|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 19:48:06 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 9, 2009 19:48:06 GMT -5
That was a truly weird post, Shaggy. I don't think anyone was even hinting that there was anything scummy about Storyteller or Ed's late moves to Chucara. It was completely defensible under the circumstances (the votes were 5 to 4 Chucara vs pedescribe with Chucara's vote on me: a Scum or really *really* not wanting to be lynched Chucara could have forced a tie). Why bring this up at all?
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 9, 2009 20:20:51 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 9, 2009 20:20:51 GMT -5
That was a truly weird post, Shaggy. I don't think anyone was even hinting that there was anything scummy about Storyteller or Ed's late moves to Chucara. It was completely defensible under the circumstances (the votes were 5 to 4 Chucara vs pedescribe with Chucara's vote on me: a Scum or really *really* not wanting to be lynched Chucara could have forced a tie). Why bring this up at all? Story was suggesting to look at early band wagon starters for scum and ed pointed out that can sometimes not work out, and i was mearly making a point that I think quite often I find the same is done by last minute vote changers. We fall into the trap of thinking last minute vote changes can sometimes lead to scum. Scum piling on last minute to force a lynch. Which yes sometimes is true but alot of the time I think can sometimes not work out as well. So I think instead of looking at when we vote, whether it be early or late it should be how we vote. Ergo just puting out there that I think we should be hesitatnt to make theories on when but rather look to the how votes are done.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 3:31:44 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Nov 10, 2009 3:31:44 GMT -5
Where's the timer thingy at the top? Present. Tick, tock, tick, tock...
|
|
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 2
Nov 10, 2009 4:32:44 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Nov 10, 2009 4:32:44 GMT -5
Where's the timer thingy at the top? Present. Tick, tock, tick, tock... I, for one, cannot see it there (as at 9:30am).
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 4:44:31 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Nov 10, 2009 4:44:31 GMT -5
I, for one, cannot see it there (as at 9:30am). How peculiar. It is there, maybe it's invisible. Anyway, you have about 34 hours and 15 mins left until Day 2 ends.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 8:46:42 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Nov 10, 2009 8:46:42 GMT -5
Guess it's invisible - can't see it either.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 9:03:49 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Nov 10, 2009 9:03:49 GMT -5
Couldn't see it until this morning. Weird.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 10:02:38 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 10, 2009 10:02:38 GMT -5
Where did everybody go?
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 10:16:53 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Nov 10, 2009 10:16:53 GMT -5
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. You must be skimming my posts, because I enumerated my complaints twice: vote pedescribe1) For voting for me because I did something ped implies is pro-Town. If we lynch players for pro-Town actions, we're going to lose this game fast. 2) For complaining that I am announcing my intentions and reasons. We gain information and insight by being open with our thoughts and actions. Being closed-lipped only helps scum. 3) For suggesting we wait to do anything. Yes, we have a week plus, but why should we wait? To have anything meaningful to work with in a week, we need players to do things now. 4) For defensive paranoia concerning my general statements about players not voting. This is the weakest reason, since it amounts to hunch (rather than the blatant anti-Towniness of the others), but it's there. vote pedescribe1) For voting for me despite admitting I did something pro-Town, because he didn't like my tone. 2) For complaining that I announced my intentions and reasons. We gain information and insight by being open with our thoughts and actions. Being closed-lipped only helps scum. 3) For suggesting we wait to do anything. Yes, we had a week plus, but why should we wait? To have anything meaningful to work with in a week, we need players to do things now. 4) For defensive paranoia concerning my general statements about players not voting. This is the weakest reason, since it amounts to hunch (rather than the blatant anti-Towniness of the others), but it's there. You somehow didn't see anything I posted after I voted for you? You have not addressed any of the four complaints. You've only explained why you think voting for someone based only on tone is legitimate. Yet that's not one of my complaints. Your lack of response, which I find difficult to believe is not intentional, combined with your uselessly vague claim and your conveniently blocked "power", makes you far and away the most suspicious player.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 11:06:10 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 10, 2009 11:06:10 GMT -5
first it's weird for me to read a couple of days without my blather breaking up some of the posts.
also, reading a couple of days in kind of a historical perspective rather than real time is kind of odd.
couple of questions that i still don't get totally.
