|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Mar 30, 2011 0:32:07 GMT -5
assuming the daphne can be kidnapped, how can this be executed? is this a night action? i still don't see how this helps town? is daphne necessarily a town character? is there breadcrumbing (did i get the right term?) happening here?
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Mar 30, 2011 5:00:52 GMT -5
The Scum have the power to control my vote. (That's only if they kidnap you, and no one's yet rescued you, right?) How would the vote control work mechanically? Moderator publishes revised vote totals without explanation? Scum forge a post from special ed? Other?
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 30, 2011 5:55:00 GMT -5
Assuming Special and Mental are telling the truth, I wonder if we can get some benefit out of the situation to counterbalance the fact that scum now know who Daphne is and that Mental has claimed to be a rescuer. If I were scum, I think I'd have kept out of the discussion and watched Special force his own lynch.
Mental voted Special in #158, accusing him of PIS. Special claimed to be Daphne and self-voted in #169. He unvoted and explained the benefit to scum in #248. Over the course of almost 80 posts, 15 players posted, only Peeker avoided commenting on the whole Daphne/kidnap discussion.
The non-posters were Bill, Maha, Greedy Smurf, Scuzzlebutt, Joanie, Romanic and Paranoia. Greedy Smurf, Scuzzlebutt and Romanic posted shortly after with comments delayed due to timezone issues, unrelated comments on name claim, unrelated comments on RL issues, respectively. Joanie has RL issues (hope everything went well!).
So, Bill: #22 Confirms #27 Comments on: Peeker being harmless unless he's scum, number of scum, color-related fluff #28 Wonders where Daphne is #35 To Paranoia, comments on dangers of Peeker as vig #116 To Special, suggests vote on Pinkies could be an easy or safe D1 lynch #117 To Peeker, who asked about Scooby Snacks, quotes rules, everyone has snacks, some players have a use for the snacks, supply may stop, maybe hotel chef makes them #131 To Julie, re: Strangeways, comments that it's a colloquial name for a UK prison
Not much to look at. The question could be a scum ruse to identify Daphne, I doubt they knew that her role was "kidnap victim" - who'd have guessed that? - so an innocent comment on the color could have drawn out their target. Then, a couple of comments on Peeker's experience as Vig, a possible scum motivation for Special's vote on Pinkies with no follow-up, some useful information about Scooby Snacks from the rules, an interesting factoid about Strangeways.
Maha: #47 Confirms receipt of PM #60 Asks Special what he's babbling about (re: vote and case on Pinkies) #111 To Special, who asked him to be more specific, finds it weird that Special would vote someone based on another game #146 To Peeker, who hints that Maha has done something similar, he voted Peeker for things he did in the same game, not a previous one. Admits he sees Special's point but it's still weird
Not much here either. Didn't he get any Scooby Snacks? Somewhat defensive to Peeker.
Paranoia: #19 Confirms #30 To Bill, surprised he didn't mention the dangers of Peeker as Vig, color-related speculation #48 Comments on Pinkies' recipe posting #58 Theorizes that Ed is a lyncher for Pinkies #78 In response to Septimus' suggestion, recommends not answering questions about needing scooby snacks, doesn't know what they're for, suspects Septimus is role fishing, FOSes him
Not much here either. What's a "lyncher"? I agree that the FOS seems opportunistic. What's a "COCKED EYE REVEIRE"?
