|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 12:55:38 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 24, 2009 12:55:38 GMT -5
the reason i am voting for hockey is that he has so much as said that he will keep killing unless he is blocked. he also, admitted that he loses if peacers win (total paraphrase). so if someone else came out with a nk power that they wouldn't disavow they'd make the list as well.
i think i threw the gauntlet down already. first, i believe hockey to be a rebel. if there were enough rebels to come out and say that they would outvote him or otherwise keep him from killing i'd certainly vote no lynch toDay.
and actually i believe that my prescence (or any other identified peacers) has nothing to do with a peace wincon if we can get a Night/Day cycle (and just so we are clear - it could go Day/Night). much like being a traditional town or scum, if the team you are assigned to achieves their wincon you win regardless of being alive or not. the only information that i have been given is that victoria was my wife and that damean was my counterpart on the rebel side. nothing else. so when i got back that ed could win under a peace condition i got nothing to whether he was a peacer, a rebel or a member of the establishment. i honestly thought by this point that we would have a war aligned person show up dead (remember the whole yin yang discussion) in which case maybe this discussion would be a little more apparent.
try convincing folks that you are a benign aligned person, with a group of folks that share your wincon but may or may not know it.
and this may be another guess but i'll try anyways. i probably have as much in common with ee cummings as your voting has with a straight republican ticket.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 18:02:02 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Aug 24, 2009 18:02:02 GMT -5
I think perhaps a straight war role: IE wins by one side killing off another, but doesn't care which side, would be far too easy, even in this game.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 19:03:58 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 24, 2009 19:03:58 GMT -5
See, Peeker, that's just too much. You say you win alive or dead, barring a rebel win. But you can't vote no-lynch, because HockeyGuy says he can "take over for Hockey Monkey". You don't believe he's Establishment, or anything else he claimed (and I don't either), but you believe the game allowed for a rebel to take over a power held by a revealed Establishment member. How convenient for you that Archangel still hasn't made an appearance.
You still haven't addressed why you've waited until now to bring this up. (I'd forgotten the yin/yang post, but remember thinking when I read it "I remember hallucinogens." If you're telling the complete truth and you win dead or alive, why be so cryptic?)
You claim to know another "peacer", what reason do you have for not saying who it is? HockeyGuy can't kill you both in one Night and what benefits the rebels to kill them? The rebels already know if they are town or not. They don't gain any more from killing "peacer X" than they do anybody else. And the "peace option" stays on the table anyway.
Everybody seems to agree that HockeyGuy is a rebel (except HockeyGuy). Just how many rebels do you think are left? There are nine players left. (I don't know how JSexton points apply to this game, or whether or not Pollux or Archangel are ever coming back, but...) We started with 27. We know Julie and Natlaw were playing a different game, so 25. We know bufftabby and Stanislaus were rebels, presumably HockeyGuy and Bill (In your scenario you and Mhaye are town, so I'm counting Bill as Rebel for balance, color* not withstanding). With 25 players, I think five rebels is too low, seven too high, so 6 rebels to begin, and three, including HG left. That leaves us at 6/3. Of those three, how many are "peacers"? How many know they are "peacers"? You say HG definitely isn't, and he doesn't deny it. With or without a NK of his own, can he over-ride the other two voting for "peace"? I don't see how (Of course it's academic ToNight if he does have a NK of his own. But I don't think he's going to get two chances, anyway). If we lynch him Today, we go into Night 6 at 6/2 with your "peace option" still on the table and start Day 7 either 6/2 and nothing about "peace" clearly resolved, or 5/2 and nothing about "peace" clearly resolved. And apparently nothing resolved even if you're the rebel target.
*This is another part that doesn't fit your "everybody 'peace' wins" scenario. Mhaye presumably can win with town, so why was Bill's green unless he could only win by the "peace option"? And if the rebel Peacekeeper could only win alone, why could both Establishment Peacekeepers win with town? If there are two rebel "peacers" that can win, one alone and the other shared, how do you balance only two Establishment "peacers"? By having more than two. So where are the rest?
