Felt vs. MC: Day 1 Thread

[Special Ed]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

I think I'm beginning to understand this.

So, you're going to travel through time to the present to cast your vote?

[Zeener Diode]

Don't think you're off the hook, buddy.

[Idle Thoughts]

Confirmed.

Wow, the game's moving faster than I expected.

[Idle Thoughts]

Okay, caught up on all the posts...I guess it wasn't moving as fast, after all. I saw it had 51 posts already and thought I was very late.

Like Romanic, I'm tempted to put my votes into the future and store them up since that seems like the smarter thing to do. Course, if everyone did that, we'd have nobody lynched toDay.

[BobArrgh]

I tried to convince my buddy at work to get into this game. He declined because he got a headache just from reading the rules.

There appears to be two schools of thought going:

1) Banking votes for the future helps Town
2) Banking votes for the future helps Scum

I hate to say this, but this particular discussion might actually be more mind-numbing than the Vanilla-Town-claim-right-out-of-the-gate discussion.

I think Zeener has the right idea, particularly for toDay. I'm going to sleep on it.

Gah! The Dr. Seuss game was relatively easy and it interrupted my sleep several times. I can't imagine what this clusterfarble is going to do for my beauty rest.

[BobArrgh]

NETA: The Dr. Seuss game wasn't necessarily "easy", but it was far easier to grok.

[moody mitchy]

I still feel that very early on in the game. If folks store votes for the future it just absolves them of any responsibility regarding whom they might be suspicious of...

Early on with little information to work with I don't think it's going to help TOWN. And even later on in the game if SCUM build a decent case on a TOWN member.... a player who has stored votes might be convinced by the case and place a double vote on the TOWN member...

I'm not saying you shouldn't be doing it just that I am going to be wary of those that do over the first couple of Days

[Total Ulla]

But what if we asked the players banking their votes to post which player they would have voted for every Day in Purple <-- just because I like the color

That way we would at least have some sort of indication as to what they were thinking.
Also it would make Romanic spreadsheet even more complex

[peekercpa]

Originally Posted by Romanic

Banking votes for the future makes a player more powerful, while taking vote from the future makes someone less powerful. So in a perfect world, the vanillas would be banking their votes, and the pro-town would vote normally (or twice, pulling one from the future).

But of course this would make it too easy for the Scums to spot our best roles. We can't be so obvious, right?

vote X on day 2

ok i am probably going to hose this damn voting system up but here goes. if i read the explanations about the voting system this merely indicates that roman has designated something to do with his vote on Day 2. he could pull it forward to Day 1 if he wanted, make it a real vote on Day 2 or defer it to Days 3+, right?

whereas zeener has got a current Day vote on ed as well as pulling a future Day vote onto ed into the current Day, right?

and i kind of second the question that g (i think) already asked. if i pull a vote from, say, Day 7 (or however far in the future i can go) and that ends up being a tie breaker for a lynch but then die before i would have even been entitiled to that vote what in the world happens? i mean does the original lynchee re-materialize and the second place finisher go bye bye. and what in hell happens to the votes made/not made by these hypotheticals?

i wonder if this works?

vote peek from the sign up thread "Day" (Day -1 ?)

[Player X]

I am not amused at what is going on this forum.

[moody mitchy]

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

But what if we asked the players banking their votes to post which player they would have voted for every Day in Purple <-- just because I like the color

That way we would at least have some sort of indication as to what they were thinking.
Also it would make Romanic spreadsheet even more complex

I think this would only work if they were then held to that and that their next "actual" vote was on the person they'd stated they "would've voted". Otherwise it means nothing.

Yes I know it shows they might have suspicions on a player but, if 2 Days down the line they don't vote... they can easily just say something like... "well that was before I knew they were xyz"....

