retracting my statements, but the people criticizing me (who were also Town) reacted with “OMG! Look at him backpedaling!! He must be scum!!” Goes to show you don’t ever know…
So, hoping that won’t happen again, I retract the last sentence of my case against Rugger (" Proposing bad ideas is one thing, getting all defensive and clinging to them after their flaws have been pointed out is a much more suspicious thing"). However, I will leave the vote in place for now based on the last sentence of my last post (“using a 3rd vote on a player who is making illogical arguments to promote anti-Town proposals, even if he is not more likely than anyone else to actually be scum-aligned, is not bad for Day One.”)
I would have thought that my next statment would have explained why I don’t think any scum in their right mind would want Sarah Connor lynched. I didn’t say Ruggers lynch was sum motivated, just that I could see scum motivation for it. I can not see why scum would push for a Sarah Connor lynch as it will effectivly hurt them as much as it would help them.
Also, the more I think about it the more that snip out of context bothers me. I am clearly asking for people to provide reasons for their vote in that post. I am in no way saying that only scum would vote for Rugger (as you seem to imply).
How am I taking out out of context? I’ve included your next statement in the quote above. I don’t see how your having looked at the setup a priori has anything to do with Santo Rugger. My point isn’t about Sarah Connor, it’s about Santo Rugger and why you think scum are motivated to try and get Santo Rugger lynched.
I don’t think that scum are motivated to get Rugger lynched any more than they would be motivated to get any random townie lynched on Day 1. And yes, I think Rugger is a townie of some flavor because, once again, trying to get Sarah Connor lynched is a bad move for the scum. I can not come up with a single reason why they would
a) stick their neck out and call for a town role to be lynched
b) call for that particular role to be lynched.
