|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:05:27 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 26, 2010 14:05:27 GMT -5
Nevermind.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:06:36 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 26, 2010 14:06:36 GMT -5
From the Rules thread:
Ctrl + F (recruit)
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:09:58 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 26, 2010 14:09:58 GMT -5
It clearly bears repeating.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:10:33 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jul 26, 2010 14:10:33 GMT -5
Reminder:
The Day ends in about 24 hours. If you have a Day power you'd like to use, you must PM me your orders before Tuesday 12 noon PT (3pm ET).
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:14:32 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 26, 2010 14:14:32 GMT -5
Missed this from bufftabby:
Seriously? It's your general practice to just ignore votes that don't make sense to you?
|
|
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 One
Jul 26, 2010 14:18:14 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jul 26, 2010 14:18:14 GMT -5
Peaches Christ! What's with the UK folks this game? I decline to speak with the others. My track record of "snap" accusations being well founded is ... particularly poor. Just ask Zeriel. He placed a very poor vote with about ½-an-hour to go on Day 4 of Skrull Planet, and went from zero votes to lynched in about 30 minutes flat. I was one of the voters. He was a Town power role of some kind. Ooops. This is why I prefer to take my time, and also one reason why my votes are usually placed late; my snap judgements are usually bad ones.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:18:23 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 26, 2010 14:18:23 GMT -5
Yes, it is. I suggest you read the rules again. Retracted, I found it. unvote: sachertorte[/color] "There may be limited forms of recruitment in this game; however, players will always have the option of choosing an alternative penalty (such as death) instead of recruitment."[/quote] vote nphase The hasty vote on sachertorte smacks of voting out of convenience/opportunistically, rather than actual suspicion.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:20:52 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 26, 2010 14:20:52 GMT -5
So do I invoke "PIS sensitivity" as a scum tell or not? Hmmm.
Oh why not, at the very least I can see if I can get storyteller's POV on this now that the ugliness of Cecil Pond is behind us. Vote: nphase
I suppose I should be more explicit on what I mean. In Cecil Pond, Drain Bead (who I don't believe is in this game, but is very very good at finding scum on Day One), focused on Rysto (I think) for his latching onto an instance of apparent PIS. I called bullshit. Drain Bead explained her reasoning, that in her experience scum are more likely to latch onto apparent PIS. I looked up a case I remembered where I (Town) was getting beat up over an apparent PIS slip and realized that every player that was jumping on it was scum. Town players were rather cool to the offense. Also, in Cecil Pond, Drain Bead was correct, Rysto was scum.
Seriously, next game I'm with Drain Bead, she can totally tell me who to lynch on Day One. Better yet, I want a "phone a friend" power in game where I can call Drain Bead and ask her who we should lynch. That would be awesome.
*PIS: Perfect Information Syndrome
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:29:45 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jul 26, 2010 14:29:45 GMT -5
[I'm fine with forgetting stuff (like multi-vote and the vote threshold... gee who would have done that? ;D) But if you're gonna smear someone or vote for someone, you might look it up for yourself. Multi-vote? There's no multi-vote in this game! You should really read the rules. lol--FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:32:17 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jul 26, 2010 14:32:17 GMT -5
That last post was a joke, by the way, before you people start jumping down my throat.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:33:52 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 26, 2010 14:33:52 GMT -5
Missed this from bufftabby: Seriously? It's your general practice to just ignore votes that don't make sense to you? No it's not. But that's very clearly not what I said.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:36:46 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 26, 2010 14:36:46 GMT -5
vote: septimus[/color] vote: special ed[/color] Septimus first. This bit is what puts it over the top for me. I'm a rank newbie, and will doubtless say many stupid things. ( This may help my personal survival, as I'll be viewed as a liability rather than asset to my faction.) Also, I don't know how to lie, so am happy I didn't get a scum role. Especially the part I underlined, but really all of it. It's just too ... apologetic, for lack of a better word; it pre-empts three different possible attacks. 1. If I say something stupid, it's just because I'm a newbie. 