|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 10:42:00 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Nov 2, 2009 10:42:00 GMT -5
I'm still very suspicious of Bill though. This is a very suspicious way of making a point--why bring something up if you can't back it up? We can't think what you are thinking if you cannot enunciate it, and to not enunciate it but still harp on it is a way of building, or hopping on a bandwagon without evidence. And yes, I am aware that that was what I was doing. That's why I stopped doing it. Kettle, Pot, Black indeed. No you didn't stop - just picked a different target. His initial wording pinged me, and his response to my vote was somewhat of an over reaction Well, looks like Day one is drawing to an end. And as I am still vote leader, I will make good of my soft claim. A whole 52 hours to go, and you claim...hmmm BillMc will not be voting for me, he will be voting for himself. I'm rusty as mafia, but I think this is usually called a politician? In my PM, it's simply a vote switcher. OMGUS with bells on! Well lets put that to the test. Since CAIS isn't listing whose votes are counting, I'll need to pick someone who has zero votes, so: Vote: nphase this is not a vote for nphase, i'm just testing Chucara's claim.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 10:43:08 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Nov 2, 2009 10:43:08 GMT -5
Vote count please.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 10:49:33 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Nov 2, 2009 10:49:33 GMT -5
The next vote count will be at 8pm GMT.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 11:57:09 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Nov 2, 2009 11:57:09 GMT -5
Sorry for the long delay in posting. 1) I do not understand how Idle could have possibly misinterpreted the Chucara/Doom Cow posts at the start of the Day. I also think he tried to stifle the discussion about it with his little threat. It's very easy. It's called "Not having a vested, huge interest in the game and thus not really giving any deep thought to posts". Mystery solved. And your last sentence is wrong. I do not see how "I find anyone talking about this suspicious" =ing "Stop talking about this". ------------ Sorry I was away most the weekend. It was a rare busy one for me.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 13:06:38 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Nov 2, 2009 13:06:38 GMT -5
BillMc will not be voting for me, he will be voting for himself. I'm rusty as mafia, but I think this is usually called a politician? In my PM, it's simply a vote switcher. This would be a powerful role for Scum, yes? In essence, its existence in the hands of Scum is worth a half mislynch. If the Scum win condition is some variant on "controlling the vote," the existence of a Scum vote switcher (not just a vote charger) would allow the Scum to win the game not only when there is a tie, but when there are more Town then Scum. Right? Posit two remaining Scum, three remaining Town, with Chucara's role as described on the Scum side. That's game over. Chucara and fellow Scum vote as a block for one of the Townies, then Chucara switches the target Townie's vote to himself (ie, to the target Townie). Scum win. That is very powerful in Scum hands. I'd be willing to revisit the issue as we learn more about the setup, but for now I consider it more likely that this power, if it exists in this game, would be given to a Townie. Accordingly, assuming Chucara's power works as demonstrated, I would consider him a very poor choice for a lynch toDay, and will vote to avoid it if I can. I agree. And also one of my reasons for claiming early. I don't really see this power as all that useful in town hands, but it would be a very powerful scum ability. I wasn't really planning on using it today (and probably not at all either) as I have no reason to think that my votes should count double. By all means, lynch me later (which I kinda expect with a power like that), but even if we assume that I was scum, you would now know the ability of one of its members and you would know when I used it. And BillMc: If it was an OMGUS vote I could just as easily have voted for one of the two other people voting for me. I will however have to check what happens now that you have voted AFTER I switched your vote.. I really don't see how you switching votes will prove anything?
