|
Post by special on Oct 4, 2010 14:11:11 GMT -5
You either think I'm pathetic and dumb or you think that I think everyone else is lame and dumb. I and all of you are neither and my claim is genuine. Of course, maybe you're a better player than the rest of us and don't make mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Oct 4, 2010 14:18:31 GMT -5
It appears I got blocked last night - well no results. I tried to investigate Galadriel -- interesting that she ended up in jail. Nice to see you again, Batman! No hard feelings, I expect? Pat him on the shoulder -- is that rubber? Ick. The sweat must really collect about the groinal area. A stench to rival Ryllandaras on a hot day, heehee. Actually this reminds me -- the last time I saw a jailer role, the person jailed was immune to actions taken against them, as well as prevented from taking any actions themselves. I doubt this has any bearing on whether you were role-blocked -- it's probably just a coincidence that the person you targeted happened to be in jail at the time -- but it might be worth considering down the line. But that's the thing! Clever now, clever. Lay out the logic, it is irresistable, like a flowered path. Zedd tried to describe his power as weak, but it is not. If the role detective part is omitted, he is an un-watchable, un-trackable alignment cop for all intents and purposes. If scum have either of those roles, then he was potentially more valuable to the town than you are. How is that weak? He's been tossing out the idea since early on that maybe he would get "threat to town" on a vig (hence justifying the "weak" label), but that strikes me as post-hoc rationalizing. And in any case, he hasn't put it to the test. He could have investigated Stay-Puft last night, knowing he would have to die soon regardless, thus shedding light on Zedd's own role. But instead he investigates a mason, someone who is almost certainly town, someone he had no real suspicious response to yesterday IIRC, and someone who (if he was wrong) was decent odds to be proven truthful or a liar in the next Day or so anyway? And then there's the claimed redirection, which has already been commented on. Let's just say there's no reason it has to have taken place at all. The scum could have had their redirector refain from acting (maybe perform the kill instead), in order to give Zedd the credit for being targeted by them. Sure, I guess. [/color] [/quote] We agree on something. This is refreshing. Maybe I won't need to summon the Hounds for a little attitude adjustment, hee. I don't find the role as claimed hard to swallow in itself, but I do agree there's no direct evidence at this point that he actually took the action he claims to have taken. Given my pre-existing suspicion, I would be willing to support this vote, if it came down to it.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Oct 4, 2010 14:27:47 GMT -5
And as to your commentary on Jack, I find that I'm just as likely (which is quite likely) to point out possibilities that may exist but are left out of other players summaries whether I'm scum or town. And that is how I'm reading Jack's post. "Not a threat to town" is indeed not necessarily equal to being Town-aligned based on the data at hand. Agreed -- I feel there was nothing particularly noteworthy about the post in question. I do know a ... person named Edgewalker who might like to know where Jack gets his skull polished.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Oct 4, 2010 14:33:26 GMT -5
I usually hear it as "his cheese has slid off the cracker." I wanna say that it's a british turn of phrase but I really have no evidence for that position. I have a question for all those who think Zedd is scum and are voting for him currently. Why do you think a scum zedd would counterclaim Batman on Day 2 unprovoked in the manner that he did? I don't know. This is a sad, sad thing.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 4, 2010 14:42:38 GMT -5
hey, raj, zedd has already come out with that he wouldn't do anything so simplisitic because he is not dumb.
