Did you get new Scumdar since since Colorless? :smack:
can’t be any worse
oh, and since you are convinced i am scum i might have a freaking chance of naming them this game. hee hee
it’s difficult to tell which direct you’re pedaling now.
First it was the people attacking you are either lazy Town or Scum, and Zeriel should know you were just stirring things up so he shouldn’t have voted for you…
Then in post 355, maybe it was Town on Town, (with the obvious revelation that some people who haven’t responded aren’t Town)
Now in post 358, you think you’ve found 1 or 2 Scum.
That coupled with your varying reasons for voting Zeriel makes me very comfortable voting for you.
most fucking wonderful. a direct accusation without support.
kind of what i figured.
hey, ed if you do lincoln i’ll do douglas.
i so want to be a democrat arguing against federal intervention and for states rights.
Yeah, honestly, peeker, here’s the problem–objectively, “vote for a strong player arbitrarily” sucks as a strategy. There are a lot of people who have some variant on this playstyle–“let’s vote for story on day one because he’s too strong a player and if he’s scum he’ll tie us in knots” is the most common one I hear, never mind that in the far more likely scenario where he is NOT scum he’s a valuable town asset–proven, if nothing else, by the common refrain of “let’s nightkill story” on many historical scum boards.
Let’s do a point-by-point on your last post, shall we?
Voting for you, saying WHY I voted for you, and telling you to calm down are not apoplexy. “Expecting” you to act semi-randomly or contrary to town interests doesn’t mean that you’re allowed to act contrary to town interests.
You exclude the third option–voting for a strong player based solely on their strength is measurably statistically more likely to hurt town than scum, therefore your initial play was pro-scum, therefore a vote on you is mere correct play. It cannot get any simpler.
My wish is to kill scum. If you are not scum, refrain from scummy behaviors and you won’t get voted for as often. This wasn’t “conniving”, it was just unworkable as a strategy because it doesn’t do what you claim above to be trying to make it do.
I’m not going to give another Gettysburg Address.
I’ll leave this for now until others feel like chiming in. Have a wonderful night.
Your initial “I am going to vote story or sach depending on who posts first” sucked too. Describing a bad policy and then following it is – wait for it – still bad.
Yes, because you have used that word before this point. No, we did not know it was a placeholder. Why would you use a placeholder in a game that doesn’t require you to have any votes up at any time?
Dead serious meta-game question: If this was the case, why did you sign up?
I’m afraid you haven’t given anyone anything to look at–you’ve voted poorly, tried to spin it into me being scum for calling you on bad play, and now you’re trying to list all possible options in a single run-on sentence.
Addressed to the general “you”: If you’re going to “stir the pot”, you need to still have a supportable pro-town reason for voting. That’s just plain good sense. Randomly voting on someone doesn’t do any damn thing but confuse the issue and get you piled on for poor play. For better or worse, this is a mafia community that thrives on logic and minutiae–hell, I’ve been voted dead after successfully slaying a scum as a vigilante because I brain-farted and placed the sole vote on a confirmed mason (because I’d forgot he was a mason, and he’d said something suspicious within the last few posts). You can’t do stuff like that, or like randomly voting “on a strong player”, and expect that town is going to give you a pass.
I’m not engaging peeker further unless he radically changes his stance and style. At this point I suspect he’s either regressed to playing randomly (for whatever, even potentially RL reason) or else he’s going for the insanity plea defense popularized so much by Idle and zuma.
Vote total:
Spawn 16
peekercpa 5
sachertorte 1
Zeriel 1
fluiddruid 2
Freudian Slit 1
1: special_ed – peeker (353), Spawn (353)
2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies – Spawn (193)
3: Drain Bead – Spawn (191), fluiddruid (316)
4: Oredigger77 – Spawn (194)
5: storyteller0910
6: Meeko – Spawn (182), fluiddruid (334)
7: Mahaloth – Spawn (209), peeker (209)
8: Freudian Slit – [del]Spawn[/del] (183-314), peeker (282), sachertorte (314)
9: USCDiver – Spawn (246)
10: Alka Seltzer – Spawn (249)
11: peekercpa – Spawn (186), [del]story[/del] (186-229), Zeriel (229)
12: Natlaw
13: Zeriel – Spawn (204-277, 345), peeker (204), [del]sachertorte[/del] (277-345)
14: DiggitCamara – Spawn (285), Freudian (326)
15: amrussell – Spawn (247)
16: KellyCriterion
17: Scuba_Ben – Spawn (225)
18: sachertorte – Spawn (202)
19: fluiddruid – Spawn (296), peeker (296)
20: TexCat – Spawn (198)
21: Rysto
Seems like we always have to have some abstract principle to chew on on Day 1.
It used to be “random voting” or “lynch the lurker”/“what exactly is lurking?”. Now apparently it is Peeker.
Good evening, pond.
