|
Post by Hal Briston on Mar 24, 2008 8:05:17 GMT -5
:coughs:Don't know :coughs:what you are :coughs::coughs:talking :coughs:about. :coughs::splutter::hack::hack::curse loudly: Hey, on the plus side, you can probably go toe-to-toe with this guy anytime you like now.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Mar 24, 2008 8:11:13 GMT -5
Morning all. *Tips hat at the assembled throng.*
While I followed Day 1, I didn't have the motivation of actually playing to drive me, so I may be a bit wooly on details; especially since my reread has covered four whole pages.
Fact check question : Who are the claimed Masons? I remember there were three of them. My memory says they were Naf1138, Molefan1981 and DarkCookies.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 24, 2008 8:17:02 GMT -5
They are indeed, and I can personally vouch for the other two.
|
|
|
Post by brewha on Mar 24, 2008 9:18:47 GMT -5
Well, I finally got caught up with the end of Day one. I left for the weekend and hadn't really had a chance to follow the game since Thurs night. That final day of the Day has to be some kind of record. I really didn't get much out of the rest of the read, except that Rysto made kind of a weird remark. I actually had a reasone to vote CIAS and explained that his analysis of HockeyMonkey made no sense and that he seemed to just be slinging poo to see if it would stick. But, Rysto's link( HERE - actually linked the people to their vote posts, but not me) didn't point to my reason or my vote. It just pointed to the beginning of the first day one thread. So Rysto, were you trying to be deceitful? Or, did you actually not understand my reasoning?
|
|
|
Post by brewha on Mar 24, 2008 9:22:48 GMT -5
HERE is the post to which I was refering.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 24, 2008 9:34:10 GMT -5
THE KAT VOTING ANALYSIS BY MOLEFAN.
OK, let's take a look at how the Kat vote got a wolf out in the first round, and see if we can learn anything from it.
Going through the posts looking for Kat's name, the first thing that occurs to me is that she was cautiously against the nameclaim idea, which actually might suggest that the idea the wolves have been given "false" identities is wrong. She was the one who suggested it in the first place after all.
Next came Molegate. Not many votes there, and most of them were for me. Not even a single mention of Kat, except in one person's sig, for three pages in fact, let alone anything posted by her. So we move on.
For the next ten pages or more, Kat posts a few times, is quick to point out suspicions of NAF for his apparent lack of knowledge about the Masons early on, and a Ryjae bandwagon is started. NAF, partly as a result of Kat's comments about him, is the first person to "FOS" Kat. Which is the least helpful thing ever, since NAF is one of the people I know for certain are townies...
Interestingly, immediately after NAF puts suspicion on Kat, Brewha votes Cat. Could be coincidence. Could be an effort to put attention elsewhere.
Drainbead also supports Kat over NAF, despite the Mason claim. This looks definitely suspicious to me (but then I'm biased, given I'm a Mason.) Here's Drain's exact quote:
"I did check the context, and I'm not sure how it exonerates you or invalidates Kat's point in any way. It didn't seem like it was designed to get people talking agout the issues--it was a throwaway line in a ramgly post that really had no reason to ge there. You know what win conditions the masons have if you are one, and the rest of the masons do as well. So why would you have any need to see the rest of us waste time speculating over it? I can see anyone else trying to gring that up as a topic of discussion, gut not a mason."
Cookies argues with Kat and Drain. Another person who I know is Town. D'uh... this isn't very helpful.
At this point there still hasn't been an actual vote for Kat yet and we're onto page five of Day 1 Thread 2.
NOW we get some genuinely helpful stuff. This from Diggitcamera:
"3. A quick review makes Kat stand out (at least to me). She has 30ish posts (counted). But 21 of those were in the Introduction/Night Zero/Rules threads. Her posts have decreased, quite dramtically.
Not only that, but she has pretty much been "poking" people. Here she simply asks a question about "possible alignments".
Quote: Wait. Your PM says that the "other group" is pro-Town?
No follow-up I can see.
Somewhere else she poked ryjae
Quote:
Are you going to say now that you didn't read your alignment closely? Or is your alignment for some reason labeled differently than mine?
She was an active participant in stoking the fire both against ryjae and drainbead, was actively encouraging the discussion about slight differences in the objectives section of our Role PMs, etc. .
