Mature Mafia: Game Over

[mathcam]

Interesting post from zu. I have nothing in my role PM that says I have to self-reveal when deceased. Either this was told to him by emp once it was known he was going to die, or part of his role is that he can fake his own death. Or something -- sounds like a bit of a stretch when I write it down. Hm.

Cam

[mathcam]

For some reason, I feel like we're in the middle of the movie

Clue/

. There's going to be a lot of running around between the kitchen and the attic.

I'd like to hear something stronger against DGB, and/or a response from her.

Cam

[mathcam]

I second that question.

[mathcam]

I agree with Adel, at least as far as how unclear the rules are. If we're in the "It's up to us to follow the rules" mode, then editing a post is modkillable. I suspect that this isn't quite our position, and that our mod will of a more

laissez-faire

stance. On the other hand, if there are no rules whatsoever, what's to stop us all from quoting our role PMs and ending the game right now? I'm not sure what to make of this, other than the fact that it seems like we're in the middle of a gigantic social experiment.

For the time-being, I agree with Glork that the pro-town among us should vow not to make any edits (unless clearly marked, as in Adel's case earlier).

Cam

[mathcam]

Yeah, forget the pledge. I think it is clear enough now that a player better have a damn good reason for doing some editing, and if not, they're likely to be lynched.

As to my previous objections about the lack of mod guidance, I conjecture (maybe everyone figured this out already) that every aspect of the mod's role in a game has been delegated to one of the players. I have one, but I don't see many pros or cons in revealing it at the time.

Some natural questions arise: Is there someone in charge of modkilling? If we're to be expected to be mature here, then my guess is that we're supposed to follow established rules for the game of mafia despite the fact that we have mod powers. In short, our mod powers are to be used only for the explicit functions we were given in our role PM. To this end, it's not unreasonable to insist that if someone has this power and we find out who edited zu's post, that they be modkilled by whoever has that power.

Another question: What happens if a mod-power is in the hands of scum? Is there responsibility to use it in a role-neutral way? I can certainly see instances in which my mod-power could be advantageous in the hands of scum, but I could also see this for most modpowers.

Similarly, what happens if a mod-power gets killed? Will we lose votecounts when Coron dies? Votecounts we could do ourselves, but for some other mod-powers, it's a little less clear.

Okay, now on to some mafia:

Vote: Pooky.

Nothing like being able to completely disavow responsibility for your vote.

Cam

[mathcam]

Funny, I don't remember getting worked up about it. Maybe you could direct me to that post?

Cam

[mathcam]

if someones of a mind to cheat they're going to do it, all these "50%" agreement rules simply arent feasable. AS I was informed by our mod, we're all big people now, figure it out. We all know the rules of mafia by now, abide by them as much as common sense allows you too.
Its called mature mafia, lets act mature and tell the truth when dead. If you want to cheat go ahead you shall be ridiculed and headhunted post game.

We have already had an instance of people editing in-games posts. This is typically considered against the rules. Are you saying that you think this person acted against the rules of the game? Do you think they should be modkilled? Given a site warning?

Cam

[mathcam]

Wow, didn't realize I had 4 votes.

Macros' vote makes sense (he can), but I'm confused by the other 3. Phoebus votes me in a post where he describes how he thinks the scum likely to be responsible for editing zu's post is a non-native speaker -- I like to think of myself as rather proficient in the language.

Tally's vote is completely unexplained, and Pooky's vote was just an echo of Tally's -- to re-iterate, the fact that Pooky is contributing to a bandwagon without taking any of the responsibility for having to justify his vote is why I am currently voting for him.

If they're editing posts pell mell then they're cheating, if its somekind of role requirement then its not, common sense think is the key feature here. Emptyger expects us to possess a measure of it hence the "mature" mafia.

