|
Day 4
Nov 24, 2009 23:43:17 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 24, 2009 23:43:17 GMT -5
Vote: shaggy Come clean with your role and win condition or die. Peeks has basically claimed infiltrator with his last post. I don't think we are at lynch or lose with the infiltrators toDay.
|
|
|
Day 4
Nov 25, 2009 8:02:04 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 25, 2009 8:02:04 GMT -5
Look, sach, I get it, you think I'm Scum. I've played with you enough to know that once you've got that particular bit in your teeth, you're not going to let go and not going to be convinced otherwise barring extraordinary developments. Sometimes, when you get to this place, you're right; this time, you're wrong. Eventually you will learn that; until then, answering you point by point is sort of pointless (heh). I'm going to do it anyway, because it's the Wednesday before Thanksgiving and I think I'm the only person in my office today. I find this statement odd. Why would you post such a thing? Why such a high level of certainty? If you are Town you could not possibly have this level of certainty. Its not something I think a Townie would do. It does strike me as something scum would do. That's because you already think I'm Scum. You will continue to look at everything I say as confirmatory of that. I said it because - hey, it's game. I'm having some fun. I'm obviously not completely certain but I'm very confident and I'm goofing around a bit. Same as the year the Giants played the Patriots in the Super Bowl and I told my Patriots fan friend I'd wear a Pats jersey to dinner the following night if the Giants lost. Again, you will see this as evidence of some Scum ploy because you have made up your mind about me already, but if you step back - it's just a silly comment. Except Pleonast himself is arguing that his own power is useful because he can use it to "confirm vanillas." He said that, not I. I replied in the way I did to point out the absurdity of this comment. You're paying attention to the first half of my comment but ignoring the second half - that if he's unwilling to clear me on the basis of a clean observation (which he won't be, and no one will be, per above) he will have to admit that what he's saying about his own role is crap. The theory is that the Scum deliberately self-bussed one of their own for absolutely no reason other than to get one of their own lynched instead of the Alien, which at the time was unrevealed and not in danger of being lynched. That is the theory. That theory is sound? When did I say I was certain, or even confident, that peeker would come up Town. I am trying to cover as many bases as possible. If peeker is Scum, hey great, and we've discussed some of the possible permutations of outcome if he is. I think he's very likely to be, and voted accordingly. I'm also trying to be prepared in case I'm wrong. And see, this is what I mean. Since you've decided that I'm Scum, you will read everything as evidence of scumminess, even things that are mutually contradictory. You bust me for behaving with confidence wrt Pleonast, then bust me for wanting to consider all possibilities wrt peeker.
|
|
|
Day 4
Nov 25, 2009 8:04:42 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 25, 2009 8:04:42 GMT -5
So in the absolute worst case scenario, if there are three more deaths toNight and none of them are shaggy and none of them are any of his tagged targets AND none of his tagged targets have died to date... well, in that case he could win toMorrow. This seems remarkably unlikely, though. Um I said I tried to tag kat but since she is dead...well I can not tag a dead person...Not sure why you think all my tags are alive. Sorry if it was hard to read. Not hard to read at all. No offense, shaggy, but you are an admitted third-party. We can't take what you say at face value. You could be (and probably are) lying in a nearly infinite variety of ways.
