Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on May 20, 2013 15:36:01 GMT -8
7 players. 1 rogue. No roles, items or crutches. It's a battle of wits so I hope you brought your best weapons. Rules: 1. Days last 48 hours. Nights last 12 hours. All deadlines will fall at either 4:30am or 4:30pm Pacific. (12:30pm or 12:30am BST.) 2. You may not vote at night. Otherwise you may post as much or little as you see fit. 3. Bold your votes. (e.g. Vote: Furare) 4. If more than 50% of the town has voted for the same person, that person will be lynched. If not, there will be no lynch. See also: Community Guidelines. Player List: - Aethera - Taelac - Leif - AhoyLindsay - Setsusa - Marinated - SeastarX Okay, the cards have been dealt. Let's see who fortune favours today. EDIT: There are 7 players so you need 4 votes on a player to secure their lynch. Lynch Deadline: 4:30pm PDT on May 22nd.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on May 20, 2013 15:41:00 GMT -8
Vote: SeastarX
|
|
|
Post by Marinated on May 20, 2013 15:49:17 GMT -8
Vote: SeastarX
Bandwagon for the win!
|
|
|
Post by SeastarX on May 20, 2013 16:01:38 GMT -8
Aww, it's nice you're thinking about me. I'm currently thinking more about sleep though, so time for bed.
|
|
|
Post by AhoyLindsay on May 20, 2013 16:13:18 GMT -8
^Tempting as that bandwagon is, I'll pass. I read over the last short game, and despite the fact that it was said by Riku, I like the idea of not lynching on the first Day. I know the counterarguments about closing off discussion, etc, and I obviously think we should still be talking and rogue-hunting regardless of whether there will be a lynch that round, but here's how I think about it: Assuming bans every night, if we lynch on the first day and hit an innocent, on the second day, all three townies have to agree on who the rogue is, or else the rogue will just vote with the outlier (also OP says over 50% have to vote for the same person). On the other hand, if we wait until the second round to lynch, and still hit an innocent, only two townies will have to agree on who the rogue is. This is a far easier situation for coming to consensus.
|
|
|
Post by Marinated on May 20, 2013 16:29:38 GMT -8
It's generally better to lynch if we have an odd number of players and not lynch if we have an even number. Not lynching Day one should be a last resort if after discussion we can't reach a consensus; it shouldn't be a foregone conclusion otherwise we don't get so much information out of it. Aww, it's nice you're thinking about me. I'm currently thinking more about sleep though, so time for bed. Yeah, same here. And talking of time, maybe it's the cold weather that's making Furare think we're still on GMT. *grins*
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on May 20, 2013 16:30:02 GMT -8
Well, the point last time was the way the numbers balanced from an even number. From an odd, that doesn't work. The last game with six, 2 days of lynch/ban ends it, unless they got the rogue. So skipping a day down to 5, and then you play day 2 and 3, gets you an extra day. With an odd number, waiting a day doesn't actually buy time. It also leaves us with a 3-1 to end, instead of the theoretically more favorable 2-1. Unless you propose skipping two days. But that seems to offer way to much time to the rogue.
|
|
Taelac
Officer
Be bold. It makes your enemies hesitate.
Posts: 357
|
Post by Taelac on May 20, 2013 16:31:53 GMT -8
I'm here.
|
|
|
Post by AhoyLindsay on May 20, 2013 17:03:10 GMT -8
Oh, sorry-when I last checked the signup thread we hadn't gotten to seven people.
|
|
|
Post by AhoyLindsay on May 20, 2013 17:03:38 GMT -8
I should find an avatar for here.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on May 21, 2013 2:52:47 GMT -8
I know it's (technically) summer time; I just always forget that BST is what you call the time in the summer. I am clearly not a smart person.
|
|
|
Post by Marinated on May 21, 2013 3:17:49 GMT -8
Hehe! Don't worry about it, it's just a bit of a pet peeve of mine that people call it GMT when it's actually GMT+1. :) Oh, sorry-when I last checked the signup thread we hadn't gotten to seven people. What made you think we had an even number playing? I was the sixth to sign up but my signup was so ambiguous that you couldn't have known whether to count it or not, therefore it wouldn't have been clear from that point whether the numbers were odd or even. It seems strange that you didn't look to see the final play-list, or read the latest posts in the signup thread, when you came to see if the game had started, and as actually looking was the only way you could have known the game was on, apart from receiving a role pm, it makes me wonder if you did in fact receive one. Time for a new wagon I think. :) Vote: AhoyLindsay
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on May 21, 2013 5:42:55 GMT -8
So I thought a bit this morning while I was stuck in traffic. I ran over AL's suggestion to try and figure it out. In the end, I came down to it being a simple mistake. It's easy at a glance to miscount the numbers. I did initially, though as 8, because I parsed "Player List" as being part of the player list. What I find interesting about it, is Mari jumping on it this morning. As much as, "Rogues don't read" is a tired cliche, I've yet to see it changed to "Rogues don't read the signup thread." The easiest way to see the game was on is that Game On and Signup are entirely different forums. It makes me think she's a bit PM conscious.
