|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 13:13:01 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 25, 2009 13:13:01 GMT -5
and i hosed the tags. hopefully you still get my drift. Yes, interesting. So, perhaps hockeymonkey is solo or in another faction and must reduce the peacemakers? And perhaps the peacemakers must eliminate the Minister of War and any possible War aligned people?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 14:42:29 GMT -5
Post by Captain Pinkies on Jul 25, 2009 14:42:29 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? Pleo, I am the first person to say, no I don't think I have been helpful so far this game. I wanted to to at least get something on the tablem instead of being in the shadows with I was on day one. I am finding NAF's declaration very concerning... I am still on page 3 reading forward.... Will post more as I go....
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 15:02:48 GMT -5
Post by Captain Pinkies on Jul 25, 2009 15:02:48 GMT -5
Pleo, It is my MO to be fairly quiet on day 1... and I didn't get on until close to the end of day, and I didn't want to vote with little time left. I feel that people should have time to defend themselves and there has been a few occasions where my vote took someone out because they didn't have time to claim, or post... (ask bill)... I believe voting too close to the end of the day is anti-town...
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 15:45:47 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 25, 2009 15:45:47 GMT -5
Pleo, It is my MO to be fairly quiet on day 1... and I didn't get on until close to the end of day, and I didn't want to vote with little time left. I feel that people should have time to defend themselves and there has been a few occasions where my vote took someone out because they didn't have time to claim, or post... (ask bill)... I believe voting too close to the end of the day is anti-town... I get frustrated with these sorts of principles because we have Moderators who (as they should) design games specifically to dislodge them and keep the game interesting. I will not launch into a Pod-people-random-voting-manifesto, but I will counter that in some circumstances it is more "anti-town" to cling to such principles when there are mechanics of the set up (like this game's tie-breaking mechanism) that challenge them.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 25, 2009 20:08:53 GMT -5
Post by Captain Pinkies on Jul 25, 2009 20:08:53 GMT -5
Pleo, It is my MO to be fairly quiet on day 1... and I didn't get on until close to the end of day, and I didn't want to vote with little time left. I feel that people should have time to defend themselves and there has been a few occasions where my vote took someone out because they didn't have time to claim, or post... (ask bill)... I believe voting too close to the end of the day is anti-town... I get frustrated with these sorts of principles because we have Moderators who (as they should) design games specifically to dislodge them and keep the game interesting. I will not launch into a Pod-people-random-voting-manifesto, but I will counter that in some circumstances it is more "anti-town" to cling to such principles when there are mechanics of the set up (like this game's tie-breaking mechanism) that challenge them. Yes in some circumstances it is not anti-town to do so. I am not holding on to any principal. This game is a quiet a bit different than most and I am trying to get my head around it.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 11:45:11 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 26, 2009 11:45:11 GMT -5
and i hosed the tags. hopefully you still get my drift. Yes, interesting. So, perhaps hockeymonkey is solo or in another faction and must reduce the peacemakers? And perhaps the peacemakers must eliminate the Minister of War and any possible War aligned people? That's an interesting idea - Establishment v Rebels; Peace v War ? Well Hawk did say this would be unlike any mafia game we've played before
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 11:55:10 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 26, 2009 11:55:10 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 was wondering along the same lines. Is NAF's note and Stanislaus disappearance connected? Was Stanislaus doing something (counteracting the terrorist?) but because he has been frozen, the terrorist can now plan the strike, and NAF gets a warning message? (why didn't NAF get the message on Day 1, what triggered it to be delivered Day 2? Stanislaus being frozen?)
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 12:02:21 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 26, 2009 12:02:21 GMT -5
I said I was going to vote to lynch a lurker and I don't see any reason currently to change that, so:
Vote: Jaade
Lurkers might BE Town, but they aren't valuable Town because they don't communicate.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 12:39:58 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Jul 26, 2009 12:39:58 GMT -5
I think the chances of NAF's note and Stan's disappearance being unrelated are very unlikely. If that note is real, randomly sending that note would be very dangerous, I think. If it ended up in the wrong hands it could cause near Armageddon...I don't think Hawkeye would have put all this effort into this game to have it end on Day Three.
