|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Oct 10, 2013 12:48:14 GMT -5
OK, hold on a sec... I just reread Pleonast's last post, and saw what I missed the first time... I do not have any powers this game. I'm not claiming to be vanilla. I'm sure someone will complain about that, but I'll split hairs for now. Compare that with Colby's earlier post Pleonast claimed to not have a power that he can "use"... and suddenly it sounds like Colby might have been spot-on. If Pleonast is "not Vanilla", but "doesn't have any powers", then it would seem that he "doesn't have any powers he can use". Which means that Colby's earlier pronouncement looks to have been correct, despite the fact that Pleonast hadn't said anything of the sort in the game thread. At this point, I'd really like to hear from Colby as to how he divined Pleo's "powers" from what was posted.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Oct 10, 2013 12:52:00 GMT -5
Him doing it before *in every game I have ever seen him in* indicates it's part of his playstyle. Of course, sometimes he must be scum and in those cases he would simulate it, I guess. But yes, the role makes sense as a role and it would be dumb to lie about it. Only foolish town and scum vote based on playing style, so that meta-game pattern is not helpful. Multi voting is confusing because with one vote you really have to put your vote where it counts, and it leaves a more solid voting record. A single-vote game prevents players from voting for all the players they think should be lynched. Townies may have to unvote the player they think is most suspicious in order to avoid a one-off vote and make their vote "count". With a single vote system, scum can avoid voting for each other by claiming they always found someone else more suspicious. Multi-voting lets players precisely, permanently and publicly express who they think should be lynched. It's more work, but it makes it much harder for scum to blend in. I am also wondering if the provinces make a difference. I've considered asking every player to claim a province. Make a statement like "If I am vanilla, I'm from [province]." This would force scum to lie and give them less freedom in a future false vanilla claim. But that upside is rather small, compared to the risk of the province being important to someone else, so I don't think it's worthwhile at this point. And since any useful patterns will probably be discovered by late game, I don't think it'll be worthwhile later either.
|
|
|
Post by xarchangelx on Oct 10, 2013 13:03:16 GMT -5
Him doing it before *in every game I have ever seen him in* indicates it's part of his playstyle. Of course, sometimes he must be scum and in those cases he would simulate it, I guess. But yes, the role makes sense as a role and it would be dumb to lie about it. Only foolish town and scum vote based on playing style, so that meta-game pattern is not helpful. Multi voting is confusing because with one vote you really have to put your vote where it counts, and it leaves a more solid voting record. A single-vote game prevents players from voting for all the players they think should be lynched. Townies may have to unvote the player they think is most suspicious in order to avoid a one-off vote and make their vote "count". With a single vote system, scum can avoid voting for each other by claiming they always found someone else more suspicious. Multi-voting lets players precisely, permanently and publicly express who they think should be lynched. It's more work, but it makes it much harder for scum to blend in. I am also wondering if the provinces make a difference. I've considered asking every player to claim a province. Make a statement like "If I am vanilla, I'm from [province]." This would force scum to lie and give them less freedom in a future false vanilla claim. But that upside is rather small, compared to the risk of the province being important to someone else, so I don't think it's worthwhile at this point. And since any useful patterns will probably be discovered by late game, I don't think it'll be worthwhile later either. 1. But it's more than ordinary playstyle. It is something he does in every single game. Maybe I need to be more specific; I object to votes that are voting him because he made a Day One claim. For Idle, making a Day One claim is something he does in every game. So voting him because he did that is suspect to me. 2. I see your argument and you may well be right. I have never played a game with multiple votes before so it's confusing me and changing how I have to play. I'm trying to vote now and I have another window open formulating my vote post, but I got a notification you'd quoted me and I'm easily distracted and went to look at it, so...I'm just going to continue to be confused, I guess. I appreciate your suggestion of how to use it, though (not voting someone is a statement as strong as voting). 3. Do you think it might be useful to a PFK, or to a scum role?
