Crysnia wrote: Does anyone know what the current vote count is?
I have a vote-count at the top of each page, by editing a votecount in at the bottom of the the top-most post in red text . If need be, you can request one at any time, however.
Edit: Just by coincidence that was the last post of page three, so here is the votecount for page 4.
I'm not too keen on policy lynches for policy lynching sake in Newbie games, with 9 players, barring successful doc saves, it's lylo with 2 mislynches - and more often than not you've got a bigger proportion of newbtowns who don't know how to avoid scummy pitfalls than 2/9.
Right now I'm not a fan of the Mastin wagon, it's indeed always dangerous to underestimate a newbie player's awkwardness/cunning, but my read on him is newbtown atm. I'll note here that I would be half so lenient if this wasn't a newbie game. Meantime, I suggest everyone look up common logical fallacies and especially WIFOM so we can avoid that in the future.
Also, Mastin, do you have anything to say about the game and who you would like to lynch?
@mrfixij, do you have any suspect beside Mastin?
@Panamon, can you point out what you mean by 'scummy vibe' concerning Mastin's post?
@Schez, the way I understood it, the deleted exchange was your explanation for why you are apparently acting differently from the game Panamon cited - you brought up the rule breaking content, not the other way round. Here, I'm not asking about the content the mod already deleted, but I do question the alignment of a person who is willing to break the rule for the purpose of justifying themselves. You see, it fit under the 'trying too hard' category in my books.
Panamon came in pointed the finger at Mastin. Voted for Mastin after it was pointed out that it was suspicious that he pointed the finger but didn't vote. I don't think he's posted much since. My suspicion still stays with Panamon.
@springlullaby: I was acting differently because the circumstances were different. I only discussed it because mrfixj expressed explicit interest in hearing my response (post 30), and I'll note that until that point, the discussion of other ongoing games was not prohibited by volkan (post 34). Not only was the content not "rule-breaking," but both Panamon (post 29) and mrfixj brought it up first. If it's "trying too hard" to answer a question raised by two other players, then I am guilty. Get your facts straight, especially if you're going to be wrinkling your nose at other peoples' lack of commitment.
Now, I did ask you a question in post 52. Would you care to answer it? Or have you retracted your original reason for suspicion in favour of this new line of reasoning?
I'm on a computer at my buddy's dorm right now, and I don't like typing on here. I'll get back to you later tonight when I get home with my suspects and reasons for them. Right now, we need more activity and info from everyone. I would like to encourage everyone to step into this topic more frequently in your excursions on the internet and just offer some input and catch up on reading.
springlullaby wrote:I'm not too keen on policy lynches for policy lynching sake in Newbie games, with 9 players, barring successful doc saves, it's lylo with 2 mislynches - and more often than not you've got a bigger proportion of newbtowns who don't know how to avoid scummy pitfalls than 2/9.
I'm probably just being dense, but do you care to ellaborate more on how that applies here directly?
I have, in real life, both moderating and playing, in a couple dozen games with 12 - 20 players usually. The setups are usually simple with two - three mafia, one - two cops and one doctor. Obviously, strategies are much different.
amongst the first time players.. who has played this game elsewhere in other forms?
I've only read a half dozen games here (you know, Newbies 680-687 and any others catching my eye), and the one game run by Dawn of Shadows on The Battleon Forums in the Unofficial Contests and Games section. This is my first time playing, though.
Mastin, do you have anything to say about the game and who you would like to lynch?
There's not really anything to say. I've read nothing new to significantly change my opinion. The only one who I was suspicious of (mrfixij) has defended fairly well. If I were to vote, it'd be an EXTREME case of the OMGUS against mrfixij.
If I do change my mind, then I will post something. But until then, I really have nothing to say of any interest.
I'm back! Well, kind-of.
No Access on Weekends
. :/
Advid reader/contributor to MD, as I'm far better in theory than I am in reality. :P
Just a note, I will not be available for about 12 hours on Oct. 18. Depending on my state, I may take the entire day off mafiascum, I'm going to an engineering conference.
