[QUOTE=Hawkeyeop]
Because you are oblivious. Or because I actually bothered to fill out my profile (well at least the location part) 5 minutes ago. One of the two.
[/QUOTE]
Or Both!
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey]
Well, I’m pissed about yesterday’s events. I’m waiting for Kat’s death scene so I can update the dossier sheet.
[/QUOTE]
I’m disappointed at how Yesterday ended too. We were screwed by a short day that mostly fell over the weekend, and we lost a day when we didn’t notice that the Day should end on Monday until Sunday’s premature end of day. On top of that Diomedes was unavailable, and HazelNutCoffee is missing. So to Lynch yesterday we needed 8 of 12 (available) players. That’s a pretty steep majority (66%). So needing a super-majority and having a crazy short and time-challenged Day made the lynch that much harder.
Hopefully Today will work out better. We absolutely can’t afford another no-lynch. No-lynching from this point on is functionally equivalent to lynching a townie.
I’m also still waiting for an explaination from **Hal ** on the FOS he leveled at me.
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
story put the no-lynch option out there for consideration. But I find it strange that he didn’t vote at all or definitively state that he was withholding his vote to prevent a lynch. Did he really think no one was worth voting for? Did he ultimately decide that a no-lynch was better than lynching brewha?
[/quote]
Happy to explain, although the explanation, I’m afraid, is both prosaic and unlikely to satisfy: I missed the portion of NAF’s post specifying the deadline, and thought I had more time to consider and discuss than I actually had.
Strongly disagree. No individual player should be voting for anyone, unless he believes the object of the vote to be most likely, or at least likely, to be scum. If townies vote for other reasons, then they are voting for artificial reasons, which makes it harder to identify the scum (who are also voting for artificial reasons). Which is a short way of saying that no one should be bullied into voting in a particular way. We must be held individually accountable for our votes, and suggesting that players have a responsibility to vote in a particular way - even if it doesn’t reflect their own feelings at the time - eliminates the individual accountability and allows easy escape from association with your vote.
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
Happy to explain, although the explanation, I’m afraid, is both prosaic and unlikely to satisfy: I missed the portion of NAF’s post specifying the deadline, and thought I had more time to consider and discuss than I actually had.
[/QUOTE]
When did you think the Day ended?
And now some housekeeping from late yesterDay:
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
It’s silly to think that NAF meant only those roles are excluded.
[/quote]
That’s certainly a valid opinion, but it’s one with which I strongly disagree. It is very dangerous to read anything into what a moderator writes in the color other than what the moderator wrote into the color. My own experience designing a game is pretty fresh - in every case, I wrote exactly what I meant, fully aware that in some cases my words would mislead those who tried to read into them. When I wanted something to be explicit, I said it explicitly.
Fair enough. But you want us to hang him - and burn one of the two mislynches we still have to play with - based on nothing other than your interpretation of a rule you didn’t write. That’s not particularly convincing.
Please note: I did not refer to your behavior as indistinguishable from that of scum; I referred to your approach in that way. Look, scum can behave any way they want. They can vote for one another or vote for us, they can spread their votes or they can keep them tightly packed, they can be aggressive or they can lurk. All of these things, in and of themselves, are useless at finding scum, because the scum are just as likely to do one as the other.
There is only one thing that differentiates scum from the town - their approach to the game. Scum have an agenda. They are not earnestly attempting to identify the player most likely to be scum and vote for him or her. Their approach is artificial - they begin with the outcome they want, and work toward it. The outcome they pursue might vary (one day, they might want to cause a town lynch, another day, they might want to bus one of their own), and the methods they use certainly will, but ultimately they differ from town in that town (ideally) do not go into the day with a desired outcome (beyond the general - “lynch scum”).
Town (ideally) are reactive. They look at facts and try to make determinations from them. The minute a townie gets an agenda - decides that so-and-so must be scum, because my “instincts tell me so,” and facts be damned - that townie becomes indinstiguishable from scum, because he or she is starting from a conclusion and turning the facts to fit it.
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
When did you think the Day ended?
[/QUOTE]
Didn’t really know. At some point, NAF1138 said that the Day would be ending “tomorrow morning,” but no specific time was given. He did post a warning post an hour before the deadline, but it was at the bottom of a page and I was in the middle of a pretty spirited exchange with Pleonast at the time, so I missed it.
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
Mods need to bump Hazel
[/quote]
Hazel has been given a prod, and she should be back to posting in about 24 hours or so.
