Composer Battle Is Go! THE TREBLE CLEF IS YOUR DOOM!

[Ryogo]

Rules:

- If there is a deadlock at the deadline, the day will end without a lynch.

See there Otter. Also, you took me out of context.

The only thing I was worried about was what I saw the last game. I know that if I have the most votes near the end of day one (or the first few days) many people will vote me just for the sake of "Lynch needs to happen, w/e. Let's kill him." Though this game, we seem to be able to No Lynch if you look at the first post. So I dunno if that'll be as big of a factor this time.

I meant the people voting for a person just for the sake of getting a lynch to happen to someone near the end of a day might not have been a factor this time if we had a No Lynch option.

I made a mistake, thanks for pointing it out Otter. It'll only No Lynch if there's a tie. When I first read it I thought it meant that if we didn't reach majority, we wouldn't lynch. Meaning we had the option of not lynching someone, meaning we didn't have to kill off someone just for the sake of not having a random lynch. I misread that; we don't have the option of a No Lynch. My bad.

EDIT: Yeah Shale, its done the same for me this past hour or two. It's been a bitch trying to get to the board to read the new posts. Took me 30 minutes just to get to the forum page itself.

Also, I'm going to be gone for the next little while. I have a midterm in an hour, and wont be back until 8-9 EST. Its cram time.

[OblivionKnight]

Mr. Ryogo, I think you might be misunderstanding what Otter said - he's asking, I think, about you potentially advocating no lynching, which it seems you are. 

Lynches must happen, sad but true - someone has to die day 1.  This gives town info.  This is good, since town is blind. 

Granted, being new, I can see where you might see no lynch as good (hey, no dead townies by accident!), but it's not in the end (night kill happens anyway!).  Also, most games recently running had an automatic lynch set up.  I don't think you're giving off scumtells (well...you are, but I don't think you mean to), but no lynch is bbbbbaaaaddddd for town.

And now, class.

[Ghen]

OK, I can't see where Ryogo is advocating a No Lynch, just where he stated that per the rules he believed No Lynch to be an option and was curious as to what effect not having a forced majority-or-no-lynch requirement would have on voting (and he has now stated that he saw his error thanks to Otter's comments making him re-read that rules again).  What part of his phrasing read as 'advocating' to you?  Thanks.

[Hunter Sopko]

Yeah. He just seems to be skirting on the ol' newbie thought on No Lynch. I don't see anything in it besides inexperience.

[EvilTom]

I don't think you're giving off scumtells (well...you are, but I don't think you mean to)

lol! Sorry, I was just greatly amused by this. For obvious reasons.

What I was referring to, however, was not that Ryogo had claimed to be Hildegarde, but that he had claimed to be the only female composer in the group.
[...]
In a game where the only person you are certain of is yourself (barring the scum obviously), the use of a phrase whereby you call yourself out as the only one of something is noteworthy.  The scum would have more reason to know what there is or isn't than a townie.  And the mod himself said that the scum had been given 'cover composers' to hide behind.  It would be reasonable to sumise that this was in the form of a list.  And if the mod had stated something along the lines that picking a female composer was safe because he had not used any, this would be an easy mis-step for a scum to make. So his response that it was mod given and not just an assumption on his part does give me pause and keeps my attention on him.

Ah! I'm following you now Keeshi. Sorry, I wasn't sure what you meant at first, I thought you were just following the same line as as Excal and Shale on the 'nameclaim = scum' bandwagon.
But now that you've explained what you meant, I think that it actually has a decent amount of merit. I mean, it could just be a coincidence that he's the only female... but then how would he know... yeah.
Well spotted! Thumbs up for Keeshi. This point didn't even occur to me. It's definately a (further) grounds for keeping a close eye or three. It does sound like a likely mistake for scum to make (that is, picking a false ID from a list).

A person can study the theory all they want, but until they get some practice with it hands on, they wont know how to actually handle it. I'm just trying to contribute what I can.

That's a good thing! Contributing/talking = good for town, and shows that you're town if you do it! As long as what you're saying is useful, obviously. So keep it up, don't start lurking now, or I promise you that you won't last long. Nobody likes a lurker. You're not doing too bad for a newb!

Also, sorry about the many posts about me. I'm just a very defensive person.

Generally being over-defensive is a scum tell, which is the problem. I haven't made up my mind about you myself yet, I was a bit suspicious when you did the whole 'pleeeease don't kill me I'm just a newb' thing.