And yet she seems to be... curiously on the sidelines of all this.
Thus, I'll vote Kat."
I doubt he'd do this if he were scum. I'm declaring Diggit a probable human based on this vote.
Once this is done, the subject of Kat is dropped for the time being. There's a lot of fluff posts along the lines of "who are you voting for?" "No, who are you voting for?" in which I was a pretty active participant. Nobody noticeably supports Diggit, nor do they attack him. I guess the latter would be rather obvious.
The next noticeable voting event is a fairly big barney between TDPatriots and Rysto. Rysto starts it by voting TD and giving a fairly detailed explanation as to why. TD answers that. Hoopy throws another quick spanner in the works by voting Sinjin based on the events regarding the role reveals.
Hal makes a post about "lurkers". Neither Kat nor Diggit's names are on it.
NAF, after a debate with Hoopy, becomes the second person to vote Kat. At this point she has two votes, one more than anybody else, and it's reasonable to expect the wolves to sit up and start taking notice.
Rysto points out that Kat was extremely anxious to play the game, but has hardly said anything since she's been in it. Not exactly the attitude of a wolf supporting his own...
Hawkeyeop suggests suspicion of Cookies.
Ryjae is slightly anti-Diggit, for voting lurkers while "being a lurker himself". He's also slightly anti-Sinjin, but won't vote for her just because she voted for him.
Storyteller suggests that the wolves are most likely to be found outside of the "least active" posters list. At this point, Kat hasn't appeared to defend herself. She does now, and Drainbead - who's previously supported her fairly innocuously - now does so explicitly.
Rysto adds: "That's fair, Kat. Now that I think about it, I do recall that you have mentioned your job restricting from posting in past games."
Santo supports Kat. He then puts "a very serious FOS" on Cookies.
Kat comes back at Diggit, and suggests that she's been accused of "stoking the fire" against Drainbead. (She hasn't - I went over the post again and there's no "accusation" there. This looks like an attempt to separate herself from Drainbead here.)
Brewha is completely non-committal while Santo suggests doubts about the Masons. Kat has previously done exactly the same thing.
Atarus strongly supports Santo in his Cookies suspicions and says "my vote will land on either Cookies or Diggit". Now that we know Kat was scum, this whole post reads wrong to me. It's a quarter of the way down page eight on the second thread of Day one. Read it!
Storyteller votes Cookies. Santo immediately follows suit. Hal is still fairly non-committal.
Drain joins the Cookies bandwagon. Hal does the same thing.
Ryjae votes Kassia.
Hockeymonkey votes Cookies.
Zuma comes out with this, but keeps his vote on kassia (not Kat):
"I also think story is putting too much weight in his dismissal of the low-volume posters. And I find it odd that Hal just accepts this so easily and dismisses all his previous research on the lurkers."
I vote Atarus.
Hoopy unvotes Sinjin.
Cookies now has six votes on her. TD unvotes Ryjae.
Story keeps attacking Cookies. He looks like either an overzealous wolf or a human who's got it badly wrong and won't admit it.
Koldanar, after an official vote count, becomes person #3 to vote Kat. Unfortunately he also is a confirmed human.
Cookies votes Story and claims Mason. The rush to unvote Cookies starts with Story. Santo and Hockey unvote Cookies. Santo cries. Drain, Hal and Atarus unvote Cookies after a vote count. There are now three votes on Kat, a maximum of two on anybody else.
Hockey votes CatInASuit, adding to Brewha's existing vote.
Hal votes Kassia, "offing a lurker". Also tying her vote with Kat's.
Hoopy votes Klutz. Atarus votes Diggit.
Cookies votes CatInASuit.
The vote is tied three-way between Kassia, Kat and CatInASuit.
CatInASuit decides to vote against Kat rather than Kassia. This to me strongly suggests that they're not on the same wolf team.
Smurf votes No Lynch. Not quite a wolf defending their own...
TD suggests Hawkeye as a suspect. Rysto votes him.
TD votes CatInASuit, once again tying the vote between her and Kat.
Kat votes CatInASuit, for self-preservation.
Rysto strongly defends CatInASuit, saying it's a "random bandwagon". Kat changes her vote to Kassia.
Klutz votes Kassia.
