(didn’t fabricate the circumstances for which he voted Tom)
You voted for him
Two parts there. First, obviously stupid and pro-scum. Second, a quick back-off.
Asked what was obviously stupid about it, you didn’t really say anything. Challenged on the quick back-off part, you said
Then you said you had already explained yourself, which means that we’re all supposed to evaluate your vote based on what you’d already said about it, which a couple of people had already pointed out to you they didn’t consider clear. I don’t know what other conclusions you’d expect everyone else to draw than that it was kind of a heedless vote that you let stand. Or why you would bother posting “No I didn’t” if you still don’t want to clarify the things that wanted clarification in the first place. You didn’t acknowledge that other people didn’t think it was so “obviously stupid and pro-scum” or explain what you meant by that, despite being challenged on that point several times. It doesn’t appear that anybody else thinks that “quick back-off” is a fair reading of what happened, and all you offered to clarify that bit was that he was at least downplaying it because he said he was rethinking. So I think it’s fair to say that you made up the justification for your vote, since even you don’t seem to think it merits discussion.
Be careful, or you’ll be accused of making a mechanical vote.
I’m sorry you and others dislike it, but I think making clear exactly who I am willing to vote for is helpful. Rants about how easily players get confused don’t sway me.
I went to the trouble of looking at all the votes on YesterDay’s lynch. Some of the players’ votes were neither very townie nor very scummy. I explained my thoughts in each case.
You can certainly do that without adding the bold/blue styling, which is really all that’s being asked of you. It’s a simple and reasonable request, and your continued refusal is frankly nothing but dickish.
Hello all! First time I’ve played Mafia, heck, first game I started following (dang people asking for subs before I’m 100% ready)… So, please go easy on me!
Anyway, you know, your call. I’m not going to waste time trying to “sway” you to take my point of view on whether or not we should play by the rules of the game, so if you’re town, I hope it’s worth it to you personally to have your own special customs. You’re not making anything additionally clear to anybody by casting superfluous votes, and I can’t imagine that you aren’t capable of figuring that out yourself. You ought to care whether your motives are transparent, and you’re acting like you don’t. I’m not going to just write that off in a game where the only point of playing is to try to figure out who’s on your side.
Because it doesn’t matter what your reasoning is when you cast a vote that doesn’t exist. The bare facts are that one vote per player counts, and that any votes you pretend to cast beyond your first are made with the knowledge that they don’t count. You could argue instead, as you already have, that you’re just casting every vote that occurs to you as worth making, fully intending for that vote to count, and that it’s then up to the moderator to count them as the moderator will, but that is, respectfully, bullshit. At best it’s disingenuous because you know, and you know everyone else knows that you know, that only the first vote is going to count; at worst it’s setting the stage for you to disclaim agency for a vote down the line when you vote for four people and the one that counts looks worse for you than the ones you pretended to make.
I’m not going to wait until it’s probable that there’s something material in it for the bad guys to do that, and then say “See?”. There’s a possible something in it for a bad guy right now, and no good reason to do it, and you’re doing it anyway.
Respectfully, Jimmy, that is a poor reason for a vote.
A good reason for a vote would be: player is doing X, and I think that means they are likely to be scum. It might be weak logic or the wrong conclusion, but since we’re trying to lynch scum, it shows pro-town motivation.
A poor reason to vote would be: player is doing X and I don’t think it’s a helpful tactic. Our goal is lynching scum, not enforcing play styles. We need to make arguments about how (right now, in this game) we think that player is likely to be scum.
We’re down to either 2 or 3 mislynches. Do you really want to use one of our few mislynches to simply make your point about how terrible you think my gameplay is? As I talked about earlier, we don’t have time to argue about who’s playing the right way or wrong way. Let’s accuse each other of being scum, instead.
You’ll have to explain this more. I can’t speak for anyone else, but when I make multiple “votes” I expect to be held accountable for all of them, whether or not they are included in the vote count. I placed an invalid vote on Mahaloth. If you think that was a bad vote, then call me on it. Just like if you think my counted vote on Zeriel was a bad vote. I’m not going to try to dodge criticism on them, because I truly want those votes to count.
Weirdly ungrounded attitude toward Tom and his plan, as reflected in his approach to Giraffe, Mahaloth and Zeriel. I’d like Astral to try to explain what he was thinking about Tom at the time of each of the comments I highlight below, and how it affected what he had to say about the other players, if at all.
A bit of a see how townie I am/townie-lecturing attitude as noted by Giraffe this morning and by me in one post yesterday. Most easily seen in Astral’s post #85.
Suspicious of Giraffe in part because of Giraffe over-reacting to something? I’m not sure about this one entirely; I still have to look at Giraffe’s posts and the timing of everything. I do not think that over-reacting is a reliable scum tell. It is a really easy way for some scum to justify placing a vote.
Post 71 (after voting glowacks) adds suspicion that glowacks made a PIS slip in one post. Only IMO there’s no way it could have been that even if glowacks herself had been scum. I think this may well fall into the category of certain things looking “scummier” to the scum than they do to the town.