Also answer to 'e, it, scumbag, 'ey you!, and his royal towniness.
First, Panamon votes for Scheherazade because of her actions in another game. Even if it wasn't against the rules, it's still a dirty tactic. It's going to affect how Scheherazade plays both games, draws from information that the rest of us are not privy to as well as giving those who are playing both games an advantage over those just playing the other game. No matter how you slice it, it's a low blow. And while it could go either way, I'm slightly more inclined to think that scum are more likely to stir up the sort of chaos that such an action would cause.
Eventually, that gets straightened up, but in the same post that he gives his mea culpa, Panamon slaps his vote on Mastin for no other reason than because he got a "scummy vibe." I can understand if we were just random voting, but Mastin already had two votes on him. My vote was placed as a semi-prod, mrfixij's because of reasons he explicitly stated. So Panamon puts Mastin at L-2 in a game with
exactly
two scum members . . . because of a "scummy vibe"?
L-2 is not the sort of vote you throw down on a whim. Either you're convinced that Mastin is scum (which it doesn't sound like you are) or you're bandwagoning.
The moment you've all been waiting for apparantly: my current thoughts on players.
Vollkan: Definitely scum. He knows way too much.
Panamon: a little suspicious. This early in the game, before I have a feel for everyone, he's high on my scumlist. Considering how little evidence I have though, that means about as much as getting points on Whose Line is it Anyway?
Schez: Decent player. If he's scum, it's going to be hard to get a read on him.
WC: My gut says slightly scummy. Something about 41 feels off, although I'm sure you could call it OMGUS from his vote on me.
Mastin: Backwards logic. Bad starting strategy. I'm thinking newb town, although likely to be scum to. Consider him level with Pana on scumdar.
Spring: Solid player, glad to have as an IC. Not enough info to scumread one way or the other.
Moses: I like his play style. Something seems funny about him though. Between Schez and WC on scumdar.
Crysnia: I need more content. I cannot get a read yet.
Orange: Unsure, but I'm glad to have him as an IC.
Also answer to 'e, it, scumbag, 'ey you!, and his royal towniness.
@mrfixij: I don't see what feels off about post 41, would you care to expand?
I'm also not sure I understand what you mean when you talk about Moses le fou: what about his play style do you like and what are your feelings about his scumminess exactly (I'm not quite sure still where weatheredclown and I appear on your radar)?
@Mastin: What is the plan you mentioned at the beginning?
@springlullaby: When it's convenient, I'd still like an answer to post 52.
@Moses le fou: Not that I disagree with your post, I'd like to point out that putting someone at L-2 on day one isn't all terrible. The risk of mislynch is high, but it'll be extremely suspicious if both scum jump on that bandwagon after it's hit L-2. I think it's scummy because it seems like he had poor reasons, but the scum would have to shoot themselves in the foot in order to quick lynch on L-2.
@weatheredclown: I think springlullaby is responding to mrfixij's claim that lynching Mastin, even if he's town, would be a good move because it eliminates a player who's counter-productive. We've only got three strikes, and "more often than not you've got a bigger proportion of newbtowns who don't know how to avoid scummy pitfalls than 2/9" so we could strike out by simply lynching newbs.
Schehera: You're right around neutral on my scumdar. WC is a little bit on the scummy side of neutral.
Post 41 seems to be trying to defend Mastin without making it clear that he's being defended. It's a quintessential passive-aggressive behavior. Not to say that he's hands down scum, but I'm always more suspicious of a player who chooses to defend rather than fire suspicion, ESPECIALLY early in a game.
Also answer to 'e, it, scumbag, 'ey you!, and his royal towniness.
At first I defended mastin just to play devil's advocate.. but I think that he's done a better job of defending himself now so I'm not as completely convinced of his guilt..
I think I agree on the good scum -> bad scum -> bad town -> good town scale as being the ideal...
But of couse the good scum the hardest to identify and leads people to go for the people on the bad scum/bad town border...