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by peekercpa

ok i am probably going to hose this damn voting system up but here goes. if i read the explanations about the voting system this merely indicates that roman has designated something to do with his vote on Day 2. he could pull it forward to Day 1 if he wanted, make it a real vote on Day 2 or defer it to Days 3+, right?

whereas zeener has got a current Day vote on ed as well as pulling a future Day vote onto ed into the current Day, right?

and i kind of second the question that g (i think) already asked. if i pull a vote from, say, Day 7 (or however far in the future i can go) and that ends up being a tie breaker for a lynch but then die before i would have even been entitiled to that vote what in the world happens? i mean does the original lynchee re-materialize and the second place finisher go bye bye. and what in hell happens to the votes made/not made by these hypotheticals?

i wonder if this works?

vote peek from the sign up thread "Day" (Day -1 ?)

Note: I pulled my Day One vote off Ed.

If players bank their Day One votes for a later date, I think we can have greater success in finding and lynching Scum. So often players pick someone who smells funny or uses "your" instead of "you're" and discover it's a Townie (Scum win that round). One could argue this would reduce the places where Scum could hide but I would say it helps Scum by reducing places Town powers can hide.

What happens if we bank our Day One votes? I suspect not all players will agree on this. But unless someone makes a clear case against another (not just voting them because of their coffee-flavored halitosis), that player risks being outed as Scum if they let their votes stand until Dusk. For example: 6 players bank Day One; three players cast votes on three separate people; the most recent vote stands and that person is lynched and flips Town. Voter #3 has to account for their vote. By waiting until toMorrow (or the next Day), we can get a better idea of who is Scummy.

[Zeener Diode]

Question: who stands to lose the most if no one is lynched toDay? Town or Scum?

[peekercpa]

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

I think this would only work if they were then held to that and that their next "actual" vote was on the person they'd stated they "would've voted". Otherwise it means nothing.

Yes I know it shows they might have suspicions on a player but, if 2 Days down the line they don't vote... they can easily just say something like... "well that was before I knew they were xyz"....

kind of yes, kind of no. i may very well be suspicous of someone on Day 1 but if subsequently they are proven to be, say, the town cop then i don't feel i should be compelled to vote for them or have a non vote somehow count against me.

[peekercpa]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

Question: who stands to lose the most if no one is lynched toDay? Town or Scum?

town.

[zuma]

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

I still feel that very early on in the game. If folks store votes for the future it just absolves them of any responsibility regarding whom they might be suspicious of...

I have to agree with you here. I've given this some thought, and as has been mentioned vote-banking gives us no real information regarding their motivations and provides no accountability. I think I'm going to treat any vote banking, at least for today, as the equivalent of a "no vote". Plus, as I've mentioned, wouldn't scum just kill off townies with extra votes banked up? Absent better reasons to kill us of course. I am of the opinion that at least at this stage of the game, vote-banking probably benefits scum more than town.

[Total Ulla]

Originally Posted by peekercpa

town.

No doubt. Even if we were to lynch a townie (and though it's the odds that we might but it doesn't have to be so!) we will then have knowledge from the lynch as well as data from the votes.
Even if some bank their vote I'd be most interested in hearing who they find the most scummy and therefore I don't think we should allow the "bankers" to finish a Day without having voiced who they would have voted for if they hadn't banked their vote.

But a no lynch would only hurt Town.
It would be similar to having Scum start the game with a NK (sometimes happens in games with a Night 0).

[zuma]

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

But what if we asked the players banking their votes to post which player they would have voted for every Day in Purple <-- just because I like the color

That way we would at least have some sort of indication as to what they were thinking.
Also it would make Romanic spreadsheet even more complex

I considered that as well, ulla. but I don't think that works either. Imagine this scenario:

Town A and Scum B are up for lynch and more or less tied or within a vote or two.

Scum C decides to bank his vote, and says "well, they both look like good targets, but I would vote for Scum B if I were actually voting today". There is an absence of accountability with a side of WIFOM. I am not sure I am willing to give credit to someone for what they say they would have done, but didn't actually do.

[Total Ulla]

But it would look very strange if Scum C then start the next Day with a vote in the bank and don't spend it on Scum B.

It would not be as "accountable" as a real vote - but it would be hard to explain why the sudden change of heart in regards to Scum B.

So I still think it's only fair that we demand that players banking their votes still express how they would have voted for, if they hadn't banked the vote. We can't force players - but I will look twice at players not willing to have a faux-vote when banking...

