Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Sept 30, 2010 16:52:12 GMT -5
snipped That part actually make some sort of sense regarding the Nexus-discussion. If we have some weird sort of random action-swing, then it could be the reason for the way the PM was phrased. However - I've never played in a game with a nexus and don't really see why a Mod would want to add that role to a game. But that's just my opinion. I don't like to much random in my games. it also makes perfect sense with a normal redirector or even with no possibility of someone swapping targets Yes, it does. I think I have tunnel vision ATM.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 30, 2010 16:59:33 GMT -5
So you're now admitting that you aren't completely confident of your earlier proclamations. It's nice to see you coming around finally.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Sept 30, 2010 17:01:06 GMT -5
Ok. I have probably missed this. But would anyone who claims to have not targetted Batman, but appeared on the watch list, like to name Dexter as their target? As a target redirect, would explain a lot of this, and would provide a possible alibi for Stay Puft?
I'll consider silence in response to the question to be the same as "I don't want to answer".
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Sept 30, 2010 17:07:23 GMT -5
I swear, for the 100th time... George: Do you or do you know agree with the following... A) Communications from the Moderator can be subject to the mechanics of the game B) The mechanics of the game can include misdirection/redirection/manipulation of other mechanics C) Communications from the Moderator can be subject to misdirection/redirection/manipulation a. agreed b. this is a tough one to answer cookies because i am not sure of the question. can a person do something that would confuse the mod. nah, i don't think so. could a person perform an action that because of the mechanics of another player have that action different than intended, certainly. would that action then cause the mod to be confused and provide a result different than what happened, nah again. c. absolutely not. if communications from the mod are subject to manipulation then why the hell would i even think i am a mason? why would i believe batty? why would you believe what you have seen. sopilism to the nth degree. matter of fact i would consider c to be the most egregious. in a gastard game one could expect some funky stuff. but even in a gastard game to the nth degree i can't imagine a mod passing on patently false information. i mean at that point let random.org decide the fucking thing. seriously, think about it cookies. a death reveal may or may not be accurate. your role may or may not be accurate. if you have a power the results may or may not be accurate. shit you might even have a power and they just didn't tell you. matter of fact the number of players in the game may or may not be accurate. do you really find that plausible?
|
|
|
Post by severe delays on Sept 30, 2010 17:08:11 GMT -5
::shakes her tiny fist at Stay Puft::
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 30, 2010 17:18:52 GMT -5
I swear, for the 100th time... George: Do you or do you know agree with the following... A) Communications from the Moderator can be subject to the mechanics of the game B) The mechanics of the game can include misdirection/redirection/manipulation of other mechanics C) Communications from the Moderator can be subject to misdirection/redirection/manipulation a. agreed b. this is a tough one to answer cookies because i am not sure of the question. can a person do something that would confuse the mod. nah, i don't think so. could a person perform an action that because of the mechanics of another player have that action different than intended, certainly. would that action then cause the mod to be confused and provide a result different than what happened, nah again. c. absolutely not. if communications from the mod are subject to manipulation then why the hell would i even think i am a mason? why would i believe batty? why would you believe what you have seen. sopilism to the nth degree. matter of fact i would consider c to be the most egregious. in a gastard game one could expect some funky stuff. but even in a gastard game to the nth degree i can't imagine a mod passing on patently false information. i mean at that point let random.org decide the fucking thing. seriously, think about it cookies. a death reveal may or may not be accurate. your role may or may not be accurate. if you have a power the results may or may not be accurate. shit you might even have a power and they just didn't tell you. matter of fact the number of players in the game may or may not be accurate. do you really find that plausible? You really are being obtuse, aren't you?