|
|
|
Post by xarchangelx on Oct 10, 2013 13:06:27 GMT -5
[Vote/] Vote FruitAndGarbage[/b][/color]because he or she is pinging my gut. [Vote/] Vote Suburban Plankton [/b][/color] for multiple reasons. I find his reasons for voting Patricia spurious and I think a vote on Idle is not pro-town right now. He makes the argument that Idle's PM doesn't match with his initial description of the role, but when Idle first claimed he indicated he was confused by the role. I was already voting for him and composing this post but then I went and read Pleonast's reply to me, and saw his comment on Colby and Pleo, and it sounds to me like role-fishing.
I am not voting for Idle because I think he's telling the truth and I see the value in keeping him around for a while. I am not voting for Meeko, Pleonast, Swammerdami, Mahaloth, or anyone else who is not mentioned separately below because as far as I can tell they are acting consistent with the way they do as town. While I see Swammerdami'slogic in unvoting as he gets a town read on people, I don't think this is pro-town because it could cause pileups on town powers. However, I don't think his reasons for doing it are scummy.
I
|
|
|
Post by xarchangelx on Oct 10, 2013 13:15:10 GMT -5
Vote: Vote Fruitandgarbage Vote: SuburbanPlankton
For reasons stated in my prior post.
|
|
|
Post by thelastdays on Oct 10, 2013 13:28:20 GMT -5
At present I have votes on TheLastDays xArchangelx Chameleon patricia Pleonast Suburban Plankton In most cases the only real "charge" is low activity. I think Pleonast explained that Unvoting Townies and Voting Scum are two equally valid approaches to the multi-vote. Instead players pretend not to understand, or invent reasons to treat me as Scummy. I'm fine with being Lynched. I don't intend to rephrase my remarks three different ways. Don't twist my words. I was never saying multivoting everyone is wrong in and of itself but you have narrowed it down to just a few votes now without explaining any of them. I was saying just because you voted everyone doesn't mean you don't have to explain your votes.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 10, 2013 14:03:56 GMT -5
At present I have votes on TheLastDays xArchangelx Chameleon patricia Pleonast Suburban Plankton In most cases the only real "charge" is low activity. I think Pleonast explained that Unvoting Townies and Voting Scum are two equally valid approaches to the multi-vote. Instead players pretend not to understand, or invent reasons to treat me as Scummy. I'm fine with being Lynched. I don't intend to rephrase my remarks three different ways. Bolding mine So apart from low activity, what other reason do you have?
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Oct 10, 2013 14:06:38 GMT -5
Vote FruitAndGarbagebecause he or she is pinging my gut. He. It says so right beneath my stylish avatar, I think. Anyway, I am becoming increasingly convinced swammerdami is the wrong choice today, so I'm going to unvote: swammerdami, while being fully aware that this looks like abandoning a wagon I know is going to be successful but a lynch townie, which would be great scum play if it weren't so obvious. Oh well! I just seriously doubt we're going to hit scum on him. What worries me is that we're not really going to get anything out of his flip: if he turns up town, everyone voting for him is doing it because they don't like the way he's voting, rather than because they have any other reason to suspect he's scum. I know that's why I was, but that wasn't really a very good reason. I will vote: Mahaloth, though. All his votes feel very opportunistic.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Oct 10, 2013 14:09:13 GMT -5
1. But it's more than ordinary playstyle. It is something he does in every single game. Maybe I need to be more specific; I object to votes that are voting him because he made a Day One claim. For Idle, making a Day One claim is something he does in every game. So voting him because he did that is suspect to me. I agree with the conclusion, but not how you got there. 3. Do you think it might be useful to a PFK, or to a scum role? I don't really know. It could even be useful for a town role. I just think the potential risks outweigh the potential rewards. (And I'm a player who enjoys taking risks, so that's saying something.)
