|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 9:30:19 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 14, 2009 9:30:19 GMT -5
Hockeyguy, I don't get the whole "Peacekeeper" thing at all. The only actual named Peacekeeper was MHaye, the First Lady of Quantom and presumably not Anti-town. The other "quasi-Peacekeeper" (if you will) was PCM, a Pro-Town Contrarian. Leaving the Thief and the Merc out of it, a third faction who wins with Town is fine with me. A third faction who wins instead of town (with no warning from mods) seems too Gastardly for me to believe. With fifteen people out of the game and no other indication of a third party (except the thief and merc, which would make a fourth faction) I'm just not buying it. First off, third parties that steal the win from the Town are not rare or Gastard. Even if unannounced. Most of the recent games played here have had unannounced third parties with the chance of stealing the win. Even if said third party was a single person, which I doubt is the case in this game, seeing as how MHaye's character had a name, Victoria, and was used in the opening color of the game where other names were mentioned. I'd believe those other names (Kenith) are also characters in this game. Second, just because fifteen players have been lynched or killed so far, and we've only uncovered one such third party characters hardly means there are no more. We started with twenty seven players, and if I'm right, three to four Peacekeepers. So 11-15%. Aside from the first Night and Day Three, we've only had one player go every Day and Night. And with the Scum apparently targeting Mason's and claimed roles, it's not hard to believe another Peacekeeper wasn't hit yet. Sine we'd have had to do it with a lynch (which we've only had four of). Also, with twelve players still alive now, that's a 16% (2 PKs) to 25% (3 PKs) chance to hit one still. Again, if I'm right. So don't be quick to dismiss something as not likely Until we hear from Bill (or don't hear from Bill), I feel the same way today as I did yesterday. I think scum are hiding in the "quiet place", not all of them but enough to still consider it a likely (maybe most likely) place to hunt. I was just as content yesterday to vote Captain Pinkies as Spintari, but picked the one that got Cookies out of the tiebreaker. I wonder if maybe Cap didn't vote at all rather than being accused of doing the same thing. Really? You voted for Spin soley to stop Cookies from being in the tiebreak? Well, considering Cookies only had ONE votes cast against him at the time of your vote, and Spin had five, I don't see how Cookies was in any risk of biting the dust via the tie. I mean, yeah, your vote put Spin at the peak number of six, but with Cookies at one vote, with 12 hours to go, really that big of a deal that the potential tie, and lynching of Cookies scared you so much into voting for Spin? You also never provided a reason, all you did was quote Spin and say that's why he's leading the vote... In fact the comment you quoted wasn't even really suspicious. All Spin had said was that the Scum were doing very well in the game. So the reason he was leading the vote was because the Scum were doing well? I don't see how that's a solid reason to suspect him. Your case on Pinkies any better?
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 11:05:21 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Aug 14, 2009 11:05:21 GMT -5
Actually, comments like "scum are doing very well" are often time made by scum, who can't resist gloating a little when they're doing well. If you look back over the games we've played here and on the Dope, it probably runs about 70/30 to scum making that sort of comment. When you consider that scum on average only make up about 25% of the players of any given game, that's a pretty reliable scum tell. Not perfect of course, but no one scum tell will be really.
As for Peacekeepers, it's impossible to say what the deal with them is. This goes back to our early game discussion of win conditions. The Town win con, to my mind though I know others disagree, precludes them being a win stealing third party faction. Beyond that however, who knows.
Also regarding Peacekeepers, I've spent some time thinking about this game(when I wasn't being incredibly pissed about it, more on that in a bit), and have changed my mind somewhat regarding Archangel, especially with Ed being confirmed Town and therefore what he said being true. I would say that it is obvious now that she has the role she claims. The question then becomes her faction. I've become mostly convinced at this point that she is a Peacekeeper. Not 100%, but mostly. Her role as claimed fits with what little we know of the Peacekeepers. Sure, a single faction with two roleblockers is a little unusual, but it's not completely without precedent(see Batman game here). Does that mean we have to lynch her? I don't believe so, but I fully admit I could be wrong. I have a terrible track record when it comes to third parties(see how badly I misled Town when I was a detective in Alien Taste).
