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

[Corwin]

Thoughts and impressions. OK's insistence to refer to people with a mention of the previous mafia game is puzzling. I know I was distracted from his content by trying to puzzle out why he addressed me the way he had, and it's obviously not just the way he referred to me. What bothers me here is that in this post (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13259#msg13259), to use an example, he also refers to how things in mafia could be misinterpreted and seems to wish for greater clarity. It just feels weird that he would do it in the same post where he also pointlessly calls me "Mr. stars and analysis".

Moving on to how OK talks of scum hammering someone, potentially killing a power role without the chance of a roleclaim. Frankly, the chances of this are slight. Also, if we're going for unlikely but possible scenarios, what about the one where we wait too long and second-guess ourselves while scum move the lynch away from them and to someone innocent? Unlike with your scenario, this one happened quite a bit and I could bring several examples of it easily if you can't remember it happening yourself. In summary, waiting for roleclaims = sure. Holding on to our votes so as to not place someone oh no -4 to hammer = no. Bending over backwards to give someone just one more chance in a long line of one more chances = no.

Usually, this isn't an issue - if there's a big screw-up, usually, I've noticed the person dug themselves in deeper (Super, Tom in previous games).

I do indeed remember Super imploding as scum, most memorably in NR mafia. But... strange that you would mention Tom in this context, whom I believe is a contender to Ciato's record, if not her disposition. Do you know something we don't, OK?

And now it's all on smodge.  I'll be waiting for him to get back when I return around...god knows when. 

And just in case anyone wonders why I bothered arguing about what essentially comes down to style in the paragraph above, here's a handy self-explanatory quote. If everyone did this and unvoted their 'pressure votes' and then just sat around on their votes 'waiting for X to get back' then smodge would still be at 0 votes right now and, in fact, under no real pressure to show up.

On the whole Ryogo/No Lynch thing. Ah, nostalgia. I remember being curious about the No Lynch option my first game and almost being buried for it. It still amuses me to see it called a 'scum tactic' since even though there's no argument that it favors scum quite a bit, I have yet to see scum actually employ it. Ever. So yeah.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13276#msg13276

A Tom post I can only characterize as 'smug' throughout.

"Well spotted! Thumbs up for Keeshi."
"You're not doing too bad for a newb!"

Just a couple of the most grating examples. What exactly possessed you to act superior to a new player in this way? (EDIT: glancing at the votecount below reveals that Keeshi has a vote against you at the time of your post; could this be the reason? Your post could be read either as a condescending attack or hamhanded praise, both of which would fit if you were trying to make that vote go away. Suspicious.)

Also. "Talking = shows you're town." WHAT.

On Ryogo being defensive/Tom commenting on it being a scumtell. Eh. My opinion is that you must have solid content, and that additionally this content is measured up against your overall contribution. Thus, even if there is some original content out there, if it ends up being buried in constant self-defense, that doesn't actually help town. It's not the defense itself that's suspect, heavy though it may be, but lack of content on other people. And having said that, I'm expecting to hear from Ryogo on this front. Let's hear what you think about all the other players and why.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13298#msg13298

'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.)

That question was really to OK. And yes, I agree, which makes it a rhetorical question, I suppose. I just really don't see how scum hammering suddenly before a chance to roleclaim anywhere outside of LYLO would not only happen but be 'convenient' for them, as OK alluded earlier.

Moving on down Rat's post. I obviously disagree on his reading of Tom's post to Keeshi. On smodge....

Well, now. We actually have a post from the mod that states smodge is about to get modkilled if he doesn't show up within a given timeframe. This was not the case when OK posted, with intent to go after smodge but not laying a vote. In this case, however, I believe that this is enough for me to unvote him at this time. ##Unvote: Smodge.

Who do I find suspicious? Let's see. I'll answer once I've caught up.

Moving on again. Andrew puzzles me with his 'Cor/Rat spat'. Say what? It's just a bit of banter, Rat's a friend, I'm allowed to have them. I used to auto-jokevote Rat lots on day 1 in old games for much the same reason. As you've noticed yourself, it never actually took front stage to anything or obscured any issues, so what's the deal? That you even use it as part of any vote on Rat is suspicious as hell, especially when paired with the immunity I cited you had going for the game's opening stage at least. Let's be frank, there's not much you can do besides going "scum lol don't wanna play anymore" that could get your lynched this day. Yeah, no, that's not a reason to use suspect arguments for when you vote outside the joke phase. Particularly egrerious since he agrees that LAL is a good policy. Rat is anything but a lurker so far by any definition of the word.

The other part of Andrew's reason to vote Rat doesn't really fly for me, either.

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

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

Back at'cha, Sopko.

Pausing here: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13337#msg13337

I don't have the time to keep on going, and already over half the workday has passed. Lunch break is ending, etc. On skimming below nothing alters my perceptions on how scummy people look, though it might actually change the 'neutral' reads I have, so I'll comment properly later.