Vote Paranoia
I know they could simply have RL issues and were not around yesterDay to participate so this is part poke, part for avoiding the Daphne/kidnap discussion and part for Paranoia's FOS. I'm somewhat suspicious of Bill for the Daphne question and I'm always suspicious of Mahaloth on Day 1 and his play so far toDay isn't helping.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 30, 2011 8:56:18 GMT -5
...is there breadcrumbing (did i get the right term?) happening here? <snipped> actually the term is hitting you upside the head with a baseball bat. Over the course of almost 80 posts, 15 players posted, only Peeker avoided commenting on the whole Daphne/kidnap discussion. <snipped> and guiri i purposely stayed out of the whole durn rigamarole. i, like ed, was kind of hoping that someone might step in it. but on re read there is something that seems hinky/contrived about the whole thing. and you gotta admit it was pretty durn obvious portions of what ed/b] was going to come up with.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 30, 2011 9:40:02 GMT -5
What seems hinky or contrived to you, peeks? Especially in retrospect.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Mar 30, 2011 11:02:06 GMT -5
Ed, here's why I'm still voting for you. You make your claim, and vote for yourself Post 169: "I am Daphne, and I'm a miller type of role. It appears that my only power is the ability to be kidnapped. I doubt that it's beneficial to Town anyway." A couple Post later, you go ion a little fishing expedition Post 172: "Oh, and if someone has the ability to communicate with me privately, I encourage you to do so." Then you 'refine' your role for us, softening it just a bit (so that your lynch isn't guaranteed because we think you're a Miller?) Post 176: "and to be clear, when I say I'm a miller type role, I doubt that I'll investigate as Scum. My intention was to point out that my 'power' is probably anti-Town, and as such, removing me from the game might not be a bad thing." Renata asks if you know why you might be kidnapped. Your response: Post 182: "I do know. I'm not sure that they know all of the ramifications, so I'd rather not say." You then proceed to hammer home to us that your power is anti-Town Post 203: "My role is anti-Town enough that outed, it's potentially better that I am dead." Post 205: "My power is anti-Town." Post 206: "Finding Daphne can maybe stop the bad for Town, but that's very different from being good. A bit later, you spoonfeed us a bit more information in response to direct questioning Post 231: From this, we know... * 1 Can the kidnap be prevented through protection, roleblocking or vigging? I assume it might be able to be blocked. Other things probably won't interfere. * 2 Can you be lynched or killed while kidnapped? Yes * 3 Is the action of kidnapping trackable/watchable? I don't know * 4 When you are kidnapped, can you continue to post and vote? Yes... * 5 When you say you "know why they might kidnap you", do scum get some sort of benefit if they're successful? Yes Several people comment that this doesn't seem quite so dire a situation as you have been painting, and there's still the question of what you know, what you don't know, what you think you know that the Scum don't know that you don't want to give away by saying anything... Then yesterday afternoon, the entire picture changes. Suddenly, your power really isn't so bad, and we shouldn't lynch you after all. Post 248: "Actually, the benefit to Scum is not that great. it's significant, but not overwhelming. In fact, with it out in the open, the power is only really WiFoM in the hands of the Scum." "I was hoping that someone might slipw with some knowledge about what the actual advantage is, as Scum are probably well aware of it. I'd have to assume." "The Scum have the power to control my vote." And to clarify your objectives: Post 257: "I was hoping there would be some reaction to what I said that might give us...you know...information, and not the benign useful information kind either." You're telling us that this whole charade of yours was an attempt to get 'someone' to slip with information. Apparently you were certain that the only people who would be likely to slip would be Scum? It never occurred to you that your efforts would be at least as likely to out Town as Scum? I have a hard time believeing that you would make that mistake. And you certainly got some information out of MentalGuy. So do you think he's Scum? Or do you think that he's Town, and he 'slipped' in his attempt to support you, and has now painted a big fat bullseye on his back for Scum to shoot at? So, to sum up... - You were at best less than forthcoming, and at worst outright lying, about your role and its implications
I doubt that it's beneficial to Town anyway. my 'power' is probably anti-Town, and as such, removing me from the game might not be a bad thing. My role is anti-Town enough that outed, it's potentially better that I am dead. Actually, the benefit to Scum is not that great...In fact, with it out in the open, the power is only really WiFoM in the hands of the Scum.Is it 'not beneficial' to town, or is it 'probably anti-Town', or is it 'anti-Town to the extent that you should be killed', or is it 'just WIFOM'? I'm not sure that they [Scum] know all of the ramifications, so I'd rather not say. I was hoping that someone might slipw with some knowledge about what the actual advantage is, as Scum are probably well aware of it.So, so are you 'not sure' Scum not know the ramifications, or are the 'probably well aware' of them? - you went on a (brief) fishing expedition ("Oh, and if someone has the ability to communicate with me privately, I encourage you to do so.")
