433: Dry, bland, generic mafia: Game Over

[Southpaw]

Yeah, i mean come on, if a 2-vote never got put on someone nothing would ever happen. and wouldn't THAT be fun!

(in a 7 player game it wouldn't be overly suspicious imo, maybe a bit, but how else is anyone going to get reactions and etc.)

Agreed. In fact,

Unvote
Vote Southpaw

just to get some darn discussion going.

Good idea, though it looks like you might be confused as to which player should be used as the guinea pig

[Dasquian]

Well, what's (or who's ) the alternative? Shameless and unrepentent bandwagon-jump, for a fourth vote:

Unvote, vote: Southpaw

.

[The Fonz]

I take it you feel fourth votes are fairly harmless, then, Dasquian.

[Dasquian]

Harmless, no, but slow and safe won't advance the game, or give us anything to talk about either. I'd rather shamelessly bandwagon up some action than wait for someone else to.

And he's still a good three votes off a lynch, it's hardly the hammer vote...

[Dodgy]

Listen you lot, you don't need to bandwagon a player at this stage, that has shown no scum tells unless you feel them an easy target to take out without looking to suspicious, unfortunately, i'm kinda long in the the tooth when it comes to this game and you only put suspicion on yourselves for acting so flippentyl/foolishly.
Now lets really get this game in motion.

FOS: Dasquian

and

The Fonz

You two so need an

FOS

to either expose your complete indiscretion or foolishness at putting someone that may be town at such a risk!

[Sweenytodd]

I have to agree with Dodgy on this one, while promoting discussion at this point is what we need to do, liberal use of the

FOS

would be my preference to willy-nilly bandwagonning, especially to put someone halfway to lynch before we have had any kind of discussion at all seems reckless. Though I see him in no danger I am also going to remove my random vote

Unvote: Superstring91

until we have more discussion.

[Dodgy]

Ditto. Discussion has begun so

Unvote

.

[kilmenator]

Wow, a wagon to 4 already? It is unlikey that a hammer will happen this early, but still...

[pete d]

Sure discussion is good, but you have to have something to actually discuss. So far, all we've had is random voting + one or two randomish wagons that will no doubt fall apart soon. Dasquain's 4th vote might seem a little suspicious, but seriously, where is the Southpaw wagon going to go?

[superstring91]

im not a huge fan of the wagon to 4
there are probably 3 scum, and if none have voted southpaw, would get a good quicklynch. i highly doubt that wagon will go anywhere, because giving up a scums position for the sake of an early lynch is flat out stupid

[pete d]

ummm... you're still voting for Southpaw yourself...

[Southpaw]

i highly doubt that wagon will go anywhere, because giving up a scums position for the sake of an early lynch is flat out stupid

Agreed. If the mafia all voted so quickly that it would get me lynched before anyone else could unvote, they would be giving up who they were for no real purpose.

Anyways, looks like we can actually start playing

Unvote

[Sweenytodd]

Well guys, I just did a brief re-read (pretty brief in an early game like this...) and the only thing that stuck out as worth mentioning was that 4th vote by Dasquian, a little too eager and a little to early to be throwing votes around with nothing to go on. That and Thorgot and Gorckat have only made one post each, I know its too early to be calling people for lurking but I'd like to hear from them = ). Thats that.... Discussion may commence.

[pete d]

well, I just did a search on thorgot, he's posting in other games, so i find it a bit suspicious that he hasn't unvoted Southpaw or anything since his first random vote despite the early wagon that's formed. I guess that's worth a

FoS: thorgot

may as well

unvote

my random vote seeing as we are "discussing" now (oooh serious)

[The Fonz]

Sure discussion is good, but you have to have something to actually discuss. So far, all we've had is random voting + one or two randomish wagons that will no doubt fall apart soon. Dasquain's 4th vote might seem a little suspicious, but seriously, where is the Southpaw wagon going to go?

Nowhere in particular. But Dodgy's complete overreaction was exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for when placing my third vote. I can't speak for Dasquian, as I probably wouldn't have placed that vote.

Plus, Dasquian's quickly following-on with the fourth vote allows us to have the mini equivalent of the 'second vote debate' in newbies.

Unvote

Vote: Dodgy

[Dasquian]

I'm a relative newbie to this site, not having played many games here recently - what is the "second vote debate" exactly (I know what the seven-player newbie setup is)?

My current feeling is that, actually, with Eletriar getting a little edgy when Southpaw went to two votes, and Dodgy doing similar when he went to four, there might be something in what was essentially a completely random bandwagon. Too early to say with any level of confidence, but worth noting.

[dom:inc]

i too would like to know what the "second vote debate is". All i could think it might be is that scum would try not to be first vote nor hammer making them try be second vote in a 7 player nub game.

Meanwhile i'm gonna jump on the unvote bandwagon and

unvote: The Fonz

... eehhhhhh 8)

[The Fonz]

I have to agree with Dodgy on this one, while promoting discussion at this point is what we need to do, liberal use of the

FOS

would be my preference to willy-nilly bandwagonning, especially to put someone halfway to lynch before we have had any kind of discussion at all seems reckless. Though I see him in no danger I am also going to remove my random vote

Unvote: Superstring91

until we have more discussion.

Strongly disagree. If there is no danger, then where is the harm in 'willy-nilly bandwagonning?' People don't tend to overreact to FOS in the same way, so they're less useful. Besides, what use would a basically random FOS be?