Now, however, to revisit Rat's question of where my vote should go, in my opinion.

I went over OK, Tom, Sopko and Andrew and either of them raises enough bells for a day 1 vote, especially the former. Alex should get an honorary mention for having a far diminished presence compared to other games, but I don't think it quite warrants a vote. Ryogo and Keeshi are new here, and haven't done anything I view as particularly scummy. No read on Otter, Excal, Shale or yourself to matter. Ironically, to me, since I ended up defending you.

So which one actually gets the vote? Sopko, whom I feel is lurking (content-wise). There's simply not enough this early into the game for me to seriously vote on 'evidence', so LAL it is to pressure people to participate more fully. If this lack of content is unintentional, Sopko, you know how to make me change my vote.

##Vote: Sopko

[Excal]

Otter, I'm not going to defend my duality.  I've said my piece, and it is either enough or not.  As for why I did take steps to ensure that there was no miscommunication after the purpose of the two-face argument was done, that was mostly so that Ryogo didn't get too antsy.  After all, you might like increasing the pressure on people until they break, but I don't generally believe that posters here are akin to trylobytes and thrive under vast amounts of pressure, and would rather not start a campaign of driving off the new guys.  At least, not yet.

As for that extra tidbit for Shale?  That is a discarded thought, meant to be erased, and never to be completed.  You can read into it all you like, but the only thing you'll ever really glean from it is that my mind is not some 100% efficient machine of awesomeness.  If yours is, then allow me to duly apologise for my imperfections.

Now, as for what's going on.

Keeshi, good content when she posts, but the posts are a bit erratic in timing.  That said, about as frequent as Andy, and certainly more palatable even if not more volume.  This is mostly just here as a reminder to myself that she is, in fact, playing.

I'd like to actually move on to Andy now.  Specifically, most of his offense against Rat has to do with the fact that Rat made some commentary about OK and his teaching Ryogo.  Let's be honest, that entire argument is riddled to hell and back with all kinds of trick reasoning that doesn't lead us anywhere.  After all, look at Yakko and his letters.  It helps both town and scum to help those who need help.  The majority of Rat's case rests on OK doing a lot of questionable acts full of tricky logic and past references that tend to confound.  You, Andy, are ignoring these and mostly going after Rat because of a part of his case that read more as examining the issue thoroughly than the actual basis of his argument, and that feels off to me.

Especially when paired up with a heated exchange that wasn't started by rat, presumes a scum/scum connection to begin with on day 1, and took up a whole of a single paragraph so far this game on his part.  Your argument against him just feels off.

So, when you do your daily check in, here's some incentive to think on this.

##Vote: Andy

[Ghen]

Going over all the stuff since I left work yesterday:

The first thing that stands out was Otter's line below regarding Ryogo:

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.

I would agree.  If that was what he had done.  If he had stated, 'you misquoted me' and left it at that, it is indeed a very vague defense.  But what he did was then provide the full quote to give his line the full context which he seemed to think the single line you quoted needed in order to be understood correctly.  Hardly vague then.

And in regards to a post by Tom:

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.

Unless I misunderstood, I thought his response about 'cheerleading' was your reply to me, not your earlier response to Ryogo.

Also, there is this:

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.

In reading back through previous games here and in my own experience, this is actually not a bad tactic, especially if a fellow scum is good enough to stand up to the abuse and give some back instead.  It's a very easy smokescreen and setting a good scum smokescreen up on Day 1 with a little bit of bickering is easy.  And when you start using it later on if one of you makes an error so you seem more townie is a piece of pie when you've 'already stated you thought something was off with him'. 

Frankly, there is nothing on any Day 1 that can actually prove people are not scum buddies other than a modkill showing alignment.  I find your assertion that they can not both be scum flawed.  I see that this has already been addressed while I was gone, but I wanted to get my thoughts out there on the issue as well.

And again for reference here:

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.

I'm pretty sure Otter was talking about you and me, not you and Ryogo. 

In regards to a serious vote, I believe the prevailing line of thought on Smodge is correct.  There's no use in wasting a vote on someone who is in danger of modkill if he doesn't post.  In all the games I've played, I have yet to actually have a scum give himself away seriously on day 1.  If we managed to correctly get scum on our first kill, it was usually due to nothing more than good luck.  So I usually see the first day as more of a time to prune away excess players who are not contributing.  As Andrew has stated that he does not have the time necessary to play, I feel it best to put my vote there and clear away a non-productive player.

##Unvote EvilTom
##Vote Andrew

Time to get some work done, but I'll check back in before long.

[Ghen]

Keeshi, good content when she posts, but the posts are a bit erratic in timing.  That said, about as frequent as Andy, and certainly more palatable even if not more volume.  This is mostly just here as a reminder to myself that she is, in fact, playing.

And I missed this in my first run through.  You are correct that I do not have a good window of posting.  I can only post from here at work reliably.  I do not have internet access from home, so it will be rare for me to be able to post in my evenings unless I'm travelling.  Luckily, I do travel a few days each week, though, so we'll see what I can finagle in between dinner meetings. 

