|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 13:50:54 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 24, 2009 13:50:54 GMT -5
So who are the Peacekeepers? At this point, I would bet they are a faction. A PFK/3rd party with roleblocking powers? I suppose a survivor is possible, but it seems more likely that we have a peacekeeping faction. I would bet on an unstoppable kill or block.kill by the rebels. Other things are possible, I suppose. MHaye, another roleblocker (maybe a Town one), maybe she's lying, maybe something else How did Stanis end up frozen? is it possible that this was the result of MHaye's roleblock? It seems more peacekeepy to remove a participant from the war. Just a shot in the dark here.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 13:53:31 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 24, 2009 13:53:31 GMT -5
or, another thought. Maybe Stanis is 'in jail' because he is the thief or the merc and he got caught?
I don't think the color implies jail, and I may be colored by others hypothesizing that.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 14:01:30 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 24, 2009 14:01:30 GMT -5
This makes me think that this: ..... It appears ....it appears?any reason for the prevarication?in the equivocation sense, of course. Since we can't quote our PM's, I'm saying that the wording of said PM would seem to indicate that, but did not state it explicitly.It's good in the sense that redirection is so much worse than a block. Plus the scum will have to waste an action on me rather than someone else more important. They are either gonna kill me or block me. As for Day 3, I can offer myself as the lynch candidate if I'm still alive at that point. coulld be a Very Bad Idea. A second Night with no confirmable results from HM would make it even worse. What confirmable result are you expecting? Unless she declares it the Day before, with no Night strategy talk she can't announce her kill just before the moderator does it at Dusk. Also she suggests lynching her Tomorrow, not Today so how could that be a very bad idea? Since most likely her blocker of Night One is dead, she probably get a result Night Two. And your response to KidVermicious: 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. I brought up the 'can we vote no-lynch' just on the odd chance we couldn't, which would pretty much invalidate the terrorist threat message. But telling people off for voting because it prevents us of a potential no-lynch where no-one votes? That is just too far fetched and anti-town.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 14:05:57 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 24, 2009 14:05:57 GMT -5
That's been his MO in like every game I've played with him. Lots of fluff, minimal content. He's always right there when it's time to pass out the drinks during fluff time, but never at any other time. Cookies, is there a reason you feel the need to point out that you are vanilla in like every other post? It's starting to make me suspicious. Only when broad and inaccurate brushes are used. You find attention to detail suspicious? Claiming on Day 1 is less than ideal. As a vanilla, my field of play is limited only to what is available for public consumption, and I'm not going to let inaccurate or unconfirmed information float as anything other than inaccurate and unconfirmed.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 15:19:16 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Jul 24, 2009 15:19:16 GMT -5
Only when broad and inaccurate brushes are used. You find attention to detail suspicious? Claiming on Day 1 is less than ideal. As a vanilla, my field of play is limited only to what is available for public consumption, and I'm not going to let inaccurate or unconfirmed information float as anything other than inaccurate and unconfirmed. I don't really see how this has anything to do with what I asked. I get it that you don't think certain things should be accepted as confirmed. Perfectly logical decision, can't argue with the thought process. What does that have to do with comments like this? You're playing the "I'm vanilla! I don't know anything!" card very, very hard. But why? The act of claiming Vanilla is in and of itself enough for the rest of us to understand that you are claiming not to know anything that isn't public knowledge. You don't have to keep reminding us of it. Yet you do. Who are you really trying to convince? The Town? The Scum?