But I think it's a little naive to be like "Here's a game where all the rules are different! But you're expected to know the rules and follow them." For example, we all have mod powers and at least some of us have them worked in to our role. It's unclear the extent to which it's "legal" to edit posts, since typically one does not have useable mod powers in the middle of the game -- there's just no ethical frame of reference. My personal feeling is that whoever edited the post thought "Hey, I have mod powers, and since I'm scum, it behooves me to keep information hidden. I'll take away zu's role information," and not "Hey, I have mod powers, and no one will be able to catch me, so I'll deliberately break the rules of the game and edit someone else's post." I dislike the property of this game that I do not have a ruleset to use to distinguish between scummy actions and against-the-rules actions like this. Games need rules.

Cam

[mathcam]

Also, I think mathcam needs another vote at the moment. What are you afraid will happen without a normal mod? Just by playing on this forum we agree to play by the normal rules.

Do the normal rules include editing posts? Do you think that whoever chose to edit the first post is deliberately breaking our perceived rules of the game?

I think he is a townie who is worried about what the scum could do with the editing of posts while a good majority of us realize there is nothing we can do about it and choose to go on scum hunting. So I would say his priorities are a bit out of whack at the moment, but that hardly makes him scum.

I've suggested why I think Pooky is scummy and defended myself against attacks -- it's not like I'm ignoring the mafia aspect of it while I pursue the meta stuff. I just happen to be capable of doing two things at once.

Does no one else agree with my argument against Pooky?

Cam

[mathcam]

I hate playing with him because hes impossible to read.

This is exactly my point. He's impossible to read not because he's played fantastically, but rather because he's deliberately taken a voting stance in this game in which he does not have to explain his vote (or at least he thinks he doesn't).

Cam

[mathcam]

I'm confused. Maybe you could explain how that has anything to do with me being scum or not.

Cam

[mathcam]

My point is why are you resisting? There is nothing you can do about it other than to not play if you don't trust the players. It's like you're trying to act like townie scared the scum will abuse the setup. Abuse isn't very likely, and also impossible to stop.

I originally resisted because I was (and still am) a confused player of the game, regardless of my alignment. I suppose I had hoped that EmpTyger would come in with more information, though based on what people have said in his responses, I have since realized the futility of this wish. I have continued to discuss these topics because I have had to clarify and/or defend some of my points.

Cam's cries of fustration reek of Scumbag who can't believe he might be lynched for no good reason.(Well no good reason from his point of view)

You must have me mentally reading my posts in a much higher and more strained voice than I am writing them. I see no cries of frustration in anything I've written, nor do I see where I got all "worked up," as you mentioned before. Why do you insist on imposing emotional reactions that aren't actually there?

Cam, would you disagree with me when I say all random voting on Day one is equivalent to the Divestment of Responsbility i performed when I echoed Talitha's vote?

No. For one, there is no guarantee that a random vote is actually random, and I don't mean in the nitpicky sense that it's likely "arbitrary" or "pseudo-random." There is the possibility that the vote contains a hint from a cop with information, or an inadvertent scum-tell from a mafia. On the other hand, your approach is completely divest of any information.

In fact I would argue that I take MORE responsbility for my vote than a player who has divested through random voting due to the fact that I actively picked the player whom I was going to follow, whereas a random voter does not actively pick anything.

Your playful infatuation with Tally is well-known, so it's hardly like you made an in-game decision to "pick" her to follow -- if you had chosen to follow any other player in the game, this argument might possible carry some weight, but as it is, it does not.

I agree that Glork was just setting up DGB to fail, but since she obliged and gave reasons, I feel like I should probably respond to them. In brief:

DGB:
Reason 1 - I think it was early enough in a game with no posted rules for some rampant speculation. Even if not, why is this scummy?

Reason 2 - I can see how you can read that as scummy. My intent in that quote was more like "I'm going to have to hear a stronger argument against DGB before I'm convinced, but it would also be nice to hear what she has to say." Parsing it as "It would be great if someone else could really nail DGB" certainly comes off scummy, and since you can't know for sure that's not what I meant, I'll concede you this reason.

Reason 3 - This is not a reason. I agreed with Adel.

Reason 4 - Pooky-like or not, it does not make his actions non-scummy.

Reason 5 - Again, I disagree that my emotional state was any more elevated than in any other post, but I still maintain that at that time, there was extremely little behind any of my votes. Tally's was uncommented, Pooky's was an echo of Tally's, Macros' was a joke, and Phoebus' directly contradicted what he wrote in that post. The whole "for nothing" argument is for people who don't believe the arguments against them have any merit, not against people who literally have no argument against them.

