|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 12:35:50 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 11, 2009 12:35:50 GMT -5
May as well ask.
CIAS, any clues in the color, or not?[/color]
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 12:49:10 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 11, 2009 12:49:10 GMT -5
so, we're sweeping towards a boozy lynch it seems.
I'll check back later.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 12:55:05 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Nov 11, 2009 12:55:05 GMT -5
Lynch the lurker won't begin to be a valid strategy for a Day or two yet. This is belied by the fact that we know at least one non-town player in this game was intentionally lurking.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 12:55:06 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Nov 11, 2009 12:55:06 GMT -5
Okay, I should not be on here while at work (don't squeal on me) but you should not be voting for Boozy.
Vote hockey.
I'll try to check in again after lunch, if I don't get caught.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 12:57:14 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Nov 11, 2009 12:57:14 GMT -5
Okay, I should not be on here while at work (don't squeal on me) but you should not be voting for Boozy. Vote hockey. I'll try to check in again after lunch, if I don't get caught. I can take a hint, but you better back it up when you get the chance. vote hockeyguy
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:02:20 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Nov 11, 2009 13:02:20 GMT -5
Just let me know by the time I get back if you want me to do it right away (I will if I get enough requests), after Dusk, or right before Dawn. After Dawn is probably not a good idea.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:04:08 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Nov 11, 2009 13:04:08 GMT -5
May as well ask. CIAS, any clues in the color, or not?[/color][/quote] The colour is just colour.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:05:45 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 11, 2009 13:05:45 GMT -5
Nphase D02.045 : I did not like this bit.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. You're pinging me as much as Pedescribe with this comment; it's just as nitpicky as some of the things he brought up. What you suggest I do is exactly what I WAS doing: asking Pedescribe to consider the following things as true, then reconsider the evidence in that light. (Have you actually done so, by the way? Has pedescribe? Do you agree with his original accusation against me?) Neither did I. I didn't know he wasn't a native English speaker, though. Initially he dismissed the idea that Idle could have been confused, saying "it didn't match". Later, he claimed that Idle's confusion was what had prompted his vote in the first place. As much as Natlaw's claim has reassured me about him, that remains a clear contradiction. Again, you are blatantly mis-reading me. Pedescribe claiming to have been role-blocked is not suspicious (a "big thing", in terms of evaluating his credibility) in itself because IF Scum have a role-blocker and Pedescribe is not Scum, then that is exactly what you'd expect such a role-blocker to do under the circumstances. I was in no way dismissing the significance of a Scum role-blocker possibly being in the game. And as for the vote on Hockeyguy, that just irritates me. I'm one of only about four people who had a non-lurker vote on anyone today at any point, and I get dinged for voting a lurker when it's a handful of hours to the end of the day, my main suspect is a claimed investigator, and nobody is doing anything. Lovely. vote: Merestil Haye[/color] There. You're not a claimed investigator, and I'm almost as suspicious about you as about Pedescribe. There was that weird thing from you this morning regarding SisterCoyote's death, and now a collection of reasons to vote for me that consist basically of digging into everything I say and wringing out the worst interpretation you can, even if you have to turn my actual meaning inside-out to do so. I know I can be convoluted in my reasoning sometimes, but those things you pointed out are not that hard to understand the way I meant them.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:07:31 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 11, 2009 13:07:31 GMT -5
Lynch the lurker won't begin to be a valid strategy for a Day or two yet. This is belied by the fact that we know at least one non-town player in this game was intentionally lurking. how do we know this?
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:07:49 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 11, 2009 13:07:49 GMT -5
Cross posted with some people.
Right before Dawn is all right I think, Kat. I'll change my vote back to protect Boozy if it makes a difference when the time comes. Have to run out now, but I'll be back before end of Day.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:08:02 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 11, 2009 13:08:02 GMT -5
Okay, I should not be on here while at work (don't squeal on me) but you should not be voting for Boozy. Vote hockey. I'll try to check in again after lunch, if I don't get caught. you know this? or you sort of know this?
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:08:26 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 11, 2009 13:08:26 GMT -5
@ Ed -- Guy implied as much in his farewell post. Kinda OOG, but .. yeah.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:11:11 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Nov 11, 2009 13:11:11 GMT -5
Gee, how many roles would someone know that voting for another is a mistake and be willing and able to back it up? Do the math people.
Barring a counter claim, it seems a strategic vote is required.
