Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 8, 2009 16:35:33 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Nov 8, 2009 16:35:33 GMT -5
I was specifically blocked.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 8, 2009 16:38:03 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 8, 2009 16:38:03 GMT -5
Tomorow comes and let's say yet again only 2 dead...what do we naturally conclude? Well since we already assume the other kill last night was the alien, naturally I bet alot would assume this again, and again and, well you get the picture. The only reason that it is considered the alien now is because Sister Coyote got killed. Since she claimed he could win from scum as well only the alien has a motive at first glance. Then I consider a redirect more likely method than that the alien directly killed her since it would have made it too easy to take SC out if he had that. Note the way I read the color, it allows town/pirate aliens as well, not just the one SC supposedly tracked.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 8, 2009 16:44:28 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 8, 2009 16:44:28 GMT -5
Shaggy, you're reading things into my posts that I never intended to be there. I offered two possible explanations for the SisC anomaly: -- that the alien and infiltrators are linked somehow -- that the alien killed SisC (which means there was no kill from the infiltrators) There are so many possible explanations for the latter that I didn't try to enumerate them, but for the record, for both you and pedescribe:
I in no way meant to imply that the Infiltrators are no threat to us. By the intro color, clearly they are. I in no way meant any of that as a smudge against BillMc. Pending any later revelations proving me an idiot, I think he's probably Town. You both stretched my words beyond their limits; it says more about what's in your heads than in mine.
Pedescribe, I don't have time to respond in any detail today to what you said, but indecision is not a Scum tell, insincerity is. I was conflicted about Chucara all Day, chose ultimately to stick with it, and was wrong. You mischaracterize my comment about voting the same way he did -- i was specifically responding to an argument about needing to move votes to a temporary home if an early vote turned out to have no merit. Someone argued that would be a problem; I said I couldn't see how. And I won't defend my smudge of Storyteller; that was just silly.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 8, 2009 17:11:09 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 8, 2009 17:11:09 GMT -5
Tomorow comes and let's say yet again only 2 dead...what do we naturally conclude? Well since we already assume the other kill last night was the alien, naturally I bet alot would assume this again, and again and, well you get the picture. The only reason that it is considered the alien now is because Sister Coyote got killed. Since she claimed he could win from scum as well only the alien has a motive at first glance. Then I consider a redirect more likely method than that the alien directly killed her since it would have made it too easy to take SC out if he had that. Note the way I read the color, it allows town/pirate aliens as well, not just the one SC supposedly tracked. Well yes I certainly can not disagree that a redirector or as Sinjin said a bus driver is possible, no arguement there. Shaggy, you're reading things into my posts that I never intended to be there. I offered two possible explanations for the SisC anomaly: -- that the alien and infiltrators are linked somehow -- that the alien killed SisC (which means there was no kill from the infiltrators) There are so many possible explanations for the latter that I didn't try to enumerate them, but for the record, for both you and pedescribe: I in no way meant to imply that the Infiltrators are no threat to us. By the intro color, clearly they are. I in no way meant any of that as a smudge against BillMc. Pending any later revelations proving me an idiot, I think he's probably Town. You both stretched my words beyond their limits; it says more about what's in your heads than in mine. Pedescribe, I don't have time to respond in any detail today to what you said, but indecision is not a Scum tell, insincerity is. I was conflicted about Chucara all Day, chose ultimately to stick with it, and was wrong. You mischaracterize my comment about voting the same way he did -- i was specifically responding to an argument about needing to move votes to a temporary home if an early vote turned out to have no merit. Someone argued that would be a problem; I said I couldn't see how. And I won't defend my smudge of Storyteller; that was just silly. For the record...I never said anything about smuding Bill, Mhaye or anyone. I simply said what appears to me to be almost minimalizing one threat to capitalizing on another. Could be wrong and all but just what it looks to me to be like.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 8, 2009 17:29:12 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 8, 2009 17:29:12 GMT -5
I know; that was pedescribe. I was addressing both of you in that post.