Regarding my being pissed at the game, I felt like things were getting a little out of hand between me and Cookies, on a personal level. I wasn't having fun and needed to step away. I thought about asking for a modkill, but in the end I decided that would hurt Town too much, so I'm just going to suck it up and play on.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 11:55:30 GMT -5
Post by Captain Pinkies on Aug 14, 2009 11:55:30 GMT -5
hmm.. I am going to attempt to break my lurkiness... I have to agree the other sentiments that Bill is not town but I want to put together my own case before voting for him...
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 12:26:29 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 14, 2009 12:26:29 GMT -5
I'm a bit taken aback by Nanook saying he was getting so mad at me that he had to take a walkabout.
There isn't an iota of personal baggage on this side of things, if that makes any sort of difference. I'm just playing the game like I always play it. If put in the same situations again, I'd play the same way again. I hope the Mods in future games finish setting the table and have things like the salad fork on the correct side of the plate before letting us kids come in for dinner.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 14:15:04 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 14, 2009 14:15:04 GMT -5
Actually, comments like "scum are doing very well" are often time made by scum, who can't resist gloating a little when they're doing well. If you look back over the games we've played here and on the Dope, it probably runs about 70/30 to scum making that sort of comment. When you consider that scum on average only make up about 25% of the players of any given game, that's a pretty reliable scum tell. Not perfect of course, but no one scum tell will be really.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 14:42:40 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Aug 14, 2009 14:42:40 GMT -5
Hi guys,
I lost my Internet at home due to a storm; it's not back up yet, I'm at a Wi-fi hotspot, but I'm going on vacation tomorrow and will have to check in similarly from Wi-fi hotspots.
Hockey Monkey, I remind you that my "blocking" of you is also protecting you, which is why I did it again last Night. I'm sorry I'm frustrating you and I do happen to agree that at this point we need you to get a good scum kill in, so I won't do it again toNight.
Cookies, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying about your tie-breaker ploy, I'm not saying it's anti-town, I'm saying it bothers me that you said it was more pro-town than NAF's giving out his information, which implies that NAF's act *was* pro-town.
How does Julie's death affect us? Was her wincon just a separate game with the merc?
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 14:54:09 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 14, 2009 14:54:09 GMT -5
Cookies, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying about your tie-breaker ploy, I'm not saying it's anti-town, I'm saying it bothers me that you said it was more pro-town than NAF's giving out his information, which implies that NAF's act *was* pro-town. At the time I made that statement I had no idea what NAF was or what he was doing and I was allowing for the possibility that he was town and that his information was put out for our benefit. That allowance didn't change the wine I ended up drinking. Was it "pro-town" for him to deliver that information by lying? That is debatable at the post-game party. It certainly had the opposite of the intended effect on me and made me distrust him and his information more than including it with a full claim would have done, but I can only speak for myself.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 15:33:01 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 14, 2009 15:33:01 GMT -5
We have 12 folk left alive, early speculation suggested 4-5 rebels, and HG is suggesting 3-4 Peacekeepers. We've two dead rebels and a dead Peacekeeper. Taking the worst case scenario is: Establishment-Peacekeepers-Rebels: 6-3-3
Apart from the extra death of MHaye on night 1 (which I'll come back to), the rebels have consistently NK'd the Establishment.
Now the Establishment win condition is "the rebels are no longer a threat" while HG claims her win condition is that the rebels must be dead. HM has claimed that "no longer a threat" is his win condition.
Irrespective of what the Peacekeepers win condition in - the Establishment win condition is not advanced by killing Peacekeepers -- "rebels are no longer a threat/rebels are dead" can only be advanced by killing rebels.
Now if HM is convinced that Archangel and I are Peacekeepers, then lynching us would not advance the Establishment cause - indeed it would be an anti-Establishment move as it would give the Rebels another Estblishment NK without loss.