Vote: Hockeyguy
At least, I think he's second. Someone able to double check that?
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:14:56 GMT -5
Post by special on Nov 11, 2009 13:14:56 GMT -5
@ Ed -- Guy implied as much in his farewell post. Kinda OOG, but .. yeah. ohhhh....I didn't have him listed as 3rd party in my notes since it wasn't official yet
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:19:28 GMT -5
Post by Dirx on Nov 11, 2009 13:19:28 GMT -5
hockeyguy (3): peeker(77), nphase(116)[127], Kat(123), Pleonast (124) Boozahol Squid (3): nphase(89)[116], Natlaw(111), Pleonast(114)[124], Bill(115), redskeezix(117) nphase (2): pedescribe(27), MHaye(119) pedescribe (1): Pleonast(5)[114], -Natlaw-(87)[111], Ed(101) natlaw (1): nphase(53)[89], shaggy(94) Merestil Haye(1): nphase(127)
I don't understand the coding for tables; I'll figure them out later.
nphase's vote change resulted in a tie vote, if I've got my records right, so,
Vote hockeyguy
Duly noted, Kat
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:20:44 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 11, 2009 13:20:44 GMT -5
Sorry I've missed so much of the day, things have been very hectic here. I'll try to get something in by end of day. I am very confused right now.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:21:10 GMT -5
Post by Dirx on Nov 11, 2009 13:21:10 GMT -5
And I see Nanook already broke the tie. So Hockeyguy is now at 5, Boozahol at 3.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:32:55 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Nov 11, 2009 13:32:55 GMT -5
Okay I'll bite. Vote: hockeyguy pedescribe: 1 | Pleonast,Natlaw,Special Ed | nphase: 2 | Pedescribe,MHaye | natlaw: 1 | nphase,shaggy | hockeyguy: 5 | peeker,nphase,kat!,pleonast,nanook,dirx,redskeezix | boozy:2 | nphase,Natlaw,pleonast,BillMc,redskeezix | MHaye:1 | nphase |
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:34:29 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Nov 11, 2009 13:34:29 GMT -5
Incidentally, I'm not advocating for a hockey lynch. Don't vote Boozy is all I'm asking. Lynching the lurker I know nothing about is better than lynching the lurker I know something about. Even if hockey does turn out to be a power role, yes, because if he's not here, he's not helping any more than Boozy is.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:34:49 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Nov 11, 2009 13:34:49 GMT -5
NETA: that should be hockeyguy with 6 votes.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:36:14 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Nov 11, 2009 13:36:14 GMT -5
But I don't like math, Nanook.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 13:43:27 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 11, 2009 13:43:27 GMT -5
Vote: hockeyguy Until done rereading.
Vote Count:
Current Status: hockeyguy lynch.
hockeyguy (7): peekercpa, Kat!, Pleonast, Nanook, dirx, redskeezix, Natlaw Boozahol (1): BillMc pedescribe (2): special ed nphase (1): pedescribe, MHaye Natlaw (1): shaggy MHaye (1): nphase
No vote (4): hockeyguy, Boozahol, storyteller, sinjin
Claims: BillMc: Vigilante - role reveal on kill, N1: killed Guy (Survivor) pedescribe: Tracker - N1: blocked, tried to track SC Natlaw: Killed Role Investigator Kat!, Boozahol: Mason
Dead: Chucara - Passenger White hat - Vote Switcher -D1L switch BillMc's vote from Chucara to BillMc Guy Incognito - possible Survivor Sister Coyote - claimed Alien (PFK/mad bomber?) Hunter
|
|
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 13:45:24 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Nov 11, 2009 13:45:24 GMT -5
Lynch the lurker won't begin to be a valid strategy for a Day or two yet. This is belied by the fact that we know at least one non-town player in this game was intentionally lurking. That does not make it a valid strategy. Seriously. My own criterion (see Last Bastion for an example) is that if I think all active players are on balance likely Town, it's time to lynch the lurker.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 14:05:40 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 11, 2009 14:05:40 GMT -5
Masons, Natlaw? It's a possibility, but this isn't Day One; there are other options.