Storyteller calls out Kat for voting Kassia and "not being pro-town". Santo votes Kat for that reason.
Kat roleclaims as a vig.
Hawkeye votes Kat. Then unvotes again. Five minutes to go.
Story votes Kat.
Koldanar votes Kat.
With Kat on six votes and the next nearest person on five, Klutz votes Kat.
Hawkeye votes CatInASuit because he "doesn't want to vote for a vig".
Rysto votes Kat. At this point there is less than a minute left and Kat's demise is pretty certain.
PHEW.
Analysis to follow in a second.
|
|
|
Post by ryjae on Mar 24, 2008 9:41:51 GMT -5
Thanks molefan. I'm trying to read through just the last 12 hours and get a feel for it all over again. And do to increasing pain I am finding it hard to concentrate. I appreciate the work you did on that last post. *oog* I won't be as vocal until Wednesday as thats when my wireless keyboard replacement gets here. But I can and will still be following events very closely.
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Mar 24, 2008 9:45:54 GMT -5
A general name claim looks like it could be very useful. But are the masons happy to be outed? Ok, time to revisit this. We have reasons on the board for and against a mass name-claim, but I wanted to get something on the table about this. I didn't mention it yesterday, since I was still trying to wrap my head around the implications, but I can't figure out any reason not to put this out there: I have a list of all the role names in the game.I'm not allowed to reveal the full contents of the list, but I can confirm or deny anyone's name claim. However, there are more names on the list then there are players in the game, so it seems to me that the Do-Gooders were provided with false-claim names yes, "Azrael" is on the list). I'm of the opinion that getting the names out there is worth the risk. However, I can understand if people want to keep things under wraps for now. Some will be for pro-town reasons, some will just be scum, but if the town votes to keep things under wraps for now, I'm ok with that. I would ask Rysto (if you wouldn't mind) to begin putting things in place to determine a random reveal order using the tried and true NBA method. The info is here -- shall we use it?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Mar 24, 2008 9:49:11 GMT -5
molefan -
I'll await your full analysis, but here:
I think we have a fundamental disagreement. I mention it only because I see no reason why drawing attention to a fellow scum would be something scum wouldn't do. It's been a pretty common tactic in every game we've played so far. And I think if you keep declaring folks to be "probable humans" on the basis of things like this, you're going to make yourself easy to manipulate.
I haven't mentioned this in a few games, but it's worth remembering: in order to win, only one scum has to survive to the end. That one scum can cheerfully bus every single one of his/her confederates if it gets him/her enough trust to avoid lynching. The idea that scum wouldn't be the first to call attention to other scum is not, I think, one we should be embracing. Particularly in this situation - a scummy diggit would have had no way of knowing that drawing attention to his confederate Kat would blow up into an actual lynching.
I'm not accusing diggit of anything at the moment, but I definitely don't think he should be exonerated or even partially exonerated on this basis.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Mar 24, 2008 9:57:11 GMT -5
We have reasons on the board for and against a mass name-claim, but I wanted to get something on the table about this. I didn't mention it yesterday, since I was still trying to wrap my head around the implications, but I can't figure out any reason not to put this out there: I have a list of all the role names in the game.This is pretty interesting information. Some follow-up questions: (1) What do you see as the utility of a mass name claim, in light of the list? If the scum appear to have pre-fab fake claims based on your list, they'd have no reason to lie. (2) How many names, total, are on your list? (3) In what regard are you "not allowed" to reveal the contents of the list? Is that a mod-driven post restriction. (4) Are you willing to name-claim first?
|
|
|
Post by brewha on Mar 24, 2008 10:02:18 GMT -5
Hal, First of all, what did you do to ROosh? That's some nasty karma!
What would be the point of a mass name reveal now? If we know that the DoGooders were given false aliases, why wouldn't they just use those instead of lying? In light of this info, it's good to know that we can immediately confirm a role claim, but we can only tell if the role claimer is lying - not what their alignment is.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 24, 2008 10:02:24 GMT -5
OK let's divide this up into five categories. Bear in mind that if there's more than one group of scum, someone might appear to be extremely human based on their reactions to the Kat exile, and still be a wolf.
DIGGIT is the most obvious human tell of the lot. He was the first person to vote Kat and kept his vote on her the whole way through.
