|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:26:04 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 20, 2009 11:26:04 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. I followed up what you quote with a more specific statement. Specifically Vanilla Town handshaking. Not posting the Vanilla PM on time was a moderator mistake with a piece of the set up that has a very clear intent: To prevent people from doing specifically what the handshakers handshook with. Do you really not see that? I have answered all questions that I can, including describing how my PMs were different and whether or not I spoke to the moderator, and you'll notice that I haven't said a damn thing further about the first PM. I know you notice because you are still angry with me for not doing what you want. Despite the fact that you don't like my answers, I have done everything that you ask. Yet here you are still pressing me about it. Again, it is the very specific behavior of the handshakers and the specific terms that they used that are the whole issue, not handshaking in general. I'd think you'd be bright enough to understand that.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:38:30 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 20, 2009 11:38:30 GMT -5
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? This is the key question. If we have that assurance going forward, then the risk to town is significantly reduced.
|
|
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 20, 2009 11:38:55 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jul 20, 2009 11:38:55 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 YOUand I probably won't vote for Hockey Monkey either. No NAF, I will not. As Pleonast has stated much better than I could, the scum will need me dead and scum killing me means they aren't killing another more important town member. I would hope that the town wouldn't waste a lynch on me at this point.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:42:01 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 20, 2009 11:42:01 GMT -5
Unvote: Pleonast
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:46:10 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 11:46:10 GMT -5
No NAF, I will not. As Pleonast has stated much better than I could, the scum will need me dead and scum killing me means they aren't killing another more important town member. I would hope that the town wouldn't waste a lynch on me at this point. I think you are misunderstanding the question. I don't think we should lynch you at this point either, but I am thinking about Day 4 (at a guess it might be Day 3 or 5) where it really might be better to have you dead (depending on how many scum have been killed up to that point), but town might not be able to waste the mislynch. Would you still force town to mislynch you even though you have the ability to suicide?
|
|
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 20, 2009 11:51:09 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jul 20, 2009 11:51:09 GMT -5
No NAF, I will not. As Pleonast has stated much better than I could, the scum will need me dead and scum killing me means they aren't killing another more important town member. I would hope that the town wouldn't waste a lynch on me at this point. I think you are misunderstanding the question. I don't think we should lynch you at this point either, but I am thinking about Day 4 (at a guess it might be Day 3 or 5) where it really might be better to have you dead (depending on how many scum have been killed up to that point), but town might not be able to waste the mislynch. Would you still force town to mislynch you even though you have the ability to suicide? If things play out that way where for some reason it would be a good play for the town for me to do that, then I'll make the best play for the town. I guess I just don't see how that scenario will play out.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:53:19 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 11:53:19 GMT -5
I think you are misunderstanding the question. I don't think we should lynch you at this point either, but I am thinking about Day 4 (at a guess it might be Day 3 or 5) where it really might be better to have you dead (depending on how many scum have been killed up to that point), but town might not be able to waste the mislynch. Would you still force town to mislynch you even though you have the ability to suicide? If things play out that way where for some reason it would be a good play for the town for me to do that, then I'll make the best play for the town. I guess I just don't see how that scenario will play out. I just wanted to know if you would be willing to do so if it seemed in town's best interest. If you are then I think a lot of people should start unvoting you. Pleo too, the guy claimed mason for fucks sake.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:54:57 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jul 20, 2009 11:54:57 GMT -5
Not posting the Vanilla PM on time was a moderator mistake with a piece of the set up that has a very clear intent: To prevent people from doing specifically what the handshakers handshook with. Do you really not see that? Yes, that is why the moderator closed the loophole, but that has nothing to do with what is against the rules or not. There are no rules against using the information in our PMs. Specifically, we are allowed to use words that are found within out PM. Ask the moderator, I did and that was his answer to me. You keep referring to your "answers", but have never done so. What specific behavior? Nothing they've done violates either the letter or the spirit of the rules. We're allowed to use words found within our PM. We're allowed to use the information found within our PM. The only thing we can't do is quote from the PM, and no one has done that. Your actions are morphing from anti-Town to pro-Rebel. Townies may disagree on how best to find Rebels, but you've passed that point. You're actively trying to prevent us from using information we were given by the moderator via PMs. As you know, that's a major source of information for us. What will you do when an investigator claims and says "PlayerX is a Rebel"? Will you complain that they're breaking the rules? I think it should be clear that it doesn't break either the letter or the spirit. Yet that's no different than a player putting key words from their role PM into post. Would you still force town to mislynch you even though you have the ability to suicide? Why would the Town ever be forced to mislynch the Vigilante, especially later in the game? The worse off the Town is, the better chance the Vig has to kill a Rebel. In fact, a Vig kill is the only way for the Town to get out of lynch or lose. And the better off the Town is, the less expensive the cost of the Vig is. Simply put, it's always better to let the Rebels kill the Vig (assuming the Vig is directing their own kills).
