|
Post by LightFoot on Mar 31, 2011 14:43:31 GMT -5
Now that I have said something more substantial let the rocks be thrown. I love it first I am too fluffy and now I’m the anti-Town @ renata I will cut/paste with quotes and Italics “Inaccurate (wasn't random) and misses the point of *why* Romanic might be seen as suspicious. "Not beneficial to TOWN" isn't it. That's the scummy way of putting it.”
Using the players list in order isn’t random? Having everyone send out snacks that we don’t know for sure what their purpose is? Since I don’t know “the scummy way” I will leave that call to YOU.
” What do you see as the flaw, then? Given that's not "flinging them about at random"? “ See above
” I see nothing to suggest third party. Ed's behavior would be risky for scum (Mental Guy aside for the moment); it would be INSANE for a third party with nothing remotely resembling backup. I flat out do not believe this is plausible. But scum do love to call out bad townies (or weird townies) as potential third parties. God knows I've done it enough myself even if most of those instances never make it to the public thread. I think it's a psychological thing.”
Did you read the same things I did from Ed ? he stated himself at one time that he was ‘bad for town” and could be used by SCUM. If I used a term that tripped a trigger pardon.
” Really? The players not mentioned (save the easy ones, Ed and Mental Guy) have done a large fraction of the talking thus far and/or have attracted a large fraction of the votes. Me, Archangel, Paranoia, nothing to say about any of us? Storyteller, maybe? Guiri?
This is an incredibly avoidant/ingratiating post. Every single suspect is named for really easy, no-thought-required (or just wrong) reasons. No one who has a vote or has been involved in controversy to date is mentioned (except in a probable town/third party context, which as mentioned is easy for scum). “
Exactly what I said The players not mentioned by me could be either. In MY Opinion. (I have one too) I calls’em as I sees’em. The players that others are calling out/ voting for are getting the attention. Perhaps I see something that should be considered in some of the others?
BTW the last time I got a lashing like this it was by a very convincing SCUM (You do seem to know alot about SCUM thanks for the education)
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 31, 2011 15:30:35 GMT -5
MetalGuy seems sincere and in my eyes TOWN which adds credence to Ed ’s claims Although Ed comes across as a possibly counter-productive neutral to TOWN (albeit a small threat in my eyes at this time) /snip I see nothing to suggest third party. Where does Lightfoot (yeemumakaren?) suggest that Special Ed is 3rd party? Is it the "neutral to TOWN" as opposed to "neutral-to-TOWN" or something else?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Mar 31, 2011 15:33:25 GMT -5
/snip I see nothing to suggest third party. Where does Lightfoot (yeemumakaren?) suggest that Special Ed is 3rd party? Is it the "neutral to TOWN" as opposed to "neutral-to-TOWN" or something else? I had the same question on reading Renata's post. I don't see "third party" mentioned anywhere by Lightfoot. But then LightFoot responded to Renata and didn't herself point out that fact. I am now confused.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 31, 2011 15:50:00 GMT -5
@ Guiri: "neutral to town", plus the "small threat at this time" combined read as Lightfoot saying there was a chance Ed was a third party.
@ Lightfoot: Romanic suggested that each player on the list pass one scooby snack to the next player on the list (and then back around to the top), on the theory that the mafia would not have scooby snacks and therefore not be able to comply. I don't like his suggestion (it's gamebreaking if it works and pointless if it doesn't, hence you have to ask why he bothered to bring it up.) But it's not random. If it worked as suggested, it would expose all the scum. If it didn't (everybody was able to pass a scooby snack to the next person), it would wind up with the same result at the end as there was at the beginning. No net change, nothing gained or risked for anyone. But you characterize it as "flinging around", as if it were going to risk winding up with the scum having all the scooby snacks or something. That's not the case.
The context of Ed's saying he was bad for town seems quite obvious and does not suggest that he is not actually town -- if in fact you did not mean to imply "third party" by your wording, say what you did mean, and I'll retract that point.
The bit at the end is nice (at least it's not ingratiating, eh?) Would be better with a vote, though.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Mar 31, 2011 16:08:01 GMT -5
@ Guiri: "neutral to town", plus the "small threat at this time" combined read as Lightfoot saying there was a chance Ed was a third party. At this point I'm not even sure what "third party" means to you.........off to the WiKi I don't recall reading ONE AT A TIME and I don't know if getting a SSnack gives SCUM an advantage even if they give one away. See above and others have questioned Ed's "TOWNness" as well My knee jerk reaction was an OMGUS vote for you, but since I don't like to appear fickle and change my vote a bunch I reserved my vote until I see a current vote count and/or we are down near the end. (more an attempt to make my vote count than start pointing fingers) I will continue to share MY thoughts
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Mar 31, 2011 16:28:08 GMT -5
Sorry not to have a vote in place, but it's past my bedtime. I promise to ponder first thing tomorrow.
