Oh, I didn’t remember that comment from Natlaw. I took what Kelly said personally, which I see it must not have been.
My bad.
I’ll try to be clear.
Day One:
- You vote to put pressure on
- Mahaloth votes for anti-town behavior
In other words both votes aren’t because you think the player is scum, but with it being Day One and your first game - it’s a null tell (meaning it gives no indication if you are scum or town).
Day Two:
- Mahaloth votes you for voting with no reason D1
- You vote Mahaloth with the following points:
-
scum wouldn’t vote like you did
-
voting for play style instead of for scum
-
that you’ll discuss ‘how to catch scum’ outside this thread
-
Scum will make a weak vote Day One simply because there weren’t much solid cases.
-
Mahaloth voted to pressure a player to behave pro-town and you vote to pressure a player into making a mistake. Both of you vote to pressure (hopefully) scum into an unconformable place. Since he voted you it feels like a OMGUS vote (voting someone for voting you) especially since the reason is the same (‘I don’t like the way you vote’).
-
You tell Mahaloth to talk scum hunting strategy outside the game, but earlier asked how to best hunt scum in the game. It’s an contradiction.
And as said the ‘when would a double player lyse be useful’ pinged me since the pro- and con were extensively discussed Summer One. Especially when contrasted with the argument ‘I think I know better how to hunt scum then you’ is why it pinged me as ‘playing the ‘I’m new’ card’.
This question has been asked, answered, forgotten and asked again so I guess Chronos should have rhymed so people don’t forget :rolleyes:.
Please quote me where I said you were an inactive player. I never said that, and you know it.
Let’s go back to what I actually said. This is from my first post about you.
I absolutely, wholeheartedly, with my entire fiber of my being stand by this argument. Look at the two long original posts about this subject – I link to every one of Story’s posts.. Not short enough? Fine. Here are the numbers.
Story posted 21 posts about the double-lyse-player debate. He posted 6 posts about anything else other than fluff posts. (I counted 4 fluff posts, and 2 posts, 442 and 664, I counted as debate posts though they contain a brief amount of info on other topics.)
That means that nearly 78% of non-fluff posts were related to this debate. Sure, that’s just a number, but go back and read the posts: it’s not like all the volume was going towards the non-spawn-debate posts. There are short posts and long posts in both categories.
Counted as debate: 211, 213, 233, 240, 242, 243, 309, 442, 485, 574, 619, 623, 626, 640, 648, 649, 651, 654, as well as 664 and 442). Note that 664 did come in after the end of the Summer by accident.
Counted as not related: 391, 487, 616, 629, 636, 646
Fluff (metagame posts): 181, 342, 580, 657
Here are the ones I counted as not related:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12059397&postcount=391
Just a request for people to justify their Peeker votes.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12066953&postcount=487
Probably the lengthiest: “I am going to focus mainly on votes for peekercpa or sachertorte. Given the way the Day is developing, I will also look a bit at votes for Scuba Ben.” Read it for full details.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12076426&postcount=616
Discusses the case against peeker and scuba and why he’s not voting for them.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12076829&postcount=629
His actual vote
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12077207&postcount=636
Brief justification of vote - he asks to read post 487 for explanation, which again is here.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12077500&postcount=646
Response to Drain Bead regarding not believing Peeker or I (at the time) to be scum.
Nobody needs to take my word for it. Read the posts. Please note that I don’t think that his content level regarding his vote, taken by itself, is a scum tell. What I consider strange is that he became so adamant that he would no longer discuss a subject on which he expounded on with great frequency and volume in order to help find scum, but that these were the actual result of his vigorously defended abstention.
Further, it’s not just the quantity, but the quality. He’s being responsive to others’ arguments, but – unlike in the strategy debate – presents few of his own. He votes late, which by his own word he intends to do, for a non contender, with fairly little commentary. Look at his vote (629), and his justification (636, which refers to 487). This is the entire substantive addition – rather than just a response to others’ arguments – that he’s given. And I would submit he’s added very little to that total this Summer other than promises that he’s looking for scum.
