My "uncharacteristic vote" (by the way - what's a 'characteristic' Thor vote? I'm quite serious with this question.) came at a time when I was clearly against the Kthx wagon and had become convinced that the TCC wagon was scum driven. At that point one's goal is to either start up a wagon or support one that seems reasonable - I'd liked my read on Sotty and I hadn't liked Pom, so I was all for the wagon.MichelSableheart wrote:Thor's vote for Pomegranate in #618 feels very uncharacteristic of him. He lists the other possibilities, but completely ignores the Kthx wagon even though it was the second most popular at the time. He also doesn't comment at first on why Pomegranate is actually scum. He later claims to agree with the "active lurking" accusation, but makes no attempt whatsoever to actually verify this. In particular, I don't like how he calls a vote for active lurking on Ray as bad as the completely unexplained CSL vote. His is a very suspicious vote.
Based on reading this game, I would characterize you as a player who is quite serious, uses a lot of questions to establish an opinion and who is concerned about players actually voting for reasons that are indicative of the votee being scum. I found nothing like that in the post where you voted Pom.Thor wrote:by the way - what's a 'characteristic' Thor vote? I'm quite serious with this question
your comment about the TCC wagon being scumdriven I can find in the post where you vote. However, that post contains nothing whatsoever about the Kthx wagon. Reading you in ISO from the point where you voted TCC, I see you strongly questioning Henri's reasons for voting, but I do not see how that means you are against the wagon as a whole. In fact, ISO 63 and 64 contain some serious questioning of Kthx, on topics that weren't mentioned in your discussion with Henry.Thor wrote:came at a time when I was clearly against the Kthx wagon and had become convinced that the TCC wagon was scum driven.
Did you? In my summary of the game, the post where you voted Pom is the first of yours where I have listed you as significantly commenting on her. Reading you in ISO, I find (ISO) posts #57 and #58, which were made just before Pom posted her scumlist in #474. If you weren't satisfied with that scumlist, I would have expected you to question her further. Instead, you don't comment on Poms behaviour after that till the post where you vote her. Can you please back up your statement that you were fairly vocal about her activity with post numbers?Thor wrote:As far as me not having issue with Pom's active lurk? Eh, I feel I had been fairly vocal about not liking her attitude towards actually supplying information and had multiple times pressed her for info and also multiple times expressed dissatisfaction with her contributions.
NS was posting virtually no content. The only thing he did was voting Ray for not contributing, which tells me that he knew that not posting content was a scummy thing to do. So why did he do it anyway? His responses to the lurking accusations (ignoring those that question his vote for RayFrost, getting angry at Ythan without actually responding to the accusation) are far more likely to come from someone who is intentionally lurking, IMO.Thor wrote:As far as the Kthx stuff I believe you, as others did then, are taking a newbie aggressiveness and painting it in a scummy light. Could you at least assess why you don't think the aggressiveness is newbie oriented?
Why are you using the word 'still' in regards to the entire slot? I believe I have clearly stated that I didn't like the contribution level from RayFrost, and that this was a reason for me to be slightly suspicious of SaintKerrigan. I am still satisfied with the amount of content SK has delivered. He seems to have run into the same problems I ran into: there is a lot of info to digest, which makes it difficult to form opinions. He comments on what's going on, and I understand where his opinions come from.Thor wrote:(Michel - do you still like the contribution level from this slot?).
The question though is did I do that previously and subsequently or not. I do occasionally go for more bandwagonee votes but at least I'll admit I do usually post a longer case in my vote post so that this makes sense. I will note that the post I voted her in did contain discussion of my feelings on other wagons of the time. I feel this supports my earlier commentary of why I went to vote Pom.MichelSableheart wrote:Based on reading this game, I would characterize you as a player who is quite serious, uses a lot of questions to establish an opinion and who is concerned about players actually voting for reasons that are indicative of the votee being scum. I found nothing like that in the post where you voted Pom.Thor wrote:by the way - what's a 'characteristic' Thor vote? I'm quite serious with this question
Thor (Ray is grasping at straws)Michel wrote:Reading you in ISO from the point where you voted TCC, I see you strongly questioning Henri's reasons for voting, but I do not see how that means you are against the wagon as a whole. In fact, ISO 63 and 64 contain some serious questioning of Kthx, on topics that weren't mentioned in your discussion with Henry.