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 10, 2013 16:27:37 GMT -5
swammerdami (5,6): swammerdami [53,53]; gnarlycharlie [54]; Mahaloth [73,95]; Meeko [86]; silverjan [93]; FruitAndGarbage [98]; thelastdays [108]; patricia [109]
Pleonast (4,4): swammerdami [53]; gnarlycharlie [54]; thelastdays [55,55,56], Mahaloth [73] FruitAndGarbage (4,4): Pleonast [37]; swammerdami [53, 105]; silverjan [60]; Mahaloth [73]; xarchangelx [124]
patricia (3,3): swammerdami [53]; Suburban Plankton [115]; Pleonast [116]
Mahaloth (2,2): swammerdami [53, 105]; Pleonast [89]; FruitAndGarbage [127] TheLastDays (2,2): swammerdami [53]; FruitAndGarbage [98] Suburban Plankton (2,2): swammerdami [53]; xarchangelx [124]
Idle Thoughts (1,3): FruitAndGarbage [33,98]; Meeko [49,86]; swammerdami [53, 53]; thelastdays [55,55,56,108]; Suburban Plankton [115] Meeko (1,3): swammerdami [53, 105]; silverjan [60,91]; Mahaloth [71] dizzymrslizzy (1,2): swammerdami [53, 105]; silverjan [83] silverjan (1,2): swammerdami [53, 105], Pleonast [89]
xArchangelx (1,1): swammerdami [53] Chameleon (1,1): swammerdami [53]
gnarlycharlie (0,1): swammerdami [53, 105] Colby11 (0,1): swammerdami [53, 105]; Suburban Plankton [119] BillMc (0,1): swammerdami [53, 105]
With these votes, swammerdami will be lynched.
toDay will end in a little over 24 hours.
There are minor corrections to the vote counts: I missed Pleo's vote on silverjan in the last count but that was mod error.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 10, 2013 21:24:19 GMT -5
I don't see the word "Day" anywhere in your PM. So where did you get the idea that you have a Day protection? First, I've already answered this.....for one. But here it is again since you're skimming apparently: THIS part of it "On the following Night: If the player is Town, and Town attempts to kill them, the kill will fail." sounded weird. Town killing at Night? Bwuh? Anyway...FOR TWO, WHICH I ALSO SAID AND WHICH YOU ALSO SEEMED TO NOT SEE, is SisC clarified it for me, it means any Town who has a DAY KILL. So yes, it does have to do with Day, so it's a good thing I misunderstood and asked, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 10, 2013 21:27:56 GMT -5
Anyway, I agree that Patricia's post seemed off as well. I don't feel that swammer is scum. So I'm going to Vote Patricia.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Oct 10, 2013 22:38:21 GMT -5
Mr. Plankton asks good questions. Unvote: Suburban PlanktonVote: Idle ThoughtsAnyway, I am becoming increasingly convinced swammerdami is the wrong choice today, so I'm going to Unvote: swammerdami, while being fully aware that this looks like abandoning a wagon I know is going to be successful but a lynch townie, which would be great scum play if it weren't so obvious. I want to confirm that I'm parsing this correctly. You're unvoting me (although it won't save me) despite that I'm going to flip Town, and worry somewhat that this Unvote will appear Scummy!
I'm tempted to Vote you for this. However I'm afraid this sort of triple-think meta-reasoning is increasingly overcommon in Mafia games. I'm a fan of Winston Churchill who once wrote: Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Oct 10, 2013 22:44:38 GMT -5
Idle answered one of Plankton's questions, but Plankton also had a good question for Colby.