Vote: Marinated
|
|
|
Post by Aethera on May 21, 2013 6:26:40 GMT -8
Hey all, I'm here.
My gut reaction to AL getting the number of players wrong is that in a game of 7, I would expect the rogue would be pretty clear on who all the players are, and to have spent time working out the numbers Day by Day, making her mistake unlikely as a rogue. Of course AL could be faking her mistake, but it doesn't strike me that way in this instance - where she started is a natural place to start contributing, which should be sufficient on Day 1 without making it into more than it is and drawing attention to herself.
Most games I've read lately, I feel like the "to lynch or not to lynch" discussion on Day 1 is pointless, but with such a small game, it does feel more relevant. If I'm understanding the numbers correctly: We start at 6-1. If there's a lynch and ban, Tomorrow we're at 4-1. If there's a lynch and ban, 2 Days from now we're at 2-1, which is better than 3-1, so a lynch today makes sense from the numbers perspective. If we don't lynch today, I worry that someone will bring up not lynching Tomorrow either, since then we'd go 6-1, 5-1, 4-1, 2-1 in theory. And THAT seems like a bad idea. I think if we can find a consensus, we should lynch, but I don't think we should try and force one. I'll only vote for those I'm actually suspicious of.
Leif is pinging my roguedar a bit for saying "AL's mistake seems like an innocent one, and look, I made a similar one! (thus I must be innocent too?)" He's right though that Marinated's reaction seems like too much of a leap. They're both on my list right now.
More from me later.
I mentioned this in the sign-up thread, but I will away from home from tomorrow night through Monday. I'll be able to post, mostly in the evening I'm guessing.
Speaking of math issues, can you put the deadline into the first post Furare? Since you started at a time that I don't *think* is at a deadline time, that would be helpful.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on May 21, 2013 6:38:52 GMT -8
Speaking of math issues, can you put the deadline into the first post Furare? Since you started at a time that I don't *think* is at a deadline time, that would be helpful. It was more or less a deadline time. First post has been updated, though.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on May 21, 2013 6:48:05 GMT -8
Leif is pinging my roguedar a bit for saying "AL's mistake seems like an innocent one, and look, I made a similar one! (thus I must be innocent too?)" He's right though that Marinated's reaction seems like too much of a leap. They're both on my list right now. I said simple mistake, not innocent. I've not come to the conclusion that anyone is innocent. I'm just discounting it because I don't think it's a meaningful point for AL being either innocent or a rogue.
|
|
|
Post by AhoyLindsay on May 21, 2013 7:05:18 GMT -8
I think that's tenuous. Hell, I probably thought six because I was reading the old thread as I was thinking about it. But mainly I'm curious-if other people had hopped on the wagon over the player count mistake, would you really have been willing to lynch me for it?
