|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 23:51:03 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 3, 2009 23:51:03 GMT -5
Where is Captain Pinkies? A vote Day 2 and nothing in Day 3.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 23:56:19 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 3, 2009 23:56:19 GMT -5
I'm supposed to believe that you voting for town "more than twice" by your own admission, plus you advocating for stanislaus who is going against your day 1 M.O. is a bit more suspicious than me not voting for town? Either way, it doesn't matter. Are you trying to say that since you didn't vote at all, it was better than voting for town?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 0:02:07 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 4, 2009 0:02:07 GMT -5
You mean you don't share the rampant paranoia that archangel is on a short-but-expanding-list of people to fear as the horseperson of the apocalypse? Can't live that way. If she is, it's good play to her. But we have to actually play mafia here, and she is the person I legitimately find to be scummiest, and on a re read her behavior tracks as too consistent to be aimed at a lynch toDay. Like I said, if she is, she did a great job. If there is such a thing as a Day 3 Terrorist, and it is Angel, and we actually lynch her toDay and blow ourselves up, I would be hard-pressed to give her much sole credit for doing a great job. I was ready to lynch her yesterDay and I wasn't alone, which I guess is one of the points you are trying to make, but it seems like you contradict yourself. [paraphrase]She was begging for a lynching on Day 2, so she doesn't seem like she's actually trying to get lynched Day 3, but if she was trying to get lynched Day 3 and she does, she did a great job?[/paraphrase] If she is a scum bomb or a bombing member of a 3rd party group vs a solo bombing 3rd party, she's had some serious help from either teammates and/or the Town just playing badly. All this goes back to me having a very hard time trusting you and/or the warning, and even if the warning is at all truthful, even in part, and the Town manages to come to know that somehow and yet still survive with me in it, I will need to be convinced that your motivations for sharing the information were pure and not chaotically malicious. The timing of the information really yanked the rug out of my pro-town play of mitigating the tie-breaker, though it is a wash for yesterday since Jaade also ended up being a vanilla Townie, it still isn't something anyone was willing to do today, which sucks because Stan could be pro-Town with a power that he feels is worth potentially sacrificing a Mason to protect. As such I'm not inclined to drink from the same cup of wine as you, and I think I'll be leaving my vote on Stan, who I really hope is not a Town power role. If the Mod decided to somehow balance a weakness in his game with some sort of one-off-clandestine-afterthought whisper in your Townie ear, that sucks and would be pretty damn gastardly imho. If a Power role is responsible for providing you with the information, I'd really like to have some insight into their alignment/role/thought process before drawing any further conclusions about the information or you. If anyone else has received any whispers in their ear, I really hope they would have spoke up by now. And in conclusion, I hate you all for making this such a quandary.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 0:12:11 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 4, 2009 0:12:11 GMT -5
I may be biased, but doesn't everything archangel say seem very convienent? <snip> And everything you say seems very convenient. We have a very suspicious player trying to lynch another extremely suspicious player, and I find that much too 'convenient'.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 0:22:26 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 4, 2009 0:22:26 GMT -5
I may be biased, but doesn't everything archangel say seem very convienent? <snip> And everything you say seems very convenient. We have a very suspicious player trying to lynch another extremely suspicious player, and I find that much too 'convenient'. It's true. And I would be highly suspicious of myself if I weren't me. I admit that. If I were faking being a watcher, I could come up with some plausible excuse that wouldn't have brought me any heat. I could have said I watched Hockey Monkey and saw her do nothing. I could have said I watched almost anyone and saw them do nothing. At worst, I get called a liar and out a power role. At best, everyone believes me. But I didn't want to do that, because when I flip, I want all the information I've given to be honest, and the only way I know how to do that is to be honest. Though, I would have rather gotten away with just saying I got no results...it was difficult to admit that I'd fucked up..and even more difficult to admit how I fucked up... So, to respond, your suspicion on me is well placed. You have no reason to trust me, however if I were looking for something more convenient, I certainly could have found it.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 0:51:36 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 4, 2009 0:51:36 GMT -5
Peeker: Would you be willing to ask the Mod if your gold was stolen last Night or this Morning?
