This makes no sense to me. Do you mean that you didn’t lynch scum on Day One or you didn’t lynch anyone at all? If nobody said anything substantive on Day One, then what was there to talk about on Day Two (barring the use of some interesting power during the Night?). Players on this board rarely find scum on the first Day, either, but you have to start somewhere. Just posting filler is essentially giving the scum a free kill.
And again: how is voting for “no reason” supposed to “instigate chatter”? What is there to chatter about other than “Wow, Dante just voted for someone for no reason”? Finding a reason to vote for someone, even if it is weak, as it almost certainly will be on Day One, allows that reason to be discussed and keeps the conversation going. Just voting without justification serves no purpose (unless of course you are scum).
I would go so far as to say that ALL townies should vote for whoever they think is the scummiest. (And I wouldn’t mind if the wolves did this as well :rolleyes:)
And I am a woman and prefer she, but am not bothered at all by being called he/him on the interwebs.
We very rarely lynched anyone on Day 1. I understand how that would basically set up Scum to get a free easy kill on Night 1, but its just the way I was introduced to the game. Sometimes we lynched someone on day one, other times not.
In regards to your second question of why vote for someone for “no reason” - why are you calling me out on this? Does anyone in this game have ANY reason to suspect anyone else? Aside from the Scum team knowing whom each other are, nobody else in the game can really have a suspect at this time, so just about everyone’s vote at this time will be for “no reason.” It can start conversation amongst us by maybe the votee getting defensive and countering votes and in the process bring about more discussion. This may, in turn, bring about meaningful discussion.
I’d like to see where I contradict myself. I’m certain I have at some point. Saying I’m dominating the conversation seems a bit of a stretch to me, and atleast I’ve provided all of you with my thoughts and opinions. If you want to discuss my role in the discussion so far, I’m happy with that, as discussion about something or someone is better than no discussion at all. All in all, if people feel they have reasons to suspect me I’d like to see those reasons.
We have a discussion around potential suspects already. Of course we have almost nothing to go after, but still more than “just because”, or “the last player on the list”. You are one of the two who have voted for no reason at all and Sario already unvoted, so you are the only one to call out for doing that.
I’m calling you out on this because you are the* only *person currently voting for “no reason”! Everyone else who has voted has given a REASON which can be discussed. If you haven’t noticed this, maybe you haven’t been reading the thread very carefully…
If Sangfroid had voted for you in retaliation, what would there have been to discuss about that? And how could he possibly have “gotten defensive” when you didn’t give him any charges to defend himself against? I just don’t see how this could possibly lead to anything helpful.
I mean, if you think my post on Chronos, for example, was valueless, by all means say so. Or Plumpuddings posts. Or Thing Fish. Or Chronos. Or the many other people posting substantial reasoning. I don’t get why you’re dismissing all attempts to ply this game.
I think you vastly underestimate how useful Day 1 can be, quite possilby because you are used to day one lasting 48 hours.On my main mafia board, someone went back and counted up lynches from day one of games, and we were collectively hitting scum around 45% of the time, IIRC. Lynching at random only yields about 25%, so that’s a good sign that day one is far from meaningless or random.
Alright Thing Fish. I’ll relent, as it seems that unless I Unvote Sangfroid or offer up a justifiable reason as to why I voted for him - which, its already been established, I have none - then I am destined to be considered scummy.
Unvote Sangfroid
I will now cast a vote for Chronos on the basis that your guys’ votes do seem to have some sort of merit to them. More so than my initial vote for Sangfroid anyway.
By the way, I want to apologize to all you guys. I came into this game stuck in my old ways of playing and I have been questioning why you guys play the way you play. I shouldn’t do that.
This forum has been established on its own set of rules and ways of playing the game and its not right for me to try and play my way that is slightly different and hope that it wouldn’t be questioned or deem itself suspect.
Dinnertime at the no-longer-stylish but aging reasonably well Cecilton Inne, and there’s an animated conversation going on at the bar about just what that extra “e” is all about in the name of this place.
While dinner simmers in the back, the talk turns from letters to numbers. Something just doesn’t add up around here…
Just checking in before dinner; got a question to post a little later about the game mechanics here.
Oh, come on. The whole “third on the wagon” thing is years old. Nobody even mentinos that bad boy anymore.
Seriously, though, I think Chronos is more likely Town. If any window is even slightly open for him to analyze the game in a different way, he does. This games tie-breaking rule is about the only thing unique or new, so he analyzed it.
Misrepping your posts and ignoring you? That is the only valid point in your vote at this point. Now, forgive my ignorance, but what did he misrepresent? I don’t think I’ve skimmed at all, but I may not have noticed what you did.
I learned this years ago with one of my old games. Maybe ask the moderator to change the title for us?
It’s cool, but we always lynch on Day 1. I’m sure someone will find a game where we didn’t, but it’s so rare I feel comfortable using the word “always”. It’s a thing we do.
Nah, question away. It’s cool. Hey, vote no lynch if you care enough about it.
I’m one of the few who has supported “lynch the lurker”, though we have to give people time to pop in. Day 1 is a total guess, so we could hit or miss with a lurker vote. It’s quite unpopular here, though, so I’m guessing people won’t get on board.
