|
Day One
May 24, 2010 21:29:09 GMT -5
Post by Captain Pinkies on May 24, 2010 21:29:09 GMT -5
I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains.
---------
I'll bite.
|
|
|
Day One
May 24, 2010 21:50:20 GMT -5
Post by fisheroo on May 24, 2010 21:50:20 GMT -5
I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains.
I don't like dancing for your sorry ass, Ed. You sow problems with your clans, you fix them yourself.
|
|
|
Day One
May 24, 2010 23:14:05 GMT -5
Post by moodymitchy on May 24, 2010 23:14:05 GMT -5
I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains.
SPECIAL ED does this mean that your clan member can detect any lie? I'm curious as to how they are going to sort out who is telling the truth and who is lying out of the 10 or so that have made the statement so far.... does it mean that they can use this "power" whenever they choose or only so many times...
I'm not understanding the mechanics of it and am curious. This seems to me to be a kind of investigative power which in my experience can only be used only once during a cycle...
|
|
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:
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 1:13:11 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on May 25, 2010 1:13:11 GMT -5
I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 1:28:01 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on May 25, 2010 1:28:01 GMT -5
I am not the Master of teh Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains
And to answer nphases point, so what if i do attract a roleblock. The very fact that the block is being used on me is of some use, cos if im dead, it'll be used on someone else.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 1:30:49 GMT -5
Post by guiri on May 25, 2010 1:30:49 GMT -5
I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 2:09:25 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on May 25, 2010 2:09:25 GMT -5
Because I got the wording slightly different I will try this again.
I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 4:08:17 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on May 25, 2010 4:08:17 GMT -5
Well this is interesting... the last time I came across this kind of thing, the player claimed that they had a "resurrection" power. They were lying through their teeth. Considering I'm already voting for Spec. Ed, I really hope this isn't the case here. Nonetheless:
I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 6:35:12 GMT -5
Post by special on May 25, 2010 6:35:12 GMT -5
I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains. I don't like dancing for your sorry ass, Ed. You sow problems with your clans, you fix them yourself. yeah, too f'ing bad. So someone in my clan wants to take advantage of me to gain information. Either deal with it or don't. In all, it seems like a good move for anyone who isn't HoC or Master, so I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 6:35:46 GMT -5
Post by special on May 25, 2010 6:35:46 GMT -5
I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains. SPECIAL ED does this mean that your clan member can detect any lie? I'm curious as to how they are going to sort out who is telling the truth and who is lying out of the 10 or so that have made the statement so far.... does it mean that they can use this "power" whenever they choose or only so many times... I'm not understanding the mechanics of it and am curious. This seems to me to be a kind of investigative power which in my experience can only be used only once during a cycle... There is a significant limit on this power, yes
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 6:47:39 GMT -5
Post by special on May 25, 2010 6:47:39 GMT -5
Have NOT made the statement
BillMc Drain Gead Hal Briston Oredigger77 peeker Pleonast Sister Coyote storyteller timmyfellinthewell Zeriel zuma
Order in which the statement was made
Special Ed Red Skeezix DarkCookies Idle Thoughts Mahaloth sinjin nphase Captain Pinkies fisheroo moody mitchy Total Lost luvbwfc Guiri Honest Moley
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 7:18:28 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2010 7:18:28 GMT -5
Sure, why not? I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains.
Now.
My vote is for luvbwfc. This is nothing personal, luv, and frankly I'd rather keep you alive because I think your power and your gameplay would both be useful in a Clan. But right now it's down to you or Special Ed, and for a variety of reasons, I would prefer that Special Ed remain alive.
On the basis of a variety of private and semi-private discussions, I think that there are a fair number of players who should feel similarly, by the way, and openly encourage them to think carefully before they vote to eliminate Ed at this time.
