|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 12:18:50 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Dec 9, 2010 12:18:50 GMT -5
@ Mahaloth, your vote on pleo was, in my opinion, opportunistic and therefore caught my attention. Well, I disagree. I asked him about his claim for quite awhile before my vote. Other voters for Pleo were far closer to jumping on a convenient bandwagon than me. And, I unvoted him when he explained himself. Anyway, we disagree.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 12:26:21 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 9, 2010 12:26:21 GMT -5
Ah Paranoia, how do you make me like my vote. Let me count the ways.
1) smudgy posting that lays suspicion at the feet of people who question you without you taking a firm stance...again.
2) you focus on loud players and push a really bad bandwagon on Pleo.
3)do I detect an attempt to breadcrumb? Maybe I am looking into things too closely but, it feels to me like you are trying to set up an investigator claim. And I don't really like that. Note what peek said most of the people we have found who feel the need to set up those sorts of claims in advance turn out to be lying about them. (shit was that in this game or in the international game...peek where did you mention that you think breadcrumbers are mostly scum? I need to keep those games straight) I could be reading your post wrong, but that's what I see. It really does feel like a setup for a claim.
4) accuse me of not participating (fair cop, I wasn't around much on Day 1) then imply that it is scummy, and then do the same thing! Your participation hasn't been stellar. And I do feel that my participation has managed to be a little bit more full of content than yours. You might not like the strategy talk, but it's a useful tool, particularly on Day 1.
5)in a similar vein you then go and start taking my posts out of context to make them appear to have even less content than was already there. You say that most of my posts were about strategy and claiming...like that is a bad thing. Like I said before (maybe to you? No I think it was Suburban Plankton) I didn't have a lot of time, and so I was mainly finishing up the line of discussion that I was involved in because that's what I had time for. Strategy talk on Day 1 isn't really a waste of time either, and it is sort of my thing. It's how I approach Day 1 and has been for a while. And hey, I'm fully participating now. Is my lurking still a problem for you?
6) continuing to only pop into the thread just enough to save your own ass. You ask how it is flying under the radar when you post that behemoth of a post...that's exactly what it is. You post this whole big long post that I am going to guess at least 1/3 of the players didn't read, just in time to stop a lurker lynch and get a few unvotes. You come back and post a whole long post toDay just as you are gathering some votes because I pointed out what you did.
I think I am going to drop the numbering thing. I am happy with my vote, I think that's clear.
Let's address something specific in your last post:
Yeah, you know who typically thinks they are an easy lynch? Scum. Because they know they are guilty.
As for why you and not him? Because based on his play so far I think Charr is town. Maybe third party, but for our purposes right now they are really the same thing. The one big advantage that we have in this game is that we know that scum can Day talk, so we can look for signs of collusion. And I will place money on Charr not flipping scum. The votes against him are as wrongheaded and nonsensical as the votes against Pleo were. Unusual is not the same as scummy. Someone with a different viewpoint is not automatically scum. Erratic behavior doesn't make for scum. In fact nine times out of ten it is a townie doing these things.
You on the other hand, look like you might be getting coached. It would help explain the long gaps between your postings and the wall of words Day 1 without much content.
But wait, there's more!
[/b][/quote]
All that and you don't vote for me? You all but say that you think Charr and I are scum buddies, and then you DON'T VOTE? The hell? Again, timidity like that in an otherwise aggressive posting strikes me as another indicator of your scummitude.
I wish I could vote for you again right now just to emphasize my point.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 13:01:42 GMT -5
Post by brewha on Dec 9, 2010 13:01:42 GMT -5
Brewha's statement didn't assume anything it shouldn't have. One kill implies one killer -- that is, the mafia -- as a default (even ignoring Night Zero being the same), so where's the faulty assumption? He only said what probably every odd player in the game, minus any with knowledge to the contrary, was thinking. I've been on scum teams where planned the kill we sent in didn't happen, but another one did. Brewha's statement assumed that there were no other killing factions beside the scum team, which is possible, but not definite. I assumed no such thing. Go back and re read my statement. I've already quoted it once. I've already bolded it. Something's not getting across. Apologizes for sounding defensive, but I'll say it yet again. My statement was: There are no other killing factions besides the scum team OR our protection roles did their job. I see no possible fault with that assumption. Yes, the third parties may have chosen not to kill. Or scum may have chosen not to kill. But, I find both scenarios unlikely this early in the game.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 13:34:13 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 9, 2010 13:34:13 GMT -5
<snip> There are no other killing factions besides the scum team OR our protection roles did their job. These two are not mutually exclusive, though. So it is possible to focus on just one of these assumptions as faulty while conceding the other.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 14:18:37 GMT -5
Post by brewha on Dec 9, 2010 14:18:37 GMT -5
They are not necessarily mutually exclusive - but they can be. And if that's your point, bring it up. It's a good subject to discuss. But, don't say that my assumption was that there are no other killing factions in an attempt to spin it as a scum slip or a shortsighted statement.