2. If I'm still around a few days from now, it's because the scum don't want to kill me, not because I'm one of them. 3. I wouldn't have wanted a scum role anyway. Such a conglomeration of defensiveness in the space of three sentences defies explanation as mere newbieness. This is someone who's actually feeling much more on edge than he is letting on. Now for Ed. This vote is mostly a "me too" to stanislaus' vote from the last page, because I think he's on to something with that long post full of zero conclusions and zero votes. But since I'm looking at it anyway, here was Ed's response to septimus (the non-sarcastic part -- the sarcastic bit was spot on IMO). You cannot expect us to believe you just because you tell us you are not Cabal and you are Town. I'm not certain why you included extra "proof" in the fact that you are incapable of lying. The whole concept makes me uneasy. It reeks of a newbie trying to "prove" Towniness. A truly Town player might not be as worried about that as a non-Town player. Like the other post, it's unexpectedly noncommittal for Special Ed. "Cannot expect us to believe"/"not certain"/"uneasy"/"might not be". He has some truly scummy behavior spotted here, but he doesn't attach a vote to it, here or in the longer post. (He doesn't have any vote down yet at all.) I can't remember Ed ever acting like this before, but regardless, of the more typically talkative players around here, this is the one that feels most like he's having trouble committing to a vote. Typically that means scum.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:49:11 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 26, 2010 14:49:11 GMT -5
So do I invoke "PIS sensitivity" as a scum tell or not? Hmmm. Oh why not, at the very least I can see if I can get storyteller's POV on this now that the ugliness of Cecil Pond is behind us. Vote: nphase [/color] I suppose I should be more explicit on what I mean. In Cecil Pond, Drain Bead (who I don't believe is in this game, but is very very good at finding scum on Day One), focused on Rysto (I think) for his latching onto an instance of apparent PIS. I called bullshit. Drain Bead explained her reasoning, that in her experience scum are more likely to latch onto apparent PIS. I looked up a case I remembered where I (Town) was getting beat up over an apparent PIS slip and realized that every player that was jumping on it was scum. Town players were rather cool to the offense. Also, in Cecil Pond, Drain Bead was correct, Rysto was scum. Seriously, next game I'm with Drain Bead, she can totally tell me who to lynch on Day One. Better yet, I want a "phone a friend" power in game where I can call Drain Bead and ask her who we should lynch. That would be awesome. *PIS: Perfect Information Syndrome[/quote] Saw that one coming a mile away. I've been part of those conversations, too, sach, as you well know. I would not have brought it up if I didn't think I had found something worth the hassle of "PIS accusations are usually scum" votes following me around from a couple of people.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:50:32 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 26, 2010 14:50:32 GMT -5
I've lost track. In what capacity were you involved with the PIS accusation is a scum tell?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:57:58 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 26, 2010 14:57:58 GMT -5
Missed this from bufftabby: Seriously? It's your general practice to just ignore votes that don't make sense to you? No it's not. But that's very clearly not what I said. No, you just said you ignored me because the vote didn't make any sense. (And because you clarified to Moley that he'd answered your question, but what does that have to do with anything? You still ignored a vote. And then you turned around and followed up your question to oddball Moley with a vote on oddball Idle Thoughts, which hardly makes me less suspicious of you. And on preview you're voting me, too. OK.) @ sachertorte: One or more forbidden threads. I really can't talk about it any more than that.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 14:58:07 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 26, 2010 14:58:07 GMT -5
I'm also perplexed by your seeing it coming a mile away. If this is the case, why didn't you address it in your vote for me? Acknowledging the tell would have gone a long way towards your credibility on this point. But now that others are already pointing at you, it is a weaker defense.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 15:20:02 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 26, 2010 15:20:02 GMT -5
No it's not. But that's very clearly not what I said. No, you just said you ignored me because the vote didn't make any sense. (And because you clarified to Moley that he'd answered your question, but what does that have to do with anything? You still ignored a vote. And then you turned around and followed up your question to oddball Moley with a vote on oddball Idle Thoughts, which hardly makes me less suspicious of you. And on preview you're voting me, too. OK.) I didn't specifically respond to you, but if my response to moley encapsulated your concerns, then why should I? The information was right there for you to read, and you clearly read it and applied it to your question. Why is it a problem that I assumed you would have the capability to do so? What possible additional response could I have given you besides, "nuh-uh, I'm not scum"?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 15:24:55 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 26, 2010 15:24:55 GMT -5
I'm also perplexed by your seeing it coming a mile away. If this is the case, why didn't you address it in your vote for me? Acknowledging the tell would have gone a long way towards your credibility on this point. But now that others are already pointing at you, it is a weaker defense. Then let it be a weaker defense. I will never lamp-shade a possible mafia motive for my own actions when I am not mafia. It helps no one but the scum.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 15:39:05 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 26, 2010 15:39:05 GMT -5
so perhaps a lower number of Cabal to start with (2 or 3 maybe) with limited recruitment as a possibility via a special power. And recruitment might be able to fail (maybe on a Vampire or Wolf or Witch or something?). Add in a Cabal investigative power and it seems quite plausible.