And you are wrong.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 8, 2009 18:01:15 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 8, 2009 18:01:15 GMT -5
I know; that was pedescribe. I was addressing both of you in that post. And you are wrong. Figured that, just wanted to make sure. Which is why is why I have not voted you yet. It is a theory, one that I am thinking over for now. Voting as I have said I take seriously and I am not one to rush into it. So for now I maybe suspicious but I want time to reread and think over yesterday as well as last night before making any vote. For now that we are on more then one day, any case to me, should be for more then one singular post...well unless some one comes out and say "I am scum." but some how I think that won't happen. But hey this is just my 2 cents worth.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 8, 2009 19:36:19 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 8, 2009 19:36:19 GMT -5
well unless some one comes out and say "I am scum." <oog> I eagerly await the day that Santo, my scum buddy, comes back and does that to me again. I still owe him for the last time. </oog>
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 8, 2009 19:51:51 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 8, 2009 19:51:51 GMT -5
well unless some one comes out and say "I am scum." <oog> I eagerly await the day that Santo, my scum buddy, comes back and does that to me again. I still owe him for the last time. </oog> <oog> I definetly seconed that...I may have only played in what 2 games with him, but those few games in his own way taught me so much about this game. </oog>
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 8:22:17 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 9, 2009 8:22:17 GMT -5
Huh. OK, let's sum up:
1. BillMc, claimed Vigilante, killed Guy Incognito and now says the latter was a third-party Bus Driver.
I think we can be reasonably confident that Bill is who he claims to be and is non-Scum. He is almost certainly telling the truth about Guy - why would he lie, when his lie will inevitably be discovered. To give the Scum the ability to determine the roles/identities of the deceased but keep the Town in the dark would be bordering on unfair - it would certainly be a powerful upset to the balance of the game. However, it is definitely still possible that BillMc is third-party (a serial killer?).
pedescribe claims some kind of investigative role, and claims to have been blocked. I don't know. The fact that he will not reveal what kind of investigator he is smells of trying to keep false claim options open. And now he has been blocked, thus cutting off an additional avenue of inquiry. But what are we going to do about it right now? Lynch him? No. That'd be as bad as lynching Chucara was yesterDay. So we let him be for now.
Sister Coyote, who claimed Alien Investigator, is dead now. BillMc probably didn't kill her. Frankly, I doubt the Scum did, either. Any number of things is possible. Maybe Guy was the Alien and redirected the Scum kill onto SC. Maybe there's an SK. Maybe Sister Coyote was lying Scum, and somehow got dead. We have no way of knowing, so speculation on that front is not going to be helpful.
-------------------------------------------------
So: not going to vote today for pedescribe, BillMc, or myself. That leaves 14 possible targets for my vote. I am almost certainly going to vote for one of the following five players: dirx, natlaw, nphase, sinjin, skeezix. All five were voters for Chucara as of post #364 - according to Sister Coyote's unofficial count in that post - and oh, boy, do I not like the absence of moderator-provided vote counts listing official voters in this game - and unlike special ed (and myself), contributed substantively to the decision to lynch Chucara over the other available options.
I find it almost impossible to believe that we lynched a uncounterclaimed, sort-of-confirmable power role on Day 1 without at least some Scum contribution. If all five voters for Chucara listed above are Town, then hoo, boy, did we have a bad Day One.
