|
Post by bufftabby on Jan 3, 2011 19:34:11 GMT -5
Everyone gathers once again for breakfast, no longer harboring the secret hope that the Night might’ve passed without bloodshed. A quick look around the table shows that several companions are missing. You all head toward the sleeping quarters, hoping to discover that some of the missing have merely overslept. Most doors are open, the occupants either long gone from this place, or engaged in searching for the missing. Eventually you come upon a closed door, and slowly open it, hesitant to reveal what might be behind it. Lying on the bed is merely a large pile of gold-colored coins. You breathe a sigh of relief, pocket a few coins, and continue on your search. After you and your companions have searched all of the rooms, waking some lackabouts in the process, you realize that one person is still missing, and you think back to the pile of coins. You lead your companions back to the room, wishing you had taken more of the gold when you had a chance. When everyone sees the coins in the room, thoughts turn from who might be missing to the pile of coins, and everyone begins to fill their pockets. As the last few golden coins are snatched from the bed, you notice a card lying underneath: The Ace of Pentacles. As you mutter its name aloud, your pockets instantly become far lighter, as do everyone else’s, as evidenced by the gasps of horror around the room. You finally realize whose room you entered, and who is missing: Suburban Plankton, vanilla Town, has been killed.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 3, 2011 19:35:04 GMT -5
Blast and damn.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 3, 2011 20:27:33 GMT -5
Well that sucks.
Go Town!
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 3, 2011 20:30:42 GMT -5
isn't it about time that we lynched story?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 3, 2011 20:32:26 GMT -5
any possibility of a current roster list?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 3, 2011 20:33:27 GMT -5
any possibility of a current roster list? fug this. edited on reply.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 3, 2011 20:40:59 GMT -5
Phuk!
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 3, 2011 22:13:51 GMT -5
elokwent
|
|
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:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 4, 2011 6:07:48 GMT -5
Well I guess can't expect to see a dead Scum every Night.
I'm still not quite sold on the case against Story. But with Christmas and New Year my mind has kind of wondered off and so I'd like to read a bit before jumping in with both feet.
Last thing I remember reading and wanted to comment on was the deal with Charr and NAF. While I agree that some players when being Scum will help other members of their team I also believe that if Charr was on a separate Scumboard he'd be coached a lot better. I smell newbie rather than scum in this case.
|
|
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:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 4, 2011 7:29:03 GMT -5
Alive: I. total ullz II. cookies IV. sistercoyote VI. peeker VII. hockey monkey VIII. texcat IX. paranoia XI. renata XII. storyteller XVII. guiri XVIII. brewha XX. mister blockey XXI. crazypunker XXII. catinasuit XXIII. char XXV. metallic squink XXVI. special ed
Dead: XIX. sachertorte - Tracker V. pleonast - vanilla XIV. mhaye - Mason XV. mahaloth - Scum Roleblocker XXIV. rysto - third party survivor XIII. Inner Stickler - vanilla III. billmc - Mason XVI. naf1138 - Scum Godfather X. suburban plankton - vanilla
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 4, 2011 9:57:03 GMT -5
oh, and do what you will. but if we have an investigator you should have four down by now. and so sad to say for the folks that don't like me confirmed as town but unless you have been dicking around with dead folks you might want to consider what in the heck you know. with 17 left and only two deaths per cycle, except for the NAF death this mf is going to go 5 more cycles at the outlier (assuming 5 scum). shoot if my math is correct it's more like 6 (assuming 4). and if there were 6 scum to start all the more reason to start narrowing down the unconfirmeds. and i don't know how in the world NAF died but if town has a vig all the more reason to narrow the pool and let them shoot. even if it was pfk then shit let them start doing some lifting.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 4, 2011 10:00:42 GMT -5
and just to get the party started.
vote charr
the end of Day poor poor pitiful me card doesn't sit well. i could easily get down with a story lynch, however.
|
|
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:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 4, 2011 10:31:04 GMT -5
oh, and do what you will. but if we have an investigator you should have four down by now. and so sad to say for the folks that don't like me confirmed as town but unless you have been dicking around with dead folks you might want to consider what in the heck you know. with 17 left and only two deaths per cycle, except for the NAF death this mf is going to go 5 more cycles at the outlier (assuming 5 scum). shoot if my math is correct it's more like 6 (assuming 4). and if there were 6 scum to start all the more reason to start narrowing down the unconfirmeds. and i don't know how in the world NAF died but if town has a vig all the more reason to narrow the pool and let them shoot. even if it was pfk then shit let them start doing some lifting. I agree. With the exception that the Scum Roleblocker might have blocked our Cop before he (Mahaloth) was lynched. But if the information can result in us either lynching scum or get enough confirmed to make a mass claim possible then it's time to speak up. Especially given that the gf is dead and we should be able to trust the results 100%.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 4, 2011 11:01:26 GMT -5
uh oh. ulla and i agree on something other than goats. hey, ed you want to chime in?
