|
Day 1
Jul 19, 2009 18:46:56 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 19, 2009 18:46:56 GMT -5
Before anyone else votes Pleo, you might want to give him a chance to say something further. I'm inclined to vote for him as well, but there are a lot of people who haven't had a chance to weigh in on a variety of topics, including him. Once those posts start coming in, things could change a lot. Yes, and with our odd tie resolving dynamic, a vote now could have a serious impact. I think it's probably our best practice if we try to avoid any DayEnd ties.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jul 19, 2009 20:13:38 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jul 19, 2009 20:13:38 GMT -5
We need to avoid ties at all costs. If someone gets a bunch of votes before claiming, as is the way things usually go, then a tie can take out a power role *snap* just like that.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 19, 2009 20:31:27 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 19, 2009 20:31:27 GMT -5
Before anyone else votes Pleo, you might want to give him a chance to say something further. I'm inclined to vote for him as well, but there are a lot of people who haven't had a chance to weigh in on a variety of topics, including him. Once those posts start coming in, things could change a lot. I was actually going to vote for him in my last post but refrained from doing so because of this very reason. No need piling a bunch of votes on him now when he hasn't had a chance to say anything. Especially when I'll be around for the last couple hours of the Day.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 19, 2009 22:38:09 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 19, 2009 22:38:09 GMT -5
I've been outta town this weekend, just got caught up. I hate to do this in a way, but I think Hockey Monkey is too dangerous to live. Even without the concern of a scum redirector, the likely result of leaving her alive is a dangerous number of dead Town. However, if we find someone who does look excessively scummy, I'd rather lynch the scummy person toDay, and see how the body count looks toMorrow, particularly (of course) the alignments of the dead. Vote: HockeyMonkey [OOGish](This vote makes me sad in my heart, as I was really looking forward to playing with you again, HM )[/OOGy] As far as the whole handshaking goes, I'm not seeing anyone as confirmed. I would also like to hear from Pleo on his seeming inconsistency in his views on using the PMs, but don't see that as a convincing reason to vote for him at the moment.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jul 19, 2009 23:08:53 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Jul 19, 2009 23:08:53 GMT -5
Hi everyone. I apologize for my prolonged absence. I was without Internet from Monday to Thursday and worked all day Friday and Saturday. I just got off work. I'm reading everything to catch up! Good luck!
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jul 19, 2009 23:12:42 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Jul 19, 2009 23:12:42 GMT -5
On HockeyMonkey If we mislynch, have a NK, the merc is under scum control and HM hits town, we could lose 4 town a day. With 27 players, 1 thief, 1 merc, and (by NAF's estimation) 3-5 scum, we have about 21 town. If we lose 4 a day 2 or 3 days it would be a real problem. On rebels I've read Cookies' posts as saying that there are "vanilla rebels". I've also read them as saying that a "vanilla rebel" PM was very similar to a vanilla town PM. A very experienced player may have suspected the similarities and taken a shot at becoming part of a mini mason group or even outing some power roles. But Cookies' posts put some suspicion on the "confirmed townies" by showing that the information used to handshake was not as secret as they had claimed. So Cookies had to be discredited. This means that some of the "handshakers" could very easily be scum trying to become trusted citizens. And Pleo is the most likely with his no hand shake "handshake". I was going to vote for Pleo but as the case isn't very solid and because my sister, Julie, voted that way, I'll ... Vote: Julie [/color] for no reason until I get some feedback.[/quote] This is a very silly vote. and MAFIAS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!1!11 GRR But seriously. I dont' have a problem with silliness, but could you please not vote sillily? That has much more serious consequences.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jul 19, 2009 23:14:46 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Jul 19, 2009 23:14:46 GMT -5
On HockeyMonkey If we mislynch, have a NK, the merc is under scum control and HM hits town, we could lose 4 town a day. With 27 players, 1 thief, 1 merc, and (by NAF's estimation) 3-5 scum, we have about 21 town. If we lose 4 a day 2 or 3 days it would be a real problem. On rebels I've read Cookies' posts as saying that there are "vanilla rebels". I've also read them as saying that a "vanilla rebel" PM was very similar to a vanilla town PM. A very experienced player may have suspected the similarities and taken a shot at becoming part of a mini mason group or even outing some power roles. But Cookies' posts put some suspicion on the "confirmed townies" by showing that the information used to handshake was not as secret as they had claimed. So Cookies had to be discredited. This means that some of the "handshakers" could very easily be scum trying to become trusted citizens. And Pleo is the most likely with his no hand shake "handshake". I was going to vote for Pleo but as the case isn't very solid and because my sister, Julie, voted that way, I'll ... Vote: Julie [/color] for no reason until I get some feedback.[/quote] This is a very silly vote. and MAFIAS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!1!11 GRR But seriously. I dont' have a problem with silliness, but could you please not vote sillily? That has much more serious consequences.[/quote] Note: this post was made before I read pumpjack's later post.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 2:14:47 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Jul 20, 2009 2:14:47 GMT -5
Well this is not what I expected to do, but I'm probably not going to be around before the end of Day tomorrow so I have to go with what I have now.