So, toDay I'm going to go through that list of five and examine how they contributed to the death of Chucara. Let's see where things go.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 8:32:59 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Nov 9, 2009 8:32:59 GMT -5
Vote Count
Current Status: No Lynch.
pedescribe(1) nphase (1)
Apologies for not getting them out earlier.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 9:28:43 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 9, 2009 9:28:43 GMT -5
I am almost certainly going to vote for one of the following five players: dirx, natlaw, nphase, sinjin, skeezix. All five were voters for Chucara as of post #364 - according to Sister Coyote's unofficial count in that post - and oh, boy, do I not like the absence of moderator-provided vote counts listing official voters in this game - and unlike special ed (and myself), contributed substantively to the decision to lynch Chucara over the other available options. I find it almost impossible to believe that we lynched a uncounterclaimed, sort-of-confirmable power role on Day 1 without at least some Scum contribution. If all five voters for Chucara listed above are Town, then hoo, boy, did we have a bad Day One. So, toDay I'm going to go through that list of five and examine how they contributed to the death of Chucara. Let's see where things go. I remember reading a game on SDMB where you made this mistake (was it Lost?) You were fairly certain that an early bandwagon contained a Scum. Other players ran with that theory and eventually, all were lynched and all were Town. I guess we shoudn't underestimate the stupidity of Town, especially on Day 1. Chucara was acting oddly, and often the first lynch is just someone who acts oddly without any real evidence for Scumminess.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 9:44:08 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 9, 2009 9:44:08 GMT -5
pedescribe claims some kind of investigative role, and claims to have been blocked. I don't know. The fact that he will not reveal what kind of investigator he is smells of trying to keep false claim options open. And now he has been blocked, thus cutting off an additional avenue of inquiry. But what are we going to do about it right now? Lynch him? No. That'd be as bad as lynching Chucara was yesterDay. So we let him be for now. I think I agree with this, except for thinking (of course) it would be WORSE than lynching Chucara. Pedescribe, if truthful, stands some chance of confirming or outing other players (if the roleblock does not continue). Chucara could not even fully confirm himself. I have some issues with Pedescribe at the moment, but I'm reluctant to vote for him without a smoking gun. (snip) Agree again even if I am in that list. A couple of them pinged me yesterday; I'll have to see if it holds up.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 9:46:46 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Nov 9, 2009 9:46:46 GMT -5
Huh. OK, let's sum up: 1. BillMc, claimed Vigilante, killed Guy Incognito and now says the latter was a third-party Bus Driver. Guy was a Survivor
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 11:07:48 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Nov 9, 2009 11:07:48 GMT -5
pedescribe claims some kind of investigative role, and claims to have been blocked. I don't know. The fact that he will not reveal what kind of investigator he is smells of trying to keep false claim options open. And now he has been blocked, thus cutting off an additional avenue of inquiry. But what are we going to do about it right now? Lynch him? No. That'd be as bad as lynching Chucara was yesterDay. So we let him be for now. pedescribe has not claimed any specific power and then claimed he was blocked so we don't have anything to evaluate. This is a scum stalling tactic. How long do you think we should let this go on? ped had a weak attack on me, and has since admitted so. He has not responded to any of my complaints against him, but instead is pushing against nphase. No defense, all offense, and an amorphous claim with no means of testing him. How is letting him do this beneficial, for either his case in particular or for nonspecific, nonveriafible claims in general?
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 11:56:38 GMT -5
Post by Dirx on Nov 9, 2009 11:56:38 GMT -5
As for my vote against Chucara, I saw what looked to me like a bit of PIS in one of nphase's posts which suggested she and Chucara were possible scum together. Under that assumption, I put my vote on Chucara based on his claimed vote-changing power, instead of nphase with an unknown (if any) scum ability. I normally don't like lynching claimed powers, but I thought I'd found something, and, as noted, I wasn't able to return to the game again before Dusk. I might have reconsidered had I been able to read nphase's rebuttals to the supposed PIS, but then again, Chucara's posts were getting increasingly frantic at the same time, so, maybe I would have kept my vote on him for that. I'm not used to seeing town players try so desperately to stay in the game like that.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 13:41:40 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 9, 2009 13:41:40 GMT -5
Quotes by pedescribe; embedded quotes by me.
Pedescribe, I'm going to have this same issue with this entire post of yours, but boy are you twisting things the way you like them here. I couldn't have put that much meaning into those words if I'd tried. I still think I'm right and you're wrong about soft claims, that they are bad for Town. Chucara WAS non-vanilla; he WAS (if it had ended there) giving Scum a tip-off that he had a power role; and he was not helping Town in any way by implying as much. And soft claims from Scum as a means of backing off Town can and do happen -- why should Town give that tactic any cover by engaging in it themselves?