-----
If I were voting earlier in the Day - and in the future, I will be, because unlike in a normal game the real action in this game is always going to be early in the Day as bandwagons form quickly and forcefully - I would be voting for Pleonast. If I thought I could swing a lynch fo Pleo in the time remaining, I would, in fact, vote for him. Here's why:
Pleo has always been a player who plays a very individual game; this is a bit unfair, as it relies on previous experience, but it can't be avoided. He likes big gambits and risks, and is utterly unpredictable. He might do literally anything, if he perceives it to have benefit for his own game. This is not a good thing in this particular game, since none of us can be sure of his alignment - ever.
Worse still, his power is not one that I particularly want to have around later in the game. The ability to cancel a vote basically grants whatever Clan he chooses as his primary an automatic victory should he survive until there are 8 or so players remaining, and while this would be a nice thing if he ends up on my side the odds are much better that he will not.
So, to sum up: Voting for luv for strategic reasons, but will switch to Pleonast enthusiastically if there is any support for that idea.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 7:19:14 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2010 7:19:14 GMT -5
Sorry, in case that post didn't qualify because I didn't use the proper construction:
unvote all vote luvbwfc
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 8:03:21 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2010 8:03:21 GMT -5
Hmmmm. New developments.
unvote luvbwfc
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 8:32:16 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on May 25, 2010 8:32:16 GMT -5
Hmmmm. New developments. unvote luvbwfcI assume these developments are clan pm based? Care to elaborate?
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 8:42:46 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2010 8:42:46 GMT -5
Hmmmm. New developments. unvote luvbwfcI assume these developments are clan pm based? Care to elaborate? Not at this time, no.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 8:49:16 GMT -5
Post by oredigger77 on May 25, 2010 8:49:16 GMT -5
I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains.
I also don't like being led around by the nose. I'm not sure I buy that Luv was just trying to sucking in the HOC but I think that there is enough suspicion out there that he will probably die toNight or be proven to be truthful by our lie detector.
On the other hand it seems that Special Ed has been making lots of deal that don't involve me. I at least want to know who he's been dealing with and I think getting the vote closer should flush out a couple of his supporters so
Unvote Luv Vote Special Ed
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 8:53:02 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2010 8:53:02 GMT -5
Frankly, I don't like what I'm hearing regarding Ed, from a variety of sources that I have stronger reason to trust than I have to trust Ed himself.
Vote Special Ed
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 9:00:55 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on May 25, 2010 9:00:55 GMT -5
I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
While story makes a legitimate case against me (my power is extremely useful in the end game), he overstates the case about the unsurety of my alignment.
As I've tried to explain earlier, the reason I am playing transparently is so that others can have some measure of trust in me. I believe I was the second person to mention the Master of the Deck of Dragons, and I think the first to quote a full win condition. And I have revealed my power as well. I have contributed to the this public thread. While no single item is proof of anything, the net effect shows that I am willing to be open.
For a stark contrast, look at how story is playing. He is not voting for Ed for a "variety of reasons" of reasons. And he has since withdrawn his vote for luv because of "new developments". He won't tell us specifics. Here is a player who does not want others to know who he is or what his motivations are.
Who would you rather trust?
On preview: story has now put a vote on Ed because of trust issues. See what happens when you base your gameplay on secrets?
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 9:03:55 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on May 25, 2010 9:03:55 GMT -5
OK, lets see if we can catch Ed in a lie. I personally have had zero pm contact from Ed, but it seems some people now have trust issues with him due to some sort of conflicts. Any of you guys care to make an Ed related information dump to see if he has flat out contradicted himself whilst network building?
