I’m new at this, but the plans Biotop and Chronos draw up look good to me.
I’m going to continue with my vote for Chronos* AND* I will give a reason for doing so.
All this talk about this incredibly detailed and intricate plan for a tie and possible rule changes is stemming from conversation involving Chronos, Thing Fish and Biotop. Now I don’t doubt that this idea could work, if I could really take the time to fully understand it, but I choose not to at this moment. I want to play a game of “who did what”, not rack my brain and pull my hair out trying to understand these unnecessarily complex plans that could possibly give us a tie. All this talk just seems to be a way to overwhelm some of the new players with elaborate long drawn out plans and posts full of mafia jargon and gameplay mechanics. Sounds to me like a crazy scum switcheroo plan. I don’t like it, so my vote still stands.
The rules are the rules and will not be changed.
Engineering a nine way tie? Brilliant!
So, first Mason claims and abstains. Perhaps someone would counter-claim, but unlikely, as second or third would immediately claim and confirm, putting suspicion on whoever countered. To stay hidden wolves would have to comply, likely outing the Alpha Day One. I’m not sure about the night, if the wolves would try to NK a claimed Mason or try to luck on the Seer or Guardian.
So, a dead lynchee, either scum or town 50/50, a NK’ed role or regular townie, and as far as I can see a more or less confirmed Alpha.
Day Two? Lynch, rinse and repeat?
Am I more or less correct in how I’m reading this?
Props to Biotop, but I agree, this isn’t really what I signed up for.
I fail to see how me sharing my own stats implicates myself; If me having the highest post-count seemed like a tell to me, why would I regularily share that knowledge with you?
I responded to that already, in post 269. Read the text I put in bold, then compare with the same excerpt in post 260, and you see what I was talking about. It’s the third sentence.
Okay, back on track: I find Chronos’ vote interesting, though I’m not convinced. I’m gonna go back and read up on TexCat. But both Chronos and Biotop look clean to me. I was a bit unsure about Chronos earlier, but Jsexton’s argument never really won me over.
I am now convinced that this is an elaborate psychology experiment being run by [del]Milgram[/del] storyteller and a bunch of grad students. I’m still in, but if you ask me to start delivering shocks to anyone who votes against me, I’m out!
I think if a tie happens organically, I’m more than happy to analyze the make up of the voters and see if any concolusions can be drawn. Beyond that, I’m uninterested in that kind of game play, even if makes me mathematically more likely to win.
I think the point is that low post counts=scum tell, but posting post counts artifically pumps your own post count by reposting already-public information. Now, you’ve only done what 2 or 3 of them, so I don’t think it’s a big deal, especially since you’re posting plenty of other actual content.
I think this is right. Any orchestrated plan will only lynch Wolves every other night, which isn’t good enough to guarantee us a victory. Phew. Back to Mafia.
Kind of unsettling to realize that (unless our Guardian is able to block an NK) we need to lynch Wolves more than half the time to win.
Okay, I’ve read through all of TexCat’s posts…
Maybe it’s just a funny coincidence… First highlighting how being helpful may be scummy, then being helpful, albeit not too helpful; I did give a reply stating why I believed sharing my stats would be beneficial anyway, namely:
1: To keep it going and having it publically for any to read. More transparency, and if anyone distrust my record-keeping, you’re all free to compare my numbers: Just count posts made before Night Zero and subtract that from the total.
2: It removes the posts from before the game started. Less clutter, more accurate information.
3: It forces me to read the thread over and over!
I never got a reply.
She, an experienced player, suggests to ignore a potentially beneficial strategy, then points her FOS at players with legitimate reasons for voting, without voting herself, nor giving a compelling reason for stretching her finger and not casting a vote.
To me this looks like she’s promoting baseless voting.
The mason/s would have to be claimed and confirmed anyway, and as I wrote in my previous post, I’m not sure that puts them at greater risk. It also doesn’t put our power-roles at any more risk than the random voting she promoted in her earlier post.
To me, at that point in the discussion this looks like promoting limiting the usefulness of the tactic.
Again, even if there’s a chance for exposure, I don’t believe it’s much greater than random voting anyway.
