|
Day Two
Jul 31, 2010 19:39:17 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Jul 31, 2010 19:39:17 GMT -5
I don't really have anything much to add. It doesn't help with the hidden roles for 1 Day bit making Day 2 a bit like another Day 1 Okay, who's got the Blockey to English translator? Mine's on the fritz, apparently. I don't know what the salad jingle pants your fuddled wiggles are springing.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 31, 2010 20:09:08 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jul 31, 2010 20:09:08 GMT -5
I don't know what the salad jingle pants your fuddled wiggles are springing. Now, see, that I understood more-or-less perfectly. ]I think what he's trying to say is: we don't know the alignment/roles of the dead people yet, so Day 2 is just like another Day 1 with little to discuss. I think my Blockey translator is working fine. Aha! Thank you for the clarification, and where I kind of agree with Blockey, it also goes with the Conspiracy territory. And we do have the discussion from Day One to look back on, which is nominally better than Day One itself where we had nothing to look back on.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 31, 2010 20:25:08 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2010 20:25:08 GMT -5
Don't look back. Don't do anything. Just lynch me and pay the price.
Day 3 should be fun
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 31, 2010 20:40:08 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 31, 2010 20:40:08 GMT -5
Since you've been lynched, you're now essentially VT and therefore not a very interesting object of role discussion. Sorry Idle, but I now have a new favorite player. ;D
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 31, 2010 20:41:47 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 31, 2010 20:41:47 GMT -5
I don't know what the salad jingle pants your fuddled wiggles are springing. Now, see, that I understood more-or-less perfectly. That's more than I did! I think the same can be said about a lot of what's happened today. Oh, you're a riot, you are. Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new Wikipedia. Vote: sachertorte [/color] , the Vampire Vote: Captain Pinkies [/color] , the Vicar Vote: storyteller [/color] because I think you're undead too, and besides, peeker isn't here [/b][/color] Vote: Duvsie [/color] because I forgot you were even in this game Vote: Mister Blockey [/color] for being such an alpha of unquestionable maleness Vote: Bill [/color] because I won't be around on Day 3 when it's traditional to lynch you. Sorry, my wolfie buddy Burn at the Stake: Eureka and Zelda Vote: FCOD [/color] for being a bad, bad administrator Vote: septimus [/color] , for freedom Vote: whoever took away the vote and unvote buttons [/color] unless that was on a different site. Vote: Metallic Squnk [/color] because one death isn't good enough for you Vote: Kat! [/color] for excessive use of punctuation and for being a bad kitty Vote: bufftabby [/color] for ever Vote: Sister Coyote [/color] because she's a fracking coyote. I ean, really, what role would she want? Vote: stanislaus [/color] for making me think of cole slaw made out of Santa Claus when I read your name I'll get the rest of you later. [/quote] I once knew a human called Edwho looked so incredibly dead. I didn't get a shout and feel rather left out but at least I'm not losing my head. Also "My wolfie buddy"? Subtle, Ed, real subtle. Anyway... Set lynch doesn't appeal to me. It stumps all discussion, you see. I can't think of a rhyme For "partners in crime" So I'll ask: who the other wolves be? So far I've had no time to play. But tomorrow I've got all the day. I'll look back and ponder And let my mind wander And then I should have more to say. (Hopefully it'll be more successful than my last thought, Eureka, AKA "The Most Obvious Scum Ever". You know you now have to put that in your profile signature, right?)
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 31, 2010 21:46:25 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 31, 2010 21:46:25 GMT -5
Ah well...you're still one of my favorite, Moley. : ) I've said it before and I'll say it again...Moley is the ONLY person on these boards who didn't come either from the SDMB or as a result of the SDMB (I.E. a friend of someone from the SDMB). To me, that's always a cool fact. That you stayed/stuck around
(He came from sirsam's boards for those who wonder)
|
|
|
Post by Duvsie on Aug 1, 2010 0:54:25 GMT -5
I can quite happily get on board with lynching a self confessed wolf.
