|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 9:14:24 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 10, 2010 9:14:24 GMT -5
And by setup, I of course, mean setup by scum. I doubt scum'd put all there eggs in one lynch basket for the obvious reason that if a pattern emerges (read: OH HEY 3 OUT OF THE FIVE PLEO VOTERS FLIPPED SCUM. Golly Gee I wonder if we should lynch the rest!)
I am also coming into the thought that scum had potential to spread their votes out across several people; when you consider how split the vote was day one it was probably easy for several of them to slip their votes on smaller wagons that weren't going anywhere - easy way to vote without really doing anything with your vote.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 10:22:31 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 10, 2010 10:22:31 GMT -5
sheebus. first, let's get this out of the way. i nominate paranoia for the tolstoy/king award for this game. ulz you are a close second, btw.
and i must have missed it on first read but after the missive from paranoia i realized i hadn't addressed your question NAF. my point about breadcrumbing was kind of two sided. first, i am about the densest rock in the quarry because i never pick up on them. second, as scum i, at times, wil go out of my way planting some sort of stuff in my posts that will give me wiggle room should the storm head my way. and a lot of time it ends up just being inadvertant.
i mean some of you folks are pretty clever (take the second letter of the third paragraph of my prime numbered posts and you will see clearly that i am *insert*). never could figure that stuff out.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 10:35:27 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 10, 2010 10:35:27 GMT -5
neta: so for me i will breadcrumb deliberately as scum, will claim to have breadcrumbed as scum if i can figure out some b.s. and typicall don't do squat as town. at least not on purpose. i mean you folks are pretty durn smart so anything that can be picked up on by town will likely be picked up by scum. and if you make it so hard to decipher that no one could have a reasonable chance of figuring it out what is the fracking point? at that point it just becomes self serving mumbo jumbo. and scum typically lean to the self serving point of view more often than town.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 10:53:43 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 10, 2010 10:53:43 GMT -5
Paranoia, what do you thnk of Ed now?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 11:04:29 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 10, 2010 11:04:29 GMT -5
Vote Count
paranoia (3): naf1138 [23], suburban plankton [100], metallicsquink [108]
storyteller (2): peekercpa [115], catinasuit [124]
charr (2): mr blockey [27-140], billmc [31], mahaloth [178]
rysto (1): hockey monkey [101]
total ullz (1): texcat [16]
mahaloth (1): guiri [109]
hockey monkey (1): renata [160]
catinasuit (1): cookies [169]
metallic squink (1): total ullz [176]
naf1138 (1): paranoia [177]
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 11:04:30 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Dec 10, 2010 11:04:30 GMT -5
Unvote: Total and welcome back! I'm going to have to do some re-reading and studying before I revote this evening, I hope. Paranoia, what do you thnk of Ed now? Where has Ed gone? He's done nothing but fluff toDay and most of that was early in the Day.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 11:10:41 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 10, 2010 11:10:41 GMT -5
I'm going to leave out all the quotes so that this response isn't too long. The Assumption Debacle<snip> 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. <snip> <snip> 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. <snip> 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. <snip> <snip> 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. <snip> Firstly, I did not use his defensiveness as a reason to push the conversation. I was simply making an observation on his initial reaction (which I explained) and yes, I did say that as a scum, he could have more reason to be defensive. But note that I did not say that his defensiveness makes him scum (if so, I would have voted for him). I do feel like the conversation went a bit too long but in the end, I think it was a good way to generate discussion. I didn't vote for brewha because in the end, as I said, I think his comment and the resulting conversation is a null tell. Sometimes you have to actually have those conversations before making a vote (or not). What you see as me "trying to push a case" is me just trying to figure out if a need to push a case. As for smudge, I've had this conversation in other games and I just don't get the use of that term. With the exception of myself, peeker and BillMc, I am suspicious of every other player still alive - that's the nature of the game. What you are calling a "smudge" I call "asking questions and making comments to see if someone reacts in a scummy way."