Reason 6 - I'm still hung up on it because people keep talking to me about it, and my questions are still unanswered (not that other people likely have the answers, but because no one else seems interested in what to me is a fairly important question).

Reason 7 - Acts all innocent, or

is

all innocent?

[mathcam]

I am not lurking. I missed a single day of posting, and am one of the most active posters in this game.

FOS: Elvis

for that.

Pooky, it has happened several times this game that you have questioned or attacked me, I've submitted a response, and you've completely dropped that line of attack. Is that because you concede that the argument wasn't as strong as you thought? If so, why does that never seem to weigh against your conviction that I'm scum? If not, why do you drop them?

In any case, here's the most recent one:

OR...He is saying that if he were scum or if he were town he would be confused about this game. Which he couldn't know unless he knew there was nothing in the scum PMs to give some idea of the nature of the game we would be playing to the scum thus making them not as confused as the townies.

Which also hints strongly towards his scumitude.

No matter which side I'm on, I couldn't possibly know what the role PMs of the other side look like, and/or what information they've been given. Thus regardless of my alignment, I would have had to make a presumption on the other side's role PM. My claim was based on the (IMO) reasonable speculation that no side has been given more information on the rules of the game than the other.

On a related note, I'm very suspicious of Glork, raj, and DGB for pushing for a claim. In my role PM, there is a very clearly delineated difference between my alignment and my role. There's no doubt that I will claim pro-town as my alignment, and given that my role is presumably independent of my alignment, I'm not sure what there is to gain from that either. Not only is it therefore bad play to claim (unnecessarily giving away information), it's also scummy to push for a claim. It's also possible that the scum role/alignment structure is set up differently, and thus that scum didn't know how worthless it would be to push for a claim. Raj is the scummiest of those three, so he gets my vote.

Unvote: Pooky, vote: Raj.

If raj turns up scum, DGB and Glork are quite clearly going to become my next targets.

Cam

[mathcam]

You have just completely ignored my argument that it would be demonstrably foolish for me to claim. I would also refuse to self-lynch, not because I'm being obstinate, but because it's patently bad play.

If you can provide an even mildly reasonable counter-argument, I would be happy to claim.

Cam

[mathcam]

ah, this makes sense to me now. If the scum are cheating (editing posts, or whatever) then they effectivly lose their NK.

I'm confused. How so?

[mathcam]

I am not lurking. I missed a single day of posting, and am one of the most active posters in this game.

FOS: Elvis

for that.

Sort of funny how you posted a few hours after I called you a lurker.

If you accuse an active player of lurking, it's not surprising that their next post is relatively soon after that accusation.

I'm not voting you for asking cam to claim. I did that too, which he seems not to notice...

True enough. I only searched pages 7 and 8 for the word "claim."

I guess my theory that people asking me to claim are scum is pretty moot, based on the number of people who fall in that category. Let me ask you, elvis -- given that you seem to buy my argument about claiming, why would you ask me to claim in the first place?

As far as I know, he is not an alt, but an uninvited guest.

Personally, I suspect that there is more to it than that. Either he's a by-product of someone's role, or it's something like emp_tyger has asked him to post in the thread to test us. It's tough to know what to do here -- a "mature" player in the sense we've been interpreting it would PM mith and ask for SL to be given a warning or a banning for so blatantly breaking the rules of the forum. I'm reluctant to take this social experiment to a site-wide level, though.

so we shouldn't ever claim? or your just special enough not to?

I've made an argument as to why I should not claim in this situation, and don't presume to have made any sort of global generalization like you're implying in your first question. My argument had nothing to do with me in particular. But more to the point, this is not a counter-argument, for which I am still waiting.

Cam

[mathcam]

mathcam refuses to claim, I repeat, this is a MEGA scumtell.

Ah, I've found where you're confused. This sentence is false.