Now, if you are PFK and Bill was PFK (MHaye's blue color would presume s/he's (Victoria/MHaye) not part of it, but at this point who knows?) It changes the numbers some, but not too much. Starting with 27 minus two 3rd parties (thief and merc) minus two (or three) PFKs leaves us with 22 or 23 playing a conventional game. Bill being on the rebel side changes things (and I think is the element Hawk introduced to the meta-game), but balanced by you (and possibly MHaye) seven (including Bill) still seems too high and five (including Bill) still seems too low. I think the the game has to be balanced for a conventional win for it to even be an option. Balancing a rebel traitor with an Establishment traitor (or even 2) is the only thing that makes sense to me. Balancing one Establishment "anti-peacer" (Hockey Monkey) with one Rebel "anti-peacer" (HockeyGuy) makes sense, as well, but if HockeyGuy knew he could gain another NK at any point by simply killing Hockey Monkey, why would he not tell the other rebels? If Archangel is a rebel, then she's dead, no doubts at all, anytime after the doc is gone (Night One). If Archangel is Establishment, they only had to kill her first, and then they had two NKs every night. How does Bill argue against that (while still trying to convince them not to kill at all, no less)?
No. I think we're at 5/3/1. If we lynch you Today, your reveal is in green and we start the Night at 5/3. Day7 we start 4/3 and lynch HockeyGuy making it 4/2. That's lylo, but we know we're playing Mafia.
The only thing I know, absolutely know, about "no-lynch" is that NAF (remember him, our reporter?) claimed to have received a note warning not to do it Day 3.
Or have the hallucinogens come back to haunt me?
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 21:04:26 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 24, 2009 21:04:26 GMT -5
ok, let's take this point by point in a cliff's notes version.
like anyone else on a team i or they win if their teams' wincon is satisfied. a scum does not have to be alive to win if the scum wins. likewise, if there is a cycle with no death, i win regardless of whether i am alive or not.
what bill said was true as far as i know. ipso fucto, i believe him when he says that hockey is scum. i also am believing hockey when he says that he won't stop killing. that is directly opposed to my wincon. hence i want to remove that threat.
i was warned in my pm that i should be careful about sharing my wincon because there were folks, both establishment and rebel that would not like a peaceful solution. i kind of had two days where i was unavailable. if i would have been more present i certainly would have been confirming bill, hence the timing observation.
if the concencus was to reveal who is a peacer was made i would certainly share. since you seem to be the only one pushing this and since i am concerned that you are not peace aligned i am not going to open that individual(s) to any attack unilaterally.
and actually, i am more valuable, since i get to investigate again tonight. of course, it seems apparent that you won't believe me so am not sure from your standpoint whether that has any swing whatsoever.
i have no clue how many rebels are left. square root of 25 is 5 so 2 or 3 sounds right. i don't know the alignment of the peacers just that they can win with a peace outcome. they could be rebel/establishment or a combination.
and i never said that hockey wasn't, just that his actions are inconsistent with a peace wincon.
i don't get where you think that mhaye wins with establishment. he was identified as peacer so i would assume that his wincon is the same as mine but don't know for sure. same goes with bill. i would have thought he would have flipped scum and just know about a peace wincon. ed flipped town with no peace identification but hawk confirmed that he could win with a peace wincon.
and i assume that not everyone wins under a peace solution. only those with the peace wincon would. and i don't figure at all how an establishment traitor would work. do you think that i have some knowledge ala scum about town. because if you want to talk about broke that would be the definition.
and i can surmise this: a "conventional" win is not going to be available. hence, the remove the threat as opposed to kill or eliminate or some such wording. once again, refer to off board game regarding useless and vanilla. synonyms, certainly. identical, definitely not.
and i'll leave you with this tidbit. the person i am thinking of confirming as a peace wincon person, not their alignment, may know it. if they do then i have the means that anyone would be able to see it and know my truth. if they don't then something oddly coincedental occurred. that would truly be a hallucination. the only trouble is that the vision was true.