RYSTO calls out Kat early on. He's scrupulously fair but doesn't come to her defence at the end, after she's roleclaimed, and puts the final vote on her head. I think Rysto and Kat aren't partners.
SANTO, early on, looks suspicious. He joins the Cookies bandwagon and explicitly supports Kat at one point. He also suggested doubts about the Masons at a fairly critical time in the Kat episode. However, when Story calls out Kat late on, and when every vote counts, Santo has no hesitation putting his vote on Kat and keeping it there. That to me does not look like he's partnered with her, unless he wants to sacrifice her to make himself look good. I'd keep an eye on Santo.
KLUTZ put his vote on Kat at a crucial time. Based on that and a few earlier comments, I'm going to give Klutz a pass.
HAWKEYE was blundering around at the end like a confused human. If he were a wolf, I would expect a more definite defence of Kat. The fact that nobody backed her up over her roleclaim in the final minutes leads me to believe that either any partner she had was determined to sacrifice her, or else there wasn't a partner of hers there at the time. This virtually rules out Rysto, Hawk, Klutz, Santo and Story. Hawk, however, is less certain than the rest as he voted CatInASuit at the end. He might have been trying to defend Kat but making a bad job of it. I don't think so though.
CATINASUIT was at one point tied for four votes with Kat and Kassia. To save himself, Cat had to vote one of the other two. He chose Kat. I don't see why he'd do that if he and Kat were partners.
SMURF votes "no lynch" at a point where he could have turned the vote off Kat. Not the attitude of a wolf supporting his own - I can't see why he wouldn't have voted CatInASuit or Kassia (unless they're wolves together of course, but I strongly doubt that in either case).
BREWHA is the least committal of the lot. His vote ends up on CatInASuit fairly early on, and to the best of my knowledge he never changes it. I'm not ruling him out.
Kassia is the congenital lurker. As a partner for Kat, however, she seems fairly clear. She's more likely to be the "lurker scapegoat" of the wolves.
RYJAE looks a bit suspicious. He votes Kassia and keeps his vote there. I can't see the reasoning behind that. Note that I've put Ryjae low down on my list for other reasons, already given; but Kat's being a wolf isn't helping him any.
HOCKEYMONKEY's voting record supports him as a partner of Kat. However there may be other reasons to think Hockey isn't a wolf. (NAF's gone into those so I won't.)
HAL's attitude makes me look at him with suspicion. He wasn't around for the finale but he leaves Kat's name off a "lurkers" post, and also vote Kassia at a critical time to tie the vote with Kat but offers no real evidence that Kassia is likely to be a wolf.
TD's voting record looks fairly scummy if you consider him as a possible partner of Kat. His voting of CatInASuit is justified by his reasoning, but does tie up the vote with Kat (when she was previously ahead).
DRAINBEAD looks slightly scummy. For one thing, Kat apparently distanced herself from him once when she didn't really need to. For another, he's supported her subtly twice when she was under fire. A third thing is that Drain had no hesitation joining the cookies bandwagon. None of this is damning, but taken together it makes me look at him with some suspicion.
ATARUS never once attacks Kat. He does attack both Diggit (who does attack Kat) and Cookies. This and the timing of it get my wolfdar racing. I especially don't like the one post that I mentioned specifically in my above post. It looks scummy as hell to me.
So based purely on the Kat voting, my top four suspects right now would have to be ATARUS, DRAIN, TDPATRIOT and HAL B. I'll probably be voting for one of them, depending on what happens today.
I think the least likely partners of Kat are DIGGIT, SMURF, RYSTO, CAT and KLUTZ. I'm not ruling them out as members of a second wolf group, but I don't think they're partnered with Kat in hers.
|
|
|
Post by brewha on Mar 24, 2008 10:04:07 GMT -5
bah! I should've previewed. Story beat me to the punch again!
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 24, 2008 10:04:18 GMT -5
Just seen Hal's post about knowing all the roles in the game. How about big "WHOA!"
I'm gonna wait and see how this one pans out I think...