I don't know why but I feel Pleo's vote on Captain Pinkie is ba smudge of a sort. There are a lot of players in this game and I'm having trouble keeping people straight if I don't already know them. Why go after him when other people aren't posting at all?
Julie, I think LTL is very dangerous in a game like this. With so many people lurking or near lurking and Hawkeye knowing the sub list is short or non-existent, we could very well accidentally kill a town power role that way.
Vote Julie
(I will be so proud of myself if this vote registers the way it's supposed to the first time)
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 12:42:58 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 26, 2009 12:42:58 GMT -5
Julie, I think LTL is very dangerous in a game like this. With so many people lurking or near lurking and Hawkeye knowing the sub list is short or non-existent, we could very well accidentally kill a town power role that way. What's the use of a power role in the hands of someone who isn't bothering to play? A committed vanilla is more valuable to Town than a dozen power roles who never post.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 12:46:50 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 26, 2009 12:46:50 GMT -5
NETA: On top of that, it's just NO DAMNED FUN to play with people who can't be bothered to post.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 14:15:37 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 26, 2009 14:15:37 GMT -5
I think the chances of NAF's note and Stan's disappearance being unrelated are very unlikely. If that note is real, randomly sending that note would be very dangerous, I think. If it ended up in the wrong hands it could cause near Armageddon...I don't think Hawkeye would have put all this effort into this game to have it end on Day Three. You think they are related? Why? because sending the note is dangerous? I'm not sure I follow. I have a feeling there was more thought that didn't make it on to my screen. I don't know why but I feel Pleo's vote on Captain Pinkie is ba smudge of a sort. There are a lot of players in this game and I'm having trouble keeping people straight if I don't already know them. Why go after him when other people aren't posting at all? How can a vote be a smudge? Julie, I think LTL is very dangerous in a game like this. With so many people lurking or near lurking and Hawkeye knowing the sub list is short or non-existent, we could very well accidentally kill a town power role that way. So you're voting because you don't like the strategy? So, that means that 'strategy I don't like' = Scum??? (I will be so proud of myself if this vote registers the way it's supposed to the first time)
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 14:33:13 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 26, 2009 14:33:13 GMT -5
I think Archangel meant to "related" where she said "unrelated", but that's just a WAG. I have the same questions as Ed with respect to the rest.
I'm going to have to jump back on my self-centered-one-trick-pony for a moment and make the observation that, of all the things to take the time to post and comment on in this game, Nanook's interest in how often I restate that I'm a vanilla townie strikes me as odd.
And there's another one for your little black book, Nanook.
Anybody want a peanut?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 14:40:42 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 26, 2009 14:40:42 GMT -5
Princess Bride was on the other board!
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 14:49:43 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 26, 2009 14:49:43 GMT -5
While I could see a potential "War Makers" analog to the "Peacekeepers," I think that could be multiplying our entities unnecessarily.
We know we have Town. We know we have Rebels. We know we have a Merc. We know we have a Thief. We know we have Peacekeepers. The Peacekeepers can be aligned against any one of the extant factions without bringing in a new one, and parsing out the "Peace" part might be ignoring the forest for the trees. (Wasn't there a gun called a Peacekeeper? Peacemaker? Something like that? Colt? Now that I ask the question, I have a feeling someone said something like that earlier in the thread that I have managed to forget.)
