Gah! What kind of smart-alec would make me King on Day One in this game?! Seriously: not only is that cruel and unusual punishment for
me
, but it's cruel and unusual punishment for the
town
.
In any case! I will do my best to be a good King. So let's catch us some scum.
First, though, I guess I get to (or have to) "direct" discussion here a little bit, and as it happens, there were a few things I say ought to be discussed. I would like input from everybody: even if you share an opinion with somebody else,
do not
simply quote them: I want to see your own thoughts in your own words.
Discussion Topic #1
:
Mert wrote:Talking of discussion, are people happy with the "List of Execution" system that was used in the last game?
That's a
really
weird thing for me to think about, actually, since I was scum in the original Kingmaker game. The fact is, I spent pretty much an entire day trying to think of a system so that scum could manipulate the voting to
some
degree, while trying to present such an idea so that it would sound pro-town. And that system was the best idea I could think up.
The system itself, I came to realize, is a double-edged sword. It influences the potential of manipulation by scum, yes, but it
also
allows the town to have more influence on the King's choice of execution, which should (theoretically) keep the town's interest level in the game. Nevertheless, I have yet to think of a
better
system, so go figure.
I agree with Thok's comment that the town should not be able to
force
a King's execution choice. If a King strays from public opinion, they had better have a good reason for doing so (since doing such a thing would guarantee that that King would be looked at with a careful eye immediately afterwards). I only pushed that agenda last game because I happened to be scum, so I wanted to be sure that in the case the scum could secure a majority (or a fixed percentage of votes) on a townie, we could force the King to execute them. I frankly will not listen to arguments in favor of such a policy, because I flat out disagree with it.
In all reality, I think every King will simply act as they see fit, but I will restrain myself to a few principles:
1.) I will be using a List of Execution (LoE)
2.) I will only execute persons while they are on my LoE, and I will give them 48 hours notice if I am planning on Executing them, from which time they may make final pleas, and the town (obviously) should chip in their opinion.
3.) A person may be added to the LoE in two ways:
--> A.) My own discretion
--> B.) If somebody reaches a majority of votes (which should encourage people to vote!)
4.) A person may be dropped from the LoE in only one way, which is my own discretion. If the town disagrees with one of my choices for the List, then they are probably not seeing the same case as I am, and should either convince me to change my opinion or deal with it.
5.) I will be voting people in addition to adding people to the LoE. Simply because I think somebody is suspicious doesn't mean I will put them automatically on the List, since I still like being able to use my vote to poke at people.
Discussion Topic(s) #2A-D
:
Although it shouldn't be very much of an issue this game, here are some things I don't want to see if you can avoid them (I'm grouping them as one topic for efficiency's sake):
A.) "I do not agree with the choice for King"; or "I heartily agree with the choice for King"; or "given the choice for King, I think it is more/less likely that the Kingmaker is X". Believe it or not, when I was scum last game, this helped me narrow down the Kingmaker down to a very short list of people. I might as well make things hard for scum this game, since I at least know what they'll probably be looking for come night-time. Don't give scum information to work with if you can help it.
B.) Putting somebody on the LoE does not mean I am going to automatically execute you: what it
means
is that I (or the town) find you suspicious, so you need to
defend
yourself, or that you are suspicious despite an attempt at defense. DO NOT claim prematurely. If you need to claim anything (at least for today), I will be the first person to tell you to do so with my 48-hour rule.
C.) "I don't need to vote because my vote doesn't matter anyways." I
hate
this. Hate, hate, hate. Why would you sign up for a game if you aren't going to
play
? Votes are an essential tool in scum-hunting: refusing to use that tool is
not
helping the town. I want everybody participating and voting, no questions asked.
D.) There is a point when I stop listening to people's suspicions if they have their vote on
too many
people, because this makes it difficult for me to assess who somebody is most/actually suspicious of. Try to keep your collective number of votes at any one time to around four or less (possibly five, but all five of your votes in that situation should be fairly serious).
Discussion Topic #3
:
Thok wrote:Is it worthwhile to speculate on the size of the scum group?
This doesn't need as much discussion, but I don't think there's any harm. We had 19 players in the original game with 5 scum, and this game we have 24 players. The original game had a few power roles (2 confirmed innocent Masons, 2 Cops), where as this game we have none (although we
may
have a Hero this game). I would speculate on a 5-6 person scum-group. The lack of the confirmable roles (excepting for the Hero, and a Kingmaker claim) makes it
possible
we're dealing with a 5 person scum group, but I would rather err on the side of caution and simply assume this game has 6 scum.
*****
My very early suspicions (not in order of scumminess, just as they occur to me):
1.) Bird1111. He voted Glork for voting me (took it as a joke), but then unvoted Glork to vote for Pablito for protecting Glork, and then upon realizing he had multiple votes, voted Glork again (which makes me believe the vote was not really a joke to start with). I just don't really like the progression of these votes, I guess, hard to be more concrete right now.
2.) Pablito. Obvious reasons: protecting Glork without a game-based reason to do so, but simply on a meta-game based reason. I really dislike putting trust into people for no discernable reason other than "they're a good player", especially since good players can be scum, too. You can trust I would not execute Glork without a
really
good reason to do so, so being overly protective of him only make me think he is trying to be buddy-buddy (which, if true, has backfired already, hehe).
However, I
have
seen quite a few pro-town players who hold and advocate such philosophies (I believe I have said similar things in other games, although I am not recalling off-hand if I have tendency to say them as town or as scum), so although I think it is noteworthy, it is not necessarily voteworthy.
3.) I'm getting a slight ping from MBL. I don't care if he is still advocating his stupid "I'll purposely look a little scummy so I don't get night-killed" strategy, because it really doesn't help him or the town. Glork already hit my thoughts: MBL is essentially making it easier for scum to possibly narrow down potential Kingmakers. Even if his remarks are innocent, it is more than easy to have somebody respond to such statements, and accidentally let slip they are less or more likely to be the Kingmaker.
4.) Vaughn, for
Post 31, which not only buddies with Glork, but sets himself up for randomly jumping on bandwagons in the near future.
Vote: Bird111, MrBuddyLee, Vaughn
.