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 13:17:35 GMT -5
Post by Dirx on Nov 2, 2009 13:17:35 GMT -5
Sorry I haven't been around much. While I'm not normally too talkative on Day 1 to begin with, the fact that I'm not used to frequenting this board combined with the Sock-Hop event on the Giraffeboards kinda led to me forgetting about this. I'll put up a sticky note for myself or something so I know to check in more often. storyteller seems to have a point regarding Chucara's role. It's not something to be taken as a given, but I agree that it sounds pretty pwerful in scum hands. We'll have to wait for a vote count to verify if Chucara's power acts the way he describes. If it is a Day power like that, then that still doesn't explain the votes being active between Dusk and Dawn. I agree with those saying Chucara's "I'm not the boss of mafia" comment was akin to saying "I'm not telling you guys what to do." That's exactly how I read it, and I don't see how Bill misread that, but that's not enough to warrant a vote. I was confused why pedescribe got all up in arms over Pleonast's self-vote, but not Special Ed's or Guy Incognito's. vote PleonastJust to put myself on record that I'm going to vote for someone. Anyone who ends a Day without a vote is going to be very suspicious to me, especially in this game. Our best chance to lynch scum is to have everyone vote--we outnumber scum, so when everyone votes most of the votes will be pro-Town. We'll make mistakes, but scum will not be able to evade all the time. Vote: Special Ed As I agree with Pleonast, it's important to vote, and this will give me the motivation to make a case and place my vote in a serious fashion. Does anyone feel left out? I don't think I've been in a game with this much voting on Day 1. At this point, I don't have a pinging feeling enough on anybody to place a vote on anybody else. However, I do like how we can commit to placing a vote. Vote Guy IncognitoI can kinda see the argument that it was about the tone, and not the action, but that's admittedly pretty weak. I've seen speeches similar to Pleonast's in other games regarding voting/not-voting, so it didn't really stand out much to me, especially since it was basically the first discussion-post of the game.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 14:40:22 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Nov 2, 2009 14:40:22 GMT -5
Ok, so a clarification from the Gods the be dictates that my vote moval will still be in effect. Therefore, BillMc's last vote will not change anything. BillMcs vote will be for himself this turn. In fairness, I will move my vote on someone not being voted for so my votes won't count double.
vote: dirx
Come next vote count (or the final tally?), you will see that there should be a vote on dirx, and none on nphase, thus proving my power. My alignment isn't certain of course, but you will still see that I haven't been lying.
Before dusk, I would like to get a reread in on pleonast and pedescibe, if time allows.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 14:57:10 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 2, 2009 14:57:10 GMT -5
I'm going to move my vote for now, pending proof of concept for Chucara, and as I find pede's behavior -- especially the defense of the soft claim -- problematic:
Vote: vote pedescribe
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 15:03:01 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Nov 2, 2009 15:03:01 GMT -5
Vote Count
Current Status: pedescribe Lynch.
pedescribe (3) Chucara (2) BillMc (2) Idle Thoughts (1) Natlaw (1) Guy Incognito (1) dirx (1)
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 15:45:27 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 2, 2009 15:45:27 GMT -5
Oops. Didn't realize I was going to cause a tie, there.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 16:14:23 GMT -5
Post by Dirx on Nov 2, 2009 16:14:23 GMT -5
The vote count is not adding up. If Chucara's power works the way I think he's explaining it, there should be only two votes on Chucara right now (redskeezix and STEVE). SisC moved her vote off in post #187, and Bill's was moved off when Chucara made him vote himself (in post #168).
So, am I not understanding the power, or is the vote count off?
This is my complete running vote count (if anyone other than me can make sense of it):
pedescribe (3): Ed(43.8)[43], Pleonast(70), Ed(153), SisC(187) Chucara (2): SisC(75)[187], redskeezix(95), Bill(108)[168], Steve(166) Chucara(168.1)[168] BillMc (2): Ed(43.3)[43], Chucara(109)[168], pedescribe(163), Chucara(168.2)[186], Bill(168)* Idle Thoughts (1): NatLaw(19), Ed(43.2)[43] Natlaw (1): Idle(59) Guy Incognito (1): GuyIncognito(83) Dirx (1): Ed(43.6)[43], Chucara(186) Pleonast (0): Pleonast(3)[70], Idle(5)[59], pedescribe(64)[163] Special Ed (0): Ed(43.10)[153], Chucara(73)[109] redskeezix (0): Ed(43.9)[43] nphase (0): Ed(43.7)[43] shaggy (0): Ed(43.5)[43] peekercpa (0): Ed(43.4)[43] Sister Coyote (0): Ed(43.1)[43]
For those not familiar with my awful-looking votecounts: (parentheses) after a voter's name indicate the post# the vote was made in. A number like (10.1) means it was the first of multiple votes in post #10. A name that's written in strikethrough indicates a vote that has since been moved elsewhere, and the [brackets] indicate the number of the post where that happened. The asterisk* indicates the bought vote.