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 15:15:11 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 26, 2009 15:15:11 GMT -5
It was Colt. The word of the Day seems to be conjecture, but I frankly don't have much faith in conjecture leading to much good at this point, though it may certainly be useful looking back down the road. I don't mean to quell such conversation, merely to let you all know that most of it is washing through my filters with little more than a shrug and noticing who is saying what. At this point, with not much public information, the scum and 3rd parties are free to toss out all sorts of red herrings, and then there is the risk of the ever popular town-on-town suspicions due to differences in perspective and/or play style. Before anyone comes after me with a pitchfork for it, I'd like to readily admit that I seem to be very critical and dismissive in my play so far, but aside from possibly being perceived as a bitch, I think that is likely to continue and is for the best. I don't know where my vote is going to land yet, but I have all sorts of opinions on where votes shouldn't go, or at least why they shouldn't go somewhere. I have a similar issue when trying to categorize my "type". I can't really describe my type (and if you look back through my exes, you'll find that they don't have much in common aside from being mostly middle-class) but I can always describe what aspects of someone make them not my type. ;D
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 16:14:47 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Jul 26, 2009 16:14:47 GMT -5
Julie, I think LTL is very dangerous in a game like this. With so many people lurking or near lurking and Hawkeye knowing the sub list is short or non-existent, we could very well accidentally kill a town power role that way. What's the use of a power role in the hands of someone who isn't bothering to play? A committed vanilla is more valuable to Town than a dozen power roles who never post. Well, here's the thing-- we don't know if they're bothering to play or not. A lot of people when it's the first time with a major role hide because they don't want to call attention to themselves. I have seen masons lynched over and over again for acting "odd" and it turns out they just didn't know how to play mason.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 16:22:01 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Jul 26, 2009 16:22:01 GMT -5
I think the chances of NAF's note and Stan's disappearance being unrelated are very unlikely. If that note is real, randomly sending that note would be very dangerous, I think. If it ended up in the wrong hands it could cause near Armageddon...I don't think Hawkeye would have put all this effort into this game to have it end on Day Three. You think they are related? Why? because sending the note is dangerous? I'm not sure I follow. I have a feeling there was more thought that didn't make it on to my screen. How can a vote be a smudge? So you're voting because you don't like the strategy? So, that means that 'strategy I don't like' = Scum??? (I will be so proud of myself if this vote registers the way it's supposed to the first time) I did mean to say I think the note and the disappearance are related (sorry, I'm lost in a double negative). And Ed, you're right as usual that the full thought didn't make it to the page. That information, if it is true, is a significant boon to town. Now, I'm making an assumption that Hawkeye was the one who chose to give it to NAF, and that may be a leap that I shouldn't make. If someone else chose to give the info to him then my thought is invalid. But I was thinking that Hawkeye gave the information to NAF when I wrote that. And I was thinking it was intentional rather than randomized. (Again, assuming the info is true). Now, if Hawkeye did give the info to NAF, again, it's a significant boom to town, so I can see the silencing as a penalty to balance things. Okay, Ed, I see your point that a vote is not a smudge. Un-*FOS* Pleo, but I still think it's odd that he's picking on Cap with so many lurkers. And no, I'm not voting Julie because I disagree with her strategy. I'm voting her because I think "lynch the lurker" is a common scum strategy...if she's scum, she will know that any given lurker isn't scum. It's a good way to pick off town without taking too much heat for it. LOL, thanks for the congratulatory banner.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 16:38:50 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 26, 2009 16:38:50 GMT -5
I have seen masons lynched over and over again for acting "odd" and it turns out they just didn't know how to play mason. And I've seen scum poisoners lynched for lurking. Lurking is anti-Town. That is my position, and I've never seen a good argument against it.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 16:47:43 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 26, 2009 16:47:43 GMT -5
And it is the one principled approach that, outside of the rare gastard post-restriction role, stands the test of time.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 17:11:20 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 26, 2009 17:11:20 GMT -5
And no, I'm not voting Julie because I disagree with her strategy. I'm voting her because I think "lynch the lurker" is a common scum strategy...if she's scum, she will know that any given lurker isn't scum. It's a good way to pick off town without taking too much heat for it. How can you, on the same day in 2 different games vote for one person for supporting a lynch the lurker strategy and vote for another person for lurking because it's a viable Scum strategy?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 17:18:12 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 26, 2009 17:18:12 GMT -5