Just finished reading the thread. I don’t have much analysis to add right now, but I agree with everyone who is saying that it makes the most sense to vote spawn first up.
Vote spawn
**Both are Snipped. **
Well, this part of the game certainly woke up fast.
I was checking in and found that I remained the last poster to comment. I must have checked in at least twice, and this was the case. No reason to comment to the air. I come back now, and, Peeker has said a lot of things.
Peeker, Do you want me to believe that you for lack of better terms, are a suicidal pondie?
I like playing Mafia, and other players have commented on the enjoyment they get out of the game as well. Obviously, this enjoyment is at odds with something else in Mafia; It has been said that town should not fear death. To say nothing of being this suicidal.
Suffice to say I am not fully on board with fearless town deaths, suicidal or otherwise.
Peeker has given us everything, and the kitchen sink. I wonder how much is raw emotion. I would want to engage here, and find out. Allow me to put this on hold for one second.
Zeriel frankly puts up a good cross examination. There is one part to his post that stands out for me, and my Mafia experience.
Why would you use a placeholder in a game that doesn’t require you to have any votes up at any time?
Zeriel, If I may, I need to work on an implication here.
I read “doesn’t require you to have any votes up at any time” and I get a sense that some Mafia games need votes before the end of Day. It is my best guess that this would be for reasons of a “Hammer”* or some other advanced voting rules. **Is this correct, Z? **
I do not know enough of the Game [Mafia in general] to say anymore on advanced voting. I believe that Conspiracy III had some funky voting, that in hindsight didn’t help my case in that game. I lasted long enough to get NK’d night 1 in that one. [No learning in earnest on that voting system would occur.]
Suffice to say, I am not fully on board with advanced voting mechanisms.
There is a lot I don’t know here, and Peeker and Zeriel both brought that to light.
I am at a point here on the entire Peeker thing, where I do not have any more to add [in terms of conversation]. I do not know what more to do. Rather than take the cue from Peeker and “stir a pot”, I am going to take the cue from Z, and is actually going to be quiet on this one. Allow me this in conclusion:
Peeker, you dug yourself deep here. Real Deep.
I don’t want to do anything rash, and seeing as how it is now 3:30 AM for me, it would probably be best for me “to sleep on it”. I hope I am coherent enough as is.
- I believe hammer is the right word. IIRC, the Marvel super heroes game over there has one in effect on that game.
A hammer means that if a certain number of votes on a player is reached, that player is lynched immediately.
Conspiracy III had a vote threshold: if the vote leader didn’t have a set number of votes, it would be a no lynch at Day end.
Neither requires mandatory votes by all players although the latter encourages it. Everyone voting is preferred though as I gives a better vote record to analyze, but typically left to town to enforce it.
I was trying to make clear how I would make that case compared to you. I’m not actually making the case, hence I didn’t check the actual facts. Paraphrasing you argued (bit hyperbole to make a point):
fluiddruid joined a bandwagon with a policy, which is scummy because it’s just a me too without having to provide more reasons for the vote. Also, I typically get these kind of bandwagons as well so by voting peeker, you’re are voting me and I won’t stand for that.
That second sentence is not a argument I would ever make. It defends a play style but doesn’t say anything about whether peeker is town or scum this particular game.
Why I think peekers play is bad: by having a weak vote, he invites both town and scum to make a valid case against him with no real way to tell the difference between them. It ‘stirs the pot’ literally - we just end up with muddy pond.
Yes, but there are potential silver linings. Scoop a small and manageable amount of muddy water out (such as Meeko mentioned and I concurred with) and under the right circumstances it can be easier to see the scum in the smaller sample.
I’d rather do that than try and choose sides in the Peeker debate on Day 1 when we know jack shit about anyone or anything. Null tells abound in that debate, on both sides, so I’m inclined to let it marinate and mature for awhile.
hey, zeriel.
first i have to remember that this is a game and that very little said here should be taken in any other context than the forum it is offered.
but having said that …
rl is not like a book where one can flip ahead a chapter or two and the plot is already written. recent unanticipated developments will mean that i will be nearly as out of touch as when i was in rehab (no, its not that). that’s all i was alluding to.
and i too, will let this go.
either vote for me or go scum hunting. that’s what i’ll try to do today if i get a little bit of time. at this point i am more of a distraction than anything and am making it easy for scum to have a townie that they can run into the lysol. that is not in town’s best interest.
but having said that i would challenge others to read the exchanges knowing that i am niller. i fully don’t expect you to take that at face value until i flip that way but at least it will give some time for the rest of town to develop some future data points. like i said approach the rest of the Day that way, then lynch my ass, and there might be some mud that can be analyzed.
It’s…bizarre.
Someone said “suicidal pondie.” Maybe this is some kind of scum role that wants to be killed because if he dies, the whole pond explodes or something? I’ve never played in a game like that but he definitely seems to be cruisin’ for the proverbial bruisin’.
queue the Jester Debate followed by the Bomb Debate.