I just don't get where you're coming from on this one. I don't find it scummy, per se, I just don't understand it at all.
Here's the whole exchange from yesterday (inner and outer quotes by me; middle one by pedescribe):
You're approaching this whole thing from the point of view that I am Scum, then hunting for support for that idea without ever considering that me being Town could explain the whole thing just as easily. Consider the following three facts about me: -- Whether you agree with it or not, I think soft claims of that sort are a bad move for Town and a good move for Scum. -- I don't like voting for claimed power roles. Obviously I'll do it sometimes, but it always leaves me feeling conflicted and "waffly", as you put it. -- I am Town.
Plug those three things back into that conversation and see if it still looks scummy to you. I was dealing with conflicting impulses at that point: a tactic I consider pro-Scum, paired with the possibility of lynching a power role if it was just careless Town instead. Subsequently, I went back over the Day's posts, re-read Chucara's vote on Special Ed, and saw Chucara's claim, which was not one that was likely to give any clues to alignment in itself and which could be extremely dangerous in the hands of Scum -- those things together led me to take that leap and hope I was right. Obviously Chucara's behavior toward the end of Day didn't do him any favors in getting me to reconsider.
Almost your entire argument is predicated on the idea that I am Scum, and finding possible Scum motives in every single word I use. But I'm Town! There is another explanation, and I'm really not happy that you're not even trying to consider it.
From here on down, all quotes are from Pedescribe except the two embedded ones, which are mine.
I'll give you more credit for this one than I thought yesterday. That post came out of my irritation with the whole discussion on voting, which by that point had been kicked to death and then some. Something went weird in my response, though, because it didn't even address MHaye's point directly (the post I was responding to), but rather someone else's, from earlier. (Someone had argued that it would be bad if an early vote had to be removed and placed somewhere else temporarily due to new information; I thought that would not be sufficient reason to worry about making early votes, at least in the early game.) I have no idea what I was thinking to get from point A of MHaye's post to point B of my response, so I'll give you that one.
This one, on the other hand -- unaccountable? No. Just look at your own arguments for a moment. You're trying to say that because I'm Scum, I'm trying to evade responsibility for my own actions as regards Chucara. I'm telling you that, because I'm Town, I was as open as it's possible to be regarding my motivations and my conflicts. Can you distinguish between those two? Is there any insincerity in my posts?
I agree with you regarding a detective, so I'm not sure what you're objecting to there.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the likelihood of Scum killing Chucara any time soon, had he lived. I don't see that he would have presented any real threat to them under the circumstances. He was already talking about not using his ability except as ordered by Town, IIRC, and plenty of us have issues with that sort of arrangement. I think you're wrong we would have gotten many opportunities to assess things.
(snip a couple of similar comments, and the response to Storyteller which I agree was wrong-headed)
By that point in the Day I didn't know my right hand from my left anymore. As you'll note, by then I was having to defend myself not only from being Scum persecuting Chucara but also from being Scum with Chucara, and it was beyond confusing. Then Natlaw voted Chucara based on what I think is backwards logic -- what he brought up only strengthened Storyteller's argument that a Politician was unlikely to be Scum, IMO. I was wavering, but couldn't see any good options under the circumstances.
Anything I did at that point, if I unvoted Chucara, would endanger you, Bill or me. Two claimed power roles, both with higher likelihood of doing something useful for Town or tripping themselves up than Chucara had (IMO), or myself. I wound up gritting my teeth and hoping for the best; Chucara's strange behavior that started right after that made me feel better about it again, though.
Correction. Whole-hearted (though still worried) for the first time.