Now, this is an explaination, not an excuse.  It certainly doesn't absolve me of the obligation to provide content and to participate as much as I can during the course of the days.  If I start to taper off, though, I would hope to be called out on it and suffer the consequences of my inactivity.  This is Mafia, not a tea party.

[AndrewRogue]

Whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah there Keeshi.

So with all the various arguments going on and everything else, you've decided, despite me laying out some decent content, making arguments when I can and generally participating... that I should get the noose? How exactly am I being non-productive? I'm fine with a lurker lynch (well, I'll argue it to the end, but I won't begrudge it) if you guys really don't think I'm delivering on the goods, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that I am posting and, at this point, have about as much going for me as Corwin and Alex.

And now, since I have to jet, lemme try to wrap this up in double time.

Tom: I'm not convinced. I simply do not discount any possibilities, especially at this juncture in the game.

Cor:

Moving on again. Andrew puzzles me with his 'Cor/Rat spat'. Say what? It's just a bit of banter, Rat's a friend, I'm allowed to have them. I used to auto-jokevote Rat lots on day 1 in old games for much the same reason. As you've noticed yourself, it never actually took front stage to anything or obscured any issues, so what's the deal? That you even use it as part of any vote on Rat is suspicious as hell, especially when paired with the immunity I cited you had going for the game's opening stage at least. Let's be frank, there's not much you can do besides going "scum lol don't wanna play anymore" that could get your lynched this day. Yeah, no, that's not a reason to use suspect arguments for when you vote outside the joke phase. Particularly egrerious since he agrees that LAL is a good policy. Rat is anything but a lurker so far by any definition of the word.

I'm obviously not aware of how close you guys are. And yes, I am aware that it didn't take front stage or obscure anything. What it did do is place the two of you in a seemingly oppositional position with just enough strength to stand out. I really wish people would quit acting like I'm attempting to use some "invincibility armor" though. Its pretty clear that I'm not immune to anything, and I'm certainly not trying to abuse it.

Could you also clear up those last two lines? I've never referred to Carth as a lurker or anything of the sort.

Excal: I'll say this one more time, since I'm tired of clearing it up. What I feel is wrong with that part of Carth's argumentation has NOTHING to do with OK himself. What it has to do with is that it seems to be encouraging poor play by putting the concept of advising newbies into the "scummy" category. It feels like an anti-good play stance, and I heartily disapprove of it. The spat thing is as I've said. Carth's response felt uncharacteristic and stood out just enough for me to feel the possibility of some scum-scum antics. Since he also had the "advising" line of argumentation, it was enough for me to press against him instead of Cor.

[Ghen]

Whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah there Keeshi.

So with all the various arguments going on and everything else, you've decided, despite me laying out some decent content, making arguments when I can and generally participating... that I should get the noose? How exactly am I being non-productive? I'm fine with a lurker lynch (well, I'll argue it to the end, but I won't begrudge it) if you guys really don't think I'm delivering on the goods, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that I am posting and, at this point, have about as much going for me as Corwin and Alex.

Let me clarify.  From your remarks in the sign up thread and your posts to date, you have admitted to very limited time in which to devote to the game. 

I haven't seen anything that really indicates to me that anyone here is scum yet.  It's Day 1, so I am hardly surprised, though.  There are certain things that have piqued my interest and I intend to follow them closely (such as Ryogo's comment on being the only female composer and Tom's reasoning that two players could not both be scum).  But those have not seemed scummy so much as merely worrisome.  And with a lack of any obvious targets, I do tend to put my votes on those with limited time to participate or LAL.  My first choice was Smodge, but as the mod has said he will be modkilled if he ends up not being able to post, then I find you the next highest on the list to me.

You have been posting content today, I am not disputing this, but by your own admission you will have limited time when you will be available and there is a chance that you will have to miss a great deal of conversation and decision making during your times away from the computer.  It is with those times of inability to be productive in mind that I laid my vote where it is.

[Corwin]

Okay, caught up, board is up, posting again at last.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13337#msg13337

Otter's hitting mostly the same points on Tom (technically, I'm echoing him, since he posted first, but....). On Rat... man, this is so ridiculous and overblown. The point on Andrew, though, is one I'd like to revisit in more depth. I understand Otter's Andrew vote and the reasoning behind it. Andrew's post (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13342#msg13342) had the following passage in response to Otter's points on him:

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!

Ironically, my opinion of Andrew worsened after he posted again. However, just because I don't like the way he looks, the point does seem valid in part. Andrew is right to say that there's certain scrutiny in his direction (mind, I still don't but an Andrew day 1 lynch as something that'd happen, but he's certainly not getting a free pass). Also, Andrew's also right that there was literally nothing else for me to say about him; building a case upon a jokepost/vote without waiting for at least a second post from Andrew seems a bit overzealous.