That's a slippery slop though in a newbie game since there could be mostly bad town here..
[url=http://www.happyworldland.org]Are you happy?[/url]
Ah, weird, I could've sworn I posted here yesterday. Guess not.
Well, anyways, other than the countless lists of people's opinion on people, there was nothing really to comment on.
WC, I was playing Devil's Advocate, sort of, too, in a way, for Mastin. I am still not really sure whether he is newbtown or scum. (well, obviously he is a newbie, so irrel)
Ah, weird, I could've sworn I posted here yesterday. Guess not.
Well, anyways, other than the countless lists of people's opinion on people, there was nothing really to comment on.
WC, I was playing Devil's Advocate, sort of, too, in a way, for Mastin. I am still not really sure whether he is newbtown or scum. (well, obviously he is a newbie, so irrel)
Scheherazade wrote:@springlullaby: I was acting differently because the circumstances were different. I only discussed it because mrfixj expressed explicit interest in hearing my response (post 30), and I'll note that until that point, the discussion of other ongoing games was not prohibited by volkan (post 34). Not only was the content not "rule-breaking," but both Panamon (post 29) and mrfixj brought it up first. If it's "trying too hard" to answer a question raised by two other players, then I am guilty. Get your facts straight, especially if you're going to be wrinkling your nose at other peoples' lack of commitment.
I don't see what my saying that Mastin not wanting to play after signing up doesn't make sense has anything to do with it, but my point is that the deleted content, and I surmised the rule breaking content, was posted by you. Even if people asked, it was your choice to break the rule, or not to.
You see, the only times I was ever tempted to toe the line were when I was scum.
You saying that it wasn't in the rule is an interesting point. From what I have seen of you, in this and another game I'm in with you, and what you said yourself, I think you are a pretty decent player. But as such, I'm not sure I want to give you as much room as someone I perceive as totally new to this and I'm thinking that you couldn't have missed the fact that revealing critical informations from another game is bad form, wether it is explicitly stated in the rules or not.
What do you think?
Now, I did ask you a question in post 52. Would you care to answer it? Or have you retracted your original reason for suspicion in favour of this new line of reasoning?
It isn't a new line of reasoning, your first analysis post was IMO very neutral about everything, I always suspect players who post when they make a type a lot of word to say nothing much, because it tells me that they really want to look town. That and the way you brought the mod deleted content in fits in the same category I think.
Note here that I don't think 'trying too hard' is a damning scumtell, but enough to be going on with atm.
As for your questions, I thought they were rhetorical, but I'll answer since it doesn't seem to be the case afterall.
Scheherazade wrote:
@springlullaby:
As to your lack of content observation, I may have to appeal to you here as an IC. I summarised information posted so far and gave as much of my interpretation as I feel comfortable discussing. In it, I flagged those I thought need to post a defence. I raised questions I had. Did you want me to try to provide motives? What if I accidentally provided a defence for scum that wasn't already there?
No, you have missed my point, I'm not asking you to provide motive, I'm saying that posting to express mixed feeling on pretty much everyone is kinda pointless. See above.
It had content enough to make mrfixij and weathered clown warn me against showing my hand. Assuming theirs weren't general warnings, and not implicit confirmations that I had content, what is it that they and I have missed? Content vs. fluff?
Oh but you see, in a way I'm agreeing with mrfixij and weathered clown. When I say that your post doesn't have much content, it means not much content that is useful to the town. From a town perspective there is not much point in posting what you think of everyone - especially when it is not much and not asked of you expressively - so early, because it make reactive game from scum easier, but from a scum perspective, it shows that you've done your homework. What do you think?
Scheherazade wrote:@springlullaby: I was acting differently because the circumstances were different. I only discussed it because mrfixj expressed explicit interest in hearing my response (post 30), and I'll note that until that point, the discussion of other ongoing games was not prohibited by volkan (post 34). Not only was the content not "rule-breaking," but both Panamon (post 29) and mrfixj brought it up first. If it's "trying too hard" to answer a question raised by two other players, then I am guilty. Get your facts straight, especially if you're going to be wrinkling your nose at other peoples' lack of commitment.
