Mini #381-Werewolf: Cancelled

[Green Crayons]

Vote: Atticus

. Last to confirm.

[Green Crayons]

And I did have a good reason for suggesting the masons should come out.... I didn't read the whole PM. I thought it just said they could communicate at night, not that they could do anything useful.

How exactly did you read the PM? Their ability was stated before that fact that they could communicate at night like masons.

You still didn't explain why you thought two masons - under the assumption that they had no other ability beyond communication - should come out Day One. The fact that they had an additional ability doesn't really add anything to the situation of revealing themselves, in my opinion, so I'd like to know why you think differently.

For the record, your suggestion isn't scummy, but I find it so when people point fingers at themselves. I never take a joking statement lightly.

[Green Crayons]

Claiming increases the chance of the werewolves getting the doc by removing the chance of of them killing the watchman.

Uh, how is this a good trade off? I'd take doc protection over 50% watchman.. who isn't a cop, so has to be lucky enough to choose the same person as the fleabags. Herbalist > Watchman, hands down. Why do we want the Herbalist dead first? Honestly, the only good the Watchman is - in any realistic sense, assuming the Powers That Be don't give him/her a super lucky choice - is that he has a definitive role to claim and can clear himself as the second Watchman.

It also increases the towns chances of lynching a werewolf this round.

When the town has so few assests - beyond, of course, our awesome powers of deduction and observation - I don't enjoy them being used in the first round. If we have a role claim now, on Day One, that pushes our odds of hitting a furbag (assuming, of course, that everyone plays perfectly and we just randomly lynch someone) from 2/11 to 2/10. ... Not that big of a difference, and it gives the scum additional information that they didn't need to know. Now, if we get down to - say, I don't know - 5 players, and there's still a Watchman and Herbalist around, then sure, a roleclaim might be a smart and viable option, as the decrease in living players make the information more valuable to the town.

But right now? Putting our doctor in greater danger and barely making a dent on the choices to lynch from, not to mention just handing information over to the scum? Hah, i vote no.


Sidenote: Oh, the irony of wolfsbane's handle. It gave me an inside chuckle.

[Green Crayons]

Hmm here's the way I see it though. Werewolves choose from 8 players. They have a 1/4 chance of killing a player with a power role. If watchman claims, they have a 1/7 chance. Isn't that fairly significant?

It would be if I was to weigh the roles of the Herbalist and Watchman equally, but as I said before, I value the watchman at this point barely above a regular townsperson - he just simply can clear himself with a name.

As for the doctor being so much better, it says "50% chance of identifying the killer(s). ID'ing both the werewolves would be pretty sweet.

I didn't really take into consideration that perhaps the watchman/men could find the names of both furballs (good catch, by the way). But, that may just because I don't think any sane mod would create such a broken ability. Assuming things went differently, we might have 1. two living watchmen who very well were lucky enough to 2. both target the same person who just so happened to 3. be the night kill of the wolves. Sure, a longshot of some sort - but a possibility nonetheless that on Day 1 the town would win because the watchmen exposed scum.

The point being that discovering both killers on a single night and ending the game right then and there just seems to be too powerful of a role, regardless of probabilities and percentages as the fact that it can still occur is too dangerous of a factor to leave in a fair and balanced game.

[Green Crayons]

Lowell, could you do me a favor and explain more than you have given as to why you decided to vote Elias? As it currently stands, it appears to me that you're voting him because he doesn't agree with the Watchman claiming on Day One. But then again, there are others who have been more vocal against such a turn of events - Coolbot and myself come to mind, specifically. I'm curious as to why you picked him out.

vote: nothing, I was going to randomly vote but I want to see what Lowell has to say.

I think more than enough has been said on the matter for you to get a general gist on where everyone stands (and nothing all that substantive has been offered, which is what I personally was expecting from said discussion, so I don't know why you were holding back a random vote at the time unless if you were purposefully attempting to look like you didn't want to rush things - but I don't want to start getting WIFOM, so.. I digress...), so I'm not quite sure why you're still holding back in the wings.

Unvote: Atticus

, since it's not even being tallied, and

vote: trabony

. Speak. Vote. Do something worthwhile.