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 11:21:13 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 10, 2010 11:21:13 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? I don't know about texcat, but I was -- what's the point of calling out a suspicious behavior without any names? Other than to make yourself look useful, that is. That said, I like your case against Metallic Squink well enough, I only want to know why you went with Squink over HM given that I see it the other way around.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 11:35:59 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 10, 2010 11:35:59 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. I can get jiggy wit this Vote: Metallic Squink PS, here I am.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 11:41:54 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 10, 2010 11:41:54 GMT -5
neta: so for me i will breadcrumb deliberately as scum, will claim to have breadcrumbed as scum if i can figure out some b.s. and typicall don't do squat as town. at least not on purpose. i mean you folks are pretty durn smart so anything that can be picked up on by town will likely be picked up by scum. and if you make it so hard to decipher that no one could have a reasonable chance of figuring it out what is the fracking point? at that point it just becomes self serving mumbo jumbo. and scum typically lean to the self serving point of view more often than town. Breadcrumbing can be useful. I forget which game it was, but Kat was a mason and had breadcrumbed the names of the other masons that went undetected, until pointed out by a remaining mason, thereby confirming them after her death.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 11:45:37 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 10, 2010 11:45:37 GMT -5
And really, Renata? How am I being opportunistic in explaining what I was thinking when I asked the initial question? Not opportunistic for that; opportunistic for jumping on what is IMO a non-tell right after someone else has done the same, and for taking it in a smudgier direction than she did (and more pointedly). Are you trying to find scum or are you trying not to be hypocritical? I could see justification for a townie you to either vote a lurker or not vote a lurker under the circumstances, but the way you poked at the issue without actually going anywhere just looks like hanging a lampshade on your own lurkish behavior, hence the head-asplodey. Self-conscious. Noted.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 11:46:04 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 10, 2010 11:46:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 11:48:36 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 10, 2010 11:48:36 GMT -5
Unvote: Total and welcome back! I'm going to have to do some re-reading and studying before I revote this evening, I hope. Paranoia, what do you thnk of Ed now? Where has Ed gone? He's done nothing but fluff toDay and most of that was early in the Day. Yeah, I know. I'm wondering if I shouldn't go back to my vote from yesterday, hence the question.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 11:49:08 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 10, 2010 11:49:08 GMT -5
Oh, there is. Hi Ed!
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 11:54:57 GMT -5
Post by brewha on Dec 10, 2010 11:54:57 GMT -5
Total Ullz, thanks for putting that conversation together. When you read it all back to back, it really looks kinda silly. I was leaning more towards a Hockey Monkey vote based on her determination to assure me that I had jumped to conclusions that I didn't. But, Metallicsquink's persistence really stands out.
I've been on the fence about voting for either of them since I feared it'd be labeled as an OMGUS vote. Or would they have to vote for me first?
I'll be out of town and away from internet access til Sun. I won't be able to address anything further til then.
Vote Metallicsquink
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 11:58:04 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 10, 2010 11:58:04 GMT -5
I haven't been around here as much as usual, but I do have several excuses reasons:
1. I have been making more of an effort to post less especially early in the game when I don't have more than a hunch about things. In part, I've come to the realization that more often than not, early in the game, I've only caused distractions with my more consistent posting. 2. I was very caught up in the Day that recently ended in the GiraffeBoards game. 3. I've got a lot of grading to do as the semester is coming to an end. 4. I've been a bit under the weather. 5. I've learned from my students to always have more than one excuse reason in case one of them can be refudiated.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 11:59:39 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 10, 2010 11:59:39 GMT -5
Total Ullz, thanks for putting that conversation together. When you read it all back to back, it really looks kinda silly. I was leaning more towards a Hockey Monkey vote based on her determination to assure me that I had jumped to conclusions that I didn't. But, Metallicsquink's persistence really stands out. I've been on the fence about voting for either of them since I feared it'd be labeled as an OMGUS vote. Or would they have to vote for me first? I'll be out of town and away from internet access til Sun. I won't be able to address anything further til then. Vote Metallicsquink So, you didn't want to cast an OMGUS vote, but you're OK with a 3rd vote bandwagon jump as you leave for the Day?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 12:14:30 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 10, 2010 12:14:30 GMT -5
Breadcrumbing can be useful. I forget which game it was, but Kat was a mason and had breadcrumbed the names of the other masons that went undetected, until pointed out by a remaining mason, thereby confirming them after her death. i don't doubt that there are examples of its utility. the first game i ever played as scum i breadcrumbed that i was an investigator, fake claimed and came within a whisker of getting the real town investigator strung up. first game that scum went through without losing a single soul. and it was an all rookie scum team at that, with a combined total of three games prior experience.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 12:58:54 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 10, 2010 12:58:54 GMT -5