<->

No lynch? It's always bad. No lynch on a tie? That's worse! That's just frustrating. It's obvious that we're meant to pick our candidate before deadline (I seriously hope we pick it before 72 hours are up, day 1 does not need to be stretched out that long generally, it'll be boring as >.>) I think that we're going to have to make sure that we hammer, otherwise we might accidentally get that no-lynch. That's fairly obvious though.

<->

Smodge? Is he playing? Not having posted in over 24 hours... he's a good candidate for lynch/mod kill. Mr. Mod, will you be modkilling? How much longer should we wait? If he hasn't posted by 48 hours, I'm going to say that his time is up.

Also Andrew. I know he said he wouldn't be able to post more than once or twice every 24 hours, but... a one-line vote? I hope we can expect something soon. Where are you man, show us the money.

(Timezones: At least I have a few pages of interesting posts to read & comment on when I wake up >.>)

[Sierra]

Current votecount:

Carthrat (0): Ryogo, Shale
Corwin (0): Ryogo
EvilTom (1): Keeshi
Excal (0): Hunter Sopko, Sir Alex
Keeshi (1): Otter, OblivionKnight
Otter (0): OblivionKnight
OblivionKnight (0): Corwin
Ryogo (2): AndrewRogue, Carthrat, Excal
Shale (2): EvilTom, Sir Alex
Smodge (4): Hunter Sopko, Ryogo, Excal, Corwin

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch. There are 58 hours remaining.

Mod's note: I have not received any messages from Smodge stating that real-life circumstances would keep him away from the game. I can tell from his profile that he has not logged on to the board since before the game started, but he was around in time to see the call for confirmations and the statement  that the game would begin on Monday. I am about to PM/email him to see what's up; giving him the benefit of the doubt for now, but modkill will ensue if he has not responded by the time I get home from work tomorrow (~23 hours from now).

[Carthrat]

Sopko: Don't worry. I don't take things personally almost ever lately.

OK's justification for voting Keeshi as 'same as I did for OK' feels off to me (Keeshi's contribution to the game at the time of OK's vote seems higher than OK's at the time of mine, though that could be subjective), and so does what reads as a warning about being careful with your vote. You call scum hammering outside LYLO before someone is able to make a compelling defense 'convenient'? How?

'cos hasty hammers are *really dumb* and leave a pretty clear paper trail, I'd say. In theory, anyhow. (They certainly give more to work with than a nice, orderly lynch where everyone calmly and rationally agrees.)

<->

Dread Thomas' latest post seems to be 90% cheerleading. Doesn't really say anything to sink my teeth into, it's all 'you did a good job!' or saying something really obvious.

<->

I'm through with voting for Ryogo. ##Unvote: Ryogo. Seems to be playing like a newbie, doesn't seem to be playing in a scummish way. I don't really care to vote for Smodge (nonpresence on this level is grounds of modkill, not lynch) and feel that he's more of a 'safe' choice for people at the moment for timid people to hide behind without being questioned over it.

People who are voting for him, who else would you vote for?

And now... people I'm paying attention to for the time being.

OblivionNight!

+Isn't being weak and voting for Smodge!
+Did seem to rethink his stances!

-Unusually paranoid about mid-to-late votes on votetrains.
-Quickly seemed to retract that and tell us stuff we all already know about LYLO.
-Attitude promotes 'second chances' in general.
-Hyped metagaming.
-Gives ze obvious advice.

##Vote: OblivionNight Most questionable play so far, really. Anyone apart from me and Cor got thoughts on OK?

Also, as it comes to me: is there *really any point* giving newbies direct hints on how to play- or rather, hints on how to not look scummy? They're scumtells, surely it's less likely in general that they'll make 'em if they're town. So yeah. (and people read Ryogo as suggesting no lynch? I saw it more as an observation.)



Excal!

+Voted for Ryogo early, bringing us up to three! That got things started amirite.
-I find his posting to be... unnatural.
-Oh and he voted for Smodge. Meh.

Excal is, to use that wonderful phrase, 'throwing me for a loop'. On the one hand I generally like what he's got to say. On the other hand he's oddly nice to Ryogo despite having a vote on him early on (that vote no longer exists, but still.) He admitted his vote on Ryogo is a 'conversation starter' (I did something similar, and in retrospect don't really feel it's a great thing to do, but eh).

It isn't my intent to question his vote on Ryogo, though- it's.. still more his reaction to others over it for not responding to it. I'm aware this has been covered before. I feel like Excal is walking a fine line between analytical and, how shall we say, 'creative' in his discussion.

