my impressions of special ed’s posts thus far: he’s posting frequently; the content seems to be primarily general mafia mechanics, jokes, and questioning other players’ posts (in that order by quantity, roughly). I discount the jokes, as (in my limited experience) he seems to always do that. the general mechanic discussion could be normal in a game with so many new players. the questioning on it’s face could be considered a good thing, but so far he hasn’t really presented any of his own opinions related to a Day 1 lynch or anything else that is obvious (to me, at least) “scum hunting”
I’m pretty on the fence about it overall; anyone else have any thoughts on this? my review of ed’s posts was not as thorough as other post reviews I’ve seen done in previous games, so I’m open to other interpretations/opinions.
After I posted last night, I reviewed all of fisha’s posts and had a post written voting for her. When I previewed however, she had given an explanation and I wanted to consider it before I did the actual voting. I then became busy with other projects and did not return to it.
I don’t really like her vote against Silver Jan. Someone else voted Jan because she was not posting as much fluff as usual, then fisha jumps in and votes her because of using the words suspicious and suspect three times in her post. I think it is a weak reason to give someone a second vote. If it were just the vote, though, I would probably keep my vote on Mahaloth. Reviewing fisha’s posts, though, I see this is the first time she has even directly concerned herself about another player in the game. She has quite a few posts, but a lot of them are fluff, and the rest deal with general strategy (primarily discussing it with Ed). She feels like one of those players that are trying to hide in plain sight.
Unvote Mahaloth
Vote fisha
In her defense, the last time I made the “hiding in plain sight” case against someone, I was wrong. Also, I don’t think I have ever played with fisheroo, so it is possible that she is just following her normal MO.
I feel you misrepresent me a bit here. My vote for you was based on the fact that you seemed like you were eager to jump on something that looked bad early in the game. Now, voting you over Precambrian did involve me just sort of feeling that your vote looked scummier, but the sentence above makes it seem like I just had some sort of psychic experience and voted you because of it.
Also, I am only suggesting a policy vote as a better alternative to not voting at all. I would prefer that fubbs actually make a case against someone (weak as it might be), but I prefer a policy vote to no vote.
*Production/sales meeting in 20 minutes, I’ll be brief.
Timing-I’m busy today, not sure when Day ends tomorrow, wanted to get a vote in before end of toDay no matter what.
Timing-Um, the other vote for SilverJan was post #119, my post is #218, so it’s not like I was hopping on a bandwagon gathering steam. I vote for who I think is scum, and always have. I won’t jump on a bandwagon, ever, I think it’s shitty playing, and ignorant. I also rarely change my vote-if I vote for you, it’s because I mean it, it’s not a ploy.
Reasoning-Yep, my reasoning is weak, I said as much, it’s first Day people, what do you expect? Haven’t seen anyone else give any more substantial reasons.
As to my general posts, and now zeroing on someone, again, what do you expect? We’re getting close to the end of toDay, (and real life intrudes) when would you have preferred me to get serious? Is there a specific timeline to townie votes? Because if there is, I haven’t seen it.
It was serious, except for the implication that PCM thought wevets was engaging in WIFOM double-think.
I saw your question in #300, but already agreed my vote against PCM was a weak Day 1 vote. Voting solely “based on the third vote rule” seems a much more serious charge than my original grounds. … So serious, in fact, Scum might avoid it, so I’ll be happy to switch my vote if a stronger case emerges.
Guiri, you’re voting for choie, but your reason looked like a joke. Am I missing something?
The only bad lynch is one that doesn’t give Town information to win the game. Lynching townies, in and of itself, isn’t bad – especially on Day One. Sure, it’s great to lynch nothing but scum but how does one do that, exactly, without information to go on? Picking names off a list based on who posts the least doesn’t get us any closer to our actual win condition, which is to eliminate scum players.