It would look a lot cleaner if tabbing were preserved here--it's in two neat columns in my notepad file.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 16:18:51 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Nov 2, 2009 16:18:51 GMT -5
Umm, what problem with the vote count.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 16:21:45 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 2, 2009 16:21:45 GMT -5
Vote Count (pedescribe Lynch):
pedescribe (3): Pleonast, Special Ed, Sister Coyote Chucara (2): Redskeezix, Sinjin BillMc (2): Pedescribe, BillMc? Idle Thoughts (1): Natlaw Natlaw (1): Idle Thoughts Guy Incognito (1): Guy Incognito dirx (1): Chucara
Claims: Chucara - Passenger Vote Switcher
Facts: D1 - Chucara switched BillMc vote (from Chucara) to BillMc.
- - - - -
Either I missed a Chucara voter or his power doesn't work as claimed. I see Redskeezix also got that result And we got an edit by the moderator, so looks like the power works as claimed.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 16:29:16 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Nov 2, 2009 16:29:16 GMT -5
I think CatInASuit should be modkilled for editing It should be clear that my power works. Please feel free to comment on how I should use it, if at all. Right now my plan is not to use it at all. I thought about using it on the most scummy player, but I don't really see how that makes any sense. Oh, and BillMc: If you don't mind, please place a vote even though it won't count. Finally, as I don't have any real suspicion on dirx, I'll reconsider my vote tomorrow.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 16:45:23 GMT -5
Post by Dirx on Nov 2, 2009 16:45:23 GMT -5
I've only seen a politician power twice. In the current Disney game on Giraffeboards, the politician had been making players she suspected to be scum to vote for themselves. The other time I remember seeing it was in the very first mafia game I ever played, where I was the politician (Mafia in Space, on the Dope--aborted game). I had no idea what I was doing, so I just kinda targetted at random.
Your power (if you're indeed town) can be very useful, particularly later in the game.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 16:51:52 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 2, 2009 16:51:52 GMT -5
I've only seen a politician power twice. In the current Disney game on Giraffeboards, the politician had been making players she suspected to be scum to vote for themselves. The other time I remember seeing it was in the very first mafia game I ever played, where I was the politician (Mafia in Space, on the Dope--aborted game). I had no idea what I was doing, so I just kinda targetted at random. Your power (if you're indeed town) can be very useful, particularly later in the game. *mumbles something about current games
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 16:53:35 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 2, 2009 16:53:35 GMT -5
I find both of them highly suspicious. I laid out my cases for both. I'm not sure which one is right, so I'm voting for Bill so that he's not shut out of the running. A bit of an odd-ball move: on one hand you avoid jumping a bandwagon, on the other you prevent others from doing it (or at least make them choose between on or the other vote leaders instead of hopping on a single one). I agree with Storyteller that a Vote Switcher is more likely to be town (although since it makes him semi-self-confirmable, it also pretty powerful for town), so for now it doesn't look like derailing a wagon on scum. But I also see no downside for a scum pedescribe if BillMc isn't scum either, so it'll be more clear when his alignments is known. Another possible scum motivation could be that Chucara's soft-claim made pedescribe start another wagon, since was runner up at that point (two votes vs three). But with so low vote count (two/three votes) I think I might be trying to hard to read something into it. It should be clear that my power works. Please feel free to comment on how I should use it, if at all. Right now my plan is not to use it at all. I thought about using it on the most scummy player, but I don't really see how that makes any sense. Oh, and BillMc: If you don't mind, please place a vote even though it won't count. Technically, you could offer your vote to BillMc (place it where he wants it) if you think even the most scummy should place a vote. That is if you want to keep yours on him. It might give some extra WIFOM in case he is scum and might use it to save another or if town it gives him a valid vote.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 17:08:30 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Nov 2, 2009 17:08:30 GMT -5
I'm going to move my vote for now, pending proof of concept for Chucara, and as I find pede's behavior -- especially the defense of the soft claim -- problematic: Vote: vote pedescribe [/color][/quote] IT WASN'T A DEFENSE OF THE SOFT CLAIM IT WAS AN OBJECTION TO TRITE TRUISMS THAT STIFLE DISCUSSION!
