|
Post by special on Aug 2, 2010 7:11:23 GMT -5
How nice of you to try to save me, buddy, but I'm quite content to be the lynchee.
Sister as a Vampire? I think you're getting the hang of this Scum-finding thing.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Aug 2, 2010 9:13:04 GMT -5
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? I can give several. (1) You are not in danger of being Today's lynch (2) You could reveal your information at the end of Night Two where you would be able to preempt Pleonast revealing Metallic Squink's alignment (3) You could reveal your information at the end of Night Three where you could preempt Pleonast revealing Metallic Squink's role. (4) By confirming data now, you gain nothing, but give scum hard data for optimizing their night actions. It's a matter of patience. I don't see the benefit of 'confirming you' RIGHT NOW. You aren't getting lynched right now, your information isn't going to be spoiled right now. Why does everything have to happen immediately? Why can't people be a little more patient and reveal their information at the optimal time? Conspiracy is a game about information. Unlike traditional games where it is an informed minority versus an uninformed majority, Conspiracy Townies have real and secret information. While we are mostly in the dark, we possess information that scum do not. Use that information carefully! I disagree with your cost/benefit analysis of revealing your information at this time.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Aug 2, 2010 9:23:28 GMT -5
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 ) Clever. I like it.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Aug 2, 2010 9:24:37 GMT -5
That's my line. Get your own, fleshbag!
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Aug 2, 2010 9:33:20 GMT -5
Upon further reflection, I see a small but not insignificant problem with the septimus Detective Plan (sDP).
On the off chance that wolves killed one of the dead and no detectives claim to have investigated that murder, we will have transmitted important information to the Wolves as to who is and who is not a Detective. I'm not sure if that risk is worth 5%. Perhaps coin flipping is a better option. I withdraw my endorsement.
Personally, I think either would work. The nifty thing now is Wolves won't know whether or not the Detectives follow sDP or coin-flipping.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 10:44:31 GMT -5
Post by septimus on Aug 2, 2010 10:44:31 GMT -5
I just realized why we must lynch special ed toDay. If we don't, he'll be the nominated Wolf killer toNight (right?) and our Detectives can't then learn a new Wolf identity. Upon further reflection, I see a small but not insignificant problem ... [we risk transmitting] important information to the Wolves as to who is and who is not a Detective. I'm not sure if that risk is worth 5%. Perhaps coin flipping is a better option. I withdraw my endorsement. Personally, I think either would work. The nifty thing now is Wolves won't know whether or not the Detectives follow sDP or coin-flipping. Good point. I'm afraid the Detectives wouldn't learn of a new Wolf anyway. Suspecting everyone would want to investigate special ed last Night, he's probably the one Wolves nominated to kill; is that correct?
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 10:49:22 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Aug 2, 2010 10:49:22 GMT -5
The paranoid version of that is that: septimus is a Wolf; the Wolves know that they figure disproportionately in odds (or evens); thus they stack the deck against their kill being investigated. Coin-flips have the advantage of not taking any kind of direction from a potentially untrustworthy source. Also, while we're not discussing stuff, I'd like to not discuss why FCOD followed Ed's lead in his suspicions of/voting for Kat!: 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.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 10:53:07 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Aug 2, 2010 10:53:07 GMT -5
Also, while we're not discussing stuff, I'd like to not discuss why FCOD followed Ed's lead in his suspicions of/voting for Kat! If you'd like to accuse me of something, come out and say it. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 11:26:22 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Aug 2, 2010 11:26:22 GMT -5
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? I can give several. (1) You are not in danger of being Today's lynch (2) You could reveal your information at the end of Night Two where you would be able to preempt Pleonast revealing Metallic Squink's alignment (3) You could reveal your information at the end of Night Three where you could preempt Pleonast revealing Metallic Squink's role. (4) By confirming data now, you gain nothing, but give scum hard data for optimizing their night actions. It's a matter of patience. I don't see the benefit of 'confirming you' RIGHT NOW. You aren't getting lynched right now, your information isn't going to be spoiled right now. Why does everything have to happen immediately? Why can't people be a little more patient and reveal their information at the optimal time? Conspiracy is a game about information. Unlike traditional games where it is an informed minority versus an uninformed majority, Conspiracy Townies have real and secret information. While we are mostly in the dark, we possess information that scum do not. Use that information carefully! I disagree with your cost/benefit analysis of revealing your information at this time. And I still don't see how it makes a whit of difference whether I do it now or later. The optimal time IMO would have been at the very beginning of toDay, but I wasn't around.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 13:57:55 GMT -5