story will vote chuc even though he is convinced that she has a town power role just to make sure that a lynch happens (paraphrase from end of Day 1). seriously, what the fuck with that. i mean i understand that lynches provide information but if you are convinced that its fucked up why go through with it?
second, ped you seem to be all over nphase. based on the way you color it i can see your point. but, i also see nphase's comments and can see that as well. plus your odd vote and soft claiming blocking convenience really looks squinky. it really smells like you know something more than the rest of us do.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 11:09:23 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 10, 2009 11:09:23 GMT -5
and before i get a ration of crap about fishing or some other nonsense.
he said he was kind of an investigator. well, fuck so am i. i know that i am town so i've got limited investigative abilities as well. shit, i got alignment on my ass.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 13:20:36 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 10, 2009 13:20:36 GMT -5
Am I reading you correctly, peeker, that you claim alignment investigator?
What's your reason to reveal that now? It seem your role make you believe pedescribe 'sort of' claim is likely, since you moved your vote of him after his claim Yesterday?
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 13:52:04 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Nov 10, 2009 13:52:04 GMT -5
You're misunderstanding him. He's saying he's a "limited investigator" since he was able to "investigate" himself and find out he's Town. That's a bit of a stretch of the term investigator of course, which is basically his point.
Pede, look up in this thread itself. Hell the same page as the post I made.
From Dirx
Why SHOULDN'T a Town player fight to stay alive? They know they're Town, and probably don't know that for certain about whoever is next in line to be lynched. There were other comments similar to that during Day 1 as well.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 14:20:09 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 10, 2009 14:20:09 GMT -5
what coca cola said.
i just know who and what i am. so to that extent i have the same investigative abilities of our claimer.
who is conveniently blocked.
i was thinking about dreaming about someone in this game and instead i got a vision of roller coasters, burnt popcorn and shitty corn dogs. fuck.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 14:22:26 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 10, 2009 14:22:26 GMT -5
I'm female. And here I was thinking pedescribe was being wrong the whole time . 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 someone wants to throw a vote to play aggressive to get reactions, then he shouldn't complain ('time for someone else in the limelight') when he gets a reaction (by being voted for in turn). I don't remember Idle being particular touchy in Conspiracy 3, not sure if I played more games with him. So I shouldn't bring things up if there is a chance I might be misreading it? Without extensive actions on record yet, nitpicking the text to find motivations is what's left to do. So I should read your quote like this: So to nitpick: The 'if he is scum' sub sentence is a bit redundant since it follows from if he's a scum Godfather. Chucara did ask for an extra Day which would support it, but it's not as contradictory as I first read it ('possible Godfather, but not supported' instead of 'being scum not supported by anything so far but I'm still voting him for it'). No, I was still asking Idle the clarify his assertion that he was confident about how the voting worked (and thus his vote was valid) while he made two posts saying he had doubts about the voting, see this post for the quotes. I don't see why I shouldn't ask on about the situation where I'm voting in, especially when I get answers like 'keep talking and you're suspicious', 'you have no reasons' and 'blablabla'.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 14:56:46 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 10, 2009 14:56:46 GMT -5
Regarding my gender, I think you're supposed to be like Zeener when corrected and say "How YOU doin'?" with an eyebrow waggle. "Touchy" is not quite the right word with regards to Idle and Conspiracy 3. "Compelled to defend himself in a fashion which is very noisy and does him no favors" is closer, but it's wordy.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 15:04:15 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Nov 10, 2009 15:04:15 GMT -5
Pede, look up in this thread itself. Hell the same page as the post I made. From Dirx Why SHOULDN'T a Town player fight to stay alive? They know they're Town, and probably don't know that for certain about whoever is next in line to be lynched. There were other comments similar to that during Day 1 as well. I don't think anyone is saying that a townie shouldn't defend themself. I think the complaint is that the particular way Chucara defended himself looked very suspicious. At least, that was my final problem with Chucara--he seemed to be tossing out idea after idea trying to find something, anything that would get him out of the lynch. Sorry, but that's what scum do. It's good for town to defend themselves, but at some point you have to respect the assessment of your fellow townies.* Agree to disagree over the issue (even if it's your own lynch) and move on to something more productive. Like something that leads to other scum. *As a footnote, this is why I think lynches should require a majority of players. For all we know, everyone voting for Chu is scum. With a majority requirement, a player knows at least one of those voting for them is town. And that means giving at least a little respect to their perspective.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 15:08:41 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 10, 2009 15:08:41 GMT -5
fuckit. might as well be consistent.