[zuma]

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

But it would look very strange if Scum C then start the next Day with a vote in the bank and don't spend it on Scum B.

It would not be as "accountable" as a real vote - but it would be hard to explain why the sudden change of heart in regards to Scum B.

So I still think it's only fair that we demand that players banking their votes still express how they would have voted for, if they hadn't banked the vote. We can't force players - but I will look twice at players not willing to have a faux-vote when banking...

Noted, but let's examine your day 2 scenario. Town A gets lynched, Scum B throws a vote on Scum C the next Day, but it would be easy for Scum B to change his vote Day 2. A claim comes up, or someone says something suspicious, or a townie who threw a late vote on Town A Day 1 gets looked at, or a host of other possibilities.

And on the other hand, let's say a townie banked his vote and made a "I would vote for Scum B" declaration Day 1, and some of the (often valid) possible reasons for voting for someone else come up Day 2. Do we really want to lock them in on a Day 2 vote?

I'm just not seeing a way to assign accountability in this scenario.

[zuma]

Originally Posted by zuma

Noted, but let's examine your day 2 scenario. Town A gets lynched, Scum B throws a vote on Scum C the next Day, but it would be easy for Scum B to change his vote Day 2.

NETA: That should have read "Scum C throws a vote on Scum B, but it would be easy for Scum C to change his vote Day 2." Sorry for any confusion.

[peekercpa]

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

But a no lynch would only hurt Town.
It would be similar to having Scum start the game with a NK (sometimes happens in games with a Night 0).

ding ding ding we have a winner.

and for the folks that whine about Day 1 and all that hogwash "because i don't know" or the "odds are against us poor townies", etc. just get over it.

[SisterCoyote]

Originally Posted by peekercpa

town.

Town always loses the most when no information is gained. Scum have the critical information: who is Scum, who is Town, while Town -- especially on Day One -- are generally muddling along in the dark.

Also, Zuma, your icon makes me want to run a Murder by Death-themed game.

[SisterCoyote]

Oh, and since it hasn't been said yet this game:

Don't hold grudges.
If you're Town, and you lie, it could backfire on you.
Scum Would Absolutely Do That.

[moody mitchy]

Ok Peekercpa I get your point that we have very flakey suspicions early in the game for the flimsiest of reasons... and we might get new information as the game goes on to completely remove those suspicions.

So saying that someone should actually lay a vote down on who ever they voiced suspicion about after banking a vote, is a little unworkable... but should people wish to bank votes then I do think they should state who they would have voted for...

Anyone any thoughts on the numbers/balance.... why was it changed from 16 to 15 players is it significant ?

Oh and I'm suspicious of Idle Thoughts. 2 posts and no claim. Now that's got to be dodgy behaviour

[zuma]

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

Oh and I'm suspicious of Idle Thoughts. 2 posts and no claim. Now that's got to be dodgy behaviour

I hate to keep agreeing with you, but Idle claimed that he always role-claims in his first post when he's town, as I remember. Might as well take him at his word.

[zuma]

Originally Posted by Idle Thoughts

I've never claimed in a game I was scum. I only claim in games I'm Town.

Reason for my vote: Idle Thoughts claimed vanilla town in his first post in the Seuss game. I and others did not agree with his doing this, and I don't want to re-hash the arguments about it. It seems to be the thing he does though, and he didn't do it this game.

[zuma]

quote was from here, day 1 in the Seuss game after Idle claimed town. Weak vote as is any day 1, but I'll leave it there for now.

[Idle Thoughts]

Ed did that too..in a game on my boards (voted for me once in a game I didn't claim). It was a retarded reason to vote then, too.

I don't always claim on Day Ones.

[Idle Thoughts]

NETA: Voted for me once in a game BECAUSE I didn't claim on Day One, I should clarify.

