Znirk wrote:What specifically is it that you have always been against?
People summarizing the content of others in their read-list instead of giving actual reasons why that specific content is townie/scummy. You can generate a lot of unnecessary content that way and all players are expected to read the thread anyway so should be aware of what others said.
True, and some players include their summaries separate from their reads in a spoiler. But I find that it can be useful to see what someone thought was important enough to note.
I’m still waiting for some feedback on this
post. I’d like bessie to answer my questions and the rest of you to let me know if you understand my concern. I’m concerned about an inconsistency in bessie’s post. It’s not: “bessie, I disagree with you about setup.”, it’s “bessie: you don’t seem to make sense here, what’s up with that?”
plytho and Sabrar continue to attack me on the wording of my setup spec in my first post, and from different positions. It’s almost like they’re coordinating.
Ok, let’s see. Original quote
for reference. Again.
bessie wrote: Setup. Per the sign ups, simple powers, possibly some vanilla roles. Per the game specific rules, no cult. I hope rule #5 is a joke, because jester is an annoying enough role in itself. Per rule #2, tying the votes won’t stop the lynch. So I’m going to say 7-2, or 6-2-1 where independent is not anti-town. Need to think about this a little.
Stuff specifically claimed or inferred from the content in this quote:
1. This game had an advertised setup, and we should assume it is truthful.
2. The powers present in this game, if any, are simple powers.
3. There are possibly some vanilla roles (can be town or mafia).
4. bessie read the game specific rules.
5. There is no cult.
6. There is a possibility that Rule #5 is a red herring, and there is no jester in this game.
7. Per Rule #2 tying the votes won’t stop the lynch.
8. bessie’s initial setup spec is 7-2 or 6-2-1, and thoughts contained in this post were used to make that evaluation.
9. This evaluation is preliminary, and bessie reserves the right to think about it and submit revisions.
Sabrar misinterprets bessie’s thought process
and assumes bessie’s post presents a linear thought progression: A leads to B leads to C, and if C therefore the result is D. He also selectively quoted C and D to illustrate this.
plytho sees an opening and decides to get in on it
bessie responds with a post
discussing some methods mods use for resolving tied votes. This has actually been discussed at length in the Gojoe thread before. I think. Maybe it was the Meta thread. Maybe it was at the end of a game. Maybe if anyone is really interested Deva can help us out later. This post also contains a very brief reflection about how Rule #2 made me think small scum team, explained very poorly. Forcing no lynch in this game is not a possible scum strategy by design. Would a mod design a game and give the mafia team the ability to tie the votals and force a no lynch as one of their abilities? I don’t know, but he didn’t in this game. I wonder what powers he did give them? It must be powers though, and not numbers.
bessie clarifies her thought process
for Sabrar. It’s the stated A, B, C, and the unstated E, F, and G, which contribute to result D. A, B, and C are not necessarily in chronological order, or in order of importance, and do not represent a linear progression of thought.
[insert more posts from all three of them here.]
Ok, here’s the post
plytho wants me to respond to.
I’ll start with my interpretation of your quote:
bessie wrote:Per rule #2, tying the votes won’t stop the lynch. So I’m going to say 7-2, or 6-2-1 where independent is not anti-town.
I’m not that confident in my own setup speculation but with 9 players I assume we’d be somewhere between 7-2 and 6-3. Without taking powers into account, 7-2 obviously favors town more than 7-3. This means strong scum powers mean a higher likelihood of 7-2 and strong town powers mean a higher likelihood of 7-3.
So, in this context, when you say “based on rule #2 I’m thinking 7-2” I interpret this as: ‘rule #2 tips the balance towards scum, away from 6-3 and towards 7-2’. Am I reading this correctly?
I don’t think that your interpretation is necessarily incorrect in context. But as pointed out before in this post, and here
, and here
, and here
, I was selectively quoted by Sabrar, and the clipped quote can be interpreted as “bessie thinks the setup is 7-2 based on her interpretation of Rule #2”. This misses the larger context of the truncated quote. And in the next part of your post, you use some examples I gave of how other mods resolve tied votes as evidence to support this read (like what?).
plytho wrote:3. Is rule #2 and this favors town. This, to me, means that the balance shifts towards 6-3 rather than 7-2. (or towards stronger scum powers)
Rule #2 made me think that strategic lynch blocking as a mafia power was not in the design of this game.
plytho wrote:Or are you just saying that a three man team is too powerful D2? Which is sort of independent of rule #2. As this is the case for each of the three scenarios you mentioned. (And slightly less so for rule #2 than for the other possible versions of rule #2.)
It’s not necessarily independent of Rule #2. See above. At this point I’m seriously confused as to what response you are expecting from me. So have at what I just posted. If you need more to solidify your scum case against me just ask.
Reminder: (because I forget about it myself) scum have daychat in this game so they are coordinating as we speak (or as they speak
). So I assume tells through interactions look different then they do with nightchat.
Thank you for the informative reminder that you don’t have chat!
Peaceful Whale wrote:Currently I feel that learning on my own is better. I can make my own mistakes and learn from them. Thanks you all for being so supportive! I think that we can win this game! It will be my first time! (I don't think last game counts becuase I quit halfway).
I feel like I've been to suspicious of Bessie. Now that I've gone back and reread, I don't think he/she's (what do you prefer Bessie?) necessarily scum, but maybe an independent or special power role? Bessie, what are your thoughts, plytho had been pretty adamant about you being skum. I feel like he's either townie trying to skum hunt, or skum trying to persuade townies to lynch town. Any thoughts on the matter. I feel like you've been pretty townie, even though I feel like you've been playing differently from last game.
I appreciate your positive attitude toward learning the game!
She/her/hers are my preferred pronouns.
I’m not sure what you’re seeing that is different in the way I’m playing from my last game, or from most of my previous games. Can you give an example?
[insert long wine-soaked bessie meta joke here]
flicky1991 wrote:I kind of think plytho and Sabrar are putting way too much thought into bessie wording an argument differently than they would have.
I do too, but to be honest, I very often do the same thing.
Ninja’d by a lot during the two hours I’ve been working on this post. More later.