|
Day 4
Aug 9, 2009 18:15:06 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Aug 9, 2009 18:15:06 GMT -5
[/color] No one's asking me this, but "Jailer" is my understanding of what my role is. "Minister of Corrections" is my title. <snip> You haven't answered the question of your win condition. [/quote] Ugh. I'm sorry, I answered that in my head but forgot to post. My win condition is that I win when the Rebels are no longer a threat.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 9, 2009 22:13:44 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 9, 2009 22:13:44 GMT -5
Special Ed, Archangel, and the masons all report having the same win condition as vanilla town - the rebels are no longer a threat.
HockeyMonkey reports that her win condition is - the rebels are dead.
If Archangel were to jail the last rebel, would that mean they were no longer a threat and thus fullfill the town's win condition without fullfilling HM's? And does that mean HM is not town?
Could the Peacekeepers actually be a survivor group that doesn't care which side is dead? That certainly would bring peace and wouldn't make them a direct threat to us.
Right now, I don't believe Peacekeepers are a problem. If HM is a Peacekeeper and all she did was take out lurkers, I'd load her rifle.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 9, 2009 22:51:52 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 9, 2009 22:51:52 GMT -5
I'm going to put my vote on
Vote: Captain Pinkies
for his last minute vote and overall non-participation.
If he actually does come back with a case against Ed, and continues to participate, I'd probably change my vote just because he tried.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 9, 2009 22:57:17 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Aug 9, 2009 22:57:17 GMT -5
I'm going to go ahead and Vote Spintari as well, for the same reasons as yesterday.
Particularly that the lurking goes beyond the I have nothing to add side and trends towards the highly suspicious.
As far as win conditions go I can see some town having slightly different win conditions than the main body of the town. I even find that an interesting mechanic I may employ later when making my own game.
Having the general town win con be no longer a threat, while having specific people, with abilities to facilitate their goal be aimed at the more specific endgame of all scum dead works.
The win conditions aren't mutually exclusive, one's just more specific.
The worrisome win condition would be someone claiming to be town who had more ways to win the game than standard town.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 9, 2009 23:09:38 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 9, 2009 23:09:38 GMT -5
<Snip> As far as win conditions go I can see some town having slightly different win conditions than the main body of the town. I even find that an interesting mechanic I may employ later when making my own game. Having the general town win con be no longer a threat, while having specific people, with abilities to facilitate their goal be aimed at the more specific endgame of all scum dead works. The win conditions aren't mutually exclusive, one's just more specific. Wouldn't that turn town against town? Especially later in the game? Would a survivor fit that description or are you talking about another type of role?
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 3:04:07 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 10, 2009 3:04:07 GMT -5
First, Unvote: Cookies I'm glad you didn't let it get any higher/later because I'm not ready for you to get hung, partly because I think we're on the same side and partly 'cause if we kill you we might end up with only three pages after almost four days. ;D
Oh wait...
Have you ever been playing a board game like Monopoly or Scrabble and someone takes a phone call or goes to the bathroom and you have to wait for them to come back and take their turn? Of course you have. This game is starting to feel like that.
I still don't know what to think about the Special Ed, Hockey Monkey, Archangel triad, but (for now, at least) it seems the situation is relatively non-threatening and my head hurts thinking about it. I don't trust that Archangel will be doing anything except block Hockey Monkey or Hockey Monkey targeting anyone but Archangel (just going by their respective non-trust of each other). While that doesn't help us kill rebels, it doesn't allow either one of them to use their power against us (no matter their respective alliance). This can't stay the same for the rest of the game, but unless one of them blinks (so to speak) we can afford to wait a little and hope for more information. Before you ask, I'm not sure what that would be, but one possibility would be us killing (or Ed tracking) a rebel role-blocker would explain HM's "colorful" jailing.
I'm inclined to trust Ed except I wonder why he's still alive. He would seem to be a major threat to scum and our doc has been dead since Night 1. Why have they not killed him (rhetorical question, don't answer with information scum could use)?