I'm just catching up on the last 3 or 4 pages of posts. I've read through everything once, but there are a few things that I need to go back and study in more detail. In the meantime, I have a few thoughts: I can totally understand brewha's increasing frustration regarding his comment. As I said earlier, all he was doing was stating out loud what many people were no doubt thinking to themselves. did he carefully consider all possibilities in his post? No, of course not. But there was no necessity to do that. He was making an observation and posing a question for general consideration. I see nothing 'telling' in brewha's post at all. I need to go back and reread the various posts to see if any of the cases against him stand out as Scummy. Regarding story's 'restriction', it seems that a large part of the case comes down to how we interpret the Posting Rule: I read that originally simply as meaning there are no subjects which are forbidden (PMs, for example), that scum can talk during the Day, etc. That may or may not preclude the existence of 'posting restrictions'. It does seem like storyteller has changed his story, but whether or not he had malicious intent, or was a victim of less-than-clear instructions, isn't clear yet. Hopefully a re-read will help there as well. Charr isn't helping his case. We've discussed his Day 1 vote enough already. So far, his Day 2 vote is based entirely on the argument "to save my own skin now. :/". It would be nice to have some analysis. Paranoia isn't doing much better. He came back with a post defending himself, which isn't so bad in and of itself. He then followed that up with a monster OMGUS post directed at NAF. And then two more posts where he continues to not really say a whole lot. One thing he did say, which bothers me, is this: 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. So you signed up to play a Mafia game on a discussion board, but posting is one of those "ugh" things for you, so you really don't like doing it. Your attention wanes, and you don't like repeating what other people say...this sounds like an excuse to hang around and continue not participating. I have a couple of things I need to reread more carefully, as I pointed out, but I'm happy with my vote where it is at the moment.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:07:57 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 10, 2010 13:07:57 GMT -5
Total Ullz, thanks for putting that conversation together. When you read it all back to back, it really looks kinda silly. I was leaning more towards a Hockey Monkey vote based on her determination to assure me that I had jumped to conclusions that I didn't. But, Metallicsquink's persistence really stands out. I've been on the fence about voting for either of them since I feared it'd be labeled as an OMGUS vote. Or would they have to vote for me first? I'll be out of town and away from internet access til Sun. I won't be able to address anything further til then. Vote Metallicsquink If you thought I was scummy, then you should have voted. But waiting for someone else to do it first makes you look scummy (ooohh!! a smudge!!!). Why are you afraid of an OMGUS vote? If the vote has merit, it doesn't really matter how it looks, right? unvote paranoia vote brewha
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:13:43 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 10, 2010 13:13:43 GMT -5
Well, kids, it looks like I have put myself in the lead and given the level of participation so far toDay and the low number of votes it took to lynch yesterDay and the fact that I will be gone all day tomorrow, I will be around most of today if you all feel I should claim.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:14:02 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 10, 2010 13:14:02 GMT -5
I can totally understand brewha's increasing frustration regarding his comment. As I said earlier, all he was doing was stating out loud what many people were no doubt thinking to themselves. did he carefully consider all possibilities in his post? No, of course not. But there was no necessity to do that. He was making an observation and posing a question for general consideration. I see nothing 'telling' in brewha's post at all. I need to go back and reread the various posts to see if any of the cases against him stand out as Scummy. <snipped> yaknow this is a pretty durn good point. obviously scum wouldn't do that blah blah blah. as scum they typically don't want to stand out or take any real outlandish positions but play in the middle of the pack. i mean i got what i think brewha intended to convey. same with maha. now maybe the phrasing was a little wonky but none the less the intent seemed to be clear to me (maybe that's why others are having issues with it). and as town i believe that we are much more likely to fire from the hip and not worry about the phrasing. as scum i might read a proposed one sentence reply for 15 minutes to figure out if there is any fracking way it could be considered scummy. both of those posts just sound more like town firing away than scummy "slips". now does that make either of them town. of course not. but i can't see building a case totally on them.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:15:44 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 10, 2010 13:15:44 GMT -5
no smudging there, Squink, that's appears to be a full-on accusation.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:17:29 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 10, 2010 13:17:29 GMT -5
no smudging there, Squink, that's appears to be a full-on accusation. I told you I don't understand that term!
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:23:36 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Dec 10, 2010 13:23:36 GMT -5
Well, kids, it looks like I have put myself in the lead and given the level of participation so far toDay and the low number of votes it took to lynch yesterDay and the fact that I will be gone all day tomorrow, I will be around most of today if you all feel I should claim. I need to formulate my thoughts on the splurge of posts in the last 48 hrs. But this one just gets my goat (or is that Ed's goat?) Anyway, the decision to claim is totally down to you. I really really hate "I'll claim if you think I should" defences. (hey scum, will you all please claim your true roles? pretty please? was worth a try - not!)