vote hockeyguy
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 15:15:50 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 10, 2009 15:15:50 GMT -5
yasee this be where i veer off the path. i will not vote a townie power role ala story just to get a death. and i am not even going to vote a soft claiming mother fucking piece of turd ped but will go non participant. off of the boat.
p.s. i still don't get that logic story. why are you still alive?
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 15:59:11 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Nov 10, 2009 15:59:11 GMT -5
Vote Count
Current Status: No Lynch.
pedescribe (1) nphase (1) natlaw (1) hockeyguy (1)
--FCOD
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 16:33:09 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 10, 2009 16:33:09 GMT -5
peekercpa, is that consistent in that you always vote lynch the lurker? Any specific reason to vote hockey over Kat! or Boozahol? Reading on sinjin, she joined late Yesterday but didn't really lurk. She voted for Chucara for the changing reasons to vote ed and confusing how his power worked (which I took off with).
@pedescribe: I mentioned it Yesterday but got no response - what was the reason to keep your vote on BillMc after his claim? Today you mentioned suspending your case until we get a flip on Guy, but you didn't talk about his claim at all Yesterday.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 16:55:47 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 10, 2009 16:55:47 GMT -5
Correction: pedescribe did talk about BillMc's claim, in response to Storyteller's 'a Day One false claim of Vig would be extremely dangerous.': This is the standard line. (Line as in Chess line, not as in corporate bullshit line) However, I don't see it. Yes, perhaps back when games tended to be simple this was a logical shortcut, but by this point the possibility that htere are no vigilantes, or two vigilantes should not be discounted. And, we must take into account the possibility of a scum doctor, something not present back when this line of thought emerged. If the scum have a doctor, then it would be quite a nice tactic to have him claim vigilante, safe from the real one that may or may not be there. I don't think that a vig claim should be a free ticket to lynch safety anymore. There might be no town vigilante and there might be a scum doctor, so don't wait with lynching claimed vigilante anymore. I'm not sure this is rhymes with his case that far for BillMc is him feeling wrong about Chucara Boss of Mafia comment. I don't think that a strong scum tell, together with the claimed roll-reveal of the kill which could be checked, that leads to a better lynch a claimed vigilante.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 17:07:46 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 10, 2009 17:07:46 GMT -5
yep, i have not always been consistent in my votes but at least in sentiment.
for metagame reasons i am not going after the others but may well do so in the future.
if i was actually going to vote for someone other than ltl which i may well do it would be story. son of a bitch makes me nervous.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 17:11:43 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 10, 2009 17:11:43 GMT -5
I'm not seeing a clear lead where to place my vote, so putting everything on some lists:
Lurkers: 6. Kat! 13. hockeyguy 20. Boozahol Squid PI
I don't want to vote for them, since it's too easy an excuse to vote. But if lurkers don't get called on it, it becomes a viable scum tactic. I don't disagree with vigilante killing them, although with no posts at all they presumably risk sub / mod-kill.
Claimed: 3. BillMc 12. pedescribe
BillMc claim feels more believable to me and the power is testable. pedescribe is as well, but being blocked and a half claim it looks less solid.
D1 Chucara voters: 2. Special Ed 7. nphase 8. redskeezix 15. Natlaw 16. dirx 17. sinjin
eds primary suspicion was pedescribe, but a quick re-read he commented quite a bit late in the Day how Chucara was looking scummy the way he defended himself, so I'm including him in this list. I don't have a real feel yet for dirx or redskeezix, mainly due to not much posts. sinjin/nphase/myself were more actively contributing to Chucara's lynch.
