|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 10:19:02 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 8, 2010 10:19:02 GMT -5
VOTE COUNT (1.08) - 10:15 AM EST
peekercpa - 3 (Special Ed - #50, BillMc - #52, drainbead - #64) texcat - 2 (Inner Stickler - #28, redskeezix - #52) hawkmod - 2 (peekercpa - #83, Sister Coyote - #89) Special Ed - 1 (texcat - #4)
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 11:51:44 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jan 8, 2010 11:51:44 GMT -5
and same to you nphase. my vote on you was more frustration than anything. so.... unovte nphaseI feel like I'm being manipulated. I don't think it's likely that's a pre-provided cover role, because you've been playing to it since day one of Day One. It explains pretty much everything about you that's pinged me as being wrong, or off-kilter, or just plain not-Town. You weren't! Yay for my scumdar? Or third-party-dar, anyway. I think you're telling the truth. Scum just aren't *that* good, usually. (Though take this as an indication of my annoyance with this whole situation that half of me still wants you dead anyway, just to be sure. Because there's only maybe two people here who *could* pull something like that off and keep it mostly consistent.) I'm not re-voting peeker. I have no vote yet, but would probably vote Inner Stickler if under a deadline. I can in no way truly justify it at this point, though; I need to go back and see if there's anything there but instinct.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 16:44:10 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jan 8, 2010 16:44:10 GMT -5
I'm not sure it's enough for a vote, and I should really go back and make a better case, but: Please do because I'm not exactly sure what your case is beyond just recapping my actions of this game.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 16:48:48 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jan 8, 2010 16:48:48 GMT -5
. I'm fine with the Peeker bandwagon. Peeker's Day 1 behavior, particularly the hammer vote, was blatantly scummy. Peeker might be being truthful, but scummy behavior needs to be punished, else it gives scum immunity to do whatever they want. and i'll come back to this post one last time. hawk of all people should know that shitty play does not equal scummy play especially in light of my pm. so i might be truthful but shitty (scummy) behavior needs to be punished. [/quote] You know who also makes scummy plays? Scum. I do not believe you are a poor misguided player, which means your actions had purpose. Clearly that purpose doesn't align with what a townie would do in that situation. You may be a townie now, but who's to say you didn't become scum for killing a townie.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 18:01:54 GMT -5
Post by special on Jan 8, 2010 18:01:54 GMT -5
I don't think it's likely that's a pre-provided cover role, because you've been playing to it since day one of Day One. It explains pretty much everything about you that's pinged me as being wrong, or off-kilter, or just plain not-Town. You weren't! Yay for my scumdar? Why not? You just said it made you think he wasn't Town, and isn't Scum another version of Not-Town? What makes it seem like it isn't a cover role? Wouldn't the perfect cover role for peeker be the one that makes him look like a 3rd party who is now town? It explains pretty much everything about you that's pinged me as being wrong, or off-kilter, or just plain not-Town. You weren't! Yay for my scumdar? Or third-party-dar, anyway. How do you know he's honest? You seem pretty confident in believing him at this point. I think you're telling the truth. Scum just aren't *that* good, usually. What? how good? Scum usually aren't good enough to draw a lot of heat on Day 1 and need to cover themselves on Day 2? Scum usually aren't good enough to use a mod provided role claim when taking heat? What part of peeker's play is 'too good to be Scum'? And what part do you think they couldn't come up with as a group since Scum can talk 24/7? If anything, I think peeker's refusal to claim followed 4 hours later by a claim smacks of a conversation in the Scum thread where they changed his mind, cleaned up a cover role, and had him claim. The only people I think could be confident that peeker was telling the truth are the Scum who didn't get a new member........?? I'm not re-voting peeker. I have no vote yet, but would probably vote Inner Stickler if under a deadline. I can in no way truly justify it at this point, though; I need to go back and see if there's anything there but instinct. WTF? Basically, you're saying, I have absolutely nothing on Inner Stickler, but if I had to vote, that's where I'd vote. Were you hoping someone else could build a case on him so you could vote there and not have to be accountable yourself?