Post by septimus on Aug 2, 2010 13:57:55 GMT -5
The paranoid version of that is that: septimus is a Wolf; the Wolves know that they figure disproportionately in odds (or evens); thus they stack the deck against their kill being investigated. Initially there were 13 odds and 12 evens, but given the semi-confirmed claims there are now only 18 living people who might be Detectives; these happen to be divided 9 odds, 9 evens, as I'd checked before posting. If the remaining Wolves are split 3-3 or 4-2, my approach gives much better chance than yours. If they're split 5-1, your way is only very slightly better than mine. So (since we're being paranoid ), how about you're the Wolf, you know a Wolf killer other than ed did kill last night, and are trying to hinder our investigation.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 15:08:51 GMT -5
Post by eureka on Aug 2, 2010 15:08:51 GMT -5
Since I promised myself not to vote while cranky or tired . . .
Vote Special Ed
The advice not to reveal stuff like who the Witches protected has been noted.
The advice on what I should use as a sig line will not be taken, partly because I am not a big fan of sig lines, and partly because even if I don't entirely understand why I looked like the most obvious scum ever, I do accept responsibility for posting something that drew the wrong sort of attention.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 16:30:49 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 2, 2010 16:30:49 GMT -5
The paranoid version of that is that: septimus is a Wolf; the Wolves know that they figure disproportionately in odds (or evens); thus they stack the deck against their kill being investigated. Coin-flips have the advantage of not taking any kind of direction from a potentially untrustworthy source. Also, while we're not discussing stuff, I'd like to not discuss why FCOD followed Ed's lead in his suspicions of/voting for Kat!: 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. so, in other words, you're saying you're a detective? We had you more as the seer, but thanks. Thanks, that helps. And the unknown to Wolfie numbers dwindle. PS, I was untrustworthy when I suggest the even/odd thing...but which way? Which kill was the wolves? I'm still untrustworthy. You probably shouldn't even be reading this. And does anyone not trust bufftabby after learning that I pre-empted her annuncement of Squink's alignment? Since, of course, Squink isn't around to say one way or the other...
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 16:32:33 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 2, 2010 16:32:33 GMT -5
PS, septimus is not a Wolf.
no way. ain't possible.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 16:39:33 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 2, 2010 16:39:33 GMT -5
The paranoid version of that is that: septimus is a Wolf; the Wolves know that they figure disproportionately in odds (or evens); thus they stack the deck against their kill being investigated. Initially there were 13 odds and 12 evens, but given the semi-confirmed claims there are now only 18 living people who might be Detectives; these happen to be divided 9 odds, 9 evens, as I'd checked before posting. If the remaining Wolves are split 3-3 or 4-2, my approach gives much better chance than yours. If they're split 5-1, your way is only very slightly better than mine. So (since we're being paranoid ), how about you're the Wolf, you know a Wolf killer other than ed did kill last night, and are trying to hinder our investigation. Just 18? come on we now know more than that, check out my last post in the Night 1 thread. We've really narrowed that down. And why on earth are you trusting bufftabby? because she agreed with me? I'm a Wolf!Where is the evidence beyond her claim which has not been validated by anyone? And nice, how the one person who could have validated it or invalidated it is dead. And, after her conversation with Squink she tells everyone she investigated me and I'm not a freemason. Well, duh! I had already claimed Wolf by then. She's obviously Cabal. or Undead. Or the Omega.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 18:24:17 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Aug 2, 2010 18:24:17 GMT -5
Wolves always know best.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 19:51:46 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 2, 2010 19:51:46 GMT -5
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrowwwwwwwwwlllll
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 20:01:47 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Aug 2, 2010 20:01:47 GMT -5
PS, septimus is not a Wolf. no way. ain't possible. This is your way of kicking him out of the den for those last two posts of his, isn't it?
