|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 17:54:17 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 3, 2009 17:54:17 GMT -5
I think you did this in Super!Smash!Bros! mafia as well (where you were town IIRC), but I still find the excessive apologizing for your vote odd. Just respect the grudge-rule . What can I say sometimes my FB days kinda get the better of me. LOL.... Well since I can't vote, and am pretty busy for the next day. So it looks like I'll get lynched today, or claim and probably end up dead tonight. oh well I'm the Passenger Vigilante. The interesting thing about my PM, is that it says I'll find out in the morning whether I was successful, and what the role of the person I've killed was - which kinda leads me to believe that there may be a janitor about, or some other obfuscation/delay of death info. Now here is where it gets a little interesting. Since I usually am not much of a person for buying vig power claims but when it comes to the 2nd part about investigative type, especialy when the only reason for that would be a janitor or some type. This I am not comfortable with lynching...The last thing you want is to risk especially early on, is loosing a town power that can find out roles or such. ----------------- quoting nphaseStrongly dislike this post, which ends with a vote for Chucara. Having trouble articulating why, but it goes something like this - the post begins with a sentence that says, essentially, "Chucara is unlikely to be Scum," and ends with a vote that says, "I think Chucara is more likely to be Scum than any other player in the game." There's an army of words in between, attempting to justify the transition, but it's a transition that can't really be justified. "Chucara is unlikely to be Scum but let's lynch him anyway" sounds like cover for "Holy shit, we might be able to get these suckers to lynch one of their power roles even knowing he's probably one of their power roles!" vote nphase You know reading this makes me think...is there not good odds we have a cop? I mean why do we have to have the guy lynched, when I am sure sometime someone could simply peek into the guy and eventually down the road when that person feels it is right to step forward let us know for sure then. There is more ways in this game then simply lynching them to find out...or atleast for now I assume there is. I maybe to trusting here, but sometimes I think it is better to not rush into everything but allow something's to develop on there own. Looking at our lynch leader, who is a claimed passenger: Votes Chucara (D1.109) If I'm not mistaken, this is a "third vote rule" vote. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what Chucara was saying.Pedescribe (D1.163) Because both Chucara and Bill are scummy, but Chucara is ahead in the lynch race. BillMc (D1.169) This is actually Chucara forcing Bill to make a self-vote using his power. Shaggy (D1.202) Because he believes Bill was twisting Chucara's words. Kat! (D1.229) Also votes Bill for word-twisting Bill claimed Passenger Vigilante in D1.232 Of the four active votes on him: He can't change his own due to Chucara's power (theoretically). Pedescribe has been back in the thread (D1.239, answering STEVE (sinjin)'s question about Rapier) And Shaggy and Kat! haven't been back online as far as I can tell since Bill claimed. So I'm not willing to draw any conclusions at this point. That said, I'm going to go grab some lunch, because Food is Good, and I'll be back in a little while with a look at Kat! and Shaggy. Probably. I have to joke here...yeash can't I guy go to work here....LOL...my work won't allow any of these sites....if you are not on a pre-approved site, you get in major shit! And yes they went so far as to actually give us a list of what sites we are alloud to go onto. I really, really hate being compelled to defend a point of view I'm only about 51% for in the first place, you know? I can't help myself, though. The role and the player are inseperable in this case. Chucara is his role. If his role is unlikely to be Scum, he is unlikely to be Scum. By the same exact token, the role is not separable from the person. If the person is Scum, so must the role be, however unlikely based on our extremely limited view of the game conditions. I read Chucara as Scum today, stronger than anyone else, and that's really the bottom line. If his claimed role was self-confirmable (as to alignment), that would be one thing, but it isn't. If it was likely to be usable along the line to gain further clues as to alignment (as for example is the case with Bill's claim), that would be another, but that isn't the case either. If the role were more dangerous in Town's hands than in Scum's, that would be another reason to hesitate, but that isn't the case either. All I have to weigh against my suspicion is a feeling that, all else being equal, the role is more likely to belong to Town than to Scum. All else isn't equal. It's a closed game. That doesn't tip the balance for me. I just have to pipe up here and say...how does Bills help with his alignment here? I mean he could be a SK and someone else the janitor then tells him the role so he then just says what it is to us, and there you have TC. I am not sure if I want to risk lynching him over it, but it is a possibility. So I am not following how Bill can lead us to his alignment any more then Chucara or anyone else. For now I am going to leave my vote...while I reread the entire day again, but I will be most probably moving it. As I said I am not comfortable risking loosing a role that can find out dead player's roles. Any ways off to read, more in a bit.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 18:12:42 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 3, 2009 18:12:42 GMT -5
