|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 18:31:38 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 10, 2009 18:31:38 GMT -5
NETA: Or, what Ed said.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 18:32:42 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 10, 2009 18:32:42 GMT -5
let me just add my comment for the record: what the fuck? and, to clarify: we have a claimed town Vig and 3 claimed (2 unprovoked) Town investigators... no, wait, 'sort of' investigators. None of whom are providing any results whatsoever. Though one claimed to be blocked. Well, peeker implied he investigated himself (why?)
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 18:35:11 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 10, 2009 18:35:11 GMT -5
Skimming is bad, Ed. Peeker was just joking, saying for all the verifiability pedescribe had offered, he may as well claim investigator himself, on the basis that at least he knows he himself is Town. It's a few posts back. That doesn't explain pedescribe and Natlaw, of course.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 18:38:03 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 10, 2009 18:38:03 GMT -5
Skimming is bad, Ed. Peeker was just joking, saying for all the verifiability pedescribe had offered, he may as well claim investigator himself, on the basis that at least he knows he himself is Town. It's a few posts back. That doesn't explain pedescribe and Natlaw, of course. I wasn't skimming, I just haven't practiced my peekspeak lately.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 19:10:18 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 10, 2009 19:10:18 GMT -5
Well I have been reviewing and trying to get a handle on who to vote for. I am not really suspicious right now of ed or story as previuosly stated so obviously not going to vote for them 2. pede as i said yesterday I am a little but not enough to warrent me voting for, or atleats not yet. I do admit is does seem convenient that he was blocked but playing devils advocate I could see that done instead of killing in hopes that it helps create the desire to want to lynch you. I voted yesterday for nphase and the post earlier I had outlined did raise those suspiciouns but the only draw back i have is, that it is alot of speculation and theories. One that i am willing to admit i sometime over theorize and speculate. So for today I am going to not vote you but i will keep a strong eye on you. That leads to my last person i had minor suspiciouns on being netlaw for similar reasons as outlined by idle yesterday and today Nphase . though I was not ready to really vote for those reasons, I was interested in keeping an eye out on you. But that brings us to the claim of a "sort of" investigator. Now my problem here is, I am all for counter claims but to do so a day after the first claim...maybe it is me but kinda screams more like a scum trying to secure a lynch on a townie. I mean if you really had your doubts, then why not counter or atleast a hint yesterday? A counter a day after and out of the blue, just screams more like a oppartunistic jump to me. I understand not wanting to out a invetigator on day 1 but seriously waiting a day and then countering out of the blue, just seems not right. So while I said and still do I am usually all against risking a power especially a investigative power over a lynch, at the same time, this claim to me and it could just be me here, but this claim sounds like a whole load of BS. So for me that really makes me want to go ahead and:
Vote Netlaw
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 19:11:36 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 10, 2009 19:11:36 GMT -5
Woops my bad, spelled that wrong. should be: vote Natlaw
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 19:30:23 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 10, 2009 19:30:23 GMT -5
Well I have been reviewing and trying to get a handle on who to vote for. I am not really suspicious right now of ed or story as previuosly stated so obviously not going to vote for them 2. pede as i said yesterday I am a little but not enough to warrent me voting for, or atleats not yet. I do admit is does seem convenient that he was blocked but playing devils advocate I could see that done instead of killing in hopes that it helps create the desire to want to lynch you. I voted yesterday for nphase and the post earlier I had outlined did raise those suspiciouns but the only draw back i have is, that it is alot of speculation and theories. One that i am willing to admit i sometime over theorize and speculate. So for today I am going to not vote you but i will keep a strong eye on you. That leads to my last person i had minor suspiciouns on being netlaw for similar reasons as outlined by idle yesterday and today Nphase . though I was not ready to really vote for those reasons, I was interested in keeping an eye out on you. But that brings us to the claim of a "sort of" investigator. Now my problem here is, I am all for counter claims but to do so a day after the first claim...maybe it is me but kinda screams more like a scum trying to secure a lynch on a townie. I mean if you really had your doubts, then why not counter or atleast a hint yesterday? A counter a day after and out of the blue, just screams more like a oppartunistic jump to me. I understand not wanting to out a invetigator on day 1 but seriously waiting a day and then countering out of the blue, just seems not right. So while I said and still do I am usually all against risking a power especially a investigative power over a lynch, at the same time, this claim to me and it could just be me here, but this claim sounds like a whole load of BS. So for me that really makes me want to go ahead and: Vote Netlaw I kinda sense it was more of a complimentary claim than a counter claim.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 19:40:26 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Nov 10, 2009 19:40:26 GMT -5
