|
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 28, 2009 11:10:56 GMT -5
Look, you really don't want to lynch me. Most likely. I mean, I don't know who I'm linked to, or anything.
I don't get a vote toDay, I have to wait until toNight.
Tomorrow's the deadline, and I'm going to be on a train with spotty accessibility at best, and I'm at work all day today. So, even though I hate Day One claims with a passion, and I'm probably going to get myself night Killed:
I'm the Gloom.
Please don't lynch me.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Dec 28, 2009 11:15:39 GMT -5
I think the shivers should hold off for a night unless a diviner comes up dead during the D1 lynch. Natlaw the strategy talk is interesting, and useful, but it's not getting us anywhere except closer to a no lynch. If a no lynch is desired, then we should vote no lynch. But, we seem to be running short on time. So in an effort to stir something up: Vote: Sister Coyote [/color][/quote] What the heck? You gave absolutely no reason for your vote, and you made a bandwagon in a situation where we have very little opportunity to move them! There is no way that is a townie move. No way. If I could vote for you I would.
|
|
|
Post by sundry on Dec 28, 2009 11:21:40 GMT -5
Belated Merry Christmas to you all! I'm grateful that the day was extended; didn't get a chance to even check back in here until today. Hmmm ...I suppose I agree, the arguments for the shivers to hold off on splits for now makes some sense. My first thoughts were that severing asap would be the bigger benefit. But maybe not for now, at least until we see where everything lands D2. I do want to hear the answer to texcat's question about whether or not the hunters will be notified if they are severed though. Good thinking! I am inclined to agree that the shivers should wait to split, since in addition to the possibility of hitting a scum with a townie, we would also be nerfing our shines if we let the shivers run loose. We would be nerfing the shines? Huuh whaaat?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Dec 28, 2009 12:01:30 GMT -5
I'm the Gloom. Please don't lynch me. No, you're not. I'm the Gloom. Please lynch Sister Coyote.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 28, 2009 12:12:34 GMT -5
Well, I say Lynch SisC and if she comes up Gloom, we know who to whack on Day 3.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 28, 2009 12:23:03 GMT -5
I think the shivers should hold off for a night unless a diviner comes up dead during the D1 lynch. Natlaw the strategy talk is interesting, and useful, but it's not getting us anywhere except closer to a no lynch. If a no lynch is desired, then we should vote no lynch. But, we seem to be running short on time. So in an effort to stir something up: Vote: Sister Coyote [/color][/quote] What the heck? You gave absolutely no reason for your vote, and you made a bandwagon in a situation where we have very little opportunity to move them! There is no way that is a townie move. No way. If I could vote for you I would.[/quote] As much reason for my vote as yours for MHaye. With Natlaw's counterclaim looks like my vote stays. I guess we'll see how the cards fall. There are 5 other potential lynchee's today if anyone doesn't follow this line of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 28, 2009 12:24:00 GMT -5
Nook is right, I've apparently been smoking crack and got the role names mixed up.
So lynch away. You still don't actually want to lynch me, but if I'm going to foul up that badly, I should probably be put out of everyone's misery.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 28, 2009 12:24:10 GMT -5
NETA: Goddamned apostrophes, that should read lynchees not lynchee's
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 28, 2009 12:24:22 GMT -5
See?
Crack.
Of course I meant Natlaw.
Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 28, 2009 12:59:35 GMT -5
Nook is right, I've apparently been smoking crack and got the role names mixed up. So lynch away. You still don't actually want to lynch me, but if I'm going to foul up that badly, I should probably be put out of everyone's misery. Why don't we want to lynch you again?
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 28, 2009 13:04:32 GMT -5
Because I'm the diviner on the dark side. Not the Gloom. Not that I expect anyone to believe me at this point.
If you'll pardon me, I'll be over there -> kicking myself in the ass for outing two of us.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 28, 2009 13:56:56 GMT -5
I'm actually a little inclined to believe you, since Gloom would be the worst fake claim choices, as it doesn't even make a good sacrifice play.
Unvote: Sister Coyote
|
|
|
Post by sundry on Dec 28, 2009 14:35:46 GMT -5
Nook is right, I've apparently been smoking crack and got the role names mixed up. So lynch away. You still don't actually want to lynch me, but if I'm going to foul up that badly, I should probably be put out of everyone's misery. Because I'm the diviner on the dark side. Not the Gloom. Not that I expect anyone to believe me at this point. If you'll pardon me, I'll be over there -> kicking myself in the ass for outing two of us. If you made a mistake and mixed up the roles, why didn't you specify that you were the diviner in your first post? That seems a bit odd to me. Don't know if I buy it. If I could vote, I think I would have my vote on sistercoyote and hope that we don't have any more unnecessary counterclaims.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 28, 2009 15:13:23 GMT -5
Nook is right, I've apparently been smoking crack and got the role names mixed up. So lynch away. You still don't actually want to lynch me, but if I'm going to foul up that badly, I should probably be put out of everyone's misery. Because I'm the diviner on the dark side. Not the Gloom. Not that I expect anyone to believe me at this point. If you'll pardon me, I'll be over there -> kicking myself in the ass for outing two of us. If you made a mistake and mixed up the roles, why didn't you specify that you were the diviner in your first post? Because I mixed up the roles.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Dec 28, 2009 15:29:18 GMT -5
Vote: MHayePressure vote, since he hasn't said anything yet. You want me to say something? Fine. I despise pressure votes. I will do what I will, not what you try and bully me into doing, because, in the long run, that is the only way I can play this game.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Dec 28, 2009 15:30:01 GMT -5
I don't think you're the Diviner but just trying to out the him now. If you confused it with the Shine it would be an obvious mistake, but the Gloom? I don't believe it.