And then we get to this highly suspicious post. Is it a slip, or not? She is experienced, so if it’s a slip, it’s a weird one, and if she is scum she’s probably not alpha as she would probably have read her pm a bit more carefully.
At Jsexton: Yes, I see that. To me, me posting those numbers are way less suspicious than all the times I’ve tried to clarify my points and failed to do so. I have stated why I’m posting the participation stats and I’d actually like an answer to the points I raised about it earlier in the thread and above in this post. On posting a lot; I’m in another timezone than many of you, so I’m often online when many others are not, and I have vacation, so lots of time to read and post. I’m also really impatient, haha. Sorry for that.
I just read the whole “tie-rule-exploitation-scheme” and it seems to me that you pointed out a good “loophole” in it that the Wolves could effectively use to undermine it. Which, due to the strong opposition it has generated in a few players, is a good thing, since it makes its adoption unlikely.
Applying the rule change you’re proposing would increase the probability of the implementation of the scheme. It won’t apply to this game, since, as storyteller said, “the rules are the rules and won’t be changed”, but my best guess would be that any future game that wants to adopt a weighted voting scheme like this one would do well not to impose the DayBreak as well.
Vote Dante G
This is such horseshit I can’t not vote for it.
I thought your initial “tip my hand” post was a bit of a slip, and your follow-ups were pretty unconvincing and didn’t add up, but weird stuff happens early in the day, and certainly Town gets lynched for weird stuff like that all the time.
So then you said the thing about how you weren’t used to this style of play and please bear with you as you get used to the play style here. OK, fair enough.
Except now there’s the above, which boils down to “I don’t know if this is a sound idea or not, because I refuse to think about it, therefore it sounds like a bad idea, therefore I’m voting for you” and is anti-Town even by its own internal logic. Even taking everything you’re saying at 100% face value, you just said that you’re “sure” the idea would work, but you “choose not to” think about it, so it sounds like a scum plan. That is literally the step-by-step process scum would use to try to portray a pro-Town move as an anti-Town move. They just normally wouldn’t say the first part.
On the matter of the Biotop / Chronos proposal: 1. I think it makes perfect sense, and 2. I will participate in it if that’s what we’re doing, but 3. I have a lot of sympathy for the people who are saying this isn’t gameplay in the sense they expect. I can’t fault anyone for not wanting to play that way. That said, scum definitely will not want to play that way, and so therefore I think that proposing the plan is strongly pro-Town.
In other words, I don’t think opposing the plan is in itself scummy, but I do think calling the plan itself scummy is super scummy, and so I tend to think that those who have gone hard after the people proposing the plan (Chronos in particular, volume-wise) are suspect. That would be JSexton, septimus and Dante G, plus Thing Fish voted for him early on but now is kind of involved in the strategic discussion with **Chronos **despite still having a vote on him, which is interesting.
OOG: When did imbedded quotes get turned off? I’ve added it back in. /OOG
Did you just misread what I said? You quoted me, but it doesn’t look like you read what you quoted. I’m pretty sure voting the scummiest is not baseless. Nor is it random like you state below.
WTF? First and foremost, I never promoted random voting. Where are you getting that? Secondly, as I understood Biotop’s original plan, only the 1st mason would have to claim. But thirdly, if you think that a claimed mason is not more vulnerable to a night kill than an unclaimed mason, you are just delusional. (Perhaps that also explains the random voting fantasy.)
Reviewing recent posts with a focus on Chronos:
-
I vote for Chronos, because he is proposing that the First Mason reveal himself for no Town gain that I can see. At this point, Chronos has posted a great deal of musings about the tiebreak mechanism (and, as I noted in 321, at one point misrepresented how much information Town could gain from manipulating it), but hasn’t offered any concrete plan for using the tiebreak in a way that would break the game open for Town. He did have a plan for locating a pool of definite non-Alpha players, but somehow made it seem like the First Mason revealing himself would be essential to that plan.
-
Chronos offers a rebuttal to my (and others’) vote.
-
I review the interactions which led to **JSexton **voting for Chronos.
-
I specifically rebut Chronos’ rebuttal of my vote.
-
Chronos seizes upon a point I made in 321 and argues with it (I think he’s wrong, but will come back to that later if necessary. He completely ignores my explanation of why I am still voting for him, which would seem to be the most relevant point to address.