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 20:09:05 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 2, 2010 20:09:05 GMT -5
PS, septimus is not a Wolf. no way. ain't possible. This is your way of kicking him out of the den for those last two posts of his, isn't it? Yeah, pretty much. Wouldn't you?
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 20:38:40 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Aug 2, 2010 20:38:40 GMT -5
He's almost bordering on too scummy to be scum by now. But not quite.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 20:41:51 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 2, 2010 20:41:51 GMT -5
He's almost bordering on too scummy to be scum by now. But not quite. Let me ask you this, do any of you Undead know the identity of any of the others?
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 20:51:42 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 2, 2010 20:51:42 GMT -5
Gir!! Where are your breadcumbs this game? This post seems most likely but aside from a lot of numbers, I don't see it.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 21:35:04 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 2, 2010 21:35:04 GMT -5
01. moodymitchy - um, I'm doing this one last, and I don't have any Cabal, so that's what I'll call him, but really, he's actually a Wolf and I'm just trying to trick ya'll. 02. bufftabby - Fake Freemason
03. Merestil Haye - Killed Night One - Wolf 04. Pollux Oil - Wolf 05. storyteller - MIA 06. eureka - Wicked 07. Special Ed - King Deedee 08. BillMc - I know I need more wolves to make 7 09. MentalGuy - Brilliant, must be a Wolf because we're so awesome
10. metallicsquink - Killed Night One - Freemason 11. Honest Moley - Vanilla 12. Inner Stickler - Leprechaun 13. stanislaus - you don't want to know 14. Captain Pinkies - Vicar 15. Mister Blockey I think I alluded to him being a Wolf earlier, don't want to be caught lying now 16. Sister Coyote - wolf-like 17. Idle Thoughts - Not wearing underpants 18. septimus - cheap 19. sachertorte -Vampire 20. nphase - International Woman of Mystery 21. FlyingCowOfDoom - Very manly for a platypus 22. duvsie - Is she playing? 23. redskeezix - Chain 24. Kat! - Breadcrumber 25. Nanook - Not Zelda
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 21:35:40 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 2, 2010 21:35:40 GMT -5
oh, and Necromancer, you'd probably better try to Zombify one of the other dead ones. Remember, I've been blessed by the Vicar while still alive.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 21:43:05 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Aug 2, 2010 21:43:05 GMT -5
Gir!! Where are your breadcumbs this game? Breadcumbs? What's a "breadcumb"?
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 2, 2010 21:49:06 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 2, 2010 21:49:06 GMT -5
Gir!! Where are your breadcumbs this game? Breadcumbs? What's a "breadcumb"? Breadcrumbs or bread crumbs (regional variants: breading, crispies) are small particles of dry bread, which are used for breading or crumbing foods, topping casseroles, stuffing poultry, thickening stews, and adding inexpensive bulk to meatloaves and similar foods. They are documented in cookbooks as early as 1716.[1] They may be confused with simple cubed, dried bread or croutons, but breadcrumbs are much smaller in size, akin to the size of common ants. Hey, she asked!!
|
|
|
Post by stanislaus on Aug 3, 2010 3:27:32 GMT -5
So (since we're being paranoid ), how about you're the Wolf, you know a Wolf killer other than ed did kill last night, and are trying to hinder our investigation. Exactly! That's why it's so much better not to rely on in-thread suggestions for use of powers - even if it seems like a good idea, you can't trust the source. Different if it's a confirmed town, of course.