It IS early game, however. So we'll see.

Otter!

+Listened to me!
-Isn't posting much else, though.
+It hasn't been very long!
-But he HAS been around dammit. Surely he can do more than needle Ryogo over mentioning No Lynch (which has been a death sentence in previous games. zzz)

(I guess that's mostly a 'post moar' whine.)

[AndrewRogue]

I'm obviously not expecting sympathy about my post limitations. I can say that if I live until Saturday, I can post regularly again. Until then though, let us make use of my limited time.

I see no reason to make that much of Ryogo's nameclaim at this juncture, as it is a fairly limited claim, and is something that is occasionally done by other posters. Now, the insinuation about being the only female composer in the game? That gives me a little more trouble and it is worth watching how that pans out. Furthermore, watch the newbie defense. His lynch logic also stands out as particularly newbie to me.

Excal jumping on the claim is a bit iffy to me and doesn't make me happy.

LAL is generally good policy and, even with excuses, should never be wholly evaded. Remember, scum can have real life issues to.

The little Carth/Corwin spat there sets off alarms in my head. It came out of nowhere and seems a fairly good effort to distance the two, given that it blew over right quick, but was prominent enough to stand out and attract some attention. I'd keep an eye on those two, really.

Tom... I was the first poster, and this is the first time I've had access to a computer since I posted. So... yeah. I couldn't really post much more than a one-liner joke vote.

Smodge stands out for not posting obviously, but since he could be potentially modkilled, no need for a vote there, IMO.

OK... hrm. He's playing good townie, which is always a good policy, and helping a newbie, which is useful. This can, however, also be seen as a way to pad his own reputation.

In return, Carth's attack on the line bothers me. If OK and Ryogo are scum, then OK can advise him outside of the game. In any other case, it is teaching a newbie how to play the game/helping them out, which is generally beneficial to town. Yes, it can help scum get rid of scumtells, but similarly, if they are town, its helpful to them. This particular line of argumentation really bothers me.

That, combined with his "spat" with Corwin, is enough to make me uncomfortable enough to place down a vote in that direction.

##Unvote: Ryogo
##Vote: Carthrat

Might be able to make another post this evening. Good hunting.

[Hunter Sopko]

I don't know on Rat, Andy. Both of them dropping the it immediately pretty much nulled it in my eyes. It's only really bad if they continue it and let it color their arguments. Rat's most recent post has pretty much shown it hasn't. I think you're overreacting a bit on him.

[Carthrat]

Andy: My attack on OK is less about him giving advice to Ryogo than you think. I did use a paragraph on the advice thing to state my concerns to the public in general- it wasn't directly solely at him (and, in fact, the only real 'scum' vibe I get from it is that it's padding to his post. Which doesn't amount to much at this stage.)

It's not the thrust of my attack, which is tied back to my other points against OK; he responded to them earlier already, but I no longer wanted to have a vote on Ryogo at this stage (the guy's responded admirably so far, really; he still needs to level his own accusations, though, but I can pass that as cold feet for the time being), and thus felt compelled to change to the person with the most problematic posts so far.

[Shale]

In return, Carth's attack on the line bothers me. If OK and Ryogo are scum, then OK can advise him outside of the game. In any other case, it is teaching a newbie how to play the game/helping them out, which is generally beneficial to town. Yes, it can help scum get rid of scumtells, but similarly, if they are town, its helpful to them. This particular line of argumentation really bothers me.

This reads like major WIFOM. If OK is going to give Ryogo pointers, why not give them in the topic and look like a good townie helping the newbie out? It certainly beats having him act like he's getting tips for no apparent reason. On the other hand, it could easily be a townie being helpful, or scum helping out an actual townie to look good. "He's giving someone pointers in his first Mafia game!" isn't really a great tell either way.

[Excal]

Rat, you wound me!  You make it sound like I ever meant poor Ryogo any harm.  I didn't then, and like several people here, I've been getting to like him more as he goes along.  Despite his hesitant support of No Lynch given how he goes about it.  That vote, along with the pressure I laid on the people who didn't find it suspicious, was there entirely to get people talking.  And, with the possible exception of Tom, I'm honestly finding it a bit worrysome that some people still think I was seriously after him.

Moreover though, I think you're wrong to go after people for voting Smodge in the absence of other candidates to lynch.  While I will grant that ending the day by lynching him will gain us nothing, at the time, simply letting him be also did nothing for us, and would leave an absolute cypher around in the game.  Without the mod kill, he needs to either talk or die.