Let me see if I have this straight: we lynch on Day One because the only way Town can tell who’s Scum is by tracking the votes (and the accompanying dialogue), and it is better to do this while there is still a large supernumerary of Town over Scum. Is this correct?
OK, wow, so a lot has happened since I last checked in. First of all:
So, your explanation for not tipping your hand is that you were just trying to be vocal? That makes no sense whatsoever. And meanwhile, you also wonder about people voting for you for being inactive (so far as I can tell, nobody has given that as a reason for voting for you), while also trying to explain your behavior as coming from a culture where Days are shorter (which should make you more active, not less).
All I’m getting from you is a mess of contradictions. My vote stays.
Now, to address the votes on me:
In order for the Masons in general, and the First Mason in particular, to avoid ties, they’d need to either anticipate where the ties are going to be before they get close (which is quite difficult), or they’d need to change their votes once it does become close. Either of these would, I think, be so obvious that at that point, they might as well just go ahead and claim. And when I say that I’m not sure whether the First Mason ought to just declare right out of the gate, I really do mean that I’m not sure: I can see advantages and disadvantages, and I don’t know which is greater.
I don’t think I took your quote out of context. You said that my method depended upon something that it does not depend on. If we had a tie that the First Mason was not involved in, it would hurt Scum. That is my claim. You said that this depended on them acting in a particular way. This is not true, since it would hurt them even if they didn’t act in that way. They could certainly decrease the damage it did them, but they couldn’t eliminate it. And even if I’d prefer to damage the Scum a lot, I’ll still settle for damaging them a little, whenever I can.
I’m not sure this really warrants any response, as Dante G gives no reason of his own for voting me. It makes sense as a defensive vote, but that doesn’t leave much to discuss.
And coincidentally, this means that, by my count, I’m currently in a tie for the lead (albeit with nearly a week to go before deadline). Oddly enough… I’m OK with that, so long as First Mason stays out of it. I’ve already said that the information gained from a tie is worth it, and it would be hypocritical for me to change my tune just because it’s my neck in the noose. I mean, OK, I’d prefer it wasn’t, but…
Some other boards have Games with four competing factions where it isn’t even clear which factions are “good” and which are “evil” – even “Townies” keep their alignment secret in such games. Dante G’s opening comment may be made in a context he’s more used to. I’d call this a (very?) slight Town tell – if he were Scum he’d be more likely to be focused on this game.
I’ve seen Chronos play as Scum and he’ll post much as he’s done in this game. The fact that he’s take-charge, posting pro-Town(?) advice is a null tell, IMO.
This advice is not pro-Town: it’s bad advice. Masons will know whether First Mason broke a tie or not, so there’s no need for First Mason to “abstain.” And for First Mason to claim Day 1 would be extremely bad. Yes, Chronos takes care to disclaim his own advice, but the suggestion is thrown out there and a Mason with no private board may be induced to blunder. (Mis-)Thinking out loud? Or Scum ploy?
The second underlined excerpt, disclaiming his vote, is also consistent with Scum behavior. Since the #3 vote slot is already taken … :rolleyes: I am free to Vote Chronos
He may not be 45% to be Scum – JSexton’s amazing standard – but he seems at least 43% or so.
Yeah, see I’m really not used to strategy being a key factor in Day1. The votes on first day were more of a filler. A way for players to check in and acknowledge that yes, they were playing. It was always somewhat of an unwritten rule that we didn’t lynch on Day 1. It was our way of being fair. Sure it gave Scum an almost guaranteed kill on Night 1, but it also allowed for all Town players that had some kind of ability to be able to use that ability and hopefully have it be useful should they survive the night.
This is why I was flustered when I was being pushed so hard to explain my votes on this Day 1. I’m not used to it.
I think the reason you’ve gotten some heat is because you still haven’t contributed to the discussion. You have seventeen posts either making excuses for blundering, talking meta about another board, or voting without giving any reason(you still haven’t, btw). If you made some contribution to the topics at hand, maybe you wouldn’t feel the need to make excuses.
Many of us are new here, or new to the game. No reason to apologize. New environments takes time to get used to. Hopefully we’ll all learn a thing or two.
I’m looking forward to see what you think of the topics at hand, if you feel more in a sharing mood now than earlier in the thread.
I am not swayed by Jsexton or any other vote on Chronos. I think Chronos is an easy target due to his discussion and analysis of the vote tiebreaker. So easy, I’m moving my vote over to Jsexton.
It’s a combination of his push to lynch Chronos and a vibe. Vibe is not a popular reason to vote, but I’m going to anyway. I do agree that I would rather play mafia than obsess on the tie-break, but I think it was town-like to introduce the discussion.
I maybe shouldn’t be saying this right now, but yes, this is true. When I’m Town, I try to give the best advice I can, because I want Town to be well-advised, and when I’m Scum, I still try to give the best advice I can, because I know I’d stand out if I don’t. Though it’s been hugely amusing, those times I have been Scum, whenever anyone says they have a Town lead on me because I’m posting pro-Town stuff.
And your vote for me appears to be for basically the same reason as Thing Fish’s, right? I refer you to the defense I posted for his.