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 24, 2008 10:07:07 GMT -5
molefan - I'll await your full analysis, but here: I think we have a fundamental disagreement. I mention it only because I see no reason why drawing attention to a fellow scum would be something scum wouldn't do. It's been a pretty common tactic in every game we've played so far. And I think if you keep declaring folks to be "probable humans" on the basis of things like this, you're going to make yourself easy to manipulate. I haven't mentioned this in a few games, but it's worth remembering: in order to win, only one scum has to survive to the end. That one scum can cheerfully bus every single one of his/her confederates if it gets him/her enough trust to avoid lynching. The idea that scum wouldn't be the first to call attention to other scum is not, I think, one we should be embracing. Particularly in this situation - a scummy diggit would have had no way of knowing that drawing attention to his confederate Kat would blow up into an actual lynching. I'm not accusing diggit of anything at the moment, but I definitely don't think he should be exonerated or even partially exonerated on this basis. I'm not sure I agree... Diggit wasn't only the first one to vote Kat, he was only the second one (NAF was the first) to seriously call her out. I can imagine a wolf doing that to another wolf but at that point in the game it's foolhardy and could start unwanted bandwagons. And why didn't he take his vote OFF Kat if he could see what he'd started earlier on? I can sorta see Diggit being Kat's partner if he's VERY foolhardy and has a tendency to jump the gun and make moves where no moves really need to be made. Historically, is Diggit that kind of player?
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 24, 2008 10:10:16 GMT -5
Note that I do have real concerns with one player in that respect - Santo. I could imagine his late actions being a belated attempt to disassociate himself from Kat, having tied himself to her a little obviously earlier on. But Diggit? I'm not really worried about him for the time being. If evidence comes up to the contrary, of course, I'll look at him again.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Mar 24, 2008 10:12:47 GMT -5
I'm not sure I agree... Diggit wasn't only the first one to vote Kat, he was only the second one (NAF was the first) to seriously call her out. I can imagine a wolf doing that to another wolf but at that point in the game it's foolhardy and could start unwanted bandwagons. And why didn't he take his vote OFF Kat if he could see what he'd started earlier on? Because once his vote is on there, he has to explain taking it off. I think we may have to agree to disagree. I can see plenty of reasons that a wolf would call out another one early in the game. Maybe even more than one. Santo Rugger? Any thoughts on this? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 24, 2008 10:20:26 GMT -5
You know what? I think, as a Mason, I'm an unlikely target for a lynch here, which gives me a certain degree of freedom. Last time I voted Atarus based on pure gut instinct and the fact that nobody seemed to be attacking him. Now, with the added knowledge of Kat's alignment, I have definite reasons to suspect Atarus from his own posts as well as my previous suspicions. And looking at his actions in respect of the Kat votes is the icing on the cake for me. I don't like his attack on Diggit, who was the only person voting Kat then. I don't "buy" his reasons for it. I think his whole post on page eight of the second "Day One" thread looks scummy as hell. I'm going to get my vote in early and hope that this time it makes a difference.
Vote Atarus.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 24, 2008 10:21:09 GMT -5
I'm not sure I agree... Diggit wasn't only the first one to vote Kat, he was only the second one (NAF was the first) to seriously call her out. I can imagine a wolf doing that to another wolf but at that point in the game it's foolhardy and could start unwanted bandwagons. And why didn't he take his vote OFF Kat if he could see what he'd started earlier on? Because once his vote is on there, he has to explain taking it off. I think we may have to agree to disagree. I can see plenty of reasons that a wolf would call out another one early in the game. Maybe even more than one. Santo Rugger? Any thoughts on this? ;D Point taken. But I think there are a lot of much more credible suspects right now, and I've just voted one of 'em.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Mar 24, 2008 10:24:34 GMT -5
I fully agree with this interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Mar 24, 2008 10:26:42 GMT -5