Assuming the answer comes back as Night, would anyone else be willing to vote or switch their votes to spintari? I hate even thinking about such a thing this late in the Day, and I don't think we should even try without pledges of willingness to vote for spintari on record, but the case against Stan is very thin and he is basically soft-claiming at least a power of some kind. Without confirmation the he was incapacitated when Night 1 thievery may have taken place, a case isn't there at all.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 0:53:34 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 4, 2009 0:53:34 GMT -5
NETA: I should have said "a case isn't there at all, imho." I've already explained that I can see pro-town reasons for suggesting to lynch texcat.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 1:29:10 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 4, 2009 1:29:10 GMT -5
Another unofficial vote count:
Stanislaus - 7 (Texcat, BillMc, Dfrntbreign, Pumpjack, Spintari, DarkCookies, Archangel) archangel - 5 (Hockey Monkey, Special Ed, Natlaw, NAF, peeker) spintari - 1 (Julie) texcat - 1 (Stanislaus)
Tiebreaker - Stanislaus with a peak of 7
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 1:31:26 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 4, 2009 1:31:26 GMT -5
which means 6 people are not voting.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 1:35:00 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 4, 2009 1:35:00 GMT -5
Hockeyguy - not as shameful, as he was around and participatory recently
List of severe and utter SHAME:
Pollux Mister Blockey Nanook Kid Vermicious Captain Pinkies
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 1:49:24 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 4, 2009 1:49:24 GMT -5
Blockey is not as shameful by comparison as well, missed his post at the bottom of page 6. Votes would be greatly preferred though.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 2:55:27 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 4, 2009 2:55:27 GMT -5
Hockeyguy - not as shameful, as he was around and participatory recently List of severe and utter SHAME: Pollux Mister Blockey Nanook Kid Vermicious Captain Pinkies I'll vote, no worries there. My participation toDay has been less than I would like due to my girlfriend's birthday being August 2nd. We went up north for the weekend, and did a few things yesterday (plus I had a final yesterday, and do again toDay >_<). I'll be on before the end of the Day, and I will vote. Right now I'm torn between Archangel and Spin, but I still can't wrap my head around why Stan would want to lynch a Mason. That kind of worries me.
|
|
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 3
Aug 4, 2009 3:55:50 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Aug 4, 2009 3:55:50 GMT -5
A morning Vote Count Seven votes. Five votes. One vote. In the event of a tie, Stanislaus, who was the first to reach a total of seven votes, shall be lynched. - Victoria, late First Lady of Quantom.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 6:30:40 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 4, 2009 6:30:40 GMT -5
If a scum can effectivly/belivably claim mason town can no longer win unless there is another third party alive who will target the fake claimed mason. Now I am not saying that scum will pull this off, but it becomes possible if Texcat dies without having an additional mason backup to support him. Yeah, we should have given MHaye and yourself a medal for pulling that off in Ragnarok! It was our own fault, we broke the cardinal rule: Never trust NAF :-)
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 9:30:34 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Aug 4, 2009 9:30:34 GMT -5
I'm supposed to believe that you voting for town "more than twice" by your own admission, plus you advocating for stanislaus who is going against your day 1 M.O. is a bit more suspicious than me not voting for town? Either way, it doesn't matter. Are you trying to say that since you didn't vote at all, it was better than voting for town? I'm trying to say my vote wouldn't have exactly broken any ties unless I am a six-handed hindu goddess. So pointing out I didn't vote in cases where my vote really wouldn't have prevented town from being lynched, and then calling my actions anti-town is very specious reasoning.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 9:49:15 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 4, 2009 9:49:15 GMT -5
Are you trying to say that since you didn't vote at all, it was better than voting for town? I'm trying to say my vote wouldn't have exactly broken any ties unless I am a six-handed hindu goddess. So pointing out I didn't vote in cases where my vote really wouldn't have prevented town from being lynched, and then calling my actions anti-town is very specious reasoning. It is anti-Town to avoid voting. Voting leaves a record for the Town to analize. When you vote, reasoning behind the vote is expected of you. That can lead to analysis of you and of the person you are voting for. Perhaps your case will gain support that Day or even the next Day. Perhaps it will lead to beneficial discussion for Town. What possible pro-Town reason could you have to not vote? All I see are pro-Scum reasons to avoid voting. You avoid accountability. You don't spur discussion. It seems as if you are trying to slip in under the radar. Not voting is anti-town.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 10:22:33 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Aug 4, 2009 10:22:33 GMT -5
The reason I didn't vote is because when I looked at it, if i wasn't voting for who everyone else is voting for, it would have been on principle, or "just to vote" and little else. Garbage in, garbage out. It may be "anti-town" in some situations, especially when the votes are close and comes down between two people, but applying it as a blanket answer to all situations is sophistric, especially on the first few days where it's a crapshoot anyway and outside of luck or bad players, town usually gets lynched.