And, since Lynching likely PFK is better than Lynching Vanilla, I'm happy to vote Idle. I think Town needs him to outline a regime which will tend to confirm he's truthful and playing pro-Town.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Oct 10, 2013 22:56:09 GMT -5
I don't see the word "Day" anywhere in your PM. So where did you get the idea that you have a Day protection? First, I've already answered this.....for one. But here it is again since you're skimming apparently: THIS part of it "On the following Night: If the player is Town, and Town attempts to kill them, the kill will fail." sounded weird. Town killing at Night? Bwuh? Town killing at Night? Yes. It's called a 'Vigilante'...perhaps you've heard of it? It's a Town role, which quite often winds up killing other Town roles by mistake. I saw it. You told us that SisC 'clarified' it for you. That does not change the fact that nowhere in your PM does the word 'Day' appear. It tells what happens "On the Night of Protection", and "On the following Night", but nothing about "the intervening Day". It's possible that you did indeed ask SisC for clarification, despite the fact that there was nothing ambiguous about your PM as given, and that Day Kills are incredibly rare around these parts. It's also possible, and in my opinion more likely, that you messed up when you made your partial claim (or possibly, when you edited your PM before posting it).
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Oct 11, 2013 0:09:05 GMT -5
OK, hold on a sec... I just reread Pleonast's last post, and saw what I missed the first time... I do not have any powers this game. I'm not claiming to be vanilla. I'm sure someone will complain about that, but I'll split hairs for now. Compare that with Colby's earlier post Pleonast claimed to not have a power that he can "use"... and suddenly it sounds like Colby might have been spot-on. If Pleonast is "not Vanilla", but "doesn't have any powers", then it would seem that he "doesn't have any powers he can use". Which means that Colby's earlier pronouncement looks to have been correct, despite the fact that Pleonast hadn't said anything of the sort in the game thread. At this point, I'd really like to hear from Colby as to how he divined Pleo's "powers" from what was posted. Wait a second. Wait A
Second
If Pleonast is "not Vanilla", but "doesn't have any powers", then it would seem that he "doesn't have any powers he can use". From the Horse's Mouth: Meeko you're also not fully accounting for the multi-votes. While it's possible that a scummy power could be charged by votes, in a multi-vote game where votes are cheap, it's possible that a scummy power could be charged by the lack of votes. You're not voting for quite a few players. Are you up to something? Why do you think those players should not be lynched. That's a rhetorical question, but I hope you see things from a broader perspective. This then lead me to suspect, sarcastically, if roles could exist that are enhanced by not doing things. .... Powers that are not "used" per se. Someone take this train of thought from me before I derail it.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Oct 11, 2013 0:15:49 GMT -5
I'm trying to say that either Colby and Pleonast share a connection, or that Pleonast slipped on PIS earlier, in the guise of speaking in generalities as far as a power working by "not being used" ... Something along the lines of a suspiciously specific denial.
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Oct 11, 2013 0:17:21 GMT -5
For the record, I'm one of the people who thinks it is pretty much required to kill all claimed Third Parties, est they turn out to be PFKs. However, that does not necessarily mean we have to lynch any claimed Third Party as soon as possible. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no matter what Idle's alignment is, he's not going to steal a win on Night 1. So I'm not advocating his immediate lynch on the grounds that he is 'non-Town'. That being said, I'm not crazy about his claim at this point. First, there's the fact that his original claim does not match his posted PM. Second, despite his claims to the contrary his power is not 'pro-Town' (though I wouldn't call it 'anti-Town' either), and his wincon forces him to play in a 'pro Idle' fashion, which may very well equate to 'anti-Town' as the game wears on. If it were not for the inconsistency with his PM, I'd be happy to wait a couple Days to see how things play out, but since it seems he has already lied to us somewhere along the line Vote: Idle Thoughts I was set to vote for swammerdami for his multivoting (and not just because it makes my spreadsheet cry), but Pleonast's argument ( Post 99) convinced me otherwise. Which is why I'm really not happy with patricia's vote on swammer. She could have placed that vote with the same reasoning at any time in the last 2 days (RL); instead it looks as though she's jumping on a convenient late-Day bandwagon. Vote: patricia I really love this vote - he voted for me because I first placed my vote today - just BEFORE you placed your vote as a matter of fact you been on vacation I have been busy at work so I voted when I had time to read the thread same as your are doing The second reason is that it is a late in the day bandwagon vote - 3 votes on day one is a bandwagon? and how is it late? When I voted there was still two real life days in which to vote. Anyway, it seems to me your vote on me was simple to have someone to place a second vote on so you look like your are scum hunting. Or a scum buddy? I was thinking of moving my vote off of swammerdami - But the reaction when he/she became vote leader gave me pause. It was a ok I'm lynched lets play a sad song. You have a handful of votes with days still left! The sad song route seems to be from someone with something to hide - why not make a case on someone else if you are town. Don't you want to help town win? Why give up already? It is day one I'm willing to read any other cases vanilla town is still town and we need everyone to try to live as long as possible. Maybe Idle is a better lynch for today - still seems to be some holes in his claim I would rather lynch a non townie who may or may not play pro town over a vanilla townie
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Oct 11, 2013 0:17:44 GMT -5
NETA or more likely, a refuge in audacity.