see i don't think he is dumb, i think he is full of it.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 4, 2010 15:34:37 GMT -5
1. That's your judgement, I guess. Not much of an argument as to how I'm scum. 2. What do you mean? 3. It's too lame a lie/scam for me to pull. 4. It's too lame for me to think it would really work on any of you. You either think I'm pathetic and dumb or you think that I think everyone else is lame and dumb. I and all of you are neither and my claim is genuine. by 2, I meant that it's plausible that you are a godfather type hoping to be investigated. HGowever you want to look at it, something isn't adding up. 1. You claimed a 'weak' investigator when your power isn't weak. 2. You claimed to be undetectable by a watcher, but controllable by a redirector 3. You've claimed to have investigated a claimed Cop and a claimed Mason, instead of allowing their claims to play out which would give us information in the long run and investigating someone who is flying under the radar. . 1. My power is described as Weak Town-Alligned Cop. It's not me that claims it's weak. It's my role PM. 2. What the fuck do I know? The fucking rules have screwed my role over then! I actually see your point here, but what can I do? I was unseen by a watcher and re-directed last night? Either the re-director targeted my target instead of me(possible) or the redirection does not require "seeing" something. I don't know! I'm frustrated with my role as it is. How can I know why I couldn't be seen visiting Batman but was able to be redirected. Aaaaaaaaagh! 3. Again, what can I say? I didn't believe Batman because I thought two investigators is too much for Town. I investigated Red(tried to anyway) because with 2 investigators, I'm not convinced our masonry is solid.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 4, 2010 15:35:25 GMT -5
I'm frustrated, folks, but I by no means am quitting or anything. Point #2 up there looks a bit too upset now I re-read it.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 4, 2010 15:37:50 GMT -5
You either think I'm pathetic and dumb or you think that I think everyone else is lame and dumb. I and all of you are neither and my claim is genuine. Of course, maybe you're a better player than the rest of us and don't make mistakes. I see your point about people making mistakes. All I can say is that I didn't make a mistake and I'm honestly a weak Town-aligned cop who reads the clouds to learn either the power or "threatiness to town" of any player. And I didn't mean to call everyone dumb who makes mistakes. I'm just saying I didn't make a "dumb move", which I agree we all do from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Oct 4, 2010 15:51:06 GMT -5
... [perhaps] 4. He knew he could maintain a believable story as an alignment investigator 4. It's too lame for me to think it would really work on any of you. Help me out here. What's wrong with this syllogism: (A) alignment investigator would be a useful, maintainable and believable scum role claim, especially for a scum (e.g. Godfather) immune to investigation; (B) alignment investigator is too obvious and "lame ... to work on any of [us]"; (C) thus the alleged alignment investigator obviously really is what he says and mustn't be Lynched. So if we weren't lame we'd want to Lynch you, so that means we are lame if we want to Lynch you. Sounds like a pretty good scum role claim after all. ;D I'm sure I'm being very lame here; please help me out.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Oct 4, 2010 16:33:12 GMT -5
::: Makes two "phones"out of both of his hands, and mouths words into both of them, at the same time :::
This is a bit like playing "Telephone" as a solitaire.
If by "my cheese" you mean "my ability to convey my thoughts to you using the written word as a medium"
and by "still intact" you mean "only moderately substandard"
then, no your cheese is not intact.
SQUEEK! (Actually, I think Marcel is asking if you think he's nuts -- if his "cheese has slipped off his cracker." Which is not an expression I've heard before, and I've heard a lot, but from context that's the only thing he can mean. If we're all still speaking English.)
- >>> Correct. -
I don't think he's nuts no.
I think I run into problems because he doesn't actually talk about what he's talking about.
LEt's take a recent and small post for example and do it line by line
Today at 8:35am, Marcel wrote: ::: Looks to Jack :::
OK, post restriction comment. That's fine
- >>> Correct _
Today at 8:35am, Marcel wrote: Jack: FTR I will not attempt a noodle slurp with you, unless you ask for one*.
OK, now, this appears to be nonsense, but I can make out from previous posts that I think Marcel is saying that he doesn't want to go point by point on Jack's recent post unless Jack wants him to.
Why on Earth he didn't say it that way, I have no idea.
- >>> I guess my comment at the end of the post "A Meeting of the Minds" doesn't enter your evaluation? -
Today at 8:35am, Marcel wrote: I would like to think that you understand me a lot better than RajEd does.
This sentence makes sense to me.
Today at 8:35am, Marcel wrote: One comment though: I am glad to see that you picked up on the fact that I am picking up on things.
A more complicated way of saying, "thanks for noticing that I'm noticing things" but it's still fine.
Today at 8:35am, Marcel wrote: It's not Wine, It's not the Vodka, I would not call it Sunny D and Rum - I think we can both call that joke an aside.
This is a joke. However, at this point, I'm not sure if it's just a joke of if there's some meaning to it, because I so often don't find meaning in parts that aren't jokes.
- >>> Wait, what? If I go further into joke making, it would be easier for you to understand me? ..... That's Off Ed. You have to give me that one. [Concede this point]
>>> But yeah, in so many words, I knew I Was playing in a way I never had before last night. In the moment, it felt like I was running on all 8 cylniders. Unfortuneately, I think the style of play I uncovered last night would be boon only if I were playing Scum.
-
Today at 8:35am, Marcel wrote:
But yeah, I feel different. I felt it more last night that I do today. It could be similar to an intoxication, or it could be some new source testing things on for size. Once it finds it's best fit, look out Mafia, Papa's got a brand new bag.
My brain begins to hurt. He feels differently about something than he did last night. I think he's talking about the game.
- >>> See Above. -
And then we have 3 analogies to explain that? 1. He was drunk last night 2. He has a new supplier of things for which he needs fittings. 3. When he finds something that fits, he'll need a new man purse.
OK, so I think I got it. 3 metaphors for feeling different about something, but he didn't actually say what he's feeling different about or how he is feeling different about it.