But, we have the mod kill, which makes me happy.  It also means I can, and should, do this.

##Unvote: Smodge

Now...  I suppose one of these days I'll figure out how to properly write one of these posts without a fire lit under me, or driven by some grand theory or something else.  But...  there's always a bit more research to do, and then an amusing tangent to follow...

Anyways, before I do get to far, I'd like to acknowledge that I read your reply, Shale.  It does seem to fit your initial comment, though something still seems odd about it.  That said, you're feeling generally strong to me, so it's all good.

Also, OK.  Can you please not refer to Rat by all kinds of wierd names?  I'm sure it's fun, but this isn't the place to add that kind of unnecessary confusion, and I hate having to stop my train of thought for a minute or so each time you do that so I can figure out who you're talking about?

Shale: Odd answer, but...  ok.  I'm still really looking forward to hearing what

[Carthrat]

So ah Excal what were you about to say to Shale there?

[Excal]

Rat, that was an earlier draft of what I was writing.  Somehow it must have escaped revision by the text screen scrolling up, and my never scrolling down.  Needless to say, that's an incomplete thought that I haven't quite hunted down the details for yet.

It was supposed to have been replaced by the tangent on tangents.

[Ranmilia]

Well, I am going off your past games, the post restriction one at least. It's how I've picked up on what I know so far. No one even tried to name/restriction claim there for a while. The only newb move I've claimed to make is posting my nameclaim, and I did it purely for the fun saying who my composer was. I never realized it was an "odd"/scummy thing to do. There's no more to it, no less.

This is all blatantly false.  The very first thing that happened in Post Restriction was me calling for mass roleclaims, and the second thing that happened was everyone yelling at me for it.  There's no possible way you could read past games, especially that particular one, and not realize claims are a major issue.

Ryogo is either clueless, or scum faking clueless.  It's unfortunately impossible to tell which at this time. 

Rat's case against OK is decent and I'd be willing to vote on it.  However, the Excal/Shale debate is still drawing most of my suspicion at the moment.  Shale's first notable post is supporting Excal voting on Ryogo, as if he thinks Excal was opposed to that, when in fact Excal was the one voting semi-seriously.  Now Excal's backing off some, Shale's saying "Oh yeah oh yeah Excal was voting Ryogo all right," and Excal's dropped this odd draft of a response.  There's a lot of confusion going on there for me.

[Ryogo]

I agree that with the modkill, the votes on smodge aren't neccesary. However, he still has yet to post, yet to be MK'd, and I dont really have anywhere better to put my vote right now. So my vote will remain there for now. Also, I have to point out that Sopko hasn't posted much in the way of content. I do appreciate you sticking up for me before, but since, I haven't seen much out of you. Shale, Sir Alex, and Otter also haven't thrown much on the table the last few posts either.

EDIT: Ahh! Sir Alex! Huzzah!

Roleclaims you called for, a simple character/name/restriction-claim you did not. Actually, if I recall, you said you didn't care about a restriction claim at all, you just wanted roles out on the table. I do realize the dangers of getting everyone to claim their roles from the get-go. Mafia would be very inclined to go for a night kill on one of those guys. But the names in this game have nothing to do with anything other than the flavor of the game. I didn't think it would be of any harm. I still don't understand why people are attacking me for it. I guess it would seem a little odd, but El-Cid has stated that they don't have any bearing on the game whatsoever.

[Hunter Sopko]

I'm not as sure on OK.

He seems to be just being a cautious and helpful townie. I think it's being a little paranoid to say offering advice is scummy. Plus, since when are second chances bad? One mistake from a person shouldn't be enough to doom him. It's the repeated and blatant slipups/scumtells that lead to scum. Focusing on one mistake is like playing Russian Roulette and is usually more a scum tactic than anything.

Excal has the right idea. Since Smodge is pretty much covered by a modkill if he doesn't show up, I'm going to switch gears.

##Unvote: Smodge

##Vote: Otter

You haven't been completely lurking Otter, but your content is lacking. What's your stand on things now?

[Shale]

Let's see...as far as OK goes, the little dissertation on LYLO does seem pretty random, and many of his posts have gone on at length about either the obvious (No Lynch is bad, "accidental" lynching is a thing to be avoided) or nothing in particular (most of the metagaming talk, which could boil down to a few sentences). Overall, he's calling for extreme caution, especially in giving lynch candidates a chance to defend themselves...which really hasn't been an issue in any game I can recall, at least before LYLO. Quicklynches in the games we've played have always come from hard evidence, not "you acted scummy so shut up and die now," so I'm not seeing where the paranoia comes from there.

