In post 23, nancy wrote:What is "every once in a while" exactly, lmao.
What's the goldilocks zone? Lmao.
I'll just use the word often instead of every once in a while lol
Goldilocks, like the fairy tale? I'm just using the fairy tale in this sense where you don't post too much or post too little. I read up on some theory beforehand regarding activity
Oh, nice.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:28 pm
by nancy
Hum. Nothing's happening, I guess. SA, wanna talk about what you read up on a little more?
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:29 pm
by nancy
Wait lmao I missed an entire page. Ok.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:33 pm
by nancy
In post 30, Flicker wrote:Hey, all! Sorry I haven't shown up until now; the thread opened past my bedtime, so I slept through a lot of page 1.
Anyway, I can't tell if we're out of RVS or not, and I haven't seen anything particularly scummy yet, so I guess I'll just hold onto my vote for now.
As for
nancy's
questions:
In post 8, nancy wrote:1) What sort of activity can we expect from you this game?
So far, I tend to be more of a lower activity, wall posting type of player, because I like to take the time to really think and consider things before I post.
In post 8, nancy wrote:2) Have you played forum mafia before, and if so, where, and how has that informed your play?
All my games can be found on my wiki page. I think the only thing I've really learned about my play is that I'm fairly good at figuring out teams on day 3 (although it hasn't done me any good so far).
In post 8, nancy wrote:3) Do you prefer hunting mafia or manipulating town, and why?
I've only rolled scum once (in Micro 805.1), but I wouldn't say I really got the opportunity to
play
as scum, so I don't know which I prefer. Playing as town for me is as exciting as it is stressful, but the excitement tends to peak early (like, day 1) and the stress tends to just build after that. Sometimes, that stress sort of paralyzes me and blocks me from posting (I'm very conflict-averse, which is a trait I'm hoping Mafia can help me overcome), and theoretically playing as scum would be easier in that respect.
Oh hey that's a cool reason to play mafia. Also, interesting take on conflict and rolling scum. I guess you're kinda right that it's inherently less conflict-filled? Even though conflict is basically built into your wincon.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:38 pm
by nancy
In post 31, OkaPoka wrote:@nancy what are the point of these questions, especially question number 3
It helps to get a sense of people and to get some conversation started. I always try to develop a feel for people's baseline in games where I don't know anyone and those questions can be good for that. They're also the type of things that will usually come up at some point over the course of the game, so I think it gets that information out there earlier. Plus I feel like people have a tendency to tunnel a bit out of RVS, so I'm not a huge fan of the thing. "Who are we all and how do we play" feels like a healthier and more balanced way to start a game than "lol you're mafia".
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:54 pm
by nancy
In post 37, Formerfish wrote:It's scummy because they are making it seem like they don't want to vote because we may be out of rvs already, not very likely when we are barely on page 2. They answer their own question by mentioning that nothing scummy has really come up, which would mean that most likely we are still in rvs.
So if they were concerned about being out of rvs as a reason to have not voted, their own reasoning is negated by their own observation of the game, and should have felt comfortable voting freely.
For some reason they didn't.
Kinda like this approach to sorting Flicker, and that he saw the same thing that I saw.
In post 38, Formerfish wrote:Fuck. I meant to not answer that until they said something, but I just smoked a bowl on the shitter and forgot.
UNVOTE: maggie
VOTE: FormerFish
Not a fan of drug references
Um. Why are you voting him? Do you think it's scummy that he made a drug reference? I feel like I'm missing something.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:06 pm
by nancy
In post 46, Flicker wrote:So, I could either risk making a random vote and getting scrutinized for that, or I could be wrong about the RVS status and risk being scrutinized for not voting at all. I went with "don't vote, explain why, and assume people will understand," but that failed, and here we are.
Kinda like the transparency here, I guess.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:08 pm
by nancy
In post 49, OkaPoka wrote:You said you had the risk of making a random vote and getting the scrutinized for that versus getting scrutinized for not voting at all which makes me think that getting scrutinized is at the forefront of your mind.
What do you think this means for her alignment, if anything?
In post 49, OkaPoka wrote:You said you had the risk of making a random vote and getting the scrutinized for that versus getting scrutinized for not voting at all which makes me think that getting scrutinized is at the forefront of your mind.
What do you think this means for her alignment, if anything?
dunno ye, depends on her meta. if she is a cautious town it means nothing but if she is a yolo town then it means she might be scum or a pr
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:25 pm
by nancy
Hey SA, can I ask you, did you start writing 22 before or after I voted you?