|
|
|
Day 4
Nov 25, 2009 10:03:53 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Nov 25, 2009 10:03:53 GMT -5
Someone needs to calm down. If anything, you're reading my analysis as some sort of vendetta against you, which is totally unfair. I've been poking Pleonast just as much as I've been poking storyteller. Furthermore, some of the comments you take issue with, I'm actually AGREEING with you. Yet you take everything I say as being against you. To some degree it is my own fault for not being clear, but as biased as you may think I am, I think you need to be a bit more open-minded. When did I say I was certain, or even confident, that peeker would come up Town. My only remaining concern is that shaggy is actually Scum, and that the real Alien is (wisely) staying silent. This is a possibility we must consider, and something with which we are going to have to contend toMorrow if and when peeker comes up Town and depending on what the reveal of the dead indicates. No one else finds this phrasing odd? Why "if and when" rather than simply "if"? Stating 'when' when 'if' is sufficient implies a certainty in peeker's alignment. I found it odd, and I think pointing it out is reasonable. However, I also need to reconcile this tidbit with the new information (peekercpa's outright confession) which indicates his scum alignment. Don't get into a huff since I can't read your mind and magically know that you misspoke. Look, sach, I get it, you think I'm Scum. I've played with you enough to know that once you've got that particular bit in your teeth, you're not going to let go and not going to be convinced otherwise barring extraordinary developments. You don't know me as well as you think you do. Absolutely not. You only think this is the case. I'm looking for reasons to think you are Town as well as reasons to think you are Scum. You know damn well that many before you have been lynched for a 'silly comment.' If we allow silly comments to run amok then how are we to distinguish scum from 'silly comments'? Do you really want to open the door for "Hey, it's only a game, lighten up." as an acceptable defense? Furthermore, your analogy fails to capture the situation because your football allegiance is (presumably) publicly known. My whole point is your comment has an entirely different meaning if you are scum; so much so that I find it weird that you even posted it at all. Hell, you had much better reason to believe Chucara was Town, yet you did not feel strongly enough to prevent his lynch, but such certainty regarding Pleonast? Really? Pleonast is wrong: the order of events does not support parts of his theory. Pleonast is right: currently an SK helps scum more than it helps Town. We have to live on the hope that the SK realizes that he needs to kill scum to keep the game going long enough for the SK to win, but we don't actually know the SK's win condition. We have to live on the hope that scum realize that a Mad Bomber is a threat to scum and kill the Mad Bomber to protect their own situation, but we don't know the state of the scum (they do). There are two theories being bandied about, neither of which addresses all the evidence we have so far. On one side we have Alien Mad Bomber, which fails to explain the inordinate number of kills during Night 3. On the other we have Alien SK, which fails to explain Sister Coyote's claimed powers. Both side poke holes at each other, but the fact remains, BOTH theories are flawed.
|
|
|
Day 4
Nov 25, 2009 10:26:16 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 25, 2009 10:26:16 GMT -5
Someone needs to calm down. If anything, you're reading my analysis as some sort of vendetta against you, which is totally unfair. I'm calm. But I have to respond, don't I? If I don't respond, I'll get dinged for it. And I don't think you have a vendetta against me - I just think that you have a gut feeling (in this case, an incorrect one) about me, and confirmation bias is leading you to misread some of what I'm saying as further evidence of what you already believe to be a true. I don't want to be lynched, because it will be a mislynch and I want to win this game. Convincing you, or at least convincing observers, that I am not Scum is going to matter, in this case. No one else finds this phrasing odd? Why "if and when" rather than simply "if"? Stating 'when' when 'if' is sufficient implies a certainty in peeker's alignment. I found it odd, and I think pointing it out is reasonable. However, I also need to reconcile this tidbit with the new information (peekercpa's outright confession) which indicates his scum alignment. Don't get into a huff since I can't read your mind and magically know that you misspoke. Fair enough. And there's no huff! I am not huffing! I'm arguing, disagreeing, and attempting to counter. OK. And I know - and you know - damn well that it's almost always a bad reason to lynch someone. Well... yeah. Yeah. Why should I apologize for it? Obviously I'm not 100% certain, but you know what? I am much more confident that Pleo is Scum (or non-Town, anyway) right now than I was that Chucara was Town at the end of Day One. I could still be wrong... but I don't think so. I think his role claim stinks, doesn't make sense within the framework of what we've already seen and learned, and would be much more useful in the hands of Scum. I think his attempt to throw suspicion on the vanillas was overstated. Above all, I think his arguments and theories have a flailing quality, like he's seeing a win he thought was certain slip away and needs to right the Scum ship before it sinks. This last is subjective, and that's fine: I don't apologize for making a subjective call based on analysis of language and tone. That's not the question, though, is it? The question is - does an SK help Scum more than one additional Scum helps Scum? Pleonast is saying that it does; I think it absolutely does not, not this close to endgame, when the SK could steal the win right out from under them. Town lynching an SK would be a huge benefit for Scum, because it takes away the risk of losing to the SK while costing the Town a mislynch. Essentially, if Town lynches an SK, it eliminates one way for the Scum to lose and brings them one step further away from the other way they can lose. I still don't get what's so flawed about: someone is a Mad Bomber (maybe shaggy, maybe not); someone else (pick one: Pleo, storyteller, redskeezix, sinjin, mhaye, nphase, or even shaggy) is a Serial Killer. That allows for three third-party players at the outset, and I know you think that's unlikely, but it would hardly be unprecedented. Arkham had only four more players to start, and there were five third-party players. Blade Runner had 22 players to start and three third-party players. It's possible. I think it's even probable.