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 9:04:10 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2010 9:04:10 GMT -5
I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ While story makes a legitimate case against me (my power is extremely useful in the end game), he overstates the case about the unsurety of my alignment. As I've tried to explain earlier, the reason I am playing transparently is so that others can have some measure of trust in me. I believe I was the second person to mention the Master of the Deck of Dragons, and I think the first to quote a full win condition. And I have revealed my power as well. I have contributed to the this public thread. While no single item is proof of anything, the net effect shows that I am willing to be open. For a stark contrast, look at how story is playing. He is not voting for Ed for a "variety of reasons" of reasons. And he has since withdrawn his vote for luv because of "new developments". He won't tell us specifics. Here is a player who does not want others to know who he is or what his motivations are. Who would you rather trust? On preview: story has now put a vote on Ed because of trust issues. See what happens when you base your gameplay on secrets? I don't see how perfect open-ness makes you a useful ally, frankly. Either you are unwilling to keep the secrets of those with whom you interact, in which case you are a great danger to them, or you are willing to keep their secrets, in which case your claims of open-ness and transparency are meaningless.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 9:09:43 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on May 25, 2010 9:09:43 GMT -5
yoo are so full of poo. seriously, let's play. i think my clans will take you and your supporters down in a fucking nonosecond. let's go mofo. c'mon boys and gilrz the water is warm. let's fucking play. Ummmmmm, what exactly is in my post that elicits such venom? crap, on re read i came across dickish (what's fucking new?). it was merely meant to let's engage in some hearty discourse with the gloves off and please don't take this wrong sin. there are a couple of folks that i tussle with and don't really think anything about what i say. others i try to cache things so i don't offend. and others that i just don't engage in very much at all. you fall into the first category. don't know whether that is good or bad, it just is. and it appears that we are doing the whole lie detector thing. never have seen this actually work, but what the hey. I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 9:21:10 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on May 25, 2010 9:21:10 GMT -5
I don't see how perfect open-ness makes you a useful ally, frankly. Either you are unwilling to keep the secrets of those with whom you interact, in which case you are a great danger to them, or you are willing to keep their secrets, in which case your claims of open-ness and transparency are meaningless. False dichotomy. Transparency is not a binary switch.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 9:25:40 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2010 9:25:40 GMT -5
I don't see how perfect open-ness makes you a useful ally, frankly. Either you are unwilling to keep the secrets of those with whom you interact, in which case you are a great danger to them, or you are willing to keep their secrets, in which case your claims of open-ness and transparency are meaningless. False dichotomy. Transparency is not a binary switch. So your attempt to demonstrate that you are Captain Openness and others (including me) are less so is a smokescreen. You have no particular devotion to openness; you will be exactly as transparent as you think will benefit you - as will I, and everyone else. Yes? (Note that I have no problem with this - it's the way we must all play. Perfect openness would be stupid from any player. I just want to point out that your attempts to characterize yourself as open enough to warrant trust are silly - you will be open until you won't, and only you will know or determine where that line sits. My problem with you is that I consider you to be a wild-card and, especially, that I hate the existence of your power, which will hurt me very badly if you're not in my Primary Clan and if you survive to endgame).
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 9:40:44 GMT -5
Post by The Authors on May 25, 2010 9:40:44 GMT -5
Vote Count
peeker (0): special ed 4 Oredigger (1): guiri 34 luvbwfc (7): special ed 36, Zeriel 39, Oredigger 43, Idle 45, peeker 48, skeezix 51, Cookies 261, Pinkies 262, sinjin 299, nphase 329, story 343 special ed (7): Moley 98, Moley 200, luvbwfc 230, fisheroo 268, Pleonast 274, Sister Coyote 276, Pinkies 280, Oredigger 349, story 347 Moley (1): peeker 117 Pinkies (3): moodymitchy 292, Total Lost 294, Mahaloth 295
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 9:49:04 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on May 25, 2010 9:49:04 GMT -5
So your attempt to demonstrate that you are Captain Openness and others (including me) are less so is a smokescreen. You have no particular devotion to openness; you will be exactly as transparent as you think will benefit you - as will I, and everyone else. Yes? (Note that I have no problem with this - it's the way we must all play. Perfect openness would be stupid from any player. I just want to point out that your attempts to characterize yourself as open enough to warrant trust are silly - you will be open until you won't, and only you will know or determine where that line sits. My problem with you is that I consider you to be a wild-card and, especially, that I hate the existence of your power, which will hurt me very badly if you're not in my Primary Clan and if you survive to endgame). No, a smokescreen is how you are playing. You've revealed very little about yourself this game. While I am not perfectly transparent (and never claimed to be), I am significantly more transparent than most. And my goal is not to gain perfect trust--that is impossible in this game. But I think most players will agree that playing more openly engenders more trust and that playing very closed like you discourages trust. Also note that I cannot simply switch off my openness. Everything I've said is still here for others to see. Suddenly switching off will be noticed, I think. Finally, transparency does more than benefit the open player, it benefits everyone by revealing information. Even you have benefitted, since you now know of the existence of my power and can plan accordingly. Playing closed helps only the closed player. I have given every player in this game useful information. What have you given us? (From an out-of-game perspective, I hate vote manipulation powers, but I have to play with what I was given.)