In post 38, Formerfish wrote:Fuck. I meant to not answer that until they said something, but I just smoked a bowl on the shitter and forgot.
UNVOTE: maggie
VOTE: FormerFish
Not a fan of drug references
Um. Why are you voting him? Do you think it's scummy that he made a drug reference? I feel like I'm missing something.
I thought we were still in RVS, and as Maggie is being replaced, and isn’t around, thought I’d switch my vote. So I didn’t think the drug reference was scummy, but just the reason for my random vote.
In post 31, OkaPoka wrote:@nancy what are the point of these questions, especially question number 3
It helps to get a sense of people and to get some conversation started. I always try to develop a feel for people's baseline in games where I don't know anyone and those questions can be good for that. They're also the type of things that will usually come up at some point over the course of the game, so I think it gets that information out there earlier. Plus I feel like people have a tendency to tunnel a bit out of RVS, so I'm not a huge fan of the thing. "Who are we all and how do we play" feels like a healthier and more balanced way to start a game than "lol you're mafia".
In post 37, Formerfish wrote:It's scummy because they are making it seem like they don't want to vote because we may be out of rvs already, not very likely when we are barely on page 2. They answer their own question by mentioning that nothing scummy has really come up, which would mean that most likely we are still in rvs.
So if they were concerned about being out of rvs as a reason to have not voted, their own reasoning is negated by their own observation of the game, and should have felt comfortable voting freely.
For some reason they didn't.
*She/her, thanks.
It's possible to be out of RVS on page 2, just as it's possible for scummy things to happen during RVS, so I think your logic here is wrong. From my perspective, it seemed like there might be enough substantive talk, especially based on/around nancy's questions, that we might be out of RVS, but I wasn't positive because I'm still pretty new and I'm not 100% sure when RVS ends (other than everybody agreeing that it's over). So, I could either risk making a random vote and getting scrutinized for that, or I could be wrong about the RVS status and risk being scrutinized for not voting at all. I went with "don't vote, explain why, and assume people will understand," but that failed, and here we are.
My understanding of RVS is that it only involves one random vote, and then the next vote should be serious. So, why this second non-serious vote?
Oops. I didn’t realise there was a restriction on how many random votes you could do. Sorry. Should I unvote?
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:54 pm
by nancy
There's no restriction, lmao. People just usually only do one, because the whole point of RVS is to say "lol i vote u" and hope that somebody does something during that period that feels alignment indicative, then to talk about that, and the game goes from there. It's kind of like saying hi, and you don't really need to say hi twice.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:59 pm
by nancy
And your response feels genuine, which I like? It's not very alignment indicative but sure, let's say it's a little bit towny for now. I mean, it would have been scummy for you to actually call him scum for such bad reasons, so that not being a thing is the main thing I get from your response. Still like you for town, woohoo!
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:12 pm
by TrinityNZ
In post 66, nancy wrote:And your response feels genuine, which I like? It's not very alignment indicative but sure, let's say it's a little bit towny for now. I mean, it would have been scummy for you to actually call him scum for such bad reasons, so that not being a thing is the main thing I get from your response. Still like you for town, woohoo!
Hum. Seems like a weird thought to have. Like, you're sort of suggesting that you're going to scumread him at some point?
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:14 pm
by TrinityNZ
In post 70, nancy wrote:Hum. Seems like a weird thought to have. Like, you're sort of suggesting that you're going to scumread him at some point?
Oh ok, It was a general comment, not just about him, but I can see how that came across.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:15 pm
by stan1ey
I read Flickers post as just confusion about RVS which is justified, i dont really care for it either. I think Formerfish is reading too much into it or taking the wrong meaning of what she wrote rather than trying to play it up tho. i'd put this as NAI for both sides. Also, @Flicker - i've seen people make multiple RVS votes, it doesnt really matter. tbh if playing the RVS in an unorthodox way like voting multiple times kick starts the game then imo its better because i hate the RVS.
HOWEVER - TrinityNZ's vote change and reasoning that she wanted to move it off of a player who is being replaced actually makes me think she is town. Like i said, nothing wrong with throwing your vote around if it kick starts the game. The RVS' only purpose is to get the game moving. mafia players want us to have a nice slow game with low activity, she could have kept her vote on maggie where it would have no affect on getting the game moving and none of us would have questioned her. But she decided to change it and risk drawing attention on herself anyway. i dont think mafia players would do that
![:]](./images/smilies/icon_smiling.png "Cheerful Smile")