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 17:09:08 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Nov 2, 2009 17:09:08 GMT -5
P.S. My favorite part of starting up a game is picking out a new avvie. You like?
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 17:47:20 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Nov 2, 2009 17:47:20 GMT -5
<snip> It would look a lot cleaner if tabbing were preserved here--it's in two neat columns in my notepad file. Tables might keep your formatting a little better: pedescribe (3): | Ed(43.8)[43], Pleonast(70), Ed(153), SisC(187) | |
[/b] (2): [/td] [td] SisC(75)[187], redskeezix(95), [/tr][tr] Bill(108)[168], Steve(166) Chucara(168.1)[168][/td][/tr] [tr][td] BillMc (2): [/td] [td] Ed(43.3)[43], Chucara(109)[168], pedescribe(163), Chucara(168.2)[186], Bill(168)*[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Idle Thoughts (1):[/td] [td]NatLaw(19), Ed(43.2)[43][/td][/tr] [tr][td] Natlaw (1): [/td] [td] Idle(59)[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Guy Incognito (1):[/td] [td] GuyIncognito(83)[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Dirx (1): [/td] [td] Ed(43.6)[43], Chucara(186)[/td][/tr] [tr][td] Pleonast (0): [/td] [td] Pleonast(3)[70], Idle(5)[59], pedescribe(64)[163][/td][/tr] [tr][td] Special Ed (0):[/td] [td] Ed(43.10)[153], Chucara(73)[109][/td][/tr] [tr][td] redskeezix (0):[/td] [td] Ed(43.9)[43][/td][/tr] [tr][td] nphase (0):[/td] [td] Ed(43.7)[43][/td][/tr] [tr][td] shaggy (0): [/td] [td] Ed(43.5)[43][/td][/tr] [tr][td] peekercpa (0):[/td] [td] Ed(43.4)[43][/td][/tr] [tr][td] Sister Coyote (0): [/td] [td] Ed(43.1)[43][/td][/tr] [/table]
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 17:49:25 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Nov 2, 2009 17:49:25 GMT -5
[broke post into two]
While I'm not satisfied with my Chucara vote right now, no one else is really standing out as being scummy. His claim is confirmed, but not lying does not necessarily mean not scum.
Also, I'm disagreeing with the cases against pedescribe, it looks to me like he was providing insight into what his read on the situation was and how he was making his voting decision.
On top of that, I'm not really happy contributing to the lynch of someone who it is possible to confirm as town. So I think that I will eat dinner, watch some TV, and get a full fresh read on the situation. And probably change my vote if I see anything differently than I'm seeing it now.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 18:38:05 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 2, 2009 18:38:05 GMT -5
Well I read and reread the day and I have to say. I do see what others are seeing with the whole Pede case but at the same time for me, I can see what Pede is talking about, may not agree with it but I see it. Chucara I think for the time being I am not comfortable voting the guy, since if he is town, he is to powerful especially as the game goes on, to want to lynch. So that leads me to my final suspicioun for the day. Which I am sorry but it is BillMc. Here is what I have found by reviewing his last few posts. This comment did strike me as a little strange - an odd choice of words. Looking for town cred? obviously not mafia? Not much to go on, but it's what has pinged me the most. Vote: Chucura [/color] I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Pleo's comments on voting. The inability to unvote is going to make it rather interesting when someone is on the hook and then claims - so folk will need to switch votes rather than unvote.[/quote] ok so here is the initial vote. And when questioned on it your responce: I can't quite put my finger on it, but the statement "I'm not the boss of mafia, so you are free to do what you want. (I thought that much was obvious, but apparently not)" just doesn't seem right. It's a weird thing to say - no one accused Chucara of being the boss - so why state he isn't. Add to that the claim comment in response to the vote - with so much time left in the day he's in no danger of being lynched and a claim would be premature - so why threaten it? Just feels wrong. Now here is the problem: 1) the I can not put my finger on it...this screams like I think your scum but have no idea why or anything. Which correct me here but is this not verging on a small smudge? After all it is a "feeling" vote or suspicioun not a fact/case or post driven vote. 2) if you see the post before it, which he also quested in that post, Sister Coyote said she hates when people say "this discussion is done." Another words