Being snarky aside (there it is, Pooky), I've repeatedly explained why it is bad play for me to claim in this situation. Why don't you explain what about my argument you find invalid, instead of repeating the same inane phrase over and over again.

Generally, Mathcam, you claim when you are in range. This is true whether or not the reasons people are giving for putting you in claim range are good or bad.

Not in split role-motive games. There is nothing in my role that could be used to determine if I was scum or not. It only gives away information to mafia about who they would like to kill if they would like to eliminate some mod power from the game. Why doesn't anyone else see this?

Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently where you're from, people don't claim when they get run up to Lynch-1.

And yes, we know that everyone has separate quotes for alignment and role. How does that make your claiming any less useful than in a traditional game, where there can be both protown and scum variants of pretty much every common role? Do you refuse to claim in regular games when you're about to be lynched?

Are you serious? The

whole point

(and I can't seem to emphasize this enough) of separating alignments from roles is to make the claiming of one's role significantly less important than it is in other games. In non-split games, of course one claims when one is at lynch-1.

As I have also already said, this is not a refusal to claim based on one of those obnoxious meta-"I never claim" rules. It is just clearly a bad play in this particular situation. Would someone

please

try to poke a hole in this argument?

Cam

[mathcam]

No.

No to what? No, you refuse to engage in reasonable discussion?

I don't believe Jathan is screwing with us because Emptyger told him to, or that Jathan is a by-product of a role. Seems far-fetched to me, and not fair considering the other stuff we have to deal with in this game.

It seems far more far-fetched to me than SL would post in a game he's not in, a game that happens to be ill-equipped to deal with such an interloper.

Cam

[mathcam]

mathcam, I'm looking really hard, I'm reading your post over and over, but I can't seem to find your claim.

Which post were you reading?

Don't you think it would be better to take a broader stance and examine all my posts not only for a claim, but also for remarkably compelling reasons why I shouldn't claim in the first place?

Honestly, DGB. I'm not going to make a demonstrably bad play just because you refuse to listen to -- nay, even consider listening to -- reason.

Cam

[mathcam]

Don't you think it would be better to take a broader stance and examine all my posts not only for a claim...

Oh, so there's a claim. Where is it?

No, there isn't, as you would know if you had actually read the posts as I had suggested. I just thought you'd benefit by reading my posts in an attempt to understand the intricacies of the game rather that doggedly pursuing a single strategy whose detriment has been clearly explained in those posts.

Someone needs to claim something.

For Pete's sake. Will someone

please

explain to me why? I just don't see what good Raj claiming would do for us, and I

can

see a detriment. If he reveals a mod power that it would be to scum's advantage to get rid of, then it obviously behooves us to keep it hidden. On the other hand, I doubt there's a mod power so vital to the continuing of the game that we wouldn't lynch someone we thought was scum just to hold on to that power.

Unless, of course, there's an affirmative answer to Tally's questions of whether we can re-assign mod powers.

Cam

[mathcam]

For Pete's sake. Will someone

please

explain to me why?

BECAUSE... you have been specially selected.

That's how day 1 goes. We find someone reasonably scummy (you) and that someone claims. We hear the claim, and we decided whether we should hammer or not.

Wow. I find it hard to explain how disugsting I find this attitude. Not even

considering

that different rules might call for a strategy other than "play every day 1 exactly the same way" makes me wonder how you can even enjoy the game of mafia.

And I wasn't asking why I was chosen -- if I'm the lynch for the day, I'm the lynch for the day. The question I'm asking is how you can counter my arguments that revealing roles is beneficial to the mafia and detrimental to the town.

I just don't see what good Raj claiming would do for us, and I

can

see a detriment.

Unbelievable. Of course, someone is going to claim something by the time this day is over. You think we can go a whole day 1 without anyone claiming?

We're playing mafia, not "stallfia" - claim please.

I'm beside myself with frustration here.

Why

should we make someone claim before the day is over? The answer to your question is yes, presuming that enough of the town comes to their senses and realizes that "bandwagon until lynch -1, force a claim, and then decide whether or not to hammer" is a strategy that quite ismply will not work in this game.

Stalling is saying that you're waiting for something to happen before you claim. I am therefore quite clearly not stalling.