If the Establishment lynched a Peacekeeper then 6-3-3 would become 6-2-3 Rebels NK Establishment leaving it at 5-2-3 The Establishment then lynches Archangel - if she is Peacekeeper is it then 5-1-3 - if she is rebel, 5-2-2, - if she is Establishment then its 4-2-3 The Rebels then have a NK it becomes 4-1-3, 3-2-2 or 3-2-3 depending on AA's alignment
Plus, HM will now have a kill and her chances of hitting Rebel are poor.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 15:33:17 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 14, 2009 15:33:17 GMT -5
The only reason I can fathom for HG wanting the Peacekeepers dead is that his win condition is not "the rebels are no longer a threat" as previously claimed - that his win condition requires the Peacekeepers to be dead..which does seem to echo with Ed's speculation: <font style="font-size: 12px;">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? Indeed, the only folk who have been openly anti-peacekeeper and indeed not willing to even consider the possibility of "peace" are HG and HM (more later on this) <font style="font-size: 12px;">I'd have to agree with your view on the 'Peacemaker'. Looks like a hostile faction (kind of ironic with a name like Peacemaker, but I digress) that we don't have to kill, but could steal the win from us. How would a 'peaceful' faction go about winning though. I doubt they'd have the same win con we do of taking out the Rebel threat, but what else could it be? HM has pretty much categorically concluded that the Peacemakers are a threat to the Establishment - but - here he mentions his win condition is taking out the rebels - which is different from "no longer a threat". As you may have noticed, I asked the mod's for clarification on this point: <font style="font-size: 12px;">The speculation is on the interpretation of "no longer a threat" -- in most games I've played the win conditions have been pretty explicitly "when scum are dead" etc. Question to the mods - are the statements "when the Rebels are no longer a threat" and "when the Rebels are dead" equivalentThe mods chose not to answer this one, so I would conclude that an answer would alter the game state, and my assumption is that these two statements are not equivalent.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 15:33:34 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 14, 2009 15:33:34 GMT -5
HM's initial post lays out a retrospect view of my comments, onto which Cookie bites. So just as an example of 20-20 rear view vision, let's consider HM's comments: <font style="font-size: 12px;">Yes, I absolutely share the idea that the Merc is a player, maybe a PFK. My take on how the role works is that s/he gets to choose from the list of propositions and targets for any given Day (or Night?) and gets to choose who, and if, s/he decides to take action. I'd wager they probably have a limited amount of times they're allowed to act, in order to keep them from offing someone every night. Also to keep them hesitant at times, in order to wait until a certain name is said to them. From Day 1 - while Natlaw was alive for two nights, he only appeared to kill once - Bufftabby or MHaye. In retrospect, HMappears to know something about the Merc mechanics. <font style="font-size: 12px;">If the Thief/Merc are independent from the Town, but the Town's win con is just to get rid of the rebels, maybe the Theif/Merc have their own battle going on? It's been speculated that they're fighting for gold, which I would agree with. My theory is that once the Thief or Merc reach their independent win con, they're removed from the game and it continues without them. Has that ever been done before? I played a game where that was part of it, but neither of the third parties ever reached their goal, so it never happened. I don't really know how it would work, or if it'd be possible. Anyone ever seen that? Again from Day 1 - speculation that the 3rd parties would be removed from the game when they meet their win condition.....just has Julie has today. Remarkably accurate about the thief mechanic given the claim he's never seen a 3rd party win. <font style="font-size: 12px;">While it's a very good idea to try and pool some gold to counter the Scum pool, there are so many things that could go wrong. Hopefully Hawk thought to add a Mason group in favor of the Town who could pool gold against the Scum. Or hopefully the Merc is pro-Town and has a good understanding of who is helping the Town, and thus wouldn't kill off anyone who is beneficial. Day 1 again - more speculation on the Merc. Why didn't the Merc kill on night 2? was it because he could only kill rebels? how did HM appear to know this mechanic? <font style="font-size: 12px;"> OK, I'm here barely long enough to comment.