I have to joke here...yeash can't I guy go to work here....LOL...my work won't allow any of these sites....if you are not on a pre-approved site, you get in major shit! And yes they went so far as to actually give us a list of what sites we are alloud to go onto. Of course you're allowed to go to work. That was why I wasn't drawing any conclusions about your lack of response to Bill's claim.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 18:31:10 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 3, 2009 18:31:10 GMT -5
Ok bear with me here, I've got my tin-foil hat on, and something is bothering me. Chucara claims he can get someone to vote for themselves. But he has to do it in game by first voting for himself then voting for the one he wants to have vote for themselves. First off: Is that a correct interpretation of your power Chuc? If so that is the most convoluted method of vote switching I've ever heard about. In all the games I've seen with vote switching, the switching is done via the mod. And if it's true how does it jibe with his first post of the day? Given the power Chuc supposedly has, why would he ask this? Any reasonable player with a power that works the way Chuc's does, with the voting rules as stated and discussed Night zero would have asked this question directly to the mod. Ok, just one question before we begin: If I vote for A, and two hours later for B, what will the vote count be? A:1, B:1 - or B:1? (Assuming no one else has voted) Now, think about this statement: As I stated before, the first sentence is a get out of jail free card for why Chuc doesn't get night-killed if he survives Day 1. The second, a plea for "JUST ONE MORE DAY" seems like something a mafia Godfather would say in the hopes that he would be investigated and come back as town. So when I let the tin-foil hat enter my brain, ouch, I imagine: There really is a scum vote-changer but Chuc is not that vote-changer, he is either really the "boss of Mafia" or maybe he's just another mafioso with a dastardly power and just wants to live one more day so he can either be investigated as "town" or use his power before being outed. So we could let him live for several more day/s and hope he's investigated and he doesn't have a dastardly power. Take the eventual investigation results with a grain of salt until a scum Godfather turns up (yes I am assuming both an investigator and a Godfather and I do know about how that makes an ass of u and me). Wait for the investigator's findings to be confirmed by death. Finally decide whether Chuc is town or scum based on all that and vote accordingly. Final question: Is a town vote-switcher worth the risk and investment?
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 18:35:12 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 3, 2009 18:35:12 GMT -5
Ok bear with me here, I've got my tin-foil hat on, and something is bothering me. Chucara claims he can get someone to vote for themselves. But he has to do it in game by first voting for himself then voting for the one he wants to have vote for themselves. First off: Is that a correct interpretation of your power Chuc? If so that is the most convoluted method of vote switching I've ever heard about. In all the games I've seen with vote switching, the switching is done via the mod. And if it's true how does it jibe with his first post of the day? Given the power Chuc supposedly has, why would he ask this? Any reasonable player with a power that works the way Chuc's does, with the voting rules as stated and discussed Night zero would have asked this question directly to the mod. Ok, just one question before we begin: If I vote for A, and two hours later for B, what will the vote count be? A:1, B:1 - or B:1? (Assuming no one else has voted) Now, think about this statement: As I stated before, the first sentence is a get out of jail free card for why Chuc doesn't get night-killed if he survives Day 1. The second, a plea for "JUST ONE MORE DAY" seems like something a mafia Godfather would say in the hopes that he would be investigated and come back as town. So when I let the tin-foil hat enter my brain, ouch, I imagine: There really is a scum vote-changer but Chuc is not that vote-changer, he is either really the "boss of Mafia" or maybe he's just another mafioso with a dastardly power and just wants to live one more day so he can either be investigated as "town" or use his power before being outed. So we could let him live for several more day/s and hope he's investigated and he doesn't have a dastardly power. Take the eventual investigation results with a grain of salt until a scum Godfather turns up (yes I am assuming both an investigator and a Godfather and I do know about how that makes an ass of u and me). Wait for the investigator's findings to be confirmed by death. Finally decide whether Chuc is town or scum based on all that and vote accordingly. Final question: Is a town vote-switcher worth the risk and investment? Wow Um, let me add my two cents by saying, "um, what she said" The only point of the public display of voting was to make chucara's role confirmable. *grabs the tinfoil