With nothing else to go on, I'm okay with either Spintari or Captain Pinkies for reasons stated. Okay, that's a little too much like "me, too" but the simple truth is neither have given enough that I have any kind of read on them. Others I have little to no feel for are Pollux, Peeker and Nanook. I've been keeping notes and I'm seeing things like "Nanook trusts HM. Why?", "Peeker makes beginning of yin/yang oneness of the universe post" and "Pollux posts "what we know, official' and 'what we know, unofficial"' (actually, that one was helpful, maybe take Pollux off the list?). Granted these are just examples from my notes (and only from Day 2, picked 'cause I like the 'yin/yang oneness of the universe' line) but there's not a lot to go by.
I'll wait until tomorrow evening (Monday) to give any of these people a chance to speak up, but at that point I'll probably vote for whichever of them has the most votes. After that I can't promise to be able to change it (for reasons I've stated before) so let's hear it. Hang up the phone and check, bet or fold.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 4:31:59 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 10, 2009 4:31:59 GMT -5
As far as win conditions go I can see some town having slightly different win conditions than the main body of the town. I even find that an interesting mechanic I may employ later when making my own game. Having the general town win con be no longer a threat, while having specific people, with abilities to facilitate their goal be aimed at the more specific endgame of all scum dead works. The win conditions aren't mutually exclusive, one's just more specific. The worrisome win condition would be someone claiming to be town who had more ways to win the game than standard town. I think that pretty much sums up where I was going with the original questions around "no longer a threat". It's an interesting mechanic where town could win with "no longer a threat" but HM would still lose if there is still a rebel alive. (metagamey apologies as I'm a similar predicament in another game - hence why I was wondering if it were a similar mechanic here)
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 4:57:18 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 10, 2009 4:57:18 GMT -5
Vote: spintari I'm torn between spintari, pollux and cap. All three have been aggressively lurking - since we have no substitutions and apparently no pro-active modkills for non-participation it kinda feels like one or more of them is doing the scum in the shadows routine. Cap's post bothers me - kinda "lets make the evidence fit my conclusion": so Big smelly finger of hate!!! at you! I'm going to go back and see whay type of case I can put together.... Pollux has been doing an excellent impersonation as the content free invisible man. Spintari's main contribution yesterday was to pop up from behind the tree line, throw a vote on Stanislaus and disappear again, which really bugs me.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 14:34:25 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 10, 2009 14:34:25 GMT -5
vote: spintari
Well, I might be consistently wrong, but at least I'm consistent.
My confidence is pretty much shot.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 14:52:15 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 10, 2009 14:52:15 GMT -5
I will be somewhat comforted if we have an authoritative majority on lynching a lurker. I just hope that spin is not the lucky recipient of a scum-nudged lurker bandwagon.
Vote: Spintari
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 17:34:23 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 10, 2009 17:34:23 GMT -5
spintari, if you have a claim you need to speak up.
With our luck you're the third damned mason. BAH.
Player list:
Julie--not much I can tell you.
Special Ed--claims to be a spy who is a tracker. The claim was convenient, the missing Night was convenient. The most recent result is still convenient, but it also echoes what I believe to be true. Why wouldn't he have made up a result for the missing Night?
Cookies--Seems to be playing pro-Town to me.
Hockeyguy--I don't have any conclusions
Pollux--pretty quiet but some good analysis at times.
Mister Blockey--I don't have any conclusions
BillMC--I don't have any conclusions
Peeker--Quiet. Says he was robbed. Didn't ask when until it was too late to matter but, frankly, I don't think there was any info to be gleaned.
Nanook--on the spintari bandwagon early with me, I think.
Archangel--I went into the reasons yesterDay why I think her claim is legit as to role, but maybe not allegiance
Pumpjack--would talk you into touching an electric fence for sport! (Oh wait, that was me.) He has something to hide.
dfrntbreign--
Hockey Monkey--claims forced vig. I believe this claim for reasons I outlined yesterDay in a tldr fashion.
Spintari--I find him scummy, also for reasons I outlined yesterDay in tldr fashion.
Captain Pinkies--much the same as spintari, though with marginal efforts to respond to direct comments.