Alex: Excal's argument confuses me. He voted Ryogo and stood by it, and at the same time wanted to know why I (and other people) wasn't suspicious of him for casting the vote. Both of which are defensible positions, but I wouldn't expect to hear them coming simultaneously from the same person. So I told him why I didn't think putting a third vote on Ryogo was anything to be worried about, and later pointed out specifically the fact that Excal was the only person voting Ryogo who wasn't completely joking, and figured that settled it. And I'm not sure where I said "Oh yeah oh yeah Excal was voting Ryogo all right;" what I pointed out later was the earlier jokevotes, not Excal's vote.

Also, I wish people would stop ascribing this "Ryogo acted scummy!" viewpoint to me. It was weird for someone to start off with an out-of-the-blue nameclaim. I see no problem with pressuring him for a reason. That doesn't make it scummy.

Reviewing Tom's serious posts: Rat mentioned that his most recent post is all cheerleading and compliments; that's the polar opposite of the one before that, which is all criticism of other posts. Kinda odd.

Smodge needs to post, obviously, but yelling at him on the boards won't do much good if he hasn't even logged in. The modkill threat is welcome.

Ryogo seems like a standard newbie, which is basically a null read. Evil newbies and good newbies can both play like newbies.

Sopko has been somewhat light on content thus far, but what he's said has rung true enough.

Have to get back to deadline writing now. I need to look over Rat, Andrew and Corwin more when I've got the time again.

[Otter]

Tom's attitude bugs me in his most recent post.  "lol!" at OK with no other contribution; patronizing Keeshi ("You're not doing too bad for a newb!"); encouraging a theory that frankly sounds far-fetched to me ("I mean, it could just be a coincidence that he's the only female... but then how would he know... yeah."  How would he know?  Because that information was included in his role info, seems to be the obvious answer.  Making a case on the fact that he claimed to be the only female strikes me as being without substance.)  However, he does say that no-lynch is always bad!  This is true!

Ryogo seems to be lightly suggesting that the possibility for a no-lynch is a good thing, without exactly saying so.  He also claimed that I took his quote out of context, which I don't really see; all I did was isolate the part I had a question about and ask for a clarification.  It's not reasonable to demand that people quote your entire post every time they quote you.  If there was something I left out, you could certainly bring it up, but saying "You quoted me out of context!" and then not showing this additional context or what it would change is really weak and seems like an accusation for the sake of accusation.

Andrew has his excuse/reason/invincibility armor that I believe will get him through day 1 at least, whether justly or not.

  Seems to represent the prevailing view of Andrew, which is not a good thing, especially since this note was (tellingly) the most Cor had to say about him there.  Andrew didn't actually say a whole lot in his post despite its size, although I noticed this part:

In return, Carth's attack on the line bothers me. If OK and Ryogo are scum, then OK can advise him outside of the game. In any other case, it is teaching a newbie how to play the game/helping them out, which is generally beneficial to town. Yes, it can help scum get rid of scumtells, but similarly, if they are town, its helpful to them. This particular line of argumentation really bothers me.

That, combined with his "spat" with Corwin, is enough to make me uncomfortable enough to place down a vote in that direction.

I actually had to re-read the first paragraph there a few times to figure out what Andrew was trying to say (what helps scum get rid of scumtells?  I guess you mean advice from other scum?  In-game or out-of-game though?  The wording's ambiguous and this is always bad).  The clearest part is "Rat's argument bothers me."  The rest is WIFOM anyway, as Shale pointed out immediately afterwards.  Andrew helps use this to justify a vote on Rat by mentioning the conflict between Rat and Corwin, while not mentioning that Corwin was the one provoking Rat there, and provoking him for no good reason that I can tell.

I question Corwin's decision to come out of nowhere and toss insults (playful as they may have been intended) at Rat early, and the fact that nobody's confronted him about it and even seem to be voting Rat for responding at all, but the weakness of Andrew's vote, and the weakness of Andrew's presence in general, is enough for a vote from me right now.

##UNVOTE: Keeshi
##VOTE: Andrew

[EvilTom]

patronizing Keeshi ("You're not doing too bad for a newb!");

Andrew: That's fine, I was just hoping you'd post again today, and you did!


Ok, there's a lot going on with Carthrat lately. So here's my thoughts/etc.

