|
Day 6
Aug 21, 2009 23:23:52 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 21, 2009 23:23:52 GMT -5
Let me try that again it makes no sense on re-read I know this is a little late to be ideal but though I was leaning towards Hockeyguy's attack on Bill prior to Bill's claim, after that case completely flipped for me to "pro-Bill" and "anti-HG" but it was gradual. I got my clarification in on time with respect to conjecture on the number of rebels left, and I do think it is low and that Hockeyguy's numbers were inflated. <snip> <snip> I've already stated my views on what I think the Establishment's chances of a non-peaceful win are: slim to none. No way we can have experienced so many deaths and still pull it off. The only reasonable route I can see for any Establishment win is some sort of shared Peacekeeper win. Cookies, I don't understand. How you could change your mind on Bill based on HockeyGuy's estimation of scum left in the game and think we don't have a chance even with HockeyGuy's lynch? Because the Peacekeepers, potentially including these alleged peacekeepers who may not know or be overtly obvious as being peacekeepers, are thrown into the mix as well. I fear the Establishment doesn't have a chance at a solo win (shared with the Thief). How the could we still have a chance at a solo win in a balanced game when 3 Vanilla Town were figurative dead weight that turned into literal dead weight on top of usual mislynchings and night killings and bomb schrapnel? My pendulum of paranoia is swinging in arcs big enough to think Hockeyguy may have inflated the scum numbers a bit with attempted misdirection and that we aren't going to be able to kill off all of or enough of the Rebels to make them no longer a threat.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 1:40:01 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 22, 2009 1:40:01 GMT -5
making sure they are dead is traditional. threat elimination may mean something different altogether. check out useless vanilla, fcs. Are you saying we may have to take out pro-war town? if you are a peacekeeper then that would be exactly what i am saying. hawk promised us an experience unlike no other (or some such). so yep, i can see peacers, regardless of traditional alignment, having to work together to "defeat" war folks regardless of traditional alignment. of course, in this case "defeat" means not killing or stopping killing from happening or coming to an agreement to not kill. and bill even though he was the rebel leader flipped peace so his wincon is mine as well even though i am establishment. don't know about and ed, for example. he flipped town but could also win under a peace condition.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 1:49:30 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 22, 2009 1:49:30 GMT -5
oops my bad. went back and read my role pm a little more closely. peacers can win under a peaceful win condition as well as their "original" wincon. so let's take ed for example (since he's dead at least he can't lip off to me). he could win by eliminating the rebel threat as an establishment member as well as the peace wincon. of course, we are back to what in the world does eliminate threat mean.
seriously "useless" in sending in random actions that have little to no chance of being implemented or "vanilla" where you just make pie.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 1:50:51 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 22, 2009 1:50:51 GMT -5
and neta. that is, of course, if that would have been ed's original wincon.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 1:57:19 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 22, 2009 1:57:19 GMT -5
Until Bill's reveal at beginning of Night 5, I didn't believe the whole "peacekeeper and their counterpart" factions existed. I thought Bill and Hockey Guy were putting on a smoke-and-mirrors show to make Bill the lynch target (why else would anybody claim to be a rebel at all, much less the rebel leader?). The only motivation I could see for scum to do so was if they could take out enough of us to win. I didn't think Bill was another martyr, but I thought he would take out everyone who voted for him (I don't know if that role would be called a "Jester", Cookies, but I wasn't so willing to dismiss the possibility with as many power roles and ambiguous titles as we've seen.) I figured HockeyGuy might change his vote if anyone gave him a plausible reason to vote elsewhere, but would stay where he was if Bill took out enough people to win anyway. Obviously, I was wrong, but I didn't believe Bill and HG's "debate" and nothing else made sense to me. Now I have no idea what to make of this game. The Thief/Mercenary game-within-game I understand. Masons, Investigators (watcher? reporter? Cop.), Doctor, Vigilante, even Martyr I understand. But "Third Party Candidate, Pro-Town Contrarian" (in blue)? First Lady of Quantom, Third Party Peacekeeper" (in blue)? " Rebel Leader, Peacekeeper" (in green) Green???!!! And the only information we've received from anyone verified as being one of these "third party factions" is from Bill (a green