- And you appear to have succeeded in outing a Town Power in MentalGuy.
Maybe you had the best of intentions, but the sum total of your Day 1 efforts appear pretty Scummy to me.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 30, 2011 11:10:17 GMT -5
Except the town power in question (Mental Guy) appears to exist only to mitigate the danger inherent in Ed's own role. I don't think there's any way Mental Guy could be telling anywhere close to the truth about his role and be scum; and I see next to no motive for him to be scum with some other role and bring this up like he has. I think he's town. In turn, a town Mental Guy strongly implies a town Ed/Daphne, IMO. Do you disagree? If so, why?
It wouldn't be the first time a town Ed has made an ultimately anti-town move on day one (anyone remember the vanilla handshake in LotR?)
There exists the possibility that Ed and Mental Guy are both mafia, and cooked this up between them for whatever reason, but the think the way it all came out between them is quite suggestive that that's not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Mar 30, 2011 11:37:42 GMT -5
2 questions: 1. Why did you claim it? 2. What did your post say before you edited it? Well, I didn't find any harm in stating my character name. I assumed Little Teapot was Little Teapot... Little Teapot was introducing its self so I didn't want to be rude... What I typed was a clue to my role. After typing it I thought it best to remove the clue so that no one would guess the role. Rookie mistake on that! I missed this earlier, but just to close the loop, I in no way intended my first post to be a claim of any sort. It was a joke, playing off the nursery rhyme. For those of you who are new to our little gang, there are a couple players (neither of whom are playing in this game) who have taken to claiming in their very first post of the day. In the last few games, peeker has started claiming to be Spartacus as a response to such behavior, and in this game I thought I'd mix things up by claiming to be "A little teapot, short and stout", complete with smiley...I didn't expect anyone to take it seriously...
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Mar 30, 2011 11:47:11 GMT -5
Except the town power in question (Mental Guy) appears to exist only to mitigate the danger inherent in Ed's own role. I don't think there's any way Mental Guy could be telling anywhere close to the truth about his role and be scum; and I see next to no motive for him to be scum with some other role and bring this up like he has. I think he's town. In turn, a town Mental Guy strongly implies a town Ed/Daphne, IMO. Do you disagree? If so, why? It wouldn't be the first time a town Ed has made an ultimately anti-town move on day one (anyone remember the vanilla handshake in LotR?) There exists the possibility that Ed and Mental Guy are both mafia, and cooked this up between them for whatever reason, but the think the way it all came out between them is quite suggestive that that's not the case. I don't see any Scum motivation in MentalGuy's claim. It does seem to be a Town Power designed to counteract the Scum's ability to kidnap Daphne. And it makes sense to have a player with the role of Daphne, but it also makes perfect sense to me to have 'Daphne' be a non-player role, with an advantage to whichever side 'controls' her. So I think that a Town MentalGuy does not strongly imply a Town Ed. I'd have a lot easier time believing Ed if his play Today hadn't been so contradictory, confusing, and (IMO) anti-Town. Yes, it wouldn't be the first time a Town Ed had done such a thing; but it wouldn't be the first time a Scum Ed had done so, either. I can explain my thoughts further if you like, but I think I've already spelled them out pretty well in previous posts. It's not exactly an open and shut case, but for Day 1 I think it's pretty darn good. And I'm not really seeing anything overly Scummy in the other cases that are out there at the moment. And I will point out that with about 50 hours left in the Day,there are only 5 people with active votes on the board. We have managed to have lots and lots of conversation, but it's nearly all been centered around Ed. Some more participation from our low volume posters would be helpful.
|
|
|
Post by julie on Mar 30, 2011 12:08:31 GMT -5
There are approximately 49 hours to end of Day.