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 4, 2011 11:19:45 GMT -5
<font style="font-size: 12px;">and just to get the party started. vote charrthe end of Day poor poor pitiful me card doesn't sit well. i could easily get down with a story lynch, however. (Bleached for the mod) I'm inclined to agree with Ulla (stop the world, I want to get off) that charr's behavior seems less like Scum and more like new player to me, but I could be wrong. However...for this dumb animal, would you mind reiterating your case against Story?
|
|
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:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 4, 2011 11:36:58 GMT -5
I feel so loved right now
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 4, 2011 16:05:27 GMT -5
ok, sis the whole post restriction. oh no wait a minute it's not a post restriction it's something else. oh yeh it's a vote restriction, that's what i meant. but i can't tell you about it except that i am telling you about it. but that's as specific as i can be. because if i were to give more information then *cue ominous music* something will happen. and you just have to trust me that it will not be good for town.
the only thing that makes me wonder is that it seems so sloppy coming from story. more like something i would come up with. but i am certain that he has bad hair days every now and then.
and regarding char. sure it could just be overwhelmed noob syndrome. but crud, if you are at a pool party sooner or later you need to jump in and get wet. otherwise head to the bowling alley.
the other person that has pinged me a touch is hockey. she sure seemed to jump on char real quick yesterDay after i gave her a ration of stuff. i mean following a mason around on a potential innocent is a pretty safe durn play for scum to make.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 4, 2011 17:29:15 GMT -5
See, Hockey's the one I'm most suspicious of, but it's more a gut feeling than anything I have "evidence" for. I don't really trust her claim of survivor-as-long-as-you-kill-the-other-survivor, for one thing, though I've seen (and written!) strange roles.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 4, 2011 17:39:31 GMT -5
ok, sis the whole post restriction. oh no wait a minute it's not a post restriction it's something else. oh yeh it's a vote restriction, that's what i meant. but i can't tell you about it except that i am telling you about it. but that's as specific as i can be. because if i were to give more information then *cue ominous music* something will happen. and you just have to trust me that it will not be good for town. the only thing that makes me wonder is that it seems so sloppy coming from story. more like something i would come up with. but i am certain that he has bad hair days every now and then. and regarding char. sure it could just be overwhelmed noob syndrome. but crud, if you are at a pool party sooner or later you need to jump in and get wet. otherwise head to the bowling alley. the other person that has pinged me a touch is hockey. she sure seemed to jump on char real quick yesterDay after i gave her a ration of stuff. i mean following a mason around on a potential innocent is a pretty safe durn play for scum to make. What are you talking about? I am very frustrated with Charr, but my vote was for crazypunker Sister Coyote: I don't really have any defense for your suspicion. My role is my role.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 4, 2011 18:41:02 GMT -5
Well, that's the problem with gut feelings; I can't tell you what's setting my whiskers a-twitching, so you can't contradict me. I freely admit this, and it's why I'm not voting for you just yet.
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Jan 4, 2011 18:57:08 GMT -5
Vote Count
charr (1): peekercpa [11]
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 4, 2011 20:43:20 GMT -5
Vote: Storyteller
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 4, 2011 20:44:02 GMT -5
A review, mostly to get my own head back in the game after the holidays. Adding claims to Total's alive list:
Alive: I. total ullz II. cookies IV. sistercoyote VI. peeker -- claimed mason VII. hockey monkey -- claimed 3rd party VIII. texcat IX. paranoia XI. renata XII. storyteller -- claimed non-voter? XVII. guiri XVIII. brewha XX. mister blockey XXI. crazypunker -- claimed scotsman (and survived a lynch) XXII. catinasuit XXIII. char XXV. metallic squink -- claimed roleblocker XXVI. special ed
Have I missed any of the claims? And dead town so far we have: Sacher, town tracker BillMc and MHaye, town masons Inner, Pleo, and Suburban, town vanilla
Out of the 16 unknowns (I am counting only peeker as known), we are likely to have 3 or 4 scum? Since NAF was a godfather, it's reasonable to think that we have an investigator other than Sachertorte, the tracker. And we have someone capable of killing NAF at night, though only 1 extra death in five nights. Sure seems like we don't know a lot more than we know.