Hoping to be of some use, here's a vote summary including rescinded votes. Sorry for any errors.
Captain Pinkies (0) ==> Special Ed [49-169] Mr. Special Ed (2) ==> Suburban Plankton [92], MentalGuy [147-194], Joanie [156], Special Ed[169-248], archangel[217-252], Renata[225-245], Captain Pinkies[227-256] Paranoia (1) ==> Renata[94-195,200-225], guiri[272] MentalGuy (0) ==> Renata[195-200] archangel (3) ==> Renata [245-355], MentalGuy[319], BillMc[331], FCOD[349] Renata (0) ==> archangel[252-358] Lightfoot (1) ==> Renata[355]
Questions: 1. I find it odd that MentalGuy revealed he had a special power so readily. Other opinions? 2. I don't see the flaw in the "prove everyone has one" Snack exchange program. If a bad guy keeps a Snack, we Lynch him. (But I'm not advocating the plan: it might just be a big distraction, and Julie's probably given Snacks to Scum if only to guard against such a plan.) 3. Renata has cast 6 votes today. Does she have some special WinCon that requires lots of voting? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 31, 2011 16:56:15 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm supposed to cast as many votes as everyone else combined. I'm running out of excuses though.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 31, 2011 17:04:15 GMT -5
I dislike having a one-off vote on someone who hasn't participated for almost 4 days but it's just Day 1! Anyone want to join me in voting Paranoia? I'm equally willing to switch to Mahaloth, who's done nothing this game, or Inner Stickler who's maintaining an appearance of participation: #16 Confirms #55 Asks Pinkies why he claimed after just 1 vote #57 Metagame: To Special, comments on Pinkies' participation in a previous game: he wasn't allowed to participate due to being lynched twice #76 General strategy: Day 1 is useful for hearing people's strategies #140 General strategy: vigs should look after lurkers, not the lynch #143 General strategy: with lots of couching, vigs who target lurkers encourage scum to participate #186 Doesn't see scumminess in Special Ed's play, believes he is Daphne #304 Is OK with Romanic's snack sharing plan but can't believe game could be so easily broken I find it hard to believe the Daphne/kidnap thing was staged. I need to re-read the case against Lightfoot, I find her posts cryptic and confusing. I strongly dislike FCoD's vote on archangel for following Special Ed's plan which don't mention Pinkies: After considering it, I'm feeling like Ed is probably not scum. I can't figure out what motivation he'd have to pull this debacle if he was scum. I also agree with storyteller that it seems likely that at least one of the Ed voters is scum. Of the Ed voters, I suppose archangel is the most likely suspect. The main thing that caught my eye was her vote for Ed that was motivated basically because Ed voted for himself. It's pretty weak, but that seems to me that it could be a convenient way for scum to hide in a bandwagon. I'm not really seeing much else in the way of scummy behavior today but I feel that it's important to get a vote on record, so @ FCoD, what made you decide to vote Archangel over Pinkies? Here are their votes: Agreed that he is either telling the truth, in which he can most accurately assess whether or not he's an asset or liability, or is scum. you know have a feeling we are just playing a role in ED's little game... He is controlling us peeps.. First he drives the conversation about with me, and now he is playing us with this latest stunt... But, I guess I'll be another lemming and go with what he beleives is best for town, on day 1... clearly ED knows best... because he is telling us that it is in our best interest to kill him off...
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 31, 2011 17:26:59 GMT -5
I went and reread the beginning of the Seuss game and you're right, I'm remembering it wrong. That coupled with the mistake you made in the post about me (I *really* don't think scum would do that on purpose, or even by accident because they would be trying to be careful) make me feel better about you. Apologies for the lousy memory. At least I'm learning not to rely on it. Just for the record, I remember you 'misremembering' on a different occasion when it suited you to make a case. Do you remember that? Somewhere you said you'd never done something as Scum in a game before or something, and I found quite a few instances of it. Do you remember that game? I think it was on giraffe. I wanted to see if you were Scum there. All I remember is that you we were after each other there.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Mar 31, 2011 17:49:20 GMT -5
2. I don't see the flaw in the "prove everyone has one" Snack exchange program. If a bad guy keeps a Snack, we Lynch him. (But I'm not advocating the plan: it might just be a big distraction, and Julie's probably given Snacks to Scum if only to guard against such a plan.) One flaw in the plan, that nobody seems to have picked up on, is that there are a number of possible reasons that certain people might have more or fewer Scooby Snacks than others. Romanic's theory was that only Town have Scooby Snacks. What about the possibility that only Vanillas have them, or only Powers, or that everyone was randomly given somewhere between 0 and 3 to start the game? Romanic's plan could end in a number of people being labelled Scum due to the false premise that "No Scooby Snacks" == "Scum". Of course, it's an unworkable plan anyway, as it would require everyone to agree to participate, and based on history that just ain't gonna happen, no way no how...