On its own, no, I wouldn’t vote for him because of this. I fully admit it would be hypocritical of me to do so. But I do have to consider his reputation and experience, his own emphasis on aggressive town play, and his own promises. I have to consider, again, the way that he’s defended his arguments and – again, not based just on my disagreement with his premise – but rather the fact that they seem, in my mind, to indicate that he’s not fully presenting liabilities in any way neutrally compared to his presentation of potential benefits.
If honestly you’re so peeved at everyone, Story, that you don’t want to play, I’m sorry for that. I hope that you know my vote for you is not personal, and I sincerely hope I am not the cause of any ill health. I’m simply going with the best decision I can with the information I have and I simply cannot make heads or tails of your posts as a Town player. I just can’t.
Vote total:
Spawn 13
KellyCriterion 3
Mahaloth 2
storyteller0910 2
Rysto 1
fluiddruid 1
[del]1: special ed[/del]
2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies – Spawn (727)
3: Drain Bead – Spawn (737), [del]Rysto[/del] (785-909)
4: Oredigger77 – Spawn (717)
5: storyteller0910
6: Meeko – Spawn (715), [del]KellyCriterion[/del] (824-874)
7: Mahaloth – Spawn (721), KellyCriterion (778)
8: Freudian Slit – Spawn (718), Rysto (802)
9: USCDiver – Spawn (749)
10: Alka Seltzer – Spawn (821), Storyteller (900)
[del]11: peekercpa[/del]
12: Natlaw – KellyCriterion (886)
13: Zeriel – Drain Bead (796-901), KellyCriterion (796), Spawn (901)
14: DiggitCamara – [del]Drain Bead[/del] (795-894)
15: amrussell – [del]Drain Bead[/del] (867-880)
16: KellyCriterion – Spawn (740), Mahaloth (838)
17: Scuba_Ben
18: sachertorte – Mahaloth (860), Spawn (864)
19: fluiddruid – Spawn (804), storyteller (851)
20: TexCat – Spawn (722)
21: Rysto – Spawn (917), fluid (917)
There is no “letting” anyone be mod-killed or replaced. If a player meets the objective criterion to be removed from the game, I will remove them. If they don’t, I won’t. I don’t like having discretion over something like that, as a moderator.
I have my doubts about Storyteller’s claim. Double player lyse is aggressive play, so if he truly believes it - why didn’t he kill? Does anyone remember Storyteller’s stance on vigilante killing Night One or not from previous games? In Munchkin Mini was he in favor of the multi-lynch town had there? The latter is more related to his argument for double lynch but I forgot to ask/check when I thought about it earlier (and Munchkin had no Spawn of course).
Ah, well, there is the ‘bad things happen’ when he kills. Since he didn’t mind speculating about masons, I don’t see why he would object to speculation about his power handicap. My first thought was ‘It’s probably tied with the Spawns’.
Perhaps anyone he kills turns into a Spawn, but that seems way out of balance to the point (as Story claims) of better not killing at all. So slightly weaker - if he eats someone, but gets killed later he returns as Spawn. Still a ‘better no kill then’ but perhaps he digests its after a year?
A more standard vigilante with a flaw would be the remorseful one - he must try to kill himself if he ever kills town. But I think it’s fairly established that you never, ever claim that (even in the vague way Story did) in case of a scum redirect giving them a extra kill.
So it feels to me he claimed the drawback so that it would be consistent with his argument for aggressive play. But why not stay silent on it and let scum waste possible block or redirects?
On the other hand, I think he favored never lying as Town so as a result he decided to half-claim. For Today I don’t support the lynch with a possible real vigilante out there to take a pot shot at him.
Geez, you know, I’m really not that much of an asshole. Further, saying “an angry response is likely to draw attention and votes(as happened to peeker)” is a completely laughable summary. Are you seriously – seriously – arguing that MY post is the reason for Peeker’s behavior, and thus his lynch? The timing doesn’t make sense, even if you could take my post to be that provocative in context, which I don’t think you can.
Really? There were no posts in which I admitted that I changed my mind several times when reviewing his posts, or that there were individual posts, taken on their own, which made me think twice?
This one I have to admit was my error. I re-read it and I parsed it incorrectly the first time. Not sure what to say to that other than mea culpa.
I do disagree, though, to say that story was completely consistent from the start (unless if you mean from the start to this point, if so I apologize). He was not. Contrast this post with 309. He does, definitely, change his approach on this issue in a substantial manner.