A general name claim looks like it could be very useful. But are the masons happy to be outed? Ok, time to revisit this. We have reasons on the board for and against a mass name-claim, but I wanted to get something on the table about this. I didn't mention it yesterday, since I was still trying to wrap my head around the implications, but I can't figure out any reason not to put this out there: I have a list of all the role names in the game.I'm not allowed to reveal the full contents of the list, but I can confirm or deny anyone's name claim. However, there are more names on the list then there are players in the game, so it seems to me that the Do-Gooders were provided with false-claim names yes, "Azrael" is on the list). I'm of the opinion that getting the names out there is worth the risk. However, I can understand if people want to keep things under wraps for now. Some will be for pro-town reasons, some will just be scum, but if the town votes to keep things under wraps for now, I'm ok with that. I would ask Rysto (if you wouldn't mind) to begin putting things in place to determine a random reveal order using the tried and true NBA method. The info is here -- shall we use it? I got a little bit of :coughs: info last Night too. :coughs:It seems that when I was made shark proof :coughs: it was because I was attacked. I don't know who my attackers are (or really how I survived, but thanks to whoever protected me), but I was given a tidbit of info about them. :coughs:Apperantly they were wearing disguises. I am taking this to mean (in conjunction with Kat's full claim yesterday) that the Do Gooders have been given full false roles, complete with role PM's. :coughs:On the plus side...Kat's fake role was terrible. If I hadn't already had my vote on her, claiming Jean-Paul Valley would have caused me to place a vote. He is about as Goody two shoes as you get, and WAS Batman for a brief period of time. There is no way I can see him going against the Do Gooders. Don't know if that will hold true for all the fake claims, but it is interesting. :coughs:I also don't really want to out the remaining masons by forcing a name claim, but if anyone else has info that might help make the decision...we might as well hear it. :coughs::hacks::wheeze::hates life:
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Mar 24, 2008 10:32:56 GMT -5
Arright, let's get this issue rolling... This is pretty interesting information. Some follow-up questions: (1) What do you see as the utility of a mass name claim, in light of the list? If the scum appear to have pre-fab fake claims based on your list, they'd have no reason to lie. (2) How many names, total, are on your list? (3) In what regard are you "not allowed" to reveal the contents of the list? Is that a mod-driven post restriction. (4) Are you willing to name-claim first? (1) A couple of possibilities come to mind: A) The mods aren't playing playing nice, and slipped a Do-Gooder or two alibi names that aren't on the list. B) Someone might not want to have their name or their alias revealed, and will take a shot at false-claiming. C) Someone might think I'm full of crap and false claim. Even if none of that pans out, I'm of the opinion that getting this out there still can have a long-term beneficial effect on the town. If the scum are forced to essentially play two roles (their daytime cover story and their nighttime do-gooder role), complete with names (and, for all we know, full role descriptions), there is an increased chance that someone will make a slip that we can catch. You've always been the biggest proponent of information helping the town -- well, I'd like to see as much information laid out on the table as possible, (2) There are 36 names on the list. (3) Yes, it's mod-driven. I asked if I could post the list, and was told that I could not. (4) If need be, sure. I'd prefer we set up a random order, just to make sure things are on the up-and-up as possible, but if that became a requirement, then sure -- I have nothing to hide here. HAL's attitude makes me look at him with suspicion. He wasn't around for the finale but he leaves Kat's name off a "lurkers" post,... I didn't leave her off the lurker list. At the time I made the list, I said I was defining "lurker as someone with <10 posts". Kat was above that number. Hal, First of all, what did you do to ROosh? That's some nasty karma! I think it was for saying something which, if taken clearly out of context, might have been able to be misinterpreted as a threat to smite him. All right, already, I'm sorry Roosh!
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Mar 24, 2008 10:35:12 GMT -5
1) She got lucky. She guessed at a fairly obscure (I think, I'm not overly familiar with Bat-Canon and I've never heard of the guy) villian, hoping that no one else had it and couldn't counter claim her. The villian's description also fit nicely with the power of vig. She had plenty of time to research a fake claim. I vote for choice one and think you are being overly paranoid. Well, atleast paranoid about the wrong things. Kat clearly delayed her role claim, in retrospect, she probably used that time to create a believable alibi. But how can you say this with any certainty? Maybe she was holding back because she realized a claim followed by a lynch of her would reveal information to the town about scum having false claims. She could have been holding back because she was hoping one of the other co-leaders would be the ultimate lead, or she was hoping on luck to save her should there be a tie. Maybe she had a scum on her vote, and was expecting the scum to change at the last minute, but discovered for whatever reason that it wasn't going to happen. Her claim was a last minute desparation attempt, and at this point I think it's safer to assume worse case scenario than some lucky (but ultimately useless) Hail Mary. Plus, with what Hal just posted about having a list of the names and that list numbering more than the number of players, the idea of scum having cover roles is even more likely now.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Mar 24, 2008 10:42:12 GMT -5
All right, already, I'm sorry Roosh!