rebel, whatever the fuck that is). And he says we're all playing for second place because Julie already won. On Bill's reveal, I seriously considered chalking up the last five or so weeks to a bad experience and walking away. But dammit, I signed up to play and I took the commitment seriously. So, I have to accept that I'm in a game with a secret faction (or two) with some weird, non-conventional win/con. I don't see HockeyMonkey's stated win/con as being unconventional, but Bill's? HM had the chance (now gone) to win with Town, but not steal the win from anyone who shared her Establishment alignment. (Right?) But if Bill's telling the truth about Peacekeeper's win/con, they can each share the win with their own alignment* <option 1> or share the win with everyone who has a "no longer a threat" PM by convincing everyone to "lay down their arms" (one Day/Night cycle of no kills) <option 2a>. *With Bill's reveal being in green, could he have been in a unique position of only being able to win by the "peace" option <2b>? Or was he lying and that (2b) is the only option for all Peacekeepers? Or even a third option of a Peacekeeper being "last man standing" <Option 3>? Either (2b or 3) would explain six weeks of nobody else volunteering anything but "speculation" about it (and yeah, I see the irony, but I know I don't know anything about it). If they can win with option <1>, then why the continued secrecy? They are no threat to town (except HockeyGuy if you believe his claim. In which case you are willing to stand by and let us, hell, even help us lynch him anyway?), and no more or less a threat to rebels (even Peacekeeper rebels) than anybody else. So why the mystery? Peeker, when I wrote the preceding paragraph, the last thing you had posted was your vote. Now it seems you're trying to convince us we can't win unless we do what meets your win condition. and your reason for voting to lynch HockeyGuy is to prevent him from NKing. Not because you think he's lying scum, but to prevent him from NKing. This all fits option 2b or 3 more than 2a. Bill was the rebel leader. He didn't just claim to be, it said he was in his reveal. If he had to sell out his "team" to win, why should I believe you aren't doing the same thing as "town leader". You also said Hawk told you this? Hawk? Our moderator told you something about another player that he didn't share with the rest of us? Is this the same moderator you sent the PM to that didn't give you an answer? So kenith is quantom prime minister, an investigator who gets results on dead people, a peacekeeper, has trouble with his shift key and doesn't feel the need to vote on Day 4 or Day 5? I thought HockeyGuy had made some pretty wild claims yesterday, but the unlikeliest to me was his taking over for HockeyMonkey. A backup to a vig? Suuuure. Now it seems (whether or not HockeyGuy's lying) the only chance we* had from the start is with two autonomous killers. (This in no way should be seen as an endorsement for HockeyGuy. I think he's probably lying through his teeth, but I don't believe he's the last rebel or that we are to a point where we have to lynch or lose. I am worried, though, that he might be the last impediment to a steal by lying "Peacekeepers"). By we*, I mean vanilla town or "useless vanilla" as peeker so succinctly puts it. Even if the Peacekeepers can share the win (which I don't believe) by us agreeing to a no-lynch, it would be a hollow victory. I would rather lose to rebels by being outplayed than to win by "not playing". Cookies may be right about us being "just along for the ultimately unfulfilling ride", but I don't intend to just give up (and I know that's not what you meant Cookies. You're the only player who, throughout pretty much the whole game, I've believed was being truthful. Of course this probably means you are the Contrarian Leader. ) I want to hear peeker's answer to Pumpjack's question (never mind) and I'd like to know what Nanook needed confirmation about. (And I wouldn't mind an answer from the mods to Cookies question, but I'm not going to be surprised by a "no comment".) But for now Vote: peeker
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 2:43:42 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 22, 2009 2:43:42 GMT -5
multi quotes continue to frustrate.
i am not saying that you can't win based on your win con. matter of fact i think i put it clearly. there appears to be a wincon within a wincon. peacers can win (regardless of orginal alignment) if that wincon is satisfied. what i am wondering is if the original wincon can in fact be satisfied. now i am identified as "peacekeeper" so i figure i can only win under that wincon. ed was establishement who could also win by peace. so it sounds like he potentially has two outs.
yep, each night i get to send a pm regarding peace or no each night to hawk. he responds. so, yepper, he told me.
the pm i sent was to hawkmod not hawkeyeop, i figure that's why i didn't get my first response but did get the latter ones.
nope i get results on folks that were alive when i sent the pm. i guess i could try someone dead and see what happens. to be honest that never occurred to me.