First of all, to address Rat's accusation; well Shale beat me to it. My previous post [link  http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13208#msg13208 ] was plenty critical. In fact I was picking on Ryogo, Excal, Shale and... why, you, Mr Rat. Maybe you didn't like that? Still, I didn't think of my post as 'cheerleading' so much as being supportive of a new player who's come under fire for something relatively minor. Even you think he sounds newby. Anyway, my previous post was critical, and so is this one. I only agree with others when I feel the same as them, I don't see the point in typing something out anew.

In return, Carth's attack on the line bothers me. If OK and Ryogo are scum, then OK can advise him outside of the game. In any other case, it is teaching a newbie how to play the game/helping them out, which is generally beneficial to town. Yes, it can help scum get rid of scumtells, but similarly, if they are town, its helpful to them. This particular line of argumentation really bothers me.

That, combined with his "spat" with Corwin, is enough to make me uncomfortable enough to place down a vote in that direction.

Andrew - the reason for your vote, is it because Carthrat fought with Corwin so quickly after OK, or is it because he's picking small fights here and there and being antagonistic? Or is it because you don't agree with his view on ObivionKnight? I mostly disagree with you because:
Because he's really made a few decent points against OK, which I'm now considering. His 5 points (here: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13298#msg13298 ) are actually quite a strong case against OK.
So basically, you've got a couple of options. I'm fairly sure that OblivionKnight AND Carthrat can't both be scum. Carthrat has been making some useful observations for town  so far, and especially has made some great points against OK and I can't imagine scum doing that to fellow scum. Not even for a bus. They could both be town, but not both scum. If OK is town, the theory about Ryogo being scum falls apart. If Carthrat is town, the spat with Corwin idea falls apart and just becomes town infighting. I'd like to hear your opinions and the reasoning for your vote, Andrew.

Hunter Sopko, I disagree with you. Carthrat has made his points against OK, and they're good ones (well, at least in my opinion). I'd like to see OK's response before I go any further on it though.

Rat's case against OK is decent and I'd be willing to vote on it.  However, the Excal/Shale debate is still drawing most of my suspicion at the moment.  Shale's first notable post is supporting Excal voting on Ryogo, as if he thinks Excal was opposed to that, when in fact Excal was the one voting semi-seriously.  Now Excal's backing off some, Shale's saying "Oh yeah oh yeah Excal was voting Ryogo all right," and Excal's dropped this odd draft of a response.  There's a lot of confusion going on there for me.

Alex - I agree the whole Excal/Shale thing was dodgy. But why do you think it's more important to go after the Excal/Shale problem than than Rat's arguments? I'm not saying any of the arguments are wrong, I just want to know how you've prioritized them.

patronizing Keeshi ("You're not doing too bad for a newb!")

Sorry Otter, you've got it wrong. I was being sincere; the point of that comment was to try and encourage him to keep playing. Playing with this community can be quite daunting, I mean, he makes a meaningless nameclaim, and then gets jumped on by 2 joke voters, and then Excal/Shale. I didn't think he'd done anything wrong, so I offered some support.
And the 'lol', was because... it's obvious that scum don't drop scumtells on purpose >.> that's why they're called tells. I can empathise with Ryogo when he says you take him out of context.

[AndrewRogue]

Got another grab at the comp. ^_^

Carth: I do realize it is not the main thrust of your attack, it is just a particularly troubling line of argumentation in my head. I realize the general thrust of the concept (makes you look like a good townie in general, and seems to be oriented towards smoothing over scum tells), I find it to be... hrm... this is too strong a term, but I can't think of a better one... anti-good play? It can be played as scum trying to get brownie points for good townie play, but it can also be a legitimate attempt to aid new players, which increases the general quality of game. All told, I realize there is more to your argument, but this particular line of thought feels very off to me.

On OK: The whole obvious advice and what have you thing is a neutral tell to me. The most troubling thing to me, looking back, is that note that...

As for meta-gaming...well, I've only ever been town...ever.  I am the most awesome townie there is, afterall OKIATUHIIAHWPIWCHTIA.

I realize it is playful, but playful talk can often mean just as much as real talk. We've seen this happen before in games, and all this does is plant little seeds of doubt. Not sure I feel strongly enough to swing a vote his direction because of it, but it really does bother me.

On Corwin: Retrospectively, I would like to ask about why you decided to post in that particular manner. Any reason?

To Otter: I was bouncing off this particular point by Carth.