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 18:08:05 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 8, 2010 18:08:05 GMT -5
You know who also makes scummy plays? Scum. I do not believe you are a poor misguided player, which means your actions had purpose. Clearly that purpose doesn't align with what a townie would do in that situation. You may be a townie now, but who's to say you didn't become scum for killing a townie. sure, why not. and certainly my actions had purpose and certainly should not align with what a town would do in the same situation. i wasn't town - just trying to find a home is all. the last sentence doesn't parse well, for me anyways. i couldn't be townie now and also have become scum at the same time. now if you are trying to imply that i was third party and then became something else as a result of my "CHOICE" and are merely questioning which way that "CHOICE" directed me i would only offer the following from my limited understanding of game design mechanics. that seems to be a terribly unbalance role. kill a town and become scum. shoot town loses a body and gains an enemy. i don't know where that would point out in a jsexton weighting system but i would guess pretty durn strong. kill a scum becom a town would be the natural opposite. same thing as above kill a scum become town. so scum would lose a body and gain an enemy. once, again that would probably get a lot of jsexton points. i think it makes sense the way story designed it. lose a team member gain a team member. of course this whole voting scheme seems to be wonked so who knows. story seems to think these things through pretty good so my role makes sense to me from a balance stand point. because i certainly can see how it could be balance i just seriously doubt that story would put that much importance on one role. but do what you will. i have already said that i cry uncle. i played shitty and get to live/die with that fact.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 21:17:33 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 8, 2010 21:17:33 GMT -5
. I'm fine with the Peeker bandwagon. Peeker's Day 1 behavior, particularly the hammer vote, was blatantly scummy. Peeker might be being truthful, but scummy behavior needs to be punished, else it gives scum immunity to do whatever they want. and i'll come back to this post one last time. hawk of all people should know that shitty play does not equal scummy play especially in light of my pm. so i might be truthful but shitty (scummy) behavior needs to be punished. You know who also makes scummy plays? Scum. I do not believe you are a poor misguided player, which means your actions had purpose. Clearly that purpose doesn't align with what a townie would do in that situation. You may be a townie now, but who's to say you didn't become scum for killing a townie. [/quote] yaknow i've read this a couple of times. and it makes no sense. i am so clearly scum in hawk's mind. butyaknow what's fucking weird? he still won't vote me. almost like he knows i will flip town based on the last little bit of exchange, but he doesn't want to get his hands real dirty. oh, enough to smudge but surely not enough to actually provide some accountability. hey, i hammered luv because of my agenda. hawk what the fuck is your agenda. and if you have some stones hammer my ass and when i flip town you are fucking toast tomorrow. hey, i'll take one for the team.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 21:20:50 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 8, 2010 21:20:50 GMT -5
<snipped in its entirety> fishy fishy, two for a dollar. sheesh, ed don't be obtuse.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 21:26:10 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 8, 2010 21:26:10 GMT -5
and this will probably be fruitless but .... mod question: were cover roles provided to any sides or individuals in this game?hey, story i don't expect an exoneration answer but could you at please answer this?