- >>> 1. Not Drunk. If it is anything remotely related to this, I just came back from having a good meal. I felt on top of my game. Perhaps I didn't show the best game though.
In short, I felt things connecting. I just need to get to a point where I know and I KNOW that certain things don't matter as much, and that's not only ok, it's what it has to be.
>>> 2. The energy the food gave me had me seeing things in a new way. Trying on how to look at posts. Again, I Think the things I stumbled into would be better if I was playing as Scum.
Best Fit == An appeal to classify my newer style of play, what does it compare to ?
>>> 3.I was trying to think of that song. James Brown?
"Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" is widely considered the first recording to showcase what later became Brown's signature musical style, and marks the beginning of the development of funk. As Brown sings the praises of an old man brave enough to get out on the dance floor of a nightclub.
I just feel like I got new direction on how to play Mafia, I would like to think that last night's play is light years better than potato ranting.
I thought that James Brown, and that song was not an obscure reference. -
Today at 8:35am, Marcel wrote: * Note to self, Never use the word Slurp in Mafia, ever again. Another joke, I assume. Unless Slurp is one of his words that Marcel has applied meaning to but I don't yet have a grasp on the concept, like potato
Today at 8:35am, Marcel wrote: Noodle Slurp for A Meeting of the Minds. ..... Hrm I choose to stick with Noodle Slurp.
I think he's trying to explain the meaning. Noodle Slurp means people understand each other?
- >>> Correct.
>>> Slurp seems to have been an innuendo / double entendre. Wanted to point out that I noticed that.
>>> Definition of MEETING OF MINDS : agreement, concord -
Today at 8:35am, Marcel wrote: Noodles, Crutons, Potatoes. I could have given Atkins a Heart Attack by just looking at him. I think this is a carbohydrate joke. I hope it's meaningless, but I would't be surprised if we later get a rant on how Carbohydrates have no place in Mafia and it's a consipiracy to make him less Vanilla than other vanillas.
- >>> Nope. Joke. I thought you got it when I was joking. -
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 4, 2010 16:51:21 GMT -5
Your honor, I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by severe delays on Oct 4, 2010 17:04:05 GMT -5
Marcel, for the love of all that is holy will you please stop posting in that manner? I find my eyes glazing over and I know I'm skipping parts because I can't take in such a huge wall of text and it's just made worse because of your posting restriction. By all means give us detailed discussion and commentary but please do it in a different way. I'm sure nobody would mind if you quoted a bit and made a post and then quoted another bit and made a post - it'd be easier to read if it's in chunks.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Oct 4, 2010 17:09:51 GMT -5
I'm 50/50 on lynching zedd. I think i'm straying because of the confusion surrounding the mismatches yesterday.
But here's what I propose: We don't lynch zedd today, instead he promises to role investigate someone who hasn't claimed tonight. If he says the right thing tomorrow, then we think about it more. If he says the wrong thing tomorrow then his ass is toast. If he says he got roleblocked or redirected again, then maybe we'll have caught scum another way, or maybe we'll be able to show that he's been lying this whole time.
Anyone see any gaping holes? Or tiny holes?
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 4, 2010 17:15:07 GMT -5
4. It's too lame for me to think it would really work on any of you. Help me out here. What's wrong with this syllogism: (A) alignment investigator would be a useful, maintainable and believable scum role claim, especially for a scum (e.g. Godfather) immune to investigation; (B) alignment investigator is too obvious and "lame ... to work on any of [us]"; (C) thus the alleged alignment investigator obviously really is what he says and mustn't be Lynched. So if we weren't lame we'd want to Lynch you, so that means we are lame if we want to Lynch you. Sounds like a pretty good scum role claim after all. ;D I'm sure I'm being very lame here; please help me out. Heh. I see your point. "Hey, this is lame. So lame they'll never expect it! I'll be a genius scum!" Nice idea, actually. I didn't do it, but nice idea. For one, I would have never jumped right out there and counterclaimed Batman if my role wasn't genuine. I think if I was scum and I had this role, I'd wait until later in the game to make the move if I was going to. For twosies, it's just WIFOM. Did I do it 'cause it'd be to lame to pull off or not? I say not, obviously, but I leave it with you all I guess. Try to think through the likeliness of it. There was no pressure on me when I counterclaimed Batman. I did it because I figured 2 investigators was too strong for Town and he was scum. I'm the easy lynch for the Day it looks. Please reconsider folks. We have two investigators on our team, it looks. We must have some need for both of us.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 4, 2010 17:16:33 GMT -5
Can you define "right" and "wrong"?