Dio's in charge now. Make your Karmic pleas to him.
|
|
|
Post by ryjae on Mar 24, 2008 10:45:14 GMT -5
I'm for role claims now, Yesterday I wasn't so sure but after the night and a good thinking, here goes. If the mods created "second" accounts for scum then they had to dig into more obscure characters and most likely didn't do the research as precise as those "real" roles. We stand a chance of catching some hints either way. If we run a risk of scum identifying our bigger power roles they also run the risk of the role not fitting and we have something to go on. With Hal's able to confirm or deny role claims its not like the scum can find a better "cover" if we choose to role claim.
And on to something else my FOS Aturus for this sentence in his YesterDay post.
Looks like Kat was doing just that, was this an early life rope thrown to Kat or just an honest townie mistake. I don't know but he seemed to be spending more time on diggit's vote on Kat than who he himself should vote for.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Mar 24, 2008 10:47:05 GMT -5
You know what? I think, as a Mason, I'm an unlikely target for a lynch here, which gives me a certain degree of freedom. Last time I voted Atarus based on pure gut instinct and the fact that nobody seemed to be attacking him. Now, with the added knowledge of Kat's alignment, I have definite reasons to suspect Atarus from his own posts as well as my previous suspicions. And looking at his actions in respect of the Kat votes is the icing on the cake for me. I don't like his attack on Diggit, who was the only person voting Kat then. I don't "buy" his reasons for it. I think his whole post on page eight of the second "Day One" thread looks scummy as hell. I'm going to get my vote in early and hope that this time it makes a difference. [colorBlue] Vote Atarus.[/color][/quote] Mondays are usually pretty busy for me, and I've got another midterm due today, but I wanted to make this post to remind myself (or so somebody will remind me if I forget) that I want to come back to this point when I have a bit of time.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Mar 24, 2008 10:47:25 GMT -5
I vote for choice one and think you are being overly paranoid. Well, atleast paranoid about the wrong things. Kat clearly delayed her role claim, in retrospect, she probably used that time to create a believable alibi. But how can you say this with any certainty? Maybe she was holding back because she realized a claim followed by a lynch of her would reveal information to the town about scum having false claims. She could have been holding back because she was hoping one of the other co-leaders would be the ultimate lead, or she was hoping on luck to save her should there be a tie. Maybe she had a scum on her vote, and was expecting the scum to change at the last minute, but discovered for whatever reason that it wasn't going to happen. Her claim was a last minute desparation attempt, and at this point I think it's safer to assume worse case scenario than some lucky (but ultimately useless) Hail Mary. Plus, with what Hal just posted about having a list of the names and that list numbering more than the number of players, the idea of scum having cover roles is even more likely now. Well, given NAF's last post, I can say with a decent amount of certainty that I was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by brewha on Mar 24, 2008 10:54:35 GMT -5
Here's a whacky idea. If we do go with a role claim, why don't we exclude NAF and Mole? The Do Gooders know that they are masons. If they reveal, it would show how their names are linked and the dogooders would be able to link the other masons to them as well.
NAF and Mole, if your names were kept secret, would the other masons still be obvious if they name revealed?
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Mar 24, 2008 10:56:04 GMT -5
<snip> I think we may have to agree to disagree. I can see plenty of reasons that a wolf would call out another one early in the game. Maybe even more than one. Santo Rugger? Any thoughts on this? ;D Nope. For those that haven't been following our games since the beginning, story and I were once TEAMmates, and he used me as a wolf shield and pursued my lynch for two or three Days, gaining massive town creed in the process. I'm not the least bit bitter. (Just kidding, it was an awesome plan, and worked quite well).
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 24, 2008 10:58:07 GMT -5
So Rysto, were you trying to be deceitful? Or, did you actually not understand my reasoning? Your reasoning was -- and I quote -- "While nothing was obviously scummy, there was nothing obviously protown." I did not see that as a particularly compelling case myself. As to why I messed up the link, well, you did exactly the same thing when trying to link to my post. I don't know what mistake we both made but I guess it's not that hard to make.
|
|