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 21:34:49 GMT -5
Post by special on Jan 8, 2010 21:34:49 GMT -5
<snipped in its entirety> fishy fishy, two for a dollar. sheesh, ed don't be obtuse. I don't love you in this game, peeker.... I'm not fishing. I'm implying that she might know you're honest because she's Scum herself. (it is a possible explanation for why she's so sure you were 3rd party) That, and she's pointing her finger at Inner Stickler while saying he's done nothing to arouse any suspicion. Oh, and saying that she doesn't think it's a mod provided cover role because...well, because you've been playing to fit this cover role since Day 1. Oh, and pointing out that you couldn't possibly be playing this well as Scum. You should at least be offended by the last.... I mean, I was Scum with you, and you're a conniving little shit. I know you well enough to know that you would take one of the cover roles and start playing as if that were your role from Day 1....and honestly, what better cover role than that one? You were 3rd party, but you killed a Town, so now you're Town. A perfect cover role for a Scum Strongman once you were taking heat on Day 1. Hammer the Townie who was taking heat, then kill another Townie on Night 1. I see this as a perfectly reasonable play for you and your scum teammates if you were Scum. So, yeah, you're capable of playing that good..... So, yeah, that doesn't mean you are Scum....and it doesn't mean Normal is. But I can see both options as possible.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 21:51:12 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 8, 2010 21:51:12 GMT -5
and this will probably be fruitless but .... mod question: were cover roles provided to any sides or individuals in this game?hey, story i don't expect an exoneration answer but could you at please answer this? Yeah, no, I'm not answering that. On another note, how are they doing with the National Championship results in your parts, peek? Must be a scene.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 22:01:14 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jan 8, 2010 22:01:14 GMT -5
I don't think it's likely that's a pre-provided cover role, because you've been playing to it since day one of Day One. It explains pretty much everything about you that's pinged me as being wrong, or off-kilter, or just plain not-Town. You weren't! Yay for my scumdar? Why not? You just said it made you think he wasn't Town, and isn't Scum another version of Not-Town? What makes it seem like it isn't a cover role? Wouldn't the perfect cover role for peeker be the one that makes him look like a 3rd party who is now town? I'm not quite sure how you're approaching this question. His behavior up through the hammer of luv makes me think not-Town. Believing the cover role makes me think now-Town. Roughly as confident as I was before in believing there was something wrong with him. All right, now you're not being logical. The bit about the unstoppable kill is most likely true: peeker claimed Kat's death and has not been counterclaimed. (I'll allow for a possible "yet" addendum to that bit, particularly as we have a good half-dozen or more no-shows so far Today.) The odd sort of "recruitment" he describes fits nicely with luv's claim -- this could easily be made up as you mentioned with your underlined sections, except that even prior to luv's claim, peeker was all but flat-out contradicting Tom's implications of a more traditional type of recruitment being in the game. So he knew about that beforehand. So if you're saying peeker is Scum, you're asking me to believe that Storyteller provided an unimpeachable claim to peeker free of charge to account for a kill he was actually going to make (and Scum peeker chose to use it on lurker Kat rather than on, say, TOM); and he informed Scum that the recruitment in the game wasn't going to be traditional when most of Town is assuming otherwise (and Scum peeker chose to poke confirmed Town over it, repeatedly). Or it's not a Storyteller cover, but rather a patchwork. But it's a really good patchwork. I don't actually rule out that it could have been fabricated based on peeker's past behavior in the game, but not just anyone could do that. I couldn't. Read it again; it's not as easy to separate out bits and pieces as you imply. (Like the line about "precious little interest" in the conflict, the "choose a target", and so on. With the possible exception of the phrase you bolded and the very last paragraph, it reads as a whole rather than as pieces.) And it still implies Scum were told how alignment changes work when (most of) Town was not, and that peeker chose to contradict Tom over it and to use his bonus kill on a lurker. The arguments against him being PFK are weaker, I think, though I've been focusing on Scum due to my thinking over his rationale for the hammer vote. The lack of counterclaim on Kat does still make him likely to be a killing role in that case (as opposed to a Mad Bomber or some such), and if he is that, then he's just defanged himself for the most part, or he will yet die for it. Not his play, the role claim. Where do you see that? In any case, it's not so much any one aspect of it as how it all fits together. I don't think a patchwork claim would stand up that well in terms of consistency both internally and with how peeker has actually played. Plus the other things I mentioned. This one is a good point. I don't think