My kill target is not amongst the dead. I was either blocked or re-directed. Hopefully just blocked. I also hope you were just blocked, although if you were blocked, that means four people attempted kills last Night. Scum, Merc (I'd assume), HM and an unknown. Let's hope the fourth was just a one shot killer. Day 2 - speculation that one of the NK's was one shot - and based on subsequent nights, that was borne out. <font style="font-size: 12px;">(to ED) Secondly, your actions toDay. Miscounting, not knowing Stanis wasn't killed, saying HM wasn't Blocked, despite her saying she was (she could be lying, we don't know that though as MHaye is dead and was told to be a Roleblocker, he can't confirm it. Perhaps there's another though). Anyways, all that makes it appear to me that you've been skimming the thread. In my opinion, skimming is a Scum tell, because it makes you look like you aren't paying attention. More from Day 2 - speculation about their being a second blocker - and lo and behold, there was : Archangel. Reading these together, HM seems to have been remarkably accurate in his assessment.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 15:34:30 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 14, 2009 15:34:30 GMT -5
HM has also been rather protective of HG: From day 1: <font style="font-size: 12px;">I don't understand where you're getting that we just want to throw HM away. I've tried to offer up a couple scenarios to avoid a bad outcome. In fact, I even offered up letting her NK tonight, and then telling us if the Scum changed her target, but that doesn't prove the existence of a Redirector. All it proves is that they didn't use her that Night. So yeah, we;d just let her go until the Scum use her to kill someone else, then we'd off her. I said that already, but the possibility of three kills a Night is not someone I want to see happen a lot, and with HMs role, we'll get at least two every Night. (Assuming everyone who kills targets separate people). Sorry, that just scares me a bit. I just don't think the Scum would off HM on their own if she was missing them more than us, even if she hit a couple of them in the process, but that's idle speculation... And the mere thought that they happened in only two games prior, doesn't mean it's unlikely a Redirector is here. That's metagaming by definition, and there is no way to know until a the role is used, or the game ends. Late on Day 1, after the various claims, HG was in the hot seat to be lynched: <font style="font-size: 12px;">Now I don't know what to do. I had almost made my mine up to vote for Pleo once I got home today, but seeing his claim, I can't. I've reconsidered my stance on HM and I'm willing to let her go a few Nights now to see if she can nab us a Scum or two. If we haven't gotten any Scum by Day three though, I'll have to start considering lynching HM again. Especially if we lose 2-3 players a Night. I'm not feeling the Pedescribe vote either. It does appear to be a "shot in the dark" as a few people have said in their reasoning to vote him. I don't like that. A blind guess? We have a few other players that have made a case on some, and we have some lurkers. I don't like the blind guess and quickness the pedescribe vote has gotten. Three people took the same shot in the dark in about an hour and a half. I dunno... This puts us in a very tough situation. HM is tied for the lead with Pedesribe who upon refreshing the page just claimed Doctor. The person I want to vote for right now is peekercpa. Mainly for his vote on HM. In my opinion, there was a very compelling case ( NAF made, I think?) made on why we need to keep [b]HM for now. In a few Days we may need to reconsider that though, as she could hurt us more in the mid-game.. Etc. But that vote won't save one of our claimed players. Upon another refresh, Ed just voted for HM as well, so I'll vote for him then. Vote: EdFor his vote on HockeyMonkey and I think Stanis made some good observations about hi thus far.[/quote] After which there is a mass migration of votes off of HMIt feels very much like HM and HG have their own mutual agenda.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 16:05:09 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 14, 2009 16:05:09 GMT -5
Urgh - on re-reading I've mixed up my HM's and HG's - really shouldnt do this sort of thing from the blackberry - just swap most of them :-)
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 16:13:32 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 14, 2009 16:13:32 GMT -5
First off, I'm HG, not HM, so your post is extremely hard to read.
I'll comment further in a second about individual parts.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 16:22:49 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 14, 2009 16:22:49 GMT -5
We have 12 folk left alive, early speculation suggested 4-5 rebels, and HG is suggesting 3-4 Peacekeepers. We've two dead rebels and a dead Peacekeeper. Taking the worst case scenario is: Establishment-Peacekeepers-Rebels: 6-3-3 If you're not worried about PK stealing the win, and we're up on the Rebels 9-3, we're hardly at Lynch of Lose, so why are you so against the possibility that lynching a PK will hurt the Town in the endgame, especially if it provides key information we can use to eliminate the Rebels? [/quote]Apart from the extra death of MHaye on night 1 (which I'll come back to), the rebels have consistently NK'd the Establishment. Now the Establishment win condition is "the rebels are no longer a threat" while HG claims her win condition is that the rebels must be dead. HM has claimed that "no longer a threat" is his win condition. Irrespective of what the Peacekeepers win condition in - the Establishment win condition is not advanced by killing Peacekeepers -- "rebels are no longer a threat/rebels are dead" can only be advanced by killing rebels.[/quote] It helps us if the PKs will steal the win from us. As is the case with almost all third parties in every game I've seen. I said I was leaning towards you being a PK, but I was certain you weren't Town. And I said there's a good chance AA and you are partnered somehow. Chances of HM hitting a Rebel are 25% (actually more after toDay's lynch if we hit Town). And that is at your worst case scenario. You're also pooling all your eggs in the basket of Scum NK only Establishment and not PK. You certain they won't hit a PK? That would increase our odds wouldn't it? Or did you purposely not point that out?