and yes i remember NAF. didn't this have something to do with a bomb that went BOOM.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 21:08:42 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 24, 2009 21:08:42 GMT -5
and yes that is a magic bag of sorts. but, i refuse to endanger anyone else at my expense. matter of fact if i get lynched or nk'ed then when i flip peace maybe the folks that still sit on the fence about what i suggest will get off the pot.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 21:11:04 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 24, 2009 21:11:04 GMT -5
I think perhaps a straight war role: IE wins by one side killing off another, but doesn't care which side, would be far too easy, even in this game. maybe so, maybe no. there certainly could be factions within factions that could steal a win for a non peace subset. much like a peacer, they could be rebel, establishment or just peace and win regardless of how the rest of their "team" does.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 21:12:40 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 24, 2009 21:12:40 GMT -5
btw, I think ed knew.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 22:10:57 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Aug 24, 2009 22:10:57 GMT -5
Why exactly is lynch all the scum(rebels), win the game off the table again? I've seen that a lot from people Today and I don't even begin to understand the logic behind that claim. And I am getting suspicious of the people that are pushing it.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 24, 2009 22:48:19 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 24, 2009 22:48:19 GMT -5
You think it is not just possible, but probable, that the Establishment is still in a position for a single-handed win in spite of the fact that we might as well have started the game handicapped with 3 players just deleted from our roster?
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 25, 2009 0:44:44 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 25, 2009 0:44:44 GMT -5
Cookies, I don't know that was addressed to me, but yeah, if I didn't believe it was possible, I wouldn't have any reason to keep playing. If I'm right and you were Peeker, wouldn't you want me to believe I couldn't win except your way? Difficult, yeah. Probable? I don't know. But Bill said we were playing for second, that Julie had already won. I didn't believe him, either.
Peeker you keep saying the same thing and still not answering any of the questions I've asked, most specifically, why wait until now?
You believe HockeyGuy can NK on his own. Why did Hockey Monkey and/or Archangel not die early on?
What threat (unilateral or otherwise) are you exposing "peacer X" to? (And yeah, I'm the "only one pushing for it". So what? What do you think could happen?)
How are you so valuable if you don't share your information (which you and you alone possess)?
Why should we believe the "threat-no threat, useless, vanilla, off board, similar is not equal" argument, but you don't apply it to "Hockey Guy's actions don't equal his "peace" alignment". Similar but not equal? How are they different, here?
MHaye's reveal (flip?) was in blue. What else would it mean? But you don't know why I said it (which I didn't. the word "presumably" has a meaning.)
You don't know anyone's Establishment/Rebel alignment, and only the peace/non-peace alignment of the three people you've "investigated", but you surmise neither the rebels nor town can win. Why? Based on what, exactly?
Look at my picture. Do I look like someone who has a problem with anyone "letting their freak flag fly"? But were you unavailable for two days or two Days? See how they're different?
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 25, 2009 0:47:01 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 25, 2009 0:47:01 GMT -5
NETA that should read Cookies I don't think that was addressed to me, yadda, yadda, yadda.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 25, 2009 2:26:51 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 25, 2009 2:26:51 GMT -5
Mhaye's reveal was in green, not blue. It is available for your perusal on the first page of the Day 2 thread.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 25, 2009 3:06:29 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 25, 2009 3:06:29 GMT -5
Further, my win condition does not read "all Rebels must be dead", as HockeyMonkey (who did flip Establishment blue and I believe she was truthful) said her win condition was. So there is apparently another path to victory for us Vanilla Establishment, however many are left. Maybe I'm the only one of them left, or maybe there are some more. Who knows, but forgive me if I'm not frothing at the mouth for Rebel blood since there is nothing telling me that I have to be in order to still have a chance at a win.
I came out of the gate at Dawn voting for HockeyGuy, my vote hasn't moved, and I don't intend to move it. Depending on what happens Tonight, I'm considering a no-lynch vote tomorrow, and I'll likely consider such things for as long as I'm in the game.
The lack of participation from players like Pollux and Angel completely sucks infected, oozing assholes. If there is something I could get bloodthirsty for, it just might be the lurkers/non-participators. At this point just killing them outright has got to be about as risky to my win condition as the status quo of not being able to get any sort of impressions from their utter lack of playing.