Also, as it comes to me: is there *really any point* giving newbies direct hints on how to play- or rather, hints on how to not look scummy? They're scumtells, surely it's less likely in general that they'll make 'em if they're town.

I did make that a lot more ambiguous than I intended. Furthermore, I did actually demonstrate it could be played both ways right there in that line. I appear to have come across a bit stronger than I intended, but the thrust of that portion of the post is that it is effectively a null read. Real advice for covering scum tells can be given out of game and avoid pressure, while in-game advice can be presented either earnestly or as a scum trying to play the good townie. Voting on it seems to be discouraging offering advice (to an admitted newbie, no less), which I feel is anti-good play-ish.

My choice to vote Carth > Cor, despite it being Cor who levelled the insult is because the case seems stronger on Carth. He responds fairly harshly to Cor, and then has the OK argumentation that bothers moi. Take that as you will.

I do have to ask though. Why do you quote that particular Corwin line about me? You do realize that that post was made before I'd had the chance to post again? Your diction (specifically your use of the term of "tellingly") seems designed to misrepresent Cor's comment on me. Of course that was all he had to say about me. I hadn't posted again yet! He had a one line joke vote to go off! I would also say that calling my excuse "armor" and saying that people are buying into it is a bit of a stretch. People seem to be watching closely to make sure I post, and I have a couple of floating warnings about content. Saying that I'm being ignored seems like a pretty strong misrepresentation of the state of the game and me.

Depending on how long Ash and friend keep talking, I'll be by a computer a bit longer, and will probably have a chance to check once more before bed. Good hunting.

Guh, Ninja'd.

Tom: My reason for the vote is, essentially, both. The quick spat between him and Corwin feels strange to me (it kind of flared up just enough to be noticeable and then died off). On top of that, I disagree with some of his points about OK to the degree that I feel it felt scummy and was encouraging leaving newbies to kind of sink or swim on their on, which does not sink up with good townie play to me. Scum can get advice outside of the game, townies cannot. I feel voting on OK with some of those points in mind is discouraging "helping" in game, and I can't view that in a positive light.

Of course, now you had to go and, even before day one is up, start putting out cases where "X and Y can't be scum together" and "If X is town, Z can't be scum and if Y is town, theory about A can't be right at all." Scum win the game by convincing you of things like this, and as someone who has regularly bussed the loving hell out of his scummates before, I know it is very strong and can be used quite effectively early in the game. Hell, you don't even have to bus early. You just have to convince people that the way you are arguing means you can't possibly be aligned with the other person, and you've set yourself or your buddy up for the rest of the game.

##Unvote: Carth
##Vote: Tom

Why'd you go here? Especially on day one out of all days? Furthermore, can you actually justify any of your stances definitively?

[Otter]

Andrew: Fair enough, actually.  The "tellingly" bit wasn't intended to be a false reflection on your post afterwards, it was more a note of the fact that we'd already gotten around to analysis by that point and you were obviously absent.  Apologies if it seemed like I was using that as a strike against your later post.

Your wording regarding your Rat vote was initially vague and I appreciate the clarification.  Do be more clear in the future if possible!  You're willing to explain and do so clearly enough, though, and I can definitely see the objection to Tom.  And I'd like a response from Tom to that!

##UNVOTE: Andrew

Right now, though?  Excal.

Ryogo, you're still four votes away from hammer.  And oddly enough, even if those four votes were sitting in my back pocket, I've somehow refrained from using them.

I thought this line was weird when I first read it, but didn't bring it up because there wasn't a whole lot to say about it.  I just actually examined what Excal's been doing all game, though, and while he's casting himself as the conscientious discussion-starting townie, he's also displaying a habit of not standing by anything he says.

Rat, you wound me!  You make it sound like I ever meant poor Ryogo any harm.

That vote, along with the pressure I laid on the people who didn't find it suspicious [my emphasis], was there entirely to get people talking.  And, with the possible exception of Tom, I'm honestly finding it a bit worrysome that some people still think I was seriously after him.

"I pushed Ryogo closer to danger to stimulate discussion!  Now discuss, presumably about why I did that or why I shouldn't have!  But don't act like I was seriously trying to put him in danger."  The contradiction here is in plain sight.  You want the idea of that third vote on one person to get discussion started, but you don't want anyone to make the mistake of acting like that was a real vote.  Early vote pileups only create talk because there's a reason for them and they supposedly signify actual danger!  If the threat was fake and your lack of commitment to the vote was manifest (which you're now claiming it plainly was, even casting aspersions on anyone who's still acting like it was "serious"), then what were we supposed to say about it?