And if you are dropping one to focus on the other, at least mention that you are.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 14:46:09 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 9, 2010 14:46:09 GMT -5
They are not necessarily mutually exclusive - but they can be. And if that's your point, bring it up. It's a good subject to discuss. But, don't say that my assumption was that there are no other killing factions in an attempt to spin it as a scum slip or a shortsighted statement. And if you are dropping one to focus on the other, at least mention that you are. I was speaking generically and I'm not changing focus from one to the other. And you still did make an assumption that there were no other killing factions which could be a scum slip or shortsighted. I stand by that. However, at this time, I would consider it a null tell since I don't know which of the two it was. As for discussion of the topic itself, I don't see much value in trying to figure out what the scum - or really anyone who does anything at Night - may or may not have done last Night since we really don't know at this point. I think that kind of speculation is either a fruitless distraction at best or a way for power roles to out themselves inadvertently at worst. Maybe as the game progresses and we learn more about each other's roles, analyzing Night kills and other actions will be a more productive discussion.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 15:15:03 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Dec 9, 2010 15:15:03 GMT -5
I've been on scum teams where planned the kill we sent in didn't happen, but another one did. Brewha's statement assumed that there were no other killing factions beside the scum team, which is possible, but not definite. I assumed no such thing. Go back and re read my statement. I've already quoted it once. I've already bolded it. Something's not getting across. Apologizes for sounding defensive, but I'll say it yet again. My statement was: There are no other killing factions besides the scum team OR our protection roles did their job. I see no possible fault with that assumption. Yes, the third parties may have chosen not to kill. Or scum may have chosen not to kill. But, I find both scenarios unlikely this early in the game. What Squink said. The two halves of those statements are not mutually exclusive. You are being awful defensive when I didn't even place a vote. Someone wanted clarification of why people were even discussing it and I laid out my thoughts. Scum could have killed AND a third party could have been blocked. I don't see how you could not acknowledge that you made a faulty assumption.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 15:37:53 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 9, 2010 15:37:53 GMT -5
1) get asked a question or confronted and just go "so sorry can't address that because then i get *something bad to happen to me* 2) say something silly or non consistent and then go "so sorry it's part of my role and if i explain further then i get *something bad to happen to me*. 3) take either of the above cases and just change the response to something more along the lines of "just ain't going to for *insert something plausible* (and to be honest it doesn't really even have to be that plausible because of *insert restriction*). i mean seriously it could be along the lines of it makes me a newt. That's totally a legitimate and reasonable argument. The only flaw in it is that I haven't done any of those things. Vote for me when I do, if you want - but saying I'm doing X in order to set up Scummy action Y only plays if I actually do Y.@ Renata - What does the Halloween game have to do with anything? 1. I have a post restriction. It may or may not relate to voting, but I'd prefer not to say, because;
2. My restriction is one that could, if known, be manipulated under certain circumstances; further,
3. I have had this description since the game began (it was part of my role PM); but I didn't speak before I did because
4. The wording in my PM was vague enough that I needed to confirm that it was a post restriction rather than something else; I have since received confirmation of this, and will further aver that 5. I do not know of any connection between myself and Charr. As to why I mentioned it at all? Two reasons: 1. I think it's of value to know that there is at least one post restriction in this game (you don't know whether I'm truthful or not yet, but eventually, if/when I die or am investigated, you will); and 2. My own posting will involve a few quirks due to this restriction, and I figured it was best to disclose early rather than late. But that's how it works these days, and I knew it when I said what I said. At any rate, there's no substantial defense to the case against me - bufftabby said what she said, I reported what information I had at the time, and there it is. If you don't believe that, then you don't. I'll certainly reveal the exact details of my restriction if and when I receive enough votes to feel in significant danger, but until then, I'm going to go light on my own defense. <bolding and emphasis mine> i think you did.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 15:44:39 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 9, 2010 15:44:39 GMT -5
<snip> There are no other killing factions besides the scum team OR our protection roles did their job. These two are not mutually exclusive, though. So it is possible to focus on just one of these assumptions as faulty while conceding the other. But the assumption (to the extent he even made one, which is itself arguable -- he asked "can we assume") is not faulty. It is, conversely, the default explanation when only one kill is witnessed. (And more so when that goes on for two nights running.) If he had stated it in any way as a firm conclusion or as the only reasonable explanation, then I'd concede your challenge of him as reasonable, but as it is, no. Brewha in no way has to have PIS to say something like that.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 16:20:21 GMT -5
Post by brewha on Dec 9, 2010 16:20:21 GMT -5
Scum could have killed AND a third party could have been blocked. I don't see how you could not acknowledge that you made a faulty assumption. Is that what you're hung up on? That I said our protection roles did their job, and I didn't say that either our protection roles and/or blocking roles did their jobs? Are serious? If you block a killer, are you not protecting town? Wow. I won't acknowledge that I made a faulty assumption, because I never even made an assumption - as Renata pointed out. I asked a question - to which the answer is apparently, "no". So, can we assume that there's no vigs/SKs? Or did our protection roles do what they needed to do? As for discussion of the topic itself, I don't see much value in trying to figure out what the scum - or really anyone who does anything at Night - may or may not have done last Night since we really don't know at this point. I will agree with you on this
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 16:27:53 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 9, 2010 16:27:53 GMT -5