Here’s all the details:
**Astral **
7 – back later
12 (in reference to Tom’s proposal) do we know all characters are present, what if scum wait out claims and take one unpicked, making up Ro-B name is easy, offers historical reasons for not liking day one claims, willing to be convinced but doesn’t think there’s a good reason yet
Objectively, no real problems with this. In context of other issues with Astral, the particular objections given to Tom’s idea are off-the-mark enough (Tom wasn’t even talking about Ro-B players, for instance) to ping slightly. I’m not sure I like the historical reference either; too close to “I’ve done this in the past as town …”
13 – minor correction
39 (quoted in spoilers since it’s so long)
I mentioned this post yesterday. My major issue with it is the all-over-the-board characterization of Astral’s own feelings about Tom. Here’s what I said:
If Astral were approaching this issue honestly, and really believed that Giraffe’s math indicated a 40% chance of catching scum on day one (he never does contest the math itself, though others have touched on the three-versus-four scum issue), why isn’t he trumpeting the plan from the high heavens himself? He gives Giraffe a hard time for not acknowledging the implications of his own ideas properly, but neither does Astral. Instead, not more than a few sentences previously, he’s calling Tom’s plan “bad”. Even if Astral wasn’t sure Giraffe’s math would hold up in light of the comments made in the meantime, it doesn’t justify “the plan was indeed bad” in the same post where he’s praising the 40% as so obviously good.
I also have a minor issue with the same thing that Giraffe seems to; a faint whiff of “look how townie I am” emanating from one or two statements up there. But I’d really like Astral to respond on the Tom Scud stuff.
68 – follows up on Mahaloth issue, noting that Mahaloth failed to address his questions, which is correct
I really hate this part. The smart scum move would also be to stay silent, then just kill Tom. Glowacks wasn’t suspicious because he “outed” Tom; he was suspicious because he set up a dilemma that was a false one, that looked like an excuse to equivocate on the issue of Tom’s scumminess or lack thereof.
I don’t know to what extent Giraffe could be said to actually have over-reacted; I’m going to have to review his posts as well. That said, “you flinched/you’re defensive” is not in general a very good scum tell IMO, and I’ve seen it mis-used too often lately (at the other site I play).
After that is some discussion of the 40%-odds thing from the above post (which I also addressed somewhat yesterday). I have no problem with the way Astral responds to Giraffe and glowacks here even if I do have one with the original argument.
And finally some more stuff on Astral’s opinion of Tom, saying his attack on Mahaloth’s vote doesn’t equate to support for Tom. Which in fact it doesn’t, in itself. And he mentions he supports Zeriel’s case against Tom (but I don’t see any reference to Zeriel’s vote prior to this. Did I miss something?). But he also gave Giraffe a hard time over not acknowledging the implications of that 40% math, and never challenged the math itself – what is that supposed to indicate other than support for Tom’s plan?
71 – adds hypothetical PIS slip by glowacks to his case.
This is just wrong. Glowacks’ “tom might be scum” comment depended on there being only three scum; that was the whole point of what she was saying. Could it have been influenced by scum knowledge that there were in fact three? Sure. Could it have been in any sense a slip? No.
82 – goodness everyone’s quiet this morning, come on get your votes in, should we all give snapshots of how we feel about everyone else in the game
Oy. Lecturing the townies. And an unworkable (and incidentally bad, as Ed points out in the next post) suggestion, to boot.
85 – fair enough, to Ed and Skeezix (who also commented)
This is at least the second time this has come up, where you think I’ve been “weirdly ungrounded” or inconsistent regarding Tom’s plan. If you don’t mind, I’ll quote your original post about it:
“First off…” This isn’t actually the first time I’ve talked about Tom Scud. I question his plan immediately after he posts it. I didn’t have a lot of time, so all I did was raise my concerns. I don’t mention it at the time, but I’m questioning him because his plan is questionable. Now, in the post you’ve quoted, I had given it some thought and didn’t think it was as scummy as I originally did. So, to sum up, I thought it was somewhat suspicious, but after considering it my suspicions have abated.
I defend Tom Scud’s idea against Mahaloth’s claim that it was “obviously stupid” and “pro-scum.” I don’t believe it was either of those things, and so far nobody else had posted something to that effect either. Mahaloth is the first to say what it “obviously” was. While I don’t think Tom’s idea is good at this point, I don’t think it’s scummy, as I’ve posted earlier. So, to sum up, my suspicions had abated and now I’m questioning Mahaloth for his poor vote.
While I personally don’t believe Tom Scud’s idea is scummy, I can understand where he’s coming from. You don’t quote it, but I post in favor of Zeriel’s vote. His idea was bad, in my opinion. But I didn’t find it scummy. Others might - I can’t lay claim to perfect insight into everybody - but Mahaloth’s vote was weak. So, to sum up, even though Tom Scud’s plan didn’t strike me as scummy, I can understand somebody else voting for him - somebody like Zeriel. Mahaloth’s given reasons were weak and poorly thought out, and that raised my suspicions.
