|
Post by storyteller0910 on Apr 23, 2010 15:55:46 GMT -5
1. If you are Town, and you are deliberately screwing your side over in order to prove a poor point (and more on that in a minute), then you should be policy lynched on Day One of every game that you play. This is supposed to be a team game, not "Pleonast teaches everyone about Mafia from On High." 2. You're wrong. The soft-claim is not the issue. You'll note that I, for instance, did not vote for you because of it. The issue is that your behavior, having been challenged on the soft-claim, is utterly inconsistent with a power role who wants Town to win and utterly consistent with Scum who wants Scum to win. Town must lynch players who take action consistent with being Scum and inconsistent with being Town. It is literally the only way to win the game. I explained back in Post 35* all the factors that went into my decision. I decided that it was better for me to not hard claim. In my place, you might make a different decision, but that simply means we put different importance on different factors. I'm not dictating how others play the game, and I am not letting others dictate to me how I think the game should be played best. *Which has had remarkably little discussion. Why is that? Be honest. It's not then anymore; it's now. Do you honestly believe that right now, refusing to hard claim is in the Town's best interest? Given that you are almost certainly going to be lynched because of it, and probably would not have been lynched if you had behaved differently?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Apr 23, 2010 16:13:31 GMT -5
You honestly don't see a reason why he hasn't been counter-claimed? Come on. If he is scum and false claiming, then no, I see no reason not to counter claim. There is a small downside, but a huge upside. how so? he's the vote leader (and now looks to be florida bush like). why would a town power role counter his "claim" and expose themself if he is toast anyways? this makes no sense. sorry NAF, not seeing what you are seeing apparantly. but then i never do, so fucking situation normal.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Apr 23, 2010 16:20:38 GMT -5
Do you honestly believe that right now, refusing to hard claim is in the Town's best interest? Lynching someone for refusing to hard claim is as anti-town as lynching someone for soft claiming. I'm not going to do something that I think is against the town's best interest simply because players are lynching me for reasons I believe to be anti-town.
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 23, 2010 16:26:56 GMT -5
Holy crosspost, Batman! At this point: 1. I'm not happy with Pleo's soft-claim still. I've noted storyteller's thoughts that it's just a dumb Town move rather than a Scum move. 2. I'm not happy with NAF's fishing for a doctor claim instead of pushing Pleo to claim. I'm also very much not happy with his vote for shaggy with the reasoning based on reactions to the vote. 3. I'm not happy with ducduc's participation 4. I'm not happy with fisheroo not participating but voting. 5. Storyteller scares me. He's made a case against NAF that is very convincing. I'm usually scared when he's convincing. At this point, I'm thinking our Scum could be NAF and fisheroo. Or storyteller and Pleonast. Or ducduc and cookies...or...or....or....honestly, just about anyone. unvote Pleonast vote NAF[/color][/quote] In the interest of shaking things up a bit here at the end of the Day. Let me move my vote to Ed Unvote: shaggy [/color] Vote: Ed [/color] I was so distracted by Ed hopping on Story's bandwagon against me that I failed to notice the actual content of this post the first time around. The content of this post says to me that Ed is having trouble finding someone to vote for and will be happy to hop from one strong bandwagon (Pleo) to another potential one (whoever story happens to be voting for, in this case me). That seems like a confluence of a couple of scum tells right there. Plus, if there are more than 2 scum in the game (and I am slowly being convinced that there may well be) then my case against shaggy is a bit weaker since he wouldn't necessarily be working in a vacuum.* I had been leaning pro town on Ed, but I may have been wrong. It's usually a mistake to ignore my gut, but on this one the scum tell jumps at me harder than my gut telling me that Ed might be townie. So for now, lets see what Ed has to say. *My case against him also works if one of the non participants or new players was scum with Shaggy, so I am not totally off that point, but my case isn't going to get anyone lynched anyway, so I might as well run with this other idea and see where it takes me.[/quote] Your conclusion is wrong. I stated the things I was finding suspicious. I admit I was swayed by storyteller's case against you. When I coupled that with fisheroo's 'me too' on your vote I saw the following scenario as likely: 1. Pleonast is Town playing in what most would think is an anti-Town fashion and in what would clearly be anti-Town if everyone did it. It's not the first time. 2. Your case against shaggy sucked, like I said in post 65. Your case came after the reaction to your vote. And it fit perfectly with what happened. It struck me as too convenient. I mean, when you get to make your argument afterward and your case is the reaction to your vote, how could it not fit? Wouldn't it have been just as easy for you to state that if shaggy reacted wildly defensively then he was obviously the last Scum panicking? 3. I could see you making the case against shaggy hoping for several things: a. We lynch Pleo and you're "I told you so" makes you look good. b. We now have increased pressure on shaggy. (because I'm sure you could tell your case wouldn't get much traction when you made it, but maybe later. And hell, maybe you set up Total Lost just planning this case against shaggy. It's plausible. So, I deny your claim that I was looking to jump from one bandwagon to another. I had strong reasons to suspect Pleonast, until NAF gave me stronger reasoning to suspect him.
