|
Post by Nanook on Aug 16, 2010 19:32:40 GMT -5
I do yes. Removing the Cabal entirely, especially when we don't know what their special power is, if it's been used, and lots of other things is beneficial for Town. It also makes it slightly more likely that the Necro might get killed by a Wolf/Vamp overNight(though I still think that the Vamps know who the Necro is). If nothing else, it should narrow things down for Tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Aug 16, 2010 22:39:41 GMT -5
Players voting Duvsie, you seem to think she is Cabal. ... I really think finding undead (especially the necromancer) is paramount at this point. septimus, I was not too busy to investigate, I simply thought I had sent the PM and I had not. Now the general busyness of my life at the time probably contributed to that, but I was not "too busy to investigate". Also, why didn't you comment on me not announcing my target on Day 3? We all seem to agree that we should Lynch an Undead, but what candidate is proposed? Lynching Cabalist is better than No Lynch. (Since Town seems to have become clear underdog, mass claim might help(?), if Wolves cooperate, but it'll soon be too late in the Day to try that toDay.) MentalGuy, do you agree that you should have announced your Day 3 target? If not, why not? If so, isn't failure to do so more evidence of the "too busy" claim I made? There were actually three reasons that I did not comment on your Day 3 failure to announce. (1) If one agrees that that failure is a useful scum-tell, then I had to delay to give you a chance not to announce! I voiced my suspicion early in Day 3, thought the announce logic was too obvious to mention (am I wrong?), and waited. (2) I was also busy (away from home) during much of Day 3: for a 4-day period I posted nothing here and (via Internet cafe) much less than usual at the Dope. I thought of mentioning my mission in the Schedule thread but didn't as I intended to visit Internet cafe once a day. (3) I'm often afraid I'm overlooking something in my analysis attempts! As an example of (3), earlier toDay I mentioned a 1-1-1 stalemate as a likely outcome, received but a single reaction from one who "couldn't see [it, and thought it] unlikely." I posted a longish explanation and still wonder if I've misanalyzed. redskeezix, do you still find the 1-1-1 Stalemate scenario unlikely? Did my explanation make sense?
|
|
|
Post by MentalGuy on Aug 16, 2010 22:53:13 GMT -5
Players voting Duvsie, you seem to think she is Cabal. ... I really think finding undead (especially the necromancer) is paramount at this point. septimus, I was not too busy to investigate, I simply thought I had sent the PM and I had not. Now the general busyness of my life at the time probably contributed to that, but I was not "too busy to investigate". Also, why didn't you comment on me not announcing my target on Day 3? We all seem to agree that we should Lynch an Undead, but what candidate is proposed? Lynching Cabalist is better than No Lynch. (Since Town seems to have become clear underdog, mass claim might help(?), if Wolves cooperate, but it'll soon be too late in the Day to try that toDay.) MentalGuy, do you agree that you should have announced your Day 3 target? If not, why not? If so, isn't failure to do so more evidence of the "too busy" claim I made? There were actually three reasons that I did not comment on your Day 3 failure to announce. (1) If one agrees that that failure is a useful scum-tell, then I had to delay to give you a chance not to announce! I voiced my suspicion early in Day 3, thought the announce logic was too obvious to mention (am I wrong?), and waited. (2) I was also busy (away from home) during much of Day 3: for a 4-day period I posted nothing here and (via Internet cafe) much less than usual at the Dope. I thought of mentioning my mission in the Schedule thread but didn't as I intended to visit Internet cafe once a day. (3) I'm often afraid I'm overlooking something in my analysis attempts! As an example of (3), earlier toDay I mentioned a 1-1-1 stalemate as a likely outcome, received but a single reaction from one who "couldn't see [it, and thought it] unlikely." I posted a longish explanation and still wonder if I've misanalyzed. redskeezix, do you still find the 1-1-1 Stalemate scenario unlikely? Did my explanation make sense? I do agree that it would probably have been a good idea to announce my target on Day 3, but I don't think it was an obvious thing to do. Maybe it should have been, but it was not something that came immediately to my mind. As far as candidates for lynch, at this point I am pretty much willing to go with anyone outside of me, Idle, Nanook, or Sach. Not that I am all that great at picking out scum to begin with, but I really don't know what an undead tell would look like as opposed to a Wolf tell.
