|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 12:27:11 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 23, 2009 12:27:11 GMT -5
I'd be willing to see more fom Ed too. He's been a slippery little bugger this game. What do you have to say for yourself Ed?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 13:03:12 GMT -5
Post by Captain Pinkies on Jul 23, 2009 13:03:12 GMT -5
Good Morning all (it is morning here in the great NW).... And damn... lots of death last night.. I am concerned about NAF's "information"
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 13:03:24 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 23, 2009 13:03:24 GMT -5
Apperantly there is a terrorist attack planned on the town for Day 3. It's activated by lynching the wrong person (the bomber). Likewise it is activated by no lynching on Day 3. I figure it is best if I get that out there as soon as possible so we have enough time to figure out how to deal with it. If this is a Jester warning why is there a restriction for only Day Three? A Jester just needs to get lynched normally, no? Then lynching him Today would also have him win (and the rest loses?). The bomber sounds like the 'Mad Bomber' role who wins when everyone alive is tagged. But effectively, the message gives anyone not town the option to claim 'bomber' Day Three if up for lynch. It could be some Rebel role which allows to let them to spread misinformation. Hockey Monkey offered to lynch her D3 to make sure it's not the bomber, but as said if someone claims bomber she could kill him Night Three. On her being blocked last Night, I was thinking since she's the Minister of War and MHaye was a peacekeeper, he might have been the blocker. And just to be sure: Can we vote to not lynch (either no one votes or a majority votes for no lynch)?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 13:10:35 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 23, 2009 13:10:35 GMT -5
Assuming there is a real vig if HM is lying. I don't really believe that at the moment, but you left that part out. I don't see any need for your plan this early in the game Cookies. No one Town aligned would be stupid enough to create a tie, and I would love it if a scum or PFK person did so. I can see a reason to do something like that tomorrow though, where we would want to avoid the Bomber ending up in a situation that he can force a tie and win. I'd like to see some more from Ed. I was ready to vote for him at the end of the Day yesterday(I didn't vote to make sure there wasn't a tie as I stated), and his comments Today just add to that. That might be a little difficult to pull off since some people apparently suspect me to be the Bomber.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 14:27:36 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jul 23, 2009 14:27:36 GMT -5
Good Morning all (it is morning here in the great NW).... And damn... lots of death last night.. I am concerned about NAF's "information" I agree with this, and with julie's post (having failed at multiquote and being too lazy to go back.) I am concerned about NAF's information, but it's the kind of thing that could go either way, depending -- if it's true. If it's not true, of course, we all know where that ends up.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 14:42:13 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Jul 23, 2009 14:42:13 GMT -5
<font style="font-size: 12px;">At this point in the game, blocking the Vig is a pro-Town move. By mid-game it would be an either-or action, and by the end game it would be anti-Town. I hope that Monkey being blocked will prevent her from collecting votes ToDay. Note also that one of her voters YesterDay was the scummy BuffTabby. This is where I'm at, mostly. A blocked HM could be a scum or 3rd party player bidding to set up a Town claim later, but I'm content with Hanlons Razor for now. I was inclined to believe her claim anyway, and if she's being blocked, then that somewhat alleviates the concern I had over the damage she could do early game. When I first read that her target was not in the list of dead, I was all kinds of ready to bust out a big fat I Told You So, but if she thinks she was blocked, I'm content to let this ride for now. I am a little concerned about the number of kills - 3 seems like a lot, 4 is almost overkill (pardon, sorry, won't happen again). We can stipulate a scum kill, HM's, the merc, and then either a funky game interaction or an SK or another vig or a strongman or, or, or... my point is, 4 seems like an awful lot. This weakens HM's claim in my eyes, slightly. Something to think about later, if the number don't add up. I will say, if we have any other pro-town killers who feel compelled to whip it out, please target controversial players. Dunno who saw what in Buffy, but there was no voting centered on her, and I'll have to look again but I didn't see her taking any crucial positions either. If we're going to be faced with 3-4 kills a night, plus the lynch, we need to max the info we're getting.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 14:43:11 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Jul 23, 2009 14:43:11 GMT -5
EBWOP - I don't mind voting first, BTW, and I'm going to "me too" the pointed questions for Ed, with some salt.
Vote: Special Ed
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 14:55:49 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 23, 2009 14:55:49 GMT -5
Vote: Ed[/color]
Kid V beat me to the vote. I was going to do this once I got home from work and such.