Or, more simply put, I'm not gonna vote just to be voting, and I'm not supplying information just to supply information. This is the first day where more substantial information has been gathered and if I hear another feel-good slow-clap soliloquy on how we're supposed to participate with what has been very little information to start with, i'm loading the snark gun.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 10:31:09 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 4, 2009 10:31:09 GMT -5
The reason I didn't vote is because when I looked at it, if i wasn't voting for who everyone else is voting for, it would have been on principle, or "just to vote" and little else. Garbage in, garbage out. It may be "anti-town" in some situations, especially when the votes are close and comes down between two people, but applying it as a blanket answer to all situations is sophistric, especially on the first few days where it's a crapshoot anyway and outside of luck or bad players, town usually gets lynched. Or, more simply put, I'm not gonna vote just to be voting, and I'm not supplying information just to supply information. This is the first day where more substantial information has been gathered and if I hear another feel-good slow-clap soliloquy on how we're supposed to participate with what has been very little information to start with, i'm loading the snark gun. But to follow your principle, wouldn't we end most Day 1s with no votes whatsoever? And then Day 2 as well? and so on? It is anti-Town preciously because not voting denies Town useful information and delays the acquisition of such knowledge. what you're suggesting is that we should wait until we have information before participating. However, if we aren't participating, how will we gather information? The only benefit I see to not participating is that it prevents making a mistake. Scum would be worried about making a mistake. Town should be worried about finding Scum and killing them. Town needs information. Town needs to participate to create that information.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 10:37:22 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Aug 4, 2009 10:37:22 GMT -5
I may not be around this afternoon, and I feel a giant masonic bulls eye on my forehead, so I wanted to give my final spin on things now. I am not outting our final mason. I think it better that they remain incognito for now.
I urge everyone to vote for Stanislaus today. He is certainly not the scummiest person around, but he doesn't look like he has a bomb taped to his chest.
I urge everyone to vote for archangel tomorrow. She is scummiest person around. And I would look at Ed next. I am still suspicious of his interactions with archangel.
Good luck to all of the townies of Quantom tonight!
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 10:51:53 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Aug 4, 2009 10:51:53 GMT -5
This is stupid. People are voting for Stanis for suggesting we vote a mason to avoid a bomb? It's a poor idea sure, but it's not scummy really. This whole, we can't vote for that person, he's too obviously scummy, he must be the bomb crap is dumb. How well did that work out for the Town in the Terminator game, where there was a recruiter jester? How about we actually play Mafia and vote for the person that's scummiest? We don't even know for certain that there IS a bomb.
Spintari, if people don't vote then there is no information generated. As Ed said, if everyone followed your "policy", we'd never lynch anyone until/unless someone slipped or a detective claimed with a list of names. Further, you avoided even giving your weak reasoning until the pressure on you was very high, which is a very scummy thing to do. Scum will often ignore cases against them in hopes that no one will pick up on it. Telcontar did it to great effect in Lost. You're #2 on my list.
#1 on my list is Archangel. I said earlier that we shouldn't be quick to vote solely based on the color HM claimed. And I still believe that. However, voting her for an amazingly unbelievable claim, that is very easily retrofitted to the facts without proving a damn thing in advance? That's a horse of a different color.