I don't see what my saying that Mastin not wanting to play after signing up doesn't make sense has anything to do with it, but my point is that the deleted content, and I surmised the rule breaking content, was posted by you. Even if people asked, it was your choice to break the rule, or not to.
You see, the only times I was ever tempted to toe the line were when I was scum.
You saying that it wasn't in the rule is an interesting point. From what I have seen of you, in this and another game I'm in with you, and what you said yourself, I think you are a pretty decent player. But as such, I'm not sure I want to give you as much room as someone I perceive as totally new to this and I'm thinking that you couldn't have missed the fact that revealing critical informations from another game is bad form, wether it is explicitly stated in the rules or not.
What do you think?
Now, I did ask you a question in post 52. Would you care to answer it? Or have you retracted your original reason for suspicion in favour of this new line of reasoning?
It isn't a new line of reasoning, your first analysis post was IMO very neutral about everything, I always suspect players who post when they make a type a lot of word to say nothing much, because it tells me that they really want to look town. That and the way you brought the mod deleted content in fits in the same category I think.
Note here that I don't think 'trying too hard' is a damning scumtell, but enough to be going on with atm.
As for your questions, I thought they were rhetorical, but I'll answer since it doesn't seem to be the case afterall.
Scheherazade wrote:
@springlullaby:
As to your lack of content observation, I may have to appeal to you here as an IC. I summarised information posted so far and gave as much of my interpretation as I feel comfortable discussing. In it, I flagged those I thought need to post a defence. I raised questions I had. Did you want me to try to provide motives? What if I accidentally provided a defence for scum that wasn't already there?
No, you have missed my point, I'm not asking you to provide motive, I'm saying that posting to express mixed feeling on pretty much everyone is kinda pointless. See above.
It had content enough to make mrfixij and weathered clown warn me against showing my hand. Assuming theirs weren't general warnings, and not implicit confirmations that I had content, what is it that they and I have missed? Content vs. fluff?
Oh but you see, in a way I'm agreeing with mrfixij and weathered clown. When I say that your post doesn't have much content, it means not much content that is useful to the town. From a town perspective there is not much point in posting what you think of everyone - especially when it is not much and not asked of you expressively - so early, because it make reactive game from scum easier, but from a scum perspective, it shows that you've done your homework. What do you think?
I just noticed, post 87 is rather scummy. I gave my opinion on everyone so far based on request. I gave a brief synopsis with relatively little info on each player, but enough for reference if I need to come back later in the game. However, Schehera wanted me to clarify where he and WC are on his scumdar. That screams scum to me, as if he's new to the game and wants to know how he and his scum-buddy are doing.
unvote: mastin
vote: scheherazade
Possible pairing between Schehera and WC for future reference. Policy lynching is one thing, lynching for such an elementary slip-up is another entirely.
Also answer to 'e, it, scumbag, 'ey you!, and his royal towniness.
@springlullaby : With respect to the deleted content, I weighed two things. First, I considered whether or not it was allowed. Second, I considered its impact on the game.
I checked the rules to see if it was allowed. There were no rules against it and at the time I couldn’t think of a reason why it would break the game to mention other games. After all, meta-gaming arguments seem used often enough. Volkan explained to me after the fact how the discussion of ongoing games here could seriously affect the way the games are played. I see what I had missed. I missed it, though, not because I thought that I’d break the rules, but because most of my experience comes from real life games, where one has only one game running at a time. I ended up taking my cues from Panamon and mrfixij. If they were willing to discuss it, I assumed that it was pretty normal to discuss ongoing games. Of course, that was my mistake. No offence to either of them, but they’ve hardly been posting here longer than me.