[Trepa Mayfield]

3 days, 9 hours and 46 minutes to the end of Day 1

Vote Count:
Placeholder (1):Zeener Diode [Day 1 Post 50]
Idle Thoughts (1): Zuma [Day 1 Post 76]

Not Voting: Sister Coyote, moody mitchy, peekercpa, RedSkeezix, Total Ulla, Romola, BillMC, Special Ed, BobArrgh, Idle Thoughts, Giraffe, Lucifer

Voting in the Future: Romanic [Day 2]

Voting in the Past: N/A

With these votes Idle Thoughts will be lynched.

(Placeholder votes have no value)

Originally Posted by peekercpa

ok i am probably going to hose this damn voting system up but here goes. if i read the explanations about the voting system this merely indicates that roman has designated something to do with his vote on Day 2. he could pull it forward to Day 1 if he wanted, make it a real vote on Day 2 or defer it to Days 3+, right?

whereas zeener has got a current Day vote on ed as well as pulling a future Day vote onto ed into the current Day, right?

and i kind of second the question that g (i think) already asked. if i pull a vote from, say, Day 7 (or however far in the future i can go) and that ends up being a tie breaker for a lynch but then die before i would have even been entitiled to that vote what in the world happens? i mean does the original lynchee re-materialize and the second place finisher go bye bye. and what in hell happens to the votes made/not made by these hypotheticals?

i wonder if this works?

vote peek from the sign up thread "Day" (Day -1 ?)

Nice try, but no, that doesn't work.

[moody mitchy]

Originally Posted by Idle Thoughts

Ed did that too..in a game on my boards (voted for me once in a game I didn't claim). It was a retarded reason to vote then, too.

I don't always claim on Day Ones.

Bolding mine...

I fear that any comment made about this statement would be seen as fishing.

[Lucifer]

Originally Posted by zuma

I hate to keep agreeing with you, but Idle claimed that he always role-claims in his first post when he's town, as I remember. Might as well take him at his word.

vote: Idle Thought

Same vote; same reason

[Idle Thoughts]

You both are wrong, I never said I always role claim when I'm Town. I don't know where either of you are getting that.

[Idle Thoughts]

I've haven't role-claimed (on Day One) many times when I was Town.

[Idle Thoughts]

Originally Posted by zuma

Idle claimed that he always role-claims in his first post when he's town, as I remember.

Cite? Either show me where I've said this or admit you're wrong.

[SisterCoyote]

Originally Posted by zuma

Reason for my vote: Idle Thoughts claimed vanilla town in his first post in the Seuss game. I and others did not agree with his doing this, and I don't want to re-hash the arguments about it. It seems to be the thing he does though, and he didn't do it this game.

Zuma -- From where did you pull this quote from Idle? Link, please.

[moody mitchy]

I went back and checked the last game... though I disagreed with his behaviour and cited it as anti TOWN.... Idle Thoughts never said in that game (at least not one Day 1 anyway) that he always claimed...

He said he'd got into a habit of doing so and had even considered claiming when some sort of power...

So I guess we have to try and decide whether there is any great reason for the change of heart this game but like I said... querying it too much will be (I think) seen as fishing.

[Idle Thoughts]

Nevermind, I found it.

Seems to me you're reading it wrong (either accidentally or deliberately). What it means is: All the times I've ever claimed, I was Town.
It doesn't mean "I only claim when I'm Town".

[Idle Thoughts]

And that was an answer to the post right before it (where zuma asked "Whaqt did you claim when you were scum?")

[Zeener Diode]

This whole brouhaha with Idle is what I meant when I said players look for the most insignificant reasons to vote a player. Maybe Idle's Scum, maybe not, but culling a quote from a previous game seems a bit metagamey to me. Might as well vote Captain for failing to sign off without a drink recipe.

I see the point in my question (see above comments): No lynch hurts Town. (@peeker: I am over it, over and done with it.)

And for HP:

Does a place-holder vote count the same as a regular vote? Because I'm not really voting on anyone.

[Special Ed]

Originally Posted by Idle Thoughts

Ed did that too..in a game on my boards (voted for me once in a game I didn't claim). It was a retarded reason to vote then, too.

