|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 16:22:47 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 16:22:47 GMT -5
.....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. I see your point, but you don't know all the facts. I do, on the other hand. First of all, I know that I didn't alter the list in any way, so that's one person who knows you're wrong. Secondly, the seven wolves all know I'm not one of them...so that's eight people who now know your theories are wrong. And lastly, the Freemasons all know I'm not a part of them, and that there are only three of them...so that brings us to a grand total of... wait for it... ....11 people who all know your hypothosis' are wrong. 11. 11 compared to just you, who doesn't know (or claims to not know) all the facts. Course, if you're really a wolf, you already know this. And again...if I were a Freemason (I'm not) and someone else posted that list and had extra numbers in the Freemason category, you can BET I'd say something. I wouldn't reveal my other team mates but sacrifice myself just to get a lying scum on the FIRST DAY? Hell, yes!
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 16:28:19 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 16:28:19 GMT -5
Are you going to directly ask everyone if they think you might be lying and then vote for everyone who says yes? Yes! Because then a lying scum would have been found. : ) Well, then let's find out if my list is true, for starters. I'd think that real Town would want to do this. Can't see any reason real Town wouldn't want to do this. I ask everyone....are you a role that is on my list?A simple yes or no will do. Town has nothing to lose by saying yes. Only scum. So I'll start: Yes, I am a role that is on my list. What about you, FCoD? Or are you too afraid to say?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 16:29:29 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 16:29:29 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. There is no Magician. There is no Vig. So your "say this.." "say that.." doesn't apply.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 16:35:40 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 26, 2010 16:35:40 GMT -5
I should say "don't bother replying point by point, Sach." What's with the dismissive tone? Your tone is so wildly offensive I've half a mind to curse you out and be generally belligerent. So your thoughts are the be-all end-all of discussion. Simply on your say-so? That is sucky sucky play. (1) I did address the points you brought up, specifically the situational aspects to selecting roles. Most of your points are essentially the same point... people change their minds. Which I explicitly covered. (2) The idea in question was made in post #7, nearly a WEEK ago. And only now you decide you're going opine on it? And in a grossly offensive manner? (3) While I haven't made a serious case against people based on the list, I have made conclusions about alignment leanings based on responses to the list. Even if we don't lynch based on the list now, it will still be evidence for future Days. (4) Did it occur to you that peoples' response to the list is more important than the list itself? Hell, your vote is based on Eureka's reaction to the posted list. Gah!
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 16:52:43 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Jul 26, 2010 16:52:43 GMT -5
It is possible that these preferences were situationally dependent (i.e., recently played Town so want to play scum and vice versa). It is also possible that these players chose based on what they consider fun/compatible with their personality. This limited information shows three current players were in C3 and exclusively asked for scum roles in C3. I would like to kill one of these players Today. storyteller FlyingCowofDoom Special Ed This approach is not what I would classify as "fair," but the information is public. Certainly no worse than a random vote at this point. I would like to hear commentary from Sister Coyote, MHaye, Nanook, BillMc and Kat. Do you feel that this is a fair assessment? Do your role preferences for C4 differ significantly from your C3 choices? Why or Why not? To clarify to people who seem to misunderstand me. I don't like meta, but that's not what I'm irritated about. There's a qualitative difference between "I think person A is suspicious, you should vote for them too." and "I think persons A, B, and C are suspicious, how shall we choose between them?" The first adds to a discussion while the second attempts to control discussion by framing it and funneling it into a choice between three people as compared to each other. I find that scummy as all hell. Also I have to admit that I found Blockey's comment about high participation very baffling. We want high participation; the more people talk, the better the chances one of the not-Town factions is going to give themselves away. Now, I disagreed with you (and still disagree) about voting for someone based on what are essentially metagamey reasons, but it has certainly given us something to talk about. Vote: Mister Blockey This feels so much like a me too vote that it hurts. Vote Sistercoyote
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 16:56:01 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 16:56:01 GMT -5
I'll say it again, I'm NOT a Freemason. I know that the head wolf, if investigated by anything, would come up that. Well, if anyone wishes to investigate me toNight, feel free. I'll come up what I truly am (which isn't a Freemason, so there won't be any "Well, he COULD be the head wolf" WiFoMs) and if I'm still alive come Tomorrow, hopefully that would help shed light on all this and at least one person would know the list was true.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 17:49:19 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jul 26, 2010 17:49:19 GMT -5
Well, then let's find out if my list is true, for starters. I'd think that real Town would want to do this. Can't see any reason real Town wouldn't want to do this. I ask everyone....are you a role that is on my list?A simple yes or no will do. Town has nothing to lose by saying yes. Only scum. So I'll start: Yes, I am a role that is on my list. What about you, FCoD? Or are you too afraid to say? Why don't you vote for everyone first, then you can unvote people that answer your question. Why did you decide to single me out and vote for me first? That's what I would like to know. Answer my questions and then maybe I'll answer yours. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 18:45:08 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 18:45:08 GMT -5
I've already answered your question twice: Because you voted for Kat for (in your opinion) being willing to defend me too quickly, when it could just be she believes I'm telling the truth, whereas I apparently rub you the wrong way. In short: Pretty crappy reason for a vote, IMO...it all goes back to you not believing me. Well, there's a way we can get the list I have verified. Very easily, in fact.