And it is the one principled approach that, outside of the rare gastard post-restriction role, stands the test of time. To clarify, I mean "lurking is anti-town" as the principle, not "lynch the lurker". Two very different beasts.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 19:20:33 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Jul 26, 2009 19:20:33 GMT -5
I was wondering along the same lines. Is NAF's note and Stanislaus disappearance connected? Was Stanislaus doing something (counteracting the terrorist?) but because he has been frozen, the terrorist can now plan the strike, and NAF gets a warning message? (why didn't NAF get the message on Day 1, what triggered it to be delivered Day 2? Stanislaus being frozen?) Sorry, I don't think any of this makes any sense. Looks like scum trying desperately to confuse things. Vote: BillMc
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 20:29:33 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jul 26, 2009 20:29:33 GMT -5
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. Here it is! WOO-PAH! --- So official information we have gathered from the mod is as follows: There's a mercenary that can be hired to kill or do nothing. We do not know his alignment/win condition. Unless he is a rebel, we don't need to worry about eliminating him unless we feel the scum can easily get more gold than us and use the mercenary as a hired gun for extra kills. My personal guess is the mercenary is a third-party with a survivor-related win condition, if hockeymonkey's claim of being a mandatory town vig is true. If hockeymonkey's claim is a lie, the mercenary might be town-aligned. There's a thief that can steal gold. We do not know his alignment/win condition. Unless he is a rebel, we don't need to worry about eliminating him. My personal guess is either the thief is third-party aligned, and has a personal win condition of getting X amount of gold, OR the thief is scum-aligned. My personal preference would be to lynch the thief should they claim to be a thief. We know the town win condition is "rebels are no longer a threat." This means that any third-party players are erroneous to the town win condition and no third-party HAS to die for us to win. However, it is also likely that therefore the scum do not have to eliminate third-parties to win either. So this puts us in a strange position, especially if we have a serial killer on the loose. Unlike usual games, a serial killer usually ends up as a game of chicken as both need the SK dead, but the town wants to force the scum to Nightkill them while the scum want the town to waste a lynch on the SK. Now in this game, it is probable that neither needs an SK dead but scum especially don't like an SK alive because they have fewer numbers and if an SK hits one they lose a lot more than town. *Addendum - Because there is evidence of a third-party faction that may involve more than one person, they will also be heightened and wary of an SK since their numbers will be low. We know there was a town-aligned role inscribed with "3rd-party candidate." Now, Hawkmod has said in the rules that there is no recruitment in the game. So my guess is the role knew of its 3rd-party candidacy and could fulfill some requirement to gain 3rd-party status should they choose to. This doesn't preclude the possibility of others also having this ability, and neatly sidesteps the "recruitment" aspect because it leaves it up to the choice of the player. We know there was a third-party roleblocker. So there is definitely at least one extra non-scum faction in the game. I don't personally think it's likely that the faction was just Mhaye, but it's possible. We know there were at least three killing roles active last Night. Hockeymonkey claims to have been blocked. Maybe she was, or maybe she wasn't and is just claiming to be to cause confusion. Maybe she's actually the serial killer, and took a risk claiming mandatory vig. I think further analysis on how many killing roles there are should wait until Day 3 so we have more than one Day of deaths to analyze. As this is getting long, I'm going to make my next post about unofficial things we have been made privy to.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 20:33:03 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 26, 2009 20:33:03 GMT -5
We know there was a town-aligned role inscribed with "3rd-party candidate." Now, Hawkmod has said in the rules that there is no recruitment in the game. So my guess is the role knew of its 3rd-party candidacy and could fulfill some requirement to gain 3rd-party status should they choose to. This doesn't preclude the possibility of others also having this ability, and neatly sidesteps the "recruitment" aspect because it leaves it up to the choice of the player. I read "candidate" as in "candidate for office." In other words, the dead guy is Ralph Nader.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 21:19:33 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jul 26, 2009 21:19:33 GMT -5
Okay. Unofficial information we have been told about.
The Handshake Debacle* Nanook, NAF, and Misterblockey have all been "handshook" as town because of the delay in posting the vanilla role PM. What we don't know is whether or not the scum (or third-party) were provided with fake cover PMs. If that is true, then the handshake means nothing. Since I'm not willing to make an assumption that could turn into a huge error like that, as far as I'm concerned the handshake thing means nothing.
The Flubbed PM Cookies claims to have been given a screwed up amalgamation of a PM that included both Rebel and town things in it, before being given her rightful role as a vanilla town. I can understand a mod flubbing, that's cool. But here's what I don't understand. The vanilla PM is a general template. The mod could easily cut and paste in a vanilla town PM to a player. I find it seemingly unlikely that a player could get a strange combination PM if they are indeed vanilla.
