Claiming Vanilla means when the Scum go to make their Night kill, they’ve got one less person to suspect of being a power role.
That’s why it’s generally frowned upon.
It would also be unusual for a scum who is getting heat on Summer 1 to claim Vanilla as well because usually in that case they want to draw out a Pond Power role.
Yeah, I am of the school of thought that I simply do not care about a Jester that’s not acknowledged in the setup. Such a thing is blatantly unfair because it’s such a change from the typical mafia rules that it must be acknowledged by the mod as a possibility.
As for a bomb, double meh, they have to go off sometime, might as well be tonight.
I am voting for peeker specifically because he voted for a strong player, advocated same as a good strategy, and then claimed he didn’t and more specifically had a freak-out where he claimed he didn’t, and as of this time has still not acknowledged in any way that he did, in fact, say that–instead, as soon as I asked the question he changed tack and reverted instantly to “poor me, remember this when I flip vanilla”.
NETA: “because he voted effectively randomly for a strong player”
Also,
While true, it also wouldn’t be the first time we’d ever seen a vanilla claim from scum in this situation either.
<snipped>
well since you are making shit up will you take your vote off. i said i would vote the way i voted. that’s it. for goodeness sakes.
seriously, if you town folks are going to let other folks make shit up to justify their reasoning this will be a short game. and z your scum is showing. you just can’t make shit up and hope that other people don’t call you on that lame nonsense.
and yaknow tell me where the logic breaks down, my friend. i know i am town and i know that there are strong players. i would like to kind of fucking figure out whether they are on my team or not. that’s a fucking bad play?
shit, you play a different game than me.
The first step is admitting you have a problem.
That is NOT what you said. You said you were going to vote for strong players, full stop.
Assume, and this is a high assumption, that we have five scum out of twenty-one players. That means, when voting with no evidence (as you even admittedly did), you have at best a 23.8% chance of hitting scum. Further, you were voting with no evidence, again by your own admission, on two strong players. I realize we use votes as tools to provoke reactions in this game, but never forget that a vote is saying “I want to see you hang”. If you can’t provide a reason, then you’ve failed to put effective pressure with your vote because a one-off doesn’t get anyone killed. If you provide a bad reason (voting for a “strong” player) then that’s scummy.
Frankly, I’m not necessarily completely off-board with you here. If you flip vanilla as you claim, I’m going to jump on any number of folks who are letting their vote ride on you without engaging you. You’ve put up a lot of food for thought, and frankly not discussing it with you has potential to be scummy, especially if you’re town.
But you made the mistake of trying to justify a pro-scum action with “policy” and that makes you scummy.
I’m going to give the whole **peeker **issue a swerve, because I think the case has already been well made and there’s not much more to add. **Zeriel **and special ed have certainly flagged up bad play and inconsistencies, but (FWIW) I’m just not convinced that it’s scum at work.
Instead, I want to turn the focus elsewhere because we’re getting in danger of going round in circles. So I had a look back over the thread and this caught my eye:
I know that we’re all going to find ourselves in agreement with other players from time to time. And in some ways it would be ridiculous not to say so when we do. But to see two heartfelt agreements with the same player in quick succession struck me as a little excessive. Scuba may or may not be snuggling storyteller, but if he were, that’s what it would look like. So on that basis, I thought he would be worth another look.
The most suspicious posts I found were Scuba’s latest, a series about Meeko’s changed posting style:
Now, I believe that **Scuba **was joking (i.e. not seriously proposing to lyse Meeko). But the nature of the joke is quite pernicious - it brings up past history, could easily needle a player who is (with some justification) sensitive to references to his posting style, and does (twice) imply that there’s something suspicious about Meeko’s play. Now, as it happens, **Meeko **resisted the bait and other people more or less backed him up. But it could easily have “stirred the pot” further by generating more heated argument about metagame issues - so at least anti-town and quite conceivably pro-scum.
Lastly, a couple of remarks just niggled at me:
Scuba’s substantive posting has been on the issue of double-lysing or not. Despite voting to lyse Spawn at this point, he’s repeatedly said that double-lysing is a powerful option which can seriously hurt Scum. His emphasis on this point, especially coupled with his remark about somebody slipping badly, makes me wonder if he’s trying to pass a message on to Scum. These posts come in the middle of the debate about which option to pick and he could, by voting one way toDay but arguing for a potential double-lyse, be trying to warn fellow Scum that he thinks this is a dangerous option to encourage - hence what could be read as a warning to be doubly careful about slips, as they would encourage us to consider an early double-lyse.
