Down to business. Since the thread is still so small, I'm going to do a complete rundown of this game.
The Game So Far
GoP: Original post
Everybody: confirmations and questions for GoP
GoP: Day one start!
DaBigCheez (Confirmed Connor): Rolespec. It makes sense. However, it is also obvious logical conclusions based on the setting of the game. Still, it's content.
Tinman42: Agrees with DBC about most rolespec, proposes crazy Terminator shenanigans that are unlikely to be in play in a newbie game. Neutral post.
NecklaceOfShadow (Lurking and likely to be modkilled soon): Disagrees with DBC's rolespec, switches some roles around to better fit the flavor, using reasoning that might not occur to somebody immediately. Points out the bastardry of the proposed shenanigans. +1 on the Sliding Scale of Townieness to Scumminess for good contributions.
DBC: Simple defense of his rolespec based on the actual roles of the characters, rather than NOS's logic based on what they knew in the story. This is a short post.
T42: Acknowledgment of the outlandish nature of his previous post. States that it isn't important to know which role goes with which rolename. +1 on the SSTS for throwing the red herring in the trash where it belongs.
DBC: Agreement. Seems to think roleclaiming will wind up being necessary. Is probably correct.
VifamRoband: Complains about rolespec. Wants to get to the meat of the game. Forgets to bring home the bacon (The content, to be less obtuse). -1 on the SSTS for shutting discussion down without providing an alternative.
DBC: "Rolespec has the purpose of providing content which can drift into new content!" This post has the scent of truthiness.
T42: Is even more blunt about disagreeing with Vifam. Heavy criticism could be the beginnings of suspicion. It could also be a Terminator's attempt to tar a townie for a mistake. Then again, that could merely be something implied by the bluntness of the post. I am susceptible to tone in my register of townieness/scumminess, even though some people just play aggressively. Adjusting for the bias, this post still seems neutral to me.
NOS: Just wants to talk. Just wants to talk and find out who has which role. ... ? -1 on the SSTS for vagueness allowing the possibility of searching for power roles with the intent to get them killed.
DBC: Obvious post pointing out NOS's error.
Webby: Rolespec concerning the town/scum ratio implies that individual townies are weak. This may be a correction for inexperience. This is a newbie game, after all. May also imply scum is powerful individually. +1 for original content.
slbub: Rolespec, says there are two town power roles (something already heavily suspected) without saying it by saying how many are likely vanilla. A bit ramble-y. SSTS is neutral.
eajik (That's me!): Gives a quick summary of the rolespec as it stands+ suggesting Sarah Connor (The important one) may be a power role, while stumbling over the rambliness of slbub. The SSTS does not weigh in on its operator, due to bias overload.
slbub: Clarifies, asks for votals. Neutral/active lurking. Moar content needed. -1
cjdrum: Rhetorical question. Reminds of the vote that was voted before the day began. Flavorblindness leads to lack of content. Could easily have weighed in on strategy. "I promise to say stuff!" -1, why bother saying anything on day one if you have nothing to bring to the table?
GoP: No votes, guise.
NOS: "Pretty happy." Asks for a new line of discussion due to no real results coming from rolespec. Neutral.
Robot_Raptor (Confirmed Rease): Hints at being Rease. Generally unhelpful. A reminder to everybody that even townies can be a liability, if they don't take their posts seriously.
DBC: "Unhelpful, dood." Jocular attitude, hints at wanting RR to shape up a bit.
RR: More jokes. Unhelpful.
T42: "GoP is scum, lol?" Conversation starter. +1 to the SSTS for stimulating conversation!
DBC: Snarky comment about current line of conversation + Answering questions + New question designed to guilt lurkers into poking their heads out of the sand. +1 Cool Points for lurker bashing.
cjdrum: Answers questions. Neutral.
webby: Answers questions. Concerned about lategame information. At this point, I am too. Neutral.
NOS: Answers first three questions. Neutral.
NaR (Really eajik, but I'm him now.): Answers the questions.
cjdrum: This post is now diamonds! Is put off by all the dittoing and seconding. +1 for rooting out a funny juxtaposition of answers that made webby and eajik look like lurkers. Now, we all know that eajik had to be replaced, so that is to be expected.
slbub: "I don't have time to answer the questions right now. Webby, you're funny, but play nice." No real content. Could easily have delayed the post a bit so that he could actually add content, but w/e. Neutral.
eajik: "I c wut we did thar. My bad. Also, I'm going to be gone for a while..."
GoP: Deadline announcement
NOS: Answers the fourth question. Asks about the no-lynch. Just for the record, the no lynch is poor strategy unless certain conditions exist. Generally, you want as much information as possible. Not lynching takes away some information that would have been revealed. Also, it makes it statistically less likely to lynch scum the next day, as 2/7>2/8. Now, that all changes when at MYLO. In this case, refusing to lynch allows you to get to the next day without risking and instantaneous loss. In addition, scum will claim another life. This raises the chances to hit scum with a lynch. 1/3>1/4. This post is neutral.
webby: First analysis of the game. Covers a lot of ground that I have just retread, but misses a fair bit of it. Is lead by analysis against RR and Vifam. RR and Vifam who, by this point, are passive lurkers. Attempt to shove the lynch onto dead weight? Hm. +1 for analysis. Would have been +2 but for the doubt.
cjdrum: "Moar content incoming. Soonish." At least you're letting us know. Neutral.
slbub: Computer troubles and confused by webby's out of game reference. Neutral.
cjdrum: Short reply. Neutral.
slbub: Short reply. Neutral.
slbub: Small talk! "How's your summer going to be?" ... I... What? (The SSTS explodes and has to be replaced.) The replacement SSTS awards slbub a neutral post because it's an attempt to stimulate activity, although completely off topic. Oh, and he was waiting for analyses instead of writing his own.
cjdrum: Analysis and scale. Notable for placing our dead townies on the scummy half of the scale. -1 for bad prognostication. +1 for putting other people who I consider townie up high. Neutral overall.