Then there's Nanook, who comes in and makes a statement that has me scratching my head and wondering if he is even aware that there is a faction of Peacekeepers in the game at all. Is he just going to ignore the pages and pages of exchanges and claims made by Bill and HockeyGuy? In one of his rare posts, he smears anyone who is not obviously going for the Rebel jugular. But if he wants all the Rebels dead, why waste time casting suspicion on those who appear to be advocating peace?
For better or worse, (assuming HockeyGuy is actually a Rebel and he gets lynched) we (the "Rebels are no longer a threat" Establishment folks) have the good fortune of being able to see what the Night brings and then weighing our options and deciding what to do next. I will say this though...if there is a no-kill Tonight yet we still haven't heard anything out of Pollux and Angel, the WIFOM of whether or not there was no Night kill due to peaceful Rebel intentions or just MIA Rebels will sitting right there on the table for us.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 25, 2009 3:34:50 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 25, 2009 3:34:50 GMT -5
Mhaye's reveal was in green, not blue. It is available for your perusal on the first page of the Day 2 thread. Well I will be goto hell*. That's what I get for being lazy and going by my own notes instead of looking. Maybe it's just not wanting to win (or lose) my first game through no effort of my own that's making me see something that isn't there. And maybe it's the thought of having to fish out who's who from who's left with so little input that makes me want to believe I'm right, but it still seems for all the reasons I've given that Peeker and co. are PFKs rather than sharing a win. *I don't know how common an expression that is, but it's been one of my favorites since hearing it said by an "older woman" when I was about 15 years odd. She was home from her first semester of college. and i left the 'odd' typo cause it fits
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 25, 2009 5:32:33 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 25, 2009 5:32:33 GMT -5
Why exactly is lynch all the scum(rebels), win the game off the table again? I've seen that a lot from people Today and I don't even begin to understand the logic behind that claim. And I am getting suspicious of the people that are pushing it. well, i assume this is directed at me. i don't believe that i have ever pulled that off the table. it is merely not needed to fulfill my wincon and any other peace aligned person. it also does not preclude other people fulfilling their wincon (unless there are those who would specifically lose if peace wins). apparently there is a distinction between needing the rebels dead and merely removing their threat. all i am saying is that my wincon, to some extent, removes the threat, without in fact killing them.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 25, 2009 5:54:44 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 25, 2009 5:54:44 GMT -5
and since you keep asking dfrnt and i keep trying to answer, i'll give it another go.
why wait. the first couple of days i was trying to get a handle on my role as well as see how prevalent other peacers were. then i had a Day and a half for I was basically on vacation with limited access. true i spent a couple of minutes on line each day but most of it was over in NSFW. then i started a new job and got hooked up their for a couple of rl days. on top of that i was kind of waiting and hoping that someone would flip war or non peace specifically. didn't happen.
remember earlier, the yin and yang. a priori blah blah blah.
when i read bill's claim and subsequent events i figured now was as good a time as any. as i already stated, if i hadn't had rl stuff i would have claimed yesterday along with bill. and believe it or not. i have a life and when stuff comes up i try to keep folks informed. in this case i did.
i have no clue why either would not have died early on. no pis here, sorry.
if there are in fact people that can only win if peace loses, why would i put them at risk? i don't even know if they know. that would be like me saying dfrnt you are peace aligned. if you know that you are then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. if you don't know then why would you all of a sudden start believing me. there is also the possibility that i am lying but then you could call me on it and i be fucked. same here. just because i say someone is does that all of a sudden make you believe me? especially if they come back and go, first i heard. there is no benefit to my wincon. and i have merely painted a target on the peacers back for non peacers (if in fact that group exists). that's why i am leaving it up to the general concensus on whether to "out" this person or not.
i am not getting the hockey comment. he as already stated that he would keep killing and that he loses if peace wins. so yes, if my team's winning means he loses that would be an antonym not a synonym.