-
Biotop proposes a plan that would effectively find the Alpha Wolf.
327.** Chronos’*** initial* reaction to this is to express skepticism that people would go along with it; could be interpreted as trying to provide cover for those not wanting to participate in this very pro-town idea.
Ack, gotta go. More later, hopefully soon.
Lunchtime at the old mill. Ugh. Gruel again.
As to the proposal being accepted… even as a newbie such a thing appeared to me unlikely. “Herding cats” and all…
But it DID seem likely such a proposal might cause a wolf to slip up in response. And that seemed very much in the spirit of the game. When this whole thing shakes out I will be interested to see if the tactic worked.
continued…
- Chronos offers a refinement of **Biotop’**s idea which makes it (AFAICT) more strongly pro-town. This is definitely the point hardest to reconcile with a scum Chronos. However, I could imagine Chronos reviewing Biotop’s idea, seeing that it could be made even more powerful, deciding that storyteller would have to change the rules to avoid the forced win for town, and taking the opportunity to pick up Townie cred by being the one to point out the further advantages. I will admit this sounds like a bit of a stretch.
At this point, the general discussion turns to whether we should ask for a rule change and/or just agree to ignore this strategy and play as though it didn’t exist. The consensus is that we should do either or both of these things.
- Chronos says that he agrees with that consensus, and in fact had agreed with it several hours earlier, but didn’t mention it because he wanted to “wait to see some other reactions”. This attempt to retroactively join in a popular decision seems like a potential scum maneuver. He then votes for TexCat. Can’t argue with that, her behavior around the Biotop proposal was indeed scummy as hell.
So I am left with, IMO, several pieces of evidence suggesting Chronos is scum and one massive piece of counterevidence. I will leave my vote on him for now and await further developments. In the meantime, I would like to ask Chronos again to answer the question I asked in post 322: what were these “Town advantages” that you thought might result from the First Mason making an unforced claim? Remember, this was before Biotop
ack. not editing…
…before** Biotop** presented his plan, which did indeed have real advantages.
OK, this is misleading, perhaps deliberately so. As I pointed out above, ** Chronos’** proposal in 229 which attracted my vote could be summarized as:
- A Town power role identifies himself to the Wolves
- (handwaving)
- Town profits!
All of the people currently voting for Chronos had already done so before Biotop issued his initial proposal which Chronos then amended. So to conflate Chronos’ early anti-town idea with Biotop’s later pro-town idea and then say that I and others have “gone after” people for proposing “the Biotop/Chronos plan” is not accurate. It’s especially odd to include JSexton in the list of suspects, as he did unvote Chronos almost immediately after Chronos’ pro-town proposal in 336.
To explain why I thought the First Mason claiming would be necessary for that plan (which I’m still not convinced would be a good idea, FWIW): A tie that doesn’t involve the First Mason would give good info to Town. In order to engineer such a tie, the cooperation of a significant number of players would be needed. Said players would have no reason to cooperate unless they had some reason to believe that it would work, i.e., that the First Mason would not be involved. Nobody can tell whether the First Mason is involved without knowing who e is. Therefore, in order to take advantage of a tie on Day 1, we would need to know who the First Mason is, so we could know that e wasn’t involved in the tie we were forming.
To be clear, I was hoping that more people would react the way TexCat did, which I really do think was a strong Scum tell. The tie-manipulation stuff itself might not be “playing Mafia”, but watching for someone to panic and/or despair when Town gains an advantage certainly is. But by the time morning rolled around and I checked in on the thread again, it was pretty apparent that that wasn’t going to happen, and that TexCat was the only one who was going to take the bait.
I beg your pardon. How was my behavior scummy as hell? I looked at Biotop’s proposal and pointed out the disadvantages to town, that we’d likely expose the masons and that we had a chance of lynching our cop and doc. After I pointed those out, Chronos came up with a better scheme. Why are you (mis)-characterizing that as scummy?
Take the bait? By pointing out flaws in Biotop’s plan? This is bologna and you know it.
Did you read Septimus’s response? Why don’t you mention that? He didn’t point out flaws in the plan from the town side, he showed how scum could counteract it.