Well I have been reviewing and trying to get a handle on who to vote for. I am not really suspicious right now of ed or story as previuosly stated so obviously not going to vote for them 2. pede as i said yesterday I am a little but not enough to warrent me voting for, or atleats not yet. I do admit is does seem convenient that he was blocked but playing devils advocate I could see that done instead of killing in hopes that it helps create the desire to want to lynch you. I voted yesterday for nphase and the post earlier I had outlined did raise those suspiciouns but the only draw back i have is, that it is alot of speculation and theories. One that i am willing to admit i sometime over theorize and speculate. So for today I am going to not vote you but i will keep a strong eye on you. That leads to my last person i had minor suspiciouns on being netlaw for similar reasons as outlined by idle yesterday and today Nphase . though I was not ready to really vote for those reasons, I was interested in keeping an eye out on you. But that brings us to the claim of a "sort of" investigator. Now my problem here is, I am all for counter claims but to do so a day after the first claim...maybe it is me but kinda screams more like a scum trying to secure a lynch on a townie. I mean if you really had your doubts, then why not counter or atleast a hint yesterday? A counter a day after and out of the blue, just screams more like a oppartunistic jump to me. I understand not wanting to out a invetigator on day 1 but seriously waiting a day and then countering out of the blue, just seems not right. So while I said and still do I am usually all against risking a power especially a investigative power over a lynch, at the same time, this claim to me and it could just be me here, but this claim sounds like a whole load of BS. So for me that really makes me want to go ahead and: Vote Netlaw I kinda sense it was more of a complimentary claim than a counter claim. Except that he usses his own claim to help bolster his then vote for pede . So that is why i took it as almost a counter. But I supose it could be to compliment his arguement for his vote, as compared to counter the previous claim and therefore back up the vote...if that makes any sence at all. Eigther way unlike usual where I say meh, and start looking else where I just have a real hard time buying the claim.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 19:48:18 GMT -5
Post by Dirx on Nov 10, 2009 19:48:18 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 [/color] 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![/quote] I don't fully understand why you're doing this when you're doing it. We have less than a day left--it would have been much more useful if you'd done this earlier, with enough time for you two to get your claims in and allow us to evaluate them. Your vote for pedescribe implies you think he's scum, am I right? So is your half-claim meant to be a counter claim of sorts? If that's the case, I don't get it, because I've seen several games where there were more than one investigator, and often they investigated different things (names vs roles vs alignment, e.g.). For there to be multiple investigators-of-sorts seems normal enough. (And for that reason, I don't see why your claims would necessarily match if you're both scum) And to top it off, you leave immediately after making this post, presumably not to return until tomorrow morning, with even less time for discussion. What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this? on preview: I'm kinda with shaggy on this. It does read to me like it's at least partly a counter-claim.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 19:56:27 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 10, 2009 19:56:27 GMT -5
I kinda hate the whole thing. The timing does stink. Odds at this point are we wind up lynching a random lurker, which while not the worst thing, is unlikely to help us find Scum. I will be around tomorrow, hence my "unvote", but ... well, I guess I'll just have to see what they both say.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 20:38:57 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 10, 2009 20:38:57 GMT -5
But I supose it could be to compliment his arguement for his vote, as compared to counter the previous claim and therefore back up the vote...if that makes any sence at all. Eigther way unlike usual where I say meh, and start looking else where I just have a real hard time buying the claim. oh booogity boogity boogity boo
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 20:50:10 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 10, 2009 20:50:10 GMT -5
OK, I can see I've misread a few things.
