All scum-motivated manipulation eventually shows, it’s just a matter of whether of how much shows up on the radar of how many people before the game ends.
A point of clarification before I decide whether or not I should resurrect the hypotheticals that I had originally drafted with my question to you. Are you proposing that double-voting for players be a unanimously accepted strategy in order to be executed, or are you still in favor of some players double-voting for players while others vote for Spawn if they so choose to?
I think everyone should vote as they think best. I am opposed to all unanimous or uniform strategies, as they reduce accountability. If Player X thinks we should double-lyse, then Player X should vote for two players. If Player Y thinks we should lynch Spawn, Player Y should vote for Spawn and one player. I think the downsides of enforced unanimity far outweigh any gains from same.
Seriously, does no one else see the point storyteller is making?
Are we going to play the game like this:
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
Let’s just get Chronos’ program and let it tell us how to vote. :smack:
Instead of actually looking at who is doing what and deciding what our best course of action is?
Now, yeah, I see the danger of letting the Spawn get out of hand. I’m not completely advocating a double player lynch.
But, you know, the best test for us to find out if we have a Vig is to give him a free shot at a Spawn toNIght.
@ sachertorte, if you knew we had a Vigilante, would you be more willing to vote for two players and let the Vig kill the Spawn toNight?
I think a common problem Town makes in games is playing not to lose instead of playing to win. Often Town players vote timidly, not wanting to push someone towards a lynch. Even in this game, we’ve seen Town players voting for Scuba for apparently no reason other than we were headed toward a lynch of another player! Really? I mean, REALLY?!?!
What is the rationale behind having 2 candidates? Maybe it’ll spur a little discussion…but obviously that’s failed. And, in fact, Scuba picked up his middle Day votes for not commenting on his early votes. I think it’s only because it makes some Town players feel better. Is it any better to have someone in a close second when we mislynch?
I don’t think the fluiddruid case is going anywhere toDay, but I don’t particularly like the cases against the two lynch leaders at this point. If I had to choose between the two, I’d probably choose Scuba Ben, because I’m perplexed at the lack of any real defense.
Ok, so if the group is split in voting methodologies on a day where we have a mislynch, the town’s analysis attention is going to need to also be split in at least two different motivational directions.
There are a few different hypotheticals that come to mind that would result in that same outcome of a mislynch under mixed methodology circumstances:
A) The 3rd runner up in the voting and/or someone taking a lot of heat that Summer was Scum, but enough Pond-on-Pond suspicion towards the person who is eventually mislynched that the Scum decide to vote in the split-lyse methodology pool so as to appear as townie as possible and not need to worry about an accountability trail for their 2nd votes.
B) The 3rd runner up in the voting and/or someone taking a lot of heat that Summer was Scum, but the Scum decide that the safer gamble would be to stay out of the split-lyse voting pool and instead leverage both of their votes to try and protect the 3rd runner up.
C) The 3rd runner up in the voting and/or someone taking a lot of heat that Summer was Pond and the Scum decide to vote in the split-lyse methodology pool so as to appear as townie as possible and not need to worry about an accountability trail for their 2nd votes.
The call to at least try for unanimous methodologies for a given day makes a lot of sense when looking at the amount of braincells, analysis elbow grease, and persuasive effort it is going to require for the Pond to navigate safely through so many motivational variables. Towns usually only have one or two to deal with and have enough trouble trying to make their way through the pitfalls and land mines that lurk below their collective imperfect knowledge.
Your paraphrasing of the case against Scuba is lacking, perhaps downplayed since you were also implicated in the same potential straw-man argument behavior early on?
Are you really advocating that the non-peeker votes would be better spent if we just piled on peeker regardless of the noise level, personal attacks, etc that plague the case against him?
If a townie player ignores suspicions and votes against him/her, how exactly is that going to help convince people not to mislynch them? How is that pro-town?
And here is the post where Scuba provided his defense. This was also the last time he was on the boards. At that point, he had just gotten his 2nd vote. Peeker already had 6 votes.
I know Meeko misinterpreted part of this. by assuming that, “In the past I looked for bad guys, and failed. So this time I’ll try it the other way.” meant he was going to look for Town and vote for them. On the other hand, I assumed he meant he would look for Town and **not **vote for them.
I’m not advocating that people just pile votes onto peeker.
I’m advocating that people vote carefully.
Scuba has gotten 4 votes since the last time he logged on (36 hours ago). I’m not as certain that he’s ignoring the pressure as other peope seem to be. I think it’s possible that he just hadn’t noticed it.
I’m not sure I understand your straw man argument. I think in the important ways, sachertorte and I actually agree on strategy. We both agree that lynching Spawn is the proper move toDay. Where we disagree is that he seems (to me) to be taking a less flexible position than I am. To me, it looks like he wants to ‘play by the numbers’ I’m more willing to take the situation as it comes.
Now, I understand the noise around the case against peeker, but where are the personal attacks?