I assumed no such thing. Go back and re read my statement. I've already quoted it once. I've already bolded it. Something's not getting across. Apologizes for sounding defensive, but I'll say it yet again. My statement was: There are no other killing factions besides the scum team OR our protection roles did their job. I see no possible fault with that assumption. Yes, the third parties may have chosen not to kill. Or scum may have chosen not to kill. But, I find both scenarios unlikely this early in the game. What Squink said. The two halves of those statements are not mutually exclusive. You are being awful defensive when I didn't even place a vote. Someone wanted clarification of why people were even discussing it and I laid out my thoughts. Scum could have killed AND a third party could have been blocked. I don't see how you could not acknowledge that you made a faulty assumption. Or a third party killed and scum were blocked. Or scum were blocked, a third party was protected against, and a misguided vig killed MHaye. Which is ludicrous, but I trust you get the point. Are you really now calling him out on not enumerating every single halfway logical possibility? Back to your original challenge, quoted below: Let me list the things wrong with this statement, since I had to cut my previous comment short. 1. He made no conclusion, that's a mis-characterization. He asked if a certain assumption was valid, and offered an alternative explanation. (One of several.) 2. The assumption itself was perfectly valid as a default starting point, IMO. 3. The tone and timing of this post strike me as scummy in an opportunistic sort of way -- it comes right after someone else has made a similar argument, but you go just a half a step further than she did with it. And then you don't follow up, until you yourself are challenged. After this post, brewha offers an explanation and IIRC there's some minor back and forth between him and Squink. Your own next contribution is post 107. You mention you need to get a vote down, since you'll be away. You say two people have pinged you, and brewha is neither of them. If brewha didn't ping you with that statement, what was the point of you calling him out at all? Here's a quote of the post: "Why am I not surprised that peek is a mason? :-P At this point there are a few people who haven't posted much - myself included, so I am loathe to single out one person to vote for on the lurker principle. I am going to be out of town this weekend and will miss the end of the Day. I want to have a vote on record in case I can't get back to the board. I have gotten scummy vibes from 2 different people and won't mind voting for either. charr for the no reason vote at the end of yesterDay with a lame explanation of it toDay, and Rysto came across as very defensive about the votes he received yesterday, especially since they were "Day One don't really have much to go on" votes. I think I'm going to let my vote from yesterDay ride for a little while. vote Rysto" I find nothing terribly wrong with this post, not on the order of the opportunism I see in the brewha comment (though don't get me started on the no-names-included lurkers-suck-even-though-I-am-one thing; I'm nearing peeker-level head-asplodey on that); but there's certainly nothing at all confidence-inducing here: call out the weird guy and characterize someone else as too defensive (now repeated with brewha). I don't find defensiveness to be a good scum tell. vote: Hockey Monkey[/color]
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 18:07:33 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 9, 2010 18:07:33 GMT -5
Vote Count
paranoia (3): naf1138 [23], suburban plankton [100], metallicsquink [108]
charr (2): mr blockey [27-140], billmc [31]
storyteller (2): peekercpa [115], catinasuit [124]
rysto (1): hockey monkey [101]
total ullz (1): texcat [16]
mahaloth (1): guiri [109]
hockey monkey (1): renata [160]
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 18:28:07 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 9, 2010 18:28:07 GMT -5
otie dotie i'll wade in. on first glance brewha makes a kind of obvious statement. no prob there. but his follow up in large lettering does make me go hmmmm. i mean i won't make a federal case out of it but it sure does come across as knowing something that he shouldn't.
i mean i think the way he intended it to read was along the lines of it could be anyone that got the kill down and a protector got lucky (or someone decided not to fire away or an rb got fracking lucky). but it does parse a little funky on re read. or he could be phuquing trying to help out a town power role.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 19:11:50 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 9, 2010 19:11:50 GMT -5
but if he'd added "plus a bunch of other possibilities" it wouldn't seem like PIS?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 19:13:26 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 9, 2010 19:13:26 GMT -5
And did you use "help out" on purpose in that statement, peek?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 19:23:15 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 9, 2010 19:23:15 GMT -5
but if he'd added "plus a bunch of other possibilities" it wouldn't seem like PIS? maybe he was trying to help out town by displaying scum or malicious third party pis. yaknow that brewha. he's a sneaky slippery kind of grinch.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 19:41:31 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Dec 9, 2010 19:41:31 GMT -5
Scum could have killed AND a third party could have been blocked. I don't see how you could not acknowledge that you made a faulty assumption. Is that what you're hung up on? That I said our protection roles did their job, and I didn't say that either our protection roles and/or blocking roles did their jobs? Are serious? If you block a killer, are you not protecting town? Wow. I won't acknowledge that I made a faulty assumption, because I never even made an assumption - as Renata pointed out. I asked a question - to which the answer is apparently, "no". As for discussion of the topic itself, I don't see much value in trying to figure out what the scum - or really anyone who does anything at Night - may or may not have done last Night since we really don't know at this point. I will agree with you on this Oh good lord. I say blocked meaning that an action didn't go through as a result of someone else's action, be it protection/blocking or any other means that an action might not go through. I didn't mean for this to become a point of contention at all. I was just explaining my thinking on asking you about it in the first place. I was fine to drop it at that, but when I'm quoted or addressed I always try to respond. When you resorted to IDLE font it pinged me as being really super defensive over what amounts to not much. And really, Renata? How am I being opportunistic in explaining what I was thinking when I asked the initial question? And how in the world does me saying I'm loathe to vote on the lurker principle make your head asplodey? I didn't say that the lurkers suck (although it makes it much harder to play). I just meant that tossing up a vote for a lurker would be pretty hypocritcal for me. All in all this whole brewha brewhaha just makes me want to That's pretty much all I'm going to be able to say on that matter or any other for the Day. I have packing to do and I'll be out of town till Sunday afternoon.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 19:56:37 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 9, 2010 19:56:37 GMT -5
and i know this fluff but tough luck.