it outweighs the rest. This really, really rubs me the wrong way. Not just because you're turning my conclusion that I can't vote for him based on that claim into some kind of scummy overconfidence, but because you have completely overlooked Inner Stickler's MUCH more vehement statements of confidence in peeker. To wit: Post 84 today: Post 86: You didn't make this post because I'm too confident. I'm not re-voting peeker. I have no vote yet, but would probably vote Inner Stickler if under a deadline. I can in no way truly justify it at this point, though; I need to go back and see if there's anything there but instinct. WTF? Basically, you're saying, I have absolutely nothing on Inner Stickler, but if I had to vote, that's where I'd vote. Were you hoping someone else could build a case on him so you could vote there and not have to be accountable yourself?[/quote] This is an utterly baseless insinuation. I'm getting the feeling you'd have commented negatively if I had said nothing about voting at all, or if I actually had voted Inner Stickler based on nothing but a vaguely remembered sense of "this guy's my number two suspect" from almost a month ago.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 22:02:25 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 8, 2010 22:02:25 GMT -5
hey, story i don't expect an exoneration answer but could you at please answer this? Yeah, no, I'm not answering that. On another note, how are they doing with the National Championship results in your parts, peek? Must be a scene. we're cutting them down from the trees as we speak.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 22:07:04 GMT -5
Post by special on Jan 8, 2010 22:07:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 22:10:01 GMT -5
Post by special on Jan 8, 2010 22:10:01 GMT -5
Why not? You just said it made you think he wasn't Town, and isn't Scum another version of Not-Town? What makes it seem like it isn't a cover role? Wouldn't the perfect cover role for peeker be the one that makes him look like a 3rd party who is now town? I'm not quite sure how you're approaching this question. His behavior up through the hammer of luv makes me think not-Town. Believing the cover role makes me think now-Town. But why believe his role claim? That's the point. You seem very certain that storyteller would not have provided such a cover role to the Scum. Having played in storyteller's Evil Dead, I strongly, strongly disagree. It very easily could have been a cover role, tweaked or not by the Scum who can talk 24/7 (assuming they can talk at all...which, I am assuming at this point until proven otherwise)
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 22:11:56 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 8, 2010 22:11:56 GMT -5
yawannaknow what is fuckinghilarious. you guys giving me way to much credit. not that i couldn't pull it off if i was full of shit, but rather i sure as hell would have covered my fucking bases a hell o lot better.
lynch my ass, i flip town and then go onward folks.
otherwise let's fucking move on to scummy hawk and move this puppy along.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 22:17:53 GMT -5
Post by special on Jan 8, 2010 22:17:53 GMT -5
This really, really rubs me the wrong way. Not just because you're turning my conclusion that I can't vote for him based on that claim into some kind of scummy overconfidence, but because you have completely overlooked Inner Stickler's MUCH more vehement statements of confidence in peeker. To wit: Post 84 today: {edited to include ALL of post 84} Post 86: now, as I read Inner Stickler's comments (and maybe I'm mis-reading), it really doesn't seem like he's trusting that peeker is being honest about his role claim. He flat out says that peeker may be Town or maybe be Scum with a cover role. Then he goes on to say that it very well could be a cover PM written by story.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 22:18:09 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 8, 2010 22:18:09 GMT -5
i am going to take this as a compliment. I mean, I was Scum with you, and you're a conniving little shit. made me fucking giggle anyways. but yaknow, you can be a conniving little shit as well. and you also know that i only connive with other folks. tell me who the fuck has been on my side this game other than a recent normal intervention? and you seriously think the two of us could pull something like this off? fuck i know how to change a flat tire but fracking black holes are out of my sphere of knowledge.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 22:24:44 GMT -5
Post by special on Jan 8, 2010 22:24:44 GMT -5
yawannaknow what is fuckinghilarious. you guys giving me way to much credit. not that i couldn't pull it off if i was full of shit, but rather i sure as hell would have covered my fucking bases a hell o lot better. It's not too much credit, peeker. What the worst thing that can happen to a Scum Strongman? That's right, Susie, to be lynched on Day 1. So, what's a Scum Strongman to do when taking heat? Lynch anyone else (e.g., luvbwfc) Then take work through Night 1 and a week of Day 2 work with your fellow Scum to create a good and plausible cover role in case you continue to take heat on Day 2. We should never assume that the Scum "aren't that good" So, yeah, I can easily see you as Scum, peeker. I can also see it as quite possible that you're telling the truth. What puzzles me more now, is nphase assuming that you're being honest, and assuming that we now know how recruiting works. Because, I still am completely in the dark about how recruiting works.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 22:26:37 GMT -5