and like i already said. i was on vacation for Days 4 and 5 (actually this had a lot of new job factored in as well). I had limited access to the internet at the time. the game on giraffe was getting down to it and what little time i had was spent over there. and to also be totally honest i couldn't figure this puppy out and was trying to figure out what to do.
and the whole useless v vanilla was totally off board game related. the distinction proved important there. i brought it up as a means of wondering if elimination of threat necessarily equals death/killing.
and for peacers to meet their win condition is a Day/Night cycle with no death. what would be fascinating (even though i think it as likely as snow this weekend in san antonio) would be to allow that to play out. then the rest of you folks that feel like killing is the only way to victory could just wipe each other out to your heart's content. julie would win, the peacers would win, and then extablishment/rebel could eliminate one or the other. the only souls that wouldn't get a notch would be the non peacers on the losing side.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 2:48:28 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 22, 2009 2:48:28 GMT -5
and i don't know where or why bill said we were playing for second. i know that i and anyone else that is peaceful (regardless of other alignment) can still achieve their wincon at this point.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 7:19:51 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 22, 2009 7:19:51 GMT -5
so dfrnt breign it almost reads like you are town. but unless you have a different wincon than the rest of the town (eliminate rebel threat) then i don't get why you would vote for a peacekeeper unless you don't believe me (because killing me doesn't do jack to fulfill that wincon). and if you don't, care to give any back up reasoning? if you were to believe me and i you then my wincon has nothing to preclude yours. or are you just one of the blood thirsty folks of this game?
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 7:25:55 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 22, 2009 7:25:55 GMT -5
and since i am tidying up a couple of loose ends and you mentioned my non vote on Day 5.
who'd you vote for yesterDay?
just for my records don't yaknow.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 8:54:13 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 22, 2009 8:54:13 GMT -5
and cookie just so i am clear. i want to lynch hockey because i don't see how to keep him from killing. for peacers to win they have to go through a Night/Day cycle without a kill. so a no lynch during the day followed by a nk just puts the peacers back to square one with one more dead and non peacers closer to winning. AA could block me. Assuming she could also win by Peace. Obviously I'd ask her not to block me, but if her blocking me will allow me at Night will allow me to live toDay, then I'll take that, despite the fact that I'd lose upon the morning if there is no NK. Don't get me wrong. I'd urge the Scum to not kill, but I doubt they'd put down their guns.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 9:22:39 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Aug 22, 2009 9:22:39 GMT -5
Like I said, I saw the link that was posted before it was removed. Since the mod removed it, I figured I better check with him before I go talking about what I saw. After all, he removed it for a reason. Once he said it was ok to talk about it, as long as I didn't go into details, I came back and did so.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 9:43:38 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 22, 2009 9:43:38 GMT -5
And seeing as how I can't defend myself against what was posted, makes this a very unfair situation. I have no idea what was posted, so I can't argue either way.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 10:33:14 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 22, 2009 10:33:14 GMT -5
and cookie just so i am clear. i want to lynch hockey because i don't see how to keep him from killing. for peacers to win they have to go through a Night/Day cycle without a kill. so a no lynch during the day followed by a nk just puts the peacers back to square one with one more dead and non peacers closer to winning. AA could block me. Assuming she could also win by Peace. Obviously I'd ask her not to block me, but if her blocking me will allow me at Night will allow me to live toDay, then I'll take that, despite the fact that I'd lose upon the morning if there is no NK. Don't get me wrong. I'd urge the Scum to not kill, but I doubt they'd put down their guns. well this is where it could get interesting. if you are scum (which I believe at this point) you could post the rest of your teammates. we probably are getting close to lylo but aren't there yet since we are still playing. with this roadmap there might very well be some incentive for the remaining scum to go for a peaceful solution to this game. so at that point the peacers obtain their wincon. i honestly don't know what the fark happens then since the peace wincon doesn't preclude other wincons. maybe that's the whole point. maybe it was never supposed to be establishment v rebel, maybe it was supposed to be peace v war. because it is clear in my pm that there are those on both sides that don't want peace regardless. so if we were to all lay down our weapons does that mean that the threat has been eliminated. and i've got to add that it sure sounds way too kum bay yahish for a game of mafia but it's the best that my pea brain can come up with.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 15:05:02 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Aug 22, 2009 15:05:02 GMT -5
I'm going to start with this Vote Hockeyguy
I follow/believe the argument that he's scum.
