|
Post by zlw on May 4, 2009 8:25:58 GMT -5
Sorry FCoH, maybe it gets better? I hope so I am about 15 minutes into it. And other than my ears bleeding from screeching that is supposed to be singing, I think it is supposed to be singing but I'm pretty sure they just stepped on frogs and used some good editing software to put together words.
One good thing, I like redheads.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on May 4, 2009 8:39:10 GMT -5
Sorry FCoH, maybe it gets better? I hope so I am about 15 minutes into it. And other than my ears bleeding from screeching that is supposed to be singing, I think it is supposed to be singing but I'm pretty sure they just stepped on frogs and used some good editing software to put together words. One good thing, I like redheads. GAH! --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on May 4, 2009 8:50:20 GMT -5
Wait wait wait. Pleonast says we need to lynch him, so it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. You're going to lynch him regardless? Just because HE says he should be lynched? What if I say "hey guys, I need to be lynched too. I'm dangerous!" Are you going to take my word for it and lynch me after Pleonast just because I said so? Pretty much. Yes. What alternative do you propose? If you declare you need to be lynched, why on earth would we not lynch you? 1) If hypothetical you are telling the truth, then duh, you need to be lynched. If you are lying, then duh, you need to be lynched because you are lying. 2) Scum won't nightkill you for us. We would have to do it ourselves. Thus a lynch is compulsory. For all we know, Pleonast could be interpreting his PM weirdly. Or maybe Mr. FCMOD isn't answering his questions about the role, so Pleonast is just rolling with what he assumes. I know I had a couple questions I asked privately and Mr. FCMOD gave me nothing, nada, zilch to work with so I'm working on my own assumptions here too. We can't play the game by bringing in unlikely theoreticals just to mess with our heads. Pleonast has been clear that there are aspects to his role that he does not fully understand. Whether he is being coy is not known. But he has been clear that he believes he can be recruited and that he needs to be lynched AND that an investigation of him will yield questionable information. I don't think anyone (except you) are questioning whether or not to lynch Pleonast. The real question is WHEN. Oh, and good job on the soft role claim. You might want to keep stuff like that under your hat in the future. Furthermore, you seem to be zeroing in on "to lynch Pleonast or not lynch Pleonast" and the only thing we'll gain from discussion of whether or not to lynch him is a list of people saying "Yes" or "No." Discussion begets discussion. Tangents form all over the place. People word things weirdly, or give a strange reason for their opinion, and that's what leads to catching scum. Chain reactions happen and you never know where they might lead. I mean hell, I didn't expect all that hooplah over my Roosh vote but hey. I'm certainly not 'zeroing in' on whether to lynch Pleonast or not. I'm all for a Pleonast lynch. My stance is that we should allow him to live to Night One so that night Actors have an opportinity to kill Pleonast. As for discussion, I guess it is possible that in stating a position that Pleonast should be killed that scum might also decide to say 'hey, BTW, I'm scum and I want Pleonast dead too,' but i find that unlikey. (Oh that was a joke by the way). I get what you are saying in that having a discussion point is better than nothing, but I feel this is true for any discussion and not specific to Pleonast. Furthermore, any discussion other than Pleonast is more useful in the long term as forcing scum to take a stance on someone whose lynch is questionable is critical to figuring out who is scum. And to be clear, we may just be having a difference of opinion on whether or not Pleonast's a worthy discussion point. Obviously. The reason I think this is scummy and the reason I'm voting for you is because this is Day One, and you want to wait to discuss a possible major game point until tomorrow. If this scenario happened on Day Three or Four, when there was other information to discuss, I wouldn't be voting for you. But what you're doing is saying "this is a distraction, let's wait until tomorrow to decide what to do" when there's really no other information to discuss that it could distract us from. Tomorrow on Day Two, or any Day in the future, when we have voting patterns and deaths to analyze, yes, it might be a distraction to rehash Pleonast over and over again. But why is it a distraction toDay? It's the most game-relevant thing to discuss. It's a distraction because it is the ONLY thing you are discussing. By holing yourself (and others) into the Pleonast discussion you aren't discussing anything else. You are self-fulfilling. You say there is nothing else to discuss, so all you discuss is Pleonast and voila! All we talk about is Pleonast. And I've been quite clear on WHY I want to wait until tomorrow on Pleonast. I want Pleonast dead by Vigilante. If Pleonast isn't going to die Today, then by focusing on Pleonast we are NOT FOCUSING ON WHO TO LYNCH! J.H.C! What to do about Pollux... It's possible that he is a Town Power Role, but it's also possible that he's Third Party, PFK, or scum. The last time I had someone hounding me with obtuse reasoning it was sinjin, and she was doing it on purpose. At the time, I dismissed it as her just being silly. But as it turned out she was scum. I have a hard time believing that Pollux thinks that we should consider not lynching Pleonast simply because Pleonast told us to lynch him. I don't see the logic. Also Pollux states that Pleonast might be 'misinterpreting' his role PM. So why would Pollux bring this up? I tend to have a blind spot for people who attack me as it's hard to look strictly at the facts (I tend to over compensate and end up not being suspicious of people who attack me). But it doesn't make sense for a scummy Pollux to take a "Maybe Pleonast is wrong about his role" stance. Not that it makes sense for Town either, but it is certainly more plausible for Town to take that position. But then there is the 'misinterpreting' statement. I don't get this. The only hypothetical I can draw is that Pollux is a power role who knows something about Pleonast. That makes sense to me, but its all rather convenient. ('convenient' in my head, not 'convenient' someone is scum). Pollux, what exactly is your stance on Pleonast? Lynch Pleonast Today? Lynch Pleonast Tomorrow? Don't Lynch Pleonast?