Vote: Archangel
Cookies, I don't feel shame at all thanks. I said I would be gone this weekend. It just took me longer than I had thought to get back.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 11:38:59 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 4, 2009 11:38:59 GMT -5
This is stupid. People are voting for Stanis for suggesting we vote a mason to avoid a bomb? It's a poor idea sure, but it's not scummy really. This whole, we can't vote for that person, he's too obviously scummy, he must be the bomb crap is dumb. How well did that work out for the Town in the Terminator game, where there was a recruiter jester? How about we actually play Mafia and vote for the person that's scummiest? We don't even know for certain that there IS a bomb. Spintari, if people don't vote then there is no information generated. As Ed said, if everyone followed your "policy", we'd never lynch anyone until/unless someone slipped or a detective claimed with a list of names. Further, you avoided even giving your weak reasoning until the pressure on you was very high, which is a very scummy thing to do. Scum will often ignore cases against them in hopes that no one will pick up on it. Telcontar did it to great effect in Lost. You're #2 on my list. #1 on my list is Archangel. I said earlier that we shouldn't be quick to vote solely based on the color HM claimed. And I still believe that. However, voting her for an amazingly unbelievable claim, that is very easily retrofitted to the facts without proving a damn thing in advance? That's a horse of a different color. Vote: Archangel Cookies, I don't feel shame at all thanks. I said I would be gone this weekend. It just took me longer than I had thought to get back. So you chastise spintari for a policy that denies the town information, yet you've followed that policy fairly closely toDay and seem a bit snarky about being mildly ribbed about it? Your opinions would have been a lot more useful not coming at the end of the day and putting us one vote a way from a tie. Saying your were going to be away doesn't change that at all.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 12:15:19 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 4, 2009 12:15:19 GMT -5
I lean toward Nanook's reasoning about the terrorist, which is that we still need to try to get scum.
For me, spintari has the most scummy downside without any townie upside.
Archangel and Ed are neck and neck for scummy downside with a possible town upside for their claims.
Stan doesn't really strike me as particularly scummy.
Honestly, no one else really strikes me, either. NAF could be making it all up, but how in the world would we ever know aside from lynching him? I think an argument could be made for lynching him. He's not likely the bomb since I don't think he would have been considered a likely target after passing on the message. He claims the message has nothing to do with his role, so it shouldn't interfere with future messages. It would show whether the message was likely sincere (if he's town), undetermined (if he's 3rd party), or a big fat lie (if he's scum).
This particular set up seems destined to make me into a crazy person. Our voting is being handcuffed by (in some cases alleged) game mechanics.
We know that Stan was imprisoned. No one has countered Angel's claim that she did it. HM claims to have been imprisoned and then Angel claimed to have done it. No one has countered that claim, either. IF both were imprisoned AND they were done by the same person, that person has allowed Angel to claim both. If both were imprisoned but done by different people, neither is likely to be Angel (why would she lie about one?), so then we have two people not countering her claim. If HM is lying about being imprisoned, she and Archangel are working together, which is risky. If HM is lying, why invent the Beatles color that casts doubt on Angel? We know Stan was imprisoned, so any false imprisonment should have modeled his real one.
Also, there was no way for them to know that someone else hadn't been imprisoned by the real jailer type.
Which would make their ploy only viable since the mod didn't announce any such jailing. So, why go to the effort of a role claim then making up an imprisonment to hide the fact that the role claim doesn't fit the known dead? Doesn't make sense to me, so I think HM is telling the truth, is the Vig and was imprisoned.
So, two imprisonments. Angel claims both. If she only did one, why lie about the second? That would be extremely odd. So, it's likely she did both or neither (unless someone has some reasoning behind doing one and claiming the other). If she did both, there are discrepancies between the two accounts, and lots of weirdness with the role. But these aren't things under her control.
If she did neither, she's claiming the actions of one or two other players (likely). That's pretty risky. Even if one player will stand back and let you claim, as would have had to have happened yesterDay, but a second player doing the same OR the first player letting you do it twice is something else.
So, is she telling the truth? That would make HM's imprisonment odd since it didn't have the same features as Stan's. But the difference in mod behavior could be explained by it being Night, so announcing her imprisonment would be denying Angel the opportunity to block a Night Kill.
What about the color? Uh. I can think of some silly reasons, but nothing solid.