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 18:49:49 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 3, 2009 18:49:49 GMT -5
I don't see what the big deal is at this point in the game. There's always going to be some random lurker or vaguely suspicious non-vote-leader to put a vote on on Day One if the vote leader or leader is deemed unsuitable. Later on, then sure. um, so like are you seriously saying, that because it is day 1...that we should not really think about or make a big deal out of vote records for day 1? This really screams to me like, we should just throw a vote out with not much thought and hey, being day 1, Hey let's not make such a big deal out of it or anything...I know day 1 usually does not have much to go on but counting on a lurker or a vague suspicioun on a non-vote leader for the sake of putting a vote out there...This really seems really wrong to me. I think we should find who we think is most suspicious and we can be the most happy with placing a vote on said person. Plus making a big deal or being scrutized for the vote, is well, part of the game. So for this and what I said in my last post I am going to go ahead and: vote nphase
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 19:10:30 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 3, 2009 19:10:30 GMT -5
got this far and thought i'd step in. peekercpa: Seems less talkative than I remember him. Might be a scum tell, but it's been too long since I played to be sure. uh, do you look at the level of activity or just fire off into the weeds? yeh, i have been busy but sheesh i am still in the top quartile of posters (or close). monkey poo fling post in my op. Question is: Should BillMc claim his target before the night? If he is scum, we'll basically be able to control a night kill, or expose him. I can see a problem if there is a scum doc, but how likely is that? I don't know at this point, but I think it might be worth a ponder. oh please. i don't get this at all. huh? wtf? scum would never do that? And, so far, from all my observations today....redskeezix strikes me not only as scum but very obvious scum. Like, a person who has never been scum before and doesn't know how to play it and, therefore, is lousy at hiding it/covering it up. In post number 39, he makes a very wishy-washy type post that I've known scum to do (and made myself when I was scum). you are right. you were waffling back and forth between the two of them. i know ped very well. sinjin not so much/ skeezix never heard of him/her (please clarify for the old fuck). of these, i (because of my familiarity with them) would be inclined to point STEVE. i mean ped can be all over the board and i have no fucking clue about skeezix. and this: By the same exact token, the role is not separable from the person. If the person is Scum, so must the role be, however unlikely based on our extremely limited view of the game conditions. I read Chucara as Scum today, stronger than anyone else, and that's really the bottom line. If his claimed role was self-confirmable (as to alignment), that would be one thing, but it isn't. If it was likely to be usable along the line to gain further clues as to alignment (as for example is the case with Bill's claim), that would be another, but that isn't the case either. If the role were more dangerous in Town's hands than in Scum's, that would be another reason to hesitate, but that isn't the case either. hey story yeh you're smart and i understand that if you were setting this game up certain mechanics might very well play the way you envision them. i don't know that determination about alignment regarding potential role powers is a wise way to go. take the blinders off. i mean, judas was a disciple fcs. and fuck i lost kat's post about steve but it should have been in there as well with the other wafflers. so anyways. vote steve
|
|
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 1
Nov 3, 2009 19:26:18 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Nov 3, 2009 19:26:18 GMT -5
It's only suicidal if you end with a vote on yourself. The only reason I will ever end a Day without a vote on the most suspicious player is if I cannot vote at all. There are two problems with this, both of which suggest that the one person you should not be voting for is yourself. Real life might interfere. To take one possibility, your work chooses to block this site, without warning. You can't get back on. (This actually happened, to Hal.) There might be a player with a vote-freezing power; they can nominate a player and have their vote frozen on whoever they vote for first that Day. I give thought to votes because, ultimately, they are the main (and in most cases only) way we have of defeating the Mafia. I have never agreed with "vote early vote often" so I don't. Votes aren't confetti, you know. I'm not abstaining. I very rarely abstain, and when I do I say so, in order that people know that I haven't just forgotten. I'm considering. There's a difference. When I vote without due consideration, Bad Things tend to happen. Like lynching the Town's Protector for making a horribly suspicious statement 30 minutes before the end of a Day and wandering off. So I'm cautious.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 19:32:27 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 3, 2009 19:32:27 GMT -5
I'm not sure what's in the water around here today, but I'm sure I don't like it. All quotes from Shaggy.