Question for Andrew. You referred to LAL as a good strategy in a post (and I noted you do it). Can you please explain why you're not going with it for your voting pattern here? I find it difficult to believe that you have some kind of superior radar of day 1 scum-catching, and statistically a lynch based on a day 1 'case' is usually likely to get a townie, perhaps due to townie-on-townie spats. Normally I'd spend ages extolling the virtues of LAL and how it would at least let us prune away those who don't contribute much and don't let us see enough of them to make an informed decision later on in the game, or how scum usually lurks-- but you already agree, don't you? Anyway, while I ranted a bit here, there's still a question buried within and I'd like to hear your rationalization for avoiding LAL so far.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13339#msg13339
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13367#msg13367

Two Tom posts. He comes off pretty strongly about his theory in the first, then reclassifies it as a gut feeling in the second after being challenged. I don't see his logic, in any case. Tom, are you trying to justify for yourself a way to latch onto Rat's reasoning? Though he might be a cool person in real life (I dunno, you'd know better), how can you even consider taking someone else's theories for your own? Or is it something else?

I'll move on to Excal's post. (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13384#msg13384)

Excal defends several strange things observed about him by not really defending them. As valid a stance as any, since what could he possibly say that we'll accept? I'm inclined to keep them in mind and observe him, but not vote for him at this point. A mention of Keeshi I found strange -- of all the people involved, she is the one you're having trouble remembering? Even if you discount smodge, I'm actually having difficulty keeping in mind Alex is around, given what I'm accustomed of seeing from him. Keeshi's presence feels quite stable.

Of note is that he votes Andrew, and Keeshi follows up with a post throwing on another vote Andrew's way half an hour later.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13393#msg13393

Andrew's post. I'm not sure I agree with his characterization of his participation as on par with mine, but it could be vanity speaking. Just because my post count is low holds no relevance over my actual content. Andrew, if you think mine is lacking, please provide an example or, alternately, ask me to expand on areas you believe I've neglected addressing.

I'm obviously not aware of how close you guys are.

Haha. Okay, we all laughed. Can we now get past this?

What it did do is place the two of you in a seemingly oppositional position with just enough strength to stand out.

This requires, of course, that I know in advance how Rat would react there. Which is, erm, a bit difficult without coordination even though we're friends. Are you then saying the two of us are talking outside the thread, Andrew?

I really wish people would quit acting like I'm attempting to use some "invincibility armor" though.

I never said that you were using it or trying to. I said you had it. I'd add 'whether you like it or not' there, but come on, who wouldn't like it?

Excal: I'll say this one more time, since I'm tired of clearing it up. What I feel is wrong with that part of Carth's argumentation has NOTHING to do with OK himself. What it has to do with is that it seems to be encouraging poor play by putting the concept of advising newbies into the "scummy" category. It feels like an anti-good play stance, and I heartily disapprove of it. The spat thing is as I've said. Carth's response felt uncharacteristic and stood out just enough for me to feel the possibility of some scum-scum antics. Since he also had the "advising" line of argumentation, it was enough for me to press against him instead of Cor.

You're listing as your main reason for voting something you thought was anti-good play on Rat's side. You mention the 'spat' as an aside. And yet, you also mention I was a viable option, just not as high as Rat. You don't mention anyone else.

Now, a quiz! If you're voting based on bad/scummy/anti-town play, where did I commit such an offense? What made me qualify above everyone else but Rat?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13308#msg13308

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

And back to my original question to you, as appears earlier in this post: why weren't you going with LAL to begin with?

[Ryogo]

Alright, Corwin. I'll give you what you want from me. My opinions so far on everyone playing!

Sopko - http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=673.msg13368#msg13368

I just finished my post about him before I went to bed, and my opinions haven't changed. He's currently the one I am most suspicious of. I'm glad someone (Corwin) feels the same way. Many posts, far too little content.

Smodge: I can hear the thunderbolts dancing like sugarplums over his head. Without a post, I can't really say much. But what if he were to post today? What would happen? I personally wouldn't want to see that lynch have to be changed back to him since we'd have so little to go off of, but you can't just ignore that they skipped majority of day 1.

OblivionKnight: He gave me advice. I don't see that as a scum sin. I'm pretty sure he was just trying to help me out. Rat, however, does present a good case towards him. He's suspicious... The Metagaming isn't always a good choice to go with on day one. And second chances aren't always the best choices of action. But I don't see the scum surfacing yet.

AndrewRogue: Low post count, but very low in fat and high in content. He's at least doing what he can. I don't call this a scum tactic, he did ask for a replacement before the game started and stated that he wouldn't be able to post much before roles were sent out. The only reasons given to vote for him are that he hasn't posted much. He's still posted more content than other people though, and that is fine by me. I don't feel that he should be seriously voted for as our lynchee.