No. Sorry, but no. I don’t think that last line changes what he said at all. The entire post is a construct that does not make sense to even debate. It does not make ANY sense to discuss the double-player-lyse debate without considering Spawn.
Now, what he said was: "Now, the Spawn mechanic changes things in a very serious way. I just don’t think it’s the slam dunk that you and sachertorte believe it to be. More on this in the morning. "
His next posts, by the way, were:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12051916&postcount=240
http//boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12051942&postcount=242
http//boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12051948&postcount=243
Does he substantively address the liabilities of spawn at any point in these posts? I went through all of his posts last summer and I don’t think he did, ever. As in, not the next morning, not at all.
Do you think that discussing something with consideration only of its town benefits and not of its significant and potentially game-losing town liabilities is useful? How??
Let’s look again in more detail as to what was said. I said, “This is where Story backs off. Okay, I can buy that this argument isn’t really helping town. I tend to agree. But Story says “going point-by-point on a subject that is completely academic for this Summer at least is not a good use of anyone’s time”. This discussion was not only academic, he seriously did, albeit weakly, propose this in post 211.”
Now maybe your definition is different than mine, but my point is that it is not fair (nor particularly sensical) to espouse doing something, and then when repeatedly questioned about how it does not make sense to others, to wave your hands and say ‘I won’t discuss it since it’s academic at this point’ in a game of Mafia. Whether or not people were likely to agree to Story’s idea or not doesn’t change this for me. There were already a significant number of spawn votes before Story entered this discussion altogether and he didn’t consider it academic then; he seemed, in my opinion, to start considering it to be academic around the point where he was taking heat for it.
Here’s what I said that apparently makes no sense: “Further, why is it at this point that it is suddenly not worth Town’s time? It was worth discussing in practically all of his previous posts, posts which took complete priority above voting or discussing vote candidates; all of a sudden, not now?”
Does it really make no sense to you that anyone in this game would find it suspicious when, when explicitly questioned that a strategy they are purporting is anti-Town and thus garnering suspicion, they decide to simply refuse to discuss it? Is that OK now? Can I say “I think rysto’s case against me isn’t worth Town’s time so I don’t think I want to talk about it anymore” or “I know I advocated no-lynch with a known scum in the game, but it’s an academic discussion”? Bollocks. It is – or at least appears to be – avoiding accountability.
Please indicate where I took him to task for refusing to back down. I even outwardly said that this probably makes people lean Town!
I do think that softening an argument so much as to make it meaningless is a bad sign. Story decided “I think I favor a double-lyse this Summer iff we have two compelling targets”. Well, of COURSE. Nobody could possibly argue with that. But previously he was going based on the numbers alone.
I literally laughed at this. How can you put such words in my mouth when quoting when I said the exact opposite in the content you quoted directly after this? (“I really, really, really hate to reopen the lyse spawn debate.”) Come on. I addressed this issue in my very first post on the subject.
Abrupt shifts in behavior garner suspicion. Story clearly felt it important enough to spend the vast majority of his energy on it. Posting prolifically in favor of a strategy and then deciding to stonewall on further debate is weird and unproductive at best. Frankly, defending his argument consistently would have garnered a lot less attention and volume on this issue than simple refusal.
It’s hard for me to take your analysis seriously when you fully admit you won’t even consider a great deal of what I’ve said because you’re too tired to deal with it. I took the time and energy to go through all of Story’s posts; you’ve picked and chosen bits of mine to try to indict me. Granted, that doesn’t make me not scum, but I’ll say just one last thing: do you truly believe that Story is town and I am scum? If so, please explain my reasoning for targeting him in this manner. I’d be curious to know my motives.
That’s a good point.
The first double kill was targeted at two non-participating players. I think it was Turn Two. Ultimately we did execute the double kill, but storyteller (Town) did have a stretch where he was against it. Also note, the double kill did not have nearly the negatives that our current game does.
As for Vigilante in Mini-Munchkin, we didn’t have an explicit vigilante, but we did have some roles that could kill on their own. Storyteller was one I believe.
I’m a bit concerned that Story still has two votes. I realize that it wasn’t the strongest role claim but having a claimed power role one vote out fo the lead with 24 hours left in the Day strikes me as a bad play that scum could easily jump on. To that extent I went back and took a look at Fluid and Alka.