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on May 4, 2009 9:19:34 GMT -5
Post count (not adjusted for "substantive-ness") 1. NAF1138 - 9 2. Total Lost - 8 3. MiteyMouse - 2 4. sinjin - 15 5. paulwhoisaghost - 15 6. sachertorte - 15 7. Boozahol Squid, P.I. - 1 (traveling) 8. Pollux - 5 9. Kat! - 4 10. Storyteller - 2 11. KidVermicious - 6 12. Almost Human - 8 13. zlw - 9 14. Special Ed - 5 15. Sister Coyote - 13 16. MHaye - 3 17. Pleonast - 13 18. Natlaw - 11 19. Inner Stickler - 9 20. Roosh - 20
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on May 4, 2009 9:33:29 GMT -5
Post count (not adjusted for "substantive-ness") 1. NAF1138 - 9 2. Total Lost - 8 3. MiteyMouse - 2 4. sinjin - 15 5. paulwhoisaghost - 15 6. sachertorte - 15 7. Boozahol Squid, P.I. - 1 (traveling) 8. Pollux - 5 9. Kat! - 4 10. Storyteller - 2 11. KidVermicious - 6 12. Almost Human - 8 13. zlw - 9 14. Special Ed - 5 15. Sister Coyote - 13 16. MHaye - 3 17. Pleonast - 13 18. Natlaw - 11 19. Inner Stickler - 9 20. Roosh - 20 If you go to the "Dr. Horrible Mafia"-thread and click on the numbers of replies for Day 1 (with this post it would be 184) you get the numbers of post by all players in the Day. I don't know if you know this - but now the information is out there for all to know ;D
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on May 4, 2009 9:38:05 GMT -5
That's what I did.
I cut and pasted the player list because I wanted to make sure there weren't any no-shows. If someone doesn't post at all, they won't be on the thread list.
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 10:25:53 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on May 4, 2009 10:25:53 GMT -5
I thought about Pollux a bit more, and I retract my thinking that Pollux is a pro-town power role and has some info on Pleonast and that's why he's so obsessed about him. It doesn't make sense for that to be the case. If Pollux knew something about Pleonast, he wouldn't belabor the point. He'd be content with deferring Pleonast to Day Two and leave it at that.
As it is, I'm left confused as to why Pollux feels that Pleonast's stating he needs to be lynched leaves the door open for not lynching Pleonast or that Pleonast might be mis-interpreting his role PM.
Does anyone else feel the way Pollux feels?