Votes coming up shortly. I generally try to vote earlier, but this weekend has been quite hectic. [oog] A friend and co-worker has been quite upset. 2 of her cousins (brothers) co-own a couple of small town local grocery stores. One of them shot and killed the other outside in the parking lot after an argument. Needless to say, she's quite shaken up and my friends and I have been pre-occuppied with making sure the family is doing OK.[/oog]
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 15:40:34 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 15:40:34 GMT -5
Kat! seems to be rushing to defend Idle here. Or maybe she sees that she's on my list and that causes her to put more faith in my telling the truth. Are YOU on my list? If so (and I know you are), no idea why you don't give me the benefit of the doubt for that, at least. Mod edited for clean quote.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 15:42:21 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 26, 2010 15:42:21 GMT -5
No, you just said you ignored me because the vote didn't make any sense. (And because you clarified to Moley that he'd answered your question, but what does that have to do with anything? You still ignored a vote. And then you turned around and followed up your question to oddball Moley with a vote on oddball Idle Thoughts, which hardly makes me less suspicious of you. And on preview you're voting me, too. OK.) I didn't specifically respond to you, but if my response to moley encapsulated your concerns, then why should I? The information was right there for you to read, and you clearly read it and applied it to your question. Why is it a problem that I assumed you would have the capability to do so? What possible additional response could I have given you besides, "nuh-uh, I'm not scum"? Because the more a scum player is forced to engage with their accusers, the greater the attention they draw to themselves and the greater the chance they wind up in trouble at the end of the Day. Isnt' that why we all put vote pressure on the people we find scummy in the first place, to get them to talk? You avoid engaging directly with the person who accuses you, you reduce the chance it will ever amount with anything. (Especially, admittedly, with an unorthodox accusation like mine. Doubly so if someone's already been along to question the accusation itself, as was the case twice over this time.) Maybe she'll just go away. I don't know what you could have said that would satisfy me for the purposes of a day one vote. A simple direct answer that didn't avoid me would have been a start, though. As it is, here's roughly what your actions have been today: -- What reads to me as a leading question directed at an oddball comment by a player who's just been challenged by someone else. -- Response to that player, no response to the accuser. -- Some comments about the day's biggest oddball, Idle Thoughts, ultimately winding up in an accusation against him. -- A vote against your original accuser once said accuser finally does something credibly suspicious that's not related to you. And that's it. Very little engagement with anything in the game except the day's oddballs and the person who accused you. (Maybe I'm also an oddball at this point.) It's all so scummy to me I don't know how everyone isn't seeing it.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 15:44:09 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 15:44:09 GMT -5
Anyway Vote Bufftabby Vote Pollux Oil Vote FCoD
And I have a vote for anyone else who doesn't believe me, too. Showing disbelief in me is outright scummy, plain and simple, especially since I know (for a fact) that you're all seeing the role you are on my list. That should cause, at the worse, a "Hm, well, the jury's still out" reaction....not a "I think you're lying, let's vote for you" type reaction.