|
|
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 24, 2009 15:31:32 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jul 24, 2009 15:31:32 GMT -5
[/li][li] Who blocked HM?Assuming HM is a compulsory vig, and is truthful about being blocked -- then if the rebels had to block and kill Pede then unlikely they would have a second blocker. So it is most likely MHaye blocked HM. However, her comment about potentially being redirected may be totally innocent, or was a plant just in case there was a watcher/tracker involved that would disagree with her story. After bluntly refusing suicide as an option, HM is now suggesting we lynch her on Day 3 - could she actually be the terrorist? Yep, it would be a terrible idea if I'm some kind of bomb. You are more than welcome to kill me today for confirmation. Indeed this does seem somewhat anti-town as we would need to waste a lynch on her rather than her suicide. [/quote] You forgot to include the smiley face in that quote. That was a joke.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 15:43:45 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 24, 2009 15:43:45 GMT -5
Only when broad and inaccurate brushes are used. You find attention to detail suspicious? Claiming on Day 1 is less than ideal. As a vanilla, my field of play is limited only to what is available for public consumption, and I'm not going to let inaccurate or unconfirmed information float as anything other than inaccurate and unconfirmed. I don't really see how this has anything to do with what I asked. I get it that you don't think certain things should be accepted as confirmed. Perfectly logical decision, can't argue with the thought process. What does that have to do with comments like this? You're playing the "I'm vanilla! I don't know anything!" card very, very hard. But why? The act of claiming Vanilla is in and of itself enough for the rest of us to understand that you are claiming not to know anything that isn't public knowledge. You don't have to keep reminding us of it. Yet you do. Who are you really trying to convince? The Town? The Scum? I don't know what NAF is and I'm trying to sort out his motivations, because I can't make much sense of those motivations as it stands right now. The whole post prior to the one you are quoting had a paragraph where I discuss precedents where vanilla players can be provided information by power roles, which is conjecture about the possibility of NAF being such a vanilla. The follow up post that I quote was just that, a follow-up. When I have been a Town Power role, I have made plays where I have traded being perceived by the other players at large as having dubious motivations in exchange for keeping the scum in the dark, or at least with a nice glass of shiraz on the table in front of them. And I did not sufficiently allow for that possibility in NAF's play in the post prior to that.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 15:46:07 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 24, 2009 15:46:07 GMT -5
Also, I thought you may have been referring to my earlier responses to texcat, which is where the broad brush comment came from.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 16:02:32 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jul 24, 2009 16:02:32 GMT -5
Which got me thinking about what is nagging me about NAF's delivery of his intel, at least as it stands now. If there are any protector-type roles left for Town, based on the information provided, such an individual would currently be in a awfully tough spot trying to decide whether or not to try and protect NAF. Sorry, I thought I was being perfectly clear when I delivered the information that it had nothing to do with my role in the game. That's what the whole "This is not in any way a claim" part of the post came from. I don't know if I was selected at random to find out this information or what, but it isn't a result of any power I may or may not have.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 16:38:52 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Jul 24, 2009 16:38:52 GMT -5
or, another thought. Maybe Stanis is 'in jail' because he is the thief or the merc and he got caught? I don't think the color implies jail, and I may be colored by others hypothesizing that. It could be the thief was caught since no one claims to have lost any money last night. Perhaps there is a x% chance he lands in jail each night that he goes out robbing people, and he got unlucky last night?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 16:58:32 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Jul 24, 2009 16:58:32 GMT -5