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 11:09:57 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on May 4, 2009 11:09:57 GMT -5
I've done a reread, and here are my comments. Squid: in danger of mod kill. Come on, don't abandon us! story, Mouse: also in danger. They each has one comment about me, so at least they've read some. MHaye, Kat, Kid: they've been actively posting, but seem to have forgotten about us. Or are intentionally ignoring us. If I wanted to lynch a lurker, here they'd be. Pollux: My point is that since Pleonast has told us we need to lynch him, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about Pleonast. There's nothing to gain from this information. Discerning scum from town after Pleonast tells us we need to lynch him is not useful. So some will say lynch him Today and some will say Lynch Tomorrow. So what? Neither one will reveal anything about scum, no matter what Pleonast turns out to be. Wait wait wait. Pleonast says we need to lynch him, so it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. You're going to lynch him regardless? Just because HE says he should be lynched? What if I say "hey guys, I need to be lynched too. I'm dangerous!" Are you going to take my word for it and lynch me after Pleonast just because I said so? For all we know, Pleonast could be interpreting his PM weirdly. Or maybe Mr. FCMOD isn't answering his questions about the role, so Pleonast is just rolling with what he assumes. I know I had a couple questions I asked privately and Mr. FCMOD gave me nothing, nada, zilch to work with so I'm working on my own assumptions here too. This response from Pollux really bothers me. It seems to be setting up a defense against me being lynched. I can't see a pro-Town reason for doing that, unless he has specific information about my situation that he's not revealing. I think this is enough for me to vote Pollux Scared StupidAlmost Human, Total: seems to be playing fairly pro-Town. At least nothing for me to complain about. NAF: I was hoping for more analysis from him. zlw: I don't care for the claim. Full claim totally, go take your place in the lynch line or something. You opened up absolutely nothing for town with that claim, nothing I can think of anyway. If I was a investigator I wouldn't investigate him. If I was the guardian I wouldn't protect him. If I was the vigilante I wouldn't try to off him. All because scum could have a watcher. He is not worth the loss of a town power role when we can just lynch him at our leisure (sooner rather than later I would hope) You have a claim that is impossible to confirm short of your death, in later game you don't belong in the confirmed by evidence list, you remain in the unconfirmed unknown list one more spot for scum to hide in. I'm having trouble understanding this post. She claims she doesn't understand my claim, but then lists the reasons I made it. Maybe zlw would like to explain her thoughts more. Stickler: NETA: I'd like to add my voice to the chorus asking pleonast to answer the questions asked by Roosh and others. I commented on this before, but there was no response. It feels like he was trying to put pressure on me, but wasn't paying enough attention to notice I had been answering questions. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking toward dusk and we don't have any good leads. Because every minute that slips by is a lost chance to find scum. These comments twinge my scumdar. He's talking about finding scum, but what is he actually doing? FlyingCow: participating, but not really helping us find scum. Natlaw: Bit of a catch up post: Since the obvious response to a recruitable player is a Night-kill (so we don't have to waste a lynch), the fact that I'm difficult to Night kill becomes important. That's why I revealed it. Yeah, it means that the Scum won't bother to Night kill me, but it avoids the Town unproductively wondering why I didn't die. Why should scum bother to Night kill you in the first place if you're recruitable? You seem to suggest you are dangerous to scum, thus we should lynch asap? Interesting response, especially considering your earlier comment. I stated that I'm resistant to Night kills because otherwise a Vig might waste a shot at getting scum. If a Vig decides to try to kill me anyway, then either he succeeds (unlikely) and I'm a dead Townie (good for me), or he fails (likely) and I get partial confirmation (also good for me). At least any Vig can make that choice with additional information now. I do see your argument why it is pro-town to claim, but if we must lynch you, it would make you the obvious vigilante kill. And not a waste of it if it succeeded. I'm of the opinion that extra death, even well intentioned vigilante ones, hurt town. There is the possible information gain, but that is usually in combination with more complete vote records. Can you explain what's going on with your comments? Coyote: I get a strong Townie vibe from her. sinjin, paul: playing and nothing obviously anti-Town. I don't get a vibe. sach: doing his typical pro-Town stuff. And giving no idea about his alignment, of course. Ro0sh:also playing pro-Town and giving no idea about his alignment. If he or sach aren't Night-killed in the first few Days, take a very very careful look at them.
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 11:12:21 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on May 4, 2009 11:12:21 GMT -5
I thought about Pollux a bit more, and I retract my thinking that Pollux is a pro-town power role and has some info on Pleonast and that's why he's so obsessed about him. It doesn't make sense for that to be the case. If Pollux knew something about Pleonast, he wouldn't belabor the point. He'd be content with deferring Pleonast to Day Two and leave it at that. As it is, I'm left confused as to why Pollux feels that Pleonast's stating he needs to be lynched leaves the door open for not lynching Pleonast or that Pleonast might be mis-interpreting his role PM. I didn't see this before posting my previous post. I agree completely, hence my vote.
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 12:01:54 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 4, 2009 12:01:54 GMT -5
Hey all, sorry I have been in this game so little, but I have been having a hard time keeping my head above water. I am going to do a total re-read of the thread at lunch today and hopefully I will have some thoughts.