SirAlex: I don't know what your timezone is... but you have 3 posts?! And I really don't see much in the way of content. A few comments towards OK and Excal/Shale, and how I'm "clueless or faking clueless". There's really nothing I can really read off of him. There's just far too little. As for Day 1 tactics go, I'm for voting on those not doing much for the town. I'm still much more suspicious of Sopko though, but that doesn't stop him from getting FOS: SirAlex Seriously, what's up here?

Excal: Yes, the arguments that he made towards the beginning are flawed and weird, and I still can't make 100% sense out of them. But he did make a point that I agreed with. Three votes layed on me in the first hour is a little weird, I think. But others not noticing/ignoring it? I find that weirder. I wouldn't use it as my basis for a case against someone though. Also, you started the whole nameclaim scandal against me It would be a very good way to redirect attention from yourself, though I don't think that was the case here. Other people's points about him though make some sense. He has been posting... strangely. The unfinished comment about Shale, I believe his story about it though. I've almost done the same before. I wouldn't be against a vote here... I just think its better off somewhere else for now, until we see more.

Shale: Another high post count, but only has recently produced a lot of content. However, he has been producing content as of late, and that removed most of my suspicion of him. Could be a ploy, could just be him now actually having something to say. I don't have much else to say about him right now. I'm not worried about him.

Ryogo: Hey, that's me! I'm a good wholesome townie, and I'll swear by it to the death   You really think I'd put something else about myself?

EvilTom: Yeah, he has been posting some obvious things. But also has thrown good points out here. Carthrat has been very antagonizing, but I think its more for to get people talking, than anything else. I don't really have much to say about Tom right now, even after reading over his posts. I didn't notice anything major here with him. One of his posts did lack content, but thats not to say his others did not. Currently not worried about him. I think others are much more suspicious, but his trying to get the x + y = scum logic going day 1 seems a dangerous and sneaky thing to try and do this fast.

Keeshi: My fellow newb here on RPGDL! Fewer posts, but raises good points. First of all, to address the problem of me getting called out as the only female composer being "suspicious", I was explicitly told that I would be the token female character in this game in my PM. I was scared to say it in those words, because I thought it might be counted as quoting the PM, but El-Cid said it was ok. Anyways, off of that topic, I'm wary of her for the same reasons you guys are wary of the both of us. I don't know her nearly as well as you guys. She seems to be very analytical in her posts, which is good. I think she's been benefiting the town a good deal, and don't have any bad feeling towards her.  And hey, this discussion of who is a scum could be happening at a tea party. We are all from 1000-1900 AD. If I recall, they liked their tea

Carthrat: Ahh! I see you have brought many points and conflicts to the table. Conflict can be good, but too much makes it look like you're trying to stir up attention away from yourself, which isn't a good thing here. You've brought many good scum arguments to the table, which has been a great asset. It's day 1, we need everything we can get. But the table is starting to overflow here, and people are becoming wary of what exactly you're trying to do by stirring things up. Me included. Currently has thrown way too much on the table to risk voting for; too big of an asset in my opinion.

Corwin: The one who asked for my opinions! And I agree! I needed them out there. I must say I'm getting happy that I'm nearing the end of my list though. Much of the same opinions on Carthrat apply here to Corwin. I don't think his arguments are coming off as "trying to stir stuff up" to me though. More of good town play. I'm not suspicious of him currently. I'm just way too suspicious of other people.

Finally! Otter: After being called out on low post content, has contributed much more! Good! I like that. Has pointed out a few things about me, but were valid points. I am a little worried about this though, as the post content/length only increased when called out. I'd say to keep an eye on this slippery Otter.

EDIT: Just when I finally think I'm done, I get ninja'd by not one, not two, but three posts! I'm starving after rereading the damn topic and posting about everyone, so I'm keeping this part short!

To Andrew: I agree with you. I don't think you should be getting the noose day 1. You've put much more content into you're posts than SirAlex and Sopko combined, I believe. And if he can start posting on a regular basis come Saturday, I'm all fine for leaving you alive.

To Keeshi: I agree with your logic, but I think other people are bigger threats here, even on day 1. Sopko and Alex, once again, are my picks. Way too little content. Andrew's away, yet has still posted more than Alex

To Corwin: You're bringing up good points again! Like I had mentioned in my post before I was ninja'd, I have great suspicions about Alex, and others feel the same way now too. Good! I agree with your opinions on Excal too. He's strange, but it would require more observation on what he does for a vote from me. I'm not really sure what to feel about the whole Tom/Andrew thing you brought up.

[Ranmilia]

Only now after several rereads and multiple other people chiming in am I beginning to understand what was going on with Excal page 1-2.  It remains utterly bizzare.  Shale's response to him seems more justified now that I understand Excal was, effectively, attacking his own vote; I missed this entirely since I *did* call Excal's vote into question and he was simultaneously knocking on my door for taking issue with it.  I do not like this insanity.

The signal/noise ratio around Tom is, as usual, too high for me to say anything productive in that department. 