And participation in this game is relatively low.
Pede still strikes me as Sort Of® Scummy
The Sort Of® Claim with the Sort Of® defending some of the accusations against him.
And the apparent block against him.
and ties are bad. are we close to a tie?
I've got tomorrow off of work, so I should be around for DayEnd
Vote: pedescribe clayton hypnagogo mayfield, Defiler of the Masons
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 20:50:51 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Nov 10, 2009 20:50:51 GMT -5
I'm completely, totally clueless.
I do wonder: 1: Who did pede investigate? 2: Did the claimed role-blocking of pede indicate any information other than he was blocked? 3: If Natlaw's complementary/counter claim is true, I understand why he'd want to wait until pede responds before giving any details (or results, since that could also give hints to theorized-scummy pede), but perhaps let us know who you investigated, and if you got results? 4: Now only why did Natlaw wait so long to claim in response to pede, but why didn't he explain the reason for the delay when he did[/b] claim. 5: If the Day moves into LtL territory, I lean towards a hockey vote. I'm hoping that it doesn't, but I've reread twice and still am nowhere close to getting a good suspect. Or even a bad one.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 20:52:16 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Nov 10, 2009 20:52:16 GMT -5
NETA: #4 should be: 4: Not only why did Natlaw wait so long to claim in response to pede, but why didn't he explain the reason for the delay when he did claim.
Thankyoucomeagain.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 23:15:25 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Nov 10, 2009 23:15:25 GMT -5
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. 1. In principle, that is a perfectly legitimate town tactic. I have already explained why. 2. This is really the same complaint as 1, since my objection here was tonal too. I have acknowledged that I was unable to specificate any scummy tonal phrases, and backed off. 3. Yes, if you've got something useful or helpful to do, that's fine. Don't wait. But doing something that is useless while nominally pro-town (and yes, I would argue that voting immediately simply to announce that you will vote later is no more useful than declaring that you are town with your first post. Now, if that were done halfway through the day, say, then you might have a point.), that is worse than nothing. Because at that point you're clogging the thread with natter. 4. Townies are paranoid. That's how the game works. @ 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. Because I was still suspicious of him. I specifically said Day 1 that claims should not be a 'get out of lynch free card' and that bill's claim could easily be a scum kill hiding in plain sight or the work of a serial killer--and that because this is a closed game, we can't count on "the real" vigilante taking him out because there could be 2 or 0 or some other number of vigiliantes than one or there could be a scum doctor. I thought he was scum. I still do. However, at this point, Bill is at least partially confirmable, in that we can find out whether or not he's telling the truth about Guy when we find out... Now, you may be asking, "How would that confirm him as a town?" And it wouldn't. But confirming that he's not lying, and that he really can kill would go a long way. And if he is scum, we can learn the truth about who dies early up until we lynch him for lying or killing off townie after townie after townie... And besides that, from a purely pragmatic perspective: the momentum was dead by that point. ... 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. Quite. I'm a Tracker. Yes, I did get the exact same role in two games that started at the same time. That, peeker, is why I was reluctant to claim, actually--I was worried if I claimed in both, someone would call bullshit when it was really just a weird coincidence. I tracked Sis Coyote last night, because I wasn't sure if I believed her claim--it sounded rather off. Also, FTR: I'm not really suspicious of Natlaw at this juncture, unless he doesn't take his vote off of me. Instead I urge you to vote for NPhase.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 23:42:47 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 10, 2009 23:42:47 GMT -5
and actually i like coincidences so the tracker would make sense in a peek way.
but now i wonder what in the world is going on with nat. a complimentary tracker?
nat: "yes, that was a damn fine target you picked ped. and did i tell you how much i think that new hair style accentuates the positives in your skin tone."
i mean, shit.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 10, 2009 23:52:29 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Nov 10, 2009 23:52:29 GMT -5
Possibly a Watcher, or some other investigatory role that's not an actual investigator?