At the moment we're tied with Hockey Monkey and Pleonast having three votes each, Pleonast being the tiebreaker (as I understand it). But one more vote for Cookies puts her in the tiebreaker spot, due to reaching three votes before either of the other two. (Or would she be the tiebreaker no matter her vote count as long as we were tied at three each?) This is what I have for a vote count (I told you my desktop was cluttered) with post #s for (vote)(unvote). I didn't keep track of some that were vote/unvote in the same post: Peeker (0) - pleonast (89)(211), Cookies (2) - Special Ed (96)(323), Nanook(167), Pleonast(211)*, Special Ed (0) - KidV (105)(253), pedescribe(160)(223), Pollux Oil (0) - archangel (145)(154), MrBlockey (0) - pedscribe(228)(263) Hockey Monkey (3) - KidV(253), Natlaw (310), bufftabby(333) Pleonast (3) - pedescribe(263), julie(312), pumpjack(327) Pedescribe (1) - Sister Coyote (296), Julie (0) - Pumpjack (317)(327)
Note that Pleonast's vote for Cookies was the vote that made her the three-vote-tie tiebreaker. Not necessarily telling, but a data point nonetheless. (Pedescribe voted and unvoted more than anybody and I don't see that as particularly suspicious by itself, either.)
I've already said I think it's a bad idea to lynch Hockey Monkey on the first Day. I don't think she should get a free ride, but no one is voting for her because they think she's scum; just a danger to town. (That's my read on the votes anyway. If I've mis-characterized your position, I apologize. But if I misread your intent, someone else may have as well, so let us know.) So no vote for HM from me.
I've also said I don't think Cookies is scum. While not in immediate danger, she is still at risk and maybe even the tiebreaker under one interpretation of the rules. Hawk was asked about this at one point and answered. I'll go back and find it after I post this and see if that's how it works (Cookies being lynched for being the first to three votes, I mean).
I didn't intend to vote for any of the "handshake masons" until we had more information to go by, but circumstances being what they are I'm going to make Pleonast the first to four votes.
Vote: Pleonast
His "non-handshake handshake" plus his third vote on Cookies (because of the tie-break not the classic "3rd vote is scum" BS) wouldn't be enough for me under different circumstances. I even thought about voting/unvoting but I don't want to not vote and I don't have strong enough suspicions on anyone else, yet. And I'll admit, I'm hoping that we don't lynch anybody with only four votes this early. With 27 people playing, only having nine (ten, now) votes so far is really worrying me. Every game I've read that has a flurry of last-minute votes invariably ends with a townie "Dancing Madly Backwards on a Sea of Air" (that's a Captain Beyond song).