Damn, I gotta lay off the TV Tropes.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 11, 2013 0:25:47 GMT -5
First, I've already answered this.....for one. But here it is again since you're skimming apparently: THIS part of it "On the following Night: If the player is Town, and Town attempts to kill them, the kill will fail." sounded weird. Town killing at Night? Bwuh? Town killing at Night? Yes. It's called a 'Vigilante'...perhaps you've heard of it? It's a Town role, which quite often winds up killing other Town roles by mistake. I saw it. You told us that SisC 'clarified' it for you. That does not change the fact that nowhere in your PM does the word 'Day' appear. It tells what happens "On the Night of Protection", and "On the following Night", but nothing about "the intervening Day". It's possible that you did indeed ask SisC for clarification, despite the fact that there was nothing ambiguous about your PM as given, and that Day Kills are incredibly rare around these parts. It's also possible, and in my opinion more likely, that you messed up when you made your partial claim (or possibly, when you edited your PM before posting it). Blah blah blah blah blah. Look, in my SECOND OR THIRD post TOTAL (as in, in this entire game), I made THIS POST:www.idlemafia.com/post/109465Please note this part, which you have missed, even though you say "I saw it". No, you didn't see it, liar. Because if you did, you've have seen I already admitted I could be mistaken. So read that post again and take note of this part SPECIFICALLY, okay? "Not sure it works in the DAY, it might just be for NIGHT. My PM says "Night", however it also adds that caveat that if Town tries to kill Town, it will fail, so that is why I assume it MIGHT be for the Day too. I wouldn't try it out, though....because it could very well mean "If a town player (I.E. a vig) tries to kill another town player at Night" instead." So as you see, I already thought of that and MENTION IT RIGHT THERE, Skimmer. Why you skimming so much, huh? And if you say you're not, then why you trying to paint it like I DIDN'T ALREADY SAY THAT? I very clearly did, RIGHT THERE. Vote Suburban Plankton for outright lying and making it seem like I was trying to mislead people when I, in fact, didn't at all. You're either wrong and you can't admit it, you missed it and can't admit it, you just plain suck at this game, or are scum/PFK and want me out since you know my power can't protect you (if you're third-party/PFK, that is).