As I discovered in my ISO, if you want me discussing her prior to my vote I am woefully low and you hit the remotely major ones I did post. I certainly discussed her after that fact, but for prior to the vote you are correct that I did not.Michel wrote:Did you [have issue with Pom]? In my summary of the game, the post where you voted Pom is the first of yours where I have listed you as significantly commenting on her. Reading you in ISO, I find (ISO) posts #57 and #58, which were made just before Pom posted her scumlist in #474. If you weren't satisfied with that scumlist, I would have expected you to question her further. Instead, you don't comment on Poms behaviour after that till the post where you vote her. Can you please back up your statement that you were fairly vocal about her activity with post numbers?
Just as far as this one goes - I was in a previous game with Nobody and Ythan where they developed a bit of an 'attitude' towards each other. I'm still reading NS's reaction there as stemming from his personal distaste for Ythan rather then coming from an in-game reason.getting angry at Ythan without actually responding to the accusation) are far more likely to come from someone who is intentionally lurking, IMO.
But wouldn't that then be the point? Scum would have to claim a powerrole and fake it for a while (which would be difficult) or they would claim vanilla and we'd know scum were amongst the vanilla.SaintKerrigan wrote:Michel argues in favor of it because he wants to give scum less time to come up with fakeclaims, and making them stay true to their fakeclaims longer. In my experience, most scum simply claim vanilla when forced to claim in a hurry.
What advantage do we procure by "knowing" scum is among the vanilla? For that matter, how do we know that we don't have a scum that is fakeclaiming a power role?Thor665 wrote:But wouldn't that then be the point? Scum would have to claim a powerrole and fake it for a while (which would be difficult) or they would claim vanilla and we'd know scum were amongst the vanilla.SaintKerrigan wrote:Michel argues in favor of it because he wants to give scum less time to come up with fakeclaims, and making them stay true to their fakeclaims longer. In my experience, most scum simply claim vanilla when forced to claim in a hurry.
Care to share those other reasons?Pie_is_good wrote:A SaintKerrigan lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but for reasons other than lurkitude.
That's exactly my problem with massclaiming now. It tells the scumPie_is_good wrote:The "massclaim sucks because it gives scum a better idea of who to nightkill" argument has been nerfed with an outed gunsmith. The drawbacks of massclaiming (pre-gunsmith claim) used to be "the scum kills the town's best role instead of a random role." They are now "the scum kills the town's best role instead of the gunsmith." Does that make sense?
Pie_is_good wrote:I've gotten the general sense you've been trying to give people the answers they want to hear.This is not strong enough for a vote and could very well change.
So, you claim that my lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, and then go on to say that the "other reasons" you mentioned weren't strong enough for a vote? Could you please explain this disparity?Pie_is_good wrote: A SaintKerrigan lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but for reasons other than lurkitude.
Would you do me a favor and point out the specific post(s) that addressed that?Pie_is_good wrote:I've explained why I disagree that massclaim provides "relatively little benefit to us" so I won't get back into that.
This is theoretically something you should only worry about if I then try to lynch you over it. I'll retract my statement that implies you have any connection to the current mass claim if it makes you feel fuzzier inside though.Pie_is_good wrote:@Thor: I'm always a little cautious when people spin massclaim as my personal pet project.
You are the one who advanced the likelihood that scum would go vanilla and now you want me to defend your own supposition? I think either scum will claim vanilla or they will be forced to guess at a power role to claim that then they will have to maintain their role as for much longer.SaintKerrigan wrote:What advantage do we procure by "knowing" scum is among the vanilla? For that matter, how do we know that we don't have a scum that is fakeclaiming a power role?
Tech question for my reads: Are you for/against massclaiming, Socrates?
This game is hellish in how much of a toll it seems to be taking on my concentration and attention. Sotty's claim kickstarts it a bit, since players seemed to be either entrenched in their positions or not active enough to change their point of view. The revolving door of replacements doesn't help, although it finally appears things are stable (cross your fingers on charter and Socrates though).Michel 846 wrote:I'm very annoyed with seeing Sotty claim, though I do find it believable.