To have everyone answer yes or no as if they are on the list.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 18:51:36 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 18:51:36 GMT -5
Here we go:
EVERYONE...are you a role on the list I posted?
A simple yes or no will do and, as far as I can tell, not reveal anything about anyone's role specifically.
01. moodymitchy 02. bufftabby 03. Merestil Haye 04. Pollux Oil 05. storyteller 06. eureka 07. Special Ed 08. BillMc 09. MentalGuy 10. metallicsquink 11. Honest Moley 12. Inner Stickler 13. stanislaus 14. Captain Pinkies 15. Mister Blockey 16. Sister Coyote 17. Idle Thoughts 18. septimus 19. sachertorte 20. nphase 21. FlyingCowOfDoom 22. duvsie 23. redskeezix 24. Kat! 25. Nanook
Go in any order you please...I'll cross your name out on the list once you answer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sincere Town should have no problem saying yes..getting the list verified would make it so nobody could false claim roles not in the game. Since wolves/undead/cabalists would want this option, I'm betting they won't want to cooperate.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 19:03:22 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jul 26, 2010 19:03:22 GMT -5
Kat! seems to be rushing to defend Idle here. This post pinged me really strongly. I think it's because she also came to my, story's and Ed's defense earlier in the Day. When I play scum, frequently I try to "buddy up" to someone by defending him/her in an effort to appear like a Town buddy. I obviously can't be sure that's what is going on here but I am suspicious enough to vote. Vote: Kat!. [/color] --FCOD[/quote] I've already responded to a comment about "defending FCOD, Ed and story" but I'll repeat here that there was no intent to defend anyone. My intent was to point out why sach's approach was flawed, and to do so, included one piece of information for each person on his list that showed why that approach could be wrong for each person. And, yeah, I'm taking Idle's list as truthful unless/until further information comes to light, and I'd said why before the post that you quoted, but part of that post was also pointing out that there was no chance of the question being answered. Did moodymitchy actually believe there was, or was he being disingenuous? Do you, or anyone else, actually believe there was?
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 19:21:49 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jul 26, 2010 19:21:49 GMT -5
Vote septimus because the posts he made in regards to Idle's list come across as trying to float an Idle-as-Cabalist theory that immediately gets dropped when challenged, including an admission of flaws that weren't mentioned when the theory was brought up, and trying to excuse it all by newbieness.
I'm trying to make up my mind about eureka.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 19:27:00 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 19:27:00 GMT -5
I'm taking Kat's believing my list (until otherwise proven wrong somehow) as her saying her role is on it. Really, those who fall on the side of believing my list are people who seem to be giving me the benefit of the doubt (I'm assuming) because they see their own role on my list.
