Thanks. I missed that (I looked, Really!), but I was looking for blue votes.
So for the record (mostly for me):
BUTTVAASTIAST was first brought up by Rysto with a vote
then re-stated by One And Only Wanderers without a vote, but a vote came later.
Thanks.
[bolding mine]
I want to chime in here since I have been the main proponent of the “push non-participants into playing by voting for them” strategy and that I completely agree with the bolded part of your statement.
On the other hand, I think your conclusion not to say anything Day One in your next game is likely your frustration talking. The idea that talking too much on Day One gets you lynched is not actually borne out by the numbers. Here’s any updated post count list. I’ve stopped counting fluff, so the number after each name is the number of Game posts since we started actually playing:
As you can see, it’s not those who are posting the most who are necessarily automatically picking up votes. The two who have been voted for most are firmly in the middle of the pack.
After taking a look at that list and with sachertorte’s verifiable claim, I am going to:
unvote sachertorte
I’m not certain who to vote for instead, but looking at the list above, **Drain Bead **is now at the top of the “non-participation” list. I’m going to look at those 2 posts and see what I see.
ShadowFacts,
Perhaps “talking too much” isn’t the correct way to phrase what I’m trying to convey. I would like to draw the distiction between criticizing other people’s ideas (good and bad) and actively creating new ideas. So while “talking too much” might have been an overly simple way of phrasing, I stand by my assertion. We are lynching those who are aggressively engaging the discussion by bringing up new ideas and topics for discussion.
So perhaps I’ll amend my future Day One Strategy to be: I’ll just sit back and comment on other people’s ideas and never put out an original thought or idea (I’m not saying everyone is doing this, but the point is those that put out ideas are punished).
I see what you’re getting at and agree to a certain extent, but in many ways it is inevitable on Day One. People have nothing to go on and need to seize on some reason to vote for someone. However, I will say that there are several players (myself included) who have opened up ideas for discussion and not been “punished,” so I don’t think it’s as 1:1 as you make it out to be.
But I do agree that it is risky to talk, and that scum will often try to stay quiet to avoid the spotlight. This is why I have been trying to keep an eye on who is posting and who is not, because I am certain that there are scum hiding out in the low posters. Who are they? No idea. But if you are truly a town player, there’s not much choice in my opinion: if not talking is anti-town (and I believe that it is), then keeping quiet is not an option, however risky.
One other note - there are currently 5 people who do not have a vote in right now: ShadowFacts, OAOW, Zoggie, Pygmy Rugger, and nesta. I think it is important we all vote. (I will be doing so again shortly).
Devotify: sachetorte
**Unvote Sachertorte **
We’re finding it hard enough to handle roleclaims, even of more easily verifiable roles. Giving the town 90 minutes to decide if they believe you puts us in a pressure situation, and gives the scum a chance to manipulate us.
I’m not going to get on the OAOW bandwagon. I think there is a bit of “He said he wanted to lynch townies - let’s get him!” going on. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I’m not seeing enough to vote for him right now.
I’ve looked back at both Kat and Drain Bead. Obviously, there is not much to go on. Both have barely participated and both seemed willing to jump on whatever bandwagon was hot at the time of their posting. (In Drain Bead’s case, it was sachertorte, for Kat it was amrussell). Drain Bead did say he was going to be away until Tuesday, however, so I’m willing to give him a pass. So…
vote Kat
Unvote sachertorte
I’m very suspicious of ShadowFacts for jumping on me for non-participation, when a) I had a vote in and s/he didn’t, and b) I made it very, very clear where I was for the first few days of this game. Lynching lurkers on the first Day is scummy to me, because it’s a way to potentially nab a good power role just because they happen to be AFK. It’s especially scummy when said person made it very clear that they were on vacation. It’s massively scummy when the person suggesting we lynch a lurker doesn’t even have a vote in this close to the end of the Day!
I feel comfortable planting a one-off, if only because I didn’t necessarily participate much in this first Day and I don’t want to get involved in a bandwagon I didn’t see develop in real-time. So…
Vote ShadowFacts
Pleonast,
Please can you update your vote count as I don’t think fluiddruid and sachertorte have voted for themselves.
Cheers.
Perhaps, but, more often than not I think we’re removing people who are just naturally not creating huge amounts of volume. Can scum hide here? Possibly, but there are a lot of other reasons why someone would be lower in post count. It’s just not reliable at all and frankly I think it creates an incentive for people to post more to save themselves (scum or not) which tends to obfuscate the entire discussion.
Agreed though on
unvote Sachertorte
for a verifiable role claim. But, I frankly think amrussell is getting pounced on. There are a lot of votes flying for him at this point and I’m not convinced he’s our best man for the lynch. I don’t really see scum coming out with so many proposed strategies right away (making him/herself vulnerable).
This makes sense to me. It’s a bad precedent to establish anyway; it’s essentially saying “if I wave my hands, what I said doesn’t count”. Granted this is more plausible in the early game but it’s a solid enough tell for my vote. I’ve seen this tied to scum more often than not.
Vote One and Only Wanderers
Um. You did read my post above yours, right?
To your point a):
To you point b):
I’m obviously biased here, but I think you pushed the “oversensitive” button on this one.
Doh! That’s why I switched to the more detailed vote count, with post numbers. Much easier to track down discrepancies.
Thanks for the catch!
Unvoteamrussell.
This is due to the fact that he can be investigated by other Freemasons. Hopefully if they find otherwise Today we can settle this Tomorrow.
I’ll assume silence Tomorrow gives assent to amrs claim, although we cannot be 100% certain in that case until the Day after Tomorrow.
Who does that leave me with? I’ll have to read my notes again.
Right now, I like a OAOW lynch, but it doesn’t look like that’s going to require my help. I would, however, like to toss a vote out there in order to give a reasonable shot at another option, on the off chance Wanders comes in at the 11th hour to announce he’s our Seer or something of the like.
The next best option, as far as I see it, is Zoggie. I, like ** Idle **, am suspicious of her Cabal question. If she wasn’t a Cabalist, why would she care how they communicate? And both the method of their communication (off-site board) and their mystical powers, roleblocking, seems pretty well spelled out in the rules.
It smells like a hamfisted attempt to deny knowledge of the Cabal.
[color=red]Vote: Zoggie
Vote One and Only Wanderers
These role-claims are making me gunshy, but he was next on my list and I still think we need to lynch someone today.
NETA:
** Vote: Zoggie **
Dio, votes are in blue. Unvotes are in red.
Whoop…missed this earlier. I think you’ve got it about covered there, sach. The argument was used against me in M4, and while I called it crap at the time, that was only because I was scum. 
It also proved accurate in M5, but I think we’re pretty much at the point where it’s losing its effectiveness as a scum tell (either the 3rd vote itself, or calling out the 3rd voter). If someone who has played in just about every game here were to call out a 3rd voter, I’d be a little suspicious, but the whole thing has kind of played itself out.
That’s not to say scum won’t vote third – sure they will…but it’s just as likely that town will as well.
Of course, or we’re not going to learn anything.