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 12:13:52 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on May 4, 2009 12:13:52 GMT -5
FlyingCow: participating, but not really helping us find scum. Hm. I dunno, I guess I could help you out... but then I fear people would complain that it was unfair. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 12:19:43 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on May 4, 2009 12:19:43 GMT -5
Vote count:
Sister Coyote (2*) - zlw, Paul Paul (2) - NAF1138, Inner Stickler KidV (1) - Roosh sachertorte (1) - Pollux Inner Stickler (1) - Natlaw Natlaw (1) - sinjin Pollux (1) - Pleonast
* - Reached 2 votes first and will be lynched if the tie remains.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 12:58:54 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on May 4, 2009 12:58:54 GMT -5
Wait wait wait. Pleonast says we need to lynch him, so it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. You're going to lynch him regardless? Just because HE says he should be lynched? What if I say "hey guys, I need to be lynched too. I'm dangerous!" Are you going to take my word for it and lynch me after Pleonast just because I said so? That depends. What kind of detail are you going to give us as to why you think your lynching would be beneficial for Town? I mean, I don't follow what Pleo's saying at all (I really don't - I'm so confused), but at least he has given reasons both why we should lynch him and why we should wait a Day. Someone else already pointed this out, but nice soft claim there, buddy. This paragraph contradicts itself all over the place. All over the place. You say: Discussion of Pleo will only lead to "Yes or No", which seems to imply that you think that Discussion of Pleo isn't actually discussion. But then you say: Discussion begets discussion and go on to list all sorts of reason discussion is good for Town. So which is it? I'm really confused, because I see further contradiction here: you didn't think Pleo was worth caring about, but you didn't offer another topic to discuss toDay, and now you're accusing Sachertorte of doing exactly what you did? What? You know, after reading through this I shouldn't have doubted my gut. Vote Pollux Scared StupidThat said, sorry your abbreviation looks like PISS to you. Maybe you're taking the piss out of us, I don't know.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 13:00:21 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on May 4, 2009 13:00:21 GMT -5
MHaye, Kat, Kid: they've been actively posting, but seem to have forgotten about us. Or are intentionally ignoring us. If I wanted to lynch a lurker, here they'd be. Speaking for myself, I'm currently very busy trying to stay afloat. I was working on a HARP character because there was the possibility of starting the campaign today, but since I've heard nothing I guess not. This game has just moved to top priority of my Mafia games so I'll be dealing with a vote after I've had tea. I'm still trying to think through the implications of your claim (and desire to be lynched before you change sides).
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 13:28:10 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on May 4, 2009 13:28:10 GMT -5
For the record, I'm from the Netherlands so English is not my native language. But I tend to preview a lot, so hopefully not too many mistakes . This is my fourth game of Mafia (1 win, 2 loses). For the post counts, Boozahol, Kat and Coyote posted in the 'going to be away' thread. And it's a warning first, not a mod kill right away last time I checked the rules. But personally, I find it more worrisome that we only have about half of the votes in with one day to go. And last, I don't see bolding in quotes on this forum (in both IE and Firefox), so please use underline if you want to emphasize something in a quote. Natlaw: Interesting response, especially considering your earlier comment. Can you explain what's going on with your comments? My later post (quoted first) is specifically to your statement ' Yeah, it means that the Scum wont bother to Night kill me' (because you claimed mostly NK immune). My question is: why would scum bother to kill even if you had not claimed you can self-protect, when you already said you might be recruitable and should be lynched? Together with my impression of 'I can self-protect' implying 'but I can do other stuff too' (I know you've now stated that you cannot not self-protect), which would be relevant to the decision to (not) lynch you immediately. On other hand, the sentence makes more sense if you meant to write 'scum won't bother to recruit me, but now town doesn't have to worry why a vigilante couldn't/didn't kill me'. I don't see how my earlier post about preferring a vigilante kill instead of lynching makes the latter 'interesting', so please clarify?