01. moodymitchy 02. bufftabby 03. Merestil Haye 04. Pollux Oil 05. storyteller 06. eureka 07. Special Ed 08. BillMc 09. MentalGuy 10. metallicsquink 11. Honest Moley 12. Inner Stickler 13. stanislaus 14. Captain Pinkies 15. Mister Blockey 16. Sister Coyote 18. septimus 19. sachertorte 20. nphase 21. FlyingCowOfDoom 22. duvsie 23. redskeezix
24. Kat! 25. Nanook
So I guess the question could also be: Do you fall more on believing my list is true or believing that I made it up?
I await 23 more answers.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 19:28:02 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 19:28:02 GMT -5
Addendum to the question above: If you don't believe me and fall on the side of thinking it's false or that I made it up.....THEN the question "Is your role on the list?" applies to you.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 19:35:41 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jul 26, 2010 19:35:41 GMT -5
To be honest, I'm inclined to believe you and have this whole game. Last time I saw you play like this you were town, so yeah, that is my gut even though I don't like your play style.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 19:42:06 GMT -5
Post by MentalGuy on Jul 26, 2010 19:42:06 GMT -5
I tend to agree that plural voting this early on is not really going to change much as there are many players still in and although you could say that multi voting is a slightly stronger action than FOS... Also to be voting 2 newbies just because you feel their play appears SCUMMY.... I haven't played here that much and am getting used to the sort of posts I can expect from some of the players.. but I HAD to learn that, that was the way they played and I'm sure you're all getting used to how I play so for that reason I'm going to VOTE MENTALGUYAlso with the mulit vote and the size of the game (I don;t think I've played in one much bigger) one Day one it's a good place for SCUM to do this and then however long down the road when possibly one of BILLMc SEPTIMUS or EUREKA to turn SCUM... MENTALGUY can pop up saying he told us so way back in Day one. We need 13 votes to lynch someone. If we all just vote for one player, it is very unlikely we have a lynch. As it stands now, the vote leader only has five votes. I certainly hope that at least one of the players I am voting for is not Town. I fully expect that I will be wrong on some of them. And if I feel the newbies play appears scummy why would I not vote for them. I haven't gotten use to the way you play because of the games I remember us both being in, you were scum in two of them and a Town bomb in the other. But this seems like a really poor vote to me. That coupled with what is apparently supposed to be a smear about voting newbies means I will Vote Moody Mitchy Before I made my vote above this is what I had the vote count as. bufftabby - 5 septimus - 4 nphase - 3 Eureka - 3 Mister Blockey - 3 SisterCoyote - 2 Idle Thoughts - 2 Kat! - 2 Special Ed - 2 RedSkeezix - 1 Sachertorte - 1 BillMc - 1 MentalGuy - 1 Pollux Oil - 1 FCOD - 1 stanislaus - 1 Inner Stickler - 1 Duvsie - 1 I did not find BuffTabby's original question all that suspicious, but her behavior since then has made me think she is hiding something. She is not my first choice but I do want a lynch to go through and a BuffTabby lynch would be okay with me. Vote BuffTabby
I also don't like Mister Blockey's post when he votes for Sach. And accusing Sach of trying to control the discussion is just ridiculous. Vote Mister BlockeyI am taking the family to the amusement park tomorrow and will not be back before Day ends, so I am trying to get votes on everyone I am okay lynching today. And Idle, yes.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 19:42:28 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 26, 2010 19:42:28 GMT -5
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. You've never seen anyone ignore a baseless Day One vote? I never dreamt your... oddball...vote would gain any traction. There's certainly no pro-Town reason it should have. Bolding mine. You did something credibly suspicious, yes. Should I not vote you when you do something suspicious, just because you've already voted for me? I think it's interesting how you think I'm so scummy and unengaged, yet there are people far less on the radar than I am. I may not be prolific, but I'm certainly not lurking. You yourself admit that I've had "engagement" with multiple people thus far; I think quantifying it as "very little" is disingenuous, and ignores that we have actual lurkers in our midst if you really want to go the low-post route. Am I blindly and doggedly convinced that you're scum, and everyone should see it? Nah, but your propensity for slinging around bad votes isn't leading me to believe otherwise, either.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 19:43:40 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 19:43:40 GMT -5
01. moodymitchy 02. bufftabby 03. Merestil Haye 04. Pollux Oil 05. storyteller 06. eureka 07. Special Ed 08. BillMc 09. MentalGuy 10. metallicsquink 11. Honest Moley 12. Inner Stickler 13. stanislaus 14. Captain Pinkies 15. Mister Blockey 16. Sister Coyote 18. septimus 19. sachertorte 20. nphase
21. FlyingCowOfDoom 22. duvsie 23. redskeezix
24. Kat! 25. Nanook
Okay, so that's two saying they pretty much believe that I'm telling the truth about getting the list as is.........which--again, this is wholly an assumption, I admit--I assume is in regard to them seeing the role they are on the list. Because otherwise, why say they believe if they obviously are something other than what is on there? Makes no sense.