|
|
|
Day 4
Nov 25, 2009 10:47:03 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Nov 25, 2009 10:47:03 GMT -5
After re-reading this post by Dirx, note the last line, maybe scum are paranoid enough to take out Shaggy for us:
Hey where did the vote icons go???
Vote: peekercpa
|
|
|
Day 4
Nov 25, 2009 12:13:28 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Nov 25, 2009 12:13:28 GMT -5
That's not the question, though, is it? The question is - does an SK help Scum more than one additional Scum helps Scum? Pleonast is saying that it does; I think it absolutely does not, not this close to endgame, when the SK could steal the win right out from under them. No. Saying the choice is between scum or SK is incorrect and short-sighted. The situation is not 'lynch the SK and let the scum live on forever.' The choice is 'kill SK first or kill scum first.' The scum is going to die, the difference is in the order. The valid Pleonast point is that scum benefit more from a kill scum then kill SK situation rather than kill SK first, then kill scum. In other words, scum want the SK to off someone during the Night. Where Pleonast goes wrong is the timeline demonstrating an effort to make this happen. I agree that scum could be in a position where lynching scum today (instead of tomorrow) is better for them. I disagree with Pleonast that the order of events points to this happening. I know that this point of view is counter-intuitive, but I understand the reasoning.
|
|
|
Day 4
Nov 25, 2009 12:27:47 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 25, 2009 12:27:47 GMT -5
No. Saying the choice is between scum or SK is incorrect and short-sighted. The situation is not 'lynch the SK and let the scum live on forever.' The choice is 'kill SK first or kill scum first.' The scum is going to die, the difference is in the order. The valid Pleonast point is that scum benefit more from a kill scum then kill SK situation rather than kill SK first, then kill scum. In other words, scum want the SK to off someone during the Night. OK, we're definitely getting somewhere, here. But hear me out: Assuming that it was going to be either Scum then SK or SK then Scum makes sense if you view it from the perspective of how things played out (and if you assume, which I think we now must, that peeker is Scum). But as the Day began, there was no suspicion on peeker or shaggy. We only started moving toward peeker as a lynch target after his role claim. Peeker was only in danger AT ALL because of that claim. Pleo's contention is that peeker deliberately made a bad claim in order to get lynched so that the Alien wouldn't. But - even leaving aside the fact that the Alien was not in danger - neither was peeker. This wasn't Scum that was already caught throwing himself on the sword to make sure we didn't kill the SK - this was unsuspected Scum basically self-immolating. The question wasn't: "Scum then SK or SK then Scum." Prior to peeker's claim, the Scum still had every chance to force a conventional mislynch either toDay or toMorrow and get the SK lynched on the other Day. Well, sure! But what I'm saying is that this dichotomy only existed because of peeker's claim. Otherwise the really optimal Scum play is -TOWNIE- today, SK toMorrow (or SK toDay, Townie toMorrow). I cannot seem to verbalize the connection here, and it's killing me, because it seems to me to be so damning for Pleonast. But I can't find the words.