Cam, do you honestly believe that this game is set up so that if players with mod responsibilities die, the game would become crippled or nonfunctional?
Do you expect that having a mod responsibility will make a player less likely to be lynched? More likely to be nightkilled (if town)?

Honestly, and apologies to Emp if I'm wrong, I doubt that much thought was put into the game. I suspect that any time Emp came up with a situation of the form "What should I have happen if X happens?", he self-responded with a "Well, this is mature mafia. I'll leave it up to them to figure it out on their own."

You forgot to mention that if Mathcam was really going to vote me for Disavowment of Responsbility, he should've done it when I first disavowed(aka when i promised to follow tally) and not way afterwards after I vote him.

I guess it's true that I notice/abhor crap play when it's targetted against me more than when it's targetted at a random player to be named later. This is perhaps not theoretically sound (I should care about all crap play equally much), but in practice I think this is rarely the case.

So wait, you are voting for Raj., but you don't want him to claim?

You just want him to be lynched?

I think it's too early to say I want him to be lynched. I want him to convince me why he shouldn't be lynched, or fail miserably in doing so, so that I can tell whether or not he is the right lynch. His role claim seems pretty irrelevant, and if he ends up not being lynched, I'd rather it remained secret, so no, I don't want him to claim.

Cam

[mathcam]

Mathcam: you are still missing/ignoring a rather fundamental point here. There is a deliniation between "Alignment" and "Role" in this game. You keep going on about how claiming "Role" won't tell anyone anything and might be harmful because the Mafia then might learn some valuable "Mod. Power" and try to eliminate that from the game - but you are completely ignoring what are traditionally the "Roles" of Mafia. You know, the ones that don't have anything to do with "Mod. Powers/Duties" but are plain old "Cop" "Doc" "Vanilla", etc.

Are you taking the position that these things are also useless and pointless to claim? That we cannot learn anything?

I'm not ignoring them. In fact, their existence only strengthens my argument. I've already claimed that I have a modpower, so my claim would look like

"I have the power to do X",

where X is some modpower, or

"I have the power to do X and the power to do Y"

where X is some modpower and Y is cop/doc/etc. If I were scum and didn't want to embroil myself in the difficulties of choosing a plausible Y, I would likely just choose the first option. (I'm assuming that there's no super-easy game-breaking strategy to the modpowers like that the town have them and the mafia don't, or any other such system. I'd guess everyone has one, but I don't know).

Sorry about the quote confusion, elvis.

As to this most recent attack, I'd claim that it's not very "mature", and only debatably ethical, to ask for a specific word in my role PM that is in place of "pro-town." That choice of words was deliberate. In fact, I feel rather dirty even just knowing that I know Pooky is pro-town right now, and likely Glork and elvis as well.

Cam

[mathcam]

The point of not quoting a PM is so that there is no PM-based test of alignment. Do you not think that by quoting this word, we will have successfully broken a substantial part of this game, since with good odds, we would have 4 out of 14 confirmed townies?

The number of words is irrelevant. That EmpTyger did not take the precaution of posting any information about pro-town PMs in the opening post means that it is upon us to be doubly careful about this kind of stuff.

Cam

[mathcam]

Food for thought:

There's a LOT of evidence that role-quoting breaks games, even in Normal setups and those Opens where the role PMs are not posted. Wording, syntax, even spelling errors can confirm people in ways scum could never predict, and that's not what Mafia is supposed to be about. It's not a completely arbitrary rule, but one made through necessity from literally years of experience. I actually think it simplifies the game, because you're not being distracted by Outguessing the Mod.

Back to my claim.

DGB (and/or others): Are you saying there are different modpowers for which my statement of

"My role is SUCHANDSUCHMODPOWER"

which would cause you to believe me scum or town, respectively? If not, why continue to push for a claim?

Cam

[mathcam]

If I were a cop, I wouldn't object to verifying the term "cop." People who are cops don't need to claim "investigatory role" so that they are not quoting their PM.