So again, do you believe me regarding the list or no? And if no, are you a role on my list? 22 people haven't answered yet.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 19:46:20 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 19:46:20 GMT -5
Oh, didn't see MentalGuy's post before posting myself:
01. moodymitchy 02. bufftabby 03. Merestil Haye 04. Pollux Oil 05. storyteller 06. eureka 07. Special Ed 08. BillMc
09. MentalGuy 10. metallicsquink 11. Honest Moley 12. Inner Stickler 13. stanislaus 14. Captain Pinkies 15. Mister Blockey 16. Sister Coyote 18. septimus 19. sachertorte 20. nphase
21. FlyingCowOfDoom 22. duvsie
24. Kat! 25. Nanook
So that's three people who believe me, I'm assuming, because they their role is on my list. Gee, we're narrowing things down now, aren't we? Bufftabby?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 19:45:39 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 26, 2010 19:45:39 GMT -5
I did not find BuffTabby's original question all that suspicious, but her behavior since then has made me think she is hiding something. She is not my first choice but I do want a lynch to go through and a BuffTabby lynch would be okay with me. Can you be more specific? What makes you think I'm hiding something? It's hard to argue against a point someone doesn't actually make.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 19:55:06 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 19:55:06 GMT -5
I replied to this topic last but, for some reason, it's not showing as such. Here's hoping it will now.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 19:56:04 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 26, 2010 19:56:04 GMT -5
I'll say it again, I'm NOT a Freemason. I know that the head wolf, if investigated by anything, would come up that. Well, if anyone wishes to investigate me toNight, feel free. I'll come up what I truly am (which isn't a Freemason, so there won't be any "Well, he COULD be the head wolf" WiFoMs) and if I'm still alive come Tomorrow, hopefully that would help shed light on all this and at least one person would know the list was true. WHOA. Cool it dude. Calm down, take a deep breath, take a chill pill. I'm not going to argue over what is obviously a completely unproven and (as yet) unprovable hypothesis of my own (although apparently Septimus suggested the exact same thing, and I missed it, so that's debatable). That said, I think you're trying to disprove it with a few facts that aren't facts. First point: isn't the "freemason" role such that you can investigate another player and find out if they're a freemason themselves? I quote: "Each Day you may check if one other player is also a Freemason. If the target is a Freemason, both of you will be informed of the discovery. Otherwise, no effect." In other words, you have to actively investigate them before you're told anything. So yes, it's possible for a Cabal to impersonate a freemason, as long as no other freemason investigates them. The likelihood is debatable, but the possibility is there. (The same doesn't apply to the witches, who know each others' identities from the start.) As to your other refute though, if my theory was correct (and as I freely acknowledge, there is zero evidence to that effect, I'm pointing out something to keep in mind IF you are proven to be Cabal) then none of the Cabal would claim to be freemason until / if only one of them was left standing. There's nothing to say that the person claiming would be yourself. The whole point is to have everybody believe that there are two Cabal, when there are in fact three. In any case, I'm not accusing you of being Cabal, or any other kind of scum. But talking of which... Kat, I didn't even notice that Septimus had posted that. And there was me thinking it was such a nice, original theory as well. I don't know if I agree with you about his scumminess though - or more accurately, I do know that I don't agree. Septimus, an inexperienced player, changed his mind. That's what it looks like to me. Doesn't mean he's not scum, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing. For the benefit of newbies: every single game I'm in, somebody seems to beat me to the punch when it comes to posting something. Seems like Special Ed (for the third damn game in a row, Ed STOP IIIIIT!!!) and Septimus have both done it here. It's very aggrieving. Moley's final thought: since when did it become taboo in mafia to vote early on and switch votes often? Somebody (can't remember who) said it was a bad idea to get an early run of votes. As long as it's either flexible enough to change later on or based on solid evidence, I couldn't disagree more. Let's get lots of votes out there early on and see just where everyone stands.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 20:01:53 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 20:01:53 GMT -5
I see what you're saying, Moley, ...but tt's not unprovable at all.