Post by special on Jan 8, 2010 22:26:37 GMT -5
i am going to take this as a compliment. I mean, I was Scum with you, and you're a conniving little shit. made me fucking giggle anyways. but yaknow, you can be a conniving little shit as well. and you also know that i only connive with other folks. tell me who the fuck has been on my side this game other than a recent normal intervention? and you seriously think the two of us could pull something like this off? fuck i know how to change a flat tire but fracking black holes are out of my sphere of knowledge. I have no idea who you are communicating with, peeker. I don't expect your communications to be out here where I can see them. If you were Scum, I assume you'd do your conniving in the Scum thread. Not exactly sure what you're implying here. I mean, I do know how mafia games are usually set up.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 22:28:55 GMT -5
Post by special on Jan 8, 2010 22:28:55 GMT -5
In any case, it's not so much any one aspect of it as how it all fits together. I don't think a patchwork claim would stand up that well in terms of consistency both internally and with how peeker has actually played. Plus the other things I mentioned. OK, so it's may not even be a patchwork claim. Why couldn't it possibly be a cover role sent to the Scum by storyteller? Go read Evil Dead on SDMB. There were some damn fine fake role PMs given to the Scum by the moderator (storyteller). I'm not sure if the Evil Dead spoiler boards are still up or where they are, but if so, that's probably the best place to look.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 22:32:50 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Jan 8, 2010 22:32:50 GMT -5
FTR my obviously as townie as you comment was a sarcastic rejoinder to peeker's I've claimed town why are you people still trying to lynch me schtick.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 22:43:41 GMT -5
Post by special on Jan 8, 2010 22:43:41 GMT -5
OK, I saved this for last, because there are a few points to make here. So if you're saying peeker is Scum, you're asking me to believe that Storyteller provided an unimpeachable claim to peeker free of charge to account for a kill he was actually going to make (and Scum peeker chose to use it on lurker Kat rather than on, say, TOM); and he informed Scum that the recruitment in the game wasn't going to be traditional when most of Town is assuming otherwise (and Scum peeker chose to poke confirmed Town over it, repeatedly). Yes, it's quite possible that storyteller provided the Scum with cover roles that would seem unimpeachable and would work well within the fabric of the game. Why would you assume he wouldn't? Also, you're assuming that the cover role contained information about how recruiting really works in the game. Did you consider that the cover role might not be accurate and recruiting might NOT work in the way it's detailed? Or even that maybe recruiting works in several ways. And maybe, Tom is immune to peeker's attempt? Or maybe Tom is immune to other types of recruitment. And maybe Tom is even immune to peeker's kill attempt? Of course, luvbwfc described another type of "recruiting' that is in conflict with peeker's role PM. (if you consider Green Goblin's choice as recruitment) Or it's not a Storyteller cover, but rather a patchwork. But it's a really good patchwork. I don't actually rule out that it could have been fabricated based on peeker's past behavior in the game, but not just anyone could do that. I couldn't. Read it again; it's not as easy to separate out bits and pieces as you imply. (Like the line about "precious little interest" in the conflict, the "choose a target", and so on. With the possible exception of the phrase you bolded and the very last paragraph, it reads as a whole rather than as pieces.) And it still implies Scum were told how alignment changes work when (most of) Town was not, and that peeker chose to contradict Tom over it and to use his bonus kill on a lurker. OK, so you tell me you couldn't do it. peeker tells me he couldn't do it. The Scum had over a week and goodness knows what information they have to share with each other. It's quite possible that they could have done it. I'm not willing to assume otherwise. And I don't like it when people quickly think that 'Scum can't be that good' It almost seems like you're trying to put the Town at ease, and implying that it should be easier to catch Scum. No, Scum collectively, are smarter than any Town player. I won't underestimate their abilities. Also, maybe the bonus kill wasn't on a lurker. Maybe the Scum have a Day Investigator who got lucky and found Kat. Maybe the Scum just took a shot in the dark and killed an investigative role. I mean, it is an all power game. They were going to hit something. The arguments against him being PFK are weaker, I think, though I've been focusing on Scum due to my thinking over his rationale for the hammer vote. The lack of counterclaim on Kat does still make him likely to be a killing role in that case (as opposed to a Mad Bomber or some such), and if he is that, then he's just defanged himself for the most part, or he will yet die for it. A third party would have had just as much reason to hammer as a Scum. A third party would have needed to live past Day 1, in most cases to win (Jester aside). A Scum would also have every reason to hammer. What's the worst that could happen? They die anyway later? OK, at least they got a Townie lynched first.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 23:12:26 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Jan 8, 2010 23:12:26 GMT -5