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 4, 2010 17:16:37 GMT -5
I'm 50/50 on lynching zedd. I think i'm straying because of the confusion surrounding the mismatches yesterday. But here's what I propose: We don't lynch zedd today, instead he promises to role investigate someone who hasn't claimed tonight. If he says the right thing tomorrow, then we think about it more. If he says the wrong thing tomorrow then his ass is toast. If he says he got roleblocked or redirected again, then maybe we'll have caught scum another way, or maybe we'll be able to show that he's been lying this whole time. Anyone see any gaping holes? Or tiny holes? I'm up for it. Has anyone drawn up a full list/spreadsheet of who has claimed exactly what?
|
|
|
Post by severe delays on Oct 4, 2010 17:25:39 GMT -5
I'm 50/50 on lynching zedd. I think i'm straying because of the confusion surrounding the mismatches yesterday. But here's what I propose: We don't lynch zedd today, instead he promises to role investigate someone who hasn't claimed tonight. If he says the right thing tomorrow, then we think about it more. If he says the wrong thing tomorrow then his ass is toast. If he says he got roleblocked or redirected again, then maybe we'll have caught scum another way, or maybe we'll be able to show that he's been lying this whole time. Anyone see any gaping holes? Or tiny holes? My bolding. How do we know what the right thing or the wrong thing is? The only way that I can think is for Bill McBatman and Zedd to both investigate the same player and have Zedd report his findings first. Bill can then confirm him. This is could be a horrendous waste of an investigation if Zedd provides the right information. Although if he does come up with the goods then we do at least have two confirmed investigators plus the information about the other player. The alternative would be to have Bill McBatman investigate Zedd and have Zedd investigate someone else. It won't tell us much about the extent of his powers or what the phrase "threat to town" means but it would at least give us information on Zedd's alignment.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Oct 4, 2010 17:28:35 GMT -5
Can you define "right" and "wrong"? Sorry, I should be clearer. Right = Zedd: Yes folks I did a role investigate and X is Y. X: Yes that is correct I am Y. Wrong = Zedd: Sorry guys, I decided to do the "threat to town thing again." Zedd: I decided to investigate X who claimed Y and is Y. Zedd: Yes folks I did a role investigate and X is Y. X: No that is incorrect I am not Y. Zedd: I was roleblocked. Watcher: Bullshit, no one visited you. Hard to tell: Zedd: I was redirected to X, and found out they are Y. Watcher: Maybe. Here's who targetted you last night. Zedd: I was roleblocked. Watcher: Maybe. Here's who targetted you last night. ======================== Of course, I can't guarantee that the watcher will actually target Zedd tonight, but it's WiFoM enough, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Oct 4, 2010 17:31:05 GMT -5
I'm 50/50 on lynching zedd. I think i'm straying because of the confusion surrounding the mismatches yesterday. But here's what I propose: We don't lynch zedd today, instead he promises to role investigate someone who hasn't claimed tonight. If he says the right thing tomorrow, then we think about it more. If he says the wrong thing tomorrow then his ass is toast. If he says he got roleblocked or redirected again, then maybe we'll have caught scum another way, or maybe we'll be able to show that he's been lying this whole time. Anyone see any gaping holes? Or tiny holes? My bolding. How do we know what the right thing or the wrong thing is? The only way that I can think is for Bill McBatman and Zedd to both investigate the same player and have Zedd report his findings first. Bill can then confirm him. This is could be a horrendous waste of an investigation if Zedd provides the right information. Although if he does come up with the goods then we do at least have two confirmed investigators plus the information about the other player. The alternative would be to have Bill McBatman investigate Zedd and have Zedd investigate someone else. It won't tell us much about the extent of his powers or what the phrase "threat to town" means but it would at least give us information on Zedd's alignment. It would be a horrible waste of an investigator to lynch him today, if he's telling the truth. I am attempting to provide mitigation. Honestly the easiest way to see if he's town is to cut him open and read his entrails. We'd know for sure then, but he might not be much use to us. We can probably afford to wast one investigation if there is indeed two cops, but I'd like to not do that.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Oct 4, 2010 17:35:03 GMT -5
Can you define "right" and "wrong"? :: Looks to Nakookies :: Can Anyone? [On the philosophical level.] :: Looks to Raj :: Hey man, you already rested your case. You picked it back up. You are going to tell me the Explanation did nothing for you?