With Bill's death confirming most of what he said, I'm willing to believe the rest.
However I don't exactly trust the scum players. I also know the scum aren't exactly going to come out and talk to us, since there are still possibly some town which will just try and take them out regardless.
Hence I offer this pact:
IF THERE ARE NO NIGHT KILLS I WILL VOTE NO-LYNCH TOMORROW
I hope other people will join in on this.
If the night kills continue I will continue to ignore the peace win solution.
My win condition is no longer a threat, so it seems to me I can win by peace or war, and I'm fine with either, however I'm not going to gamble on the rebels being so amenable to the idea.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 19:36:41 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 22, 2009 19:36:41 GMT -5
Peeker, I don't believe you, I thought I made that clear. I think you're telling part of the truth; that "peacers" win if we meet the Day/Night no-kill requirement. I just don't think they share the win with anyone else. I don't know how many of us* are left, but we have to be getting close enough that there can be enough of you to force a No-lynch Day, if not Today, then soon. I have no idea how many rebels are left, but it seems likely that HockeyGuy is one of them. What I think most likely is this: we lynch HockeyGuy toDay, and ToNight rebels vote to not kill anyone. Tomorrow you and the other "peacers" have enough votes to force a no-lynch and the game ends with a "Peacekeeper" win and the rest of us left holding our (metaphorical) dicks.
My "back-up" reasoning is that none of you have mentioned much of anything about this win/con before Bill forced your hand. If we truly all win together (except apparently Hockey Monkey and HockeyGuy), then why keep it quiet for so long? The only Establishment role you had to worry about was Hockey Monkey, who has been blocked every Night except the first. You had nothing (extra) to fear from rebels by speaking up; this win/con depends on them voting to not NK so they have to have started with a majority (or at least parity, if I'm using the right word; equal numbers of pro and anti peace) willing to vote for it, right? They've lost two that presumably would vote for it, Bufftabby (vanilla) and Bill (I'm pretty sure he would vote for it). Stanislaus I don't see being pro-peace and HockeyGuy has made it pretty clear he's not in favor of a Peacekeeper win. Last Night they took out the only Town threat to peacers, presumably over HockeyGuy's objections. Whether we lynch him or not, they seem to have the votes to not kill Tonight (or NK him, putting the ball back in our court). So if "your motives are pure", why have you all been so secretive?
Last Friday (Aug 14), Archangel said she was having internet problems, wouldn't block Hockey Monkey and was going on vacation. (Day 5, reply #35, page 2 if we all have the same settings). I don't know if Archangel is a rebel, but it's been suggested that both she and a rebel role-blocker were keeping HM blocked. MHaye was a roleblocker and a Peacekeeper. Could Bill have been a role-blocker as well, blocking HM to protect other "Peacekeepers" and serendipitously or not, casting suspicion on an Establishment power role of unknown "peace affiliation"? (Okay, that's out there even for me, but either way, Bill knew Archangel wouldn't block HM last Night.) He and HockeyGuy had already been discussing the various peace/non-peace options, but Bill never made his claim until after Archangel's post (her last post of the Day as it turned out). Did Bill see her announcement as a window of opportunity (closed when she got back from vacation and she didn't say how long she would be away) and maybe his one chance to set this all in motion?
Cookies said early in the game that I was paranoid and seeing "monsters in the shadows". She was right, I am paranoid, and the shadows still don't look "monster-free". But it looks to me like "Peackeepers" are in very good shape at the moment. I've seen in almost every game I've read (most of them already finished so I could read the reasoning as well as the actions), someone says something like "So-and-so is scum! Kill him!" or on the scum boards it's "So-and -so is a doctor (or mason or cop). Kill him!!" (Okay the cop I can see.) Most of the time this is a reasonable response, but I never see anyone question it. A known scum is more valuable dead than alive and talking? Always? Even if it costs us the game? (Which, just in case I'm not being clear, I think is likely if we kill HockeyGuy toDay.) Sharing the win with people on my side I obviously have no problem with. Sharing the win with people who are playing a different game than I have been (or not playing at all) will not be a win I will cherish in my old age. Risking my win to share in their's is not something I'm willing to do. You may be able to outvote me for a no-lynch, but I will not vote for it. I would rather lose outright.