mhaye flipped green same as bill
i don't know who can still win. i assume that since we are still playing it is wide open. i also assume that you believe my wincon just not that it is not exclusionary.
i already explained the vacation and new job. if the standard is no rl then i guess i failed this particular test. anyone that has ever played in these games with me know that unless something really odd comes up that i spend a heck of a lot more time per capita than most players.
so if you'd drop the rl bitching and moaning i'd certainly appreciate it. it's starting to wear just a bit.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 25, 2009 6:02:19 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 25, 2009 6:02:19 GMT -5
Mhaye's reveal was in green, not blue. It is available for your perusal on the first page of the Day 2 thread. Well I will be goto hell*. That's what I get for being lazy and going by my own notes instead of looking. Maybe it's just not wanting to win (or lose) my first game through no effort of my own that's making me see something that isn't there. And maybe it's the thought of having to fish out who's who from who's left with so little input that makes me want to believe I'm right, but it still seems for all the reasons I've given that Peeker and co. are PFKs rather than sharing a win. *I don't know how common an expression that is, but it's been one of my favorites since hearing it said by an "older woman" when I was about 15 years odd. She was home from her first semester of college. and i left the 'odd' typo cause it fitsand i really find this humorous. at some point this was an observation that was used in support of your conclusion. now that you are wrong it becomes moot. have you ever heard of fitting facts to support your conclusions. good natured ribbing coming up. sure you didn't come up with the whole wmd argument. sure that's why we did what we did but now that we can't find them they really weren't that important anyways. please don't take that personal. regardless of how this plays out i never want to actually piss anyone else because god (and this is a twelve step god not the one that lives in those funky buildings and gets all pissed and stuff on a regular basis) willing we'll do this again in the future.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 25, 2009 8:44:22 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Aug 25, 2009 8:44:22 GMT -5
So with 2 1/2 Rebels dead and 1 1/2 Peacekeepers dead, you are sure, SURE, that we are outnumbered by....someone. I guess the Peacekeeepers, since if we were outnumbered by the Rebels the game would be over. There's 10 people still alive. I think the most likely scenario at this point is 6-3-1, with the 1 being Peeker the Peacekeeper. It could be otherwise, maybe 5-3-2 or 5-4-1. I don't see how any of those combinations make a tradtional lynch all the scum and win victory impossible.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 25, 2009 9:33:32 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Aug 25, 2009 9:33:32 GMT -5
Hi guys...my apologies for my extended absence. I was on vacation with what I thought would be little Internet access and ended up being no Internet access. The current situation is confusing to me so I'm going to reread a couple of times.
As I'm sure you deduced, I jailed no one this past cycle because I couldn't get online to do it.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 25, 2009 12:25:28 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 25, 2009 12:25:28 GMT -5
Peeker, you got it backwards. My thinking that MHaye flipped blue (and therefore could win with town) was one thing that made me doubt I was right. Why would a PFK flip blue? The fact that I was wrong doesn't weaken my argument, it supports it.
Not that it looks like anyone else believes it.
I guess we'll find out sooner or later, anyway.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 25, 2009 12:40:54 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 25, 2009 12:40:54 GMT -5
Forgot to vote.
Vote: HockeyGuy
I voted to lynch him yesterDay and will do so again toDay.
|
|
|
Day 6
Aug 25, 2009 13:20:36 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 25, 2009 13:20:36 GMT -5
Peeker, you got it backwards. My thinking that MHaye flipped blue (and therefore could win with town) was one thing that made me doubt I was right. Why would a PFK flip blue? The fact that I was wrong doesn't weaken my argument, it supports it. Not that it looks like anyone else believes it. I guess we'll find out sooner or later, anyway. ok, gotcha. i thought you were differentiating between the two with some sort of trust going to mhaye. i see your point now sot the conflict you allude to makes sense. i mean, you are still wrong about the motives of the peace faction, but that's one i guess that will have to wait until the game is over for it to finally sink in to you. unless, and this makes as much sense as anything, you know and have to go down the path you are traveling since to do otherwise means you can't meet your wincon.
|
|