No one as of yet is really pinging at me for low content.  It'll be hard to look for that this game since we seem to have a much larger than average number of people with restricted posting.  On that note, however, Keeshi's last two posts don't sit too well with me.  'Culling the herd' and abandoning trying to find scum is a ridiculous non-strategy.  It's true that poor players are often cut first, but there needs to be at least a semblance of a case about them being scummy, so that we can analyze that wagon on later days. 

And here we have Keeshi attacking Andrew - not even for low content, but for not being able to post much.  Even though Andrew's been posting more than I would have expected, and with helpful stuff and actual content, too. 

And then Keeshi goes "Oh yeah sorry I can't actually post from home myself, or much at all for that matter, in fact I missed a case about myself at first.  Only call me out if my content is lacking, though!"

Contradiction off the port bow Cap'n!  Why should we be abandoning the search for scum, and voting Andrew for not being able to be around much but not you?

##Unvote: Shale
##Vote: Keeshi

(above post eaten by boards and Andrew and Keeshi posted again - nothing to make me change anything I say here though)

[Ryogo]

Alex, I did cast this in the above post, but reading it now, it looks very cluttered, and you cant really notice it. I did call you out for the low post count, so did Corwin, so did Andrew. Reread the above posts, ctrl+f is your friend. Anyways, because it's hard to see in my post, I'll re-say this here:


FOS: SirAlex

Just too few posts, too little content.

[Ghen]

Alex, I fail to see how my voting for Andrew equates to my giving up on a search for scum.  What I said was that no one so far has seemed scum to me.  This may change and I may move my vote.  They're hardly set in stone.  But I thought it best to move my vote off of the jokevote on Tom and onto something serious.  I am still watching the conversations and if something is said to change my mind and indicate that someone might indeed be scum, I would certainly move my vote off of someone who I don't see as scum any more than any of you.  But in a vacuum of scum indications to my own senses, I believe defaulting to LAL or low posting availability is a viable voting option.  The fact that I chose low posting availability over a true LAL is personal preference, admittedly.

I realize that, in fact, I fall into that same bucket.  I do have a limited posting window.  Not as harsh as Andrew's perhaps, but still noticable.  And if I were voted on that lacking any other indications, I would certainly not argue the point.  Everyone else is either seeing scum signs in people or going after true LALs, though, so I believe I am the only one using that voting criteria.

And, I do believe that portraying me as 'attacking Andrew' is provocative.  Your wording is used to incite an emotional response and is not good townie behavior.  My comments were calmly pointing out the fact that he admited to having low availability to post.  Could you perhaps quote me the part where I am 'attacking' him?  Perhaps it is just a subjective view of my words.  I wrote them, so perhaps I am not seeing how they could be considered aggressive since it wasn't my intent when I wrote it.

[Ranmilia]

And, I do believe that portraying me as 'attacking Andrew' is provocative.  Your wording is used to incite an emotional response and is not good townie behavior.  My comments were calmly pointing out the fact that he admited to having low availability to post.  Could you perhaps quote me the part where I am 'attacking' him?  Perhaps it is just a subjective view of my words.  I wrote them, so perhaps I am not seeing how they could be considered aggressive since it wasn't my intent when I wrote it.

The quote in question is "Vote: Andrew."  Also everything where you advocate lynching him.  When you vote for someone and say they should be lynched, that is an attack.  Indeed, you continue to say this is "something serious" and that you would be fine with lynching him.

If you honestly do not think anyone is scummy, vote no lynch.  Voting Andrew just because he cannot post much makes no sense whatsoever.  A lynch on those reasons alone (provided it ever happened, which it won't) cannot be evaluated or analyzed and puts us in no better position for day 2.  It just costs us an arbitrarily selected player (with regards to town/scumminess) who is, by nature of the game, more likely to be town than scum.  Advocating a lynch for these reasons is extremely antitown and unproductive, and distracts from actually trying to find scum.  Trying to say that you are not being aggressive about it is even worse. 

Ryogo:  I saw it in your post the first time.  I can only assume that you're trying to make some point by emphatically reposting it.  I've commented on everything I've seen and felt worthy of comment.  Day 1 is day 1.

[Ghen]

I believe then that we have two different opinions on the word 'attack'.  To me it is indicitive of an aggressive stance or phrase.  You seem to take it in a broader view to cover situations of simple statements.  I still do not believe that I am attacking Andrew in any sense of the word as I understand it to be defined.

And did you just advocate to me to Vote No Lynch?  Really?  Could you  provide me your thoughts on why a No Lynch would be a good voting option for me?  I tend to use the view that the lesser of all evils will do in a pinch which is why I default to LAL or posting availability when I don't see scum indications yet.  Why would it be better to not vote, or vote No Lynch rather than attempt to use my vote?  Especially since it has been said so many times in this and other games that voting for No Lynch is not good gaming strategy?