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on Mar 31, 2011 18:18:51 GMT -5
I have RL issues with my Dads health so I may be on less or need to a sub-out if I have to go out of town. Right now it is not looking like I have to leave but just in case. I also don't go on here during my work day, I am a Instructor so it is not easy to just check the boards. Sorry to hear this... Good thoughts going you and your families way. Thank you very much Captain! I will know more by the 15th of April when he goes to see a specialist and they do more testing.
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on Mar 31, 2011 18:25:45 GMT -5
Sorry to hear this... Good thoughts going you and your families way. Days and I assume nights are much longer here . That may help you. Huggs atcha 'specially now that I know where I met you.. FYI no conspiracy we played on another game/board different names/ avatars Thanks!!!! :-) Even though I voted you out... The fact that the days are longer are going to help out. Sometimes it is noce to get away from RL issues...
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 31, 2011 18:26:06 GMT -5
I went and reread the beginning of the Seuss game and you're right, I'm remembering it wrong. That coupled with the mistake you made in the post about me (I *really* don't think scum would do that on purpose, or even by accident because they would be trying to be careful) make me feel better about you. Apologies for the lousy memory. At least I'm learning not to rely on it. Just for the record, I remember you 'misremembering' on a different occasion when it suited you to make a case. Do you remember that? Somewhere you said you'd never done something as Scum in a game before or something, and I found quite a few instances of it. Do you remember that game? I think it was on giraffe. I wanted to see if you were Scum there. All I remember is that you we were after each other there. That is correct, Ed. IIRC you tore me apart for contradictory statements in different past games and I was really pissed that you went to that length to dig up old games on 3 boards to prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 31, 2011 18:33:18 GMT -5
And I was scum in that game, for the record.
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 31, 2011 18:50:35 GMT -5
And I was scum in that game, for the record. which game was that? It's driving me crazy
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Mar 31, 2011 19:19:46 GMT -5
Sorry for my lack of posts. I'm extremely busy at work and have little time.
I believe Ed's claim.
I don't really understand how we would go about proving everyone has(or does not have) a snack. What is the idea with that?
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 31, 2011 19:27:13 GMT -5
And I was scum in that game, for the record. which game was that? It's driving me crazy I don't remember. It was definitely on Giraffe, though. It may have been The Princess Bride game, but I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 31, 2011 19:31:36 GMT -5
I dislike having a one-off vote on someone who hasn't participated for almost 4 days but it's just Day 1! Anyone want to join me in voting Paranoia? I'm equally willing to switch to Mahaloth, who's done nothing this game, or Inner Stickler who's maintaining an appearance of participation: #16 Confirms #55 Asks Pinkies why he claimed after just 1 vote #57 Metagame: To Special, comments on Pinkies' participation in a previous game: he wasn't allowed to participate due to being lynched twice #76 General strategy: Day 1 is useful for hearing people's strategies #140 General strategy: vigs should look after lurkers, not the lynch #143 General strategy: with lots of couching, vigs who target lurkers encourage scum to participate #186 Doesn't see scumminess in Special Ed's play, believes he is Daphne #304 Is OK with Romanic's snack sharing plan but can't believe game could be so easily broken I find it hard to believe the Daphne/kidnap thing was staged. I need to re-read the case against Lightfoot, I find her posts cryptic and confusing. I strongly dislike FCoD's vote on archangel for following Special Ed's plan which don't mention Pinkies: After considering it, I'm feeling like Ed is probably not scum. I can't figure out what motivation he'd have to pull this debacle if he was scum. I also agree with storyteller that it seems likely that at least one of the Ed voters is scum. Of the Ed voters, I suppose archangel is the most likely suspect. The main thing that caught my eye was her vote for Ed that was motivated basically because Ed voted for himself. It's pretty weak, but that seems to me that it could be a convenient way for scum to hide in a bandwagon. I'm not really seeing much else in the way of scummy behavior today but I feel that it's important to get a vote on record, so @ FCoD, what made you decide to vote Archangel over Pinkies? Here are their votes: you know have a feeling we are just playing a role in ED's little game... He is controlling us peeps.. First he drives the conversation about with me, and now he is playing us with this latest stunt... But, I guess I'll be another lemming and go with what he beleives is best for town, on day 1... clearly ED knows best... because he is telling us that it is in our best interest to kill him off... Thanks, Guiri, for pointing this out. I gave reasoning while Captain Pinkies is admitting to being a lemming here. So it would appear that the one thing that differentiates me from him is that there were already 3 votes on me. Vote FCOD
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 31, 2011 19:50:03 GMT -5
which game was that? It's driving me crazy I don't remember. It was definitely on Giraffe, though. It may have been The Princess Bride game, but I'm not sure. Thanks, I found it. Day 8 of Princess bride on Girafffe. Man, I was a persistent little lumberjack, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 31, 2011 19:56:30 GMT -5
I don't remember. It was definitely on Giraffe, though. It may have been The Princess Bride game, but I'm not sure. Thanks, I found it. Day 8 of Princess bride on Girafffe. Man, I was a persistent little lumberjack, eh? It took a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNG time but eventually you earned my grudging admiration for that.