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 14:07:38 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on May 4, 2009 14:07:38 GMT -5
And last, I don't see bolding in quotes on this forum (in both IE and Firefox), so please use underline if you want to emphasize something in a quote. I'd have problems with underlining... Seriously, underlining obscures the shape of letters, and the smaller the font the worse the issue gets. Instead, I'll try and remember to up the size of text in a quote box to 2. The reason you can't see the bolding is because of the reduced text size. Now back to Second Reading.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 15:18:51 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on May 4, 2009 15:18:51 GMT -5
This is the sort of thing that I get when I'm in too many games at once. I miss posts talking directly at me. And on my reread, I'll drag up an old post:
If that happens before everybody has made five posts, then some people (possibly including me) will find themselves on a warning and under some pressure. If they then do the hammer bit again and catch people out, that's a problem. The ELE have used the rules to get a mass Daykill in; if they get two Townies that way, that's the equivalent of a Mislynch and Nightkill. The time before the Town reaches Lylo is reduced by one whole Day. Yes, but if they do it again it becomes pretty obvious, though the mod-kill/pressure might still be worth later in the game. On Day One I don't see much benefit for scum to do it and I wanted to know from sinjin why she quoted it from Pleonast with the remark 'especially since Pleo has decided to claim almost instantaneously'. You'd be surprised how easy it might be to miss that. Iirc, Santo Rugger dropped the hammer three days in succession before anyone even thought to ask whether repeatedly unilateral guillotining the Day's discussion was a pro-Town move. Now that Town are alert to it, the ELE will (I hope) be unlikely to risk it, because they know we know that it's something to be watched. Deterrence, that's the ticket.
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 15:28:52 GMT -5
Post by Almost Human on May 4, 2009 15:28:52 GMT -5
<font style="font-size: 12px;">Sorry FCoH, maybe it gets better? I hope so I am about 15 minutes into it. And other than my ears bleeding from screeching that is supposed to be singing, I think it is supposed to be singing but I'm pretty sure they just stepped on frogs and used some good editing software to put together words. One good thing, I like redheads. I should vote you for appalling taste and no appreciation of musical theatre. Shame on you - Whedon is god! <font style="font-size: 12px;"> FlyingCow: participating, but not really helping us find scum. Hm. I dunno, I guess I could help you out... but then I fear people would complain that it was unfair. --FCOD ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D OK - back with a vote shortly.
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 15:44:06 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on May 4, 2009 15:44:06 GMT -5
For the record, I'm from the Netherlands so English is not my native language. But I tend to preview a lot, so hopefully not too many mistakes . This is my fourth game of Mafia (1 win, 2 loses). For the post counts, Boozahol, Kat and Coyote posted in the 'going to be away' thread. And it's a warning first, not a mod kill right away last time I checked the rules. But personally, I find it more worrisome that we only have about half of the votes in with one day to go. And last, I don't see bolding in quotes on this forum (in both IE and Firefox), so please use underline if you want to emphasize something in a quote. Natlaw: Interesting response, especially considering your earlier comment. Can you explain what's going on with your comments? My later post (quoted first) is specifically to your statement ' Yeah, it means that the Scum wont bother to Night kill me' (because you claimed mostly NK immune). My question is: why would scum bother to kill even if you had not claimed you can self-protect, when you already said you might be recruitable and should be lynched? Together with my impression of 'I can self-protect' implying 'but I can do other stuff too' (I know you've now stated that you cannot not self-protect), which would be relevant to the decision to (not) lynch you immediately. On other hand, the sentence makes more sense if you meant to write 'scum won't bother to recruit me, but now town doesn't have to worry why a vigilante couldn't/didn't kill me'. I don't see how my earlier post about preferring a vigilante kill instead of lynching makes the latter 'interesting', so please clarify? Ah, I see that I misunderstood what you were talking about. You were commenting on my second use of Night-kill (a Scum Night-kill) rather than the first (a Town Night-kill). It seemed to me that you had forgotten about a Vig, but it's only me misunderstanding you. As for your question about that, it was an additional reason that scum wouldn't Night-kill me.
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 16:04:30 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on May 4, 2009 16:04:30 GMT -5
I should vote you for appalling taste and no appreciation of musical theatre. Shame on you - Whedon is god! Whedon is pretty far from God - I give you Dollhouse as an exemplar. Also, I'm sorry, but Once More with Feeling sucked. Dr. Horrible is OK, though.
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 16:23:15 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on May 4, 2009 16:23:15 GMT -5
I'm re-reading, so I'm going to respond to stuff as I (re)encounter them. In games I've played with Recruitment, it's always the SCUM had to go out and FIND the players to recruit. Roosh actually goes on quite a bit longer (shocker!), but this is the central point I'll address. FCoD stated explicitly that this game has a mechanism that 'some might consider to be recruitment.' That says to me that the recruitment mechanism will not follow the same pattern or rules as in previous games. Roosh also relates some paranoia about Pleonast getting recruited anyway. I don't dispute Roosh's assessment directly, but my concern (it's not really paranoia if its true right?) is that by declaring his status Pleonast has increased the lynch burden of the Town without removing the recruitment mechanism from the game. Now I don't know what the mechanism really is and I'm falling into the trap of thinking recruitment works like it has in previous games, but I'll pursue that first then remind you of the caveats. Let's assume that the ELE can actively recruit once. Let's also assume that Pleonast is not the only player who is susceptible to recruitment. In this case, Pleonast's claim is tantamount to giving the Scum Two recruitments in that Town will 'need*' to kill both Pleonast and whoever this other recruited being is. * We don't strictly need to lynch a Town Pleonast, but we can't know this! The caveats: - I'm assuming recruitment is like in previous incarnations (not likely) - I'm assuming players other than Pleonast can be recruited (likely) This will not be the first time that Pleonast has acted in a way that he thought was pro-Town, but really wasn't.