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 16:28:28 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 14, 2009 16:28:28 GMT -5
NETA: Replacing this post getting my HM/HG the right way roundWe have 12 folk left alive, early speculation suggested 4-5 rebels, and HG is suggesting 3-4 Peacekeepers. We've two dead rebels and a dead Peacekeeper. Taking the worst case scenario is: Establishment-Peacekeepers-Rebels: 6-3-3 Apart from the extra death of MHaye on night 1 (which I'll come back to), the rebels have consistently NK'd the Establishment. Now the Establishment win condition is "the rebels are no longer a threat" while HM claims her win condition is that the rebels must be dead. HG has claimed that "no longer a threat" is his win condition. Irrespective of what the Peacekeepers win condition in - the Establishment win condition is not advanced by killing Peacekeepers -- "rebels are no longer a threat/rebels are dead" can only be advanced by killing rebels. Now if HG is convinced that Archangel and I are Peacekeepers, then lynching us would not advance the Establishment cause - indeed it would be an anti-Establishment move as it would give the Rebels another Estblishment NK without loss. If the Establishment lynched a Peacekeeper then 6-3-3 would become 6-2-3 Rebels NK Establishment leaving it at 5-2-3 The Establishment then lynches Archangel- if she is Peacekeeper is it then 5-1-3 - if she is rebel, 5-2-2, - if she is Establishment then its 4-2-3 The Rebels then have a NK it becomes 4-1-3, 3-2-2 or 3-2-3 depending on AA's alignment Plus, HM will now have a kill and her chances of hitting Rebel are poor.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 16:29:02 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 14, 2009 16:29:02 GMT -5
NETA Replacing this post getting my HM/HG the right way roundThe only reason I can fathom for HG wanting the Peacekeepers dead is that his win condition is not "the rebels are no longer a threat" as previously claimed - that his win condition requires the Peacekeepers to be dead..which does seem to echo with Ed's speculation: <font style="font-size: 12px;">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? Indeed, the only folk who have been openly anti-peacekeeper and indeed not willing to even consider the possibility of "peace" are HG and HM (more later on this) HG has pretty much categorically concluded that the Peacemakers are a threat to the Establishment - but - here he mentions his win condition is taking out the rebels - which is different from "no longer a threat". As you may have noticed, I asked the mod's for clarification on this point: <font style="font-size: 12px;">The speculation is on the interpretation of "no longer a threat" -- in most games I've played the win conditions have been pretty explicitly "when scum are dead" etc. Question to the mods - are the statements "when the Rebels are no longer a threat" and "when the Rebels are dead" equivalentThe mods chose not to answer this one, so I would conclude that an answer would alter the game state, and my assumption is that these two statements are not equivalent.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 16:29:33 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 14, 2009 16:29:33 GMT -5
NETA Replacing this post getting my HM/HG the right way roundHG's initial post lays out a retrospect view of my comments, onto which Cookie bites. So just as an example of 20-20 rear view vision, let's consider HG's comments: <font style="font-size: 12px;">Yes, I absolutely share the idea that the Merc is a player, maybe a PFK. My take on how the role works is that s/he gets to choose from the list of propositions and targets for any given Day (or Night?) and gets to choose who, and if, s/he decides to take action. I'd wager they probably have a limited amount of times they're allowed to act, in order to keep them from offing someone every night. Also to keep them hesitant at times, in order to wait until a certain name is said to them. From Day 1 - while Natlaw was alive for two nights, he only appeared to kill once - Bufftabby or MHaye. In retrospect, HMappears to know something about the Merc mechanics. Again from Day 1 - speculation that the 3rd parties would be removed from the game when they meet their win condition.....just has Julie has today. Remarkably accurate about the thief mechanic given the claim he's never seen a 3rd party win. Day 1 again - more speculation on the Merc. Why didn't the Merc kill on night 2? was it because he could only kill rebels? how did HG appear to know this mechanic? Day 2 - speculation that one of the NK's was one shot - and based on subsequent nights, that was borne out. <font style="font-size: 12px;">(to ED) Secondly, your actions toDay. Miscounting, not knowing Stanis wasn't killed, saying HM wasn't Blocked, despite her saying she was (she could be lying, we don't know that though as MHaye is dead and was told to be a Roleblocker, he can't confirm it. Perhaps there's another though). Anyways, all that makes it appear to me that you've been skimming the thread. In my opinion, skimming is a Scum tell, because it makes you look like you aren't paying attention. More from Day 2 - speculation about their being a second blocker - and lo and behold, there was : Archangel. Reading these together, HG seems to have been remarkably accurate in his assessment.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 16:30:04 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 14, 2009 16:30:04 GMT -5