I still don't think this is the best option, not without any scum dead or any protective roles outted.Michel wrote:With Sotty having claimed, (and Ktx having claimed before) massclaim suddenly became much better IMO. Keeping powerroles hidden isn't really a concern with an info role out in the open. Unless there are serious objections, I'm going to claim next.
In honesty, I don't think this post is bad. I think the conclusions you've drawn match exactly with your progression through the game, and, although I don't necessarily agree with these conclusions, I can see why you've reachde them. Claim or no, Kthx is not a bad lynch for us today. If Kthx is the deadline lynch, it will get Copper's support.Michel wrote:I also have reasons to be suspicious of Socrates because of the behaviour of TCC, of Thor for his vital role in the Pom lynch and of SaintKerrigan because of Ray's behaviour towards the deadline.
I have not discussed this with all the heads, but given our time constraints, I say that we still vote nay. The risk of throwing a Doctor under the bus could be this town's undoing. I see more risk for little reward. It would be nice to lock scum in, but it would be just as nice, I think, for Sotty to get another report.Thor wrote:Voting Aye (3): Pie, Michel, Thor
Voting Nay:
Be that as it may, I can't hold any position to you. Sure, you attack Michel here a bit, which I think is good, but why not vote him? I mean, is this a political thing? Do you not like casting votes unless you think they can be successful lynches? I just don't understand your reluctance to make a stand.SK wrote:I'm not using my vote yet because I don't have enough of a feel for this game to take a stance strong enough to want to vote someone. In other words, I haven't comprehended the game enough to feel comfortable voting.
Here's a question for you: if I had made exactly the same posts as I have up to now, but included at least one vote, would you still feel inclined to vote me?
It's not only lurking. How long do we let SK go on not taking a position? I'm not talking, "Sotty seems scum". I'm talking, "Here is my vote; here is why it is the best vote".Pie wrote:A SaintKerrigan lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but for reasons other than lurkitude. Besides, site meta is such that the suspicion incurred by active lurking far outweighs the benefits of "hiding" from the town.
Do you think the scum don't have any power? What's to stop them from then just making sure that whatever power roles town-sided are taken out?Thor wrote:The scum who claim as vanilla will be in the easy suspect pool of the vanilla townies and won't be able to falseclaim as a power role later in endgame situations.
I don't think this would be a problem, and I'm much more willing to do this. Given one kill last night though, I'm not entirely sure how beneficial it would be. Moreover, the fact that there even is a Gunsmith should give us all doubts at to whether all scum killing roles solely have guns in their possession.Michel wrote:If massclaiming is not an option, how does everyone feel about claiming "gun" or "no gun"? That should allow most protective roles to remain hidden, while also allowing Sotty to find scum by detecting liars.
I see no town motivation behind this line. "If I did something different, would you still think I'm scummy?" What purpose does that serve? SK, did you hope to find some telling reaction from Thor to this question? Hmmm I see Thor hasn't even answered this question. So I'd like you to hold off on answering me until he responds, but I want to hear your thoughts on his response.SK wrote:Here's a question for you: if I had made exactly the same posts as I have up to now, but included at least one vote, would you still feel inclined to vote me?
I guess I don't see how this is a disparity. You're among my top suspects right now, but my handle on the game is currently poor enough that my top suspects will likely change as I gain info. So I'm not prepared to vote for anyone, but I'm not exactly opposed to the Kerrigan-wagon that was getting underway.SaintKerrigan wrote:So, you claim that my lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, and then go on to say that the "other reasons" you mentioned weren't strong enough for a vote? Could you please explain this disparity?
SK wrote:Would you do me a favor and point out the specific post(s) that addressed that?
@Thor: As SK said, what points?Pie wrote:The downside of a massclaim is that it improves the accuracy of the scum's nightkills. The upside is, that doesn't matter much if everyone's claiming at the same time - scum doesn't have the firepower to off more than one power role a night, which is far too slow when the town power roles can now coordinate with each other. It's also much more difficult for scum to fakeclaim power roles when the massclaim happens early - they have to keep up the charade for longer. Further, it's a huge bonus to scumhunting - instead of asking "Is X acting more like scum or more like a generic town role?" you can ask "Is X acting like scum or more like his claimed role?" This is especially potent when the massclaim happens early, because you lock them into their claimed role before they can properly evaluate, which is a problem townies don't have.