[Green Crayons]

Unvote: trabony

. Curious how that read through is taking forever, though.

Vote: StallingChamp

. I always vote people who say that they're scum. Always. I can't count the number of times scum have done it, and it has become a golden rule for me to put my vote on whomever does it. Congradulations, there's your conversation starter.

[Green Crayons]

Though it's happened more than this instance, I don't feel like dragging up older games than this, as I only pop in here every few months or so.

From Mini 266:

~yawn~ Someone say something, please.

dragyn_mage, are you scum?

@mith- yes, why? doh!

Those who have been lost to the siege:
....
draygn_mage, mafia goon and fanatic enslaved

Am I saying that, 100 percent without a doubt, Stalling is scum? No. But, he managed to get himself several scummy ticks beneath his name in saying that he was, and seeing as how he is currently in the lead of scummy marks at the moment, he's getting my vote - and I'm more than comfortable with it being the fourth.

Point being, I'm not dead set and inflexible, merely that I don't see a better place - at the moment - for my vote.

[Green Crayons]

I personally don't see a connection between Stalling's previous games and this one in the sense of what he did in order to "stimulate conversation," as I'm apt to give him the benefit of the doubt that his brother is a complete douchebag. However, assuming that it wasn't his brother last time, one also has to look at the context in which he posted his role: he thought he was quitting mafiascum, and went a stupid way about ending his presence in the game. I don't see the connection between the context/reasoning of his actions in that game and the one here - In that game, he exposed his role for reasons outside of the game (no time to play mafia); in this game, he exposed his "role" for reasons inside the game (trying to stimulate discussion)... two totally different realms of reasoning. Point being, that while I still find the rediculous scum-claim to be incredibly suspicious and stupid (in the sense of trying to promote positive discussion), I simultaneously find anyone who is attempting to throw suspicion on him for actions done in a previous game that have no direct (or even indirect) connection in regards to the context/reasoning of his actions in this game to be incredibly suspicious inandof themselves.

While I won't be shedding any tears if/when Stalling gets strung up, I also don't want the day to end quite yet - and I think we're still going simply due to a technicality: trabony simply wrote Stalling's name in bold, he didn't put "Vote: name." As such, I'm assuming he actually

did

want to vote Stalling, and since I don't want a lynch to occur at this moment because I do think some productive conversation is still a viable option (assuming he'll come back and fix his mistake and properly put a vote on Stalling),

unvote: Stalling

.

Atticus: Who were you referecing by "Scagain" in post 74?

[Green Crayons]

Eh, I got confused on the vote counts and didn't bother to manually double check. I'll still withhold my vote at the moment, as while I'm comfortable with four votes on a person (specifically, on Stalling), five is just pushing it when I'm hoping to see more conversation come from the day.

[Green Crayons]

No, the difference isn't the action itself, is where the reason for the action came from. Last time, the reason was for real life reasons - he was too busy and wanted out of the game, and did it in the worst way possible. This time he's doing it for in game reasons - he supposedly wanted to stir up discussion. You can't connect the two because the realm of his reasoning behind the actions don't match up.

Out of game reasons for actions are usually disregarded in mafia play, because they're just that - stupid reasons outside of the game itself. The fact that last time his out of game reasoning was exceptionally stupid and the action he took even moreso doesn't excuse this principle from gameplay.

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons, "Scagain" is meant to say "SC, again"

Oh, indeed so. I don't catch the small things, apparently. So what was it about Stalling's post 75 that made you go from not wanting to vote SC (post 74) to convinced he was scum (post 76)?

[Green Crayons]

Atticus:

Green Crayons, "Scagain" is meant to say "SC, again"

Oh, indeed so. I don't catch the small things, apparently. So what was it about Stalling's post 75 that made you go from not wanting to vote SC (post 74) to convinced he was scum (post 76)?

[Green Crayons]

Since SC should be lynched, voting him isn't scummy.

Because scum never vote for their brethen, especially when one of them does something incredibly stupid and everyone else is voting them.


Atticus: ..How did that put "scum" in bright neon lights above his head? I just don't see it.