I expect to have a lot of catching up to do when I get up tomorrow. At least it will be Night, so I'll have time to do it.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 6:59:53 GMT -5
Post by PrecambrianMollusc on Jul 20, 2009 6:59:53 GMT -5
I am never ever going away on day one again.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 8:57:05 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 20, 2009 8:57:05 GMT -5
I even thought about voting/unvoting but I don't want to not vote and I don't have strong enough suspicions on anyone else, yet. And I'll admit, I'm hoping that we don't lynch anybody with only four votes this early. With 27 people playing, only having nine (ten, now) votes so far is really worrying me. Every game I've read that has a flurry of last-minute votes invariably ends with a townie "Dancing Madly Backwards on a Sea of Air" (that's a Captain Beyond song). That worries me, as well. Yes, we have to be more cautious in our votes under this setup, but we still have to vote, and early enough that people can react and claim if they need to.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 9:12:48 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jul 20, 2009 9:12:48 GMT -5
i'm inclined to vote hm because of her potential damage to town. unless we are willing to assume that there is no way her action can be influenced and we assume that she is necessarily better at picking scum out of the woodpile it seems like her actions early on would seem to be percentage wise bad for town. not that i haven't tried to draw to an inside straight now and again.
but i don't want to vote just yet because of the vote mechanics.
unless something really compelling happens that's where my vote is going at this time, however.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 9:13:11 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jul 20, 2009 9:13:11 GMT -5
The timing of the end of the Day really sucks. Since I don't have much time, I'll post the important part first:
I am a Mason. We have the same victory condition as vanilla Town.
The case against me is pure misrepresentation. I'll explain and change my vote shortly.
I also recommend we do not kill our Vigilante.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 9:19:38 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jul 20, 2009 9:19:38 GMT -5
The timing of the end of the Day really sucks. Since I don't have much time, I'll post the important part first: I am a Mason. We have the same victory condition as vanilla Town. The case against me is pure misrepresentation. I'll explain and change my vote shortly. I also recommend we do not kill our Vigilante. well whoopty doo. glad to see things never change. you would have been my second choice. sheesh.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 9:24:48 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Jul 20, 2009 9:24:48 GMT -5
I haven't seen any reason to change my vote at this time. I'm not getting scumtells off anybody strong enough to make me halfway confident of their alignment.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 9:44:21 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Jul 20, 2009 9:44:21 GMT -5
I said it would be an action-packed weekend. Didn't expect all this though. On HockeyMonkey: If the optimal play for a given role is either for town to lynch known town, or for the player to suicide on Night One, that's really shonky modding. I'm going to put my faith in hawkeye and suggest that HM's role is playable and at least potentially pro-town. The second point here is that we need to vote for whoever we find scummiest. All those voting for HM are trying to manipulate a ruleset they don't even know. This has to be a recipe for disaster. If we stick to the fundamentals, rather than trying to game a half-understood system, we'll do alright. Which brings me to the difficult question of finding a vote. My first thought was that I didn't even want to recap the whole handshake brouhaha, for fear of kick-starting yet another round of finger-pointing. My second thought was that not everyone might share that ambition. It's exactly the kind of emotive debate that draws people in almost against their will without shedding any great light on the big question of finding scum. As such, it's an obvious ploy for scum to keep stirring the pot. I wasn't looking at the main protagonists now - the hypothesis is that secondary particpants would come along later to needle those directly involved and provoke an excited but unhelpful discussion. That drew my attention to Special Ed's posts 241, 259 and 260, in which he brings up the whole discussion of Cookies' botched PM, the morality of handshaking, Cookies' interpretation of game ethics etcetera, etcetera long after town needed (and had begun to) move on. So that got me looking at Ed. And I noticed a general pattern in his posts whereby he always seems to give himself wiggle room. When he voted for Cookies based on her "odd" way of claiming town, he hedged around his reasons for ages, mainly asking other people to guess why he voted: No, I was wanting to see who else might come to a similar conclusion than I did without me saying why. Basically, I wanted to call attention to that post and find out if anyone saw what I saw. Eventually, when directly confronted by Cookies, he admits it was the absence of the word "Establishment" that provoked his vote. But even then someone else puts words in his mouth. "I've noticed something - you all guess what it is" does have a place as a means of hiding info from scum, but also gives scum an easy way to look more involved than they really are. Getting other people to justify your votes is a no-lose situation. Similarly, after he unvotes Cookies, he turns his attention to Pleo, but ends up not actually saying anything:
I'm not liking the 'warning' Pleonast gave. However, that said:
[snip]
I'm leaning towards voting Pleo, because I'm feeling that this was the optimal move for a Scum who already knew the Town win condition, and a sub optimal move for a Town. Do we have a vote count?If you read the full quote, you'll see he asks a lot of hypothetical questions (that we can't hope to answer right now) but doesn't actually come down with a firm decision. Yes, it's important to check vote counts, but either you think someone's scum or you don't; voting or not voting for them because of tactical reasons rings a little false. On which note: vote Special Ed
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 9:52:19 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Jul 20, 2009 9:52:19 GMT -5
Oh, and I suppose it wouldn't be Day One if we didn't have a Mason claim.