when do "ass cum" and "help out" get their unique entries on the wiki?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 21:25:05 GMT -5
Post by Rysto on Dec 9, 2010 21:25:05 GMT -5
The other thing intriguing me though is Suburban Plankton and Cookies with IMHO "defences" of brewha. I'm not sure what you think this tells you?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 3:11:03 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 10, 2010 3:11:03 GMT -5
I don't like being smudged into catch 22 corners. If brewha dies and flips scum, Cat can continue pressing his alleged suspicion of the 'defense' as protecting a scum buddy. If brewha flips town, Cat can press the alleged suspicion of the 'defense' as PIS as to brewha's townieness.
And if brewha flips as third party, it's a draw as to whether our apparent mutual suspicion is two townies being wrong, or just Cat being wrong about me.
Vote: CatInaSuit
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 4:29:53 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 10, 2010 4:29:53 GMT -5
TL hasn't voted on Day One in her last several games. You were just in a game with her where she did the exact same thing on Day 1 and was town. Her not voting isn't a tell, and it's a really bad vote. Be mad at her for continuing to sign up for games she can't play in (I am, it's fucking annoying*) but voting for her is dumb. I'm just going to comment on this while I'm catching up here. It's not "several" games - I've had a rough RL-week or so and even if I had read and posted in this game, I can assure you it would not have been worth reading.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 5:26:51 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 10, 2010 5:26:51 GMT -5
I don't know, but I also don't know why he felt the need to say he had a restriction at all. Also, please note that he is now saying that it is not a posting restriction as such, but a restriction; I have no idea what that might be, but I have put random not-exactly posting restrictions on characters before (e.g., House in the House game could vote behind the scenes so long as he "played" obtuse in the game thread), and that's why I'm on the fence about him at the moment. I claimed "shoes" once. Not that I had a posting restriction in "there was something I couldn't post" but because there where certain things I could post without consequence that would hurt Town. Maybe that makes me a bit bias - but I can see where Story is coming from and don't get any scum vibe off the restriction-confusion.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 5:28:52 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 10, 2010 5:28:52 GMT -5
L Vote: Total Ullz for advocating lynching a lurker without naming one and especially for not voting. Bleached for the mods. Okay - this is partly said tongue in cheek: Where you expecting me to make a list of lurkers?
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 5:31:55 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 10, 2010 5:31:55 GMT -5
I'm getting very pinged by the brewha-discussion...
I have some catching up to do in the mafia-world. But then I'm hoping to be back soon with a bit of insight as to the way I'm reading it.
Also - I'd like to make it absolutely clear that what happened a little over a week ago to me in RL will not happen again and that I'll not go missing from this game again.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 6:24:25 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 10, 2010 6:24:25 GMT -5
sorry guys, I've been super busy. I'm in a new house now and I've been trying to fix it up in my free time. I will be online later today to catch up.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 8:26:53 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 10, 2010 8:26:53 GMT -5
The Assumption Debacle#9 by Brewha saying: So, can we assume that there's no vigs/SKs? Or did our protection roles do what they needed to do?#10 by metallicsquink answering: I don't think we can assume that we have no vig or SK since we don't even know if MHaye was killed by scum, unless you know something that I don't.#11 by Hockey Monkey! : Indeed, Brewha, what leads you to the conclusion that scum made the kill last night?#12 by Inner Stickler: There are more possibilities here, and frankly I'm not sure it's worth worrying about until we know more about the game state. #13 by Brewha: Ok, leave off the vigilante part. I mean to write PFKs/SKs. Can we safely assume that there is scum and they are going to try to kill town? I mean this is mafia right? We can't automatically assume that there are third parties.
So, we can assume that there are no third parties or that our protection roles did their jobs. That's not an earthshattering statement, is it?Followed by #14 by Brewha: Squick […] But, if you're wondering if I know who the scum are or who killed MHaye, I can assure you I don't. #15 by Suburban Plankton : I think some people are coming down just a bit hard on brewha this morning. Is it a sure thing that there are no killing roles besides Scum in this game? No, of course not. But is it surprising that we've only had 2 deaths in 2 Nights? I think it is.
Sure, there are a whole bunch of reasons why that could be, and there's not a whole lot to be gained from trying to list them all at this point. But I hate it when we come down too hard on people for simply saying out loud what everyone was thinking to themselves.#18 by Metallicsquink: There are a lot of possible explanations for what happened last Night and I think it's too early to make any assumptions.
There are also a few possible explanations for your comment: you either are a scum who made a slip or a townie who is being shortsighted. I didn't think your post should have gone without comment. I'm not sure why are being so defensive about it.This is where I'm getting my first ping. Up until this point it was just one of those "why did you say that"><"what I meant was"-discussions to me. I didn't see much else going on and I really didn't read Brewha as being defensive. #37 by Brewha: What is short sighted about saying that we either don't have 3rd party killers or the 3rd party killers were blocked. What scenario did I miss? Generally PFKs and serial killers aren't going to choose to just not kill. It would not be in their best interest.