NETA Replacing this post getting my HM/HG the right way roundHG has also been rather protective of HM: From day 1: <font style="font-size: 12px;">I don't understand where you're getting that we just want to throw HM away. I've tried to offer up a couple scenarios to avoid a bad outcome. In fact, I even offered up letting her NK tonight, and then telling us if the Scum changed her target, but that doesn't prove the existence of a Redirector. All it proves is that they didn't use her that Night. So yeah, we;d just let her go until the Scum use her to kill someone else, then we'd off her. I said that already, but the possibility of three kills a Night is not someone I want to see happen a lot, and with HMs role, we'll get at least two every Night. (Assuming everyone who kills targets separate people). Sorry, that just scares me a bit. I just don't think the Scum would off HM on their own if she was missing them more than us, even if she hit a couple of them in the process, but that's idle speculation... And the mere thought that they happened in only two games prior, doesn't mean it's unlikely a Redirector is here. That's metagaming by definition, and there is no way to know until a the role is used, or the game ends. Late on Day 1, after the various claims, HM was in the hot seat to be lynched: [/noubbc] [/quote] After which there is a mass migration of votes off of HMIt feels very much like HM and HG have their own mutual agenda.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 16:30:24 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 14, 2009 16:30:24 GMT -5
The only reason I can fathom for HG wanting the Peacekeepers dead is that his win condition is not "the rebels are no longer a threat" as previously claimed - that his win condition requires the Peacekeepers to be dead..which does seem to echo with Ed's speculation: <font style="font-size: 12px;">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? Indeed, the only folk who have been openly anti-peacekeeper and indeed not willing to even consider the possibility of "peace" are HG and HM (more later on this) You're damn right I openly admit to not wanting Peace. If MHaye was not a PK, and there was none of them I'd listen to someone talk of Peace. But not when there's a chance of a third party that could WANT peace. Why? Because maybe they're win con is to establish some sort of Peace agreement? Considering my win con says nothing about peace in it, I will not sign any treaties. Is it possible that eliminating the Rebel threat doesn't mean they all need to die for me to win, but I do know that if they are dead, they can't possibly be a threat to me, so I'll go that route. Why risk the chance of fulfilling anyone else's win con by going for Peace when I may lose because of it, when I can just kill the Rebels and win that way? You actually expected the mod to comment on the win condition of another player in the game thread? Seriously And please, don't assume that we can win with Peace. You have no way of knowing that, as you said, the mods didn't answer. You only know your own win condition. Which I can guarantee is not the same as mine.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 16:38:29 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 14, 2009 16:38:29 GMT -5
If you're not worried about PK stealing the win, and we're up on the Rebels 9-3, we're hardly at Lynch of Lose, so why are you so against the possibility that lynching a PK will hurt the Town in the endgame, especially if it provides key information we can use to eliminate the Rebels? Two points 1) in case you missed the news Julie the thief has skipped town - she's stolen the win already. 2) So if you are saying we are up 9-3 on the rebels, then you are classing the peacekeepers are pro-establishment - so why not lynch rebels? unless your wincon is that you need to eliminate the peacekeepers
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 16:46:10 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 14, 2009 16:46:10 GMT -5