someone telling her what she can and can not post or talk about. So in a way it was not out of the blue but fit well in a responce to her post. So you kinda are making his post seem like it is something it is not. 3) the word threaten is a strong word, especially when he never really threatened but he asked "do you want me to claim." not "stop this or I will claim" which is more of a threat, or "lynch me and you all will be sorry." I'm still very suspicious of Bill though. This is a very suspicious way of making a point--why bring something up if you can't back it up? We can't think what you are thinking if you cannot enunciate it, and to not enunciate it but still harp on it is a way of building, or hopping on a bandwagon without evidence. And yes, I am aware that that was what I was doing. That's why I stopped doing it. Kettle, Pot, Black indeed. No you didn't stop - just picked a different target. His initial wording pinged me, and his response to my vote was somewhat of an over reaction Not to stick up now for Pede, since I have no clue what he is but his vote and posts compared to yours are a little differant. Namely he was like "Voting ones self is odd and I can see the scum motivation in it." Which I may not fully agree with but I can see where he is coming from. You on the other hand were like, "I think he is scum but I do not know why or anything." And then when questioned on it, you to me tried to cover for it, but the reasons were still even more ellusive and gut feelings for why then anything. A whole 52 hours to go, and you claim...hmmm I just need to make a peanut gallery comment here and say...the guy did say he was going to, so why be surprised? Anyways That is why I am sorry and I hope I am right with my main suspicioun today. So vote BillMc As I said, sorry man, I hope I am right here but I think for day one it is the best case I am seeing. Since we have almost 2 days I may try and reread again to see if anything jumps at me, but anyways I am happy with my vote for now.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 18:40:18 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 2, 2009 18:40:18 GMT -5
NETA: woops I meant to make it on it's own line so there is no confusion. So let's just redue that:
vote BillMc
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 18:58:04 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Nov 2, 2009 18:58:04 GMT -5
I want to apologize for my lack of presence. I...er...my brain got sucked into a new (new to me, not newly created) app on Facebook. Forgive me, please. I promise not to go on Facebook until I've posted stuff today.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 19:29:53 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 2, 2009 19:29:53 GMT -5
Wall of Words on pedescribe: I'm going to move my vote for now, pending proof of concept for Chucara, and as I find pede's behavior -- especially the defense of the soft claim -- problematic: Vote: vote pedescribe IT WASN'T A DEFENSE OF THE SOFT CLAIM IT WAS AN OBJECTION TO TRITE TRUISMS THAT STIFLE DISCUSSION! Okay. No capslock of rage necessary, thanks. Maybe you didn't mean it as a defense of the soft claim, and I haven't noticed any stifling of the discussion on this point. And I don't think there's a whole lot of "trite truism" in the statement that five days before day end, with three votes and lots in the wind, it's too soon to hint at a claim. Also, that statement by nphase in and of itself has engendered discussion. viz. what I'm typing right now. "Idle always skims. That's not much of an indicator." D1.21 Inside joke, I suspect, with a modification of nphase's comment about the Ed and Meeko Show. D1.34 What Idle says is true if we assume he's telling the truth about skimming, which pedescribe does. D1.38 (And, really, so do I; this seems to be Idle's MO in most games.) Well, okay, maybe pedescribe shouldn't accept what Idle says about skimming and will be watching Idle more closely after being nudged by redskeezix. D1.40 (Flop? Meet flip.) Confusion about Idle's non-self-vote due to coding fail. D1.55 Pleo's self-vote looks like a bid for Town cred more than anything. Followed by a vote for Pleo D1.63 and D1.64 (Yes, and No. I also wonder about Pleo's self-vote, but generally speaking not voting at all is bad for Town, and the voting set-up in this game seems likely to encourage a lack of votes unless folks do something to remind themselves to get in there. [or folks are like me and vote at the drop of a hat, but.] So I can read Pleo's vote either as scum/third party making a bid for Town