Vote Count:
*Special Ed: 2 (Suburban Plankton 92; Joanie 156)
Paranoia: 1 (guiri 272)
archangel: 1 (Renata 245)
Renata: 1 (archangel 253)
*Current lynch leader
Snack Transfers:
septimus: +1 (peekercpa, 83)
Corrections always welcome.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Mar 30, 2011 12:21:17 GMT -5
OK, so two things:
1. We should not lynch Ed. The preponderance of evidence suggests that he is probably Town. With all due respect, Plankton, I think your post justifying your continuing vote for him is a textbook example of someone who has reached a conclusion and refuses to consider evidence that the conclusion may be wrong; you are bending over backwards and sideways to force the picture to fit your chosen frame. Is this Scummy? I don't know yet. Which leads to:
2. I will bet a shiny nickel on the following proposition: if Ed is Town, at least one of the players who have voted for Ed so far is Scum. An emerging theory that a given player should be lynched whether Town or Scum? A theory that ensures zero accountability for anyone voting for that player? A theory advanced by that player himself?
No. No way do all the Scum stay away.
And if Ed is Scum, I think it very likely that at least one among his voters is Scum, too. This action was too big, too pervasive, and too much of a clear storyline for the Scum to remain entirely uninvolved.
So: my next project is to take a look at the bandwagon on Ed, and figure out what happened and who looks better/worse upon closer examination.
|
|
|
Post by MentalGuy on Mar 30, 2011 12:27:20 GMT -5
assuming the daphne can be kidnapped, how can this be executed? is this a night action? i still don't see how this helps town? is daphne necessarily a town character? is there breadcrumbing (did i get the right term?) happening here? I assume the kidnapping is a scum power (It could be a predetermined or random mod action, but I think that highly unlikely. It could be a third party action, but with what Ed has said, I doubt it). Whether it is a day power or a night power I don't know. After questioning the mod, I did find out that when Daphne is kidnapped, it will be announced in the game by the mod. I think it is highly likely that Daphne is a player's role in the game (a point I disagree with Suburban about) and from the info that was in my role PM, I think it is highly likely that the Daphne role is a town role.
|
|
|
Post by MentalGuy on Mar 30, 2011 12:49:43 GMT -5
I agree with Storyteller that the group of Joanie, Archangel, Renata, Captain Pinkies, and Suburban should be looked at more closely. Of that group, I don't really think Suburban is scum. I disagree with his argument, but I don't really see scum making that argument against someone they would know is probably being truthful.
Of the ones outside that group, Paranoia is who I would most likely vote for. For pretty much the same reasons as Guiri mentioned. While I have seen one or two cases of scum trying to rolefish, I find that accusing players of rolefishing is usually more of a scum tell than the actual apparent rolefishing.
peeker pinged me a bit, with his comment that this whole thing with ed seems "hinky/contrived", but after thinking about it, I just don't really see what the scum motivation would be there. I also have not seen anything else out of peeker that makes me think he is scum.
I am going to try to figure out something on those other four mentioned in my first paragraph now. I will try to have a vote by this evening.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 30, 2011 13:26:59 GMT -5
@ Suburban: I do see your logic now; I just don't think I agree with it. I'm not yet sure what to make of that difference of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Mar 30, 2011 13:48:38 GMT -5
We have some very obvious non-participants in this 'day' Is that common practice for these players (if you know their avatars)
It makes my FOS twitch
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Mar 30, 2011 13:50:16 GMT -5
@ Suburban: I do see your logic now; I just don't think I agree with it. I'm not yet sure what to make of that difference of opinion. Well, obviously it means you're Scum ;D
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 30, 2011 13:52:11 GMT -5
I noticed that Romanic and Joanie both claimed real life issues and I take them both at their word on that. Romanic says he'll be back tomorrow. Anyone else who's been absent or all-but-absent, I haven't noticed yet.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 30, 2011 13:52:41 GMT -5
@ Suburban: I do see your logic now; I just don't think I agree with it. I'm not yet sure what to make of that difference of opinion. Well, obviously it means you're Scum ;D
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Mar 30, 2011 15:47:57 GMT -5
I noticed that Romanic and Joanie both claimed real life issues and I take them both at their word on that. Romanic says he'll be back tomorrow. Anyone else who's been absent or all-but-absent, I haven't noticed yet. I under stand Joanie ‘s RL The others are non participatory in lack of substance to their few posts (in some cases very few posts) Perhaps someone else will respond to my question?