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 16:48:17 GMT -5
Post by special on May 4, 2009 16:48:17 GMT -5
FlyingCow: participating, but not really helping us find scum.dammit! You're right! Why isn't he helping us?!?!
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 16:49:14 GMT -5
Post by special on May 4, 2009 16:49:14 GMT -5
And now, coded correctly! FlyingCow: participating, but not really helping us find scum.. dammit! You're right! Why isn't he helping us?!?!
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 16:54:42 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on May 4, 2009 16:54:42 GMT -5
Your logic is sound, sach, except that it ignores the fact that I think I can be recruited. That's why I made my claim. Since the obvious response to a recruitable player is a Night-kill (so we don't have to waste a lynch), the fact that I'm difficult to Night kill becomes important. That's why I revealed it. Yeah, it means that the Scum won't bother to Night kill me, but it avoids the Town unproductively wondering why I didn't die. Yeah, that doesn't really do it for me. Why would Town unproductively wonder why you didn't die? If you had only claimed recruitable and didn't say anything about nightkills, I sure as heck wouldn't have expected you to be killed by scum at Night. We might wonder why a Vig didn't off you, but there are other reasons for that beyond NK resistance. And if you really can't be NK, then you would have ample opportunity to full claim before your lynch is processed. Not a big deal, we're gonna kill you anyway.
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 16:55:00 GMT -5
Post by special on May 4, 2009 16:55:00 GMT -5
Pollux: Wait wait wait. Pleonast says we need to lynch him, so it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. You're going to lynch him regardless? Just because HE says he should be lynched? What if I say "hey guys, I need to be lynched too. I'm dangerous!" Are you going to take my word for it and lynch me after Pleonast just because I said so? For all we know, Pleonast could be interpreting his PM weirdly. Or maybe Mr. FCMOD isn't answering his questions about the role, so Pleonast is just rolling with what he assumes. I know I had a couple questions I asked privately and Mr. FCMOD gave me nothing, nada, zilch to work with so I'm working on my own assumptions here too. This response from Pollux really bothers me. It seems to be setting up a defense against me being lynched. I can't see a pro-Town reason for doing that, unless he has specific information about my situation that he's not revealing. I think this is enough for me to I'm going to me too on here. After re-reading and seeing sachertorte's comment and then this. It seems clear that Pollux wants Pleo to live. I can only see Scum or PFK motives for this. I also think the soft claim might have been intentional to make us worry that he might be a power role. vote Pollux SS
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 16:58:24 GMT -5
Post by Almost Human on May 4, 2009 16:58:24 GMT -5
I know a lot of this has already come up but bear with me: <font style="font-size: 12px;"> Vote Hoopy Frood! I wanted to be the first one to get that in. Bleached for the mod ( ). Hell with that. Vote RoOsH for making me think. p.s. <font style="font-size: 6px;"> Unvote RoOsH because nights that short would be good for Town. In theory, anyway. You say that this statement doesn't mean you think Roosh is town but it doesn't sound like that here. Your response to ZLW: <font style="font-size: 12px;"> ZLW - I appreciate the thought, I really do, but when I made the post in Night Zero about voting RoOsH for making my head hurt I really had forgotten about Day talk. But I think we should be looking for Scum, rather than voting on plaster-of-paris reasons. Kat! smudged him for it in the Night 0 thread, but I find RoOsH's ignorance of the rules curious. Multiple games notwithstanding. Someone more experienced - is skimming really a scum tell? So you've gone from thinking Roosh was doing a pro town thing to doing a potentially scummy thing? And here you think ZLW's accused you of lying: <font style="font-size: 12px;"> zlw, can you explain why forgetting that scum can Day talk is something that a scum would do? See, this is what I don't understand either. It seems to me that ZLW is accusing me of lying and hoping to get me under lynch the liar, since Town really shouldn't lie unless we have a very good reason to do so. Not that I can think of Town having a good reason to lie without being a power role. It also seems to me that Scum wouldn't comment on the fact that they'd made an error, preferring to let everyone "forget" the post where they'd erred. I could be wrong about that, of course; maybe there'd be some reason for drawing attention to one's mistake. I can't think of any, though. Personally, I thought it was pretty clear what he was saying. That it's a typical scum tactic (newb scum at any rate) to pretend ignorance to things scum should know. I'm not sure whether you knew