I endorse getting early trains started to stimulate discussion, but that works because there's some meaning to, say, that third vote early on.  Excal immediately went out of his way afterwards to assure everybody that the third vote was just a utility to start things, like a jokevote; if that's the case, why should anyone have treated it any differently?  We're not going to take it more seriously than you do.

Excal's followed a repeating pattern here:  "Rather than make a jokevote I'll vote Ryogo due to early name claim" --> "Nah that was just to start talk!  Why'd you guys let it go without mention though?" --> "Hey, guess what, I was only needling you guys about not taking me seriously enough to respond... in order to start discussion!  Haha, that's right, you can't call me on it after all, I was being a good townie!  Why are you guys acting like I was really going after Ryogo though?  Surely you aren't taking that vote seriously?"  By revealing his earlier insincerity after the fact with an oh-that-should-have-been-obvious attitude and then criticizing people for how they reacted or didn't react, he's playing "Gotcha!" with the entire town and this confusion isn't good for us at all.

It also sets a precedent for Excal being allowed to contradict himself at will, which is basically what he's been doing.  Then he comes in with this "earlier draft" post with a non-comment to Shale, gets called on it, and responds but conspicuously doesn't say what he was going to tell Shale he was looking forward to, even though that's exactly what Rat asked about.  He's retracted his easy-to-justify, very-safe smodge vote now that there's modkill on the table and no reason for it anymore, and now he's sitting with no vote out at all.  There's a lot going on here and nobody's called him out with a vote yet, so I'm going to.

##VOTE: Excal

[EvilTom]

You just have to convince people that the way you are arguing means you can't possibly be aligned with the other person, and you've set yourself or your buddy up for the rest of the game.

Ok, I guess it's possible that Rat and OK are both scum and are bussing each other. But.. it just didn't feel that way to me.
Do you think I'm wrong? Why? Rat's wording didn't seem like a bus to me. I guess I could be wrong.
Andrew, why are you so convinced that Rat and OK are scum? Rat seems like he's genuinely trying to help and pointing out things about OK that I'd missed.

[Ryogo]

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13326#msg13326

Sopko, That post catches me as real odd. I just reviewed the whole thread, and although you have a few more posts than Otter (And yes, I counted everyones post count in the thread, I'm really bored tonight), you have even less content. I find this very suspicious indeed. Also, your votes this whole time until then were for both Corwin and smodge. (And yes, I know my votes were for them too, but the non-posters at the time seemed as good a place as any) As such, Sopko has also drawn no suspicion onto himself, and has offered very little to the table thus far. He posts quick little blurbs on topic frequently enough so that people don't think of him when looking for lurkers, but manages to stay in the background, with barely a peep towards him. Otter has been getting his two cents in, and with some good points. Or at least I think so. You, not so much.

I do find this "loopy" thinking of Excal a very valid line of thought. It does raise the eyebrow a good few inches. Same for the reasoning behind OK's suspicions. Although I think the advice he was giving isn't a sign of scum, I do honestly feel he was just trying to give me a helping hand. And I do appreciate it. The other points provided though are good arguments. Carthrat, I actually have no real suspicion of at the moment, nor Corwin. As far as day 1 goes, I agree with Corwin on watching for the lurkers. Shale's posting content worries me as well, but it's begun to pick up, and I'm not nearly as worried about him now than the others I mentioned here.

But I dunno, Sopko just really stands out to me. With the lightning clouds beginning to grow over smodge's head, I think its time to change my vote as well.

##Unvote: smodge
##Vote: Sopko


EDIT: Tom's ninja'd me. Like other people said, I don't want to commit to this kind of logic this early in the game. It's dangerous stuff, by the looks and sounds of things.

[Hunter Sopko]

First off...

##Unvote: Otter

More than satisfying effort. Put into words the strange feeling I was having about Excal's argument before. It's the start of a faulty argument and lead to a series of mis-steps on Excal's part. This usually isn't very good, and really makes me lean on Excal for a more adequate defense than "Well, you can't really suspect that of little ol' me" (in so many words). So...

##Vote: Excal

As for Ryogo, it was a standard prod vote, really. Otter did some decent stuff the first 24 hours, but for most of today until his post at 11PM he didn't post much. Just wanted to make sure he didn't fall off the radar. Rat even mentioned him in this:

post, and everyone focused on OK and Excal. Figured it was worth bringing Otter back up.