**Ah, thanks. My bad. **
Right…after the last posted vote count. I can’t go back in time to edit an old vote count already posted!
**Please do check your votes in case I make a mistake, though I’m usually quite accurate.
Vote Count:
AlkaSeltzer(1): Oredigger
Tom Scud(2): Boozahol, CatinASuit
Boozahol(2): Freudian, JoeyP,
Freudian(2): NAF, AllWalker
NAF(1): Tom Scud**
We also had a vote/unvote from Meeko and a failed vote from Ro0sh.
So at this point, we do not yet have votes on record from (signup order):
Zeriel
Storyteller
Nanook of the North Shore
Alka Seltzer
MHaye
Pedescribe
MentalGuy
SpecialEd
Zeriel, Nanook, Alka, Pede, MentalGuy, and SpEd have had a fair amount to say. MHaye explicated Boozy’s vote, but has been quiet since then. Story had a long post swallowed by a server error (or so claimed, and I believe him 'cause my long defense post was initially so swallowed as well).
The more I think about it I think that Joey jumping in with multiple number 2 votes looks like scum trying to hide. He does a good job though of always commenting both before and after his vote about the person he is voting for. Joey was also pretty consistent in he recommendation for the vig.
All in all I was planning on jumping my vote over to him but I can’t justify it.
Gonna change my vote again.
This one hurts a bit because I really do think that FS has been rather scummy in her persuit of Boozy. I am not taking my suspicion off her or anything like that, I just want to test a theory here. I will gladly revote FS if it looks like her wagon is going to continue to gather steam. But it’s Day One and I might not have the luxury of being able to poke at what I think is a less well known scum tell.
** unvote Frudian Slit **
vote Oredigger
Oredigger…why are you finding is so very hard to find a reason to vote toDay? I have voted for three people so far. Votes are free. What do you know that is making this difficult for you?
That was merely coincidence. Besides I’m not a fan of NOT voting someone just because of the order that you would be in…durrrr I’m having a hard time wording that, does it make sense?
Nothing and that is what is making it difficult. I know a lot of people are big fans of the vote early vote often approach. I think that I need to defend my vote with something more then “Umm . . . it seemed kinda fishy for a second there”.
I saw something that look fishy so I went back and re read all 15 of Joey’s posts and there was nothing there. Rather then sit on the information I figured I’d share with the group.
Vote early vote often seems to amount to “Ooh, shinny!” too often and I think it adds more noise then data.
I’m understanding you, but you got to admit constantly (as constantly as you can on Day1) joining a case early and bailing off one once if fails to build steam could look bad. If nothing else it’s worth looking at someone when they do it.
Holy cow. OK, well, in the 24 hours since my last post got eaten, the game has obviously moved well on from what I had to say. So, I’ll sum up:
I am strongly against optional Vigs killing in the early game. Our most precious commodity is lynches; if a Vig kills Town (s)he reduces our supply of mislynches, and in the early game it is incredibly likely that a Vig will kill Town versus Scum.
I learned something from LOST Mafia, something I am determined to apply in this game and from now on: assumptions are terrible things. No matter how much circumstantial evidence piles up in a particular direction, we should be stopping periodically to reconsider our assumptions, to think about what happens if we’re wrong. The Town in LOST, er, lost, in part because we came to the unforced conclusion that there were four Scum, and never once stopped to reasses that assumption in light of available evidence. That was a bad move, and one we must avoid here.
Ties are bad, bad, bad. WE MUST AVOID TIES NO MATTER WHAT. There are any number of possible outcomes associated with a tie - since we’ve not been told what actually happens - and most of them are anti-Town (or at best indifferent). I will make a point of being present as often as possible at the deadline to ensure that a tie doesn’t happen, and I encourage others to do the same for maximum security.
OK, that’s a summary of my meta-game stuff. But a lot of arguing and voting has happened in the last day or so; I’m going to reread and be back with more game-specific thoughts in a bit.
And a round-up of the Vig discussion, more or less in post order, and I might have missed something:
Joey – no to random, okay with reason
Booz – No.
NAF – no to random, okay with reason
Cat – No.
FS – No.
Alka – No.
Pede – sorta yes.