|
|
|
Post by Duvsie on Aug 17, 2010 4:39:27 GMT -5
However, if I was a cabalist, out of all the players to vote for, I doubt very much that Stanislaus would have bothered to use a vote on me Day one...and I can assure you I wouldn't have bothered voting for a zombie either, especially if he furthered my wincon. Mewonders if the lady doth protest too much. Both your vote to Lynch zombie, and stanislaus' vote against you seemed fluffy silliness at the time, but now I'm wondering if it was staged. The two of you exchanged five messages in the Day One thread over a 46-minute period on 27 July beginning with #262. Looking at the timestamps on your other messages, both your on-line times vary(*), but you both remained on-line for at least 2.5 or 3 hours to post again after that exchange on 27 July. (* - in my timezone, I see only 3 pm, 12 pm, 2 am, 5 am posts from duvsie beside the suspicious 5pm-9pm exchange with stanislaus.) It's not much to go on, but I was already suspicious (indeed have voted to Lynch duvsie previously), mainly for Lurking and lurkish-like comments. Vote duvsieReally? So basically after your Day 1 OMGUS vote on me, your vote for me today is because of my online times? Oh please, that’s so weak it’s painful. I suppose it goes beyond the scope of your imagination that someone would log in with the intention of writing and posting something and stay logged on if they ended up too busy at work to do just that right? Yeah, thought so. That may be so for you, but it's quite a logical thought process for me. However, if I was a cabalist, out of all the players to vote for, I doubt very much that Stanislaus would have bothered to use a vote on me Day one Why not? Ed the Wolf did it, why not Stanislaus the Cabalist? Yeah sure, it’s a possibility. However Ed voted a whole load of people on Day 1, not just 3 as Stalinaus did, who then removed his vote on all apart from Ed. I still think that in a 25 player game to vote the one other person who is your team mate is a bit ridiculous but who knows how other peoples’ minds work. Why not? Why is that possibility so far out there that it cannot be considered? Nobody else appears to have put it forth as a possibility. It’s just as likely and unlikely as any other. What about this for another possibility: vampire 1 targets vampire 2 and that results in one less NK. Neither actually. I bunched both the undead and cabal together then realised belatedly my mistake. It’s interesting that you seem to be voting for me due to lurking, that’s fine, albeit weak. You seem eager to pounce on a whole load of nothing Kat. Is that maybe because you stayed true to form as it appears other players did and in C4 you asked for the same roles that you wanted in C3? Let’s take a closer look at the list Sach posted Day1 on players previous preferences: Sister Coyote: 1) Warlock 2) Witchdoctor 3) Omega 4) Town. Merestil Haye: 1) Cabalist 2) Vampire 3) Coroner 4) Vigilante. Nanook: 1) Vig 2) Witch 3) Vampire 4) Mason. BillMc: 1) Witch 2) Witchdoctor 3) Vig 4) Omega. storyteller: 1) Undead 2) Cabal or Wolves. FCoD: 1) Vampire 2) Necromancer. Kat: 1) Vampire 2) Seer 3) Werewolf 4) Omega Wolf 5) Detective 6) Freemason 7) Warlock 8) Vicar 9) Necromancer. Special Ed: 1) Wolves 2) Cabal. Taking out the roles that aren’t in this game, I think there’s an interesting correlation in the previous askance of players’ choices and what we know that some of them received in C4. Human nature doesn’t vary that drastically (Nanook, MHaye and Ed), so I’d be willing to bet that storyteller, FCOD and Kat asked for the same roles this time round (first choice undead), at worst Kat you’re a vampire, at best a detective. I’m on the understanding that we need to lynch an undead quite desperately today otherwise we’re a bit stuffed, therefore: Vote: storyteller Vote: FCOD Vote: Kat!