This makes me think that this:coulld be a Very Bad Idea. A second Night with no confirmable results from HM would make it even worse. What confirmable result are you expecting? Unless she declares it the Day before, with no Night strategy talk she can't announce her kill just before the moderator does it at Dusk. Also she suggests lynching her Tomorrow, not Today so how could that be a very bad idea? Since most likely her blocker of Night One is dead, she probably get a result Night Two. And your response to KidVermicious: 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. I brought up the 'can we vote no-lynch' just on the odd chance we couldn't, which would pretty much invalidate the terrorist threat message. But telling people off for voting because it prevents us of a potential no-lynch where no-one votes? That is just too far fetched and anti-town. As to the first part, maybe "confirmable" was a bad choice of words. What I meant was without something more concrete than has been offered thus far, Hockey Monkey is still an unknown as far as I'm concerned. It occurred to me that if HM is a bomber who must be lynched on Day Three (and I didn't say anything about Today, although I can see how you could have thought that's what I meant) she's in a pretty good position at the moment. Even better if she's "blocked" again Tonight. Of course, this is all based on the information NAF gave us being accurate, something else that has not been conf... uh, proven one way or the other. (according to spell-check "proven" is not a word, but it's good enough for me) As for KidV's vote, maybe it is an "odd chance" that we not be allowed to vote for a "no lynch". It never even occurred to me we could until you asked the mod about it. And then before you got an answer, KidV made the decision for the whole town (as I saw it at the time) before we'd had a chance to discuss it. Maybe the idea is far-fetched, but anti-town? I saw something I thought was odd and I pointed it out. Is that not what I'm supposed to do? Special Ed's posting a link to the initial color (in response to Texcat mentioning Kenith and Cookies and Hockeyguy asking "who?") made me go back and read it again, where I noticed that MHaye ("First Lady of Quantom") is the famous super-model Victoria in the color. That makes me wonder if what we've been calling Peacekeepers could actually be the ruling body of Quantom. No one else seems to have pointed that out. Should I have kept it to myself?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 18:21:43 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Jul 24, 2009 18:21:43 GMT -5
Ed, what's an unstoppable kill?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 18:25:20 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 24, 2009 18:25:20 GMT -5
Ed, what's an unstoppable kill? a kill that cannot be blocked, protected against or redirected. Think of a Chuck Norris. No Doctor or bus driver will stop him from making his kill.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 18:47:26 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 24, 2009 18:47:26 GMT -5
Ok, what is the trick to doing post-count comparisons? Please tell me there is a trick. So far I've done 1 player and it is tedious using the "display last x posts of player foo" approach and counting them manually.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 18:57:47 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 24, 2009 18:57:47 GMT -5
Let the record show that I made it through 3 players using that method, before becoming a big fat quitter. How y'all do this stuff without going nuts is beyond me.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 20:06:39 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jul 24, 2009 20:06:39 GMT -5
Cookies: You can click on the thread and get the posts of each player in a thread.
You'll find I'm pretty low in both of them. ;D
Here's toDay's list so far:
ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies 21 hockeyguy8435 18 Special Ed 16 NAF1138 10 Pleonast 9 hockeymonkey 8 Dfrnt Breign 7 Natlaw 6 julie 6 BillMc 4 texcat 4 Hawkmod 4 peekercpa 4 archangel 3 Nanook 3 pumpjack 3 Mister Blockey 2 KidVermicious 2 Captain Pinkies 1 bufftabby 1 Sister Coyote 1 The Pollux Oil Transit System 1 Merestil Haye 1
Going out to play frisbee right now, but I'm doing heavy thinking on what's been presented so far, so I'll be back with some thoughts tonight.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 23:10:46 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 24, 2009 23:10:46 GMT -5
Finally I found it. The hyperlinks in the "Replies" column of each Day/Night thread.
Day 1...
Total Posts: 481 User # of Posts ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies 72 NAF1138 55 pedescribe 47 Special Ed 40 julie 28 hockeyguy8435 24 Pleonast 23 PrecambrianMollusc 19 Natlaw 17 hockeymonkey 15 KidVermicious 14 Hawkmod 13 Merestil Haye 13 Nanook 12 peekercpa 12 Dfrnt Breign 10 BillMc 10 stanislaus 10 pumpjack 9 texcat 8 Mister Blockey 6 archangel 5 bufftabby 5 Sister Coyote 4 spintari 3 The Pollux Oil Transit System 3 FlyingCowOfDoom 2 Captain Pinkies 1 Jaade 1
Night 1...
Total Posts: 70 User # of Posts ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies 13 bufftabby 12 Special Ed 5 NAF1138 5 Pleonast 4 Hawkmod 4 hockeymonkey 4 Captain Pinkies 3 hockeyguy8435 3 BillMc 2 The Pollux Oil Transit System 2 Dfrnt Breign 1 spintari 1 texcat 1 archangel 1 Høøpy Frøød 1 pedescribe 1 stanislaus 1 Sister Coyote 1 KidVermicious 1 pumpjack 1 peekercpa 1 PrecambrianMollusc 1 julie 1
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 23:44:14 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Jul 24, 2009 23:44:14 GMT -5
Well, maybe the thief can't rob certain people, including those that are of a certain role or currently do not have any gold.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 8:17:20 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jul 25, 2009 8:17:20 GMT -5
i swear this is game related.