The Mason I'm tempted to rib at Pleonast for his mason claim considering what I went through in the Dr. Horrible game from him. But as of right now, an uncountered mason claim is okay. If we get to later game and no masons/Pleo isn't dead yet to confirm their towniness, we may have to question Pleo's claim considering all the hooplah that's been going on with the mods messing with the masons. Right now, though, I consider Pleo to be not a lynch-target.
The Terrorist NAF received information about a terrorist attack on Day Three. This basically gives scum free reign on Day Three, as people are going to be extra paranoid about lynching the terrorist. So anybody in lynch fire can claim they're the terrorist, and we'd have a Spartacus-like effect. The terrorist might be scum and they get an extra kill or something if it works out. Or the terrorist might be a third-party that wins if they blow themselves up. Also, this may be a ploy by scum NAF to cause confusion amongst the town. The only thing I know for sure is we CANNOT lynch NAF on Day Three, even if he says "well I'm the one who gave the information, and I handshook, clearly I'm town and safe to lynch today." This could be NAF being exceedingly brilliant as a terrorist.
Okay I think that just about covers it. I'm going to make one more post about the overall roles and game state, but it might come a little later so don't wait with bated breath or anything.
*Yes I went there.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 22:12:18 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Jul 26, 2009 22:12:18 GMT -5
And no, I'm not voting Julie because I disagree with her strategy. I'm voting her because I think "lynch the lurker" is a common scum strategy...if she's scum, she will know that any given lurker isn't scum. It's a good way to pick off town without taking too much heat for it. How can you, on the same day in 2 different games vote for one person for supporting a lynch the lurker strategy and vote for another person for lurking because it's a viable Scum strategy? If you had to describe me in ONE word, wouldn't "inconsistent" do fairly well? I don't think I'm supposed to comment on ongoing games that are being played elsewhere, but in general, sometimes I vote for someone based on gut feeling which everyone hates so I will say something to justify my vote rather than saying "I just really feel she's scum."
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 22:17:28 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 26, 2009 22:17:28 GMT -5
Now that, my friends, is a classic smudge. As seemingly unlikely as it might be, it happened. What about motivational analysis? Why would I lie about something like that? My motivation for telling the truth is not addressed in Pollux's post, and is seemingly further nullified by Pollux choosing instead to discount the handshaking for another reason. Another reason that doesn't require believing any unconfirmed information, which is good, but I'm quite curious where Pollux intends to go with his seemingly unlikely feelings about me.
Do you intend to vote for me as a suspected liar? You don't appear to want to zig where I zag and assume that the handshakers are Town. Do you intend to personally disregard everything that I say as untrustworthy and advocate that other's do the same?
What, young man, are your intentions with respect to my daughter?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 22:22:21 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 26, 2009 22:22:21 GMT -5
How can you, on the same day in 2 different games vote for one person for supporting a lynch the lurker strategy and vote for another person for lurking because it's a viable Scum strategy? If you had to describe me in ONE word, wouldn't "inconsistent" do fairly well? I don't think I'm supposed to comment on ongoing games that are being played elsewhere, but in general, sometimes I vote for someone based on gut feeling which everyone hates so I will say something to justify my vote rather than saying "I just really feel she's scum." If anyone is really looking for someone's play to disregard as untrustworthy... I'm at least being honest and transparent in everything I say and playing my butt off. Did I mention it is a vanilla butt?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 26, 2009 22:35:19 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 26, 2009 22:35:19 GMT -5
How can you, on the same day in 2 different games vote for one person for supporting a lynch the lurker strategy and vote for another person for lurking because it's a viable Scum strategy? If you had to describe me in ONE word, wouldn't "inconsistent" do fairly well? I don't think I'm supposed to comment on ongoing games that are being played elsewhere, but in general, sometimes I vote for someone based on gut feeling which everyone hates so I will say something to justify my vote rather than saying "I just really feel she's scum." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you telling me that I should disregard reasons you put forth for making votes because sometimes you just make them up?
|
|