And since he's yet to respond to anything I've said (I'm aware he may not have been on to see them yet), I'll cast my vote now. Pending your explanations I may change, so please, enlighten us.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 15:17:18 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 23, 2009 15:17:18 GMT -5
I'm going to hold off placing a vote. I spent some time looking at Ed last Night though and while I wasn't able to come up with anything conclusive either way...well I would like to hear more.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 15:33:32 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 23, 2009 15:33:32 GMT -5
Good Morning all (it is morning here in the great NW).... And damn... lots of death last night.. I am concerned about NAF's "information" What's with the scare quotes?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 15:42:32 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jul 23, 2009 15:42:32 GMT -5
Good Morning all (it is morning here in the great NW).... And damn... lots of death last night.. I am concerned about NAF's "information" How insightful. vote Captain Pinkiesfor not voting YesterDay and then making this completely worthless comment.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 15:47:48 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jul 23, 2009 15:47:48 GMT -5
And just to be sure: Can we vote to not lynch (either no one votes or a majority votes for no lynch)? [/color][/quote] Yes, you can vote for no lynch. If no one votes we would resort to some bizarre tie-breaker.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 16:02:39 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jul 23, 2009 16:02:39 GMT -5
A couple other things.
I neglected to mention in the opening post that Mhaye was a role-blocker. Also, Mhaye has agreed to hop aboard and aid with some of the moderation tasks. He will not be part of rule decisions to avoid an appearance of bias, but will be sending messages and handling other chores. Please cc him on all pms.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 17:11:28 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 23, 2009 17:11:28 GMT -5
Good Morning all (it is morning here in the great NW).... And damn... lots of death last night.. I am concerned about NAF's "information" How insightful. vote Captain Pinkiesfor not voting YesterDay and then making this completely worthless comment. First you thank NAF for his eloquent and nuanced introduction of alleged information into the game. Then you fire off a vote on the first person who points out the possibility that that information should be handled with some skepticism. If you are playing this way due to a sense of trust in the handshaking, please do the rest of us a favor and remind people that is what you are doing? Some of us do not share that trust and might be tempted to see your play as not only snuggling but going on the offensive for reasons that we are not currently in a position to share.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 17:26:32 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 23, 2009 17:26:32 GMT -5
First you thank NAF for his eloquent and nuanced introduction of alleged information into the game. I'm not sure, but I think I have just been insulted. So, anyone want to talk about some stuff? Maybe Ed will show up? In fairness I think we have done a crap job of presenting the case against Ed toDay so far, out of curiosity does anyone who felt strongly enough to place a vote want to step forward with something that Ed can speak to when he signs on for the Day? If not I will, but I don't feel as strongly as the people who are voting I suspect.
|
|
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 2
Jul 23, 2009 17:28:08 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jul 23, 2009 17:28:08 GMT -5
With the knowledge now that there are multiple factions at play here, I no longer put any stock into Pleo's mason claim. I don't think we have enough players to have vanilla town, town power roles, town masons, a third party faction (that I'm assuming can kill based on the number of deaths last night) and normal scum. I am heavily skeptical at this point.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 17:33:15 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jul 23, 2009 17:33:15 GMT -5
If you are playing this way due to a sense of trust in the handshaking, please do the rest of us a favor and remind people that is what you are doing? Some of us do not share that trust and might be tempted to see your play as not only snuggling but going on the offensive for reasons that we are not currently in a position to share. My actions regarding CaptPinkie is completely independent of the any trust I have of NAF. I'm not sure why you're trying to link the two. My reasons for voting are quite clear. 1) No vote YesterDay. 2) Useless participation ToDay. Do you think CaptPinkie has been helpful at all this game?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 17:41:33 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 23, 2009 17:41:33 GMT -5
I think being publicly skeptical of unconfirmed information is useful, at least better than trusting it quietly. There are a lot of other people who have been just as non-participatory as the Cap'n, including not voting yesterday. He's here posting at least.
I also don't see much of a compelling case against Ed at this point.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 17:55:32 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 23, 2009 17:55:32 GMT -5
I got confused in the discussion. At first, I was concerned that HM was redirected and thus was responsible for a death. I knew stanislaus wasn't dead, but during the discussion that did sorta leave the primary part of my brain (OK, I forgot). Then when she claimed to be blocked I added another one. I just confused myself. With HM's new information, I suppose it's possible she wasn't blocked and her less than explicit PM may be misleading her. I'm not sure I buy this explanation entirely. You're comment of six kills was a direct comment of her saying she was blocked. Even after her saying she got a PM from the mod saying it basically said she was blocked, you still say two unknown kills. Which leads me to believe you were the Merc and you know you didn't kill anyone last Night. No, it's easily explained by my mistaken thought that stanislaus was dead. He's only incapacitated in some way. Like I said, I forgot that during the discussion
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 17:56:09 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 23, 2009 17:56:09 GMT -5
And how can you use this as part of your explanation: If her PM misled her, it would mean she wasn't blocked, and just thought she was, leading to an extra kill. That helps in your defense of saying six kills a cycle. So why add that to your explanation of you being confused? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'm really starting to believe you know something we don't. That wasn't part of my explanation. That was a new thought.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 18:02:32 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 23, 2009 18:02:32 GMT -5
I guess you guys missed me.
I was out and about in the real world. Next time, just browse some random articles on wikipedia until I get back instead of voting me.