I don't think the Dark Diviner should counter claim, although I guess I could WIFOM the hunters which of us would be protected.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Dec 28, 2009 15:35:45 GMT -5
New worst case scenario (assuming SC is lynched Today and Dark Hunter): D1: 8c/2u/2h, lynch Dark Hunter + town. N1: 7c/2u/2h, kill two connected, Light hunter severed D2: 4c/3u/1h, lynch two connected N3: 2c/3u/1h, kill two connected D3: 3u/1h, no lynch N4: 3u/1h, kill unconnected D4: 2u/1h, lynch or lose
We get a Day of extra talk but that's it.
Also note that since the Dark Hunter is lynched (and if not linked to the Light Diviner) we could investigate two Light persons a Night. Perhaps the Dark Shiver should claim so he isn't investigated (downside: better chance for the Hunters to kill connected town instead of a Shiver).
If Tomorrow we start with two Victims either dead or investigated, Light Side can mass claim and the Light Hunter is must make a claim that can be countered.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 28, 2009 16:52:50 GMT -5
I'm probably going to be lynched today, and I'm going to flip Dark Diviner. Believe as you will. I had "Gloom" in my head for some reason, so "Gloom" came out of my fingers.
Really, at this point, the question isn't who I am or how I'm going to flip, but who's linked to me and how they're going to flip.
If I were going to try to out someone, I'd be a hell of a lot more subtle than that.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 28, 2009 18:01:24 GMT -5
Well as it stands right now, it's a no lynch. I'd kind of like to hear the rest of the Day squad's opinions on SisC claim or anything really.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Dec 28, 2009 22:54:15 GMT -5
Vote: Sister Coyote
One claim and then another claim is enough for my day 1 vote.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 28, 2009 23:05:52 GMT -5
I just don't get a scum vibe from SisC, though. Her postings aren't making me think scum. Right now, the scummiest person I see is Redskeezix.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 28, 2009 23:51:57 GMT -5
I just don't get a scum vibe from SisC, though. Her postings aren't making me think scum. Right now, the scummiest person I see is Redskeezix. Care to elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 29, 2009 0:23:38 GMT -5
Well, if SisC is the Dark Hunter, you're forgiven. But if SisC is really the diviner, your vote prompted a fumbled misclaim that outed two town power roles and possibly fuxxored our side. Pedescribe's post is spot on and you can expect a vote from me on Day 2 if she's town.
(It's very frustrating not having a vote.)
(Also, I wish people would stop pressure-voting Mhaye. It just appears to irritate him and not up his participation any. However, I do wish that the low posters would get their butts in here more often. And not just to say they need to reread.)
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 29, 2009 0:50:43 GMT -5
Right, so the consequences of my actions make me scummy. Especially the fumbled misclaim, how could I possibly predict that she would misclaim?
To be honest, MHaye's solo participation is more irritating than anything that is irritating him. Since he can't vote right now, he's refusing to participate. What is that? I feel like this game is going to be played with the voting side making accusations and the non-voting side playing defense. I'd like to vote him but I don't want to cause a tie.
There is no information that I can glean from this thread that points to anyone being scum.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 29, 2009 1:03:34 GMT -5
Well, if the urge is strong enough, vote him because you feel his lack of responsiveness is inhibiting play. But he's made it clear that when people vote him to make him talk, he clams up instead.