I do regret typing vig instead of PFK, but I already clarified that.
Here's what I don't get. You ask me if I know something that you don't. I answer that I don't know what I assume it is you are asking that I know. You call me out for being defensive. What did you expect me to do? #39 by Cookie: I don't think anything that brewha has said so far is unreasonable.#40 by metallicsquink: It's shortsighted in that you are making assumptions that we cannot confirm at this point. And by making those assumptions now, you may be dismissing other possibilities as we progress further into the game. (You didn't mention another killer being blocked before, either, so that is yet another possibility. You had just asked if we should assume we don't even have any non-scum killers (PFK, SK, vig, whatever).)
As for your response to my original post, certainly I didn't expect you to admit that you were scum and knew MHaye was killed by your teammate but that was my implication. It's inevitable that we all are called scum at some point in this game so I don't see the point in getting defensive about it unless you really are scum and are trying very hard to convince everyone that you are not. That being said, I don't think you were being overly defensive and I may have just read more into your sarcastic tone than warranted.This is where I think things are getting interesting. Metallicksquink states that she implied that Brewha was possibly scum however she don't see the point in getting "defensive", yet admits that Brewha didn't react "overly defensive". So what is she trying to say here? Twice she's used the word "defensive" as her reason for pushing this conversation in the center of her attention in the game. However it's not "overly" defensive. Just defensive enough to get her to continue pursuing the question. #44 by guiri addressing Brewha: I saw nothing wrong with your first post - although I wondered what sort of an answer you were expecting - but here you are asking something quite different. The obvious scenario missing is that a PFK/3rd party killer killed mhaye and the scum kill was either blocked or their target was protected.#124by CatInASuit: Brewha - that was a curious thing to say. You know we can't assume anything, so why look for assumptions, especially because SK's tend to be the PFK Night Kill roles, so why double up on the meaning? You were probably more correct first time around, so why backtrack?#142 by Renata: Brewha's statement didn't assume anything it shouldn't have. One kill implies one killer -- that is, the mafia -- as a default (even ignoring Night Zero being the same), so where's the faulty assumption? He only said what probably every odd player in the game, minus any with knowledge to the contrary, was thinking.#143 by Brewha: As far as my comment about who killed who last night, I don't believe I said anything wrong and I certainly wouldn't call my comment stupid, Catinasuit. Up until that point, it was all condolences and no real conversation. I just wanted to get people talking. I would have been just fine without all the FOSs that went with it, but it did get people to talk.#144 by Brewha: I see CIAS was referring to SP's stupid comment. So, scratch that.
Also, it seems we have a dissconnect - definitionwise. To me, an SK is a single person who has to be last man standing to win. A PFK is a third party. Part of a group that may win with scum or by themselves, but are anti town. But, I guess I could have just said PFKs and assumed that encompassed SKs as well.#146 by Hockey Monkey!: I've been on scum teams where planned the kill we sent in didn't happen, but another one did. Brewha's statement assumed that there were no other killing factions beside the scum team, which is possible, but not definite. I raised an eyebrow at the statement because someone on the scum team would know if it was their kill or not and might jump to the conclusion that there are no other killers. Even though night zero had only one kill, I still wouldn't jump to a one kill faction conclusion because in the Halloween game, I believe we were thwarted twice in a row.As I see it here Hockey Monkey! is making a jump form Brewha's can we assume-comment to his "statement" that "that there were no other killing factions beside the scum team". That is quite a jump to me. #147 by metallicsquink: In a game this size, there could be more than one killer so to just assume that the scum did it is faulty, I think. Making assumptions with so little information at this point could hinder future decisions and that's all I wanted to address. I think it's very likely that the scum did the killing but I'm not going to go so far as to assume as much.And then the post with the Idle-sized letters: #152 by Brewha: I assumed no such thing. Go back and re read my statement. I've already quoted it once. I've already bolded it. Something's not getting across. Apologizes for sounding defensive, but I'll say it yet again. My statement was:
There are no other killing factions besides the scum team OR our protection roles did their job.
I see no possible fault with that assumption. Yes, the third parties may have chosen not to kill. Or scum may have chosen not to kill. But, I find both scenarios unlikely this early in the game.#153 by metallicsquink addressing Brewhas comment: These two are not mutually exclusive, though. So it is possible to focus on just one of these assumptions as faulty while conceding the other. #154 by Brewha: They are not necessarily mutually exclusive - but they can be. And if that's your point, bring it up. It's a good subject to discuss. But, don't say that my assumption was that there are no other killing factions in an attempt to spin it as a scum slip or a shortsighted statement.