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 23, 2010 16:30:54 GMT -5
Do you honestly believe that right now, refusing to hard claim is in the Town's best interest? Lynching someone for refusing to hard claim is as anti-town as lynching someone for soft claiming. I'm not going to do something that I think is against the town's best interest simply because players are lynching me for reasons I believe to be anti-town. You're obviously not a doctor or a mason, because the obvious pro-Tpwn move at this point would be to claim instead of acepting your lynch. So, you're either Scum hoping that by not taking the obvious route of claiming to draw out a counter-claim is hoping to live or you're Vanilla who played some sort of Night 0 gambit hoping to accomplish something which overlooked the fact that at some point you might have to admit to lying or cause the Town to take the right action and lynch you. Let me ask you this: If our situations were reversed, would you be voting for me at this point? What could I have said to you to make me believe you. damn. It doesn't make sense. Even a Vanilla should at this point admit it and at least give us the opportunity to see how people react to that. I'm convincing myself that you're Scum again
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Apr 23, 2010 16:31:26 GMT -5
Do you honestly believe that right now, refusing to hard claim is in the Town's best interest? Lynching someone for refusing to hard claim is as anti-town as lynching someone for soft claiming. I'm not going to do something that I think is against the town's best interest simply because players are lynching me for reasons I believe to be anti-town. cop out from hell. i like playing this game with you pleo and i'd buy you a drink or two if i met you in person but this is a whole bunch of nonsense. this game is about information, not "trust me". crap, do you ever play poker. it's not like "oh shit, phil ivey just bet that must mean he has a made hand". i mean, i am going to keep my vote where it is but sheesh if i had two you'd get the second.
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 23, 2010 16:31:34 GMT -5
Do you honestly believe that right now, refusing to hard claim is in the Town's best interest? Lynching someone for refusing to hard claim is as anti-town as lynching someone for soft claiming. I'm not going to do something that I think is against the town's best interest simply because players are lynching me for reasons I believe to be anti-town. I suppose the short response to this was: I think you're being lynched for lying that you were a power role.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Apr 23, 2010 16:38:51 GMT -5
plus pleo you do realize that whatever you are you have made yourself a total focal point of toDay.
now if you are scum, then whoopdedoo. but if you are town. bad pleo bad. and if you are really some sort of town power role then bad bad pleo bad bad. i mean like totally suck really bad.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Apr 23, 2010 16:42:45 GMT -5
Last post before I'm gone for the weekend. Let me ask you this: If our situations were reversed, would you be voting for me at this point? No. Here is what I believe the correct pro-town argument is. 1) Ed soft claims. 2) This gives the town no information. The claim cannot be confirmed, nor does it indicate scum. 3) The town ignores Ed's soft claim. 4) There's no reason to expect Ed to hard claim. this game is about information, not "trust me". I've never asked anyone to trust me or my claim. plus pleo you do realize that whatever you are you have made yourself a total focal point of toDay. As I responded to someone else: a distraction is only as distracting as you let it be. If you don't like the "distraction", then you can discuss something else.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Apr 23, 2010 16:47:41 GMT -5
and i won't quote but doesn't your "soft claim" carry a modicum of "trust me" with it?
i am something so leave me alone and go elsewhere type of attitude?
just curious as to your mind set.
the above is obviously addressed to pleo.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Apr 23, 2010 17:01:27 GMT -5
and on a Day where you inadvertanly/advertantly (not adam ant) create a whole bunch of discussion around you, you vote for a lurker. got no problem with the lurker vote but the motivation is hard to discern.
only coming up with weak cheese sauce.
like i have already said, if i didn't appreciate the participation i'd have my vote on you.
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 23, 2010 18:25:52 GMT -5
Last post before I'm gone for the weekend. Let me ask you this: If our situations were reversed, would you be voting for me at this point? No. Here is what I believe the correct pro-town argument is. 1) Ed soft claims. 2) This gives the town no information. The claim cannot be confirmed, nor does it indicate scum. 3) The town ignores Ed's soft claim. 4) There's no reason to expect Ed to hard claim. I've never asked anyone to trust me or my claim. plus pleo you do realize that whatever you are you have made yourself a total focal point of toDay. As I responded to someone else: a distraction is only as distracting as you let it be. If you don't like the "distraction", then you can discuss something else. I see so basically soft claim = doing absolutely nothing = posting Adam Ant videos in terms of playing mafia. and, if it's completely meaningless, then it's not really lying.... does that summarize your current stance?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Apr 23, 2010 18:55:19 GMT -5
Last post before I'm gone for the weekend. Let me ask you this: If our situations were reversed, would you be voting for me at this point? No. Here is what I believe the correct pro-town argument is. 1) Ed soft claims. 2) This gives the town no information. The claim cannot be confirmed, nor does it indicate scum. 3) The town ignores Ed's soft claim. 4) There's no reason to expect Ed to hard claim. ....until 5) Ed finds himself on the lynch block for whatever reason, at which point he claims, because the idea that Ed would rather be dead than claim is, let's face it, completely stupid.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Apr 23, 2010 22:41:23 GMT -5
Last post before I'm gone for the weekend. No. Here is what I believe the correct pro-town argument is. 1) Ed soft claims. 2) This gives the town no information. The claim cannot be confirmed, nor does it indicate scum. 3) The town ignores Ed's soft claim. 4) There's no reason to expect Ed to hard claim. ....until 5) Ed finds himself on the lynch block for whatever reason, at which point he claims, because the idea that Ed would rather be dead than claim is, let's face it, completely stupid. shit, fuckin' ed ain't stupid he's an idiot. lol, kind of humor thingy. ah well. i'll retire for the evening then. p.s. that really was an attempt at levity, fgs. i like ed. kind of like when i called him a doofus on the mason boards in the last pede game. i mean i caveated that with "at least he's a doofus in a good sort of way". go spurs.
|
|