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 0:00:25 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Nov 11, 2009 0:00:25 GMT -5
so, and not to be a total smart ass, sis had something or did something to/with nphase?
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 0:21:40 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Nov 11, 2009 0:21:40 GMT -5
What makes you think that?
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 0:27:09 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 11, 2009 0:27:09 GMT -5
claiming to have tracked sister on the night sister died and being blocked?
there are just so many coincidences.
and why not claim tracker earlier?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 7:00:19 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 11, 2009 7:00:19 GMT -5
maybe it is me but kinda screams more like a scum trying to secure a lynch on a townie. I mean if you really had your doubts, then why not counter or at least a hint yesterday? What would a scum my gain by that instead of keeping him blocked? I didn't counter Yesterday because I didn't know if my role would be a counter. I didn't hint at it because I don't see why I should drop breadcrumbs for scum to pick up. Your vote for pedescribe implies you think he's scum, am I right? So is your half-claim meant to be a counter claim of sorts? If that's the case, I don't get it, because I've seen several games where there were more than one investigator, and often they investigated different things (names vs roles vs alignment, e.g.). For there to be multiple investigators-of-sorts seems normal enough. (And for that reason, I don't see why your claims would necessarily match if you're both scum) Yes, I consider(ed) pedescribe possible scum due to his half-claim and other things. No, it's to provide information to evaluate his claim (and thus also mine), so we don't stay stuck with some wanting to lynch him for his half-claim and other not because of it. With match up I meant exactly that it's not as likely that we investigate the same sort of thing, which would be don't fully understand why you're doing this when you're doing it. We have less than a day left--it would have been much more useful if you'd done this earlier, with enough time for you two to get your claims in and allow us to evaluate them. Perhaps it would have been better earlier Today, but with the low participation (only four spread out votes) and not much new information Today I decide to generate some. And to top it off, you leave immediately after making this post, presumably not to return until tomorrow morning, with even less time for discussion. Well, it was late here in Europe and it didn't leave less time for the rest to discuss it. 4: Not only why did Natlaw wait so long to claim in response to pede, but why didn't he explain the reason for the delay when he did claim. I claimed to get the situation more clear about pedescribe, so we could have more informed votes (since I didn't have a good place to vote myself). I didn't plan to claim earlier or decide to 'delay' it on purpose.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 7:23:32 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 11, 2009 7:23:32 GMT -5
I'm a Tracker. Yes, I did get the exact same role in two games that started at the same time. That, peeker, is why I was reluctant to claim, actually--I was worried if I claimed in both, someone would call bullshit when it was really just a weird coincidence. Well, that is not what I was expecting as 'a sort of investigator' since I was more thinking of alignment cop. Simply (stupidly) didn't think about Trackers or Watchers as possible investigators. So there aren't actual much details to compliment and compare than: I'm a human passenger called Jane. I'm a journalist and can investigate one killed player per Night to reveal their role to me. (aside: are you human and have a name? same for Bill? Or have a reason not to disclose it?) As I can only investigate someone whose dead, I don't have results yet (I most likely investigate Guy coming Night to check BillMc's claim). I was expecting you to be an alignment version of myself if truthful and that's why I tried to get you to state earlier if you actually submitted an action. Since I don't think my role is that critical as an alignment version would be, so that's why I didn't think it better to stay hidden. I got a 'no comment' on if the killed flip is delayed or not at all, I'm assuming a Conspiracy like delay but that's just a guess. I think BillMc role-reveal on kill is believable, although I cannot discount an SK or scum killer to have the ability as well. If there is no role flip of the killed at all (but perhaps alignment), his power makes for sense as town. My role doesn't counter or compliment pedescribe's claim as much as I hoped. That said, since we neither are alignment (although tracking is more powerful than my power)) investigators at least one of us shouldn't be block to get some result (if not killed of course). So to give pedescribe a chance to prove his power and since Kat! has posted, Vote: Boozahol for now. I'll should be online to (re)read reactions and possibly move my vote in a better place.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 7:25:59 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 11, 2009 7:25:59 GMT -5
Vote Count:
Current Status: No Lynch.