None of this is as substantive as I’d prefer. It could well be that Scuba: a) simply agrees with **story **and doesn’t mind saying so, b) was just aiming for light banter with his joke on **Meeko **and c) is a Pondie who wants to take the game to the Scum. But it’s Day One, and I think I’ve found some evidence of snuggling, stirring and surreptitious signalling (and I don’t have a better case) so in the interests of getting a response:
vote Scuba Ben
I don’t think it’s fair to characterize my argument as “scum wouldn’t do that”. My argument was “scum generally wouldn’t do something clearly to their strategic disadvantage”, and giving us a clear voting pattern early on – just to save Spawn players for endgame – strikes me as being a part of that.
Perhaps I should have been clearer regarding advocacy of the idea that I meant that voting would have to be a clear part of that advocacy. I do believe that scum players will advocate nearly any strategy if it is to their benefit to do so, and generally nearly any strategy - pro-town, anti-town, neutral - can be of benefit to scum to advocate. One of the things I did as a scum player myself was, particularly in early game, to post as genuinely as I would as Town in order to a) gain trust and b) cause confusion after my nearly inevitable demise (I tend to get lynched early in most games).
But voting patterns - in particular, voting patterns as they were at the end of the Day, ‘permanent’ votes - are different. There is a strong scum advantage to keeping spawn alive and if scum players actually vote this way as a bloc then it’s simply poor scum strategy. Yes, it makes sense that they would encourage others to do so, but actually being on the record for it? I tend to think not.
Panic is a possibility, though. I agree that I’ve seen wildly erratic behavior from townies who panicked at being voted for, too, but peeker’s strategies and votes just plain don’t make sense to me. I still think there’s a strong reason to vote for him; he just is all over the place.
After all, if we don’t vote off people who are not making sense because they’re getting too much attention, what does this mean? Scum can make as much noise as they want, cause as much confusion as they want, create dischord and draw away focus from interesting and rational arguments consistently through the game with a ton of garbage posts, baits and switches, and gobbledygook? I’m not comfortable with that precedent.
Either we lose a scum player – great – or we lose a town player with zero credibility and who will continue to distract everyone for Days to come if left alive with wild accusations and nonsensical changes of judgement. Yes, it’s a loss of a town player in that case, and that sucks, but right now he’s valueless except in terms of headcount if he is Town.
Actually no. I’m just beginning to re-read the thread and peekercpa doesn’t bring up ‘strong players’ until AFTER Zeriel does.
Post 186: Peeker votes for storyteller. Peeker makes mention of me but says nothing about “strong players.” One could just as easily decide that peeker was having a psychotic reaction to the letter “s.” Peeker says nothing about “strong player” in his vote post. (Thanks for the compliment though).
Many posters post with no comment about peekercpa (myself included)
Post 204: Zeriel votes for peeker for an unsupported vote on a “strong player.”
So the first person to bring up “strong player” at all is Zeriel.
Only after Zeriel brings up the term does peeker say anything about storyteller being a strong player. And even that isn’t all that passionate:
This pretty much sums up my thinking on the Peeker problem. Peeker is just doing his normal thing, trying to get people to react, and while people get frustrated I don’t see how it could be a scum action. Well, that’s not true, it could be scum trying to hide in plain sight but it doesn’t come across that way to me.
I also disagree with Meeko in that I don’t think the group chasing Peeker is any more likely then a normal grouping to contain scum. Of course based on the numbers it’s pretty damn likely that there is a scum in there.
Right now I think the Scuba case is looking the most interesting because me first thought on seeing his comment on Meeko was “Gee, that’s some obvious snuggling and a guaranteed way to insure Meeko never votes for you.” but I figured it was too obvious. Now it’s looking like there were some other ones that I missed. I’m not convinced enough to vote that direction yet but that is where I’m leaning.
Vote total:
Spawn 17
peekercpa 6
sachertorte 1
Zeriel 1
fluiddruid 1
Freudian Slit 1
DiggitCamara 1
Scuba_Ben 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), [del]fluiddruid[/del] (334-386), peeker (386)
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), DiggitCamara (419)
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), Scuba_Ben (428)
16: KellyCriterion – Spawn (374)
17: Scuba_Ben – Spawn (225)
18: sachertorte – Spawn (202)
19: fluiddruid – Spawn (296), peeker (296)
20: TexCat – Spawn (198)
21: Rysto
I concur with your assessment of the order of events but not with its meaning.
Namely, from my point of view, **peeker **and **story **have a little exchange that mentions sach before the game, in the context of a scum dream team of meeko, peeker, and one of the two s-guys.
Then **peeker **gets his PM, and immediately votes story, saying it’d be either him or sach.
I vote for peeker on the grounds that randomly unsupported-voting a strong player, which story typically is, is a bad strategy.
Then in post 207, **peeker **says that voting for a strong player is in the cards as though it’s self-evident that this is a good idea. This is the point at which I start responding as though it’s a bad strategy instead of a bad one-off.
Interestingly, in post 212 peeker said he already said he was going to vote for either you or story.
