Are we sure the CFC Mikehendi account isn't also Sullla's?
I have to run.
|
[LURKERS] Sweet 16: Civ Party Fun Time and Philosophical Debate
|
|
This is fun and all, but there's more to the story here and I'm not going to reveal it before the unsub is ready to. This teaser serves no purpose other than to annoy you guys who want to believe you know all there is to know, when you should not have had any confirmation of Scooter's suspicion to begin with.
  (And whoever knows the rest... don't spoil the broth any further, please).Bob, I must say, I disagree with you following up on Scooter's recommendation to check the IP addresses for those posts. That isn't the kind of investigative work we should be doing, IMO. I think better to have just left Scooter's suspicion unconfirmed until Sullla was ready to reveal on his own. I had my own suspicions starting almost immediately when I began reading "Mike's" thread about a month ago, the style was pretty clearly similar to me -- no one else uses the word "tech" after saying some Civ tech....but Mike's thread uses phrases like "Currency tech" or "Liberalism tech" all the time...just like Sullla does. But I didn't check or anything -- why call out a smurf? Let the player have his fun and reveal at the end of the game, or not. Seeking confirmation removes the fun guessing element and makes it likely that someone is going to spill the beans and change the gameplay here in some way. For example, does anyone believe for a moment that Gaspar and Noble Helium wouldn't play their position differently regarding their neighbor if they knew it was Sullla? I think it's clear they would play it differently, which is surely the reason why Sullla set up a smurf account to begin with. That was his reason back when he set up Locke for the PB4 game, as he felt at the time (and probably now) that he'd have to not only fight the other players in the game but his own previous reputation as well. If these games are for the players, not the lurkers, we shouldn't really interfere with their fun, no matter the form it takes. As long as no one is cheating or doing anything unseemly, we ought to leave them to their charades. On a related topic, it may well be time to revisit the idea of trying an anonymous game at some point soon, so players don't have to go through contortions to try to get a fair shake regarding their previous gameplay. Each for his own reasons, players may want to play a game without people having preconceptions about how they're liable to play it out. Maybe that's off topic here for now, but I think with as many games as we've played here now and with as familiar as we've all become with frequent players' play styles, an anonymous game could be a bit of a relief in that regard, and worthwhile to try. Back on topic, one slight complication here, though (and a lesson for future players who want to set up a smurf account to play in a game), is that I sought out advise from Sullla earlier in the game regarding a possible rules violation, not knowing he was playing in the game. That could have been awkward if the civ and player involved had been directly related to his own position in the game. I expect he would have recused himself of the matter and referred me elsewhere for counsel if it had been a possible conflict of interest, but there's potential to have had damage done that way. So smurfing isn't without risk, I suppose. Anyway, no harm in this case. And apropos of nothing, here's a fun game to play. If you provide both correct answers, you get Internet cookies or something. (Bob, you're not eligible. )
Played: Pitboss 18 - Kublai Khan of Germany Somalia | Pitboss 11 - De Gaulle of Byzantium | Pitboss 8 - Churchill of Portugal | PB7 - Mao of Native America | PBEM29 Greens - Mao of Babylon
@ Spacerant-
I don't think any harm has come to the game via my confirmation of scooter's theory. Nobody has alerted the other players of Sulla's deception, nobody has even told Sulla himself that the lurkers are aware. I myself have proposed we continue to play along with the ruse. The only thing that has changed is how some lurkers will now view "Mike's" posts, which doesn't seem particularly significant to me, especially since several people already clearly held suspicions. There are like maybe two other puppets playing in this game (Goreripper and "Zaldax"- is he even still participating?), so you can't claim this was some super special secret masquerade variant we have spoiled.  (March 5th, 2014, 17:53)zakalwe Wrote: Kind of makes me want to play more mafia games with Scooter. (March 5th, 2014, 18:10)novice Wrote:(March 5th, 2014, 17:00)Hashoosh Wrote: Lurkers have been posting a lot about this Bantams/Gavagai thing in their thread, it must be a pretty juicy story of intrigue and betrayal. My problem usually wasn't reading people, it was that I typed too much for my own good and always ended up sounding suspicious. (March 5th, 2014, 18:18)spacetyrantxenu Wrote: Let's play another Guess the Smurf games. I have two smurf accounts. Anyone know which two are mine? One is pretty obvious in this very game forum, the other is less conspicuous around RB. It's Boldly, isn't it. You just invented the fact that you have a brother, when you obviously don't. BOOM. On a more serious note: as for your comments about the IP thing, I dunno, I could go either way. If Sullla really didn't want to get caught, he just wouldn't keep a heavily updated thread. He isn't even bothering to disguise his writing style like he did with Locke in this one. I think he figured someone would solve it eventually. So I don't know that this is some moral issue over him needing anonymity for a fun game - and besides, it's not like the other players in the game know. All it's really done is color our perception of his thread/game ever so slightly. Perhaps we shouldn't IP check in the future, but I don't think what BobCW did was particularly evil or anything.
Xenu, you should have come to me to talk about a rule violation. In the same vein, if Sullla is Mike, he should have let me know. And, on a third note, that post in the lurker thread by Sullla is a rule violation, if he's Mike.
If there's more to know, Xenu, I want to know. Seriously now, it's fun to set up fake accounts and all that, but there is evidence of rule breaking within this mess and I want to be aware of all there's to know so as to investigate that.
Isn't "Mikehendi" ded-lurking yuri in PB17? It seems odd that someone with a fake account would do that...
(March 5th, 2014, 18:43)scooter Wrote: I don't think Sullla's post at the beginning of this thread is a big deal, just a clever way of throwing people off the scent. It was long before there were actually spoilers in here. It's not a big deal, which is why I won't act on it. But it is a rule violation nonetheless. |