Vote: special ed
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Aug 1, 2010 9:15:55 GMT -5
Find someone casting doubt on a player who is all but confirmed without acknowledging the reasons why, and most of the time, you'll find a scum player. That's why I challenged you both, and that's why I still think you are both likely mafia. I disagree with this assessment. Find me someone who is nitpicking a player who is all but confirmed and that person is more likely to be a TOWN player. Scum aren't going to stick their neck out by picking on someone who is almost completely believed. They aren't going to get Town to lynch that player, so what's the benefit? All they get in the end is suspicion for being suspicious of someone who is almost certainly Town. I'd like to see evidence of your assertion before I'll put any stock into it. Has it happened before? If so, when and under what circumstances?
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Aug 1, 2010 9:29:05 GMT -5
I'm not sure I agree with this. Town will always need discussion to find scum. Especially on a Day where we can keep our votes on Ed, there is no harm in continuing to discuss people, and even place other votes on them. ToDay is the one Day when people won't be forced to claim - we're all voting Ed. But seeing how people react to cases made against them (or their scumbuddies) will be vital. Giving up a whole day's worth of discussion is bad play. I expect most to disagree with me. If this were a 'normal' game, I'd be agreeing with you. But in Conspiracy, the notion that we need to find scum through normal channels, especially during the early game, is a bit of a misnomer. My views are strongly colored by my experiences in C1 where I was frustrated at the way the game was being played at the time (not much discussion at all), then the realization that the lack of discussion actually turned out to be an asset. Disagree all you want, but that's my view, and I'm sticking with it. I'm happy to discuss things as they come up, but the idea of 'scum hunting' today is noble in name, but useless in practice. I vaguely recall having this attitude in an earlier game and being frustrated at the lack of discussion after one scum was outed, but the response was similar (even in a more standard game), 'nice idea, but it never happens.' For example, I'm incensed that our purported mason is answering questions and confirming information for a known wolf. WTF? Keeping the identities of dead townies secret for as long as possible is of the utmost importance. I see an argument here for radio silence.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Aug 1, 2010 9:46:33 GMT -5
Rules Clarification
A player killed by attacking a Vampire at Night is killed by the Vampire.
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Aug 1, 2010 9:53:14 GMT -5
For example, I'm incensed that our purported mason is answering questions and confirming information for a known wolf. WTF? Keeping the identities of dead townies secret for as long as possible is of the utmost importance. I see an argument here for radio silence. Can you give a good reason why I shouldn't name squink's role as a way to demonstrate that I am, in fact, a mason? As I already stated, my revelation had nothing to do with ed's commentary and everything to do with squink's death. Why would you be incensed? How have I done something harmful? Why don't you want your freemason to confirm her freemason-ness as much as possible? Isn't that, you know, the entire point of freemasons, that they can become confirmed Town under the right circumstances?
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 10:31:00 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Aug 1, 2010 10:31:00 GMT -5
Find someone casting doubt on a player who is all but confirmed without acknowledging the reasons why, and most of the time, you'll find a scum player. That's why I challenged you both, and that's why I still think you are both likely mafia. I disagree with this assessment. Find me someone who is nitpicking a player who is all but confirmed and that person is more likely to be a TOWN player. Scum aren't going to stick their neck out by picking on someone who is almost completely believed. They aren't going to get Town to lynch that player, so what's the benefit? All they get in the end is suspicion for being suspicious of someone who is almost certainly Town. I'd like to see evidence of your assertion before I'll put any stock into it. Has it happened before? If so, when and under what circumstances? I find myself in agreement with your overall idea, that scum wouldn't bother to nitpick a confirmed town player. However, it would be dishonest to say that it never happened. In Willow Mafia, moody mitchy attempted to drum up suspicion on an unconfirmed, but investigated as town peeker. Seemed to me to be a ? moment, but moody was scum and was lynched for it. So there's that. There's also the WIFOM to consider, that if an action seems so much like a bad idea for scum to do, would they do it for town credit?