pedescribe (2): Pleonast, special ed Boozahol (2): nphase, Natlaw nphase (1): pedescribe Natlaw (1): shaggy hockeyguy (1): peekercpa
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 9:03:54 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 11, 2009 9:03:54 GMT -5
Coincidences happen, Pedescribe. Yours is a very weak reason not to make a fuller claim on Day One, and I also have a hard time rationalizing it as "I'll claim fully when I think it's helpful to Town". Claiming to have been roleblocked is not that big a thing; it's not exactly an unexpected outcome when a claimed investigator is under suspicion. But claiming to have tried to track SisC is a bit of a strange thing. Anyway:
There's a bit of contradiction here as regards your posts from this Morning. If you had this mindset, the apparent anomaly of SisC's death (the possibly "missing" Scum kill) should have drawn more attention from you than it did. Instead, you only commented on it after a few other people had already done so, and only mentioned the Bill as Scum possibility in your second post on the topic.
Your post #19 response to Bill's list of possibilities:
Post #20:
The bit about the Town vigilante does not follow, particularly (as I noted in the very next post) since only a handful of players had yet turned up in the thread. But it's also far from an automatic conclusion that a vigilante would necessarily have declared themselves: there are far too many variables involved. I think you may have tacked on that sentence as a belated rationale for not immediately jumping on the case of the person you were supposed to be suspicious of, when reason to be suspicious had presented itself.
And in any case, you've just summarily dismissed the idea that Bill is likely to be part of the infiltration team, and failed to mention the SK possibility -- now four pages later you "still do" think he's Scum? That's inconsistent in a bad way.
Off to read the rest of the thread now, see what Natlaw has to say.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 9:25:11 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Nov 11, 2009 9:25:11 GMT -5
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. 1. In principle, that is a perfectly legitimate town tactic. I have already explained why. 2. This is really the same complaint as 1, since my objection here was tonal too. I have acknowledged that I was unable to specificate any scummy tonal phrases, and backed off. 3. Yes, if you've got something useful or helpful to do, that's fine. Don't wait. But doing something that is useless while nominally pro-town (and yes, I would argue that voting immediately simply to announce that you will vote later is no more useful than declaring that you are town with your first post. Now, if that were done halfway through the day, say, then you might have a point.), that is worse than nothing. Because at that point you're clogging the thread with natter. 4. Townies are paranoid. That's how the game works. Ah, the old "pro-town is not helpful to the town" defense. Do you want to argue up is down too? [/sarcasm] Townies should not be paranoid. Newbie ones might be, but an experienced player knows better. And we're not talking about general paranoia, but the fact that you took a general statement about anti-town players and reacted to it. That is suspicious. An excellent point. I hope others use it against you as well. And now you're potentially confirmable, too. We'll either get information from you, or lynch you after you're "blocked" Night after Night. Your play has been very anti-town up to this point and I believe you are lying, so I am not expecting useful results from you. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Now, where to vote? It's generally bad policy to lynch someone who has a potentially confirmable role, so I should move it off of pedescribe. Although I still think he is the player most likely to be scum. Lynching low participants is a valid tactic. We don't get much information, but low participation is a losing proposition for us. And Guy shows that non-town are willing to try it. Since the mods have not given us the specifics of how low participants are removed, I'm willing to lynch them preemptively. vote Squid
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 9:27:21 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Nov 11, 2009 9:27:21 GMT -5
I can see Ed's argument that pede's claim is full of coincidences, but its inconclusive. Tho I do find pede's suggestion in #19 that SisC may come back from the dead a little strange.
I'm willing to get pede the benefit of the doubt today.
We haven't got a lot to go on, and appear to have a lot of lurkers - and no lynch is bad.
so Vote: boozy
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 9:44:52 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 11, 2009 9:44:52 GMT -5
This makes me a little more comfortable with Natlaw (from Day One, right after Bill's claim):
Knowing how people tend to telegraph their roles in just this way, it's suggestive that Natlaw does have the ability he claims, or at least does have access to that sort of information. More to the point, it suggests he was thinking of using it in the way he says even immediately post-claim (Bill's, that is). Scum would not necessarily think to do that, if Bill is not-Scum. It's not much, but it's something. (Though it is a breadcrumb! If possibly an unintended one.)