To clarify: I purported that scum would be more likely to claim vanilla. You then stated that scum doing so would be a benefit to the town. My question to you was how town gained an advantage from scum claiming vanilla.Thor wrote:You are the one who advanced the likelihood that scum would go vanilla and now you want me to defend your own supposition?
Why is claiming a vanilla townie putting oneself in the "easy" suspect pool? I fail to see where you draw this conclusion. In my mind, trying to deduce the alignment of an alleged vanilla townie is harder than trying to deduce the alignment of an alleged power role, since we can't use role information to potentially trip up someone.Thor wrote:The scum who claim as vanilla will be in the easy suspect pool of the vanilla townies and won't be able to falseclaim as a power role later in endgame situations.
My reluctance stems from not wanting to make a misinformed vote. Sure, I could've voted Michel if I really wanted to, but not only had I not completely read up on his player slot yet, but the questions I did pose to him weren't nearly strong enough reasons to vote him.Copper wrote:Be that as it may, I can't hold any position to you. Sure, you attack Michel here a bit, which I think is good, but why not vote him? I mean, is this a political thing? Do you not like casting votes unless you think they can be successful lynches? I just don't understand your reluctance to make a stand.
When I present a reasonable case, I'll definitely have a vote to go along with it. So far, I haven't uncovered sufficient information to warrant a vote. Once I delve more thoroughly into the game, that will change.Copper wrote:Additionally, I would say that yes, a vote would've bode well for you. Heck, if you had made a reasonable case and a vote, I do think I may have turned my attention elsewhere. It sticks out that you didn't though, and it appears you still haven't.
First of all, the question was directed at Copper, not Thor. Second, I was gauging Copper's reaction to my question. All it would take, apparently, is a vote from my slot to turn his attention somewhere else. It makes me wonder just how many other people are posting with the same content level that I am and getting away with it by slapping on a vote...Fate wrote:I see no town motivation behind this line. "If I did something different, would you still think I'm scummy?" What purpose does that serve? SK, did you hope to find some telling reaction from Thor to this question? Hmmm I see Thor hasn't even answered this question. So I'd like you to hold off on answering me until he responds, but I want to hear your thoughts on his response.
"Both you and Socrates are against MC." So, not going for a massclaim is equated with being scummy? Does that mean Copper and Sotty are scummy as well? They were against the massclaim, too. I really don't like where you're going with this. It's ill-reasoned and basically looks like a cheap shot at two of the more suspicious players on the board.Fate wrote:Both you and Socrates are against MC. How about that. Sure it is easy to argue, "well I don't want to out the doc!" and seem pro-town, but in reality MC is very beneficial to town now. Scum have likely not co-ordinated their fakeclaims, and want to make it to N2 very badly. As Thor pointed out, massclaiming right now and early really narrows down the options for scum. Either pick a PR and risk a CC and have to keep up the charade, or a vanilla which blocks them off from any PR gambits later.
So what happened with me being scummy? And the only thing I see that you have for putting Pie on a scumteam is "MD discussion in a game thread is never good" and a so-called "distancing" vote from Socrates on Kthxbye.Fate wrote:Upon a re-read I now see it likely that Charter was piggy backing on my reasonings against Copper/Sotty. I can see a Soc/Charter/Pie team.
The disparity is in being willing to lynch me solely because of reasons "other than lurkitude," but when you provide those "other reasons," you put on a disclaimer that they don't warrant a vote. So, I'm one of your top suspects, but none of the reasons you suspect me for are worthy of slapping on a vote? I fail to see how this computes.Pie_is_good wrote:I guess I don't see how this is a disparity. You're among my top suspects right now, but my handle on the game is currently poor enough that my top suspects will likely change as I gain info. So I'm not prepared to vote for anyone, but I'm not exactly opposed to the Kerrigan-wagon that was getting underway.