Suburb was our first non-major card holder and was vanilla, but I still don't think that means anything.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 4, 2011 21:00:31 GMT -5
ok, sis the whole post restriction. oh no wait a minute it's not a post restriction it's something else. oh yeh it's a vote restriction, that's what i meant. but i can't tell you about it except that i am telling you about it. but that's as specific as i can be. because if i were to give more information then *cue ominous music* something will happen. and you just have to trust me that it will not be good for town. the only thing that makes me wonder is that it seems so sloppy coming from story. more like something i would come up with. but i am certain that he has bad hair days every now and then. and regarding char. sure it could just be overwhelmed noob syndrome. but crud, if you are at a pool party sooner or later you need to jump in and get wet. otherwise head to the bowling alley. the other person that has pinged me a touch is hockey. she sure seemed to jump on char real quick yesterDay after i gave her a ration of stuff. i mean following a mason around on a potential innocent is a pretty safe durn play for scum to make. Here's a hypothetical for you, Peeker. If a role was given with the caveat of "You cannot post in blue font" and the rules specifically state that votes need to be in blue font in order to be counted, would you consider it a posting restriction or a voting restriction or both? I have no idea what Story's alleged restriction actually is, if it exists at all, but until he does or says something other than describe his role in ways that some of us don't seem to like, I'm not inclined to vote for him just based on the circumstances surrounding his role. We've all seen roles that require clarification. We've all seen people be confused by a role. We've all seen innocents lynched over that confusion. At the same time, I hope Story is considering dumping out the rest of his magic bag before he gets lynched for holding it.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 4, 2011 21:25:02 GMT -5
Votes by the living: I. total ullz: no vote, hockey monkey, crazypunker, inner stickler II. cookies: pleonast, catinasuit, crazypunker, inner stickler IV. sistercoyote: mahaloth, mahaloth, no vote, inner stickler VI. peeker: pleonast, storyteller, charr, charr VII. hockey monkey: rysto, rysto, crazypunker, crazypunker VIII. texcat: special ed, mahaloth, crazypunker, inner stickler IX. paranoia: no vote, naf1138, suburban plankton, charr XI. renata: special ed, hockey monkey, crazypunker, inner stickler XII. storyteller: no votes XVII. guiri: mahaloth, mahaloth, catinasuit, inner stickler XVIII. brewha: pleonast, metallic squink, crazypunker, crazypunker XX. mister blockey: no vote, mahaloth, no vote, inner stickler XXI. crazypunker: no vote, hockey monkey, inner stickler, inner stickler XXII. catinasuit: rysto, storyteller, storyteller, crazypunker XXIII. Charr: rysto, paranoia, crazypunker, no vote XXV. metallic squink: pleonast, brewha, paranoia, no vote XXVI. special ed: texcat, storyteller, storyteller, inner stickler
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 4, 2011 21:25:13 GMT -5
ok, sis the whole post restriction. oh no wait a minute it's not a post restriction it's something else. oh yeh it's a vote restriction, that's what i meant. but i can't tell you about it except that i am telling you about it. but that's as specific as i can be. because if i were to give more information then *cue ominous music* something will happen. and you just have to trust me that it will not be good for town. the only thing that makes me wonder is that it seems so sloppy coming from story. more like something i would come up with. but i am certain that he has bad hair days every now and then. and regarding char. sure it could just be overwhelmed noob syndrome. but crud, if you are at a pool party sooner or later you need to jump in and get wet. otherwise head to the bowling alley. the other person that has pinged me a touch is hockey. she sure seemed to jump on char real quick yesterDay after i gave her a ration of stuff. i mean following a mason around on a potential innocent is a pretty safe durn play for scum to make. Here's a hypothetical for you, Peeker. If a role was given with the caveat of "You cannot post in blue font" and the rules specifically state that votes need to be in blue font in order to be counted, would you consider it a posting restriction or a voting restriction or both? I have no idea what Story's alleged restriction actually is, if it exists at all, but until he does or says something other than describe his role in ways that some of us don't seem to like, I'm not inclined to vote for him just based on the circumstances surrounding his role. We've all seen roles that require clarification. We've all seen people be confused by a role. We've all seen innocents lynched over that confusion. At the same time, I hope Story is considering dumping out the rest of his magic bag before he gets lynched for holding it. so, he could tell us that he hated shoes, but he couldn't drop any hints at not being able to be blue?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 4, 2011 23:37:19 GMT -5
Perhaps you need to read my post again, wherein I offer those specifics as part of a hypothetical and then explicitly state that I have no idea what his restriction actually is, if it exists.
The case against him seems to boil down to one thing: It has to be a "scum would never do that" gambit where he comes out of the gate sloppily claiming some sort of restriction that prevents him from voting. There is no way that a Town player could possibly be so confused by their role as to post what Story has posted, how and when he has posted it.