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Oct 11, 2013 0:26:40 GMT -5
I'm back from vacation, and I've done a quick read of the Day. A couple thoughts to start with... Pleo, It looks like there's a bit of a typo here, or at least some awkward phrasing. Did you intend to say "I do (not) have any powers", or "I do have any powers"? In other words, are you claiming "Vanilla" or not? Doh! Yes, I skipped the "not". I do not have any powers this game. I'm not claiming to be vanilla. I'm sure someone will complain about that, but I'll split hairs for now. I'm willing to watch this Idle claim unfold a little more before placing a vote on him. But, most of the day has been about Idle and his claim. Very little information on the rest of the players at this point. One only other thing I didn't like today was Swammerdami voting for everyone without cause or case - seems like she/he is trying to be right and is using the multi vote to cover votes on his scum buddies. I don't see the other cases as having much at this time so for now Vote: SwammerdamiThis vote looks off to me. While swammer undoubtedly voted a bunch of scum, they also voted for a bunch of town. And since a lot of players get kneejerk suspicious when someone votes them, I don't see how swammer's tactic actually benefits them in any way. Having a poorly thought-through argument isn't necessarily suspicious, but patricia is also complaining about a lack of other options. That seems odd, considering the good amount of discussion we've had so far. Other players are finding places for their votes easily enough. The combination of a bad argument plus not looking too hard for more, tweaks me as scum trying to make a safe vote without taking any risk. vote patricia for making a single safe vote. So I made a single safe vote - wow that is a new one - how is my vote safe? It sure feels like I hit a nerve as I got two votes due to my "safe vote" I first voted for swammerdami for the massive votes (it seems lazy/safe) for scum to do so. But my vote has stayed due to the reaction swammerdami show for being the vote leader. For now I'm happy with a single vote - but I'm sure before day ends I will find others to vote for as well, as I sure another scum or two is clearly coming to the aid of the poor vanilla townie.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 11, 2013 0:28:32 GMT -5
The above is also to mr swammidammi who mentions "Suburban Plankton has some good questions".
No, he doesn't. As I just showed above, he is WRONG. 100 percent WRONG. I already mentioned exactly what he did. I bring up the point he did right there, in my 2nd/3rd post in this game thread.
So what you got now? Obviously you don't have a case for me trying to be MISLEADING since I point it out myself! Here's your sign.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 11, 2013 0:33:25 GMT -5
Simple version in case anyone doesn't want to read a lot of typing. SK says this, implying I was trying to falsify my role: "Town killing at Night? Yes. It's called a 'Vigilante'...perhaps you've heard of it? It's a Town role, which quite often winds up killing other Town roles by mistake."Only I already say/admit THIS EXACT SAME THING COULD BE THE CASE earlier: "Not sure it works in the DAY, it might just be for NIGHT. My PM says "Night", however it also adds that caveat that if Town tries to kill Town, it will fail, so that is why I assume it MIGHT be for the Day too. I wouldn't try it out, though....because it could very well mean "If a town player (I.E. a vig) tries to kill another town player at Night" instead."Cite: www.idlemafia.com/post/109465So....what's your case now, SK? Now that you're shown to be wrong and that I did fully admit I could be confused about the role and how it worked? I didn't hide or mislead anything.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Oct 11, 2013 0:34:05 GMT -5
OK, hold on a sec... I just reread Pleonast's last post, and saw what I missed the first time... I do not have any powers this game. I'm not claiming to be vanilla. I'm sure someone will complain about that, but I'll split hairs for now. Compare that with Colby's earlier post Pleonast claimed to not have a power that he can "use"... and suddenly it sounds like Colby might have been spot-on. If Pleonast is "not Vanilla", but "doesn't have any powers", then it would seem that he "doesn't have any powers he can use". Which means that Colby's earlier pronouncement looks to have been correct, despite the fact that Pleonast hadn't said anything of the sort in the game thread. At this point, I'd really like to hear from Colby as to how he divined Pleo's "powers" from what was posted. How can a player not be vanilla, but not have any powers. When I first posted, it sounded like a player whose powers work if they are targeted, like a Scotsman. Rereading the arguement, it all makes sense now. Pleonast is a mason. And for the record, I am not a part of his mason team.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 11, 2013 0:36:29 GMT -5
Sorry, I mean SP. Time to go to sleep when I start posting the wrong letters.