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Aug 17, 2010 6:42:26 GMT -5
OK, there has got to be some intelligent way to proceed here. I am going to take an hour and re-read the entire game, then see if I can't come up with a useful contribution.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Aug 17, 2010 9:59:40 GMT -5
Wow, I didn't realize there was only a little more than 24 hours left in the day. (I've been slogging through a very mechanical game elsewhere)
@captain Pinkies: Where are you? Not even a post today. Here's a prod for you.
vote Captain Pinkies
@septimus: Your explanation is a little better. I don't see how mass claim implies that outcome, but I realized I don't really care, since it is possible, and I'm not really interested in mapping out all the potential outcomes from a mass claim, to see how many converge on that scenario.
At this point, the only suggestion I feel has much merit is to simply reduce the pool and hope that the roles that can take out or expose the necromancer get lucky/unlucky. I've never been good at guessing scum roles outside of a situation where an obvious defensive play has been mounted. I'm not having a hard time seeing duvsie's attempts to return to sach's plan as a bit of desperation from scum who feels caught.
vote duvsie
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Aug 17, 2010 10:02:17 GMT -5
I'm not having a hard time seeing duvsie's attempts to return to sach's plan as a bit of desperation from scum who feels caught. vote duvsie This is the straw for me. duvsie's prior behavior was not enough to get me to vote, but after she tried to resurrect sach's plan I have to agree with red here. Vote: duvsie . --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Aug 17, 2010 10:35:00 GMT -5
I have to admit -- resurrecting sach's plan seems kind of desperate.
Vote: duvsie
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Aug 17, 2010 11:10:49 GMT -5
I have to admit -- resurrecting sach's plan seems kind of desperate. Bbbb...but my plans are always made of awesome!
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Aug 17, 2010 11:13:54 GMT -5
Vote: mister blockey OMGUS from Day One
Vote: Pollux Oil wimsy
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Aug 17, 2010 11:31:40 GMT -5
That's an interesting set of reactions to Duvsie's comments.
We seemed to initially be in agreement that we needed to lynch Undead toDay.
From her initial vote on Hoopy, and her misunderstanding of the the role of zombies, it would seem very unlikely that she is Undead.
I still think at the moment, the Undead are with doubt the biggest threat.
They have 2 kills, and can create a zombie each night.
You are a Vampire, a member of the Undead. Each Night you may kill one player. If the target is a Vicar, your attack will fail, but you will not know why. Vampires are immune to being killed at Night, except by a Vigilante. Anyone else who attempts to kill you at Night will instead be killed; you will know if this happens. Vampires are immune to a Detective's investigative power.
The only way to kill the Vampires is by the lynch -- as we do not have a Vig. So even if we know who the Vampires are - it will take at *least* two Days to lynch them.
The only way for a Vampire kill to fail is witch protection or the Cabal block. Removing the last Cabal player benefits the Vampires significantly more than the Town.
We must lynch undead toDay, otherwise I see no way of preventing an Undead win.
So Vote: Kat
Given her comments towards MentalGuy, I don't believe she is the Seer or Detective; and her voting suggests that she is not a wolf. Nor based on what appeared to be a bufftabby/squink handshake, I don't think Kat is the third freemason. And she seemed a little too eager to join the "duvsie is cabal" bandwagon - as the cabal can stop her night action.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Aug 17, 2010 11:43:07 GMT -5
I have to admit -- resurrecting sach's plan seems kind of desperate. Bbbb...but my plans are always made of awesome! Made of awesome or not, I wasn't the only one who wasn't thrilled by your plan to begin with. So going back to it? Not that useful, IMExtremelyNotHO Also, since we can multi-vote: Vote: Kat! Her whole post in response to Duvsie was focused on Cabal when many of us seem pretty sure that the Undead are the real threat. Also, saying she doesn't want to "lynch the lurker" on duvsie when Pinkies isn't around at all as far as I can tell feels kind of like a stretch. Now, if she were voting Pinkies, I could see being reluctant due to not wanting to LTL.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Aug 17, 2010 12:08:48 GMT -5