(Sorry for all this, but Peeker seemed to want it spelled out.) *I am plain vanilla town, something else I thought I made clear. My win/con is the same as the PM Hawk posted, but I don't see "one night of no NKs" as the most likely meaning of "the end of the Rebel threat". "All rebels dead" fits it pretty well, though. When I first signed up I explained the (basic Mafia) game to my son-in-law. He called my role "cannon fodder", which I thought was pretty astute. I never expected to get to the end of my first game alive. I think a vanilla townie's most useful function, usually, is to die in a way that gives town as much information as possible and that's what I've tried to do by posting what I think and why I think it. I've been wrong (a lot) but I expected to be going in. I've never tried to make excuses or dodge questions nor have I had to remember what lies I've told and to whom, because I haven't told any. I didn't vote yesterDay because it didn't seem likely the tide was going to turn off Bill (and I didn't want it to) but, as I said in my earlier post, I thought he was a bomber of some kind (I wasn't certain and I should have been a little clearer, but I tried to broach the idea) and I thought some of us should survive. I didn't have anything bu vague suspicions about anyone not involved and I didn't want to make a random, lynch-the-lurker, throw-away vote that would give any rebels a place to jump before Bill blew up.
I didn't see you would be away. If you thought that was a cheap shot, I apologize, it wasn't meant to be. (And if you have a good reason for not using CAPs, I apologize for that, too. But if it's just an affectation, then stop it. Please.)
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 19:40:19 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 22, 2009 19:40:19 GMT -5
good lord, that's a lotta words!!!!
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 22, 2009 19:45:59 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 22, 2009 19:45:59 GMT -5
And wrong, too. Hockey Monkey was blocked the first night. Presumably by MHaye? That doesn't change my reasoning any, though.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 23, 2009 8:12:10 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 23, 2009 8:12:10 GMT -5
fair enough dfrnt. i obviously don't agree but what the hey. here's what i got - feel free to correct me.
your'r town. you think the peacers can steal a win. obviously you think that we are more of a threat than the rebels or you wouldn't be voting for me. you don't like my ee cummings posting style.
just a question or so. based on the compostion of deaths so far, do you believe that there are folks identified as establishment or rebel that could also win under a peace condition? if not why would you think that we have any type of numerical advantage to pull off a win over those nasty rebels. if there are folks that are identified as establishment or rebel that also have a peace wincon do you believe that they know? if so, why wouldn't they out themselves to that if not establishment or rebel? seems like it gives them the best of both worlds. so do you believe that peacers are more of a threat to establishment than rebels (even though we don't have a pre-emptive establishment or rebel wincon)? do you believe hockey to be establishment or rebel?
because at this point there are really only two options for not wanting a peaceful solution. one, you are rebel and can win under that condition. or two, you are anti peace and know that a peaceful solution guarantees a loss for you. and if you are anti peace, youv'e got to go or be silenced if the peace aligned townies want any type of victory.
the above assumes the previous speculated remaining rebels and a statistically likely ongoing outcome to lynches and nks.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 23, 2009 8:19:32 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 23, 2009 8:19:32 GMT -5
and you want canon fodder.
try being part of a faction that does't know who is who (except for my night investigations), that can't communicate, and that some members don't even know that they are part of. add in, that to win i and the other identified peacers have to suggest doing something that is totally ass backwards to most, if not all, that play this game. don't kill at night. oh, and by the way let's toss a no lynch on top of it.
so yep, i know the cannon fodder feeling.
but yaknow, it does fit the theme of this game. and part of this exercise is trying to figure out what in the world is going on that is unique. these have really morphed from just baddies v goodies.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 23, 2009 13:18:59 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 23, 2009 13:18:59 GMT -5
Not speaking for dfrnt, but I honestly don't know if I there is a peacekeeper win condition that = "The rebels are no longer a threat", but it seems like a reasonable assumption to me. Depending on how many people who are Establishment that are left and have that win condition, whether or not they are willing to consider that interpretation determines who may or may not be "aware" that they might still be able to join in a shared Peacekeeper win.