What puzzles me more now, is nphase assuming that you're being honest, and assuming that we now know how recruiting works. Because, I still am completely in the dark about how recruiting works. Me, too. peeker, let me ask again why you said that you wouldn't claim because you thought your claim would give too much info to the scum. I don't see that your claim gave any vital info to scum.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 23:19:54 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Jan 8, 2010 23:19:54 GMT -5
My apologies, everyone -- it's been hell week at work (yes, I know you were off for two weeks while I wasn't -- that doesn't mean *I'm* the one who has to fix everything that went ass-up while you were away!)
I just gave the thread a two-minute scan-through -- I'll definitely be back tomorrow after giving this a good scouring, but I had to point out one thing that really jumped out at me (and I'll keep my fingers crossed that I didn't scan past someone else already mentioning it)...
peeker -- I see your claim, and it looks legit enough. However, I gotta say that asking story about cover roles just screams "scum move" to me. Anyone whose ever played this game would know that there's no way in hell the mod is going to answer that question, so why ask? The only answer I can think of to that one is "to make it look like I don't know if there are cover roles when I already know they [do/do not] exist in the game".
No vote on this right this minute -- I need to do a more thorough reread tomorrow, but just putting it out there that I don't like that move one bit.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 8, 2010 23:33:07 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 8, 2010 23:33:07 GMT -5
What puzzles me more now, is nphase assuming that you're being honest, and assuming that we now know how recruiting works. Because, I still am completely in the dark about how recruiting works. Me, too. peeker, let me ask again why you said that you wouldn't claim because you thought your claim would give too much info to the scum. I don't see that your claim gave any vital info to scum. i thought i answered this but in case you missed it. i was pissed and felt fuck 'em if they can't take it. but you know after is posted it was like fuck i'm town now better get with the program. that's why i came clean with my role and pm's. petulance may feel good short term but i also have a damn good winning streak and don't want to jeopardize it. i mean, i haven't gone back and actually counted but i think my winning percentage runs north of 80 percent (maybe 90). but like i have said before it's because i honestly don't give a shit whether i live or die as long as my team wins. that's why i came clean. showing you folks how stupid you are would have felt good short term but would have not been in town's best interest. that's where i am now so that's where i play. and freaking ed and everyone else that is yada yada yada. if you think my pm is bs then vote my fucking ass. if you believe it then fucking let it go. and yeh, four fucking hours is plenty of time to re-write history. shit we went almost two fucking weeks without a lynch. and i am still not sure whether it would have ever happened if i wouldn't have decided to pull the trigger. so there you go. i am vanilla town, if you want to string my ass, go for it. sure i played kind of crappy. if town wants to compound it by getting rid of another townie because they don't like my play let's go. but for goodness sakes can we move onward. this is getting a trite tedious. and i have never done this in my entire freaking mafia career but if some other soul wants to toss a vote on my ass i'll hammer myself just to let the game move forward. shit, story deserves that much from us. that way scum, can hem and haw about they didn't pull the fucking trigger.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Jan 9, 2010 7:52:36 GMT -5
OK, so it's may not even be a patchwork claim. Why couldn't it possibly be a cover role sent to the Scum by storyteller? Go read Evil Dead on SDMB. There were some damn fine fake role PMs given to the Scum by the moderator (storyteller). I'm not sure if the Evil Dead spoiler boards are still up or where they are, but if so, that's probably the best place to look. Just to confirm this. When I claimed (Day 5, I think) the role PM I gave was, in its entirety, written by Storyteller. (I chopped power 3 off; that was my sole modification.) The reason he provided those PMs was so that we did not have to imitate his own writing style. Storyteller will have provided the same sort of service to the ARRs in this game. It would make the game unplayable for the ARRs if the winning strategy was to post role PMs on Day 1, and those which differ in style and tone from the majority get lynched one by one. The other option, which Storyteller has not taken, is to forbid the quoting of role PMs outright. Since quoting role PMs is allowed, I am certain that cover PMs have been provided ARRs (at least).