We must lynch undead toDay, otherwise I see no way of preventing an Undead win. So [co/lor=blue] Vote: Kat [/color][/quote] So what you're telling me here is that Kat! who was a Vampire in C3 and killed her own teammate decided that she wanted to be Undead again? I suppose that's possible, but I'm finding it less likely. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm less wanting to vote for people who were Undead in C3. That includes mister blockey for whom I am currently voting. poopers Unvote: mister blockey
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Aug 17, 2010 12:38:29 GMT -5
So what you're telling me here is that Kat! who was a Vampire in C3 and killed her own teammate decided that she wanted to be Undead again? I suppose that's possible, but I'm finding it less likely. About as likely as Ed and Meeko pretty much losing C3 for the Wolves on Day 1 and Ed wanting to be a Wolve again.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Aug 17, 2010 13:21:26 GMT -5
good point
Vote: mister blockey
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Aug 17, 2010 13:36:39 GMT -5
From her initial vote on Hoopy There's only one thing worth voting for: vote: BRRRAAAAAIIIINNNNNNSSSSS!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Aug 17, 2010 14:04:50 GMT -5
From her initial vote on Hoopy There's only one thing worth voting for: vote: BRRRAAAAAIIIINNNNNNSSSSS!!!!!!!awww, shucks, we were starting to miss you
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Aug 17, 2010 17:04:53 GMT -5
I'm going to have a meeting Wednesday at noon, so I am going to preemptively delay Dusk until 2pm PT (5pm ET) on Wed Aug 18.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Aug 17, 2010 17:42:51 GMT -5
F--k me, I've thrown only one vote this entire game, it's time to par-tay.
I have no idea who the scum are, so...
Vote: Kat
She seems to be on the block, some good points have been made about her recently by BillMC, who doesn't seem vampish to me; and I'm hoping that at least one of my day 1 suspicions turn out right.
Also: Duvsie. Really? Just... really? This might be somewhat hypocritical coming from the guy who thought lynching Eureka was the best idea day 1, but the whole "voting because of what people wanted to be in the previous game". I've had three rounds to think about it and it still seems like the absolute worst idea possible. Admittedly I've been somewhat short on ideas myself since practically all of my initial suspects are now proven town, but what do you do.
(And no, that's not meant to be a vote for Duvsie.)
|
|
|
Post by MentalGuy on Aug 17, 2010 21:40:46 GMT -5
I can understand why players might want to vote Duvsie. What I don't understand is why you think her looking at the players past role requests makes her more likely scum. Sach was the originator of the idea and we are fairly certain he is Town. Duvsie went back and looked at the new information that we had to see if his idea had any support and it seems to. I am sure that if she had found the opposite that she would either not have posted about it or mentioned that sach was wrong. This makes me suspicious of those that voted for her for that reason.
I think BillMc makes a good case against Kat! and I remember how well he pegged Total as the Master in Malazan, so I am more inclined to go along with him on this than some random player.
Vote: Kat
When I first voted toDay I forgot to
Vote: RedSkeezix
for his Day 1 behavior also, and I don't like the way he jumped on Duvsie looking back at past choices.
|
|
|
Post by MentalGuy on Aug 17, 2010 21:54:42 GMT -5
And now that I have actually went back and looked up the comments I have to ask
Bill, how does Kat's remarks regarding me make you think that she is not a seer or detective?
|
|
|
Post by MentalGuy on Aug 17, 2010 21:55:32 GMT -5
NETA:
Not that I necessarily think she is one of those, I just don't see how you think her comments rule it out.
|
|
|
Post by MentalGuy on Aug 17, 2010 23:03:48 GMT -5
So, on Day 1 stanislaus makes a case against Ed. Ed turns up Wolf.
On Day 2 stanislaus makes a case against FCOD but does not vote for him since Ed's lynch is a forgone conclusion. On Day 3 stanislaus is dead.
The only roles that FCOD listed in C3 were undead roles. He also jumps on the bandwagon against Duvsie for bringing the list back up. I know it is not a certainty, but I think if there were Vegas odds for it, FCOD would be the favorite to be an undead right now.
Unvote: all Vote: FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Aug 17, 2010 23:05:07 GMT -5
Alright, I have to get in a few votes here after reading all this kerfuffle. (Kerfuffle!)