full well what he meant or not but it pinged me nonetheless. <font style="font-size: 12px;"> In other words, Roosh's 12 hour Night suggestion does not threaten to expose scum and therefore can not be taken as evidence of Townness (end digression). So the question is, why did Sister Coyote take Roosh's statement as an indicator of Townness? I see a certain lack of paranoia on the part of Sister Coyote, which troubles me. * Evidence is NOT PROOF I'm happy to explain my thinking, particularly since it's fairly simple: Assuming (as I was) that Scum can't speak to each other during the Day, longer Days and shorter Nights are better for Town. If Scum only has 12 hours to plan and make their move, there's more chance that one or more of them won't be able to log on before the end of Night, that they won't have decided before deadline, etc. That said, my revocation of vote for pro-Town action doesn't mean I think RoOsH is Town, just that I thought that asking for short nights was a pro-Town action. So why did you unvote? Yes, I know it didn't count as it was Night 0, but why did you feel you had to make that point? Perhaps you knew Roosh was town and didn't want to be on his radar. I don't know Roosh's allignment so this is just speculation but it makes me wonder. <font style="font-size: 12px;"> Since you offered I'll take that cookie, taco and a knife to stab that kitten thank you. Hm. So if I vote for ZLW based on the whole stabbing a kitten thing, which may or may not be Town but certainly isn't nice, would that register with people as OMGUS? Or just as the jest it would be meant to be? Can't be sure, therefore I won't do it. But I will talk about it with my outside voice. You know, pleo's soft-claim sure has us talking about him, but not so much about finding Scum. And, finally Vote Pollux Scared Stupidfor: belatedly entering the thread with a random vote on RoOsH when there's been plenty to talk about, even if PSS doesn't care about pleo's soft-claim. So you can't be sure if ZLW was joking or not when he threatened to stab a kitten. You can recognise the so-called humour in that but fail to recognise it in PSS's joke vote? Then you misinterpret his "whole bunch of WIFOM" comment as not caring. <font style="font-size: 12px;">Why do you think that was a joke vote, paul? The whole post seemed serious enough to me. Admittedly, I don't know PSS, maybe this sort of terse vote-only with worthless commentary is standard operating procedure for him. I'm not trying to stifle discussion; but PSS has but one post. And his comment about not caring about pleo isn't encouraging others to discuss whatever it is that he thinks is more important than pleo's claim, just expressing boredom. That doesn't seem very pro-Town to me. I know you've already voted for him at this point but this is still very smudgy - I don't remember you being this snarky. <font style="font-size: 12px;">His post seemed to be serious in tone. One can post in such a way as to be serious in tone but lacking in content. anyway. I'm still suspicious, but for the time being I'm going to UnvoteAnd, as has already been pointed out, for someone who's so gung ho for PSS, this unvote simply makes you look more suspicious. <font style="font-size: 12px;"> You're going to hate me for this as it will pretty much look like you can't win. (So it goes, huh?) I wasn't willing to vote for you simply based on my suspicion regarding your statements about Roosh (reminder: I found your willingness to take Roosh's statements at face value unsettlingly void of paranoia), but now that you've taken a stab at Pollux and quickly dissembled, I'm reconsidering. So yes, some people have voted for you for voting for Pollux, but I was not one of them (I actually think your early vote is more pro-Town than not), but now I'm concerned about your unvoting Pollux. I'm particularly irked with the statement that you are still suspicious, yet you are unvoting. If you are still suspicious of Pollux, then why unvote? This...Is...Mafia! I already knew it was a six of one, half-dozen of the other situation. I unvoted because I need to go back and read the thread and see why other people decided Pollux was joking and I read him as serious, particularly in light of his current comment. My vote may well go back on him, but not until I have a chance, probably this weekend, to really review the thread in-depth (taking notes and the whole nine yards. Right now, I'm reading and absorbing). Unvoting in this situation is a peculiarity of my playstyle, I guess. Your reasoning for unvoting is pretty weak. Why not "go back and read the thread and see why other people decided Pollux was joking" first and then unvote if you agreed with them. Doing it this way just leaves him open for your vote again. New reasons for the same thing? How many ways do you need to explain your vote/unvote for Roosh? <font style="font-size: 12px;"> Someone else already pointed this out, but nice soft claim there, buddy. I really don't see why you think this is a soft claim. I know you're not the only one to say