I rescind my earlier suggestion to Kat to wait until almost-Dawn to reveal whatever-it-is, though. On the way out the door my brain jumped straight to alignment or role investigator, but I'm not sure the considerations are the same with Masons. Too many variables to comment on.
|
|
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 14:14:37 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Nov 11, 2009 14:14:37 GMT -5
Nphase D02.045 : I did not like this bit.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. You're pinging me as much as Pedescribe with this comment; it's just as nitpicky as some of the things he brought up. What you suggest I do is exactly what I WAS doing: asking Pedescribe to consider the following things as true, then reconsider the evidence in that light. What I see there is someone trying to obsucre a crucial difference - the first two points you made are something that people who've played games with you might know; the third rests (at this point) on your bare unsubstantiated word. Yet you called it a fact. To us, it's an unsubstantiated assumption, until we get some indicators one way or the other. I haven't read back over Yesterday yet. But what Pede said was not part of the reason for my voting for you. That makes things a little clearer, thanks. I'll review the posts again in the light of this tomorrow. That is how it came across to me - that you were trying to obscure something that needed to be highlighted. I had more pointers to your Pirate-ness than any other person's, that's why you got voted for. However, that doesn't mean I wasn't aware of the other lurker votes. I actually gave you a pass on the Boozahol Squid vote, because you explicitly called it out as a placeholder. (At this point Nphase votes for me.) I'm not a claimed anything, except Town.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 14:19:35 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 11, 2009 14:19:35 GMT -5
You're right that is a possibility as well, my first thought 'doing the math' what role knows someone else that shouldn't be lynched was mason. Should have left the question mark after it :/. 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 was half-claiming on purpose - I thought it unlikely that he who have a role investigation power like BillMc and myself, but if I told it at that point a scum could have avoided that. I also didn't want to reveal right away that I investigated the killed (as balance for the no flip), assuming he could be an alignment version of my role but didn't consider tracker/watcher as sorts of investigator.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 14:32:43 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Nov 11, 2009 14:32:43 GMT -5
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. The Drain Bead rule? If it's a reference to the Undying War game (only game I played with DB I think), I'm not getting it. Initially he dismissed the idea that Idle could have been confused, saying "it didn't match". Later, he claimed that Idle's confusion was what had prompted his vote in the first place. As much as Natlaw's claim has reassured me about him, that remains a clear contradiction. I never claimed that was what prompted my initial vote (show me a link please?). I continued questioning to get clear if he was confused or not since he made statements both way. I didn't move my vote at that time because I didn't like his reaction to it.
|
|
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 14:40:52 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Nov 11, 2009 14:40:52 GMT -5
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. The Drain Bead rule? If it's a reference to the Undying War game (only game I played with DB I think), I'm not getting it. Before your time. Drain Bead's first three games on here were all - every one of them - as Mafia. The second and third games (NAF/Kat's Firefly and Storyteller's Blade Runner game) she was a Mafia roleblocker. Two games in succession. We joked about an unwritten rule of the board that she must always be a roleblocker.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 14:41:19 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 11, 2009 14:41:19 GMT -5
What I see there is someone trying to obsucre a crucial difference - the first two points you made are something that people who've played games with you might know; the third rests (at this point) on your bare unsubstantiated word. Yet you called it a fact. To us, it's an unsubstantiated assumption, until we get some indicators one way or the other. Granted, but how could you think that means I was trying to "obscure" anything? How can I be trying to obscure anything that is so self-evident? I still think it should be very clear that what I was doing there was exactly what you said I should do, only with more aggressive wording. Is it the tone or overall impression left by my words that you're taking issue with? Because that I could sort of see; I was being a bit pugnacious. But that's not what you said. (snip) My focus was on what a claimed role-blocking said about Pedescribe, which I concluded is basically nothing. I remain dubious that you could have read anything else into it if you were approaching the question honestly. This is my major point of suspicion as regards you. (And again, does anyone really need to be reminded that the possibility of a Scum roleblocker is significant? What's to obscure?) Didn't mean to imply that you were.
|
|
|
Day 2
Nov 11, 2009 14:49:47 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Nov 11, 2009 14:49:47 GMT -5
I never claimed that was what prompted my initial vote (show me a link please?). I continued questioning to get clear if he was confused or not since he made statements both way. I didn't move my vote at that time because I didn't like his reaction to it. It was your second comment in response to him; I quoted it in the post where I accused you. I couldn't parse the first comment, sorry. In the second one, you questioned Idle regarding his claim of confusion, then explicitly said something like "it doesn't match". That reads to me as if you did not believe him when he said he was just confused about the rules. Later on, you refer back to your initial vote rationale as being because he was confused about the rules. (I also quoted that in the accusation post, I think.)
|
|