Bah.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 17:40:30 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Aug 10, 2009 17:40:30 GMT -5
*shrug* Actually I feel so alienated that i really don't care what happens at this point. When I finally get enough information, I have no means to use it reliably.
So. Do it. =)
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 17:49:08 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 10, 2009 17:49:08 GMT -5
*shrug* Actually I feel so alienated that i really don't care what happens at this point. When I finally get enough information, I have no means to use it reliably. So. Do it. =) If this is true and not a scummy emotional appeal... ;D...that is my fault. I would have liked to prepare you much more for what you were getting into, but the time between you saying yes and the game entering Day 1 was just too short. Regardless, I hope you'll give us a second chance because I really think you'll enjoy the game in general. Or you will be in good company with Shay and Ronnie who just back away slowly when I start talking about whatever next game is about to start. My track record for recruiting my friends is not so hot.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 17:54:42 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 10, 2009 17:54:42 GMT -5
spintari, we're not trying to alienate you. We want you involved!
The nature of the game makes it impossible to talk freely about it while playing it, which means it's easy to feel isolated.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 18:26:41 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 10, 2009 18:26:41 GMT -5
To create a tie breaker Vote: Cookies [/color] My intention is to vote for Captain Pinkies, however. He appears once per Day, and on this Day, contributes nothing to the discussion, and on Day 3, cast a one off vote on me. He has contributed next to nothing to our discussions of the events of this game. If he didn't want to play, he shouldn't have signed up. I feel this may be more of a tactic than a playstyle issue[/quote] I have no excuse... It has not been a tactic to stay alive... Life has been a bit full with family and projects lately.... I voted for you because you failed to send your pm to the correct person. And it seemed like a stall technique to get through the day/night. For what it is worth, I still do not trust your claim. You really didn't provide anything to backup you claim, in my op[inion you should have posted archangel / hockey information first. Instead you waited for them to post the info and then said yeah that was my result... so Big smelly finger of hate!!! at you! I'm going to go back and see whay type of case I can put together....[/quote] Did you not notice that I posted a bunch of gibberish which neatly coincides with what I report as my result? I did that so that Archangel or Hockey Monkey could not change their info to fit my results, and so that I couldn't fake my results without being able to come up quickly with a big long bunch of sentences that fit in with the letters I posted before they reported anything.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 18:32:20 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 10, 2009 18:32:20 GMT -5
Vote: Captain Pinkies
For the same reasons as yesterDay and more of the same toDay.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 20:04:58 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 10, 2009 20:04:58 GMT -5
<snip> Special Ed--claims to be a spy who is a tracker. The claim was convenient, the missing Night was convenient. The most recent result is still convenient, but it also echoes what I believe to be true. Why wouldn't he have made up a result for the missing Night? <snip> Why make up a result and eventually expose yourself? It's safer and plausible to say you forgot. As far as I knew that fence could have been off. Besides, the doctors said there would be no permanent damage. You were the one moving your battleships!!!
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 20:28:49 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 10, 2009 20:28:49 GMT -5
Spintari, I'm a new guy too. My wife compared me to a waiter working a fun party. I'm the guy holding the tray of drinks. Mostly, the feedback is from my sister, who apparently is quite bitter.
Are we at risk of a Mod kill?
And Julie, I did have something to hide since you have been avoiding us and our cookies (not you cookies). We are expecting the next pod delivery in Feb. Yes, we know science has discovered why this happens, but my wife is a sucker for a man with a tray of drinks.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 10, 2009 23:53:03 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 10, 2009 23:53:03 GMT -5
Ed: I'd like to hear as much as you are willing/able to provide about your rationale to choose El Capitan for your vote vs the Spinmeister.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 11, 2009 0:16:16 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Aug 11, 2009 0:16:16 GMT -5
Anyone else notice scum are doing exceptionally well this game? Eh, I'm not trying to turn the tide, I'm too lazy.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 11, 2009 1:59:47 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 11, 2009 1:59:47 GMT -5
I don't know that scum are doing exceptionally well, but I will say that the collective town is playing like complete ass what with all of the mod-killing and not letting us lynch Sister Coyote instead of Jaade on the off chance Jaade may have been able to start playing into the mid and end game.