You're finding a lot in my posts that was never there, and that bothers me; you're not considering at all whether my actions might make sense as Town - that bothers me. You're also taking my statements out of their full context to characterize uncertainty-plus-pressure as suspicious waffling. I was under pressure of accusation nearly that entire time, with my reasons for voting Chucara under consistent assault. Of course sometimes I sound more certain than other times. What exactly do you expect? Me to pretend to a certainty I didn't feel? When I was trying to explain myself to someone who thought my vote sucked, of course I focused on different things than in a more neutral situation. I was knowingly voting for a freaking claimed power role on Day-One quality evidence -- you think that's not going to breed a little OMG am I doing the right thing from time to time? You're crazy if you think it wouldn't. I didn't do Town any favors yesterday, but I'm not Scum.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 14:59:50 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Nov 9, 2009 14:59:50 GMT -5
Vote Count
Current Status: No Lynch.
pedescribe(1) nphase (1)
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 15:23:11 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 9, 2009 15:23:11 GMT -5
Reading up on nphase, I'm not entirely agree with all things pedescribe point out as waffling but it seems like he didn't believe his original reasons to vote for Chucara himself. That is he votes him for his ed vote and soft claim (and despite thinking Chucara's role being more likely town). Except later that day he responds to sinjin why Chucara saying about the lynch 'I only ask that it not be today.' isn't necessarily scummy: On this one, as regards your basic reading of it, sure: predictions of what Scum (or even Town) will or will not do as regards oneself always ping. I prefer to keep my tinfoil to myself, though. What you hypothesize is possible, if Chucara is Scum, but I don't think it's supported by anything that's happened so far. His vote is on Chucara but him being scum isn't supported by anything so far (which would include his reason to vote Chucara).
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 15:23:28 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Nov 9, 2009 15:23:28 GMT -5
pedescribe claims some kind of investigative role, and claims to have been blocked. I don't know. The fact that he will not reveal what kind of investigator he is smells of trying to keep false claim options open. And now he has been blocked, thus cutting off an additional avenue of inquiry. But what are we going to do about it right now? Lynch him? No. That'd be as bad as lynching Chucara was yesterDay. So we let him be for now. pedescribe has not claimed any specific power and then claimed he was blocked so we don't have anything to evaluate. This is a scum stalling tactic. How long do you think we should let this go on? ped had a weak attack on me, and has since admitted so. He has not responded to any of my complaints against him, but instead is pushing against nphase. No defense, all offense, and an amorphous claim with no means of testing him. How is letting him do this beneficial, for either his case in particular or for nonspecific, nonveriafible claims in general? I have been defending myself! I responded to your complaint about tone. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I didn't say it. Your argument, as far as I understand it is: -I'm using weak arguments -I'm using tonal arguments -I'm attacking To these I respond: --Yes. My attack against you was weak. Which is why I'm not attacking you anymore. --Tonal arguments are not inherently wrong, nor are they necessarily scummy. I have already explained myself there. --Well someone's got to! This is only page 2 and it's been, what, 3 days now? Besides, unnecessary defense is a waste of time. I'll defend more when I'm attacked more. The ball's in your court.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 15:24:24 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Nov 9, 2009 15:24:24 GMT -5
Hey everyone. I'm all moved in and ready to play some Mafia. Too bad I subbed in rather than being here from the start, because that first day was pretty bad. I mean seriously, some of the arguments I saw and am still seeing are terrible. Defending yourself is scummy now? What? Town players shouldn't fight their own lynch? I know that things like vanilla should be happy to be NK'd, but accepting a mislynch, even as vanilla, is ridiculous. No Town should be accepting a lynch unless there's a damn good reason to do so(like a lynch that will lead directly to a Town victory, say a detective that with death confirms enough people to seal a win). Those defenses and arguements make people rethink assumptions, and force any scum that are on the offensive to continue attacking, both of which are good things for Town.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 15:29:05 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 9, 2009 15:29:05 GMT -5