I don't always claim on Day Ones.

www.r-word.org

[peekercpa]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

This whole brouhaha with Idle is what I meant when I said players look for the most insignificant reasons to vote a player. Maybe Idle's Scum, maybe not, but culling a quote from a previous game seems a bit metagamey to me. Might as well vote Captain for failing to sign off without a drink recipe.

<snipped>

finally a decent reason to vote for someone.

vote pinkies Day 1

i mean not only has he failed to sign off with a drink recipe but i don't think the bastard even signed up.













i keed i keed

unvote

[Zeener Diode]

Peek, you might be on to something...

there's been a dearth of participants since this game began and IMO we're still fumbling in the dark. I'm tempted to call out the no-shows just to get a response. But I'll give them another day to find this thread.

[BobArrgh]

I'm following along, but just barely. I've had some major work issues going on this past week.

@ peeker: You threw me for a loop there, when you voted for Pinkies.

@ Ulla: I'm really trying to understand this statement you made:

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

But a no lynch would only hurt Town.
It would be similar to having Scum start the game with a NK (sometimes happens in games with a Night 0).

Can someone please tell me why a no-lynch would only hurt Town? Wouldn't avoiding a mislynch on Day 1 be good for Town?

Is the absence of a decent voting record on Day 1 what hurts Town?

[peekercpa]

Originally Posted by BobArrgh

I'm following along, but just barely. I've had some major work issues going on this past week.

@ peeker: You threw me for a loop there, when you voted for Pinkies.

@ Ulla: I'm really trying to understand this statement you made:

Can someone please tell me why a no-lynch would only hurt Town? Wouldn't avoiding a mislynch on Day 1 be good for Town?

Is the absence of a decent voting record on Day 1 what hurts Town?

well as ulla points out no lynch effectively is a Night start with some information. scum get a free ride and effectively town starts Day 2 knowing that at best they will be down a soul (i mean funky stuff happens but really that's the most likely occurrence). additionally, if we were to wait until the odds shift in town's favor based purely on percentages then that means scum have already won (i mean for the odds to favor a scum lynch there needs to be more of them than town). that's why town needs additional help. that information typically comes from votes but more importantly the information/logic/reasoning regarding how they came up with that vote. i mean there are folks that look heavily at voting patterns and what not but i like to dig down to why folks are voting the way they are. and what funky ass statements they make in arriving at their conclusion.

[peekercpa]

neta: it also doesn't hurt if town has a detective and they fracking last about 5 Days and all of their targets are still alive.

[BillMc]

Originally Posted by peekercpa

<snipped>

finally a decent reason to vote for someone.

vote pinkies Day 1

i mean not only has he failed to sign off with a drink recipe but i don't think the bastard even signed up.













i keed i keed

unvote

you never know - he may sub in later, so you could get your vote in in advance

[Romanic]

@ Lucifer, moody mitchy & zuma

Did it cross your mind that Idle may not be claiming because he has a pro-Town role rather than a Scum?

I'm not seeing why not claiming makes him Scum, even if he often claims early.

In Dr. Seuss, Idle wrote:

Originally Posted by Idle Thoughts

Because I wanted to.


SP, where you been? I've role claimed on Day One in 8 of the last 10 games I've played in. I used to do it so often, Special Ed once voted for me in Day One of a game for not doing it.

Vote for me, for it, if you want, I don't care.

Claiming 8 times out of 10 is different than claiming every time..

And it seems we're hearing about Day 1 claims in every game, even when there is no claim. It's so easy to bring up.

So which one of you is the scumbag trying to hit on Idle Thoughts with this weak argument?

[Romanic]

Between the three players voting Idle, I'd say that zuma is less suspicious than the other two, for throwing the first vote.

moody's post is almost a smudge on Idle. He doesn't state his arguments against him (although it could be argued that they are implied/obvious), nor does he vote for him.

Lucifer's me too vote is suspicious, but I've seen Lucifer do similar things in 2 games (1 scum, 1 town), however it doesn't excuse the fact that his only post so far was this vote.

But again, this is just too easy. It's unlikely to me that three townies came up with the same behavior, with none apparently considering that Idle could have a pro-Town role and that it would be foolish to claim immediately.