Seriously, this makes zero sense as policy. If we waited for a Cop result on everything not slam-dunk, we'd never lynch anybody without an investigation result. The guy is my top choice for Scum today, and his claim is not sufficient to tip him back to the "wait and see" side of the ledger for me. End of story.
Bill will presumably be killing people on a semi-regular basis if he indeed has that ability. (If he doesn't, it's a silly claim, but that can't be totally ruled out.) His choices will be scrutinized -- that offers some hints to his alignment beyond what is available just from the thread. Chucara's not likely to present us with nearly as many opportunities for judgment; it just doesn't compare. I wasn't even thinking about the post-Dawn information he says he'll get; it wasn't a factor in what I was saying, but really that's all the more to the good if he has to provide that, no matter his alignment. Any time when Scum is in a position to have to provide true information or risk get caught lying, it's a good thing for Town.
That's not even close to what I was trying to say. If I remember the context correctly, I was commenting on an extended discussion about early votes and the impossibility of unvoting in this game, and someone had argued that problems might arise (implying toDay specifically) from votes that had lost their homes. Something like that. I said I don't see the big deal (again, specifically toDay and the early game in general) if someone had to temporarily vote for themselves or a lurker or something. I thought it was understood that that person would explain what they were doing and hence retain accountability, but apparently not.
How on earth did you get "that we should not really think about or make a big deal out of vote records for day 1" from that?
Something in the water.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 19:44:18 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 3, 2009 19:44:18 GMT -5
I give thought to votes because, ultimately, they are the main (and in most cases only) way we have of defeating the Mafia. I have never agreed with "vote early vote often" so I don't. Votes aren't confetti, you know. kind of like Day four in Ragnorak?
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 19:49:41 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 3, 2009 19:49:41 GMT -5
Why are you voting for me peeker?
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 19:57:08 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 3, 2009 19:57:08 GMT -5
Ok bear with me here, I've got my tin-foil hat on, and something is bothering me. Chucara claims he can get someone to vote for themselves. But he has to do it in game by first voting for himself then voting for the one he wants to have vote for themselves. First off: Is that a correct interpretation of your power Chuc? I don't think so. I believe he said that he could set someone else's vote by PM at the same time as he himself placed a vote. I'm not sure where voting himself first comes into the picture, if at all. Maybe that was just his replacement for the more typical "unvote"? (Since we can't do that this game.) I don't see anything odd there. He never said his ability was obligatory, and in fact there was no evidence of its use with his first vote, on Ed. On this one, as regards your basic reading of it, sure: predictions of what Scum (or even Town) will or will not do as regards oneself always ping. I prefer to keep my tinfoil to myself, though. What you hypothesize is possible, if Chucara is Scum, but I don't think it's supported by anything that's happened so far.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 19:59:58 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 3, 2009 19:59:58 GMT -5
Well to answer some of these here you go: I'm not sure what's in the water around here today, but I'm sure I don't like it. All quotes from Shaggy. Seriously, this makes zero sense as policy. If we waited for a Cop result on everything not slam-dunk, we'd never lynch anybody without an investigation result. The guy is my top choice for Scum today, and his claim is not sufficient to tip him back to the "wait and see" side of the ledger for me. End of story. Bill will presumably be killing people on a semi-regular basis if he indeed has that ability. (If he doesn't, it's a silly claim, but that can't be totally ruled out.) His choices will be scrutinized -- that offers some hints to his alignment beyond what is available just from the thread. Chucara's not likely to present us with nearly as many opportunities for judgment; it just doesn't compare. I wasn't even thinking about the post-Dawn information he says he'll get; it wasn't a factor in what I was saying, but really that's all the more to the good if he has to provide that, no matter his alignment. Any time when Scum is in a position to have to provide true information or risk get caught lying, it's a good thing for Town. That's not even close to what I was trying to say. If I remember the context correctly, I was commenting on an extended discussion about early votes and the impossibility of unvoting in this game, and someone had argued that problems might arise (implying toDay specifically) from votes that had lost their homes. Something like that. I