Reading up on nphase, I'm not entirely agree with all things pedescribe point out as waffling but it seems like he didn't believe his original reasons to vote for Chucara himself. That is he votes him for his ed vote and soft claim (and despite thinking Chucara's role being more likely town). Except later that day he responds to sinjin why Chucara saying about the lynch 'I only ask that it not be today.' isn't necessarily scummy: On this one, as regards your basic reading of it, sure: predictions of what Scum (or even Town) will or will not do as regards oneself always ping. I prefer to keep my tinfoil to myself, though. What you hypothesize is possible, if Chucara is Scum, but I don't think it's supported by anything that's happened so far. His vote is on Chucara but him being scum isn't supported by anything so far (which would include his reason to vote Chucara). I'm female. A case of misplaced antecedents here; by "I don't think *it's* supported by anything that's happened so far" I was referring to Sinjin's hypothesis specifically (the convoluted one involving a godfather and whatnot), not Chucara being Scum generally.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 15:46:14 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 9, 2009 15:46:14 GMT -5
On redskeezix (who was the one (instead of nphase) Idle Thoughts marked as newbie scum for goind 'COULD be this, could be that while not voting himself and nphase agreed with him): He does mention not being happy with his Chucara vote (after his claim). His last post Day one is to make note of Chucara make 'a scum wouldn't do that', so it seems he was happy enough to leave his vote on him with the claim (and possible had failed to find how-a-politician-was-confirmed-in-another-game at that point?).
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 16:47:43 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Nov 9, 2009 16:47:43 GMT -5
Hey everyone. I'm all moved in and ready to play some Mafia. Too bad I subbed in rather than being here from the start, because that first day was pretty bad. I mean seriously, some of the arguments I saw and am still seeing are terrible. Defending yourself is scummy now? What? Town players shouldn't fight their own lynch? I know that things like vanilla should be happy to be NK'd, but accepting a mislynch, even as vanilla, is ridiculous. No Town should be accepting a lynch unless there's a damn good reason to do so(like a lynch that will lead directly to a Town victory, say a detective that with death confirms enough people to seal a win). Those defenses and arguements make people rethink assumptions, and force any scum that are on the offensive to continue attacking, both of which are good things for Town. Which posts are you referring to? I don't remember anyone saying that defending oneself is scummy.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 17:29:54 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 9, 2009 17:29:54 GMT -5
I'm going through yesterDay's posts and have gotten far enough that I'm comfortable voting Natlaw.
vote: Natlaw
He had a pattern through the first half of yesterDay of needling easily provoked players over minor details and then continuing to fan the flames. He did it to Idle Thoughts (now Nanook) over the Pleonast vote, at one point admitting that his original vote rationale was invalid but that his vote was still on for Idle's subsequent reactions, which he had played no small part in provoking. He did it to Chucara over Chucara's comment that votes on him as the most aggressive player were stifling discussion. (Natlaw picked up on it as a contradiction to Chucara's earlier contention that votes are good, but both things can be true at the same time depending on the circumstances, and this just struck me on re-read as incredibly nitpicky.)
If I, who have never played with him, know how touchy Idle Thoughts can be, then surely Natlaw knows. By this time Natlaw made that comment to Chucara, the same was crystal clear about him. And then there's me. I proved yesterday that I share some of the same flaws, at least sometimes, and today Natlaw comes in with a poke at me that is not merely thinly premised, but actually falsely premised, as should have been evident with half a second's thought. I think Natlaw has more going on upstairs than that.
Last thing, evidence of insincerity as well as poking easy targets on thin rationales:
This is from Natlaw's second comment to Idle Thoughts, which says pretty much the same as the first but is a little easier to parse. "Bolding" mine -- not sure why it won't work.
He does not believe Idle Thoughts was genuinely confused – he would have expected a more considered vote if he were.
Then he says this several pages later, when the subject comes up again. Again, bolding mine.
He's flipped his initial rationale for voting Idle Thoughts (which by this point he's already self-dismissed in any case) right on its head! If he can't even remember his original argument, I think that indicates he wasn't all that sincere about it to begin with.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 17:31:04 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 9, 2009 17:31:04 GMT -5
Where's the timer thingy at the top?