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 31, 2011 19:57:38 GMT -5
Thanks, I found it. Day 8 of Princess bride on Girafffe. Man, I was a persistent little lumberjack, eh? It took a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNG time but eventually you earned my grudging admiration for that. So, how should I react to your 'misremembering' this time? When it conveniently fit in with what you wanted everyone to think?
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 31, 2011 20:09:04 GMT -5
It took a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNG time but eventually you earned my grudging admiration for that. So, how should I react to your 'misremembering' this time? When it conveniently fit in with what you wanted everyone to think? React however you want. There wasn't anything "I wanted everyone to think" though. I was voting for Renata based on my admittedly faulty memory. Her post when she mentioned Lucifer faintly rang a bell and I realized it was not helping town to make a vote that might be based on my bad memory so I went back to check. She was right, I was wrong, and I removed my vote on her. (I just got off a game where my head was right every time and my gut was wrong. So I'm learning, albeit it at a pace that I am sure would frustrate you.)
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 31, 2011 21:12:16 GMT -5
So, how should I react to your 'misremembering' this time? When it conveniently fit in with what you wanted everyone to think? React however you want. There wasn't anything "I wanted everyone to think" though. I was voting for Renata based on my admittedly faulty memory. Her post when she mentioned Lucifer faintly rang a bell and I realized it was not helping town to make a vote that might be based on my bad memory so I went back to check. She was right, I was wrong, and I removed my vote on her. (I just got off a game where my head was right every time and my gut was wrong. So I'm learning, albeit it at a pace that I am sure would frustrate you.) OK Vote: Archangel Mostly because I don't like the way you voted for Renata while misunderstanding her reasoning. You never did address the fact that her vote was for the FOS on septimus and came shortly after I smudged the hell out of her in post 230 for no real reason. It just strikes me as something a Scum might do. My bandwagon was quickly losing steam, and I was getting Townie cred, why not buy into what I was saying and try to start another bandwagon?
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Mar 31, 2011 21:39:29 GMT -5
Since I am already in the dog dish...
Does anyone else notice the renata/ archangel bits voting each other ... bringing up prior bad acts / votes/ perceptions Then unvoting each other
?