Rysto put together an interesting case against Fluid that eventually will be responded to and Alka received some heat yesterDay for some questionable activities that have largely been ignored toDay.
The problem for me is that Fluid has spend most of toDay arguing with Story and a fair number of yesterDay’s posts as well. This concerns me because if it is hunting for scum it is only hunting them through one person. I realize that some people like to get a bone in their teeth and gnaw on it until there is nothing left but I think it leaves a lot of blind spots for scum to hide in. It seems to me that Fluid is posting a large amount but not about anything controversial but as Rysto points out using that to poke other players into reacting. I think it’s quite likely to be anti-town motivated.
To sum it up: Fluid is keeping a claimed power role one vote away from being our lynch leader and most of her posts are about what I think is a side issue while ignoring the rest of the game around her. So
Vote Fluiddruid
and FOS Alka I just don’t think the case is as strong.
How is fluiddruid not controversial?
How is poking other players into reacting “anti-town?”
This makes no sense to me.
And Fluid gets in there with a rebuttal to Rysto while I was typing that. That’ll teach me to use preview. The two things that strike me from the rebuttal are basically that it’s still more about Story’s ideas then anything else and ending with
Which is a pretty good defense. I’m not convinced that Story is town and I still don’t like the vig role claim but I’m hard pressed to attribute scum motivations to fluid beyond trying to hide behind a high post count and not back off a case no matter what. Either of which could be town motives.
I’m going to keep my vote there since I’m still unhappy about Story’s lynch situation but I liked Fluid’s response.
Again count on no preview to help with my post count.
I don’t see how anything that Fluid has said could be controversial since the only person who seems to be disagreeing with her is Story. On the other hand I think Story’s post have been quite controversial since it seems the majority disagree with him and at least three posters disagree enough to devote large amounts of their posting history to what is a pretty meaningless component to this game’s setup.
I think that poking other players into making noise is anti-town. Reactions are good to a certain point we are able to learn more about why someone is doing something but to continue after they have reacted for page upon page just makes it harder to find the signal in the noise. Take Peeker for instance his reaction yesterDay to being called on a bad random vote told me that in typical Peeker fashion he wasn’t taking this game seriously but when he was continually poked and prodded he got upset which added a lot of noise and cursing and made if difficult to pull out that his vote started as a joke.
You misunderstood what I said. I said that if a player reacts negatively and angrily to an accusation, that player is likely to get votes and suspicion, which is what happened to peeker. I’ll admit that the juxtaposition of that statement with what I said immediately previously made it sound like I was saying that your vote in particular caused the meltdown. That was not my intention.
Well from my point of view, the fact that you are voting for her kind of betrays the label “non-controversial.”
I’m not sure it is fair to compare what fluiddruid did with storyteller with the craziness that happened with peekercpa. The two are entirely different.
I’m not especially keen on tipping my hand like this, but I need to stop obsessively refreshing SDMB and get actual work done.
I’m willing to lyse:
Mahaloth (where my current vote stands, for his strange defense of his peekercpa vote, labeling other votes “lame,” then inability to back that claim up)
Rysto (For trying to hang the PIS noose on Special Ed)
Freudian Slit (For opportunistic voting on Day One) <- weak but I’m willing to go there.
You will notice that storyteller is not on this list. Storyteller is worth waiting for next Summer.
Also KellyCriterion is also not on this list. I feel the wagon again him is very poor. The only vote on KellyCriterion that has a decent level of back-up is NatLaw’s. As peeker put it, it is at best a lazy town vote.
I’m very much against this policy. If everyone votes late, we are screwed.
Have you always had this policy? I don’t recall your being so stingy with votes in the past.
If everyone were to adopt the “vote late” policy what do you think would happen to the game? Yeah, I go so far as to label it “anti-Town.”
Anecdote: The one singular time I was scum, I absolutely hated voting, especially earlier in the day. I really didn’t want to commit against someone. I wanted to wait and see who was vulnerable. I didn’t want to take a stand on anything because I wanted to keep my options open.