So, what's the case against me, that I miscounted?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 18:17:49 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Jul 23, 2009 18:17:49 GMT -5
EBWOP - I don't mind voting first, BTW, and I'm going to "me too" the pointed questions for Ed, with some salt. Vote: Special Ed [/color][/quote] Something about this vote bothers me, not because it's for Ed, I don't have any particular read on Ed one way or the other (Sorry NAF), but because of the timing. Hawk had not yet responded to Natlaw's request for information about our voting options for "no lynch". Without that information, and because of the tie-breaker scenario (which should be well understood by everyone at this point) the option for "no lynch" could have been taken off the table by a single vote. Hawk has since made it clear that we still have that option should we choose it, But we didn't know that when you voted. Or at least I didn't. Now I don't know if a "no lynch" is something we want to do or not. I would need a pretty good argument to vote for it, but if Hawk had come back and said "No voting for non-lynch", you would have taken that option out of our hands.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 18:17:56 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 23, 2009 18:17:56 GMT -5
The only other thing I can think of was your referencing the possibility of recruitment even though the rules explicitly state that there is none. On the spectrum of things that might be worthwhile for scum to try and use to stir confusion and chaos, alluding to something that is ruled out by the rules is not very high on the list, imho.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 18:20:07 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 23, 2009 18:20:07 GMT -5
The above was in response to Ed...
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 18:24:29 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 23, 2009 18:24:29 GMT -5
The only other thing I can think of was your referencing the possibility of recruitment even though the rules explicitly state that there is none. On the spectrum of things that might be worthwhile for scum to try and use to stir confusion and chaos, alluding to something that is ruled out by the rules is not very high on the list, imho. but the title "3rd party candidate" did just jump out at me as recruitment possible. Though, reading the rules is good. Or playing fewer games might be good too.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 18:25:09 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 23, 2009 18:25:09 GMT -5
I'd be willing to see more fom Ed too. He's been a slippery little bugger this game. What do you have to say for yourself Ed? BTW, I'm glad you're willing to let me post.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 18:26:36 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 23, 2009 18:26:36 GMT -5
I'd be willing to see more fom Ed too. He's been a slippery little bugger this game. What do you have to say for yourself Ed? BTW, I'm glad you're willing to let me post. I do what I can. I knew you were holding back waiting for my permission to start posting toDay.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 18:38:39 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Jul 23, 2009 18:38:39 GMT -5
I find it interesting that toward the end of Day 1, MHayes changed his vote to Stanis, because of his vote on Special Ed. And shortly afterwards, Pede also voted for Special Ed.
Now 3 out of 4 of these people are either dead or incapacitated.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 19:00:34 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 23, 2009 19:00:34 GMT -5
I find it interesting that toward the end of Day 1, MHayes changed his vote to Stanis, because of his vote on Special Ed. And shortly afterwards, Pede also voted for Special Ed. Now 3 out of 4 of these people are either dead or incapacitated. That makes one pro- and two anti-Ed actors whacked or otherwise incapacitated. I think it's likely just people picking off the low-lying, talkative fruit. (Though, personally I would much rather avoid fruit that talks. A chattering grape is a daunting thought.) I am absolutely opposed to no-lynch. Um, in all of the scenarios that I've come up with, at least. So, that'd kinda be a conditional absolutism, huh? Why would NAF know what he allegedly knows? Is that a fruitful avenue of inquiry?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 19:03:19 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 23, 2009 19:03:19 GMT -5
I'd be willing to see more fom Ed too. He's been a slippery little bugger this game. What do you have to say for yourself Ed? BTW, I'm glad you're willing to let me post. Yeah, because I have to wait until you address everything I've said before voting. It's not like I can unvote or anything. I did also mention that you may very well have not been online to read my comments when I voted. Now to address what you asked: I guess you guys missed me. I was out and about in the real world. Next time, just browse some random articles on wikipedia until I get back instead of voting me. So, what's the case against me, that I miscounted? No, not solely on the fact that you miscounted. First off, yesterDay you were acting shady. Thus my vote on your yesterDay, which if I recall correctly you never directly asked me about, maybe because you knew you weren't going anywhere, I dunno. By shady I mean, the posts of "I didn't want to say anything until I saw if people caught it too", etc. I don't like posts like that, as it makes you look like you're hiding information from us. Useful information that is helping you form opinions. By holding it back we can't defend ourselves from it, as you never tell what it is, and it could also mean you have nothing, and you're just saying it to look useful Secondly, your actions toDay. Miscounting, not knowing Stanis wasn't killed, saying HM wasn't Blocked, despite her saying she was (she could be lying, we don't know that though as MHaye is dead and was told to be a Roleblocker, he can't confirm it. Perhaps there's another though). Anyways, all that makes it appear to me that you've been skimming the thread. In my opinion, skimming is a Scum tell, because it makes you look like you aren't paying attention.
|
|