the oneness of the universe. the connection of all things.
peekkid #3 just got back from a summer camp where they spent three weeks studying philosophy (since she is a freshman in high school and this results in college credit me be very proud).
the subject matter was along the lines of that while everything is physical some physical states can not be grasped unless they are occupied. they went down the more traditional epistomological concepts of human thinking versus artificial thinking but also went into, at least for me, some more exotic intellecutal stuff. a priori, a posteri, i think therefore i am, etc.
something that she walked away with regarding the over riding subject matter was that obviously we can have greater knowledge of self if we have physically experienced the "state". however, the "state" that we experience can also reveal "states" that we have not experienced, especially if they are opposite.
yin/yang. dichotomy and balance. billmc. hawk's opening color.
i'll be back to conclude this.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 9:33:18 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 25, 2009 9:33:18 GMT -5
i swear this is game related. the oneness of the universe. the connection of all things. peekkid #3 just got back from a summer camp where they spent three weeks studying philosophy (since she is a freshman in high school and this results in college credit me be very proud). the subject matter was along the lines of that while everything is physical some physical states can not be grasped unless they are occupied. they went down the more traditional epistomological concepts of human thinking versus artificial thinking but also went into, at least for me, some more exotic intellecutal stuff. a priori, a posteri, i think therefore i am, etc. something that she walked away with regarding the over riding subject matter was that obviously we can have greater knowledge of self if we have physically experienced the "state". however, the "state" that we experience can also reveal "states" that we have not experienced, especially if they are opposite. yin/yang. dichotomy and balance. billmc. hawk's opening color. i'll be back to conclude this. Game related or not, I have no freaking clue what the hell you were talking about...
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 9:43:56 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 25, 2009 9:43:56 GMT -5
Game related or not, I have no freaking clue what the hell you were talking about... I was hoping your post was his second post as he came back to explain.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 9:45:50 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 25, 2009 9:45:50 GMT -5
I waiting on the edge of my seat to see what else he has to say. I hope I at least understand it though... Otherwise I'll have waited for nothing.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 9:48:53 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Jul 25, 2009 9:48:53 GMT -5
I say we lynch him and treasure the suspense forever and ever. *starry eyes*
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 9:53:09 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 25, 2009 9:53:09 GMT -5
Maybe he was just pulling a Pollux. Saying he was going to come back and post his thoughts, then not post anything.
I'm willing to give both of them (Pollox moreso) a bit longer, but failure to post said information will garner my suspicions. I might be joking with peeker, as I don't know what the hell he means (he could be joking). I'm serious about Pollux though. I expect the post he promised.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 10:03:02 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 25, 2009 10:03:02 GMT -5
I say we lynch him and treasure the suspense forever and ever. *starry eyes* I like the cut of your jib!
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 10:08:16 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 25, 2009 10:08:16 GMT -5
Either way. I got nothing. Unless I'm going to be really petty. Wait..is that what everyone else is doing? *boggle* You've got anything Today? Being petty is fine with me, since so you only got this: Well, maybe the thief can't rob certain people, including those that are of a certain role or currently do not have any gold. Which I think was a response to: It could be the thief was caught since no one claims to have lost any money last night. Perhaps there is a x% chance he lands in jail each night that he goes out robbing people, and he got unlucky last night? Actually I think no-one has explicitly responded to your question if anyone lost money. Do you have any reason we people should tell it? If the thief stole it, he probably knows so it can't hurt to reveal, but why would you want to reveal it? Same if you still have gold left, you would just making yourself a target but perhaps I'm missing an upside? Would revealing the mercenary accepted your offer be useful?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 10:22:07 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 25, 2009 10:22:07 GMT -5
Does Stanislaus's absence make people more inclined to trust him, less inclined, or not change anything? I'm feeling slightly less inclined, but I'm pretty sure that's completely irrational.
Now that I think on it, there's the possibility that it isn't something someone has done to Stan, but something that he's doing. Perhaps he has the ability to do X, but in order to do X he has to go incommunicado.