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Gir! on Sept 30, 2010 17:20:08 GMT -5
I stayed away from the cave. There were bats in it! this is inconsistent with the information that blockey provided. Uh-oh! Someone stole my guidy chippy thingy! But they left me a cupcake. ;D If I pretend to be dead for the rest of the day, can I read the spoiler board?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Sept 30, 2010 17:21:10 GMT -5
Now, Batman is a cop. Let's assume for the moment that he really truly is. And let's say, hypothetically, that Elizabeth Bathory is the Godfather (sorry, I couldn't resist). Now if Batman were to investigate her, then the Mods would tell him that she was Town. This would not be the truth. So that means that Batman can not trust the information the mods give him, under certain circumstances. <snipped> oh fucking crap. that's bullshit and you know it. the mechanics of a standard gf role is that they investigate as town to a town dick. that's the way it works. matter of fact if the mod were to tell the dick that by the way you got the godfather and he/she is supposed to investigate as town but i don't want to lie to you so really they are scum i would never play with that mod again. same thing as a fucking miller. shit most folks know that a miller, as town, is going to show up as scum to a town dick. so i see no correlation between the information that blockey has provided the masons and that in your example. we/he/she/them/us watched and we got results. if you are suggesting that the mods included lies in the results of that investigation then this is fucked up. because at that point no information is to be trusted and i will just vote reverse alphabetically. at least until i get to the p's. ;D
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Sept 30, 2010 17:22:13 GMT -5
a. agreed b. this is a tough one to answer cookies because i am not sure of the question. can a person do something that would confuse the mod. nah, i don't think so. could a person perform an action that because of the mechanics of another player have that action different than intended, certainly. would that action then cause the mod to be confused and provide a result different than what happened, nah again. c. absolutely not. if communications from the mod are subject to manipulation then why the hell would i even think i am a mason? why would i believe batty? why would you believe what you have seen. sopilism to the nth degree. matter of fact i would consider c to be the most egregious. in a gastard game one could expect some funky stuff. but even in a gastard game to the nth degree i can't imagine a mod passing on patently false information. i mean at that point let random.org decide the fucking thing. seriously, think about it cookies. a death reveal may or may not be accurate. your role may or may not be accurate. if you have a power the results may or may not be accurate. shit you might even have a power and they just didn't tell you. matter of fact the number of players in the game may or may not be accurate. do you really find that plausible? You really are being obtuse, aren't you? how so?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 30, 2010 17:27:53 GMT -5
so i see no correlation between the information that blockey has provided the masons and that in your example. This. I clearly see the correlation that you do not, and I don't think Mr. Mallomar and I are alone in seeing it.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 30, 2010 17:32:28 GMT -5
Ok. I have probably missed this. But would anyone who claims to have not targetted Batman, but appeared on the watch list, like to name Dexter as their target? As a target redirect, would explain a lot of this, and would provide a possible alibi for Stay Puft? I'll consider silence in response to the question to be the same as "I don't want to answer". And your co-Mason seems to finally admit to seeing the correlation too. I can keep throwing generalized equations of mechanics that illustrate my point, but that doesn't seem to be an effective method of communicating with you, as you seem to seize on certain specifics as (ironically) a reason to dismiss the entire line of questioning.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Sept 30, 2010 17:32:54 GMT -5
hey, puff and maybe cookies as well i have conferred with my brethren and want to know what makes you believe that the masons do not understand the possibility of redirection of other players.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 30, 2010 17:34:35 GMT -5
Just do a search of all of your own posts and re-read them, and you'll have your answer.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 30, 2010 17:40:44 GMT -5
absolutely not. if communications from the mod are subject to manipulation then why the hell would i even think i am a mason? why would i believe batty? why would you believe what you have seen. sopilism to the nth degree. SQUEEK. (But they're not arguing that communications from the mod are subject to manipulation. They're arguing...) SQUEEK! (Look. I'm running a game, okay? Has nothing to do with this one. In that game, NAF is the designated Scum hitter, and Ed is his target. But they know that Buff is a vig, and Idle is a Scum redirector. Buff, meanwhile, has figured out that Cookies is the third member of the Scum Team, so she's going to target Cookies. And poor put upon Skexis is a Watcher, and he's pretty damn sure Ed's going to be taken out, so he watches Ed.) SQUEEK! (Each person sends me, the moderator, the PM indicating what they're going to do. In the end, I tell Skexis he saw Buff "visit" or "target" Ed, because that's what happened, regardless of her intent. And the only thing Buff knows about the Night is that she targeted someone who wasn't on the Kill List.) Squeek. (So as the moderator, the information I have given to Skexis is accurate, but says nothing toward intent. Just because Skexis sees Buff take a shot at Ed doesn't mean she had any idea that's what she did the Night before.) Squeek (and that's what cookies and puft are trying to get you to wrap your little monkey brain around: Not that the information from Blocky is inaccurate, but that it says nothing of what anyone at the party intended to do with their evening.) squeek? *cough* (water?)