|
|
|
Post by severe delays on Oct 4, 2010 17:35:45 GMT -5
My bolding. How do we know what the right thing or the wrong thing is? The only way that I can think is for Bill McBatman and Zedd to both investigate the same player and have Zedd report his findings first. Bill can then confirm him. This is could be a horrendous waste of an investigation if Zedd provides the right information. Although if he does come up with the goods then we do at least have two confirmed investigators plus the information about the other player. The alternative would be to have Bill McBatman investigate Zedd and have Zedd investigate someone else. It won't tell us much about the extent of his powers or what the phrase "threat to town" means but it would at least give us information on Zedd's alignment. It would be a horrible waste of an investigator to lynch him today, if he's telling the truth. I am attempting to provide mitigation. Honestly the easiest way to see if he's town is to cut him open and read his entrails. We'd know for sure then, but he might not be much use to us. We can probably afford to wast one investigation if there is indeed two cops, but I'd like to not do that. I'm definitely not advocating that we lynch Zedd just to find out what colour his insides are. I'm nitpicking as requested. And also trying to work out a way that we could test Zedd but also usefully gain by it. I think we really need to work out what the "right" and "wrong" information is first. As to that, I can't really think of a way to determine that but it's late and I'm sleepy so perhaps it's best for me to stop trying to think now and leave you guys to hash it out.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 4, 2010 17:39:33 GMT -5
The alternative would be to have Bill McBatman investigate Zedd and have Zedd investigate someone else. It won't tell us much about the extent of his powers or what the phrase "threat to town" means but it would at least give us information on Zedd's alignment. Someone else may make more sense. I mean, spending time confirming me is nice, but we aren't gaining any investigations(if Batman and I are both looking at the same people) this way. By the time I'm confirmed, Batman or I will probably be NK'ed by the scum. For now, I'm hoping I survive the lynch and Night and I'll share my results in the morning(which is what I did toDay).
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 4, 2010 17:42:55 GMT -5
You are going to tell me the Explanation did nothing for you? No offense, but I'm choosing not to continue this conversation.
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 4, 2010 17:45:15 GMT -5
As for the Zed situation, I can see Scum muddying the waters enough to force him to stay in the 'can't tell one way or the other category' regardless if he's Scum or Town.
Additionally, if he's Scum, any Scum can investigate and relay the results to him
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 4, 2010 17:45:45 GMT -5
NETA any Scum that can investigate can relay the results to him
|
|
|
Post by severe delays on Oct 4, 2010 17:47:46 GMT -5
The alternative would be to have Bill McBatman investigate Zedd and have Zedd investigate someone else. It won't tell us much about the extent of his powers or what the phrase "threat to town" means but it would at least give us information on Zedd's alignment. Someone else may make more sense. I mean, spending time confirming me is nice, but we aren't gaining any investigations(if Batman and I are both looking at the same people) this way. Confirming you is only "nice"? You know, if we could confirm you as a town power then it would mean we could stop running round in circles trying to work out if you are scummy or not. And confirming you as scum would be more than nice for us. I don't think it's the best tactic to have you both investigate the same person if you are both genuinely town but right now we don't know what you are so we'll have to make do. Thinking about it, if we went this route then it would be best for you to investigate whomever you please and Bill McBatman to investigate you. That would generate either one good investigation result and you as scum or two good investigation results. If you can think of another way for us to discover whether your investigations take place and are "right" or "wrong" then don't hold back!
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Gir! on Oct 4, 2010 18:21:43 GMT -5
Why do I feel like this conversation is closer to one that Gir! would have over Marcel? I know, I'm scared too!
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Oct 4, 2010 19:24:22 GMT -5
I'm 50/50 on lynching zedd. I think i'm straying because of the confusion surrounding the mismatches yesterday. But here's what I propose: We don't lynch zedd today, instead he promises to role investigate someone who hasn't claimed tonight. If he says the right thing tomorrow, then we think about it more. If he says the wrong thing tomorrow then his ass is toast. If he says he got roleblocked or redirected again, then maybe we'll have caught scum another way, or maybe we'll be able to show that he's been lying this whole time. Anyone see any gaping holes? Or tiny holes? Yes! He probably *is* a role investigator, whether he's scummy-scum or not.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 4, 2010 19:30:52 GMT -5
and here is the deal zed, at least for me. i don't read your role as a counter claim but rather as just a different flavor. the corinthian and i disagree, but what is new. and of the two investigator claims i am inlcined to believe batty over you. maybe we have two, tough shit for you. i figure we have one so your death tells us a lot about batty. plus i still think you are full of it. the clouds give you answers but the clouds are directed by someone else, right?
feels like a load of manure.
i'm with cookies. sounds like a government experiment gone terribly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 4, 2010 19:35:15 GMT -5
However, if Zedd were Scum, why wasn't I redirected? They must have thought that there was a good chance I would shoot at him.
Of course, a bus driver would explain that.
|
|