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Jan 9, 2010 8:19:10 GMT -5
I don't have time to respond to everything, but:
If he did give peeker a cover role that he was able to play straight to without contradicting anything else in the game, then I'd be really pissed. I am still annoyed at how the last all-power game turned out (I was Scum in that one), where all five of us got taken down in about two days due very largely to lack of any cover roles at all (and a superfluity of confirmed Town), and what you're suggesting would seem to go too far in the other direction. It's possible, but I don't think it's likely.
I, on the other hand, never fail to distrust when people OVER-estimate them. It leaves too much scope for manipulation based on paranoia. Go back to one of my very first posts in your Disney game, Ed, where I talk about "horses not zebras". The same applies here. If peeker is Scum strongman, then: -- Storyteller gave him a very good false claim, or one or more people on the Scum team are very good at patching together false roles -- in either case, the false claim is capable of explaining literally everything I was on peeker's case about going back to early in day one: the undermotivated votes, the odd reaction to Tom's statements about recruitment, the self-preserving flip-flop on the hammer vote. -- Scum chose to use their strongman in a decidedly less-than-optimal way (again, pending the possibility of future counterclaim), by NOT choosing to kill the confirmed, unrecruitable, likely-protected Tom Scud when they had the chance. DAMN good motivation for a risky hammer vote right there if they had, but they didn't! Your speculation about a day investigator is grasping at straws. You don't need a strongman to kill a lurking town investigator. There's no indication at this point you'd need a strongman to kill Sinjin either, but assuming for a second it went down that way rather than the reverse, you're still assuming that Scum chose to use their regular kill on someone who wasn't participating. -- peeker chose to use what Scum knew about recruitment/alignment changes to contradict what Tom Scud was saying (to clarify that point, Tom's statements have universally implied the presence in this game of traditional recruitment ("when the recruiter comes calling"; "I am unrecruitable") Peeker has, at various times and leading by inference all the way back to his first posts on the topic, stated or implied that HE thinks Tom is wrong. If peeker is Scum and Scum do have traditional recruitment as well as being aware of the possibility of other sorts of alignment changes, then peeker's Scum-motive for downplaying the former is obvious; however, it's still a conspicuous thing to do, which leads back again to my first point -- if this is a pre-provided cover role, then he's been playing to it deliberately since the very beginning, despite the inherent risks.
Any one of those points is easy enough to look past, but all of them together? I'm not buying it.