I voted for peeker and stated my feelings about the case on him. His reaction to Ed won my vote. peeker just seemed to lose all rationality when Zeriel and then Ed started questioning him. I said before that it looked like he was throwing anything and everything on the fire in the hope of causing enough smoke to cause a diversion. In particular, I was bothered by:
with no explanation, or at least no satisfactory explanation following. If it were any other player, I think we would have all agreed to lyse him by now.
My vote is pretty firmly planted on peeker, and so I have not paid that much attention to the case on Scuba. It seems to have some merit, but I would need to reread much more carefully before I voted for Scuba.
I don’t think that either of the cases comes nearly up to the threshold of surity that I would want for a double lyse. I am firmly in the camp of lysing the spawn this first summer. Clearly, scum would be more than happy for us to lyse 2 pondies this summer. I would also note that scum is also interested in role claims, and that claims are often made when someone is in danger. If we put more people in danger with a double lyse and more people claim, that is to the scum’s advantage. All in all, I think the double lyse is good for scum and bad for pondies. On the other hand, scum are certainly more dangerous than spawn and if we are pretty sure we have 2 scum located, I would not oppose a double lyse to get rid of them.
Voting records are there to be examined. People voting for a double lyse need to have a good explanation. And anyone not voting, can’t have a good enough explanation. Almost everyone has voted except Rysto and Story. Scuba has only voted spawn, and Natlaw has only voted Scuba. I am beginning to wonder about Story who has been fairly active in the thread, but has not voted. Not voting is clearly anti-town, but you could also argue that waiting to vote until the last minute is also anti-town.
My case against Scuba breaks down imho to skimming, what can be considered evasion, and the lyse debate strawman.
It is Fluiddruid’s post #296 that stuck out as a personal dig to me. Prior to that, and after, there had been a fair degree of peeker-playstyle-metagaming, but it was that post that ironically set a tone and environment that at best just increases the noise level and at worst could be construed as baiting peeker.
So you’re alleging that you had tunnel vision while writing that post. You were so convinced that peeker was Town that when an opposing lynch bandwagon started up, you assumed that this was the scum response to the heat that peeker was getting. You’re so certain of your case against peeker is a good one that you’ve concluded that Scubamust be Town. But in the very same post that you assumed that Scuba must be Town, you said this:
Oh yes, you’re very certain here.
I think that you’re lying. I think that you slipped into Perfect Information Syndrome and accidentally revealed that you know that Scuba is Town. I called you on it immediately and you had to offer some kind of response, but your explanation doesn’t match your own words from the very same post in which you slipped.
so, correct me if I’m wrong but is the straw man related to these comments?
sachertorte
Which sounds a bit more absolute than most people are claiming sachertorte was.
storyteller
Which seems to be arguing against a knee-jerk reaction. Granted, story takes it farther than me in thiking toDay is a good Day for a 2 Player lynch.
sachertorte
that sounds pretty close minded to me. (though the reasoning is sound.)
Then in post 220, Cookies labels storyteller’s knee-jerk reaction as knee-jerk himself.
I think this is **my **strawman
Here is Scuba’s strawman?
Cookies
This seems out of place, since to me, it seems sachertorte was more close minded than Scuba and me up to this point. Granted, sachertorte nominally kept his options open, he certainly was pretty strongly leaning toward a spawn lynch every Day. (He seriously doubts we’ll find that situation, but he’s willing to keep the option open in the theoretical…)
And Scuba’s response where it does appear that his confusion is genuine, as I myself am confused
**Cookies **responds
Did you mean that Scuba was implying that sachertorte was a lynch target? really? I may have missed some posts because I don’t see that.
And, taken in total, it seems more like your post was a Strawman. From the looks of it, Story, Scuba, and myself were arguing to keep options open (OK, story less so) while sachertorte seems less willing to keep an open mind (except in the theoretical)
And, from the looks of it, none of the 3 of us were accusing sachertorte of having Scummy intent. And, yet, Cookies, you seem intent on painting it that way.
methinks the strawman belongs to you…
and I find post 296 to actually be a calm response to post 229. (and also posts 218 and 221)
Sache seemed to be the implied target of the references of that cluster of posts, not necessarily the target of lynch pressure. A strawman smear if you will.
Replace maybe a few cuss words in Peeker’s post and I don’t think it could be construed as personal. We can call people liars in this game and ask for specific examples while still staying well within the field of play. Saying what is basically “I don’t like playing with you and I’m going to vote accordingly”…not so much having anything to do with the mechanics/roles of this game.
And despite how it may appear I do not think that Peeker smells like sunshine and puppy breath in toDay’s exchanges. I think emotions got a bit riled for a few people and posts were probably made that would not have been under calmer circumstances, which is why voting for Peeker or fluiddruid is not on my list of things I think should be done without better justification.
OK, so we see it differently. You see it as smearing sachertorte, I see it as disagreeing with the strong strategic stance he was taking.
And here too, we see it differently. I can understand fluid not liking the tone peeker was setting. Different people respond differently to cuss words and attacks like that. I certainly wouldn’t have thought of fluid’s response as a personal attack against peeker, but more an attack against the way he was deciding to play.