cred, or a genuinely Townie action, but don't have enough evidence to jump either way yet. Either way, though, having a vote on record is generally pro-Town, although suicidal votes barring something like my necessarily suicidal Remorseful Vig [or a miller, I suppose] don't generally sit well with me.) Explains why he's voting Pleo in a bit more detail; that there's no reason for a self-vote unless one is considering not voting, that he doesn't like Pleo's grandstanding, and that it's too early ("we've got a week and a half for things to build and logical reasons for voting to sprout up") and Pleo's already casting suspicion on everyone else. D1.68 (Um, what? In order: I thought about a self-vote, too, and everyone should know by now that I'm vote-happy; I don't like Pleo's grandstanding, either; this would make more sense if pede hadn't been in favor of Chucara's extremely early soft claim [sorry, pede, that's how I read it, whether it's how you meant it or not]; and this is Mafia. We're all already casting suspicion on everyone else, or we should be.) Wasn't laying low, forgot game had started. Not Pleo's self-vote, but his second post in response to Idle (the Grandstanding, I assume) that was the reason Pleo was voted. Because Pleo was drawing an unnecessary amount of attention to his pro-Town action. D1.120 (Not much to comment on here) "Seriously? It's too early to even acknowledge the possibility of claiming?" D1.121 (Yes, at the point at which Chucara soft-claimed, it was much too early [IMO and clearly in that of others] to acknowledge the possibility of claiming. And note that although I've moved my vote, and I do think that vote-switching would be awfully powerful in the hands of Scum, I am not convinced that Chucara is Town. The only confirmed player...) "And it's not that hard to understand. I'm not referring to direct actions, I'm referring to tone. The tone of post 61 had a very grandstanding, look-at-me-I'm-town sound to it." D1.133 (Yeah, it did. So do a lot of actions taken on Day One. So did Chucara's soft claim, but I notice you didn't jump Chucara for being too Townie.) Tone is subjective, so there's no convincing anyone. Includes a "symbolic" unvote for Pleo, but no revote to move his vote. D1.154 (Eh. Tone is subjective. It's the useless unvote that bothers me about this one.) "Incorrect. What I actually did was object to the idea that we should attack anyone who even suggests the possibility of claiming. And I do object to that idea. Truisims like that are ridiculously large blinders that allow Scum to induce mislynches easily while getting off scot-free. The fact that Chucara was the one talking about thinking about claiming is irrelevant to my point. " D1.155 (Only, not so much. No one attached Chucara, exactly, we just objected to the soft claim. And soft claims are problematic for Town, because we have enough WiFoM as it is.) Returns to [?] the subject of voting at Night. Points out that there's no reason to assume that actions taken at Night won't affect things during the Day somehow since our votes don't reset until Dawn. D1.157 (No comment from me one way or the other on this one.) Agrees that the Chucara lynch looks solid from his POV. D1.158 (Which, at the time, was great, except that pede still hasn't switched his vote from Pleo) Finds Bill's argument against Chucara ("The boss of mafia") to be specious. D1.159 (I have to admit -- I'm the one that the "the boss of mafia" comment was directed at, and I read it as "you're not the boss of me" rephrased for mafia.) Finds Chucara's argument against Bill convincing. D1.160 (Again -- this would be great, except that pede's vote still is on Pleo) Chucara's argument about why he soft claimed is a tonal argument and is phrased in a scummy fashion. D1.161 (Flop, meet flip again) Still suspicious of Bill D1.162 Votes Bill because he has fewer votes than Chucara. D1.163 (WTF? If you think they're both scummy, then why on earth not vote to lynch the one on the docket? You could always come back to the other toMorrow.) In response to Peek: Laying out my case for both Bill and Chucara. D1.165 Yes, I like your new avatar. Would like it better if it hadn't shouted at me, though. I'm happy with my vote where it is. (tl;dr version: Pede's doing an awful lot of flipflopping, and to me at least his vote on Bill over Chucara makes little to no sense.) Regarding votes not resetting until Dawn: Does anyone with more experience at Mafia than me think there could possibly be a role whose Night/Day action is affected/dictated by any voting that goes on at Night?