On Preview: Oh, look, Pleonast is a Mason and Colby knows this somehow. This first Day certainly isn't boring.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Oct 11, 2013 1:19:25 GMT -5
Simple version in case anyone doesn't want to read a lot of typing. SK says this, implying I was trying to falsify my role: "Town killing at Night? Yes. It's called a 'Vigilante'...perhaps you've heard of it? It's a Town role, which quite often winds up killing other Town roles by mistake."Only I already say/admit THIS EXACT SAME THING COULD BE THE CASE earlier: "Not sure it works in the DAY, it might just be for NIGHT. My PM says "Night", however it also adds that caveat that if Town tries to kill Town, it will fail, so that is why I assume it MIGHT be for the Day too. I wouldn't try it out, though....because it could very well mean "If a town player (I.E. a vig) tries to kill another town player at Night" instead."Cite: www.idlemafia.com/post/109465So....what's your case now, SK? Now that you're shown to be wrong and that I did fully admit I could be confused about the role and how it worked? I didn't hide or mislead anything. <Edited to reduce font size to a reasonable level>So... In the post you refer to here (Post 7) you state that you don't know of your power works during the Day. So why did you tell us in your original claim (Post 2) that it does? In other words, why did you make a claim that you knew not to be completely true? Or at the very least, that you did not know to be true? But you know what? I think I believe you. I still think you made a bad claim, but I'm starting to think you were legitimately confused, and 'spoke out of turn' Unvote: Idle Thoughts I did like the SK bit, by the way. I thought perhaps you were trying to imply I was a Serial Killer
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Oct 11, 2013 1:24:48 GMT -5
How can a player not be vanilla, but not have any powers. When I first posted, it sounded like a player whose powers work if they are targeted, like a Scotsman. Rereading the arguement, it all makes sense now. Pleonast is a mason. And for the record, I am not a part of his mason team. Mason is certainly one possibility, but I'm sure if we put our heads together we could come up with a few more... My concern is that you ( Colby) seemed to understand exactly what Pleonast had meant to say, even though he hadn't actually said it. The 'obvious' conclusion is that you had non-public knowledge of Pleonast's role. Which would make you Masons, or Scum, or members of some Third Party/PFK faction. I see you've already ruled out the first option...I don't suppose you'd like to admit to one of the other two?
|
|
|
Post by thelastdays on Oct 11, 2013 1:25:54 GMT -5
OK, hold on a sec... I just reread Pleonast's last post, and saw what I missed the first time... Compare that with Colby's earlier post and suddenly it sounds like Colby might have been spot-on. If Pleonast is "not Vanilla", but "doesn't have any powers", then it would seem that he "doesn't have any powers he can use". Which means that Colby's earlier pronouncement looks to have been correct, despite the fact that Pleonast hadn't said anything of the sort in the game thread. At this point, I'd really like to hear from Colby as to how he divined Pleo's "powers" from what was posted. How can a player not be vanilla, but not have any powers. When I first posted, it sounded like a player whose powers work if they are targeted, like a Scotsman. Rereading the arguement, it all makes sense now. Pleonast is a mason. And for the record, I am not a part of his mason team. Now, if you are really convinced about this, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU OUT A MASON ON DAY 1? There is no pro-town motive for that. vote: Colby
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Oct 11, 2013 1:32:45 GMT -5
I want to confirm that I'm parsing this correctly. You're unvoting me (although it won't save me) despite that I'm going to flip Town, and worry somewhat that this Unvote will appear Scummy!
I'm tempted to Vote you for this. However I'm afraid this sort of triple-think meta-reasoning is increasingly overcommon in Mafia games. I'm a fan of Winston Churchill who once wrote: Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all.You're parsing it right, but missing the intent. I think your lynch is bad, so I'm unvoting. The rest of it was just poking fun at the fact that to an outside observer my play so far has been erratic or downright scummy: I'm surprised I haven't caught more flack for starting the Idle wagon and then backing off and voting for someone on it, so I was just joking about doing something similarly readable as scummy. I think more people should unvote you, but I don't see it happening. That's the whole point of that post, the rest is just jokes 'n' frippery. Guess I should use more smilies!
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Oct 11, 2013 1:35:54 GMT -5
There's lots of town roles that don't have active powers. Grannies, nexuses, bulletproofs, millers, the dreaded death miller, masons, backups, and so on and so on. I think drawing too many conclusions this early is... inadvisable? As is drawing too many conclusions based on the conclusions other people drew.
|
|