As for impact, I thought that Panamon had already introduced my actions in another thread as evidence against me. I was worried that not directly responding to his false claim would be considered a non-defence. If people were going to take Panamon seriously, I had better put up a defence to prevent a mislynch, I reasoned. It seems as if I overestimated its impact on everybody else, though.
The last justification I gave myself before posting was that I was only posting information regarding my strategy as a player.
Next, no, I wasn’t trying to be snide with the questions about your post… Just in the nose wrinkling remark. Sorry about the confusion.
I see now what you mean by saying I lacked good town content.
a) Not a lot of strong, original interpretations
b) Potentially more useful to scum to play off of weak suspicions
When I posted this, I thought the use of it wasn’t necessarily in posting a lot of content in the sense that you mean. Mostly it was to see what people had to say about certain things, like bringing up weatheredclown’s post against mrfixij or saying where I’m still waiting for more information (i.e. “I'm waiting to see what he concludes about Mastin” or “He didn't provide a serious reason for his vote, so I await more posting before reading further into him,” etc.). Of course, I could have just asked all of these directly. I chose that form because it was easier for me to keep straight all the things I had questions about/was waiting for by doing it player-by-player. In the future, I should probably just delete that once I’ve sorted my own head out, I expect.
@mrfixij: Actually, I was more interested in what you said about Moses le fou. That’s why I asked about him flat out, and about myself only parenthetically. I ought to point out that it was you who grouped weatheredclown and me. It reminds me of a game I played in grade school called “pink tomatoes…” That’s mostly irrelevant, but you’re stretching. It wasn’t a slip-up: I asked you because I wanted to know your position on Moses and you only described his position on your “scum radar” in relative terms.
I mentioned that he was between you two in suspicion. I see where you're coming from, but if you wanted to know about where he was rather than knowing something about where I have you two, you'd have asked explicitly where he stands. Right now Moses has a sort of presence in his posts, it's hard to explain explicitly. It's going to make me keep an eye out for him more, but also respect his opinion more, if that makes any sense.
I think what I'm trying to say is that Moses seems like a strong player right now. He's going to pick up on a lot of things that I think I may miss. I'm going to keep an extra eye on his posts to make sure that they're legit and not just passing blame, but I'm going to also take heed to his logic, because so far he seems authoritative. He's higher profile so to speak.
Also answer to 'e, it, scumbag, 'ey you!, and his royal towniness.
mrfixij wrote:I just noticed, post 87 is rather scummy. I gave my opinion on everyone so far based on request. I gave a brief synopsis with relatively little info on each player, but enough for reference if I need to come back later in the game. However, Schehera wanted me to clarify where he and WC are on his scumdar. That screams scum to me, as if he's new to the game and wants to know how he and his scum-buddy are doing.
unvote: mastin
vote: scheherazade
Possible pairing between Schehera and WC for future reference. Policy lynching is one thing, lynching for such an elementary slip-up is another entirely.
I think she asked about herself and WC in particular because of this part:
mrfixij wrote:Moses: I like his play style. Something seems funny about him though. Between Schez and WC on scumdar.
I was kind of wondering about that too. You mentioned that you found WC slightly scummy, but beyond that, I wasn't sure what you meant by saying I was somewhere between them.
Also, I apologize in advance for any gender slipup I may have. I've been on the internet way too long, I just refer to every poster as he.
For the most part, that post was just initial impressions. If nothing else, later in the game I can look back at it to see what I was thinking and compare it to how it's playing at in the future. It's working rather well in a mafia game I'm playing on another forum.
Also, as careless and haphazard as it seems, I hadn't even put two and two together to realize that Schera was referring to my list with mose between her and WC. Out of context, 87 looked suspicious. Putting it back in context, it's perfectly fine. For the sheer sake of continuity, I'll leave my vote as it is. I tend to be very active anyways, and if a bandwagon takes off, I can and will pull my vote should I see insufficient evidence for the lynch.
Also answer to 'e, it, scumbag, 'ey you!, and his royal towniness.
Just by coincidence that was the last post of page three, so here is the votecount for page 4.