It can be proved very easily by everyone saying either "yes" or "no" to "Are you a role on my list?" It would eliminate the possibility of anyone trying to be an extra of anything. Obviously my list is hard for you to believe (that I really got it or that it's precise)..so, very simple....., are you, HonestMoley, a role on my list?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 20:02:41 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 20:02:41 GMT -5
If I get a "yes" from everyone, that accounts for every single role on my list, exact..don't you see?
So, how about it, Moley?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 20:14:17 GMT -5
Post by eureka on Jul 26, 2010 20:14:17 GMT -5
Why did I think this game was going to be fun? 'Cause right now it isn't and it has nothing to do with how many votes I appear to have gotten for saying something which people have interpreted as scummy in my first post.
And now I can't even figure out how to format something on this board. So I can't vote properly.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 20:20:52 GMT -5
Post by eureka on Jul 26, 2010 20:20:52 GMT -5
Idle Thoughts, yes, I am a role on your list. But I think you have seriously overrated the usefullness of your list, both in the abstract and as a means of proving your townieness. And now you are driving my bonkers, so I'm starting to quit caring whether you are on my side (Town's side).
Vote Idle Thoughts
I don't know how anyone picks out someone as acting scummy in this game, but we need someone to have thirteen votes and I'd rather it isn't me, so I'll vote for the person I think it the current vote-leader as well.
vote Bufftabby
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 20:23:46 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 20:23:46 GMT -5
01. moodymitchy 02. bufftabby 03. Merestil Haye 04. Pollux Oil 05. storyteller
06. eureka 07. Special Ed 08. BillMc
09. MentalGuy 10. metallicsquink 11. Honest Moley 12. Inner Stickler 13. stanislaus 14. Captain Pinkies 15. Mister Blockey 16. Sister Coyote 18. septimus 19. sachertorte 20. nphase
21. FlyingCowOfDoom 22. duvsie
24. Kat! 25. Nanook
20 people left to answer.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 20:28:17 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 26, 2010 20:28:17 GMT -5
I am a role on idle's list, yes. I can even be confirmed at some point, if necessary. I could also be lynched toDay over some shoddy reasoning and scum machinations, and provide information for Town's future votes. Either way is pro-Town, so it works out.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 20:28:20 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 20:28:20 GMT -5
Also, eureka...I cannot think of a person I find more scummy than you right now. "Not caring" if someone is Town? Voting for someone JUST BECAUSE they're the top vote getter?
Wow....pretty unbelievable.
Unvote Bufftabby (although I still find her scummy, currently..I just think Eureka deserves a lynch more)
Vote eureka
Out of Game--Eureka..what are you having trouble formatting?--/Out of Game
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 20:29:59 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 20:29:59 GMT -5
Oh, nevermind, I don't find bufftabby scummy anymore. Well, I don't like her reasoning for voting for me, but that's just personal bias/opinion
01. moodymitchy
02. bufftabby 03. Merestil Haye 04. Pollux Oil 05. storyteller
06. eureka 07. Special Ed 08. BillMc
09. MentalGuy 10. metallicsquink 11. Honest Moley 12. Inner Stickler 13. stanislaus 14. Captain Pinkies 15. Mister Blockey 16. Sister Coyote 18. septimus 19. sachertorte 20. nphase
21. FlyingCowOfDoom 22. duvsie
24. Kat! 25. Nanook
Well, that makes 19 then.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 20:32:58 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 20:32:58 GMT -5
Unvote FCoD too.
And just in case I need to make it bold: Vote Eureka
|
|