[Green Crayons]

Where did I say that you were insinuating that voting SC was proof of innocence? You said that voting SC wasn't scummy, and I was saying that, regardless, scum do vote for each other. Therefore, while simply voting for SC in and of itself might not be a "scummish" action, that doesn't mean that we should not scruitinize those that have voted for SC.

What it does appear that you were saying, is that because SC did something incredibly scummish/stupid, vote placement is of no consequence. I disagree, as scum vote for each other, but - let's smother this more with WIFOM - undoubtedly they do so only in relation to the general sentiments of town figures.

For example, if SC turns up scum, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if one of the people who voted/are voting him is his buddy. With that said,

Vote: Stalling

. At this point I'm curious to find out his alignment.

[Green Crayons]

Finally, please stop bringing up s_m when considering to lynch me. There are zero similarities between the 2.

I agree - that's why I find people who are voting you for that reason to be suspicious, it's like they're fishing for reasons to vote you, which is more condemming depending upon your alignment.

Which is why someone should just finish this day and get it over with.

[Green Crayons]

Eh, it's late and I didn't preview my post. Reworded to properly get my ideas across:

I agree - that's why I find people who are voting you solely for that reason to be suspicious. This, of course, does not exempt you personally from suspicion, but when people appear to be fishing for votes when they have perfectly good in-game reasons, it just seems a bit weird. Of course, the suspicion that I'll attribute to this stretching of logic to vote you will really depend on your alignment. Therefore, I want to see you done away with already (for previous suspicions as well as the one just mentioned).

This is why someone should just finish this day and get it over with.

[Green Crayons]

I'm disappointed - I was enjoying the grotesque.

Vote: trabony

.

[Green Crayons]

[quote=Elias]And another thing- how CAN we confirm the watchman? He's the only investigative role, so he can't be confirmed that way, and we have no other power roles than could reveal something like that. Even if thw watchman does come out, he'd be counterclaimed by scum, likely resulting in the deaths of both, or at least a good deal of confusion. [/quote]Let me ask you this: If you were scum, would you counterclaim a crap role like watchman?

[quote=Elias]Putting pressure on other players is always protown, seeing as we get more info about the pressured player. So really his vote is a pretty protown play. (unless of course he really does want you lynched, I cant say for sure) [/quote]So.. scum never do anything protown? Or, are you saying that any vote that is used without the intention of lynching is protown? How can one truly differeniate a pressure vote that has no intention of lynching versus a vote that has the intention of lynching which simultaneously (by its very nature) is putting pressure on the player who is being voted?

I would vote you - for pressure, mind you - but I like my vote right where it is.


By the way: I'm going to be going to London for a few days, so don't do anything too drastic.

[Green Crayons]

We also lost some conversation.

Vote: Lowell

is where I was at.

[Green Crayons]

Any reason why you think he's a werewolf that you would like to share with the class?

[Green Crayons]

Actually, because he's becoming an annoyance

Unvote: Lowell, Vote: Jack

. He's around because he already posted post-crash, but he doesn't respond to the inquiries behind his statements.

[Green Crayons]

Unvote: Jack, Vote: conflux

. Let's see if he's still around.

As an aside, didn't night fall?

It did, but it appears Echo's unvote/vote momentarily confused the moderator; I'm curious if anyone else happened to see the results besides myself - I personally wasn't going to divulge the information, but I suppose it may (unfortunately) call for a mod kill or something.

[Green Crayons]

And I say "unfortnately," not to hint at any player's alignment, but simply because it's a bummer when intervention has to be made on the mod's part.

[Green Crayons]

Or

is

he? Wouldn't the watchman just target him? Personally, I think a modkill of Lowell and keeping the day going would be fairest.

Who all isn't posting since the crash that isn't virus infected?

[Green Crayons]

I wouldn't be against shutting the game down and restarting the sign up list for a redo, giving current active players a spot in the lineup. It's not like we didn't know the role setup already, so I don't see any technical, game-related problems to this.

[Green Crayons]

I thought it would have been Echo or Elias and then Jack or conflux. Meh.