so but revealing you asked the mod questions in no way reveals anything. These are separate issues. Discussing whether or not to lynch Pleo is one point - answers being yes or no with perhaps a maybe or two thrown in for good measure. Discussing Pleo himself is a completely different subject. Is he telling the truth? What reason does he have for not giving a full claim? Who's reacting to it one way and who another? At least that's how I read it. <font style="font-size: 12px;"> I should vote you for appalling taste and no appreciation of musical theatre. Shame on you - Whedon is god! Whedon is pretty far from God - I give you Dollhouse as an exemplar. Also, I'm sorry, but Once More with Feeling sucked. Dr. Horrible is OK, though. And finally this! You are of the devil and must be lynched....hard. Seriously how can you not like Dollhouse and not know all the words to Once More with Feeling? Next you'll be saying Fringe is rubbish - philistine! vote Sister C
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 17:02:17 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on May 4, 2009 17:02:17 GMT -5
From a mod perspective, if I ever use "recruitment" again, it would be via conditional win conditions, possibly hidden initially. That's what may be coloring my interpretation of my pm. I could easily imagine getting a pm from the moderator saying, "and because ... happened, you now win if ..." and have it fit well with my existing pm. More speculation: Okay, this line of thought actually complements some thinking I had two posts ago about the recruitment mechanism. My theory of possible recruitment is that a subset of Town (e.g., two players) are susceptible to 'recruitment,' but it's not really recruitment, it's a win condition change.... a win condition change that "some might consider to be recruitment." Some in-game event will determine the ultimate win-conditions of these individuals. This also fits into Pleonast's refusal to role-claim further or even NAME CLAIM, as that might give scum information about which in-game event to pursue to ensure that Pleonast's doppleganger gets the win condition change instead of Pleonast. Or my mind is just running wild.
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 17:05:45 GMT -5
Post by special on May 4, 2009 17:05:45 GMT -5
I really don't see why you think this is a soft claim. I know you're not the only one to say so but revealing you asked the mod questions in no way reveals anything. But saying you had questions for the mod about your role? Usually a Vanilla role is pretty simple. I think Pollux could handle understanding it himself.
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 17:14:22 GMT -5
Post by Almost Human on May 4, 2009 17:14:22 GMT -5
I really don't see why you think this is a soft claim. I know you're not the only one to say so but revealing you asked the mod questions in no way reveals anything. But saying you had questions for the mod about your role? Usually a Vanilla role is pretty simple. I think Pollux could handle understanding it himself. He actually said Doesn't say he had questions about his role, just that he had questions. (that quote's taken from Sister C's quote as I couldn't be arsed to go back and find PSS's)
|
|
|
Day One
May 4, 2009 17:22:13 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on May 4, 2009 17:22:13 GMT -5
More speculation: Okay, this line of thought actually complements some thinking I had two posts ago about the recruitment mechanism. My theory of possible recruitment is that a subset of Town (e.g., two players) are susceptible to 'recruitment,' but it's not really recruitment, it's a win condition change.... a win condition change that "some might consider to be recruitment." Some in-game event will determine the ultimate win-conditions of these individuals. This also fits into Pleonast's refusal to role-claim further or even NAME CLAIM, as that might give scum information about which in-game event to pursue to ensure that Pleonast's doppleganger gets the win condition change instead of Pleonast. That's why I haven't revealed more than I did. I do plan to do a full pm role claim once a lynch countdown is started on me, on the assumption that it will be too late for scum to act on it. But maybe my pm has information that will affect another Townie. Do we think that is not a good idea? I don't dispute Roosh's assessment directly, but my concern (it's not really paranoia if its true right?) is that by declaring his status Pleonast has increased the lynch burden of the Town without removing the recruitment mechanism from the game. That's the risk I mentioned near the beginning. But we have to balance the cost of my mislynch versus the cost of a recruited, Night-kill-immune Pleonast. Even if the latter is unlikely, I think the cost-benefit analysis points toward the mislynch being better. And as long as we can get some information out of my lynch, we'll be ahead. This will not be the first time that Pleonast has acted in a way that he thought was pro-Town, but really wasn't. ;D
|
|