[Ranmilia]

Saying that player X should be lynched for reason Y is an attack and an aggressive action in my book.  The definition of the word attack is pretty irrelevant, though. 

If you really have absolutely no leads on who's scummy, then yeah, voting no lynch is preferable to voting random lynch.  Voting someone for not being  able to post much is the same thing as a random lynch as far as alignment is concerned.

THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

Your lack of any leads whatsoever and your turn towards a random-to-alignment lynch is what I term giving up.  I find it near inconceivable and very scummy that you say you have no opinions and no leads whatsoever.  No lynch is not a good strategy, but random lynch or lynch disregarding town/scumminess is in fact worse.  Much worse. 

[Hunter Sopko]

Wait... what? Alex, while I agree with you in theory, if you don't believe anyone is scummy, you need to go with you who think is least town-like, who with whomever might put forth the best argument. It's also why stuff like LAL exists. While I always say I hate to default to LAL, in the absence of suspects or convincing arguments, it's what you can do. Random lynches ARE bad, but I really don't think this is an argument for Day 1. If this weren't Day 1, I'd be completely behind you, at least in terms of how to approach things. I don't think No Lynch is viable though, unless you're advocating it as a personal choice and not an overall town choice.

And Ryogo, I'm sensing a disconnect in your thinking here. You accuse me of low content (another way of saying I'm not doing/saying anything important), yet, you base your suspicions of Otter based off my actions. Also, you're switching to suspecting Otter right after defending him here.

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

You keep flipping about in every which direction. You're being a good townie in that you're contributing, but settling down and having some consistancy has it's merits (Not to say you can't change your mind). You're making tremendous strides in quality of play since the game started and thats great, so I actually think you'll be fine in later days. (I'm also curious if you saw my post directly below the one you linked to in your omnibus post)

[Carthrat]

I hate what Alex just did- he suckered Keeshi into a wordplay trap. He basically told Keeshi to 'vote no lynch if you have no leads' and then turned around to say 'but that should never happen!' in two seperate posts, and this has lead me to consider just how meritous the case on Keeshi actually is. The stupid banter over No Lynch is moronic (gogo redundancy), why are we still discussing it or bringing it up?

...although I can't say I much like Keeshi's response, either. "That's... an emotional attack!" is pretty silly when used against a flat statement like "You attacked Andrew." Here's a better example of such a strike- If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And I do believe attacking Andrew for low quanity more than anything else doesn't work when you consider what he has put on the table.

Seems nobody else feels like voting for OK, despite a number of people (Alex included?!) seeming to not be against it. Uh, right. I still prefer him over others for the time being.

Andrew: Don't know what to think of him. I am always reluctant to vote people voting for me for fear of my reasoning being clouded.  I do feel that Andrew is doing pretty well if he has a limited timeframe. I can actually see why he'd be voting for me, but I'm not changing my mind on that particular topic. I don't think lynching him is a good idea today in any case.

[Ranmilia]

..... what.

I was pointing out that Keeshi's own logic should lead to a No Lynch vote.  Therefore, Keeshi's logic is bad.

Also, Keeshi's following this logic to a vote that isn't No Lynch and doesn't logically follow.  Therefore, Keeshi's actions are worse.

I am not seriously advocating no lynch and I don't see how anyone could get that from anything but a very cursory reading of my posts.

[Sierra]

Mod's note: No word at all from Smodge, and he's yet to sign on to the board. It is with regret that we commence with the following:

Discussion raged on in all corners of Composer's Heaven--except one. One figure was eerily reticent, and this raised suspicion in each and every one of his fellows. How could he be so blithely unconcerned about the postmodern invasion? Could his silence mask consent, even approval?

The heckling of his peers failed to rouse him to coherence. Instead, he continued calmly mass-producing string quartets as though nothing was wrong. A noble pursuit, surely! But there's a time and a place for idleness, and the midst of a serialist insurrection is surely not it! Incensed by this apparent apathy and obliviousness to the rising threat, his fellows resolved to cast him out. If he was one of them, he'd surely learn the virtues of being a team player during his painful exile. If he was NOT one of them, well, that's all the better!

He began to struggle as the crowd brought him to the gates of his new abode, uttering an anguished cry of "Wait, another moment, please! Once I finish this concerto I'll have broken a thousand!" But it was too little, too late.

And thus, he was cast into the pit of eternal Achy Breaky Heart.

Smodge13, AKA Antonio Vivaldi, 1678-1741 (Vanilla Townie), was modkilled due to inactivity.

Any votes on Smodge are void. I will post an updated votecount in a moment.

[Ghen]

Carthrat:

...although I can't say I much like Keeshi's response, either. "That's... an emotional attack!" is pretty silly when used against a flat statement like "You attacked Andrew." Here's a better example of such a strike- If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And I do believe attacking Andrew for low quanity more than anything else doesn't work when you consider what he has put on the table.