I’m not really sold on the Mahaloth case. I don’t like his early policy vote for peeker, but once he’d made it I can see why he didn’t remove it. It is consistant with the advice he gave to Kelly on Day 1 (vote for the most anti-town actions), and his vote for Kelly toDay. I’m a bit concerned that he isn’t interacting much beyond his case on Kelly, and self-defence.
@Mahaloth - Where do you stand on the Drain and Story claims?
If Kelly is town, Mahaloth might be scum gunning for a couple easy targets.
Kelly’s play is odd. He seems to be reacting more than anything, which is is something I’ve seen from newbie players of both alignments. The only possible scum motive I can see for the vote on Scuba is that he was trying to provoke a claim. But if that was the case, why not give at least some justification for the vote?
I’m still considering my vote, as I said a few posts ago, and I’m waiting to hear Storyteller’s analysis of other players. So far, he hasn’t done any real scum-hunting toDay, although I appreciate that he has had limited time and has been dealing with self-defence arguments. Story is claiming a role that has limited utility, which so far appears to be unverifiable, and is withholding some of his role information. I think it’s a bad play to automatically unvote claimants.
@Oredigger - Do you believe the Story claim, and if so, why? Do you have any suggestions on how we can test the claim?
If you are going to FOS me you need to make an actual case against me. Why do you think I am scum?
Could you be any more vague? “Questionable activities” - are you friends with senator McCarthy? What exactly caught your eye please?
I think Story’s claim is fishy because it is so easily covered no matter what happens. There is no practical way to test a vig claim beyond forcing them to kill a particular target and hoping that there is no block and the scum decide to kill separately. On top of that we have a reluctant vig claim so there is an easy explanation for why there aren’t two kills ever (the scum decided not to kill on the night Story’s tested or Story didn’t want to risk the downside on a night the scum killed).
I don’t like leaving the vote close enough that it would only take one scum to jump on your wagon to push a claimed vig into a toss up lyse situation. Vigilantes are useful in the late game and we might get into a situation where we can force Story to test his claim where the lack of an additional scum kill will benefit the town. I just think you guys are putting the town in a awkward position. Which is enough for me to suspect you and with Fluid’s posting history vote for her.
Sure, there was your treatment of the voting for spawn I think Sach best summed it up in #546 and there was your response to Peeker using plankton as vanilla which seems to imply that you’re either scum or a power role in #470. Like I said it’s not a great case but I think you warrant a FOS when that is combined with your treatment of a claimed power role.
I keep coming back to Rysto’s post #807 and his statement that he attributes making assumptions about town alignments on Day 1 as scum PIS. As someone who uses hypotheticals and thinks hypothetically a lot when playing these games (and I know I’m not alone in that) it baffled me that an experienced player would advocate such a narrow view, dismissing other possibilities out of hand, even in the face of a possible dead mason who would have non-scum PIS if he is indeed a mason.
But while reviewing that post, I noticed that sache has changed his mind a bit on Rysto, since in post #813 he dismisses the case against Rysto at that time, yet today Rysto is on sache’s short list for getting a vote. A lot was said between then and now, but I’d like to hear you explain your change in tune, sache.
It’s late here and I’m about to clock off but I wanted to get a vote in now rather than wait till morning.
vote Mahaloth
for the reasons outlined by **sachertorte **plus
- skimming/overlooking Natlaw’s case against KellyCriterion - the person he himself is voting for. I just think this shows a lack of interest in the merits of his own case
- his post wondering how many masons we have - encouraging speculation by power roles.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here, so I’ll respond to both interpretations. If you’re saying that you find it bizarre that I did not consider on Day One that ed could have non-scum PIS, while I was certainly aware of the possibility I felt that it was much, much less likely than scum PIS and voted accordingly.
If you are saying that it’s bizarre that I did not consider non-scum PIS when I made post #807 on Day Two, then
a) I was explaining my reasoning from Day One, when of course I had no idea that ed was Town
b) I was trying very hard not to publicly speculate on what we could learn about the remaining masons from ed’s posts. story’s already taken me to task on this subject and he’s probably right that the scum could have easily worked it out on their own, but I’m a cautious player by nature and I don’t like to expose power roles if I can avoid it. My feelings are that while it probably won’t stop the scum from working things out, there’s always the chance that they’ll miss it so why make it easy on them? Heck, I was dropping cop tells left, right and centre in Batman and no scum seemed to catch them.