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:56:30 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 20, 2009 11:56:30 GMT -5
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. Long after the discussion had ended? Post 241 was in response to a post by Cookies that had occurred 90 minutes eariler. Post 259 was in response to a post by cookies that was 17 minutes old. And post 260 was in response to cookies on a post that was 11 minutes old. Of course, the beginning of the ethics conversation did occur (From what I can tell in post 208, which was 4 hours and 16 minutes before post 241. Maybe that's what you meant by something that had gone by. I also feel I raised some valid points that should have been answered. 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. My feeling in posting it that way was to gauge if I just noticed something and it was unimportant or if what I noticed really was there. Others didn't feel it was as important. I did think it was strange to give your alignment by not actually just saying what your alignment is. Maybe it wasn't an important point, and I stated it that way. It was early on Day 1. I voted on a weak case and noted that. 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. I had intended to come back and vote for Pleo (you'll note my unvote of him even though I didn't vote) Which is why I'm back now before Day ends to check in and vote. However, like others I was wanting to wait so that we gave him a chance to claim/defend himself without putting him in the lead where a tie would kill him off even if he had zero votes.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:56:39 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 11:56:39 GMT -5
Would you still force town to mislynch you even though you have the ability to suicide? Why would the Town ever be forced to mislynch the Vigilante, especially later in the game? The worse off the Town is, the better chance the Vig has to kill a Rebel. In fact, a Vig kill is the only way for the Town to get out of lynch or lose. And the better off the Town is, the less expensive the cost of the Vig is. Simply put, it's always better to let the Rebels kill the Vig (assuming the Vig is directing their own kills). Because I think HMs stance that she will never suicide is what is causing her to get votes. I am trying to save her from being lynched instead of you.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:57:24 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 11:57:24 GMT -5
Let me rephrase. I am trying to save her from being lynched in place of you when the people who are voting for you get their butts online and notice that you are a claimed mason.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 11:59:27 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 11:59:27 GMT -5
NETA: when I originally asked the question I was trying to talk her out of being the lead lynch candidate.
Here's the thing. Lots of deaths early are good. In the first few Days it's great to have people drop like flies. In the end game it's good to have a vig. It's in the middle game that a mandatory vig hurts town a lot. If it comes to that and we need HM to be dead I think it will put a lot of people at ease knowing that she is willing and won't obstenantly just keep killing people to the detrement of town.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:02:23 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 20, 2009 12:02:23 GMT -5
I WILL NOT BE REFERRING TO MY ERRONEOUS PM IN ANY FURTHER DETAIL AT THE REQUEST OF THE MOD.
Is that clear enough?
The ethical issue I have with those who handshook is completely unrelated than the risk to Town of trusting those handshakes because based on what has already been discussed about my first PM, the scum could have participated in them.
Is that clear enough?
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:06:42 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 20, 2009 12:06:42 GMT -5
I WILL NOT BE REFERRING TO MY ERRONEOUS PM IN ANY FURTHER DETAIL AT THE REQUEST OF THE MOD. Is that clear enough? The ethical issue I have with those who handshook is completely unrelated than the risk to Town of trusting those handshakes because based on what has already been discussed about my first PM, the scum could have participated in them. Is that clear enough? Even beyond your unmentionables, Scum could have been given Town-like Role PMs in the form of aliases. I assume those aliases would have included the Town Win condition. So Scum may have had the Town Win Condition without any error on the part of the moderator. However, the speed with which he posted the Vanilla PM pleads me to believe he didn't. But perhaps I'm looking at that through the lens of events in another, current game
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:08:09 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 20, 2009 12:08:09 GMT -5
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. A bit more? Both appear to have posted zero. They have been posting in other games.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:10:04 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 12:10:04 GMT -5
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. A bit more? Both appear to have posted zero. They have been posting in other games. They have both posted once. Generally that means that they aren't paying attention and nothing else.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:12:13 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 20, 2009 12:12:13 GMT -5
Vote Nanook[/color] for being the 2nd most frustrating (OMGUS) handshaker who is voting for me because he seems unable to fathom why I claimed how I did as being a pro-town action, and who has not claimed to be a Mason.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:20:04 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 12:20:04 GMT -5
Um, guys, the Day ends in two and a half hours and no one who has voted for Pleo has show up online yet.
Can we start talking contingency plans?
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:22:31 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 12:22:31 GMT -5
Oh, I take it back, pumpjack and dftabunchaletters (I am going to have to come up with a nickname for you) are both online right now.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:24:03 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 12:24:03 GMT -5
dfrntbregin would be the guy who needs the nickname.