And if you are dropping one to focus on the other, at least mention that you are.#155 by metallicksquink: I was speaking generically and I'm not changing focus from one to the other. And you still did make an assumption that there were no other killing factions which could be a scum slip or shortsighted. I stand by that. However, at this time, I would consider it a null tell since I don't know which of the two it was.#156 by Hockey Monkey!: What Squink said. The two halves of those statements are not mutually exclusive. You are being awful defensive when I didn't even place a vote. Someone wanted clarification of why people were even discussing it and I laid out my thoughts. Scum could have killed AND a third party could have been blocked. I don't see how you could not acknowledge that you made a faulty assumption.Now this is fascination. The word "defensive" comes up again and we're now being aware of that no one has voted Brewha based on this. #158 by Renata: But the assumption (to the extent he even made one, which is itself arguable -- he asked "can we assume") is not faulty. It is, conversely, the default explanation when only one kill is witnessed. (And more so when that goes on for two nights running.) If he had stated it in any way as a firm conclusion or as the only reasonable explanation, then I'd concede your challenge of him as reasonable, but as it is, no. Brewha in no way has to have PIS to say something like that. #159 by Brewha: Is that what you're hung up on? That I said our protection roles did their job, and I didn't say that either our protection roles and/or blocking roles did their jobs? Are serious? If you block a killer, are you not protecting town? Wow.
I won't acknowledge that I made a faulty assumption, because I never even made an assumption - as Renata pointed out. I asked a question - to which the answer is apparently, "no".#160 by Renata - snipped being so close to this post: Let me list the things wrong with this statement, since I had to cut my previous comment short.
1. He made no conclusion, that's a mis-characterization. He asked if a certain assumption was valid, and offered an alternative explanation. (One of several.) 2. The assumption itself was perfectly valid as a default starting point, IMO. 3. The tone and timing of this post strike me as scummy in an opportunistic sort of way -- it comes right after someone else has made a similar argument, but you go just a half a step further than she did with it.
And then you don't follow up, until you yourself are challenged. After this post, brewha offers an explanation and IIRC there's some minor back and forth between him and Squink. Your own next contribution is post 107. You mention you need to get a vote down, since you'll be away. You say two people have pinged you, and brewha is neither of them. If brewha didn't ping you with that statement, what was the point of you calling him out at all? #162 by Peeker: otie dotie i'll wade in. on first glance brewha makes a kind of obvious statement. no prob there. but his follow up in large lettering does make me go hmmmm. i mean i won't make a federal case out of it but it sure does come across as knowing something that he shouldn't.
i mean i think the way he intended it to read was along the lines of it could be anyone that got the kill down and a protector got lucky (or someone decided not to fire away or an rb got fracking lucky). but it does parse a little funky on re read. or he could be phuquing trying to help out a town power role.#163 by Cookie: but if he'd added "plus a bunch of other possibilities" it wouldn't seem like PIS?#165 by Peeker: maybe he was trying to help out town by displaying scum or malicious third party pis.
yaknow that brewha. he's a sneaky slippery kind of grinch.#166 by Hockey Monkey! - snipped being so close to this post: Oh good lord. I say blocked meaning that an action didn't go through as a result of someone else's action, be it protection/blocking or any other means that an action might not go through. I didn't mean for this to become a point of contention at all. I was just explaining my thinking on asking you about it in the first place. I was fine to drop it at that, but when I'm quoted or addressed I always try to respond. When you resorted to IDLE font it pinged me as being really super defensive over what amounts to not much.+ All in all this whole brewha brewhaha just makes me want to #169 by Cookie: I don't like being smudged into catch 22 corners. If brewha dies and flips scum, Cat can continue pressing his alleged suspicion of the 'defense' as protecting a scum buddy. If brewha flips town, Cat can press the alleged suspicion of the 'defense' as PIS as to brewha's townieness.
And if brewha flips as third party, it's a draw as to whether our apparent mutual suspicion is two townies being wrong, or just Cat being wrong about me.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 8:30:51 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 10, 2010 8:30:51 GMT -5
Vote Metallicksquink: For trying to push a case based on Brewha's question without voting. For repeatedly calling him defensive when I saw no such thing. For very subtle smudging Brewha but not ready to actually point out any IMO scummy behavior.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 8:35:35 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 10, 2010 8:35:35 GMT -5
Ah Paranoia, how do you make me like my vote. Let me count the ways. 1) smudgy posting that lays suspicion at the feet of people who question you without you taking a firm stance...again. I think you didn't read. Again. I think I came off pretty strong against you and Charr, but that might be my imagination since my posts don't seem to have as much content as I think. And before that, but my memory is kind of hazy on this, I think I even spoke out against, you know, Pleo and Mr. Ed with a FOS on them but you know, again, that isn't really a stance. I'm sorry; what's going to get my attention on a read through? The Loud Players or the people who've been in the background? And how am I to know the bandwagon on Pleo was bad? He was unhelpful, he was obtuse in his posts, and if that sort of thing happens all the time like you implied in your setup to do your "I told you so." post, Then is it our fault for pushing the lynch/lynching him or is it his fault for getting his ass lynched all the time? First off - I have zero intention of claiming anything. Second - do not put words in my mouth that aren't there. And if you're going to pull the "I could be reading your post wrong", please indicate where you saw the 'breadcrumbing'. Because right now what you're asking is for people to take your word for it on something that you haven't provided context for. Which brings us into your next point. Uh... I