Town has numbers and needs information. Scum has information and needs numbers. That’s how it works. We don’t want to needlessly whittle down our numerical advantage in exchange for nothing, but in the end what we need is the information to win the game. Mass votes for the same person based on a number of posts or whatever ‘easy’ criterion is directly contrary to Town’s goals.
I agree, we need to pursue lurkers. It’s too easy to sit back as Town, play safe, and lose the game through excessive caution – and it’s too easy for Scum to never stick a neck out. This aggressive policy does mean that it may come to be a time to lynch a lurker who has refused warnings about their conduct. However, it absolutely cannot be allowed that people will sit back and say “Oh, I voted for so-and-so because they lurked”, and that this will be considered participation. This is, for all intents and purposes, still lurking itself. We should always be looking for the best vote candidate based on current information – not the easiest vote candidate.
fubble, you’ve been around the block a few times enough that I’m surprised to hear you advocating this (and abstention). I’m starting to get concerned that special ed might have a point about you. Finger of suspicion, I guess.
It did strike me like that a little bit at first too, but then again, I think **Ed **needs to accept that if he is going to post as often as he does he receives extra scrutiny, especially since he has not decided to cast a vote yet. In fact, neither has Inner Stickler. What we have here is the two most profligate posters in the thread, responsible for almost a quarter of the posts in the entire thread between the two of them, both of whom have yet to cast a vote. The posts you contribute largely deal with game mechanics, or they reject other people’s reasoning (bah!) without really offering a very clear substitute. The same goes to a stronger extent for Inner Stickler, who we’ve seen very little of over the last one hundred posts or so. Also, both **Stickler **and **Ed **are amongst the more seasoned players in this game, so it would be nice to see some guidance from them.
I want to hold out judgement on all of this - perhaps the guidance being offered here is that it is good to vote late and reserve judgment in the meantime. At the same time, there’s an element of freeriding here that I want to call out. Other people are risking their necks by casting votes which incites the necessary discussion that may allow us toDay or later in the game to identify scum. As has been discussed, this sort of behavior is risky as it may result in people voting against you, and with little to go on during a first Day a bandwagon is all too easily formed and before you know it you’re lynched. This is in the interest of the game and the town, surely, but at the same time there’s a collective action problem here - who should shoulder that burden, and who gets to benefit while sitting back?
That said, I think that my random vote against Silver Jan has accomplished what I hoped it would accomplish, which is to set off a cascade of voting and countervoting and discussion about all of those votes and countervotes. My vote was entirely random and I did not suspect **Jan **any more or any less at the time of voting than any of the other non-me players in the game. I have yet to make up my mind as to which behavior has struck me as the scummiest and I hope to revisit the thread today to figure this out. For the moment, though, it is only fair that I remove my vote for SilverJan from the vote pool since it is not based on anything she did, as by now it should be. It’s also because she said she’s itching to cast and OMGUS vote against me, which I’m thankful she has not done already and which I am hoping to avoid by acting thusly:
You’re implicitly attacking everybody voting for Precambrian. Yet you have no vote of your own and tried to vote “abstain.” The Prambrian case is a Day 1 vote for nebulous reasons (mine was a gut feel, personally). If you didn’t like it, you had every opportunity to raise your own (better?) case and sway us. Waiting until the last day of Day to say you disapprove, while having made exactly zero input in the process strikes me as scummy.
I find that this is also ever-so-slightly a scum tell. Promising a review of someone or a reread of the thread makes you sound involved. I see upon preview that you did follow through on this promise, but (possibly) only after Ed called you out.
I interpreted Svejk’s “false accusations” claim as a joke from a newbie. It’s not something I would have said, but I didn’t read any scummy feelings into it. As I mentioned in my original vote, Precambrian’s comment just didn’t sit right with me. It was as good as anything for an early Day 1 vote… I hadn’t really considered it beyond that.