|
|
|
Post by Marinated on May 21, 2013 11:19:22 GMT -8
In the end, I came down to it being a simple mistake. It's easy at a glance to miscount the numbers. I did initially, though as 8, because I parsed "Player List" as being part of the player list. Yes, it's easy done and I wouldn't have voted him for just that. What didn't feel right was his claimed assumption that the numbers were even because of what he had last seen in the signup thread. It just didn't make sense so seemed more like a made up excuse rather than a genuine reason. I think that's tenuous. Hell, I probably thought six because I was reading the old thread as I was thinking about it. But mainly I'm curious-if other people had hopped on the wagon over the player count mistake, would you really have been willing to lynch me for it? First, it's for your defence of the mistake, not for the count mistake itself. If people hopped on it would have depended on whether I thought their hops looked more suspicious than the mild suspicion I have on you. But if their reasoning had been purely that you miscounted I probably would have switched to them. If nothing more suspicious comes up for the whole Day then, yes I will leave the vote there but I think that's unlikely. I'm mulling over whether Leif's post 12 is misrepresentation or just misunderstanding.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on May 21, 2013 15:33:42 GMT -8
Oh, sorry-when I last checked the signup thread we hadn't gotten to seven people. What made you think we had an even number playing? I was the sixth to sign up but my signup was so ambiguous that you couldn't have known whether to count it or not, therefore it wouldn't have been clear from that point whether the numbers were odd or even. It seems strange that you didn't look to see the final play-list, or read the latest posts in the signup thread, when you came to see if the game had started, and as actually looking was the only way you could have known the game was on, apart from receiving a role pm, it makes me wonder if you did in fact receive one. Time for a new wagon I think. In the end, I came down to it being a simple mistake. It's easy at a glance to miscount the numbers. I did initially, though as 8, because I parsed "Player List" as being part of the player list. Yes, it's easy done and I wouldn't have voted him for just that. What didn't feel right was his claimed assumption that the numbers were even because of what he had last seen in the signup thread. It just didn't make sense so seemed more like a made up excuse rather than a genuine reason. ... First, it's for your defence of the mistake, not for the count mistake itself. If people hopped on it would have depended on whether I thought their hops looked more suspicious than the mild suspicion I have on you. But if their reasoning had been purely that you miscounted I probably would have switched to them. If nothing more suspicious comes up for the whole Day then, yes I will leave the vote there but I think that's unlikely. This strikes me as a bit of a switch. You started by saying it was a "strange" response, and that AL would have only known the game was on if he had read the signup thread or gotten a PM. Incidentally, that was false. In your second one, you dropped the PM line of reasoning entirely. It sticks out to me somewhat, as that seemed to be more important to your reasoning, especially as it was your final point before voting. I'm not entirely sure how someone seeing 6 players signed up and an ambiguous post (as pointed out in your first post about it) "doesn't make sense" to think there are 6 players.
|
|
Taelac
Officer
Be bold. It makes your enemies hesitate.
Posts: 357
|
Post by Taelac on May 21, 2013 16:45:29 GMT -8
<Marinated> started by saying it was a "strange" response, and that AL would have only known the game was on if he had read the signup thread or gotten a PM. Incidentally, that was false. Yeah...you don't have to read the signup thread to see that the Game On subforum has new messages. I had an initial gut response that Sets' opening salvo and Mari's cheerful attachment to it might mean that one of them was the Joker, joking, which I immediately discounted because 'rogues are excited/first to realize the game is live, so post first' is kind of a stale trope. AL is certainly capable of subtle plays, but I really think that "miscounting" the number of players to make herself* look the bumbling innocent is kind of a stretch. If AL is the Joker, I would be more inclined to believe that she just assumed we had an even number that that she tried to set up some kind of bluff. *Are you using feminine pronouns on this board? I find myself nodding along with Leif's comments, but agreeing with anyone too much makes me nervous. I'm used to a bit more reticence from Leif in the early game, but we don't really have an "early game" situation here. I also thought we had 8 players initially, but I think it's because I seem to recall Furare saying that we'd either start on Monday or when we got to 8 players, whichever came first? I'm not quite feeling a vote, yet.
|
|
|
Post by SeastarX on May 21, 2013 17:59:23 GMT -8
I know it's (technically) summer time; I just always forget that BST is what you call the time in the summer. I am clearly not a smart person. What is this 'summer' you speak of? Is it that time of year when it snows in May? I don't think Al's numbers post sways me convincingly one way or the other. Ordinarily I'd consider it more likely for an innocent. This being a smaller game though, perhaps there's a higher possibility for a lone rogue to make a mistake with no team or forum etc. On balance, I think it's an unlikely error for a rogue Al but not entirely impossible in the context, which pretty much brings me back to a neutral point. Mild curiosity of Aeth for somewhat mis-describing Leif's take on Al's posts. Marinated is being quite bold early on if a rogue, so I find myself wondering if a rogue would put themselves in the spotlight quite so much at this point in the game. Again though this is somewhat countered by the numbers. That said, the fact I don't agree with her reasoning for voting Al doesn't necessarily make her rogueish. I'm mulling over whether Leif's post 12 is misrepresentation or just misunderstanding. In what way? Quiet Sets is quiet.
|
|
|
Post by Aethera on May 21, 2013 18:19:46 GMT -8
That's how Leif's post read to me upon initial review. Maybe it's just that I lean Innocent AL off that interaction, not Mistaken But Doesn't Give Us Information AL.
Nothing strikes me either way from Sea's post - still neutral there. Tae, I really don't think we're going to see Early Game versions of people so much. I do think your nervousness about agreement is a little weird generally, but not out of character for you. I don't find it as troubling to lean innocent on people in this scenario, because even though the 6-1 balance is roughly equal to a regular game, knowing there's only one rogue means I'll be moving toward my end-game of Process Of Elimination as well as Rogue Hunting. I seem to do better at the end if I play the combination of Who Do I Think is Innocent as well as Who Do I Think is a Rogue?