"Oh yeah you are right I remember now" ? start a pissing match throw some votes and then get over it? (not the only ones... I know)
Did I miss something? I do pay attention of other's take on things, just stating what I thought I 'saw'
bummer I confuse some of you.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 31, 2011 21:55:07 GMT -5
React however you want. There wasn't anything "I wanted everyone to think" though. I was voting for Renata based on my admittedly faulty memory. Her post when she mentioned Lucifer faintly rang a bell and I realized it was not helping town to make a vote that might be based on my bad memory so I went back to check. She was right, I was wrong, and I removed my vote on her. (I just got off a game where my head was right every time and my gut was wrong. So I'm learning, albeit it at a pace that I am sure would frustrate you.) OK Vote: Archangel [/color] Mostly because I don't like the way you voted for Renata while misunderstanding her reasoning. You never did address the fact that her vote was for the FOS on septimus and came shortly after I smudged the hell out of her in post 230 for no real reason. It just strikes me as something a Scum might do. My bandwagon was quickly losing steam, and I was getting Townie cred, why not buy into what I was saying and try to start another bandwagon?[/quote] I can see why you think this. It's not true, but I don't have any real way of defending it. If I'm going to be lynched then I'm going to transfer my Scooby Snacks to you. I have no idea if it's worth anything or not, but I'm 75% sure you're town. (I can see scum motivation for your claim but it would be very, very dangerous to claim Daphne without being able to back it all up. If anyone could pull it off, it would be you, but I don't see that being the case here.) FWIW I have no idea what the Scooby snacks do. Transfer 2 Scooby Snacks to Ed.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Mar 31, 2011 22:03:36 GMT -5
Am I reacting a bit about the attack (not the right term) on me? Yes Am I paying attention to the player that jumped on that bandwagon? yes I know what side I am allied with and I think some of them do too. Do I cause trouble? yes= SCUM hates thinkers I think I was under the radar til SPlankton . called me out and I let him. **happy now MR set me up?** Let's dance.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 31, 2011 22:04:28 GMT -5
ORLY, Archangel. An inconsistency wasn't why I voted for him at all. The inconsistency was STORYTELLER's argument, not mine. I stated quite clearly that my vote was based primarily on the FOS of Septimus for fishing. I don't know where you're getting your reasoning for "if I weren't voting for Ed I'd be voting for Renata", but it sure isn't based on anything I wrote. Looks rather like you just read Ed's yet-to-be-explained-logically statement that I look like scum; tacked on a townie-sounding stance aimed at some vaguely remembered combination of Storyteller's argument and my vote, and decided that'd make a nice safe statement for the day. Only you got it wrong. Convince me you didn't get it wrong due to being over-eager scum. unvote[/color] vote: Archangel[/color] Also -- MentalGuy's statement (as opposed to Ed's own actions) makes Ed look rather more likely to be town than a few hours ago. Whether it's right to lynch him or not regardless is still undetermined IMO (answer's to Guiri's latest questions would be nice).[/quote] Forgive me if I misread your post. I see where it says you are voting him primarily for the FOS at Septimus. The first paragraph in what you just quoted seems to be agreeing with Storyteller. (I know you say it's "not entirely a correct characterization," which sounds like disagreement, but you go on to, in my view, to agree with him.) I stand by my statement (which has nothing to do with anything Ed said or didn't say) even given the correction. A badly reasoned FOS is bad reasoning. More likely to be town on Day One than scum. [/quote] And, for the record, Ed, I did address the FOS at Septimus. See above.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Mar 31, 2011 22:07:18 GMT -5
Since I am already in the dog dish... Does anyone else notice the renata/ archangel bits voting each other ... bringing up prior bad acts / votes/ perceptions Then unvoting each other ? "Oh yeah you are right I remember now" ? start a pissing match throw some votes and then get over it? (not the only ones... I know) Did I miss something? I do pay attention of other's take on things, just stating what I thought I 'saw' bummer I confuse some of you. Sorry, Lightfoot, I'm not understanding what you're getting at here. What would be the point of starting a pissing match and then taking our votes off each other if we're scum?
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Mar 31, 2011 22:14:18 GMT -5
Since I am already in the dog dish... Does anyone else notice the renata/ archangel bits voting each other ... bringing up prior bad acts / votes/ perceptions Then unvoting each other ? "Oh yeah you are right I remember now" ? start a pissing match throw some votes and then get over it? (not the only ones... I know) Did I miss something? I do pay attention of other's take on things, just stating what I thought I 'saw' bummer I confuse some of you. Sorry, Lightfoot, I'm not understanding what you're getting at here. What would be the point of starting a pissing match and then taking our votes off each other if we're scum? Well garsh I dunno. a smoke screen perhaps? just spitballin' here
|
|
|
Post by MentalGuy on Mar 31, 2011 22:16:34 GMT -5
I'm not seeing the case(s) against archangel. snipped.MentalGuy is voting for her because "she is just participating to not draw attention". I disagree, though that's largely a matter of interpretation at this point in the game. But if that's MentalGuy's criterion for a Day 1 vote, I think there are a number of other players who are better candidates. I agree with Storyteller that there is likely a scum in the bandwagon on Ed. I don't think it you, and of the three that are left, my ranking would be Archangel most likely, then Pinkies, then Renata. Within that group, I do see Archangel's play the most like you describe it, but don't make it seem that is the only reason and that I am ignoring others who may be just as guilty of it. I would be okay with a LightFoot lynch, but I am not sure if we would find a scum or Meeko's little brother.
|
|