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 11:12:19 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Aug 1, 2010 11:12:19 GMT -5
Find someone casting doubt on a player who is all but confirmed without acknowledging the reasons why, and most of the time, you'll find a scum player. That's why I challenged you both, and that's why I still think you are both likely mafia. I disagree with this assessment. Find me someone who is nitpicking a player who is all but confirmed and that person is more likely to be a TOWN player. Scum aren't going to stick their neck out by picking on someone who is almost completely believed. They aren't going to get Town to lynch that player, so what's the benefit? All they get in the end is suspicion for being suspicious of someone who is almost certainly Town. I'd like to see evidence of your assertion before I'll put any stock into it. Has it happened before? If so, when and under what circumstances? Oh yes, they dang well will. Because they're not really thinking about the situation the way a town player would, not honestly weighing the options. They're thinking about the consequences for *them*; their minds are elsewhere. As a result, they're much more likely to operate on autopilot, to throw out the expected "oh, well so and so isn't really confirmed" sort of comment that applies to most such situations but really did not to this one, if you thought about even a little bit. As well, this is Conspiracy, not normal mafia, as you keep reminding us. There are plenty of non-self mafia to go around, even for the wolves, the largest group. It's superficially plausible that any given claim by an unknown player *could* be false, so why not throw a little mud on it when the opportunity presents itself? You might actually be right. Only not so much in this case, as I've pointed out already. As should be clear, the scum tell here is not so much believing or not believing a given claim -- either town or scum might do that, and I'm not even going to try to lay odds on the percentages. It's that both SisC and MHaye made comments with mafia-friendly implications (Nanook might not be telling the truth) without having actually addressed the logic that said they almost certainly were. As for examples, I haven't played any games here recently other than Malazan, but I remember something related from the game that just finished up on the Dope -- Scum Guiri questioning Mason Storyteller on some aspect of his play strategy after he was confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. Guiri's question had no real purpose, and I believe it to have been motivated subconsciously by the exact same impulse I suspect in SisC and MHaye -- must discredit the known Town. Not all scum motivations are strategic -- strategically, Guiri's comment was a sizable mistake, but psychologically it made sense.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 12:50:08 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Aug 1, 2010 12:50:08 GMT -5
Ed, Natlaw was Zelda not me, as you should well know Mr. Scum Mason.
It's amazing to me how like every single game has a scum bomb in it. You'd think the moderators would go for a little more variety in their roles, but nope, scum bomb every single time.
What's that? There's only actually been around one scum bomb in the history of our games here and on the Dope? No way! I don't believe you.
(Sarcasm is fun!)
I find myself agreeing with nphase. There's nothing wrong with being suspicious of claims in and of itself, it's normal and very healthy for the game. But SisC has gone way beyond that. I won't claim totally confirmed status for myself and Eureka, but to say we're not even semi-confirmed? Silly. And that's to say nothing of the ridiculousness of throwing doubt on Idle's claim and faction. In this game, with this rule set, Idle is 100% confirmed Town. To say otherwise is to say that Pleo is a bastard, and that's an insult to him.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 12:57:09 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 1, 2010 12:57:09 GMT -5
Ed, Natlaw was Zelda not me, as you should well know Mr. Scum Mason. You mean I got something wrong? Damn, well, at least everything else I've said is accurate.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 12:58:52 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Aug 1, 2010 12:58:52 GMT -5
Except that I never said I didn't think you were who you said you were.
I have said all along that the scenario was unlikely but not out of the realm of possibility. That I was inclined to believe you. That I considered the two of you semi-confirmed.
If I'd thought it was likely the two of you were lying scum, I would have voted for one or the other of you. If I wanted to cast aspersions, I would have done so without the caveat that my hypothetical was just that -- hypothetical.
Pls to stop putting words in my mouth kthx.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 12:59:42 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Aug 1, 2010 12:59:42 GMT -5
Sigh.