I'd like to see something from Sets before I make a vote decision.
|
|
|
Post by AhoyLindsay on May 21, 2013 19:02:50 GMT -8
I'm going Vote: Aethera for the moment. Her posts so far seem quite careful, almost hedging her bets: for example, 'Leif is suspicious, but his point is correct' 'Tae's nervousness is weird, but not out of character'. Also, that she went out of her way to clarify things like [missing two lynches] seems like a bad idea. I think if we can find a consensus, we should lynch, but I don't think we should try and force one. I'll only vote for those I'm actually suspicious of. which I don't think anyone would disagree with or have interpreted her as disagreeing with; it's like she's making extra sure that she will only be construed as protown. My vote's not set in stone, especially with such a bare-bones case. But nobody else has struck me as roguish yet so I figured I'd throw it out there.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on May 21, 2013 19:14:30 GMT -8
Mari, AL, Aeth innocent.
Ssx neutral.
Leif, Tae watch.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on May 21, 2013 19:20:15 GMT -8
You know what put Aeth somewhere between neutral and innocent. Lots of clarification that is probably unnecessary with the people playing. Then again, why not be super clear?
I don't think Mari would joke join a joke bandwagon to start the game as a rogue, well I doubt very many people would.
I think the AL miscount is a meh discussion. Why would a rogue make such a blatant mistake so blatantly while trying to appear town friendly? Not logical.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on May 22, 2013 5:52:44 GMT -8
Generally, I think we're better off lynching today. We're also better off doing it by well thought out consensus rather than last minute panic.
With less than 10 hours till the deadline, I'd like to hear from those who have not yet voted. Where are you looking at voting?
|
|
|
Post by Aethera on May 22, 2013 7:36:14 GMT -8
AL, I know we haven't played in a long time, but all I ever do is overclarify. That's why my posts are among the longest in any game. I could see where you think my reaction to Tae is hedging, but not my reaction to Leif. I said I felt suspicious of Leif, and also that I agreed with him about Mari. Agreeing with his point on Mari has no bearing on whether I find him suspicious.
I wish we had more than one substantive post from Tae and Sea. I've got a meeting so more later, but right now my vote choice is still between Leif and Mari. I'm now Neutral on AL after her case on me. Still neutral on Sea, leaning innocent on Sets. Leaning perhaps a whisker toward rogue on Tae.
|
|
|
Post by Aethera on May 22, 2013 8:25:34 GMT -8
I thought it was Tae that was nervous about agreeing with people in a lot of games, but now I feel like that's Phoenix who always says that. I'm considering going back to look, but I know some people get irritated about the whole "but in past games!" thing. Looking back at Tae's post, I'm surprised AL hit me for hedging and not her. "I had a gut response which I discounted" followed by "AL could have done this but it seems like a stretch" followed by "I agree with Leif but it makes me nervous and he's not quite normal but then again it's not Early Game" which is pretty much what AL voted me for.
|
|
|
Post by AhoyLindsay on May 22, 2013 8:55:46 GMT -8
I did note the similar hedging from taelac, but her idea about one of the early posters being "the joker, joking," though quickly dismissed, seemed to me to come from an innocent mindset. So I'm overall neutral there. Neutral on Leif and Seas as well, leaning innocent on Sets, marinated. With you I think I was also thrown by the fact that you called me innocent based on the miscount. While granted I know that I am innocent, it seemed not much less tenuous to FoI me based on the miscount than to FoS me, especially since the stakes are fairly high.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on May 22, 2013 9:25:16 GMT -8
For what its worth, I don't think the stakes are higher in this game than they are in any other game. We aren't going to be able to catch a rogue due to a teammates mistake, a loss to the town, but the rogue has no teammates to assist them. The rogue is forced to play town-centrically with their votes as they don't have the power of numbers to sway lynches into favorable positions as necessary.
Additionally, I don't have much of a problem with 6-1, 5-1, 4-1, 3-1, 2-1 if it goes that way, I don't think a rogue could stay hidden that long. This is no way a we shouldn't lynch argument, but most certainly a I don't think we should feel forced to lynch argument. I also think the unique voting rule makes a larger group of townies more likely to sow unnecessary doubt amongst ourselves with a false lynch because its not like you can blame a wagonjumper with that rule, but that is how the rogue would be able to control where the lynch goes.
|
|