I agree.  Which is why I've been saying that it is not due to his current 'low quantity'.  He has found the time today to make a substantive amount of posts.  This is, of course, all to the good.  What I based my vote off of, again, is his statement that he believes himself able to make a single post every 24 hours usually (until his time eases up when the weekend arrives).  

Now, to turn away from my repetitive statement for a moment, I find it confusing why leaving no vote history for later review would ever be preferable to placing some kind of vote.  

And the 'lack of any leads whatsoever and your turn towards a random-to-alignment lynch is what I term giving up' sits poorly.  Even though I can not immediately detect scum signals from any of you, it hardly means that I have given up by choosing to place a vote on someone whose posting frequency I believe to be less than optimal.  Any vote I place will be random if I do not detect scum signals, yes, but placing no votes does town no good at all when looking back over my history in later days.  It is frankly just as random as choosing a LAL target or to pick between two equally likely targets.  It is always preferable to make a choice and use a vote, then to play too conservatively and provide town with too little information.

Alex, do you believe it to be preferable to leave a lack of voting history and reserve your votes only for those times you are certain or at least more than passingly suspicious of someone's alignment?  I would like to hear your thoughts on how a lack of voting history is more beneficial to town than to provide some sort of voting history.  Thanks.

EDITED FOR NEW POSTS:
You said 'how my logic should bring to me to a No Lynch conclusion which is bad', Alex?  My own logic is above, that ANY voting history is better than none.  No Lynch has never made any sense to me.  It is a useful tool, never doubt it.  But a useful tool for scum and scum alone.  Never something to be considered for townies. 

[Hunter Sopko]

Seems nobody else feels like voting for OK, despite a number of people (Alex included?!) seeming to not be against it. Uh, right. I still prefer him over others for the time being.

Well, it's more that your case is "OK is being helpful, therefore he's trying to create a cover!". It's not very solid. As I said in commenting about it before, the metagaming thing is the only thing that sticks out, but we haven't really seen much in terms of tells from OK, so I'm not comfortable putting my vote there at the moment.

Al: I'm not really seeing your argument. Should have probably made your post a bit clearer.

[Sierra]

Current votecount:

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

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch. There are 22 hours remaining.

[Ryogo]

Current votecount:

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

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch. There are 22 hours remaining.

There's a mistake there, El-Cid. Carthrat can't vote for two people, his current vote is on OK, and not me Anyways, I'm gone for the night now, and I dont have time to say anything else. I'll post again in the morning.

[Ryogo]

Oh, nevermind, You caught it as I started to post. My bad

[Ranmilia]

Alex, do you believe it to be preferable to leave a lack of voting history and reserve your votes only for those times you are certain or at least more than passingly suspicious of someone's alignment?  I would like to hear your thoughts on how a lack of voting history is more beneficial to town than to provide some sort of voting history.  Thanks.

What I am saying is that you should at all times past the jokevote phase be more than "passingly suspicious" of people's alignments.  We are four pages into this game now, serious discussion is proceeding at a very nice clip, and you still aren't suspicious enough of anyone to lay a vote on them?  Seriously?  That is one of the things I currently find scummy about you. 

Another thing I find suspicious is how you keep sidetracking this discussion, first to my bringing in No Lynch as an example of how your given logic is bad, and now to this vote history stuff.  My problem is not that you are voting, it is WHY you are voting, as I have said from the start.  The alternative is not for you to not vote at all, the proper alternative is for you to make a serious vote based on finding someone scummy, which you seem adamant on not doing. 

The third thing I find suspicious is the reasons you gave for placing your vote.  IF we were to agree with your reasoning for your current vote (WHICH WE SHOULDN'T, caps since people keep (deliberately?) misreading me on this), then, following it, the best lynch would be YOU, not Andrew, as you are also limited in posting and have not contributed anywhere near the content he has.  IF we were to agree with your reasoning for your current vote AND carry it to its logical conclusion (WHICH WE SHOULDN'T BECAUSE THIS LOGIC IS BAD, AND THIS IS *WHY* IT IS BAD), the logical conclusion is in fact No Lynch since that would be a more pro-town result than voting out someone just because they can't post much. 

No Lynch is a more pro-town position than your given logic.  This doesn't mean I'm advocating no lynch, that's silly, it means that your logic is horrible.

[Excal]

Alex, I think the more interesting thing we're discovering here is that you feel that we should all think like you think.  I can understand where Keeshi is coming from, given that I don't find anyone overly scummy at the moment either, and the decision to go with lynching the lurkers when nothing else concrete is at hand is a sensable and acceptable alternative.

That said...

##Unvote: Andy, ##Vote: Keeshi

I don't like the fact that Andy's response was the same thing that I was already calling bunk on, but I get the impression he's not going to budge from there.  So, while it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, it's not something to move on right now.

However, Keeshi, Alex has raised an excellent point in his first post against you, and it is one which you haven't addressed to any length yet.  Why do you suggest letting Andy swing in the same post where you admit that you will indefinatly share the same flaw he has until Saturday?