said I don't see the big deal (again, specifically toDay and the early game in general) if someone had to temporarily vote for themselves or a lurker or something. I thought it was understood that that person would explain what they were doing and hence retain accountability, but apparently not. How on earth did you get "that we should not really think about or make a big deal out of vote records for day 1" from that? Something in the water. Well I do have to say: 1) I was not saying we should never lynch anyone I was simply saying that we do nessesarily always have to lynch everyone as a sole way to find out if he/she is scum. There is a differance. Whether it be investigations, vigs or scum taking him/her out, lynching is not the only option we have, as you seem to say. Atleast saying we have to lynch him today, kinda negates all the other optiions, which is my point...we have those other options. So when lynching someone you do have to consider those other options and decide which one is best, not "the only option." 2) But correct me here did chucara not also say he will from now on, take our advice on whom he will or will not be using his power on? So therefore we can judge him as well on whether he is going to work with us or against us. Atleast just as much as Bill, if not more so, since it is not like Bill is going to or should say whom he plans on killing or anything. So as I said I am just not following how Bill can "prove" his alignment any more then chicara or any one else can. So another words we can scrutanize chucara's choices just as much. 3) I supose this comes down to how we choose to vote. I personally feel that if you feel you should not or do not want to vote some one then because we can not unvote you simple say as I did with Bill. "I am going to change my vote but will when I see a better person to put the vote on." I am not much of a fan of "I'll vote you for the sake of voting you, as a place holder till something better comes along." As I said making a big deal out who you vote is part of the game. And to minimize it, to me is not good for anyone. creating placeholder votes, is a good way to dilute the voting record and make it harder to really come up with substantial votining history of someone. But hey, just my opinion here.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 20:29:15 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 3, 2009 20:29:15 GMT -5
Ok bear with me here, I've got my tin-foil hat on, and something is bothering me. Chucara claims he can get someone to vote for themselves. But he has to do it in game by first voting for himself then voting for the one he wants to have vote for themselves. First off: Is that a correct interpretation of your power Chuc? I don't think so. I believe he said that he could set someone else's vote by PM at the same time as he himself placed a vote. I'm not sure where voting himself first comes into the picture, if at all. Maybe that was just his replacement for the more typical "unvote"? (Since we can't do that this game.) Nope he never said anything about any PM's. He did say this: The point to be noted is his statement that the above sequence was necessary to activate the ability.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 20:36:32 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Nov 3, 2009 20:36:32 GMT -5
Yes, I do mean Post 61. And it's not that hard to understand. I'm not referring to direct actions, I'm referring to tone. The tone of post 61 had a very grandstanding, look-at-me-I'm-town sound to it. I don't like to meta-game, but you have played with me before, right? ;D Not recently, no. The last time I can remember was in Evil Dead, where you died Night 1. If BillMc is lying, his is an audacious lie. If he's lying and is either Scum or a SK-type, then there is a strong possibility that: (1) there is a real Vigilante in the mix; and (2) that the real Vigilante will take care of BillMc for us. There may not be a Vig, but in a large closed game where there definitely might be, a Day One false claim of Vig would be extremely dangerous. This is the standard line. (Line as in Chess line, not as in corporate bullshit line) However, I don't see it. Yes, perhaps back when games tended to be simple this was a logical shortcut, but by this point the possibility that htere are no vigilantes, or two vigilantes should not be discounted. And, we must take into account the possibility of a scum doctor, something not present back when this line of thought emerged. If the scum have a doctor, then it would be quite a nice tactic to have him claim vigilante, safe from the real one that may or may not be there. I don't think that a vig claim should be a free ticket to lynch safety anymore. Looking at our lynch leader, who is a claimed passenger: I'm assuming this means "claimed passenger", but it sounds scummy. We are the passengers. Of course he claimed passenger, everyone's (implicitly) claimed passenger. FOS.
pedescribe: Has been quite active, but some of his reasonings don't fly well with me. ... Pedescribe: Voted BillMc when he could’ve rather easily joined the wagon on me. (#163) If he was scum that seems illogical. We will know more when we know the alignment of BillMc. Obviously, there could be other reasons.