That was, of course, directed toward Nanook.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 13:57:16 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Aug 1, 2010 13:57:16 GMT -5
[/color][/b] for making me think of cole slaw made out of Santa Claus when I read your name[/quote] Dammit, that's a secret family recipe! I expect most to disagree with me. If this were a 'normal' game, I'd be agreeing with you. But in Conspiracy, the notion that we need to find scum through normal channels, especially during the early game, is a bit of a misnomer. My views are strongly colored by my experiences in C1 where I was frustrated at the way the game was being played at the time (not much discussion at all), then the realization that the lack of discussion actually turned out to be an asset. Disagree all you want, but that's my view, and I'm sticking with it.. OK, I see where you're coming from. I agree that forcing role-claims can help the scum, and even that discussion can be used by them to pinpoint roles. But I rebel against the idea that we win the game by waiting for Detectives to win their guessing game with the Wolves, the Vicar to win his/hers with the Undead, etc. etc. while just keeping schtum in the main thread. Besides, I didn't need a Witch to tell me Ed was a Wolf - I picked him out yesterDay. My only mistake was not to shout about it more to the rest of you. So discussion can work for us, and we should be finding ways to make it work, otherwise why have this thread at all? (I admit that this is an aesthetic rather than a logical argument.)
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 14:03:18 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Aug 1, 2010 14:03:18 GMT -5
Well, obviously I'll Vote: Special Ed . And yes, you can have your gender back. I had my fun ;D
Not sure what else to say about toDay.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 14:09:59 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 1, 2010 14:09:59 GMT -5
[/color][/b] for making me think of cole slaw made out of Santa Claus when I read your name[/quote] Dammit, that's a secret family recipe! [/quote] I love the slogan, "It's just not Christmas without some Santaslaw." Besides, I didn't need a Witch to tell me Ed was a Wolf - I picked him out yesterDay. My only mistake was not to shout about it more to the rest of you. So discussion can work for us, and we should be finding ways to make it work, otherwise why have this thread at all? Listen here, Mr Fancypants, hindsight is 20/20 and you had a 30% chance of ID'ing a werewolf with a dartboard. (Not my recommended method of identification, gtw) because there are 7 Werewolves. (Yes, I'm confirming Idle's numbers)or, well, there were 7 werewolves.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 14:10:58 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 1, 2010 14:10:58 GMT -5
gtw?
Yay!! I have my tiny blue icon back!
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 16:49:07 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Aug 1, 2010 16:49:07 GMT -5
Oh, something I forgot to do when I was translating Blockey.
Vote Special Ed
The one thing I love about Ed is he's so forthcoming with information right before he's about to die. Usually, though, it's just wikipedia articles. Now he's giving us actual things that may or may not apply to the game, and yet we're still going to have to ignore most of it since he's almost assuredly scum. How bothersome.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 19:22:17 GMT -5
Post by MentalGuy on Aug 1, 2010 19:22:17 GMT -5
I will go ahead and
Vote Special Ed
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 23:27:40 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 1, 2010 23:27:40 GMT -5
For example, I'm incensed that our purported mason is answering questions and confirming information for a known wolf. WTF? Keeping the identities of dead townies secret for as long as possible is of the utmost importance. I see an argument here for radio silence. Can you give a good reason why I shouldn't name squink's role as a way to demonstrate that I am, in fact, a mason? As I already stated, my revelation had nothing to do with ed's commentary and everything to do with squink's death. Why would you be incensed? How have I done something harmful? Why don't you want your freemason to confirm her freemason-ness as much as possible? Isn't that, you know, the entire point of freemasons, that they can become confirmed Town under the right circumstances? Of course, we only have your word that you two confirmed each other. And I made it plainly obvious that she was a mason via her breadcrumbs to you. and now she's dead....How convenient for you, eh? Oh, she'll flip Freemason, alright, but does that mean you are? Of course, now that your other partner has given himself or herself up, I guess he or she can confirm you, unless, of course another "accidental" why would a Freemason be targeted event happens again, eh?