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:30:10 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 10, 2010 13:30:10 GMT -5
Storyteller from toDay. Bolding and underlining mine. Bah. Couldn't get onto the site since Sunday. Bah!
Also, Bah on mhaye, bah on Pleonast, and bah, a thousand times bah, on shoes.
That about covers it. More to come. The phrase indicating a post restriction without mentioning the post restriction. Sorry for the vagueness - I was posting from my phone, and further trying to be all clever and stuff. In plain terms:
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. Story asserts repeatedly that he has a post restriction. The word "description" in #3 above should be "restriction."
1. I have a post restriction.
2. Posting There are no post restrictions at Day. As long as you are alive, you may post whatever you like. You may quote your role PM, and any PM sent to you by the moderators. You may discuss strategy by Day but not at Night. If you have access to outside boards, you may post to them on any subject by Day or by Night. Does your post restriction only apply at Night?
Actually, it applies only by Day. But I have just received clarification. The original response (to my question of whether this constitued a post restriction or something else) was:
The follow-up, which just arrived, was this:
So there you go.Now it is another form of restriction, yet Story doesn't indicate what exactly is restricted.
@ peeker and Sister Coyote: If story is not town, what would he have to gain by lying about a posting restriction?
Well, nothing, obviously... but with this group, that argument is a nonstarter. I think sometimes we have these truisms that start out as useful observations and wind up overwhemling good sense and being used in a more universal way than they ought. Somewhere down the line, someone pointed out that "Scum wouldn't do that" is a bad argument, because Scum can and will do nearly anything. But somewhere along the line that morphed into "don't bother worrying about motivation, just pick a random behavior and call it Scummy because since Scum will do anything, anything can be considered Scummy." We saw it with Pleonast yesterDay and again with me and with Charr toDay.
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.
Now I want to look at: (1) the lynch of Pleonast; and (2) the case against Charr, which strikes me as not particularly overwhelming at first glance, but we shall see.
More to come.
Story admits to having been wrong, but responds that "Why would a non-Town Story do that?" is a good question to be asking. I admit, there is no readily apparent reason why a non-Town storyteller would. But why on earth would a Town storyteller do that either?
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?
OK, this one isn't as interesting to me, but it's here only for completeness sake.
I am highly suspicious of these actions. I'd like story to expand on his reasoning. He's obviously hiding something and I believe he was intentionally misleading in how he was going about doing so.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:32:46 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 10, 2010 13:32:46 GMT -5
Well, kids, it looks like I have put myself in the lead and given the level of participation so far toDay and the low number of votes it took to lynch yesterDay and the fact that I will be gone all day tomorrow, I will be around most of today if you all feel I should claim. I need to formulate my thoughts on the splurge of posts in the last 48 hrs. But this one just gets my goat (or is that Ed's goat?) Anyway, the decision to claim is totally down to you. I really really hate "I'll claim if you think I should" defences. (hey scum, will you all please claim your true roles? pretty please? was worth a try - not!) I can either claim vanilla (and reduce the pool of unknowns for scum which is what got Pleo lynched yesterDay) or claim town power which will likely get me killed toNight. I would think this warrants some input from others even though I do agree that ultimately it is up to me to claim or not.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:39:07 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 10, 2010 13:39:07 GMT -5
I need to formulate my thoughts on the splurge of posts in the last 48 hrs. But this one just gets my goat (or is that Ed's goat?) Anyway, the decision to claim is totally down to you. I really really hate "I'll claim if you think I should" defences. (hey scum, will you all please claim your true roles? pretty please? was worth a try - not!) I can either claim vanilla (and reduce the pool of unknowns for scum which is what got Pleo lynched yesterDay) or claim town power which will likely get me killed toNight. I would think this warrants some input from others even though I do agree that ultimately it is up to me to claim or not. you have a choice of claims to make? hehehe
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:42:57 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 10, 2010 13:42:57 GMT -5
I can either claim vanilla (and reduce the pool of unknowns for scum which is what got Pleo lynched yesterDay) or claim town power which will likely get me killed toNight. I would think this warrants some input from others even though I do agree that ultimately it is up to me to claim or not. Wait...what?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:48:28 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 10, 2010 13:48:28 GMT -5
Also Paranoia. I promise I will respond to your very long post in response to my very long post...but I can't right now. I do want to say that liked the inclusion of visual aids. Made me laugh.
|
|