I think the only ones who'd try to discredit my list would be those pissed off that they can't hide anywhere in false claims now and that town will know their numbers eventually.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 15:55:22 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jul 26, 2010 15:55:22 GMT -5
Anyway Vote Bufftabby Vote Pollux Oil Vote FCoD And I have a vote for anyone else who doesn't believe me, too. Showing disbelief in me is outright scummy, plain and simple, especially since I know (for a fact) that you're all seeing the role you are on my list. That should cause, at the worse, a "Hm, well, the jury's still out" reaction....not a "I think you're lying, let's vote for you" type reaction. I think the only ones who'd try to discredit my list would be those pissed off that they can't hide anywhere in false claims now and that town will know their numbers eventually. Excuse me, but where did I say I disbelieved you? I said your play style rubs me the wrong way, and it does because you come on very strongly. That's a far cry from saying your list isn't true. I didn't comment on the list at all, actually. I never voted for you either. Hopefully you're just misremembering, not intentionally smearing me without reason. Don't put words in my mouth. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 15:59:24 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 15:59:24 GMT -5
Anyway Vote Bufftabby Vote Pollux Oil Vote FCoD And I have a vote for anyone else who doesn't believe me, too. Showing disbelief in me is outright scummy, plain and simple, especially since I know (for a fact) that you're all seeing the role you are on my list. That should cause, at the worse, a "Hm, well, the jury's still out" reaction....not a "I think you're lying, let's vote for you" type reaction. I think the only ones who'd try to discredit my list would be those pissed off that they can't hide anywhere in false claims now and that town will know their numbers eventually. Excuse me, but where did I say I disbelieved you? I said your play style rubs me the wrong way, and it does because you come on very strongly. That's a far cry from saying your list isn't true. I didn't comment on the list at all, actually. I never voted for you either. Hopefully you're just misremembering, not intentionally smearing me without reason. Don't put words in my mouth. --FCOD Yet you're voting for someone for, seemingly, defending me too quickly? Why can't it just be what I asked? That she just sees her role on my list so that lends a bit more creedence to my being truthful? Do YOU see the role you are on that list?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 16:02:04 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 26, 2010 16:02:04 GMT -5
@ Eureka the newbie-tell scum-tell thing. I tend to see it as more of a null-tell, but it's possible it is a newbie-scum tell @septimus, as I've stated previously, yours seems to be more of a scum-tell despite your protestations bufftabby, the quick vote on Idle for not liking how he plays pings me I'm trying to temper this with my predisposition to find bufftabby scummy, even when I'm spoiled and know better, but she still seems scummy, and about 1/2 of you guys are anyway(PS, the debacle comments were true statements, I was glad, but they were fluffish, I suppose) Gir!, I didn't like the way you snuggled me and came to my defense (as well as idle, story, and FCOD) @ stanislaus, OMGUS, is that more committal for you? I don't think you're in any danger of being lynched but at least I don't like the fact that you voted for me because I cannot be definitive at this point. Yes, there's lots I just don't know. Yes, I ran the numbers assuming Idle's numbers were correct because that was the point of that part of the post as I clearly stated. Yes, I talked about the 3 detectives because, well, that seemed excessive and, if accurate, there must be a reason for it, and yes, it is important to the Wolves and to the Town @ Blockey, post 142. @ Inner. 1 post about idle's list @ Duvsie, 1 post about Hoopy and multivoting. Vote:
Vote: Eureka Vote: septimus Vote: bufftabby Vote: Kat Vote: stanislaus Vote: Blockey Vote: Inner Stickler Vote: Duvsie
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 16:07:41 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 26, 2010 16:07:41 GMT -5
Really, Sach should know better. C1 featured recruitment as a special power. The power was a single-use ability that required the player to die. They would then return to life a Day later, just as if enchanted by a Witchdoctor. They could not refuse, if they were eligible for recruitment. The idea of refusible recruitment was developed by NAF and Kat for Alien Taste (that's a three-faction setup.) Buit there's no evidence one way or another that Pleo would utilise it. That feels to me like it could be a little bit of extra knowledge slipping out. Peaches Christ! What's with the UK folks this game? Erm... this UK player really hasn't said anything against you, you know. Of course, now that you put it that way... Your idea is pants. Really pants. Seriously, you're a very bad person and should be ashamed of yourself for even coming up with it. I could make a whole list of things that are wrong with it... and since I have nothing better to do with my time right now, I will.