Mental – no to random, okay with reason
Ro0sh – shouldn’t tell vig what to do
Meeko – let’s not discuss this
Zeriel – No. (unless feeling exposed)
Storyteller – No.
Nanook – No (except maybe for high suspicion)
Myself, I’m inclined to say no, but I’m a noob and one who got vig’d first turn in his only game, so I wouldn’t put much weight on that opinion.
Tom, My Irony Sense is tingling. If you do Vig me, well, at least I called you out on it first.
That being said, I don’t think Scud is Scum.
I also want Boozy to stick around.
I also don’t think that we should hang votes on Alka Seltzer’s first day edit.
And yes, I’m partial to NAF and Oredigger, because I know them, more than some other players.
Love it, hate it, I’m going to lynch the lurker.
All of that being said:
Vote Mental Guy.
Would the game rather I make one long post, or try, TRY mind you, to keep seperate thoughts to seperate posts? [Yes, I know, If my ADD allows it.]
I’m going to add my opinion on the Vig discussion, since it hasn’t happened yet.
I refuse to tell any hypothetical Vigilante who to attack, and I urge them to make their own minds up about the use of their powers. You may or may not want to consider other player’s opinions - that’s up to you. But ultimately no-one but you has any degree of control over what gets sent to the Moderator. So the responsibility is on your shoulders.
Of course, sneaking around and killing people is fun - it gives you direct influence on the game. And it can be very satisfying, especially when you ID a Horseman of the Apocalypse and disembowel him.
We’re in the business of trading space for time; in this case yielding some casualties while gaining the information to ID and lynch the Crimson Thorn. Each two kills the Vig makes costs us one Day of discussion, while maximising the information yield. If you’re out there, think about that - the information the early deaths give us are not without cost.
If you are a compulsory Vig, I implore you - never, never admit it.
Meeko.
Speaking personally, I keep posts between one and 1½ pages of A4 using 12-point type (I draft most posts on a word processor and then copy & paste). I do this because long posts get hard to follow and dissect.
Keep them short please?
Can you explain the underlined part?
Wasn’t the first part you giving a reason to vote? And now you are trying to ‘justify’ it?
Are you afraid you’ll take heat for the vote?
you forgot me :mad:
I’m OK with Vig killing.
You bet, I was thinking about Joey’s Being the second vote twice and I wanted to vote for him for it. Typically it’s a good idea to support your votes so I went back to create a case against him. I was unable to do so. So my first sentence covered my initial idea while the second two cover what I actually found. The fourth sentence was my conclusion; I was looking for a reason to vote for him but there isn’t one.
I would expect to take heat for a vote as shallow as “He was the second person to vote for someone twice”. The town wouldn’t be doing it’s job it reasons like that were accepted. I am surprised that I am taking heat for not voting for a case that I explained was bad but that’s how the game works.
Don’t consider it heat from me. I ask a lot of questions when I read things. Usually, I’m not even at all suspicious when I do.
I was thinking more of NAF’s vote
Clearly, I didn’t have perfect information.
At this stage, I think we need to get votes down and try to accelerate the game, moving towards the lynch. We don’t want to get to Friday and have players saying “there isn’t much to go on, but it’s nearly the deadline, so I’ll vote X”.
Right now I’d consider an Oredigger lynch. I found his policy vote on me to be mildly scummy, and he has stuck with it despite the fact it is obviously achieving nothing (no-one is going to start editing now if he removes his vote). At the point he voted there was no town policy to enforce.
His post #143 strikes me as a bit of a filler post, the sort of thing that might generate some noise without really moving town forward.
I find this kind of thing unhelpful, it seems like you’re trying to have it both ways. Townies need to take some kind of position, or we won’t get very far. It can be a scum tactic to prod suspicions along without commitment.
I find this a little odd. If you accept Tom’s explanation, why does he merit special watching?
I don’t consider this to be a strong case, but I feel it’s enough to
Vote Oredigger77
at this stage.
It can do, yes. I’m not opposed to tactical voting, but I think it should be used sparingly.
@Zeriel - Can you clarify please? What aspect of Freudian’s defence don’t you like? See my comments to Oredigger above.
@Meeko - Why did you single out MentalGuy for a lurker vote?
@MHaye - do you have any suspicions at this time?