I'm increasingly uncomfortable with Pedescribe though, almost enough to vote for him and damn the consequences. But what the hell, let's give it another night.
vote: Hockey[/color]
as even a lurker lynch should have competition. On the off chance Boozy or Hocky is Scum, we get more info if it's not a runaway wagon. (Vote was previously on Boozy.)
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 10:11:18 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Nov 11, 2009 10:11:18 GMT -5
There's not a lot to go on, so I guess this is one of the times that LtL makes sense. From what little they have posted in the past, hockeyguy was more substantive, maybe he'll come back.
Vote: Boozy
|
|
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 11, 2009 12:15:12 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Nov 11, 2009 12:15:12 GMT -5
Going through the thread looking at stuff. In reply to my first post of the Day, nphase said : Really? She made a (presumably truthful) claim that she was no threat to Scum as traditionally assumed, but could find a different entity that might hurt them as much as Town. So Scum then bypassed a claimed "sort of" investigator, a claimed Vig, and a dozen or so juicy unknowns in favor of SisC? By what logic, if the Scum in this game is the generic group of killers we usually assume them to be? Your attitude that there's no mystery here is really baffling me. I'm getting forgetful in my old age. However, there are several hypotheses that might explain the act of a regular Mafia group killing Sister Coyote. My personal favourite is that the Pirates (or whatever name you want to give them) might find it helpful in the midgame to have a bogeyman to frighten Townspeople with. Some threat that they can suggest needs to be dealt with before it wins, and causing us to take our finger off the Pirate-killing button. Alternate hypotheses include that they have an investigator of their own who might be able to ID the alien and want to keep the info to themselves, that they know who the Alien is already, or maybe are Aliens – shapeshifting protean entities would make a good infiltration team, don't you think? The other possibility is that Sister Coyote was attacked twice. The Dawn post makes reference to two injuries. On the other hand maybe that's just colour. Does anyone remember if the Sharp-Dressed Cat has confirmed that colour is just colour, or might it contain clues? Storyteller. D02.038 : Storyteller argues against voting for Bill or Pedescribe. I agree about Bill – Bill has provided claims which can be verified against Mod statements. Pedescribe, well maybe. I had my vote on him at the end of Yesterday, and the unsatisfactory nature of his claim persists with his report of being blocked. I'm not willing to rule out a vote for Pedescribe Today, but neither am I going to lock myself in to it right now. Natlaw D02.087 Claims to be “a sort of investigator” but no details. At the same time he's pushing Pedescribe to claim and votes Pede. While I agree that Pede should claim, the last thing Natlaw should have done is copy his unsatisfactory claim. I'm more suspicious of Natlaw after that than I had been. I'm not worried by Natlaw leaving for the night at that point; it was just before 3:15 on the American West Coast; Amercia-based players can digest the post and respond to it, and Natlaw can read the post in the morning and make replies ready for the Americas to wake up again. It's not as bad as Dirx makes out. D02.111 Provides name and role claim. Voting for lurkers. Peekercpa for Hockeyguy (D02.077) Nphase for Boozahol (D02.089) – Placeholder Natlaw for Boozahol (D02.111) Pleo for Boozahol (D02.114) BillMc for Boozahol (D02.115) Nphase for Hockeyguy (D02.116) Redskeezix for Boozahol (D02.117) This list is a group of people who are, essentially, voting at random. They have no reason to vote for the player except that the player has not participated. Since CIAS has said that he will deal with players who do not participate. Rule 6 says :I therefore consider these are essentially players with no vote, less than three hours before the end of Day. Lynch the lurker won't begin to be a valid strategy for a Day or two yet. The post has already stretched onto its fourth A4 page (at 12 point font). That's too long. So I'm going to break this into two parts. The vote will come in part 2.