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 30, 2011 16:07:14 GMT -5
I noticed that Romanic and Joanie both claimed real life issues and I take them both at their word on that. Romanic says he'll be back tomorrow. Anyone else who's been absent or all-but-absent, I haven't noticed yet. I under stand Joanie ‘s RL The others are non participatory in lack of substance to their few posts (in some cases very few posts) Perhaps someone else will respond to my question? It helps if you name names. I've already talked about Bill, Mahaloth and Paranoia, who are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Mar 30, 2011 16:18:17 GMT -5
I under stand Joanie ‘s RL The others are non participatory in lack of substance to their few posts (in some cases very few posts) Perhaps someone else will respond to my question? It helps if you name names. I've already talked about Bill, Mahaloth and Paranoia, who are you referring to? as you mentioned Bill , Mahaloth, also FlyingCowOD, and perhaps IStickler I remember seeing the avatar but not much of what was said by that one. There is another that I can't remember now probably becauses I don't think I've seem them post anything? I'm naming names on request and wonder if any of you know that to be their style of play
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Mar 30, 2011 16:30:29 GMT -5
NETA I was not pointing fingers and I only named names at guiri 's prodding.
If they are known to be semi conscious for the first " day" I will see them as neutral to a point.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Mar 30, 2011 16:45:02 GMT -5
from above "There is another that I can't remember now probably becauses I don't think I've seem them post anything? " I see my confusion, the "good" Dr. changed their name from the official list and the smurf blended into the background
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 30, 2011 16:57:08 GMT -5
The player list is here and the post count per player is here. Also, you'll find "smudge" under the glossary in the wiki. As far as I know, non-participation is not an intentional playstyle of any player. Maintaining an appearance of participation while adding little or nothing to the hunt for scum is often a useful indicator of scum but also is not a playstyle (excepting Pinkies' recipes!).
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 30, 2011 18:01:41 GMT -5
I asked if a watcher or tracker could view my kidnapping and also if the Scum knew they'd get my vote if they kidnapped me. The answer was, "No comment" actually, it was, "No comment. Sorry."
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Mar 30, 2011 18:06:47 GMT -5
I asked if a watcher or tracker could view my kidnapping and also if the Scum knew they'd get my vote if they kidnapped me.The answer was, "No comment" actually, it was, "No comment. Sorry." Well, the answer to the second question is obvious SCUM knows all those things now [/i]
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 30, 2011 18:25:51 GMT -5
I asked if a watcher or tracker could view my kidnapping and also if the Scum knew they'd get my vote if they kidnapped me.The answer was, "No comment" actually, it was, "No comment. Sorry." Well, the answer to the second question is obvious SCUM knows all those things now [/i] [/quote] yes, and it was quite apparent to me that they knew it beforehand. Can we post our role PMs? Can we post other PMs from the moderator?[/color]
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Mar 30, 2011 18:35:57 GMT -5
do you really think that SCUM has that much more advance information than TOWN? On Day 1 ? I have much more to type on this but I am at workI will ellaborate in about an hour. hope someone is about
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 30, 2011 18:45:46 GMT -5
do you really think that SCUM has that much more advance information than TOWN? On Day 1 ? I have much more to type on this but I am at workI will ellaborate in about an hour. hope someone is about Was this to me? Were you wondering if I thought it plausible that Scum would be aware of the consequences of an unusual power in their arsenal? Yes, I did assume that.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 30, 2011 18:47:11 GMT -5
About the Special Ed saga, I believe his claim and I think the changes in his perception of his role may be due to his opinion changing over time about his role. Plankton's case is interesting, but can easily be waved with this argument.
MentalGuy's claim also reinforce Ed's claim. If one is Scum, the other should be, but it would be daring play, this early in the game, with no pressure to do so.
And Daphne should be in the game (although it's possible that one of Mystery Inc would not be present, to provide a good cover role)
So yes, I believe his claim, and it wouldn't make sense to lynch him just because he would lose control of his vote.
Now that it's out, the Scum may be weary to try kidnapping him, for fear that a watcher, if we have one, would be looking around.
|
|