I'm tentatively willing to also make Blockey's pledge, but a lot can change between now and making a vote for either no-lynch or a player Tomorrow, assuming I'm alive to do so.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 23, 2009 19:05:10 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 23, 2009 19:05:10 GMT -5
just so we are clear cookie and everyone else. peacers win when there is a Night/Day cycle without a death. nothing about establishment. nothing about rebel. just no death.
so if you are a ludite in the vein of cheney and bush keep killing. it makes folks love you and respect you.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 23, 2009 19:22:25 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 23, 2009 19:22:25 GMT -5
and i'l put this out there. i will confirm one person as a peacer. i'd like to know if anyone even has a clue if they can win with a peace wincon whether they be establishment or scum. because, yep i know. don't tell me whether you are establishment or scum just whether you know peace or not.
'cause i think that the non peacers know and the peacers are ignorant. that's why differnet wants death, especially mine. he knows, like hockey, he loses if peace prevails.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 23, 2009 21:36:34 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 23, 2009 21:36:34 GMT -5
Peeker, I'm another with "The rebels are no longer a threat" PM. Though, it makes me wonder, if we didn't have the handshake argument and our PM's were to "self destruct" how would any of us remember what our wording was?
I was one who recognized the danger of roles that were/are targeting peacekeepers such as the Hockeys. But you are also a politician, Mr. Prime Minister, which really messes with the whole trust issue. (Though I still wouldn't vote for them, the only truthful politicians are the ones who promise to raise your taxes and/or bash your brains in.) And it also should be known that more cannon fodder vanilla have been killed or their lives destroyed in the name of peace than have ever been killed in the name of war.
However, the consensus seems to be peace if the rebels show peace. The consensus also seems to be it's the best chance we vanillas have for a win. And as I'm not one to claim that we're here to play mafia so we must kill each other, but claim we're here to play mafia so we must try to win, I'll take Blockey's pledge.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 23, 2009 22:21:28 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 23, 2009 22:21:28 GMT -5
Not speaking for dfrnt, but I honestly don't know if I there is a peacekeeper win condition that = "The rebels are no longer a threat", but it seems like a reasonable assumption to me. Depending on how many people who are Establishment that are left and have that win condition, whether or not they are willing to consider that interpretation determines who may or may not be "aware" that they might still be able to join in a shared Peacekeeper win. I'm tentatively willing to also make Blockey's pledge, but a lot can change between now and making a vote for either no-lynch or a player Tomorrow, assuming I'm alive to do so. Cookies, I agree with your first paragraph here. It does seem like a reasonable assumption. So why are we just now having it explained and only by Bill and Peeker? I see a different explanation. If what they are saying is true, we started the game with each player falling into one of five categories: [/b] and Natlaw (now known to have been classical third party players)[/ul] ( Peeker you left out in your earlier post that I could be in group 4.) If so, it follows that there is some ratio of (1 to 2) and an equal ratio of (3 to 4). (Equal ratios, not equal numbers. For example, in a game with fifteen players, eight would be 1s and two would be 2s (ratio of 8/2), four would be 3s and one would be 4 (ratio of 4/1). 8/2 = 4/1 My ratios are probably off, but doesn't the concept have to apply?) According to Bill and Peeker, it breaks down along the lines of PM reading "threat eliminated" (1 and presumably 3, Establishment and Rebels who share the "peace win") which seemingly includes almost everybody and "all <the other guys> must die", which has only been claimed by Hockey Monkey (although didn't Bill claim it was Hockey Guy's win/con, too? I forget.) All this with no way of knowing or confirming anyone's but our own "peace affiliation" without trusting Peeker. Peeker (and only Peeker, Bill said he didn't know) has claimed the power to determine which was (1 or 3) and which was (2 or 4). It isn't revealed at death and no one he's checked is alive to verify his results, and even if they were (alive) they might not know. So we each have no way to know which camp anybody but ourself is in, but that's okay. Hawk promised us a "game like no other" so if we just trust our old Uncle Peeker, Everybody Wins!!!! (except the hockey people, those hooligans!) and all our dead friends come back to share in a glorious new world where peace reigns forever and there will be rainbows and singing and much rejoicing!! And everybody gets a puppy!!! Won't that be fun??!!! -OR- We started the game with these four categories [/b] and Natlaw) D. PFK players, at least one rebel ( Bill) and at least two Establishment (Kenith and Victoria?) who must work together to get both A and B to "skip a day".