By voting Southpaw, I got to see if the prospect of an unsubstantiated bandwagon caused him to panic (it didn't, his response was pretty good) or if someone else jumped in with an overreaction to a safe vote (which Dodgy did).

I'm a relative newbie to this site, not having played many games here recently - what is the "second vote debate" exactly (I know what the seven-player newbie setup is)?

My current feeling is that, actually, with Eletriar getting a little edgy when Southpaw went to two votes, and Dodgy doing similar when he went to four, there might be something in what was essentially a completely random bandwagon. Too early to say with any level of confidence, but worth noting.

The second vote debate in newbie games is when someone, usually a newbie, suggests that placing a second vote on someone early is scummy. Now, this isn't the case, as has most ably been demonstrated by our mod- but in explaining this to the person in question, you can find out whether they're just newbish, for some strange reason genuinely convinced that lynch-2 is scummy, or opportunistic scum.

Hence my asking you whether you believed lynch -3 in a 12-man was safe or not, as I'm inclined to believe it is, but without the certainty I attach to lynch -4, which I'm certain is safe. The fact that you weren't sure, but suggested that it was necessary to advance the game, gives us the following avenue for discussion:

1. Why did you place a vote you weren't sure was safe?
2. Why did you think that the third vote was insufficient, and therefore a fourth one needed to advance the game?

[Dasquian]

1. Well, it's only "unsafe" in so far as the mafia could, technically, drop the hammer

if

there are three mafia

and

none of them are already voting

and

they synchronise enough to do it

and

they all think it's worthwhile to get their day 1 lynch in such an obvious fashion. So although technically there's a risk, I don't rate it.

However, you asked if I thought it was harmless, which I don't - 4 votes is something Southpaw would have to respond to, whereas 3 votes might be shrugged off (and, in fact, was being shrugged off). I knew my vote wasn't trivial and would require a slightly more serious response, this was intentional.

2. I didn't think it was insufficient, nor that a fourth vote was "needed". That said, I did think four votes would stoke more discussion than three without being excessively dangerous, mostly due to the reasons in the paragraph above.

[gorckat]

unvote

I'm not too put off by a 4th vote. I don't think it is as dangerous as 2 votes in a C9 because there's a lot more to go wrong to allow the hammer and I don't think we have that many new players in this game (without checking all the join dates).

[Sweenytodd]

Strongly disagree. If there is no danger, then where is the harm in 'willy-nilly bandwagonning?' People don't tend to overreact to FOS in the same way, so they're less useful. Besides, what use would a basically random FOS be?

Here is what I meant... It is day 1 page 2... I understand we don't have much to go on at the moment but I have seen many times when a careless early bandwagon got out of control and the scum were able to mislynch and cover it up the next day... I have seen this from experienced players and inexperienced players so all I was saying is that we need to moderate the bandwagons and not let them get too big unintentionally. There is also a distinction between "random" FOS's and what I said "liberal" FOS's. A random FOS is picking a name out of the hat to FOS, whil Liberal use of FOS would entail placing lots of FOS's to get names in the mix while not actually putting someone in danger of being lynched accidentally by voting them. That said I would like to

FOS: The Fonz

for mis-representing my position.

[The Fonz]

That's crap. I haven't misrepresented you at all. My vote on Southpaw was essentially random, in that it had nothing at all to do with his behaviour (not random, in the sense that he had to have two votes on him in order for me to place it- but I'd have placed it on anyone with two votes at that point). Therefore, the alternative you suggested to my random vote was a random FOS. Which wouldn't have helped the town at all, see above for why.

[Sweenytodd]

That's crap. I haven't misrepresented you at all. My vote on Southpaw was essentially random, in that it had nothing at all to do with his behaviour (not random, in the sense that he had to have two votes on him in order for me to place it- but I'd have placed it on anyone with two votes at that point). Therefore, the alternative you suggested to my random vote was a random FOS. Which wouldn't have helped the town at all, see above for why.

Though I wouldn't say it is "crap", I said nothing about "random" (which, i'm sure you mean't arbitrary or something else since we can agree it had nothing to do with randomness) voting or FOS'ing. A controlled bandwagon is not a problem, but I wanted my opinion out there to ensure that it would not get out of control. I actually don't have a problem with your vote, my issue is you taking my post which urged caution more at Dasqian than yourself and saying I was advocating "random" FOS's when I did nothing of the sort. I have said that a FOS used liberally can spark discussion in a much easier to control manner than a vote. You see this discussion you and I are having? It arose from my FOS, and though I didn't mind your vote, you do seem rather defensive about it.

[The Fonz]

*Sighs* I was indifferent between placing a third vote on superstring or southpaw. It had nothing to do with the actions of either, and was therefore random. I could have achieved what I aimed for by voting either one.

Because my vote was random, and you suggested I ought to FOS rather than vote (a position I refute entirely), and because no-one had actually said anything noteworthy at that point, any such FOSing would indeed have been random. See Dasquian describing the votes on Southpaw as 'an essentially random bandwagon.'

[The Fonz]

unvote

I'm not too put off by a 4th vote. I don't think it is as dangerous as 2 votes in a C9 because there's a lot more to go wrong to allow the hammer and I don't think we have that many new players in this game (without checking all the join dates).

A second vote in a C9 is not dangerous at all.