|
|
|
Post by stanislaus on Aug 3, 2010 4:47:04 GMT -5
Fair enough. Early on Day One, following sach's unveiling of his plan, Wolf-boy Eddie pounced on Kat! for, in his words, defending him, you and storyteller: @ Kat, I do find it odd that your comment on sachertorte's idea is to defend the 3 of us he identified. it causes me concern that maybe he's identified either a fellow Wolf, a fellow Undead, a fellow Cabalist, a fellow freemason, or a fellow Witch (did I get them all?) That was post 27. In post 162, you make the same point, and expand on it: Ok, this is kinda thin but it's the only thing that's really pinged me so far this game. Doubtful. Idle was given the list in his role PM:
If it's a list made up by another player, Pleo had to be positive that the player was online while role PMs were being sent out and that the player was going to get the list turned in before it was Idle's turn to receive his role PM. And he stated beforehand that they were going out in the order of the player list, so he couldn't just put off sending Idle's role, he had to send it in order. Yes, he could have lied about the order that he was sending them in, but mods shouldn't make even that small a lie in a nonBastard game. 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. --FCOD OK, in order: 1) Kat! explaining the genuine difficulties in the idea that Idle has been sent a fake list of roles hardly counts as "rushing to defend him". 2) More importantly, you reference Ed's case against Kat! - but you make no acknowledgement that it is in fact someone else's case. You simply take it as read that Ed's view of the matter is solid fact. This is something I've seen scum do before - by not acknowledging that one of their number has already made this case, the second scum to make it generates the impression that "everyone knows" the target player was doing something anti-town/suspicious and that this now accepted fact. It also allows scum to minimise their apparent links to each other, while still working in concert. 3) The fact that you, in my view, over-interpreted Kat's actions makes me wonder if you were looking for some reason to build on the case Ed made and see if between you you could paint Kat! as a serial snuggler. It's certainly not conclusive, but I find the fact that you echoed our one known Wolf's case without acknowledging it a little suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Aug 3, 2010 8:08:06 GMT -5
Early on Day One, following sach's unveiling of his plan, Wolf-boy Eddie pounced on Kat! for, in his words, defending him, you and storyteller: That was post 27. In post 162, you make the same point, and expand on it: [snipped] OK, in order: 1) Kat! explaining the genuine difficulties in the idea that Idle has been sent a fake list of roles hardly counts as "rushing to defend him". 2) More importantly, you reference Ed's case against Kat! - but you make no acknowledgement that it is in fact someone else's case. You simply take it as read that Ed's view of the matter is solid fact. This is something I've seen scum do before - by not acknowledging that one of their number has already made this case, the second scum to make it generates the impression that "everyone knows" the target player was doing something anti-town/suspicious and that this now accepted fact. It also allows scum to minimise their apparent links to each other, while still working in concert. 3) The fact that you, in my view, over-interpreted Kat's actions makes me wonder if you were looking for some reason to build on the case Ed made and see if between you you could paint Kat! as a serial snuggler. It's certainly not conclusive, but I find the fact that you echoed our one known Wolf's case without acknowledging it a little suspicious. Honestly, at the time I didn't remember/hadn't noticed that Ed made the same case against Kat!. If you read my post, I don't reference that he made that case, I just make it again myself. I used his name as one of the people Kat! was "defending", but I didn't reference his case like you are claiming now (putting words in my mouth, don't do it). Furthermore, I disclaimed at the very start of my post that it was a thin case, but you kinda ignore that to make your point #3. --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by stanislaus on Aug 3, 2010 8:45:01 GMT -5
No, my specific point was that you used the same arguments Ed made, but you didn't acknowledge that it was his argument. If you say you didn't remember him making the exact point you did then fair enough, but even the first time I read it I had a massive sense of deja vu.
As to the fact that you said it was a thin case... that doesn't make it thick. It's not good policy to let people get away with tendentious cases just because they cop to it in advance.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Aug 3, 2010 8:46:30 GMT -5
No, my specific point was that you used the same arguments Ed made, but you didn't acknowledge that it was his argument. If you say you didn't remember him making the exact point you did then fair enough, but even the first time I read it I had a massive sense of deja vu. As to the fact that you said it was a thin case... that doesn't make it thick. It's not good policy to let people get away with tendentious cases just because they cop to it in advance. Touche! --FCOD
|
|