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
No individual player should be voting for anyone, unless he believes the object of the vote to be most likely, or at least likely, to be scum. If townies vote for other reasons, then they are voting for artificial reasons, which makes it harder to identify the scum (who are also voting for artificial reasons). Which is a short way of saying that no one should be bullied into voting in a particular way. We must be held individually accountable for our votes, and suggesting that players have a responsibility to vote in a particular way - even if it doesn’t reflect their own feelings at the time - eliminates the individual accountability and allows easy escape from association with your vote.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that no one should vote for anyone they think is unlikely to be Scum. But we need to be aware of the effects of our voting, too. brewha was low on my list of suspicious players. But the case made against him seems plausible and I’d rather lynch someone who’s low on my list than no one at all. Those who didn’t vote for brewha, by not voting for him, were implicitly saying he is not suspicious enough to lynch and a no-lynch is preferable. Those who didn’t vote at all didn’t even offer an alternative.
I’d like to hear from those who didn’t vote for brewha why they thought a no-lynch was a better option. We had one no-lynch to burn, so it wasn’t not a huge mistake. But now our margin for error is that much smaller.
About Hal: he’s high on my suspicion list. I am certainly happy to vote for and lynch him. Others may not be. But I think it’s a huge mistake to remove him from consideration. Just keep your mind open.
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
We ended up with no lynch by default, not by conscious decision. This makes me suspicious of the non-voters, story and Hazel, and the singleton voter, brewha.
story put the no-lynch option out there for consideration. But I find it strange that he didn’t vote at all or definitively state that he was withholding his vote to prevent a lynch. Did he really think no one was worth voting for? Did he ultimately decide that a no-lynch was better than lynching brewha? Actions speak louder than words, and a non-vote in a lynch that failed due to lack of votes is very anti-Town. Please explain your lack of a vote, story.
Same applies to Hazel. But she’s hardly played. When was her last post? Mods need to bump Hazel. Lurking Scum or AWOL Townie? Impossible to tell at this point. Please post something, Hazel.
Can’t blame brewha for not bringing his lynch vote to the required quorum. 
But singleton votes are not especially useful. Please feel free to vote for whoever you find most likely to be Scum. But when it comes down to wire, we need to lynch. Move your singleton vote to someplace more useful.
[/QUOTE]
I can see your point that in most cases singleton votes are not especially useful. But, I was under the impression that I would indeed be chucked off the cliff yesterday. When my death scene revealed me to be innocent, I wanted the rest of the associates to know where my strongest suspicions were.
On two different occasions, Hawkeyeop twisted my words around to make me sound guilty - took what I said and exaggerated points to try and sway the vote toward me. That is dishonest play and pretty scummy if you ask me.
I don’t know what to think about Faithfool. I’m hoping to get a more substantial read as the game progresses. I don’t see anything particularly scummy about Dio and I certainly wasn’t going to vote for myself.
So, I was left with a singular vote. In the situation I was in, I had no other choice. I don’t see how that would make you any more suspicious of me.
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey]
I’m also still waiting for an explaination from **Hal ** on the FOS he leveled at me.
[/QUOTE]
First, it was the bit about putting “gebackenes” into various search engines. You wasted no time in FOSing me there – although you did un-FOS as soon as I pointed out what really happened (Page 16, if anyone is interested). Ok, no big deal there.
What really set me to thinking you’ve got it out for me was that you then turned around and tossed out this one:
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey]
You see the case against brewha, yet vote **Kat ** based on nothing more than lurking? That just smacks of scummy opportunism.
[/QUOTE]
That would be a perfectly valid question, except you only used half the sentence. What I really said was:
[QUOTE=Hal Briston]
As for brewha…sigh…I see the case, but as he mentioned, it just smacks of him being hunted because he’s one of the most vocal ones out there.
[/QUOTE]
…as in, “I see what is making people go after him, but I don’t think I buy it”.
That brings me around to the standard WIFOM – I know I’m town, so your attacks seem scummy. Problem is, the more I think about it, the more I can see town reacting the way you are…argh…tell me again why I enjoy this game so much?
And just to put in my $0.02 on another issue – Pleonast, let it go. The one, single bonus dossier was the entire secret. Please stop trying to make more out of it than it really was…
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
Strongly disagree. No individual player should be voting for anyone, unless he believes the object of the vote to be most likely, or at least likely, to be scum. If townies vote for other reasons, then they are voting for artificial reasons, which makes it harder to identify the scum (who are also voting for artificial reasons). Which is a short way of saying that no one should be bullied into voting in a particular way. We must be held individually accountable for our votes, and suggesting that players have a responsibility to vote in a particular way - even if it doesn’t reflect their own feelings at the time - eliminates the individual accountability and allows easy escape from association with your vote.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that no one should vote for anyone they think is unlikely to be Scum. But we need to be aware of the effects of our voting, too. brewha was low on my list of suspicious players. But the case made against him seems plausible and I’d rather lynch someone who’s low on my list than no one at all. Those who didn’t vote for brewha, by not voting for him, were implicitly saying he is not suspicious enough to lynch and a no-lynch is preferable. Those who didn’t vote at all didn’t even offer an alternative.