Assuming that Pleo gets unvoted, can everyone who's planning on killing HM for tactical reasons make one more attempt to find someone they think is actually scum. We don't win by tap-dancing through the rule-book - we win by finding and lynching scum.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 9:55:27 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 20, 2009 9:55:27 GMT -5
No one is really pinging me. Ed is very un-Ed at the moment - but he's like that in several games at the moment, so I'm not going to take that as a scum-tell. Pleo's and NAF's inquisition of Cookie is interesting, but Pleo's tone is bugging me, and I would be inclined to vote that way, tho I see on preview he's just claimed Mason. I'll hold. Which really leaves HM. Do we believe the claim? and if we do, is HM too much of a risk to town. Certainly the idea of extra town deaths this early in the game is one we can ill afford. But I have played vig in a couple of games, and got lucky with getting scum on the first go -- and myself killed shortly afterwards
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 10:19:56 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jul 20, 2009 10:19:56 GMT -5
How can you say handshakes weren't forbidden when quoting of PMs is forbidden and the Mod posted the Vanilla PM? No one has quoted any PMs! We're allowed to make use of the information in the PM. We're even allowed to use the words in the PM. (Ask the moderator if you doubt this. I already did.) That's why the handshake was legal. It was a loophole because the moderator should have posted the vanilla PM before handing out roles. But that's a moderator mistake, not a rules violation. What if I have followed your (Pleo's) suggestion and asked the Mod and he said that further elaboration would be in violate the rules? Why would you take my word on that while you have pissed on everything else I've said since I claimed? I would have quit pressing you about it. I'm unhappy with the way you're playing because you say you have information about the Rebels (some fraqment of their win condition), and yet have don't clearly answer questions about it. Once you give a pro-Town reason for not giving us the information (not a quote, the information), I'll not complain any more. So, please, say "the moderator says I can't say more", or "I believe it will hurt the Town to say more", or some other reason a Townie might withhold information. I'm still suspicious of Pleo. First, he warned Hawkeye about the loophole, chalking it up to his gentlemanly urge to give fair warning before cheating. Then, he continually asks Cookies to spill more info about her PM than she previously gave, despite that being a very similar breach of rules. Then, he softens, offering that she could ask the mod. Then, before Cookies responds again, he votes her, for exactly the same reason. This is all totally inconsistent from the cheating/noncheating divide. That is, sometimes, Pleo seems to think it unsporting to use our PMs, and sometimes he doesn't. But it is totally consistent from a scum's perspective. From a scum's perspective, he sounded the alarm to avoid any more townies getting in the mini-masonry. And from a scum's perspective, he wants Cookies lynched because she's town, and because it would cast further doubt on those people who have shook hands. And what better way to do that than to put her up to a standard she can never reach? You're having the same problem as Cookies. We're allowed to use the information in our PMs! That's a major part of any Mafia game and I'm surprised you'd think otherwise. No one suggested that she quote any part of her PM. I was asking for her to tell us the difference between the munged Rebel PM and her final role PM. I believe she's bright enough to do that without actually quoting anything. I parenthetically told her to confirm with the moderator if she was unsure. (I already had and knew what I was requesting was legal.) I am going to: Vote: PleonastFor trying to coast on the handshake of others even while alerting everyone to the handshake and thereby derailing it. I'm by no means convinced he's scum, but this reason feels a little stronger to me than anything else I've seen. Where was I "coasting" on the handshake? I explicitly excluded myself from the handshake-Masonry, explaining why Nanook probably trusted me, but pointed out that I didn't reveal any part of the win condition (and intentionally so). That seems a lot more like braking to me. Hmm, who to vote for. I think any of Cookies, pedescribe and julie are deserving of votes. Cookies and pedescribe for trying to prevent players from using what they know. julie for mischaracterizing my actions. Actually, I think I'll keep my vote on Cookies until she describes the difference between her first PM and her final PM. Or she gives a pro-Town reason for not doing so. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ About our claimed Vigilante. It's a bad idea to lynch her. Her kill gains us 1/2 a mislynch* if she gets a Rebel and costs only 1/2 a mislynch if she gets a Townie. Her choice of targets is not influenced by the Rebels. Compare that to our lynch: we do not gain any mislynches by successfully killing a Rebel, and lynching a Townie costs us a full mislynch. Plus, the Rebels will be voting just as we will and will affect who is lynched. Thus, a Vig kill is better than a Town lynch on all metrics--it gains us more, costs us less, and is not affected by Rebels. The only disadvantage to the Vig kill is that the target doesn't get a chance to claim. While this is significant, it can be mitigated by players playing the game in pro-Town manner. The Vig is going to target those playing anti-Town. Don't do that and you won't be killed by the Vig. That is, worrying about being killed by the Vig should be a concern of the Rebels and not the Town. Another reason not to lynch the Vigilante is the Rebels will have to kill her before the end of the game. A Vig is too dangerous near the end-game for the Rebels to leave alive. By lynching her ourselves, not only do we mislynch, but we give up a one-Night "protection". The Night the Rebels kill the Vig is a Night they're not killing a more valuable power role. *Mislynch, for those new to the game, is how we keep track of the score during the game. It's a count of how many mistakes the Town can make in its choice of lynching. Each time the Town lynches another Townie, we lose a mislynch. When we reach zero mislynches, we're at "lynch or lose"--any mistake means we lose the game. In the current game, we probably have 8.5 ( = (22 - 5) / 2 ) mislynches if there's five Rebels, or 7.5 ( = (21 - 6) / 2 ) if there's six. Lynching successfully doesn't change the number. Mislynches decreases it by one. Night kills of Town/Rebels change it minus/plus 0.5.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 10:29:05 GMT -5
Post by PrecambrianMollusc on Jul 20, 2009 10:29:05 GMT -5
Regarding HM , I believe the claim solely based on the colour, I could imagine a fake claim with HM claiming to be a Vig, but the use of the Minister of War and requirement that all the Rebels are dead makes me believe it is a genuine claim. Should we lynch her, well a Vig, as many have said, is very useful in end game as we can work our way through the pool of unconfirmed much faster with the vig. In the short term she is a liability. However Scum have to kill her at some point, she is way to dangerous to be left loose and they can't have her around at endgame, so I say let scum do their own dirty work and lets not burn a lynch doing their work for them. If we have a role blocker or a protection role, all the better to play wifom with scum.
So on that reasoning I would go for anyone who was ramping up the fear of a live Vig on the loose, although that would be a pretty weak reason to vote for someone as there are merits to the case of lynching HM
Special Eds vote with no reason for Cookies way back pinged me, from someone who always bemoans (well in the games I have played with him) lack of reason with votes that didn't seam right, that along with his cryptic case building, almost seamed like he was feeding stuff out there to see who bit, I feel something isn't right in the world of special ed.
Vote Special Ed
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 10:29:25 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 10:29:25 GMT -5
The more I think about it the more I think that leaving HM in the game for a while isn't such a bad thing. I would like her to answer my question from a couple of pages back, but she might have missed it (actually I haven't seen her post since I asked it so she might not have seen it yet) so I will re ask
Hockey Monkey: Will you willingly suicide instead of forcing the town to lynch you if a few Days down the road town decides that you being alive is more risk than we can handle?
As for who I am voting for, I don't know quite yet, but I am sure I will figure something out soon.
I do know who I will not be voting for toDay. I won't vote for: Cookies Pleo Nanook Mister Blockey
I likely won't be voting for Jaade or Captain Pinkies either. Though it would be nice if they both posted a bit more what with there only being 4 hours or so left in the Day.