|
|
|
Day 4
Nov 25, 2009 12:51:15 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Nov 25, 2009 12:51:15 GMT -5
Pleo's contention is that peeker deliberately made a bad claim in order to get lynched so that the Alien wouldn't. But - even leaving aside the fact that the Alien was not in danger - neither was peeker. This wasn't Scum that was already caught throwing himself on the sword to make sure we didn't kill the SK - this was unsuspected Scum basically self-immolating. I agree with you. And I have stated as such. I disagree with Pleonast that the events point to an orchestrated attempt at getting scum killed over the SK. BUT I agree with the theory that scum would want the SK to live over a caught scum. I'm pretty sure I have said this. Well, it would be nice if you found them, because all I see is Pleonast voting for shaggy because catching the SK seems more important to him than killing a scum. Something that I don't disagree with. Furthermore, you yourself have stated that shaggy could be the SK. It would also be nice if Pleonast were here to yap along with us. But Holidays take precedence. Vote: shaggy
|
|
|
Day 4
Nov 25, 2009 13:29:44 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Nov 25, 2009 13:29:44 GMT -5
With the day winding down I feel compelled to share my notes and make a few points very very clear.
I am uncertain about storyteller's alignment. My comment regarding the appealing nature of his death was, as we say, 'for effect.'
I've come to view masonhood as simultaneously freeing and limiting. Under no circumstances should you lynch storyteller 'because a mason said so.' I really dislike that. That Nanook chimed in with additional feelings towards the happiness that comes with a dead storyteller is unfortunate. I leave it to him to articulate his thoughts on the matter.
Is storyteller scum? I'm not sure. I certainly see it as a possibility, but not in anyway that is significantly stronger than any other unknowns. Prior to this Day, I was suspicious of storyteller (mainly from the events of Day One). I didn't like the Chucara situation. Someone more invested in the game might endeavor to look at storyteller's behavior towards Chucara and the subsequent lynch.
Our discussion Today will hopefully provide data for his motivations and 'behavior' facing a mason 'pushing' for his death. This along with more information about the dead should create a good basis for evaluating the likelihood of storyteller's alignment. I'll also note that I observed that peekercpa attacked storyteller previously. Some of the reasons I agreed with (I think it was the chucara stuff, but I don't remember) One of which I very much opposed: that storyteller continued to live. I found this reasoning bad, and a bad move by peekercpa at the time. If storyteller turned up town, I reasoned that peekercpa would be next on the block, this is not a good move for peekercpa regardless of his alignment. I reasoned, at the time, that if storyteller was Town, that I believed peekercpa would also be Town since I didn't think scum would be so silly as to (1) choose not to kill storyteller then (2) point out that scum didn't kill storyteller in an attempt to lynch storyteller. The scum play there would be to hope for a Townie to push for storyteller's lynch.
What does this all mean if peeker turns up scum? I don't know. Scum peeker jumping on Town storyteller? not loving the plausibility of that. Scum peeker feigning a fight with Scum storyteller? not enamored with that either, though it does have its appeal. I haven't thought it completely through yet, but I'm putting my notes down for Tomorrow. I probably should re-read the exchange, but I don't think I will. Maybe someone else will.
Regarding Pleonast: I guess I'm in the minority in that I understand Pleonast a bit better than average. On Day One he got a bunch of flak for voting himself. I saw the reasoning right away. It's the lack of UNVOTE that he was latching onto. I tend to think of these weird details as well, so I guess that's why I get along with Pleonast.
Understanding Pleonast is NOT an indication of his ALIGNMENT.
In fact, I'm drawn to the contrast between storyteller's and Pleonast's behavior the past day. <-little d day
Unfortunately, the holiday is probably mucking up the signal, but storyteller has been more aggressive towards me regarding my suspicions. While I hadn't poked Pleonast as much, I did try and point out statements of his that made me suspicious. Pleonast's reaction has been much more sedate. So the question before us is what are the reasons for these differences? Is it because they are different people? Or because they have different alignments?
The main point that makes me suspicious of Pleonast is his statement with certainty that peekercpa is scum (prior to confession). If I recall correctly, Pleonast dodged this without really addressing it. I should stop being distracted by storyteller and look that up again. But I probably won't. Maybe someone else will.
Anyway, I hope I did an okay job filling in for Squid. Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
|
|