For all of the frustration, Stan taking out a 3rd party and a confirmed player was about as good as we can expect to have done with the Martyr getting what he wanted. He is a dead scum after all.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 11, 2009 2:23:27 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 11, 2009 2:23:27 GMT -5
Anyone else notice scum are doing exceptionally well this game? Eh, I'm not trying to turn the tide, I'm too lazy. So, that would be "Fold"? Not to discourage you from playing in the future, but do you realize that that, in a nutshell, is why you're leading the vote? Vote: spintari Julie, you have nothing about me? Nothing? I don't know whether to be embarrassed or insulted. (Actually I find it kind of funny. I'm six feet tall, 250 pounds with long hair, a long white beard, wear funny clothes and have a "weird" sense of humor. I'm used to people having the wrong impression of me, but none at all? It's kinda refreshing.)
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 11, 2009 2:43:45 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 11, 2009 2:43:45 GMT -5
Spintari, pretend I added a couple of smilies to that post. Reading it back it seems much more ...critical (? personal?) than I meant it to be. This is my first game, too so I understand it can be a little maddening. I just think you're trying not to get caught out by not saying any more than you have to.
|
|
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 4
Aug 11, 2009 3:51:44 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Aug 11, 2009 3:51:44 GMT -5
Speaking of vote leading. Six votes. One vote. In the event of a tied vote, Spintari, who reached six votes first, will be lynched. - Victoria, Late First Lady of Quantom
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 11, 2009 3:57:50 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 11, 2009 3:57:50 GMT -5
Ed: I'd like to hear as much as you are willing/able to provide about your rationale to choose El Capitan for your vote vs the Spinmeister. This question applies to Pumpjack as well. Did Ed forget to unvote me before voting for Captain Pinkies? Or has Victoria had a bit too much of the sauce?
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 11, 2009 4:01:31 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 11, 2009 4:01:31 GMT -5
Looks like yet another thing to slip Ed's mind...
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 11, 2009 8:07:53 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 11, 2009 8:07:53 GMT -5
Julie, you have nothing about me? Nothing? I don't know whether to be embarrassed or insulted. (Actually I find it kind of funny. I'm six feet tall, 250 pounds with long hair, a long white beard, wear funny clothes and have a "weird" sense of humor. I'm used to people having the wrong impression of me, but none at all? It's kinda refreshing.) It's frustrating how few opinions I've managed to form about people this game. I don't know if it's the players, the setup, or my own poor, broken brain. pumpjack, my god, man. spintari, I'm sorry you're having such a miserable time. cookies, well, no tie-break death for you, missy!
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 11, 2009 9:45:48 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Aug 11, 2009 9:45:48 GMT -5
I'm sorry I can't quote this properly or reference a post number. I truly have trouble with the mechanics of this board, which is why my participation level is low.
The following is all a quoted post:
"Aug 3, 2009, 7:53pm, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies wrote:
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." (Archangel comment: there was a smiley after that, it seems to have disappeared in my cbut and paste.)
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 11, 2009 9:50:45 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Aug 11, 2009 9:50:45 GMT -5
<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. This part of the above was Cookies quoting NAF, and the rest of her post was responding to it. I'm not singling it out because it's about me, I'm singling it out because it was unclear who wrote this due to my pathetic cut/paste skills.
Vote Cookies
This post makes me suspicious because she was arguing with NAF, whose viewpoint turned out to be correct (except I'm not scum and I'm doing a terrible job). I'm beginning to think the "Vote me as tiebreaker" thing is a very clever scum ploy to disarm us into trusting her.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 11, 2009 10:39:14 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 11, 2009 10:39:14 GMT -5
Archangel, I can't quite figure out what you're saying.
Down at the lower right hand corner should be a clickable thingie called "add quote." If you click that thingie on each post you want to quote, then hit reply, you should be taken to a screen that allows you to add the quotes you want to add to your post.
How does arguing with NAF make Cookies scum?
|
|