NETA Replacing this post getting my HM/HG the right way roundHG's initial post lays out a retrospect view of my comments, onto which Cookie bites. So just as an example of 20-20 rear view vision, let's consider HG's comments: <font style="font-size: 12px;">Yes, I absolutely share the idea that the Merc is a player, maybe a PFK. My take on how the role works is that s/he gets to choose from the list of propositions and targets for any given Day (or Night?) and gets to choose who, and if, s/he decides to take action. I'd wager they probably have a limited amount of times they're allowed to act, in order to keep them from offing someone every night. Also to keep them hesitant at times, in order to wait until a certain name is said to them. From Day 1 - while Natlaw was alive for two nights, he only appeared to kill once - Bufftabby or MHaye. In retrospect, HMappears to know something about the Merc mechanics. Again from Day 1 - speculation that the 3rd parties would be removed from the game when they meet their win condition.....just has Julie has today. Remarkably accurate about the thief mechanic given the claim he's never seen a 3rd party win. Yes, I speculated right about how the Merc mechanic worked, in regards to how people can submit money to the mod in order to enlist Natlaw to kill someone for them. It's not like it was basically spelled out in the opening color or anything. Also, we don't know if Natlaw even killed Buff or MHaye. No one came out and said they bid on it. If someone bid to have buff killed, you'd think they'd come forward to claim that. I would have. What exactly does me correctly guessing the Merc/Thief win con have to do with anything anyway? I knew of a mechanic where the Merc could only kill Rebels? So you're positive Natlaw killed Buff then? Before you said you could have killed either. Do you know who killed MHaye? Was it you? Very anti-Town move to use a kill as Town on Night 1 unless you're forced like HM is. Also, I never once speculated that the Merc could only kill Rebels, nor did I speculate on why there was only one kill on Night 2. I will now though. Hawk said you could bid for the Merc to NOT kill. Maybe someone did and he took that offer? Maybe the Merc just didn't kill anyone. Maybe he was blocked. Who knows. I've been accurate because I've been paying attention. Hawk told us about the Merc in the opening color. I guess at their win con based on other peoples speculation. I didn't jump out with a brand new idea. I read what others posted, and expanded. I was right. Sue me. I never said anything about the Merc only targetting Scum, you are the one who stated that the Merc DID kill Buff, and I have no idea how you would know that unless you know who killed MHaye as well. Also, I didn't speculate anything on why Stan was jailed. You did that more than anyone, and kept going back to the fact that Stan being jailed HAD to do with NAF's warning. Well you were right that Stan and NAF's warning were grouped, as NAF was warning us about Stan, but was the jailing involved? If AA is Scum, then you're damn right it involved Stan being a bomb. I have an idea. Let's lynch AA. It'll guarantee that HM will get a kill tomorrow. It'll show us her alignment, and then we can form a solid opinion on those that jumped on the Stan bandwagon (aside from the fact that a few of them have to be Scum already) to save her. And it'll tell me if your last minute vote for Jaade on Day Two was because you were protecting AA, or if you actually believed her claim.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 16:50:29 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 14, 2009 16:50:29 GMT -5
If you're not worried about PK stealing the win, and we're up on the Rebels 9-3, we're hardly at Lynch of Lose, so why are you so against the possibility that lynching a PK will hurt the Town in the endgame, especially if it provides key information we can use to eliminate the Rebels? Two points 1) in case you missed the news Julie the thief has skipped town - she's stolen the win already. 2) So if you are saying we are up 9-3 on the rebels, then you are classing the peacekeepers are pro-establishment - so why not lynch rebels? unless your wincon is that you need to eliminate the peacekeepers Take what I say in context. Don't take select portions and comment back to make me look bad. I'll address point two first. We're up 9-3 if the PK can't steal the win. I'm going in accordance of what you were saying. Poking holes in what you say we need to do. IF the PKs ARE NOT a threat, then we are up 9-3 on the Scum, right? So how are the odds that HM will hit Scum so bad? That's a 25% chance. IF the PKs ARE A THREAT then there's an even better chance that HM will hit someone harmful to us. I don't see the downside in letting her kill tomorrow Night. Now for point one. I did see she skipped Town. She stole the win though? Why is the game still going then? I read it as she fulfilled her own win con in a personal battle between herself and the Merc, and bailed. She didn't steal the win or the game would be over. Don't tell me you failed to make that connection.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 16:55:05 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 14, 2009 16:55:05 GMT -5