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 10:02:33 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on May 25, 2010 10:02:33 GMT -5
Ummmmmm, what exactly is in my post that elicits such venom? crap, on re read i came across dickish (what's fucking new?). it was merely meant to let's engage in some hearty discourse with the gloves off and please don't take this wrong sin. there are a couple of folks that i tussle with and don't really think anything about what i say. others i try to cache things so i don't offend. and others that i just don't engage in very much at all. you fall into the first category. don't know whether that is good or bad, it just is. and it appears that we are doing the whole lie detector thing. never have seen this actually work, but what the hey. I am neither the Master of the Deck of Dragons nor am I a member of the House of Chains. No harm no foul. Bygones.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 10:03:48 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2010 10:03:48 GMT -5
But I think most players will agree that playing more openly engenders more trust and that playing very closed like you discourages trust. I disagree. I guess that's the root of it. I don't think what you're doing encourages trust (I don't think it discourages trust, either; I think it's neutral, and I think my own behavior - which I fully acknowledge is intentionally close-mouthed, is similarly neutral). The thing is, trust is not the point. No one should "trust" me. I don't "trust" anyone. The game is not about building trust - it's about creating situations where my rational self-interest coincides with the rational self-interest of other players, such that none of us has any reason to behave in an untrustworthy manner. I can promise anyone who wishes to ally with me that I will never act against my own self-interest, so if we can find ways to keep our interests common, I can be predicted whether or not I can be "trusted." I submit that this is not true of you. You can not be expected to act in your own rational self-interest (defining self-interest for these narrow purposes as "attempting to achieve your win condition." Your behavior is not predictable, which is why you have to rely on attempts to achieve "trust" in order to make yourself a more appealing ally. True. And so does the House of Chains. And the Master of the Deck of Dragons. And anyone who just plain doesn't like me. If I can plan accordingly, so can those who mean me harm, and they might be in a better position than I am to use what you have revealed. How, then, is your openness a net benefit? (Note that most players in the game could have written this paragraph, and it would be equally true for all of them).
|
|
timmy
Mome Rath
In the frozen land of Nador they were forced to eat Robin's minstrels. And there was much rejoicing
Posts: 189
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 10:08:03 GMT -5
Post by timmy on May 25, 2010 10:08:03 GMT -5
This game is moving along much quicker than I thought. I apologize to everyone for my lack of participation. My new work schedule has limited my time online.
I'm not convinced that luvbwfc is a member of the HoC but making a slip early on is notable and usually Freudian in nature... I'll be keeping an eye on you...
Special Ed, OTOH, has not been as clear in his explanation. And if it's true a member of his clan is able to detect untruths, how can I be sure that player is NOT a member of the HoC?
Vote Special Ed
I am not the Master of the Deck nor am I a member of the House of Chains.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2010 10:13:51 GMT -5
Post by luvbwfc on May 25, 2010 10:13:51 GMT -5
One point timmy, I haven't made a slip. Rather it is more a really really unsuccessful gambit.
|
|