Unfortunaltly that still leaves an aweful lot of people left the game. Many of whom haven't posted a whole heck of a lot. I am going to take an hour or so and read. Then I will be back with a vote.
CAN WE PLEASE GET AN OFFICIAL VOTE COUNT? THANK YOU
and I probably won't vote for Hockey Monkey either.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 10:31:06 GMT -5
Post by PrecambrianMollusc on Jul 20, 2009 10:31:06 GMT -5
And beaten to the reason not to lynch HM by Pleonast,
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 10:33:59 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 10:33:59 GMT -5
You know what. It didn't take an hour, PCM posted somethign that was sufficiantly scummy just while I was writing my last post
Vote PCM.
The weird one off vote by Ed isn't a really good reason to vote for Ed. There may be good reasons to vote for him, but that sure isn't one. Plus the third vote thing which, yeah, problably doesn't work well with PCM but still it pings then also the reason he states he believes HM is town is rather strained. I think everyone was opperating on the assumption that HM is probably town, but PCM felt he had to go out of his way to explain why that was. That's the kind of thing that people who KNOW someone is town will do when they are trying to hide perfect information.
Vote: PCM
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 10:42:10 GMT -5
Post by PrecambrianMollusc on Jul 20, 2009 10:42:10 GMT -5
No thats the sort of thing people who are being honest will post - I beleive X because of Y, Y may be a shitty reason, but it is my shitty reason.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 10:48:07 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jul 20, 2009 10:48:07 GMT -5
NAF, just to be clear, by "PCM" you mean "PrecambrianMollusc"?
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 10:52:02 GMT -5
Post by PrecambrianMollusc on Jul 20, 2009 10:52:02 GMT -5
Or to put it another way, why, if I knew HM was really town would I go out of my way to state definitively what I felt, If I had perfect information why would I just not go with the 'HM feels townish' or something less definitive. Why bring it up at all if I have perfect information?
"Plus the third vote thing which, yeah, problably doesn't work well with PCM" Why?
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 10:53:16 GMT -5
Post by PrecambrianMollusc on Jul 20, 2009 10:53:16 GMT -5
Pleonast, I think yes, I go by the shortened version of PCM on account of my name being annoyingly long.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:02:28 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 11:02:28 GMT -5
Or to put it another way, why, if I knew HM was really town would I go out of my way to state definitively what I felt, If I had perfect information why would I just not go with the 'HM feels townish' or something less definitive. Why bring it up at all if I have perfect information? Because you are trying to be townie, which is harder to do than it looks like when you are actually scum. You don't want to state that you think HM is probably town without explicitly stating why because you are afraid that it's an anti town thing to do. But, the time for discussing the veracity of her claim has long since past, and most people are bying her claim because it's nutty to claim a mandatory vig if you are scum. There isn't really a need to say anything about it. This isn't a sure thing, but so far that one post has pinged me harder than anything else toDay. Because if you know about it then it doesn't necessarily mean anything, and I am certain you know about the third vote thing. But maybe you don't. What's the third vote thing I am talking about? (Pleo, yes, PCM is Precambrian Mollusk. It's a handle he picked up on...domebo? Either there or on Giraffe Boards. You might know him better as Natural Blond Chap from the SDMB.)
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:07:19 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jul 20, 2009 11:07:19 GMT -5
What if there is a tie in the peak votes in case of a tie?[/green] The first to reach the peak would be lynched.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:11:09 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jul 20, 2009 11:11:09 GMT -5
Pleonast 4: (Pedescribe, Julie, Pumpjack, dfrntbreign) Hockey Monkey 3: (KidV, Natlaw, Bufft) Cookies 2: (Nanook, Pleonast) Special Ed 2: (Stanislaus, PCM) Pedescribe 1: (Sister Coyote) PCM 1: (NAF)
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:11:27 GMT -5
Post by PrecambrianMollusc on Jul 20, 2009 11:11:27 GMT -5
I parsed your sentence as saying I was some special case where the 3rd vote wouldn't work, you know I like to feel special. Probably not the first or last time I would parse something completely incorrectly.
|
|