So, um… you’re wrong. I’ve been entirely consistent with my own beliefs, and I’ve clearly stated those beliefs every step of the way. I’ve been totally transparent, and your words are misleading.
You and I do the same thing on Giraffe. I thought his post was suspicious, and you didn’t. I thought Zeriel’s vote was fine, and Mahaloth’s wasn’t. We’re going to disagree about things, and see them differently. But you’re willfully misrepresenting my posts in favor of a poorly-reasoned vote. Sorry if that sounded too much like me trying to lecture to town.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree. I think it’s a useful tool, but note I’m not using it to support a vote. When I commented on his overreaction, I was voting for glowacks - a vote I rode all the way to the lynch. Saying it’s “an easy way for scum to justify placing a vote” is one of those weasel phrases that you’re using to try to make people think that’s what I did. I didn’t. When I posted that comment, I was telling Giraffe that I found him suspicious - for that and other reasons - but I wasn’t voting for him. Your words are misleading.
I say in the very post you’re quoting that, if conditions were right, we might want to follow his or my plan as early as toDay. I posted my reasoning right after I posted my guesses about the game state. Since I’ve clearly stated that I believed yesterDay wasn’t the time to do it, and I stated that toDay would be right only if conditions were right, why would I hammer the point home? I’d already made my point. Your words are misleading.
You have a fair point here. Tom had missed something obvious - using town names as cover - and the results of his plan could be anti-town. Then I considered Giraffe’s post, and the 40% number stood out to me. So I went on that tangent, and reevaluated how valuable Tom’s plan could be given Giraffe’s math. Perhaps this is a good example of me waffling - that’s what I get for trying to respond to everything at once. When I gave my post a once-over as I was finishing it, my point about Mahaloth remains: his vote was poor. Zeriel’s was fine. So I didn’t mess with that section when maybe I should have.
Per the rules, scum can only communicate at night. If a scum player notices something, I’d expect them to mention it if they feel they safely can in the general thread so that their teammates notice. My reasoning for this is that telling your teammates you think someone is a mason or power role early helps them determine their thoughts while the Day is playing out. That’s easier than telling them after the fact and forcing them to reread the thread while evaluating the game state in that new light.
Further, if glowacks was lynched, his thoughts die with him. Also, as I accused him in-thread, he could have been fishing for a denial, hoping to get him lynched and forcing a role reveal, or hoping to see a reaction from other players. There are plenty of reasons to speak up.
This about uses up my time. Just got home from school, now I’m heading out to work. I’ve got some suspicions I need to work out in my head, and I’ll have a post up later tonight.
For some reason this vote really set off my scum detector (which sucks, as anyone who’s read any of our recent unspoiled threads can attest). I do remember being the guy who reasonably defended the dude who everyone had a mad on back in Random mafia.
What else should we do? Should everybody just start making up their own factions and playing to help that faction win, and then at the end of every game declare Victory for the Forces of Democratic Freedom? Or would that be not even really playing a game anymore?
Ideally, I wouldn’t have to use a vote because of it, because ideally, when asked without a vote, Pleonast, if town, would say right, this is silly and at best useless; I’ll stop. It’s not like I’m particularly enjoying posting about whether or not he* should make up his own ruleset and play by it instead of the one we were all given. But here we are. It’s not my fault that he’s actually trying it.
Why vote for him: because being “just that way” is not a good reason to let him arrogate to himself the right, in the future, to claim that he’s cast however many votes he likes and that
Because do you know what is a really important mechanism for holding someone to a vote he’s made? The fact that the vote is a vote, and that it has consequences. Right now, if I, in this post, vote for six people even though I’ve already voted, I’m not advancing the likelihood that any one of them will get lynched – and I know that’s the case. Later, though according to Pleonast, I could say, yeah, well, in that one post with six votes in it, I totally nailed these other two way before anyone else, so give me credit for that, and also that I intended each of my seven votes to have equal weight, so if my original vote was a shitty one, well, it was only one of seven, even though it’s obviously the only one that had any significance. Should I do that, do you suppose? If I shouldn’t do that and I do do that, what will your conclusion be about my motivations? And what he’s doing is actually a little worse than that, because he’s explicitly saying that fluid should pick which votes count. So, not only is he theoretically accountable for every vote, he’s also not accountable for any of them specifically!
The only reason any of us are here is to play a game where you try to figure out who’s trying to swindle everybody. Somebody is messing around and blurring the lines that distinguish the swindlers from the rest. His defense is basically a dare: “do you really want to waste a mislynch on this?” But what good reason would he have to let it come to that?
she? Don’t actually know for sure; apologize if wrong.
If you drag a kiddie pool full of aquatic badgers past the lifeguard station at your local YMCA during Seniors Stretch and Flex, the police are going to “vote” for you based on what you might have hypothetically done in the future, and you’re just going to have to be OK with that. Because, you know, don’t do that.
I’m voting for you because when there’s no good reason to do something, and even a hypothetical bad reason to do it, the bad reason wins when it comes to finding ways to explain why that person just did that. I’m explained out at this point.