I quoted this so I could answer Guiri’s question. I had been thinking about Serial Killers when I typed that. I had considered doing out the math, (14 town, 4 scum 1 SK, and so on for each example), when I realized it was easier to just say “subtract one from each town tally.” So, with SKs on the brain, I made a goof and pointed to Trepa’s win condition for scum, when that would have no bearing on vigs (as they would presumably be town aligned.) You also make a good point that our win condition doesn’t preclude SKs, but I would still personally feel they’re unlikely.
Yeah, it was a very early vote based on a weak reason intended to spark some conversation but I’ve not seen anything to make me think she’s Town. Apart from our initial fluff about Eduardo, she’s asked about generic roles and metagaming, voted a mod, wondered if scum know each other, commented on sharing docs and commented on Fluid’s interpretation of wevets’ post. She’s around but not involved so I’m comfortable with my vote while I form opinions on others and see if there’s a better candidate.
GuiriEnEspaña is right that I’m not adding much of value to the thread, but at this point I’m finding it difficult to do so. I’m just not comfortable with making judgments on people this early on (Day 1), when we have almost no info to go on except WIFOMesque discussions.
For example, right now a smallish circle of posters (all the f-named ones except the one I actually voted for, amusingly enough) are jumping on each other’s posts and I’m not really seeing why these folks are so suspicious about one another except that they’re either a) Townies who are really paranoid or b) Scum who are pretending to be paranoid and self-righteous. At this point I can’t tell the difference.
I had this problem last game too. I just can’t comprehend how people vote with any confidence on Day 1. It’s all random, surely? Like, right now I have no idea whether I should remove my vote on fluiddruid, not because I have more or fewer feelings about her guilt–I don’t, because my original vote was just a way to put a name out there and see what happens and I picked her (her?) because I’m just perverse enough to enjoy finger-pointing at a mod–but because I don’t have any alternate choice who strikes me as more guilty.
Of course there’s the whole “wait, GuiriEnEspaña voted for me, and I’m town, so maybe s/he’s scum and thus knows I’m town! I’d better vote against GuiriEnEspaña!” instinct, but that kind of defensive voting is what got Silver Jan lynched on Day 2 back in my last game. GuiriEnEspaña could very well be Town and genuinely see me as guilty; several fellow Townies wrongly suspected me in my last game.
(But I’ll note that they didn’t survive the game as long as I did, mwah ha ha!)
Much shorter version: I got nuttin’, and I’ll probably continue to have nuttin’ until we’re a couple of Day/Night cycles into this and I start seeing patterns of behavior. Assuming I’m still around to do so, of course.
You know, I’d also like to retract my bit mentioning the same thing. While I don’t like fubbles weighing in late on Precambrian, he posted his review of Ed four minutes or so after Ed posted. I couldn’t compose a post that fast, so it’s unfair to suggest he may have been spurred by Ed.
I thought I had better let you all know that I don’t think I will make EOD tomorrow but I will try. To be honest, all I know is that EOD is on Friday and I will be on an aeroplane, I could possibly be at my stepsons house in time but I don’t know.
I am rather pleased that Svejk unvoted me, it makes him look more townie to me. I wasn’t going to vote for him anyway because I think what he did was a bit bold for scum (yeah I know scum will do anything).
We’re not playing Party Quirks anymore, Mahaloth. You can put aside the “anger” shtick.
I’ve already got a vote on the table, and as far as I can tell it’s as well-reasoned and justified as any of the other Day One posts. Unless you count “how many times someone used the word “suspicious” in a post” a justified accusation worthy of Elliot Ness.
I didn’t vote for you before you voted Silver Jan. Your post in which you voted seemed rather fishy (sorry) to me. That prompted me to go back and review all your posts. I started to vote then, but when you came back and explained your vote, I decided to think about it for a while.
You were not really on my radar all that much until you voted Jan without really explaining your reasoning.
:smack: I thought end of day was today. This further weakens my case on fubbles. It’s difficult for me to play at work, so I’ll have to re-evaluate things when I get home.