You couldn't predict the misclaim but you didn't give any reasons for your initial vote and it was because of that that we're in this situation now. Explain to me, please, how voting for SisC was stirring things up and what sort of result did you want or expect to see? Because it really looks like you threw a stinkbomb in just for kicks.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 29, 2009 1:19:52 GMT -5
Well, if the urge is strong enough, vote him because you feel his lack of responsiveness is inhibiting play. But he's made it clear that when people vote him to make him talk, he clams up instead. You couldn't predict the misclaim but you didn't give any reasons for your initial vote and it was because of that that we're in this situation now. Explain to me, please, how voting for SisC was stirring things up and what sort of result did you want or expect to see? Because it really looks like you threw a stinkbomb in just for kicks. I didn't expect sisc to claim with only two votes, I had no idea that she'd be absent after today. I was hoping that making a risky/dumb play would encourage other light side voters to play less conservatively or at least get the non-joke non-lurk votes rolling. Or at least some kind of made up suspicion, really I thought anything would be more useful to the commentary on natlaw's pronouncements, like I said strategy discussion can be productive, but we're kind of under the gun. I picked sisterc because putting a vote on someone else would have put us in 3 way tie country with votes spread across half the players, which IMO would have produced no results at all which would have been the same as doing nothing at all.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Dec 29, 2009 1:29:17 GMT -5
I am inclined to agree that the shivers should wait to split, since in addition to the possibility of hitting a scum with a townie, we would also be nerfing our shines if we let the shivers run loose. We would be nerfing the shines? Huuh whaaat? I meant diviners. Vote: MHayePressure vote, since he hasn't said anything yet. You want me to say something? Fine. I despise pressure votes. I will do what I will, not what you try and bully me into doing, because, in the long run, that is the only way I can play this game. Dude, this is a team game. You have to work with the team in order to get anywhere. Going off and doing your own thing isn't helping anyone, at this point. Right, so the consequences of my actions make me scummy.. It has nothing to do with the consequences of your actions, but the motivations for your actions. Namely, the fact that you gave none. Zip. Zero. You effectively constructed a bandwagon out of joke votes, which is not going to get us anywhere good. OOG: Hey Blockey, here's a problem with this set-up: each player can't vote for half - 1 of the players, even if he/she thinks they're scummy.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 29, 2009 1:47:27 GMT -5
Right, so the consequences of my actions make me scummy.. It has nothing to do with the consequences of your actions, but the motivations for your actions. Namely, the fact that you gave none. Zip. Zero. You effectively constructed a bandwagon out of joke votes, which is not going to get us anywhere good. (snipped) I gave the motivation for my action, to stir things up. Nothing was happening. It's an admittedly weak motivation, but it's certainly no weaker than placing a pressure vote which exerts no pressure by creating a 1-1 tie.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 29, 2009 6:32:34 GMT -5
Sorry for not being around before - Christmas took a lot of my time (and allow me to add: Happy Hollidays to you all). I think we should consider making a "If I could I'd vote"-system for ourselves. That way players not able to vote D1 would still make a "fake" vote. This would give us more data in Days to come and if would help us getting a better feeling of what's going on in the minds of those not able to vote. As for SisC - I don't think making a mistake is scummy. But it does seem kind of weird to forget your own role*** *** Disclaimer: I did the same in a game one (where I was Town). Often Scum is more careful and doublecheck things - but now it all WIFOM because you can't really say what scum would do that town never does
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 29, 2009 9:59:49 GMT -5
Just a quick overall look over Day 1 so far: Light side (able to vote) 1)Meeko 2)Texcat 3)Pedescribe 5)TotalLost 6)Parzival 10)redskeezix Dark side (can be voted) 4)BillMC 7)Natlaw 8)MHaye 9)Inner Stickler 11)Sister Coyote 12)Sundry Day 1 starts with Mister Blockey #25 Then a bit of game-strategy-talk. In #33 Meeko votes SisC (no reasons given) InnerS askes for a reason and SisC comments in #36 that I think he's just being Meeko. Oddly, I am unthreatened by this. And Meeko later replies: Immediately, it was a "joke vote" yes. But goes on to point out, that he felt unsure how to understands the "point and laugh"-comment from SisC. SisC replies that it was her "teasing" and they agree (despite the vote on Sisc) that they are ok with each other. More game-talks follows and the extension is brought up by Mister Blockey in #47 In #57 Pedescribe puts down a "pressure vote" for MHaye And in # redskeezix joins in with: I think the shivers should hold off for a night unless a diviner comes up dead during the D1 lynch. Natlaw the strategy talk is interesting, and useful, but it's not getting us anywhere except closer to a no lynch. If a no lynch is desired, then we should vote no lynch. But, we seem to be running short on time. So in an effort to stir something up: Vote: Sister Coyote [/color][/quote] Then SisC claims Gloom in #60 Pedescribe steps in with a accusation against redskeezix for starting a bandwagon without any reason for the vote Sundry replies - but have no comments on the bandwagon, claim or the votes Followed by Natlaws counter-claim in #63 InnerS recoments a lynch of SisC to prove the claim/false-claim # 66 by SisC is kind of hard to paraphrase (*lol*): Nook is right, I've apparently been smoking crack and got the role names mixed up. So lynch away. You still don't actually want to lynch me, but if I'm going to foul up that badly, I should probably be put out of everyone's misery. As we all know - Nook isn't in the game...but I'm sure, he's pleased to be right redskeezix askes SisC why we shouldn't lynch her (#69) and after SisC reply in #70 redskeezix unvotes SisC. Sundry askes SISC to explain what happened a bit more and SisC does. In #79 texcat votes SisC based on the claim(s) InnerS calls redskeezix most scummy and is asked to elaborate I'll comment in the post to follow...
|
|