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 18:01:30 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Nov 9, 2009 18:01:30 GMT -5
<snip> His last post Day one is to make note of Chucara make 'a scum wouldn't do that', so it seems he was happy enough to leave his vote on him with the claim (and possible had failed to find how-a-politician-was-confirmed-in-another-game at that point?). The change in my opinion from not really happy with my vote to OK with my vote was based on a few things: 1. Originally I was under the mistaken impression that Chucara could be confirmed. This was my main reason for being less than thrilled with the vote. (Explained in a previous post) 2. The next scummiest person in my opinion was BillMc, but in his claim he made a pretty bold (read: it would be pretty obvious if he was lying) statement about receiving information about his kills. At that point, from the color I was assuming that roles would be revealed at dusk and dawn. I was willing to forestall any opinion about him until his claims could be validated, which the implied portion (we don't get all the info right away) already has been. 3. By the near end of the day Chucara was doing things that seemed even scummier than before; like throwing suspicion one way, and voting another and claiming it wouldn't make sense for scum to play the way he was playing.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 19:06:41 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 9, 2009 19:06:41 GMT -5
i am back but i am about the most wounded muther fucker in the world.
my god, 1250 folks and a walk through.
unfuckingbelievalbe.
these folks actually liked him. tragedy beyond belief and then i fucking show up,
i even got mentioned.
ok, bak in a sec.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 19:10:18 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 9, 2009 19:10:18 GMT -5
Sorry, peeker.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 19:14:18 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 9, 2009 19:14:18 GMT -5
ok, the mom says no paper.
the big bro says a paper.
ok, fuggit it, i'l get up and check.
clock says 5:45: smoke a squag. cool alarm doesn't go off.
off the front door, bad mistake. alarm is set on the front door. i am fucked in birmingham.
i think the first round hit a little high but i was like jiveing towards the back. bastard who met me had me cold so i just prostrated.
i brought him in for some kona and we were kind of cool.
he was still itchin' to shoot however.
made me nervous like a mofo.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 19:39:23 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 9, 2009 19:39:23 GMT -5
I am almost certainly going to vote for one of the following five players: dirx, natlaw, nphase, sinjin, skeezix. All five were voters for Chucara as of post #364 - according to Sister Coyote's unofficial count in that post - and oh, boy, do I not like the absence of moderator-provided vote counts listing official voters in this game - and unlike special ed (and myself), contributed substantively to the decision to lynch Chucara over the other available options. I find it almost impossible to believe that we lynched a uncounterclaimed, sort-of-confirmable power role on Day 1 without at least some Scum contribution. If all five voters for Chucara listed above are Town, then hoo, boy, did we have a bad Day One. So, toDay I'm going to go through that list of five and examine how they contributed to the death of Chucara. Let's see where things go. I remember reading a game on SDMB where you made this mistake (was it Lost?) You were fairly certain that an early bandwagon contained a Scum. Other players ran with that theory and eventually, all were lynched and all were Town. I guess we shoudn't underestimate the stupidity of Town, especially on Day 1. Chucara was acting oddly, and often the first lynch is just someone who acts oddly without any real evidence for Scumminess. I think sometimes the same can be said for late bandwagan voters too. I mean i keep reading the last day and not to really stick up for you or Story here, but if you 2 were scum, why shift your votes onto a guy that already was gaurenteed to be lynched? I mean look at the posts, you post that he had 5 votes and was in the lead, then you switch and story does. So while tendancy is to be suspicious of those that switch 2 minutes before the end of the day. BUT in yesterdays case, I am reluctant to do so, out thinking...Dude if you were scum why not simply let the clock run out and have the guy lynched? So the flip flop last minute vote and yes maybe I am to trusting here, I am inclined to think was more lack of knowing then a "let's finish this and secure the lynch." But hey just my 2 cents worth here.
|
|