I just re-read even the pre-game, and this never happened as far as I can tell. Closest that happened was him responding to story’s post about the makeup of a scum team where peeker and meeko wouldn’t jump on him, and peeker says
I think I’m done talking about peeker. He’s been inconsistent, he’s advocated bad strategy, and I have no further reason to engage him unless something changes.
This is interesting if only because it’s the opposite of the “usual” Meeko-related scum tell–namely, making negative comments about him/his playstyle to get him wound up and spammy.
Zeriel, quite frankly you put words into peeker’s mouth. You brought up “strong players” and peeker responded: to paraphrase, ‘voting for a strong player is bound to happen.’ You are mis-interpreting peeker’s words with your own feeling that he voted for storyteller because peeker wanted to vote for a strong player. Peeker has admitted that he was going to vote for storyteller or me. He also has stated that voting for a strong player is a possibility. These are two separate things. He never said that his vote for storyteller was because storyteller is a strong player. He’s simply agreeing with you that storyteller is a strong player.
The quote you keep trotting out:
is out of context. Peeker is not saying that voting for a strong player was his plan all along. He is responding to your observation that storyteller is a strong player.
The whole peeker thing is crap.
Wait. Let me amend that. I recall Special Ed had a case that focused on peeker’s behavior while under the gun. That might possibly be non-crap. But the “he intentionally voted for a strong player” case is crap.
It’s right at the top of the same page as your own post: right here.
I do agree that Zeriel spoke in error, but frankly I find it a bit odd that you can grind such suspicion towards her for that so hard while simultaneously dismissively putting down the rest of ‘the case against Peeker’ as one post from Special Ed. The suspicion of peeker is hardly limited to a vote against a strong player (and Zeriel’s apparent error, or “error” in saying so) and Special Ed’s rundown. His behavior so far has been inconsistent and spastic, as well as occasionally explosive; his sullen resignation towards his lynching is not convincing.
I’ve been trying to wrap my head around how some can be thinking that double lynching now could even possibly be a good idea. I present the following table to try and debunk those icky thoughts 
Case 1: Double lynch players the first Day followed by single lynch for foreseeable future
Case 2: Kill spawn every day
Table 1. Information available at time of lynch
Case 1 Case 2
Lynch One No Information No Information
Lynch Two No Information L1+N1
Lynch Three L1+L2+N1 L1+L2+N1+N2
Lynch Four L1+L2+L3+N1+N2 L1+L2+L3+N1+N2+N3
As you can see, on a lynch-by-lynch basis, case 2 always has more information when deciding the lynch.
But I don’t think those advocating a double lynch are interested in the above case, I think they are thinking on a day-by-day basis.
Table 2. Information available each Day
Case 1 Case 2
Day One No Information No Information
Day Two L1+L2+N1 L1+N1
Day Three L1+L2+L3+N1+N2 L1+L2+N1+N2
In this case, more information is available each Day. So this at least explains why a differing point of view has surfaced. The question is, which view is accurate for the game structure. Obviously I think table 1 tells the tale, but at least I see now where the alternate view is coming from.
The problem I have is that the day-by-day view is deceiving. The table implies that both games terminate at the same time. They do not. Endgame gets shifted by allowing a spawn to continue to live. We can’t look at the game on a day-by-day basis. We should look at the game on a lynch-by-lynch basis. In previous games, number of days and number of lynches were one and the same. In this game they are not.
I believe it was Alka Seltzer who said that the number of lynches we have is invariant (at least w.r.t. spawn lynching), which is a very astute and accurate way of looking at the situation. The number of Days we have will fluctuate if we choose to double lynch, but the total number of lynch opportunities won’t change.
Hey gang. Checking in today.
I need to catch up, but I saw this and want to comment on it immediately.
I can understand the vote as a tool to provoke. If Only I had known that before conspiracy.
But, the main point I wanted to raise was the “one off” vote. Remember that we have the Spawn in this game, and, while highly non-probable in terms of “randomness” if we let two Spawn live to see an end of Summer, they could essentially swing a vote to the runner up.
That being said, there is probably a reason why Chronos has Spawn voting at the end of summer, instead of in the middle, or any other time. I struggled through statistics as it was, I can’t begin to even know where to start on decision trees of random votes at the end of a Day / Summer.
What are the real implications of pond not knowing how spawn will vote? Does anyone know that calculus ?
I have no idea what your point is.
(1) I mentioned Special Ed to distinguish his case from what I was saying. I’m not refuting or supporting Special Ed’s case. I merely wanted to separate his case from Zeriel’s. (He’s been confusing the two previously).
(2) I’m not “grinding suspicion” towards Zeriel at all. I’m saying his case is crap. That’s not the same as saying Zeriel is scum. Townies are perfectly capable of creating crappy cases.