* 1) It doesn't take into account the roles the mentioned players actually got in the previous game. For example, I tend to not want to be scum twice in a row, because I find it fairly stressful. If someone wanted to be a particular role, and got it in the last game, would they necessarily want the same role again in this one? 2) It doesn't take into account any changes of mind the players might have had in the meantime. A player might have thought "Oh I'd like to be a witchdoctor" in the previous game, seen it in action and thought "Wait, this doesn't look much fun" and chosen something completely different. 3) It also doesn't take into account other factors - for example, if I'm in other games on other boards, I will prefer not to have the same role in both games. 4) It doesn't take into account the fact that these players might not even have expressed a preference this time out. 5) It creates a "watch list", not IMO grounds for suspicion, based on nothing more than some seriously dubious metagaming, that seems to have accomplished nothing more than focussing attention on your own motives. I mean, has anybody made a single serious case / grounds for suspicion out of the list? Has there been a single post like this? Anyway, moving on from kicking Sachertorte (which is fun enough, but feels a bit too much like stealing a cane from a blind man) I'd like to put to you guys a possible scenario involving Idle Thoughts. I call it: Idle's Great Cabal Game-Winning Strategem, by Moley. So let's say that you're Idle Thoughts, a member of the Cabal. Your team is somewhat disadvantaged in numbers, although does have powers that haven't been publicly revealed. One of those powers is that you and your two allies know exactly how many players there are of each role in the game. You also know that nobody else has access to this information, or knows that the Cabal are the ones who have it. (Yeah, I know how many assumptions there are in that paragraph, but this is me throwing out a theory. Deal with it.) So... you have this lovely juicy info, but how to use it? Well perhaps you give yourself an ace in the hole. You tell the truth about every role except one. You reduce the numbers of Cabal by one, and you put in an extra player, probably a wolf or freemason; because who's going to contradict you? The other freemasons can expose you but they'd have to know who to expose first, and the wolves can hardly claim publicly. Now I'm not saying this is so. I think it's most likely NOT so. But should Idle be killed** and flip Cabal, I think it's a possibility that needs to be remembered. Ok, not much else to say, because Special Ed and Redskeez seem to have said it all. It's a bit alarming how much concensus there seems to be this early on about certain things. I agree with them that there've been a couple of odd votes floating around that I'm keeping in mind. For the moment I will keep my (only) vote where it is, and see what happens. *Don't bother replying point by point, Red, it's late and I'm tired otherwise I probably wouldn't even be writing it.
**I should probably clarify here that I'm not threatening to kill Idle. Srsly.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 16:12:07 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 26, 2010 16:12:07 GMT -5
I should say "don't bother replying point by point, Sach." I suck at this trying-to-tell-you-guys-apart thing.
Also Ed's massive list of votes has suddenly made me realise how small and inconsequential my genitals really are. Just throwing that out there.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 16:14:36 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jul 26, 2010 16:14:36 GMT -5
Yet you're voting for someone for, seemingly, defending me too quickly? Why can't it just be what I asked? That she just sees her role on my list so that lends a bit more creedence to my being truthful? Do YOU see the role you are on that list? I voted for Kat! because she came to your defense AND mine and I think that is a scum tactic. It has nothing to do with your list. I never said you're lying about your list. I'm not going to comment about it because I don't have an opinion. Are you going to directly ask everyone if they think you might be lying and then vote for everyone who says yes? Because you claim you're voting me because I am suspicious of you, basically. I'm willing to bet everyone else in the game shares my suspicion. If they don't, they have more information than I, because nobody should trust you (or anyone else) at this stage of the game without private knowledge of your alignment. So I ask again, what is your motivation for voting for me? --FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 16:15:34 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 26, 2010 16:15:34 GMT -5
@ Idle, you have got to appreciate that people are not going to want to confirm their roles, whether they're on your list or not.
Say there's a magician or a warlock or whatever else is missing. Then logically there might also be a vig, and sometime tonight poof problem solved, no need to reveal.
Say there's a vig -- well obviously.
And if a townie is on your list, then saying so only boxes them in in terms of possible roles, with it not yet logically established that there can be no one who is not. If you're telling the truth, lighten up for god's sake.
@ Ed: So much for non-committal.
I need dinner.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 16:17:46 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jul 26, 2010 16:17:46 GMT -5
[oog]
I am glad your friend is uninjured and horrified for her family. Please tell her some random stranger on the internet is thinking good thoughts their way.[/oog]
|
|