Pedescribe is my evil 30 year old twin.
pedescribe is the next runner-up. I don't see the flip-flop as Sister Coyote puts as scummy, but his tactical vote could definitely be scum motivated. Recap: not pushing Chucara since his soft-claim might derail it anyway and pushing the BillMc wagon at the point pedescribe was the runner up. As said before the 'wagons' are a bit weak though, since the votes total were only three or two votes.
Once again I am characterized. I did not choose BillMC because Chuc softclaimed. I chose BillMC because voting Chuc would have enlarged Chuc's bandwagon to the point that it would have taken drastic action to change it, something I was not sure about doing since I was equally suspicious of BillMC. Chuc's soft claim never entered into that thought.
Well, bed time for me. Vote: pedescribe [/color] Mainly because I don't think either Chucara or BillMc is a good lynch. His tactical vote for BillMc could be scum motivated. It is less than a day to Dusk, so if pedescribe does make a believable claim I'll most likely move back to Idle for lack of better. As in nphase's explanation seems OK to me and lurkers/not voters on Day One not a good lynch (too much policy vote excuse) although if it persists it can't be ignored. Also pede did make a (short) post after BillMc's claim without commenting on it and he already had three votes at that point so he should have considered a claim at that point I think.[/quote] Why would a scum me want to make it harder for people to vote for who they thought was most suspicious? I'll claim if I get another vote, unless there's any objections?
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 20:59:15 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 3, 2009 20:59:15 GMT -5
I'll claim if I get another vote, unless there's any objections? what you itchin' for?
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 21:06:22 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 3, 2009 21:06:22 GMT -5
I'll claim if I get another vote, unless there's any objections? what you itchin' for? WHY ARE YOU VOTING FOR ME PEEKER? ? Just in case you missed the question above.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 21:08:24 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 3, 2009 21:08:24 GMT -5
Vote CountCurrent Status: BillMc Lynch. BillMc (4) pedescribe (3) Chucara (3) Idle Thoughts (1) Natlaw (1) Guy Incognito (1) Steve (1) nphase (1) last time to bring this nonsense up and then, meh. how come no identifications? or does it even matter? i mean i know some of us are making assumptions about voting stuff. i mean i made an assumption the other day that my bean and cheese taco would have bacon since that was the way i ordered it. guess what, no fucking bacon. darn, i was pissed.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 21:09:22 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 3, 2009 21:09:22 GMT -5
Things I don't like, in no particular order
1. Chucara seeming to fish for Bill to out his target. Motivations? Town? I'm really not sure, maybe a distrust of Bill's thinking and wanting to control the Vig? Scum? Wanting to know who Bill is going to kill to try to influence the choice away from Scum or ignore it if it's Town? KNowing if it's wrth it to block Bill or redirect him or kill him?
2. shaggy wanting the investigator to investigate our claimed players. Motivations? Town? clearing up the mystery around them. Scum? getting an investigator to waste time on players who aren't scum perhaps?
3. Chucara's method of controling Bill's vote. Really? Not via a PM to the mod? And how does the format: vote chucara vote Bill
lead to Bill voting for himself? I'm not even seeing how that could be communicated. What if Chucara wanted Bill to vote for Pede? IS that not possible? No, something is really fishy here. If Chucara were being honest, why wouldn't he just tell us he was going to have Bill vote for himself and then it would happen? Why some really confusing and implausible format for that? Care to clarify, Chucara?
4. peeker's vote for Steve. I don't understand the reasoning. becaiuse you know pede better and skeez less well?
5. Sister mention of claimed passenger (as stated by pede) It is odd, and reminds me of peeker's un-knowldege of Vanilla/Worthless in NSFW.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 21:18:05 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 3, 2009 21:18:05 GMT -5
And both of you conveniently ignoring the fact that after I listed who'd voted for him, I noted that Bill claimed "Passenger Vig." What the hell else would I have meant?