[/ul] Category D would qualify as "a game like no other" I think. Has anyone else seen a game where people from both sides have to work together to Play For Keeps? If MHaye had not been killed Night 1, they could have simply stayed under the radar (made easier by no mod-kill for non-participation?) until A and B had whittled down each other's numbers until they had the votes on each side to push their scenario through. The only Establishment threat to the Ds was the vig, blocked on Night 1 by MHaye and by Archangel (*alone?) until last Night. Whether Archangel is rebel or establishment, Bill knew he had to act to protect his win. (*If Archangel is town, rebels blocking HM confirms Archangel as town. If she's rebel, she's on vacation. She can't block HM, but she also can't object to a no NK vote. Has she stated her win/con, and should we believe it, or anybody else's anyway? And yes, Peeker, including me.) With MHaye and Bill both gone, Peeker has to get us (both sides) to agree before he's taken out by rebels (or do we lose the chance to win with peacekeepers if none of them are left in the game? And if so, then all the more reason to have clued us in sooner.) He has gotten a couple of us to agree to a no lynch if the rebels go along toNight. Why is he voting for HockeyGuy unless he believes the rebels won't do it if HG's alive? And why wait until so late in the game to spell it out? Peeker you said Why would we cease playing if we are at lylo? And you don't seem worried about a NK, only a HockeyGuy NK. I do believe we have to be getting close to lynch or lose, (yet another reason to have brought all this up earlier) but I think we can lynch you (taking out the likelihood of a PFK win, I hope), take another NK (which may very well put us at lylo), and lynch HockeyGuy, Day 7. If we lynch you and rebels don't NK anybody, I'll reconsider voting for a no-lynch. If you're telling the truth, you'll still win, I'll win, everybody wins. But lynching HockeyGuy instead of you only tells us that a Night with no rebel NK means there are more rebels who believe you than not. Nanook, I was just curious about what you asked the mods. I didn't see the link, only that it had been removed, and I wondered if Bill had figured out some way to make it look like an edit by the mods when it really wasn't. I didn't mean to ignore your answer, I've just been obsessed with trying to figure out what's really going on.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 23, 2009 23:55:18 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 23, 2009 23:55:18 GMT -5
Peeker, or anybody else for that matter, I was working on that post for a while (can you tell? ) and before I posted I intended to go back through all the posts since my last to answer anything you asked, point by point. But the grandkids called and wanted to "talk on the computer" (they live in Phoenix and I try to talk to them via webcam every Sunday while they're still young enough to want to talk to Papa) so I posted what I had. If I didn't answer anything you asked, ask me again. I'm just posting my own speculation, not claiming any blinding insight or special knowledge. But if you ask, I'll answer what I know. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I agree you have a really rough role. (And if I'm right, mad props, anyway. It's a great story, and I think mostly true. I just don't buy the shared win.) The ee cummings thing doesn't really bother me, either, just so long as you know you're not him. You do know that right? ;D
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 0:11:07 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 24, 2009 0:11:07 GMT -5
And one more thing. My avatar is a real picture of me (taken with the same webcam). Do I really look like some kind of Republican? I think I've been insulted. ;D
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 0:38:52 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 24, 2009 0:38:52 GMT -5
A Republican Borg Santa?
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 3:00:13 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 24, 2009 3:00:13 GMT -5
It's even worse. An old man with too much time on his hands. This is the original picture. Not photoshopped. That's a cat toy on a string wrapped around my head. And I'm allowed to vote and drive a car. Scary, hunh. img27.imageshack.us/img27/6159/issamiface.jpg
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 11:12:12 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Aug 24, 2009 11:12:12 GMT -5
I'd just like to say that I'm not relying on the peace win condition, I'm merely willing to go with it if it seems reasonably achievable.
In other words unless I know for a fact that the rebels aren't killing, which I'll only know if they don't kill toNight. I'm still playing regular mafia. Hence my vote on Hockeyguy.
If I was truly just aiming for a peace solution I'd be advocating no lynch toDay.
I am instead hedging my bets.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 11:14:51 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Aug 24, 2009 11:14:51 GMT -5
Oh and cookies, clearly if say, I dunno no one dies toNight, but we wake up and someone has a bomb strapped to them set to go off before dusk I'm not going to consider that cooperation.
(not that I'm predicting that will happen, I'm merely throwing out a hypothetical situation that would break the spirit but not the letter of my pledge)
|
|