Minor suspicion: 1. peekercpa - mainly his votes that look odd to me (pede to make him claim, sinjin for 'not having original thought', lurker vote Today)
No real clues yet: 5. shaggy - Makes some confusing posts to reading post Today, but I think it's just his writing style that rubs me wrong 10. storyteller - although haven't seen his announced closer look at the Chucara voters yet. 14. Pleonast 18. MHaye 19. Nanook - I still don't like the response gave to me, but it's still not more anti-town than a scum clue.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 17:17:46 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Nov 10, 2009 17:17:46 GMT -5
<snip> I'm not sure this is rhymes with his case that far for BillMc is him feeling wrong about Chucara Boss of Mafia comment. I don't think that a strong scum tell, together with the claimed roll-reveal of the kill which could be checked, that leads to a better lynch a claimed vigilante.Underlining added. Im having a hard time parsing the last part of your last post. Are you saying ped thinks a claimed vigilante is a better lynch?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 17:30:54 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 10, 2009 17:30:54 GMT -5
I was trying to say that I don't think the points of: -a single post as indication of scum -a vigilante claim with additional check of role reveal leads to the conclusion that it's better lynch the claimed vigilante in case of a hypothetical "there is no town vigilante to kill the false claimer" or "a scum doctor that will protect him".
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 18:08:57 GMT -5
Post by Dirx on Nov 10, 2009 18:08:57 GMT -5
You're misunderstanding him. He's saying he's a "limited investigator" since he was able to "investigate" himself and find out he's Town. That's a bit of a stretch of the term investigator of course, which is basically his point. Pede, look up in this thread itself. Hell the same page as the post I made. From Dirx Why SHOULDN'T a Town player fight to stay alive? They know they're Town, and probably don't know that for certain about whoever is next in line to be lynched. There were other comments similar to that during Day 1 as well. What Pleonast said. I've seen town players get angry and exasperated with their impending lynch ( Ed in Alpha Centauri, for example), but normally they reach a point where they realize they can no longer defend themselves (because no one's changing their mind anymore), and end up accepting their lynch as inevitable and make their cases against those they think are scum. Chucara was trying any number of ways to get himself out of the fire, including threatening to force a no-lynch. I don't think I've been in a game where a no-lynch occurred, but from my understanding, it's generally anti-town, right? That's what I was referring to: I don't think I've seen any town player try that desperately to get out of their own lynch.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 18:11:07 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 10, 2009 18:11:07 GMT -5
Vote Count: Current Status: No Lynch. pedescribe (1): Pleonast nphase (1): pedescribe natlaw (1): nphase hockeyguy (1): peekercpa - - - - I don't have a good lead, but since there is less than a day left I'm gonna do two things. Trying to clear up pedescribe's status: -if he is town, he'll get blocked until dead either by lynch or when scum find a better block target (I don't see a good reason why a town blocker who block a claimed investigator, although Sister's alien might). -if he is scum, he'll coast along on the 'better not lynch the investigator' argument, but still drawing a couple votes from those who don't like his soft-claim/convenient block. Vote: pedescribe I would like a full claim. Since (if true) scum just needed the info that you are an investigator to block you. The second thing is that I provide info to evaluate your claim. For that I'll half-claim now: I'm also a sort of investigator (and not the peeker kind . It possible we have a double role and have the same sort, but I think there are enough details to compare. And I already got a vote, in the 'will look at the Chucara voters list' and with lots of no votes yet it could swing my way in which case in need to claim anyway. If I'm scum and pedescribe town, I've no reason to claim - just keep pedescribe blocked (scum wouldn't do that yadayada). If we're both scum, our claim of course will match. But there is likely a town investigator who could to counter claim then (after we made full claims, your decision of course). If I'm town and pedescribe scum, our claims might not agree giving more information to decide on a lynch. If we're both town (and neither gets lynched), scum has to choose who to block and WIFOM with a possible town protector. At least there is a chance for results instead of a continuous blocked pede (of course worst case one is killed, other kept blocked). If I find pedescribe claim believable and no new indications of scumminess I'll move to my vote to a lurker (probably Kat! since her Day One post isn't the best - the others didn't post afaik except for confirm). Bed time for me, vote people!
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 18:30:23 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 10, 2009 18:30:23 GMT -5
let me just add my comment for the record:
what the fuck?
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 18:30:31 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 10, 2009 18:30:31 GMT -5
I don't know which claim is weirder, yours or pedescribe's.
vote: Boozy[/color]
Placeholder only; I'd put it on myself if I didn't already have a vote. It won't stay there unless we get reduced to LtL.
|
|