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 21:18:14 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 3, 2009 21:18:14 GMT -5
WHY ARE YOU VOTING FOR ME PEEKER? ? Just in case you missed the question above. whoops, meant to come back and got sidetracked. my bad. i put you in the wide net of wafflers. and please don't take this the wrong way. of the three in that net (my net, by the way) you are the one that seems to be the most likely to be scum. therefore, i voted for you. just because you are in the middle of this group in my experience from playing with you folks. however, we now have an additional data point. for some odd reason ped seems to want to have motivation to claim. i will play the part and let him be in the limelight. vote ped. and if he shows up with chia bingo master i will boggle.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 21:21:52 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 3, 2009 21:21:52 GMT -5
and please don't yell i have a headache.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 21:26:27 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 3, 2009 21:26:27 GMT -5
2. shaggy wanting the investigator to investigate our claimed players. Motivations? Town? clearing up the mystery around them. Scum? getting an investigator to waste time on players who aren't scum perhaps? What can i say Ed, I actually like the idea that an investigator's first job is to confirm town, and then 2nd to find scum. That way if we get more confirmed then non-confirmed, it helps eliminate the pool for scum to hide in. Also we do not get in the habbit of relying on our powers to win the game, which I think is a very bad idea. Since I think the best way to find scum and win is through our own reaserch and analyzing the thread. Not from hoping a investigator happens to find one. And then winning by sheer luck of an investigator picking the right person. Maybe I am way off in left field and wrong here, but that is just my thinking.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 21:30:45 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 3, 2009 21:30:45 GMT -5
2. shaggy wanting the investigator to investigate our claimed players. Motivations? Town? clearing up the mystery around them. Scum? getting an investigator to waste time on players who aren't scum perhaps? What can i say Ed, I actually like the idea that an investigator's first job is to confirm town, and then 2nd to find scum. That way if we get more confirmed then non-confirmed, it helps eliminate the pool for scum to hide in. Also we do not get in the habbit of relying on our powers to win the game, which I think is a very bad idea. Since I think the best way to find scum and win is through our own reaserch and analyzing the thread. Not from hoping a investigator happens to find one. And then winning by sheer luck of an investigator picking the right person. Maybe I am way off in left field and wrong here, but that is just my thinking. OK, I'm all behind the investigator finding Town, but why have him investigate the people who are claimed and taking heat? HE should be investigating people likely to survive for a while.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 21:46:11 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 3, 2009 21:46:11 GMT -5
4. peeker's vote for Steve. I don't understand the reasoning. becaiuse you know pede better and skeez less well? yep, that was about the extent of it.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 21:50:37 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 3, 2009 21:50:37 GMT -5
neta: and yeh, that really was about the extent of it at the time. based on my past experiences (mteagamey as all heck) he would be the one that i would lay odds on as being scum. but now that ped has basically come itching to claim i don't know.
yey, my vote is on ped currently. i played witch with him in c3. i didn't see the reason to claim the way he did. still don't. but i guess we will see.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 21:54:30 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 3, 2009 21:54:30 GMT -5
whoops, meant to come back and got sidetracked. my bad. i put you in the wide net of wafflers. and please don't take this the wrong way. of the three in that net (my net, by the way) you are the one that seems to be the most likely to be scum. therefore, i voted for you. just because you are in the middle of this group in my experience from playing with you folks. Can you give one instance where I waffled?
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 21:57:41 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Nov 3, 2009 21:57:41 GMT -5
WHY ARE YOU VOTING FOR ME PEEKER? ? Just in case you missed the question above. whoops, meant to come back and got sidetracked. my bad. i put you in the wide net of wafflers. and please don't take this the wrong way. of the three in that net (my net, by the way) you are the one that seems to be the most likely to be scum. therefore, i voted for you. just because you are in the middle of this group in my experience from playing with you folks. however, we now have an additional data point. for some odd reason ped seems to want to have motivation to claim. i will play the part and let him be in the limelight. vote ped. and if he shows up with chia bingo master i will boggle. My point was that I didn't wan tot claim unless I was the vote leader... Anyway, I'm an investigator. Of sorts.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 22:10:02 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Nov 3, 2009 22:10:02 GMT -5
Hell's bells, I totally forgot about this game. Will catch up. Do not lynch my lurking ass
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 22:11:18 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 3, 2009 22:11:18 GMT -5
My point was that I didn't wan tot claim unless I was the vote leader... Anyway, I'm an investigator. Of sorts. Blink
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 3, 2009 22:11:50 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 3, 2009 22:11:50 GMT -5
My point was that I didn't wan tot claim unless I was the vote leader... Anyway, I'm an investigator. Of sorts. BlinkI'm already voting for you, right? OK good.
|
|