Vote septimus
For some reason, it twinged me that he voted for MentalGuy and has stayed voting for just MentalGuy even though the fairly realistic look is he's either what he says he is or a Wolf. Since we've already nailed two Wolves to the lynch wall (assuming IS turns up Wolf which is almost a given I'd say), and most people agree we should be looking at going for possible Undead, I don't see why we should focus on MentalGuy just yet. For some reason I got a weird vibe from septimus' accusal of MentalGuy.
Vote duvsie
For retreating back to sach's plan. It definitely looks like backpedaling after she got caught.
Vote Kat!
For Bill's excellent points.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Aug 18, 2010 2:28:12 GMT -5
<font style="font-size: 12px;">And now that I have actually went back and looked up the comments I have to ask Bill, how does Kat's remarks regarding me make you think that she is not a seer or detective? It's primarily this post that doesn't quite sit right with me: <font style="font-size: 12px;">MentalGuy gave plenty of time for himself or Inner Stickler to be investigated by the Witches or the Seer, though. Early in the game, investigative roles are best used to uncover new information, rather than confirm claims. It just feels like a gentle nudge for our investigators to waste an investigation looking at MG, rather than looking at others.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Aug 18, 2010 6:24:23 GMT -5
Oh yeah, and since I'm just getting used to this multiple voting thing:
Vote Flying Cow of Doom.
Now people like Spec. Ed might be able to throw out twelve votes at once with no problem, but this is totally uncharted territory for me. If you "do" too many votes in too short a time, do they become addictive? Will I not be able to stop until I've voted everyone in the game, including dead guys, zombies, and myself? If there are any unforeseen medical complications here I think I need to be told.
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Aug 18, 2010 7:08:02 GMT -5
What I don't understand is why you think her looking at the players past role requests makes her more likely scum. ... This makes me suspicious of those that voted for her for that reason. This makes sense to me. "Once a Vampire, always a Vampire" is too simplistic, but Sach's list would seem to have probabilistic utility when scum-hunting seems hard, as it does now to me. I've been slightly suspicious of Kat! for a while, but couldn't put my finger on a specific reason. Perhaps it's in part because she's been posting fairly often, yet contributing little to the discussions of what Town strategy should be. Vote: Kat! [/color] Vote: FCOD [/color] I intended the following, but didn't bother because he was in no Lynch danger: Unvote: MentalGuy [/color] Evidence that MentalGuy is Detective includes the apparent mistakes he's made, which a fake-Detective (being coached all Night in the Wolves' Den) might not have made.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Gir! on Aug 18, 2010 7:13:26 GMT -5
I'm leaving for work shortly, so I'll make this quick. I will make the opportunity to get on here from work at least once before Day ends. On preview, I see that Kat has voted Duvsie, with the possibility that she is undead. If you think that, I can see voting for her, but if you really think she is Cabal, do you think you should be voting her? I hadn't intended to vote duvsie when I started that post, the end of the post was originally intended to just be that she sounded either like a Cabalist pretending not to know the Cabal win condition, and then the Vampire possibility hit me out of the blue. Considering that there's a breakdown of all roles, including Zombies listed under Undead, it still baffles me how she could think Zombies were Cabal, even if she hadn't recently checked out the Rules thread. Her whole post in response to Duvsie was focused on Cabal when many of us seem pretty sure that the Undead are the real threat. Also, saying she doesn't want to "lynch the lurker" on duvsie when Pinkies isn't around at all as far as I can tell feels kind of like a stretch. Now, if she were voting Pinkies, I could see being reluctant due to not wanting to LTL. I'm missing your point, unless you're contending that only one player per game can be considered a lurker. At the point of my vote, based on their histories, I had duvsie, blockey, Pollux Oil, and, yes, Captain Pinkies, on my "lurker list". And she seemed a little too eager to join the "duvsie is cabal" bandwagon - as the cabal can stop her night action. Actually, no, I haven't been blocked at all. I was posting from work when I made that one, so it was short and sweet. Did you miss my later clarification? Anyway, if the Witches were to listen to any hints from me about investigations, or even if I were to straight out say "So and So should be investigated" and they did so, they've got issues.
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Aug 18, 2010 7:14:15 GMT -5
Oops! Wrong color.
Unvote: MentalGuy
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Aug 18, 2010 8:46:41 GMT -5
Vote: storyteller
|
|