|
|
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 11, 2009 12:35:48 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Nov 11, 2009 12:35:48 GMT -5
This is part two of my Day 2 analysis post, which got too long to expect people to follow. I have been known to ask players to break ASAD posts into manageable chunks, so I'd best do it myself. Part 2 focusses on only two players – Pedescribe and Nphase. Pedescribe D02.048 : Categorises Pleo's case against himself as follows. 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? I feel the first defence misses the point. Pleo's argument was not that Pede's case against Pleo was weak, it was that Pede's defence of himself was weak. Saying that one is “an investigator – of sorts” is not a claim, and should not be treated as one. It is the sort of obfuscation that a Pirate could employ without straying very far from the truth. If you're going to claim, claim. Provide some details that can be checked later. In addition, Pede claims to have been blocked last Night. Is that feasible? Yes, the Prates could have a roleblocker. It's not unknown (think the Drain Bead rule). However, if Pede is telling the truth, the Pirates have revealed the existence of their roleblocking capability to us. Let's face it, if the roleblocker is a Passenger, then they should never have blocked Pedescribe last Night; whatever Pede's alignment, allowing him to report results is information, and information is what the Passengers need. D02.104 Claims tracker. Remarks that since he had the same role in two concurrent games, he was afraid of someone calling him a liar. Of course he's half-confirmed now (being dead in the Other Game). Pedescribe also claims he tracked Sister Coyote. I think that's reasonable; if Pedescribe had obtained a result, and Sister C came back and reported on a different player he'd have evidence of falsehood. Now Pedescribe has provided a fuller claim, I'm less unhappy than I was with his claim. Since there is the possibility of falsification, I will not be voting Pedescribe Today. Nphase D02.045 : I did not like this bit. 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. The problem is that you assert, as a fact, something which the rest of us have no means of verifying – namely that you are a Passenger. That you know your alignment (or should know – some people around here have played an entire Day 1 without opening their role PM, assuming they were vanilla Town) is indisputable. However, we have no such knowledge, unless we're on the infiltration team, or have used investigative powers to discern your alignment. The correct approach is to ask us to assume, for the purposes of argument, that you are a Passenger, and see what follows. Your calling the assertion you are a Passenger a “fact” looks to me like a bit of fast talking designed to shore up something that is not true. D02.053 Nphase defends herself from an attack by Natlaw, which we find in D02.047. Nphase accuses Nalaw of an unfounded attack. Having followed the links back, I agree that Natlaw's attack is ill-founded; Nphase's assertion that “nothing has happened to support this” is referring to Sinjin's hypothesis that Chucara was a Godfather-type. However, I don't think this alone is sufficient for a vote, because Natlaw is not a native English speaker (a fact that I am not sure Nphase is aware of). It's therefore possible that Natlaw misinterpreted Nphase. That doesn't mean Natlaw can't be a Pirate; it is suspicious, especially as Natlaw's pretty damn good at this game. But I'm not going to vote just on that. Nphase also accuses Natlaw of insincerity because he changed his reasons for voting between D01.056 and D01.103. In both, the fundamental point (the one that Nphase highlighted) is that Idle had a wrong understanding of the rules when he voted for Pleo. That doesn't look like insincerity to me. D02.113 Dings Pedescribe for not claiming more fully on Day 1, saying that “coincidences happen,” a statement I can get behind – I seem to say it every game, but just because something is not very likely that does not mean you can rule it out. She then raised my eyebrows by claiming that “Claiming to have been roleblocked is not that big a thing; it's not exactly an unexpected outcome when a claimed investigator is under suspicion.” I've already noted that since we had no prior evidence of that capability in the hands of the Pirates, it's actually a quite significant piece of information. If true. I'm going to vote at this point. Vote: Nphase This is not for one big thing, but a lot of little things - the way she mixed checkable statements in with something she wants us to believe, her attack on Natlaw for "insincerity" when it looked to me to be more for inconsistency, and her dismissal of the possibility of a Pirate-aligned roleblocker as "something that can be expected." I also don't like the vote for Hockeyguy.
|
|