And that just isn't enough for me to lynch him.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 4, 2011 23:38:52 GMT -5
One post on my situation, and only one; then I'm moving on to other things. The jumping off point is Ed's post, right above. So, he could tell us that he hated shoes, but he couldn't drop any hints at not being able to be blue? Sure, I could. I NEVER said that I wasn't allowed to tell. But what would it gain you (hypothesizing that you are Town)? What would it gain any Town player? Other than satisfying that niggling need to know a thing just because it's presently unknown? Look, it's pretty obvious by now that I am (mostly) unable to vote. I didn't want to reveal this up front. Surely it is clear why. I am a huge liability. If I am lynched, then it's a mislynch and moves Town closer to losing. If I am never lynched, then consider how my existence affects the endgame. Kind of problematic, right? Now I've addressed the terminology mixup regarding "post" versus "vote" restriction, and really, I don't think my interpretation that an inability to post a vote constitutes a post restriction is all that radical. It just didn't match the moderator's interpretation, and she mis-spoke in her first reply to me. I think the idea that this is somehow an impossible development is remarkably disingenuous for anyone who has played this game more than never; I mis-spoke at least 20 times during Evil Dead 2, and I'd venture to say every other moderator has, as well. So what's left? The question, still open, of whether I am ever able to vote, and if so, under what circumstances. It is this that I am being modestly pressured to reveal. Now, here's the thing. I will reveal, if I am to be lynched, whether or not it will save me. I'm not going down holding secrets of any kind. But look: ask yourself this: why do you want to know? What will it gain you? Here's a list: 1. I can't vote at all, ever. 2. I can vote, but only if mine is the fifth vote on a player. 3. I can vote, but only if every other player has voted first. 4. I can vote, but only on Day Five and beyond. 5. I can vote, but I have a power that is lost if I do. 6. I can only vote for players who have undergone circumcisions. 7. I can only vote for players who have not undergone circumcisions. 8. I can vote, but only for a player who is currently voting for me. 9. I can vote, but only for a player who is NOT currently voting for me. 10. I can vote, but only if it is the last day of the Day and I am the current lynch leader. 11. I can vote, but only if I receive no votes during the Day in question. Other than obviously 6 and 7, what difference does it make to any Townie which it is? If I claim #10, will that really affect your opinion of the likelihood of my claim versus #1 or #8? The details of the restriction will not change anyone's mind. Those who have already decided I'm lying cannot have their minds changed, because they made the decision without evidence and thus can't be affected by additional evidence. But of course, it does make a difference to the Scum. Should they kill me because a player with a restriction very well might have something more? Should they try to get me mislynched because my restriction has made me vulnerable? Should they actively try to keep me alive because I'll be a liability at endgame? They don't know, because they don't know my restriction. If I tell what it is, they can answer these questions... but no Town player will benefit at all, in any way. Which is why I don't want to tell. There's nothing vague about it, no "some bad thing will happen." The specific bad thing that will happen if I reveal the full nature of my restriction is that the Scum will have everything they need to maximize the negative impact of that restriction on the Town, with no corresponding Town benefit. And anyway, this whole thing is a non-sequitor. "Claiming a post restriction" is a lazy excuse for a Scum tell. "I want to know something just because and he won't tell me" is a lazy excuse for an argument. But the biggest fallacy is this: Arguing that a thing is possible is not the same as arguing that it's likely. It is not enough to argue that it is possible that I am lying about my post restriction. OF COURSE it's possible. As the game begins, it's possible that any given player is Scum, but that is not sufficient evidence to lynch any given player. We have to look for reasons that turn "possible" into "probable," or at least "more likely than random chance." It is possible that I am lying about this restriction, but so far no one has suggested a single reason why it is more likely that I'm lying than that I'm telling the truth. It's a bankrupt case. --- And thus, with this post, I'm basically done with it. I'll respond to any new points, should any be made, but I've contributed far too little value to this game beyond talking about myself and I'm bound and determined to change that. Starting tomorrow :-)
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 5, 2011 7:55:31 GMT -5
I'll still go with the hypothesis that you just slipped up and are doing a very quickly designed dance to try to save your skin.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 5, 2011 9:10:14 GMT -5
I'll still go with the hypothesis that you just slipped up and are doing a very quickly designed dance to try to save your skin. OK. That's your hypothesis. Great. You've made that very clear. Do you acknowledge that other possibilities exist? That it is possible that I am simply telling the truth? If you acknowledge that possibility, then on what basis do you consider it more likely that I am lying than that I am telling the truth? See, calling a wild-ass guess a "hypothesis" doesn't make it useful analysis. Of course, you're very likely Scum, so you know all this already.
|
|