I am going to go with D-man for now.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:25:14 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jul 20, 2009 12:25:14 GMT -5
I WILL NOT BE REFERRING TO MY ERRONEOUS PM IN ANY FURTHER DETAIL AT THE REQUEST OF THE MOD. Thank you! I wish you had said so earlier. Ok, so you don't put any weight on the handshakes. That's acceptable. But then, [/color] for being the 2nd most frustrating (OMGUS) handshaker who is voting for me because he seems unable to fathom why I claimed how I did as being a pro-town action, and who has not claimed to be a Mason. [/quote] This is a stretch. After refusing to straight-up answer questions and taking forever to explain why you wouldn't, you accuse someone of not understanding you. I think that points more to your anti-Town behavior than the one voting for you. I still think Cookies is suspicious, but another takes precedence now. unvote Cookiesvote pedescribeFor her ill-thought vote on me. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A Monday end of the Day really screws us.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:27:03 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 20, 2009 12:27:03 GMT -5
Just a quick post that I'm not a mason who would need to counter claim Pleonast if he's not. On a quick count 8-9 different people have posted since he claimed.
I'll go look for a better person to vote for, but time is short (including for that person to defend).
Claims: Cookies - vanilla Hockey Monkey - compulsory vigilante Pleonast - mason
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:32:46 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Jul 20, 2009 12:32:46 GMT -5
Um, guys, the Day ends in two and a half hours and no one who has voted for Pleo has show up online yet. Can we start talking contingency plans? I didn't expect to be. But I am. Unvote: Pleonast I'm still catching up, but did Special Ed unvote Pleonast without voting in the first place? NAF my name ws supposed to be (and is in other places) DfrntBreign pronounced different brain. Does that help? (as a musician I like db, an abreviation for decibel, but call me whatever you like.)
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:38:25 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Jul 20, 2009 12:38:25 GMT -5
Unvote: Pleonast
Don't know what to do because I have to get back to work and won't be able to check in again to change my vote.
Right now, it seems my only option is to lynch the lurker.
Vote: Jaade
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:38:42 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 12:38:42 GMT -5
DB works. And Different Brain does help. I twigged to the different bit when I was checking to see how to spell your name (and got frustrated that I kept closing the wrong tab and having to start that post over. Seriously kids, don't play mafia while trying to work.) but I didn't grab the brain bit.
I like the name, but I think I will still stick with db as a nickname since I don't think I will be able to spell it reliably.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:39:45 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jul 20, 2009 12:39:45 GMT -5
NAF my name ws supposed to be (and is in other places) DfrntBreign pronounced different brain. Does that help? (as a musician I like db, an abreviation for decibel, but call me whatever you like.) I fixed your name for you, if you don't mind. You can change it yourself by clicking the "Profile" button. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 12:54:46 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Jul 20, 2009 12:54:46 GMT -5
I have no time to stay and look this through and that sucks. Day is going to end while I'm gone and I'm just going to have to take a shot in the dark.
I think killing Hockey is a bad idea and as far as I can tell she's still in the lead so I'm going to Vote: Pedescribe which is honestly a shot in the dark, but I think it has a better chance of hitting scum.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 13:02:13 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jul 20, 2009 13:02:13 GMT -5
A quick note on the situation.
As at post D01.386, there was a tie between Hockey Monkey and Pedescribe with three votes each. If this continues until Dusk, Pleonast will be lynched. This is not acceptable, and I will vote accordingly to break the tie.
Vote: Pedescribe .
I'ts a shot in the dark, but better than lynching either of the claimed roles.
I'll try and get a post in analysing my current suspicion after eating some tea.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 13:04:37 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 20, 2009 13:04:37 GMT -5
I don't suppose we could get ourselves a last hour vote count too could we?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jul 20, 2009 13:08:12 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 20, 2009 13:08:12 GMT -5
On special ed's 'guess my vote reasons' he gave his reasons after I summarized it as 'Citizen of Quantom != Establishment' as follows: While I suppose it's a brief summary of my reason for voting, the real reason involved suspicion based on failing to use Establishment as her alignment andtrying to throw doubt on the Town handshake. Contrast it with this post today: Even beyond your unmentionables, Scum could have been given Town-like Role PMs in the form of aliases. I assume those aliases would have included the Town Win condition. So Scum may have had the Town Win Condition without any error on the part of the moderator. However, the speed with which he posted the Vanilla PM pleads me to believe he didn't. But perhaps I'm looking at that through the lens of events in another, current game The last 'but perhaps' seems a bit off when you were voting Cookies for throwing doubt on the handshake you seems to suggest the handshake shouldn't be doubted. How is Cookies doubt more unreasonable then yours? I don't think the 'not mentioning Establishment when talking about alignment') is a bad reason to vote, but I also don't have a problem with Cookies response.
|
|