wasn't really calling you out on Participation as much as I was calling you out on actual discussion and ignoring discussion going on around you in favor of posting things on strategy. In fact I didn't even mention participation regarding you in my post yesterday. I generally don't make comments on what *I* haven't had time to read and based on the fact I decided to read night zero before I went ahead and posted (as to not make an utter fool of myself), and to call it meaningless probably means you didn't read it because I did outright state what I was thinking as I read through everything, and when you get down to it, Most of your posts yesterday were regarding strategy and mass claiming while pretty much ignoring every thread of discussion (Pleo, with the exception to the fact that stuff like that regarding Pleo happens all the time and that it was bad for the town without really offering an alternative, and I'm Not sure if I really saw anything regarding the "Help out the town PRs" deal), and low and behold where does your vote fall? On the safe "non-participant". After saying he didn't like any of the cases yesterday, meaning he didn't want to attach his name to him. What is the safest way to end the day with a vote? With a vote on Someone who's had one post all game. (That someone being me BUT DETAILS). And how exactly is my post yesterday safe? At the end of the post, I had thrown my name in in favor of Pleo being scum, along with Mr. Ed. I admit I haven't been posting as much as I liked to be right now. In my estimation, you are looking for safe, easy lynches right now. Based on you ignoring how erratic Charr is right now, and excusing the fact he's contributed less than I have, what exactly makes me worse than him? Or are you trying to stretch out the time he has to some other end? His explanation makes zero sense, and reads more as a hurried excuse (Which he admits as much), he's posted another vote with zero justification, other than a vote for self preservation that wasn't even necessary at the point which he made it! So... seriously. where did I call you out for lack of participation? Why are you putting words in my mouth that weren't even there? 5)in a similar vein you then go and start taking my posts out of context to make them appear to have even less content than was already there. You say that most of my posts were about strategy and claiming...like that is a bad thing. Like I said before (maybe to you? No I think it was Suburban Plankton) I didn't have a lot of time, and so I was mainly finishing up the line of discussion that I was involved in because that's what I had time for. Strategy talk on Day 1 isn't really a waste of time either, and it is sort of my thing. It's how I approach Day 1 and has been for a while. And hey, I'm fully participating now. Is my lurking still a problem for you? I never called you a lurker; that was Suburban Plankton. Uh. Again. Never accused you of lurking. You were pretty out in the open in fact. I accused you of providing contextless posts, and in retrospect, that isn't true. Looking back, it seems you more posted on a thread of conversation that you started and kept out of anything else that popped up (Again, Pleo, "Help out"), unless you were forced away from the strategy talk (by Suburban Plankton's attack of you, no less). But before you scream cries of OUT OF CONTEXT OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!, I'm going to do a helpful breakdown of your posts Day one and the context surrounding them. You can hold the woohoo. psychopathgame.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=aaaa&thread=1522&post=71526 Night Zero, post 91. Here you talked about mass claiming. You ignored the discussion on page 3; namely the fallout regarding Pleo's vanilla claim and the help out deal. You were obviously reading the thread, or skimming it at least; but you choose to ignore those two things that would go on to become a big deal and focused on a safer topic that wouldn't really matter which way you settled on it. psychopathgame.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=aaaa&thread=1523&post=71732 Day One, Post 20. Here you try to get discussion back onto Mass claims when Discussion on other topics were already going on. Furthermore, refer back to Rysto's post that you had quoted in your first post of the game. Rysto flat out stated the mass claim discussion made things uncomfortable for him as a town pr. Why would you do this? Further more, why do a mass claim discussion two games in a row when a) you probably know everyone's opinion by now, and b) most people will shoot down the idea? Why, because it's a safe thread of discussion that you can participate in without looking bad. psychopathgame.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=aaaa&thread=1523&post=71763 Day One, Post 42. I'm sorry; are you for a mass claim or against it? This post really doesn't indicate one way or the other. Overall I'd say it's non-committal even. And your defense of mass claim discussion doesn't seem that strong. So it got Peeker lynched because of issues with personalized vanilla PMs? How exactly is something like that "not the town lucking out."? And issue seems to imply that Peeker getting caught by that means it wasn't intended, meaning the mass claim, had things been different, the mass claim probably would have *hurt* the town. Also, regarding the town and information - I've always been more an advocate of information by posting and discussion, and less reliance on stuff like mass role claims. psychopathgame.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=aaaa&thread=1523&post=71783 Day One, Reply 59. Uh. Actually, I sort of like this post strategy wise, having a few issues with the "do anything bit" (Like say... mass claiming). Game wise I still find it ignoring other pertinent discussion and would probably be better saved for a mafia discussion in general. Your next few posts are a bit more strategy without really going on into everything around you (and to your credit you do note the entire deal with responding to posts that are directed at you.) psychopathgame.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=aaaa&thread=1523&post=71868 Day One, Post And then comes Plankton's vote for you. And then you suddenly get passive aggressive. Because after all One vote is nothing to worry about; but one vote has a habit of becoming two votes. And then three. And the thing is - you had to be reading. But you'd proven the entire day that you only cared about posts directed to you, about a topic that you wanted to discus - or surprise of surprises - one attacking you for your contribution to discussion regarding events that game. psychopathgame.