This is missing the point entirely. You would have no way of verifying the authenticity of my claim based on whether or not I called it "cop" or "investigatory role." In the current situation, however, you are attempting to verify my alignment by whether my role-specific information (specific lettering/wording in my role PM) matches your role-specific information, instead of by my in-game actions. This is not even debatably within the scope of the no mod-quoting PM, given that we have no specific instructions on how to deal with these scenarios.

DGB: Come, on. Answer my question.

Cam

[mathcam]

But, cam, how are we supposed to evaluate if you wrote "pro-town allignment" before because you were purposefully being general, or because you don't know what the correct term is?

You're supposed to evaluate me on the merits of my play, and not on out-of-game information like the specific wording of my role PM. That is what mafia is all about.

Adel: I'm confused as to why you're going to vote me now. Also, I think you're being unnecessarily harsh on elvis -- while I think we're in agreement here, I think the mod has given us more than ample wiggle room at least in terms of speculating how we should play the game.

How are we to proceed in a game where scum are cheating?

Answer: cheat the scum. Level the playing field. The price they have to pay for post editing is losing a member of their team through this allignment test.

Do we know they're cheating? Do we know that this isn't one of their abilities? Are we sure that scum did it? I'm glad we're finally at least acknowledging some of the points I tried to bring up earlier in the day.

[mathcam]

I think the argument is that we're catching scum by using a technique (comparing role PMs) that's essentially illegal.

Incidentally, I saw zu's post before it was edited.

Amusingly enough, I'm wondering if we shouldn't

all

claim our modpowers now. I know this is a pretty stark reversal from my previous stance, but it just seems as if the game literally cannot function without knowing who's in charge of what, and more to the point, what, if anything, emp is in charge of.

Cam

[mathcam]

I agree with the rajwagon.

Adel -- Unless I missed it, I was not at all mentioned in that last post, so I'm not sure how I got on the list. This seems to be in strong contrast to last Friday's

The mathcam wagon is a bullshit semi-random (probably fueled by scum) nonsense.

He shouldn't claim since he shouldn't be at lynch -1!

Someone please unvote him, soonest!

Otherwise, I guess he will have to claim, but it shouldn't come to that.

DGB will the "mafia firingsquad" thread as meta-cover is behind this, and I feel she is a much stronger lynch candidate than mathcam is.

It seems like such a drastic change of heart would merit at least one comment.

I would also like to point out to that it's Macros, not Marcos.

Claim:

I'm the replacer.

Cam

[mathcam]

We aren't cheating or playing outside the rules because we did not open that door, you did when you partially claimed.

You're seriously arguing that it's cheating to claim that you're pro-town?

[mathcam]

Ah, okay. I mis-parsed

We aren't cheating or playing outside the rules because we did not open that door, you did when you partially claimed.

You meant "You did open" and not "you did cheat." Still, there seems to be the implication that whoever opened the door was cheating or playing outside the rules. In any case, never mind.

Nonetheless, claiming pro-town is just about the most generic thing one can possibly do. I implicitly assume everyone is claiming pro-town all the time, and I think it's a stretch to even classify it as a "partial claim." There's also a significant difference between claiming pro-town and saying something like "My role PM says that I'm pro-town."

Cam

[mathcam]

That says NOTHING about your alignment.

I spent five pages trying to convince you of this exact fact.

Pooky: Those two things are the same except for tense.

Cam

[mathcam]

Ack. That was DGB, not Adel. I was so overcome with frustration at DGB that I lashed out at an innocent victim. My apologies.

Cam

[mathcam]

Just in case DGB doesn't believe me:

The whole point (and I can't seem to emphasize this enough) of separating alignments from roles is to make the claiming of one's role significantly less important than it is in other games.

There is nothing in my role that could be used to determine if I was scum or not.

DGB: If you were going to be so upset that my role didn't provided any information on my alignment, WHY OH WHY did you not stop pushing for it after I repeatedly explained this precise fact to you?

For my own sanity, I am

begging

you to answer this question.

Cam

[mathcam]

Alignment in terms of the overall game is the same as in the alignment section of the role PM. In this game, you are aligned with protown forces if and only if the alignment section of the role PM indicates that you are pro-town. They are the same.