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 23:31:19 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 1, 2010 23:31:19 GMT -5
Oh, something I forgot to do when I was translating Blockey. Vote Special EdThe one thing I love about Ed is he's so forthcoming with information right before he's about to die. Usually, though, it's just wikipedia articles. Now he's giving us actual things that may or may not apply to the game, and yet we're still going to have to ignore most of it since he's almost assuredly scum. How bothersome. True, I'm not going to listen to my inner peeker and spam the board But some of the information may, in fact, be useful to my packmates (like Captain being the Vicar), and since we can't talk during the Day, I have to convey it to them.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 23:32:24 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 1, 2010 23:32:24 GMT -5
I will go ahead and Vote Special EdBrilliant. Simply a brilliant play. Your insight astounds me.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 23:35:03 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 1, 2010 23:35:03 GMT -5
It's nothing like Day 2 of SSB would have been had all of my posts not been mod-deleted, but really, with this post, I'll have a full 1/3 of the Day's posts.
Doesn't anyone have anything interesting to say?
Total Posts: 116 User # of Posts Special Ed 38 Idle Thoughts 16 Sister Coyote 9 nphase 7 sachertorte 7 redskeezix 7 Inner Stickler 6 Kat! 3 Honest Moley 3 bufftabby 3 Mister Blockey 2 stanislaus 2 Pleonast 2 Pollux Oil 2 eureka 1 BillMc 1 duvsie 1 septimus 1 Captain Pinkies 1 Nanook 1 MentalGuy 1 FCOD The Platypus 1 moodymitchy 1
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2010 23:37:09 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 1, 2010 23:37:09 GMT -5
BRRRAAAAAIIINNNSSSS!!
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Aug 2, 2010 1:50:28 GMT -5
Some more beginner's questions: nphase, you want to know why I posited what I did? Right here. I'm pretty sure my original comment was in response to septimus (although it might have been to stanislaus, come to think of it -- I might have the two players mixed up), and what I was saying was that, however unlikely, it was not completely out of the realm of possibility that the witches weren't actually witches. Can't figure out how to quote properly from a closed thread but she's speaking of Day 1, #372 in which Sister Coyote quoted septimus' message from 2 minutes earlier: My phrasing was "very likely true, right?" ( not something like "certain") and is thus similar to what Sister Coyote now says she meant, although she was correcting me because I was a "beginner." Maybe I'm getting overly suspicious but even the claimed confusion with stanislaus might also be deliberate disinformation. (There are three females playing whose usernames all suggest they're in Order Carnivora but I'm telling them apart !) Vote: Sister Coyotespecial ed is awaiting execution and it might be cruel to prolong his stay on death row with last-minute reprieves, so consider the following comment meta-discussion rather than any serious attempt to change toDay's lynchee. But ... Even though special ed is almost 100% sure to be Wolf, while Sister Coyote may be only 90-95% to be scum, wouldn't there be a case to lynch her instead? - As a known Wolf, special ed won't be able to do much damage even alive.
- Sister Coyote on the other hand, might be a Vampire.
- We've already lost the Day 3 faction reveal, and the Day 4 reveal with a special ed lynch will tell us nothing new.
special ed seems pretty tricky even without special powers so he'd better be the actual lynchee, but it still might be useful to discuss other possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Aug 2, 2010 2:03:13 GMT -5
Speaking of Detectives, I really don't see any way other than coinflip for them to sort out which corpse to investigate. But with 3 Detectives, there's a 75% chance we'll get both corpses investigated, so fair enough. I flunked psychology but I can do math! If Detective(s) with an even number in the player Roster check on Merestil Haye while those with odd number check on metallicsquink the chance of investigating both goes up to about 80%. (That's because a 3rd head is 50-50 after two other heads, but a 3rd odd number is less than 50-50 -- the slots have been used up.) (I hate to get labeled "Mr. Nitpicker" but -- hey! -- that extra 5% might be the winning margin. ;D )
|
|