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 20:10:28 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Nov 2, 2009 20:10:28 GMT -5
Okay. No capslock of rage necessary, thanks. Maybe you didn't mean it as a defense of the soft claim, and I haven't noticed any stifling of the discussion on this point. And I don't think there's a whole lot of "trite truism" in the statement that five days before day end, with three votes and lots in the wind, it's too soon to hint at a claim. Also, that statement by nphase in and of itself has engendered discussion. viz. what I'm typing right now. Sorry, it's Day 1 and I'm acting stupid.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 20:14:53 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 2, 2009 20:14:53 GMT -5
ok, i am not all that familiar with vote changers but from what i have seen in the past it seemed like the target got told they had to vote a certain way. in this case it appears that it just happened. does that make any type of difference?
plus, i notice that our mods are posting totals but not the people that comprise those totals. now i know we are following along and kind of policing their stuff but still that's the first i have ever seen that happen.
that and the kind of dusk/dawn reset kind of thingie makes me wonder if there is something more than meets the eye.
|
|
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 1
Nov 2, 2009 20:17:55 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Nov 2, 2009 20:17:55 GMT -5
What do you want me to elaborate? I placed an illfounded vote on Ed to get the conversation started. I have not removed said vote as I see no better target... He admitted that his vote on Ed is illfounded, yet he also said that there are no better targets, yet he hadn't ever talked about those other targets. He also says that he did it to "get the conversation started" as though that is a martyr-worthy goal. It isn't. Not on Day 1, where discussion can erupt from pretty much anywhere. So far, the Chuc case looks solid from my perspective. I have to take issue with this. Chucara is not the only person who has a history of voting on Day 1 with the avowed intention of engendering a reaction in the person he votes for. This really isn't that unusual. Chucara's drawn a lot of heat for this "ill-founded" vote. He's explained it, and now you're trying to claim he thinks his action is martyr-worthy? I don't get that vibe. I get the impression that Chucara is reacting to receiving pressure for something that other people do (with even less grounds for the vote) and get away with.
|
|
|
Day 1
Nov 2, 2009 20:29:07 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 2, 2009 20:29:07 GMT -5
Sorry, it's Day 1 and I'm acting stupid. Not at all. You're frustrated, and after rereading your posts and seeing you've explained your meaning a couple of times with no acknowledgment, I understand. And I should have let you know I was teasing with the "capslock of rage" comment, so that was tone fail on my part.
|
|
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 1
Nov 2, 2009 20:29:09 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Nov 2, 2009 20:29:09 GMT -5
He admitted that his vote on Ed is illfounded, yet he also said that there are no better targets, yet he hadn't ever talked about those other targets. He also says that he did it to "get the conversation started" as though that is a martyr-worthy goal. It isn't. Not on Day 1, where discussion can erupt from pretty much anywhere. So far, the Chuc case looks solid from my perspective. followed with Because he's got fewer votes at the moment. Voting for Chuc makes Bill not an option, which I don't want. so the case, in your opinion, against chuc looks "solid". so you will vote for bill because he has less votes. ok, maybe too much sugar last night but i am not sure that i am following this at all. Peeker, to understand the vote (or at least Pede's stated reason for the vote), look at the votecount, or at least as it was then. Before Pede placed his vote, the count stood at three votes to Chucara, two to Pedescribe and one on Bill (plus four other singleton votes.) Pede voting for Chucara would give Chucara a three vote lead - a much wider margin (psychologically) than 2. Also, since Pede himself was second in the votecount, it might look as if he's voting Chucara to save himself, and people around here tend to view that with suspicion. It's probably Kat's fault. By voting for Bill, he keeps the vote pot boiling and both Bill and Chucara in the frame. And he cold always switch later if nothing develops from his voting Bill.
|
|