I’d like to hear from those who didn’t vote for brewha why they thought a no-lynch was a better option. We had one no-lynch to burn, so it wasn’t not a huge mistake. But now our margin for error is that much smaller.
About Hal: he’s high on my suspicion list. I am certainly happy to vote for and lynch him. Others may not be. But I think it’s a huge mistake to remove him from consideration. Just keep your mind open.
[/QUOTE]
Pleonast, if you knew what I know, you would be laughing as hard as I am right now. Your argument is that Storytellor’s advice is wrong because other people convinced you that I am guilty.
But, since I am not guilty, your argument is completely hilarious. I went from low on your list of suspicious players to guilty in your mind based on arguments that others – who could be scum – made. You may not find it funny now, but after my death – or after the game is over (if I survive that long) you should.
[QUOTE=brewha]
On two different occasions, Hawkeyeop twisted my words around to make me sound guilty - took what I said and exaggerated points to try and sway the vote toward me. That is dishonest play and pretty scummy if you ask me.
I don’t know what to think about Faithfool. I’m hoping to get a more substantial read as the game progresses. I don’t see anything particularly scummy about Dio and I certainly wasn’t going to vote for myself.
So, I was left with a singular vote. In the situation I was in, I had no other choice. I don’t see how that would make you any more suspicious of me.
[/QUOTE]
As I explained at the end of my post, I don’t find you extra suspicious because of how you voted, but I wanted to point out that a singleton vote is something to look at.
[QUOTE=brewha]
Pleonast, if you knew what I know, you would be laughing as hard as I am right now. Your argument is that Storytellor’s advice is wrong because other people convinced you that I am guilty.
[/quote]
And now I’m laughing because I was agreeing with story. I guess I’m not a great communicator. :smack:
You were (and still are) low on my list of suspicion. That means I’ll vote for others before you, as I did yesterDay. But if I have to choose between voting for someone low on my list and not lynching anyone, I’ll choose the former.
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
As I explained at the end of my post, I don’t find you extra suspicious because of how you voted, but I wanted to point out that a singleton vote is something to look at.And now I’m laughing because I was agreeing with story. I guess I’m not a great communicator. :smack:
You were (and still are) low on my list of suspicion. That means I’ll vote for others before you, as I did yesterDay. But if I have to choose between voting for someone low on my list and not lynching anyone, I’ll choose the former.
[/QUOTE]
You’re not a great communicator or I"m not a great reader. I’m guessing the latter. I just assumed that you had voted for me on the previous day without going back and looking. I really need to be more careful with what I assume.
::checks this time before posting::
Ah now I see what you mean. You voted for others (faithfool) first, but were persuaded to vote for me because you chose a lynch over voting for someone who you thought was scummy.
Personally, I think it’d be a better strategy to make a case against who you think is scum and try to get others to follow you, then to just follow someone for the sake of a lynch.
I’m willing to bet that at least one person that was crusading against me yesterday is scum. Following their lead is a good way to lose this game.
Um, so this is what happened - after New Year’s I completely forgot that the game was still going on. I did not realize this until NAF sent me a message yesterday. There are not enough :smack: in the world.
Bear with me, I’m trying to catch up. I’ll try to post again tonight - tomorrow morning at the latest.
Well… rereading my belated post from yesterDay, it’s both my response to Kat and to storyteller: essentially, I found enough evidence to convince me that faithfool is Disgruntled on Day One, and lacking any sort of provable power roles in this game, I don’t see any way I’m going to be persuaded otherwise: errors she made on Day One have probably already been corrected by her fellow scum after the first Day, so the fact that she’s not raised any particular flags doesn’t mean much. The fact that she hasn’t really participated much in anything other than responding to me gives little further evidence that she might be town.
I don’t see the case against brewha. If I’d come back earlier, I probably would have voted for him, just to get a lynch in. No-lynches always feel like a pro-scum result for a Day, even if (as story(I think) described), a no-lynch yesterday doesn’t change our timeline other than giving the remaining Disgruntleds a bigger voice in our lynches. However, brewha’s miscues don’t seem to be any bigger than any regular townie might make: consistency isn’t a given in this game, particularly from townie players. And a vocal townie is going to be inconsistent eventually.
I’m starting to get a little suspicious of Hal, merely because his ‘secret’ doesn’t seem like it would be enough of a change in the game to be the “Secret” promised in the beginning of the game. It just doesn’t feel big enough to be included if being given a single random dossier was all it was.
I’m entirely open to changing my vote to another player, if given enough reason to do so. But for now, I’m still going to
vote: faithfool
It’s that time again. You are starting to get that old familiar tingle. That’s right, it’s another vision!
Go Team!
More Volkswagens?
Fahrvergnügen = vw bus thing again?
I once drove a VW Bug through the front door of a 7/11:
OAOW
Hockey Monkey
Just them two. And OAOW is dead.