GoP: "Damnit, slbub! I'm stuck in the frozen bowels of misery! No summer talk for you!" Also, reminder that the deadline still exists.
webby: Webby has earned the achievement: Quadruple Postmaster, King of the Mailbox! Votes for RR (not a negative due to his godawful playstyle), urges people to vote. +1 for beating the dead horse that is this game. Try as you might, you cannot get it to move of its own accord.
cjdrum: Votes RR. -1. "This player is now a waffle!" Saying one thing and doing another.
DBC: A rundown of the players, a vote for Vifam.
NOS: Hammers RR after struggling with the choice between him and Vifam.
GoP: Day is now night!
GoP: Vifam is now Roband!
Roband: "I am now ready!"
GoP: DBC is now dead! (
Roband: Alignment request + suspicion of slbub due to active lurking. Can't say I disagree. +1
webby: "More analyses!" I'm trying, you hear? Also, antagonization of cjdrum. Neutral.
cjdrum: Fixed his scale to account for changes, gave a list of things he wants to see from people. I'm torn. On the one hand, this is a newbie game and instruction of new players is important. However... you don't simply tell scum how to improve their lot in the game. Neutral. I guess. Promises to look through DBC's posts for clues.
Roband: Criticism of slbub, vote for cjdrum. A note: cjdrum has been making long posts and calling it
analysis, but there hadn't been much to analyze yet. Most of the posts I'm poring over are lacking in content! How do you analyze that? On the other hand, makes sense with the flip flopping. "He's scummy, but it's bad to vote for him, but I'll vote for him anyway!" +1 Roband. -1 cjdrum. +10 SSTS.
webby: Suspicious of cjdrum and (hilariously) the Player Formerly Known as Vifram. Doesn't really trust anybody. Promises to do things about 1-2 days away from the deadline in the interest of giving the new players a chance. Neutral.
Roband: "I am Vifram."
webby: Doesn't suspect Roband. (It was based on inactivity, after all.) Neutral. Mostly due to ignoring the flipflop.
Roband: *gives reasoning for suspicion, it is sound* +1
webby: *confused* Neutral
Roband: Explanation that scum don't want to be seen as leading the bandwagon. All in all +2 for activity.
cjdrum: +2 for solid defense.
webby: Acceptance of defense, waiting for new players. Neutral for passivity, though it can't really have been helped.
Roband: Doesn't buy the defense due to odd timing. +1 for reasonable approach.
cjdrum: "I don't have the best control over my schedule. There was an appointment and my parents like surprises." If he knew this stuff was likely, though... Couldn't he have just decided to let people know about it? Neuuuutral.
slbub: "I won't be here, oh and you're wrong." ? -1 for brevity his first post of the day.
T42: "Sorry I wasn't here. There's a war in the way." Neutral.
Roband: Wants content out of slbub. FoS declared. +1 for keeping the thread alive, one player at a time.
slbub: "Lurkiness is not necessarily scumminess. Also, what's with analysis?" Neutral.
webby gives slbub explanations. +1.
slbub: Thanks. Neutral. No content again and again. However, my impression is that slbub would make horrible scum.
webby: "Don't thank me, play the game!"
cjdrum: Wants more content, learned nothing from trawling through DBC's posts. Explains why. +1.
NOS: Very confused by DBC and the kill situation. Agrees with cjdrum. Lots of explanation why. +1.
Roband: might lynch slbub. neutral.
GoP: 60 hours left, eajik modrpdded, votals.
Roband: "... hello?" neutral.
Webby: Analysis. Leans toward wanting to lynch cjdrum or, if he must, slbub. +1. The analysis is generally on the money, despite being much much shorter than this.
slbub: Doesn't... seem... to... try... Every post is just kicking the ball down the road. Argh. Still, I don't think he'd be good at playing scum at all. He'd have lost by... hold that thought.
Roband: "Your fault, and I'm Vifram"
slbub: "You're hard to read and Vifram's mistakes reflect his role, your role" +1 to slbub for making a point that everybody seemed to have missed. It's amazing.
webby votes for slbub, but apprehensive. Neutral.
slbub votes for cjdrum. -2 for being obtuse and for shades of sinister intent by that offer we might refuse.
cjdrum votes for slbub, begs for slbub to actually play the game. +2 towniness. He's actually trying with all his might to get things working right.
slbub offers a short summary and asks for votals.
webby gives the votals, the deadline, and defense of tinman. +1.
cjdrum (off topic and irate): Doesn't want to be called "scumdrum" any more.
webby: (nothing, really.) neutral.
Roband votes slbub.
GoP: Deadline soon.
Roband bargains for more time! +3 towniness!
GoP: Super effective. You get 4 days.
Roband: "We need to lynch cjdrum... *frustrated* Maybe we should just call the whole thing off..."
And the rest is a bit of a mess. Look, I'm short on goddamn sleep. I'm irate. And it looks like I've replaced into a hopeless situation, where half of the active players wants every other active player dead. >.<
Here's how it works. You're all ranked by how many points you have. Doing something explicitly scummy takes points away. Explicitly town, and you get points. If you do neither, or you lurk, or simply fail to accrue points, you'll eventually fall behind...
Sliding scale of towniness to scumminess:
Tinman42 (+2) (Largely absent, thus, low number)
Necklace of Shadow (+1) (Largely absent, thus, low number)
slbub (-3) (Note: Incompetent. I doubt he'd last long as scum)
This post was hours in the making. I'm gonna go pass out now. Kthxbai.