Pssst. It's 'cause she's scum.

I've long since learned that I cannot tell the difference between a scum DGB driving me crazy and a town DGB crazy, primarily since by the time I realize what she's doing, I'm crazy and slowly becoming incapable of rational thought. In this case, I don't actually think that her pestering me is scummy, though the pushing for the role claim in the first place still strikes me as somewhat off.

Cam

[mathcam]

I think someone just deleted my last post.

I don't feel like retyping it, so the answers to your questions are no, no, and yes.

Cam

[mathcam]

I don't understand why mathcam took so long to claim if he was vanilla.

That's because you didn't actually read any of my posts. I explained it very clearly and repeatedly there. If you're

actually

curious, and not just pretending to be, I highly recommend them.

Are you really going to refuse to answer a question I begged you to answer? That's pretty harsh.

Cam - why did you decide to claim vanilla instead of making a credible fakeclaim?

Fakeclaims are pretty much always bad, regardless of their credibility.

Cam

[mathcam]

Am I the only one depressed by this lenghty annoying day?

No you're not, but mathcam still being alive depresses me more.

Given your refusal to listen to reason, I think you're actually more depressed at your inability to get me lynched than about the fact that I'm not actually dead.

I think we should reveal the rest of the modpowers -- if nothing else, it will aid in the ethical decision making process.

Cam

[mathcam]

A much more expeditious use of the free firing squad would be to finish off raj.

Cam

[mathcam]

By vanilla, you mean no mod-powers, right?

My understanding is that we're only claiming modpowers at the current time, my "full vanilla" claim being an exception since there was so much pressure for me to claim.

Cam

[mathcam]

So you

do

read my posts? Interesting.

Cam

[mathcam]

Unvote: raj, vote: Phoebus.

Cam

[mathcam]

hey cam

what made you think this was a vanilla only setup in terms of our( non moderator actions?

Thanks-
Pooks

I don't remember saying I did. I

did

make some assumptions about roles which turned out to be incorrect, but that wasn't one of them.

Cam

[mathcam]

It seems to imply that there would be no information gleened from the alignment section of your role pm, which could only be true if all alignment PMs were the same and thus offered no information, which could only be true if you assumed this was a vanilla only setup.

To me (and I think most people), "vanilla only" is a reference to roles, not alignments. I do suspect that all alignment PMs are essentially the same -- they all either say you're pro-town or scum (possibly with a distinction between mafia and an SK).

I mean this much less snarky than it comes off, but is this your first split alignment/motive game?

Cam

[mathcam]

So you think it was possible the alignment pm said something like "You're a cop"?

There's some confusion somewhere. I specifically said

I do suspect that all alignment PMs are essentially the same -- they all either say you're pro-town or scum (possibly with a distinction between mafia and an SK).

Being or not being a cop was not one of those options, and nor would such a statement belong in the alignment part of the PM. That's role information.

Cam

[mathcam]

Unvote, Vote: Macros.

Cam

[mathcam]

Is anyone in charge of ending the day? Or do we think it's up to the lynchee? Or is emp going to do something?

Cam

[mathcam]

Ah, right. Reading is tech. (<-- my first use of the word "tech" in this fashion. Woo for me.)

Cam

[mathcam]

I still don't understand what that jab is.

Cam

[mathcam]

FOS: Adel.

That unvote was clearly OMGUS.

Cam

[mathcam]

Am I the ONLY person who signed on for this thinking emptyger expected us to have fun with it

That's actually a good point. There's an extent to which we as game-players should have the maturity to enjoy and play the game

despite

the lack of rules. That was definitely not my take on things. Hm.

In any case, let's finish off my circle of voting and unvoting with an

Unvote, Vote: Raj.

Cam

[mathcam]

Given his last post and the lack of vote counts, I'm tempted to replace Coron. Any objections?

Cam

[mathcam]

Heh, the rajlynch is pretty funny.

Coron -- You're last vote count puts you in the clear for now, but I don't think it counts as "being around" with one post in a week which was a response to a prod which contained absolutely no information.

Cam

[mathcam]

I was a townsperson, a replacer
I am Dead