I ended up voting for Captain Pinkies yesterDay because every time I voted for anyone else, they claimed. I would like to talk about lurker lynching toDay, if anyone is willing. To me, lurking is anti-Town, even if the player is ostensibly pro-Town, so lurker-lynching is a viable strategy. I don't think it's the best thing to do when other players look more likely, but I do think it's a good fallback.
Because of the funky tie-breaker strategies, I'm less inclined to vote for the sole purpose of driving discussion, but if I were I would now vote for a lurker.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 10:22:27 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 25, 2009 10:22:27 GMT -5
As to the first part, maybe "confirmable" was a bad choice of words. What I meant was without something more concrete than has been offered thus far, Hockey Monkey is still an unknown as far as I'm concerned. It occurred to me that if HM is a bomber who must be lynched on Day Three (and I didn't say anything about Today, although I can see how you could have thought that's what I meant) she's in a pretty good position at the moment. Even better if she's "blocked" again Tonight. The most confirmable hints she telling the truth is that a possible real town vigilante didn't take her out and she claimed blocked before it was revealed MHaye was a role blocker. I still think the extra kill she brings hurt town, though with a possible terrorist there might be an extra target as well (the terrorist could be a Rebel). It was your tone in which you denounced the vote, as if he shouldn't have done it. Lynching is the main way to take out scum, besides vigilante or a bought mercenary kill and voting is the way to do it. The only way if the killing power roles are dead. No, but also completely different from telling someone not to vote. I might be misreading the tone you said that in wrong though.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 10:56:58 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jul 25, 2009 10:56:58 GMT -5
i'll cut and paste since multiple quotes within a response is not my forte.
I waiting on the edge of my seat to see what else he has to say. I hope I at least understand it though... Otherwise I'll have waited for nothing.
I say we lynch him and treasure the suspense forever and ever. *starry eyes*
Maybe he was just pulling a Pollux. Saying he was going to come back and post his thoughts, then not post anything.
<snipped> holy crud you folks are impatient.
are you the types that read the last chapter of a mystery just so you don't have to plow through the whole book to find out what happens?
ok, the point i was trying to make (other than being proud of peekkid#3) is the following:
from the opening color:
For those who do know the true nature of Quantom, there is but one thing to know. War. Fighting that's origin is buried under bullets and mangled bodies. Two sides, the Establishment and the Rebels, who hate each other more than they love their kinship. There are no victories or defeats, just cycles of revenge. While there have been various attempts to foster a sustained peace over the years, none of them progressed beyond opening statements.
<snipped and bolding mine>
ok, what is the opposite of establishment (i.e. powers that be)? answer: rebel.
so we have the establishment and we have rebels. yin and yang. one obviously can not exist without the other. ipso fuckto the prescence of the establishment can establish, at least theroetically the prescence of rebels even in the abscence of additional evidence. the occupation of the physical state of establishment establishes the physical state of rebel.
now we also know that we have peacekeepers. what would be the opposite, or at least an opposing counter to peacemaker. how about a war type of dude or dudette? yin and yang. dichotomous balance. does the physical state of one establish the physical state of the other? now obviously we have no a posteriori knowledge currently (and may very well never have something so empirically obvious). but could we from an a priori viewpoint posit such existence. kant says it so much better than i:
... pure a priori forms are established via his (humans in general, himself in particular)transcendental aesthetic and transcendental logic.
yaknow, i don't know why he uses transcendtal back to back like that.
we also have hockeymonkey who is a minister of war. a self stated town aligned killer that won't suicide because she "...doesn't have it in her...." now i understand priniples and stuff and maybe no compelling argument has been made about the town advisability of a sucicide. but it seems short sighted for any town aligned role to categorically rule out something that might be in town's best interest.
so could we have an additional faction roaming around out there?
So if we could win by "Peace" it seems that we have folk who don't want peace.
<snipped> that's what made me think of it.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 10:57:52 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jul 25, 2009 10:57:52 GMT -5
and i hosed the tags. hopefully you still get my drift.
|
|