NETA Replacing this post getting my HM/HG the right way roundHG has also been rather protective of HM: From day 1: <font style="font-size: 12px;">I don't understand where you're getting that we just want to throw HM away. I've tried to offer up a couple scenarios to avoid a bad outcome. In fact, I even offered up letting her NK tonight, and then telling us if the Scum changed her target, but that doesn't prove the existence of a Redirector. All it proves is that they didn't use her that Night. So yeah, we;d just let her go until the Scum use her to kill someone else, then we'd off her. I said that already, but the possibility of three kills a Night is not someone I want to see happen a lot, and with HMs role, we'll get at least two every Night. (Assuming everyone who kills targets separate people). Sorry, that just scares me a bit. I just don't think the Scum would off HM on their own if she was missing them more than us, even if she hit a couple of them in the process, but that's idle speculation... And the mere thought that they happened in only two games prior, doesn't mean it's unlikely a Redirector is here. That's metagaming by definition, and there is no way to know until a the role is used, or the game ends. Late on Day 1, after the various claims, HM was in the hot seat to be lynched: [/noubbc] [/quote] After which there is a mass migration of votes off of HMIt feels very much like HM and HG have their own mutual agenda. [/quote] I never voted HM. I entertained an idea of trying to work around her power for the betterment of the Town, and lynching her was one of the scenarios. I felt in the end that it was better to leave her alive and hope a roleblocker blocker her until the end game so she could use her power to help us, which is now.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 17:06:10 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 14, 2009 17:06:10 GMT -5
In case you're wondering, here are the instances where you said the Merc killed buff.
So you either hired the Merc to kill buff on Night 1, or you know who killed Pede and MHaye.
When Ed asked you about how you knew the Merc killed Buff you said this:
You KNOW the Merc did it because you ASSUME the Peacekeepers are peaceful? That doesn't add up. Odds are you knew who killed the other players, so you surmised who killed Buff since HM claimed to have been blocked, the Merc was the only other person who we knew could kill. Clever too, since why would the Merc claim to confirm or deny that without revealing themselves to the thief or Scum?
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 17:22:02 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 14, 2009 17:22:02 GMT -5
Also Bill. You going to ignore or address my early comments about you like you did in Day Four when I talked about your peace agenda?
Not that I care or anything. I highly doubt you'll say anything to change my mind, but I'm sure others would like to hear what you have to say.
Staying silent is extremely anti-Town at this point. Personally I think you've been silent far to long for anything you say to have any sway on me, outside of a claim. It has been a week since I first called you out.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 17:24:46 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 14, 2009 17:24:46 GMT -5
You're losing this scrap with Hockeyguy from where I'm sitting, Bill. And you've chosen to try and go on the offensive with him (who did not include quoted examples of his "too agreeable" case against you) and handwave me as a tag-along while not addressing my case against you which does include a bunch of specific quotes and observations.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 17:29:41 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 14, 2009 17:29:41 GMT -5
Ask and you shall receive... Well you will receive those quotes in a minute or so. I had some listed when I started to reply here then I accidentally closed the window. I'm in the process of finding them again.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 17:38:29 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 14, 2009 17:38:29 GMT -5
Here you go Cookies:
Intresting note here too. Notice how Bill just spouts off random questions? He likes to do that a lot too without ever going back to address them. Half the time no one says anything, but sometimes they do, and Bill still doesn't address them again. It appears he's just trying to cloud the skies.
These are just a few of them. He does it a lot more with "Oh yeah, I agree we need to hear from them before we do anything". Then he shows up at the end of the day and votes in agreement with someone else's reasoning.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 18:33:48 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 14, 2009 18:33:48 GMT -5
That was an observation about Bill, not a request to you, Hockeyguy, but thanks. The documentation is always better than paraphrasing, imho.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 14, 2009 19:12:35 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 14, 2009 19:12:35 GMT -5
Oh, well I had planned on posting those regardless as I mentioned he was agreeing a lot and such, but never posted specific examples.
|
|