Lordy, that was long, but I wanted to see if there was anything in there to make a case more or less plausible. I think it makes the case against Archangel less plausible, but an important caveat is that I'm only capable of seeing this with my own eyes. I can't really put myself in Archangel's place, especially since she tends to play very much off the cuff--thus less predictably than I do.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 12:37:46 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 4, 2009 12:37:46 GMT -5
That's a good summary Julie - the whole day is just total wifom - damned if we do, damned if we don't. Texcat seems pretty convinced about Stanislaus. Indeed his latest post almost seems like PIS. Does he know more that he has let on? He's absolutely sure we should lynch Stanislaus. If it wasn't for the fact that Texcat is a mason I would be very warey of his conviction. He may have additional info, or he may just have firm belief in his decision. If we believe NAF's note - then the game mechanics are effectively pushing us towards sacrificing a townie to stop the terrorist. It just sucks.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 12:43:44 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Aug 4, 2009 12:43:44 GMT -5
*eyeroll* OK. End of patience.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 12:47:46 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 4, 2009 12:47:46 GMT -5
Texcat seems pretty convinced about Stanislaus. Indeed his latest post almost seems like PIS. Does he know more that he has let on? He's absolutely sure we should lynch Stanislaus. If it wasn't for the fact that Texcat is a mason I would be very warey of his conviction. He may have additional info, or he may just have firm belief in his decision. Yeah, the argument that Stan's Day imprisonment blocked his alleged Night action is just weird.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 12:47:49 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Aug 4, 2009 12:47:49 GMT -5
You know what I'm going to just go on principle and vote Spintari
It's the type of lurking he's doing.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 13:05:59 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Aug 4, 2009 13:05:59 GMT -5
Fine with me. Anyone else?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 13:06:09 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 4, 2009 13:06:09 GMT -5
I've unofficially hot:
Stanislaus - 8 (Texcat, BillMc, Dfrntbreign, Pumpjack, Spintari, DarkCookies, Archangel, Mr Blockey) archangel - 6 (Hockey Monkey, Special Ed, Natlaw, NAF, peeker, Nanook) spintari - 1 (Julie) texcat - 1 (Stanislaus)
the 8 for stan is the high water mark
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 13:07:02 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 4, 2009 13:07:02 GMT -5
ooops, my mistake
let's do this:
Stanislaus - 7 (Texcat, BillMc, Dfrntbreign, Pumpjack, Spintari, DarkCookies, Archangel) archangel - 6 (Hockey Monkey, Special Ed, Natlaw, NAF, peeker, Nanook) spintari - 2 (Julie, Mr Blockey) texcat - 1 (Stanislaus)
with the 7 being the high water mark
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 4, 2009 13:13:31 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 4, 2009 13:13:31 GMT -5
So, is she telling the truth? That would make HM's imprisonment odd since it didn't have the same features as Stan's. But the difference in mod behavior could be explained by it being Night, so announcing her imprisonment would be denying Angel the opportunity to block a Night Kill. I've been thinking about the differences in what Stan and HM claimed, and while this is all assuming Archangel has told the truth, it's what I think is going on there. Stan was targeted during the Day, which is probably why it was announced in the opening Day color, basically so we wouldn't attack him for not posting/voting/etc. HM was targeted at Night, where there is no strategical talking going on, thus no needed to be mentioned in public, but she was blocked. Maybe if she was a Mason or Scum, she wouldn't be able to talk on their respective boards, but I'd assume that'd be posted on that board, and not here. So, it's my theory that Archangel's role works in such a way that if targeted during the Day, said player is removed from the game, but protected from a lynch, and if targeted at Night, it works as a block, and just prevents them from using whatever role they may have. Texcat seems pretty convinced about Stanislaus. Indeed his latest post almost seems like PIS. No comment here, just wondering what PIS means. I've seen it a few times, but never figured it out. Thanks. Fine with me. Anyone else? Yeah. Vote: Spintari You're lack of participation is anti-Town, despite saying you don't think it is. Voting records is vital in helping us figure things out, as are reasons for votes. Their also extremely helpful in pointing out things others may have missed, and can help others see your view, so not voting because you knew your target wouldn't be lynched can be detrimental to us.
|
|