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=aaaa&thread=1523&post=71925 Day 1, Reply 188. I'm sorry - I don't agree with this. If he keeps getting lynched for being unhelpful and doing stuff like that early - how exactly is it anyone's fault but his for refusing to learn from the repeated early lynches? Reading this just feels like an easy way to come back and do an "I told you so!" post. psychopathgame.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=aaaa&thread=1523&post=71940Another act I don't agree with - you don't agree with any of the cases at current, so you happily attach your name to a wagon on someone who, admittedly, wouldn't provide much information by dying early like that? I'm sorry, weren't you going on about how the town needs to acquire information? ...HEY you're right talkin' strategy day one is useful! ;D Uh - I stated a few times that I'd been both busy and haven't really had the time to post; and when I did sit down to post I had a bit of "Man writting this is taking forever is there something I can do that can keep my attention for more than 10 minutes at a time?" Also - Peeker is the only one of you who unvoted me because of the behemoth. Mr. Ed voted elsewhere I believe for other reasons - and I wasn't that well caught up with things. So that's just another thing you've taken out of context. And from how you're acting regarding it; I'd almost suggest you didn't read it. Also if I wished to fly under the radar, as you put it, I'd probably post more frequently and in more bite sized chunks. Nothing attracts attention like not posting at all. I think I am going to drop the numbering thing. I am happy with my vote, I think that's clear. As will I when I get around to it in ten, twenty minutes. As will I. Let's address something specific in your last post: Yeah, you know who typically thinks they are an easy lynch? Scum. Because they know they are guilty.[/quote] Actually, I'd assume I'd be an easy lynch as I'm, you know. New to the site. Haven't been posting much. Scum will still defend each other. They will do it under deniable plausibility. And the thing is with charr, his posts read in such a way as to not really say anything. And I will place money on Charr not flipping scum. The votes against him are as wrongheaded and nonsensical as the votes against Pleo were. Unusual is not the same as scummy. Someone with a different viewpoint is not automatically scum. Erratic behavior doesn't make for scum. In fact nine times out of ten it is a townie doing these things. I think you need to brush up on the word erratic. His posts have been, predictably, something alone the lines of "I'm just a newb!" and a foot in the mouth. There's content; However like you said I doubt most of you read it so they'll just have to take my word for it. Also, thanks to the insult to my intelligence. Really. Great. I'm not half as new to this game as you're trying to make me seem. [/b][/quote] All that and you don't vote for me? You all but say that you think Charr and I are scum buddies, and then you DON'T VOTE? The hell? Again, timidity like that in an otherwise aggressive posting strikes me as another indicator of your scummitude. I wish I could vote for you again right now just to emphasize my point. [/quote] Actually, I was waiting for you to respond. Shame you don't seem to think before you open your mouth. Pretty much all of what you just said was out of context, an insult, and implying I was breadcrumbing a claim. Vote: NAF
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 8:48:09 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Dec 10, 2010 8:48:09 GMT -5
It's either Charr or Storyteller for me. Both have behaved rather odd.
I'm inclined to believe Storyteller. I'm not sure why, but I believe his explanation is real. For the record, I currently believe the Mason claims, too.
Charr? Not so much. It's iffy at best.
Vote Charr
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 8:55:21 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 10, 2010 8:55:21 GMT -5
Yeah the thing about yesterday and me providing my thoughts on Night Zero - based on what I had read (and pretty much had time to read) Mr. Ed, Sache, and Pleo came off the worse to me; though to be honest most of my beef with Sache could probably be attributed to different thoughts on strategy and how one should handle talking at night. And to be further honest, those three were the big names that caught my attention night zero. And yes, two of them did flip town. I'm wrong; it happens. I don't claim to be an all knowing seer who knows who the mafia are just like that; I need time to be able to sit down and read everything and unfortunately so far I haven't had that time(Look below). Plus how is it exactly under the radar when I posted that behemoth yesterday? If nothing else it'll draw attention to the name of the person who posted it. <snip> I'm not saying that you had to be right in your initial assumptions about Ed, Sach and Pleo. What I was asking is how your perception of the game has changed now that you know two of them are town. Does that make you also rethink your position on Ed? Do you have any comments about Day One? Yeah, I'll be honest. Part of me viewed Ed and Pleo as scum together; I'd have to reread, but my initial read of things gave me a feeling that Ed and Pleo were working towards the same purpose attacking a statement that I personally would never have read as scummy. Overall, going over day one What I can say is that the counter wagon on Rysto strikes me as odd. I think that was setup that so either one of Rysto or Pleo would end up getting lynched. Based on that train of thought I honestly don't think Rysto is scum at the moment. I am also willing to rethink my opinion of Maha (earlier I was too convinced of Ed and Pleo to think him scum of any sort). His unvote a bit before deadline (after taking pleo's explanation after calling him out for it all day), and then finds a convenient excuse to hop off the wagon and onto Charr. "But I thought you said scum would try to defend each other???" Yeah. I believe that. Except I think they'll do it only if they have to - Charr wasn't in any danger of being lynched at the time, and It was a safe vote switch. Was it planned? Who knows. But it certainly provided an out. Part of it I think probably has to do with the length of the post and the various other threads that were going on at the time I posted it - honestly reading back most of what was said in that post wasn't exactly up to date so meh - I truly did stick my opinions to that post based off of what I read though. That and posting is one of those "ugh" things for me. I don't usually take particularly kindly to forums because my attention tends to wane before I finish the post or someone else says what I'm thinking - and usually I don't like repeating what other people said.
|
|