I'll get to the rest of your comments as time permits, which may be a while, because I NEED to get back to the rest of day one and figure out some things. You were in Space Hijack, so you know damn well by now how easily distracted I am by pressure, Ed. Vote me if you want, keep it on peeker, or switch to someone else, but do kindly give me some space to breathe, or I'm going to assume you don't want me to.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 9, 2010 11:42:32 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 9, 2010 11:42:32 GMT -5
In the last closed, all-power canon game I was in (Gatman) the Scum had cover roles as well. There, it was because a true name claim would have broken the game, but I still agree with MHaye that there are likely cover roles in this game, and it's possible that the cover roles are Gastardy, to make people think it's more real.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jan 9, 2010 11:57:34 GMT -5
Post by special on Jan 9, 2010 11:57:34 GMT -5
-- Storyteller gave him a very good false claim, or one or more people on the Scum team are very good at patching together false roles This ignores the fact that story has, in previous games, done exactly this. He has given Scum very good fake claims that can easily explain away extra kills, etc. -- in either case, the false claim is capable of explaining literally everything I was on peeker's case about going back to early in day one: the undermotivated votes, the odd reaction to Tom's statements about recruitment, the self-preserving flip-flop on the hammer vote. It's Day 2. There isn't really a lot to explain. Peeker's hammer can be explained away as a move by a 3rd party player, but it's just as easily explained as something scummy. I'm not willing to dismiss it as potentially scummy just because it's also potentially 3rd party. -- Scum chose to use their strongman in a decidedly less-than-optimal way (again, pending the possibility of future counterclaim), by NOT choosing to kill the confirmed, unrecruitable, likely-protected Tom Scud when they had the chance. DAMN good motivation for a risky hammer vote right there if they had, but they didn't! Your speculation about a day investigator is grasping at straws. You don't need a strongman to kill a lurking town investigator. There's no indication at this point you'd need a strongman to kill Sinjin either, but assuming for a second it went down that way rather than the reverse, you're still assuming that Scum chose to use their regular kill on someone who wasn't participating. How do we know that peeker could kill Tom? How do we know they believe that Tom is unrecruitable? Maybe they felt he was lying about that. Maybe they have other plans for dealing with Tom. Maybe they felt Tom might be protected. Maybe they know Tom is immune to the strongman. I'm not grasping at straws, it's very likely that we have Day powers since storyteller keeps mentioning them. -- peeker chose to use what Scum knew about recruitment/alignment changes to contradict what Tom Scud was saying (to clarify that point, Tom's statements have universally implied the presence in this game of traditional recruitment ("when the recruiter comes calling"; "I am unrecruitable") Maybe there is more than 1 way recruitment works. Maybe Tom is lying to us for reasons of his own. (Town reasons or selfish reasons) Peeker has, at various times and leading by inference all the way back to his first posts on the topic, stated or implied that HE thinks Tom is wrong. If peeker is Scum and Scum do have traditional recruitment as well as being aware of the possibility of other sorts of alignment changes, then peeker's Scum-motive for downplaying the former is obvious; however, it's still a conspicuous thing to do, which leads back again to my first point -- if this is a pre-provided cover role, then he's been playing to it deliberately since the very beginning, despite the inherent risks. So his only deliberate move to play into this scenario is saying recruitment doesn't work like Tom says? Because the kill and the hammer are just as easily explained as Scum moves. (as an aside, someone earlier said they tended to believe peeker was telling the truth about killing Kat since no one counterclaimed. I don't remember who. That's not really true. Who would counter claim that and why?) That seems a really small thing to do to set up a fake claim, doesn't it? Especially knowing he'll draw heat the next Day anyway. Any one of those points is easy enough to look past, but all of them together? I'm not buying it. I'll get to the rest of your comments as time permits, which may be a while, because I NEED to get back to the rest of day one and figure out some things. You were in Space Hijack, so you know damn well by now how easily distracted I am by pressure, Ed. Vote me if you want, keep it on peeker, or switch to someone else, but do kindly give me some space to breathe, or I'm going to assume you don't want me to. So wait...now I'm supposed to wait to discuss things with you? So you're allowed to post your theories and I'm not allowed to comment on them or question you about them? Really? Oh, and thanks for your permission to vote how I see fit. PS, I would appreciate it if you would continue breathing.
|
|