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 30, 2010 17:41:32 GMT -5
squeek (all that, and late again)
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 30, 2010 17:43:11 GMT -5
Ok. I have probably missed this. But would anyone who claims to have not targetted Batman, but appeared on the watch list, like to name Dexter as their target? As a target redirect, would explain a lot of this, and would provide a possible alibi for Stay Puft? I'll consider silence in response to the question to be the same as "I don't want to answer". Wait a minute. I thought you told us that Also, I am 100% sure the info we have is not the product of redirection. How could I possibly be certain? Well, that's a tale for another day, just know that I am. Then you reiterated that The 100% Surety... statement refers to the fact that there exists evidence in this thread which confirms that Batman was the intended target AND was the actual target of whatever power determined who visited him. I'm not going to draw a circle with red arrows around it, but it's there and can be explained at a later date. Now you want people to tell you if they targeted Dexter, because maybe that would show that they were redirected too? It seems like you're back to slightly less than 100% certain now. Would you kindly mind picking one story and sticking to it?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 30, 2010 17:48:35 GMT -5
Would you kindly mind picking one story and sticking to it? Frankly, I agree. If you are 100% certain, as you said you were, that the visits to Batman were not the result of a redirect, then at bare minimum, Gir! and Galadriel and Stay Puft are all liars and should be our next three lynches in some order. If you're not, then you (the Masons collectively) are misleading us. And that's a problem, given that: (1) None of you has been definitively confirmed as Masons; (2) We have had situations with Masons having third-party or solo win conditions in past games; and (3) Misleading the Town is generally a mistake, as it leads to a lot of pointless running around. Now, it seems very likely to me that you are not and were never 100% certain that what you learned last Night was not the result of a redirect. Which means your group is deliberately misleading us. Cut it out.
|
|
|
Post by Dirx on Sept 30, 2010 17:50:41 GMT -5
He is sticking to one story, and I think you're misreading things. None of those quotes are referring to redirection of other players, but of the fact that the mason watcher was not himself redirected.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 30, 2010 17:51:51 GMT -5
He is sticking to one story, and I think you're misreading things. None of those quotes are referring to redirection of other players, but of the fact that the mason watcher was not himself redirected. SQUEEK (My thoughts exactly -- this whole Day has been filled with the wonders of miscommunication, I swear.)
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Sept 30, 2010 17:54:09 GMT -5
Just do a search of all of your own posts and re-read them, and you'll have your answer. ok, i started with my first one that kind of talks about it. i seem to be the first one to bring up the fact that a redirector would be bad if puffy is what he says he is. is that where you are going?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 30, 2010 17:54:40 GMT -5
He is sticking to one story, and I think you're misreading things. None of those quotes are referring to redirection of other players, but of the fact that the mason watcher was not himself redirected. Ah. Well... I... didn't follow that, actually. Uh. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by Dirx on Sept 30, 2010 17:55:31 GMT -5
You know, it's funny. When I saw Batman's investigation result so early in the Day, if was afraid Today would end up being fairly quiet, with everyone just waiting for Dusk.
The Day isn't even over yet, and this is already the most talkative Day (by postcount).
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 30, 2010 17:56:40 GMT -5
I stopped short of breaking out Gimp and making a diagram, but that is still an option...
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 30, 2010 17:57:27 GMT -5
He is sticking to one story, and I think you're misreading things. None of those quotes are referring to redirection of other players, but of the fact that the mason watcher was not himself redirected. No, he isn't. Corinthian, what happened between those two posts to turn you from having "no way of knowing" about any redirections, to being "100% sure" that they didn't figure into your information? The I can't comment on redirections... statement refers specifically players being redirected to or away from batman. The 100% Surety... statement refers to the fact that there exists evidence in this thread which confirms that Batman was the intended target AND was the actual target of whatever power determined who visited him. I'm not going to draw a circle with red arrows around it, but it's there and can be explained at a later date. This was in direct response to a question from me. My point was always that my 'targeting' of Batman must have been the result of a redirection. Here he clearly says that is not the case, and that there is evidence in the thread to prove it. I was one of those players claiming to be "redirected to or away from batman", and according to him "Batman was the intended target AND was the actual target". Of course, nobody else has managed to find this evidence, and The Corinthian hasn't pointed it out himself. I can only speculate as to what that means.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Sept 30, 2010 17:58:05 GMT -5
absolutely not. if communications from the mod are subject to manipulation then why the hell would i even think i am a mason? why would i believe batty? why would you believe what you have seen. sopilism to the nth degree. SQUEEK. (But they're not arguing that communications from the mod are subject to manipulation. They're arguing...) SQUEEK! (Look. I'm running a game, okay? Has nothing to do with this one. In that game, NAF is the designated Scum hitter, and Ed is his target. But they know that Buff is a vig, and Idle is a Scum redirector. Buff, meanwhile, has figured out that Cookies is the third member of the Scum Team, so she's going to target Cookies. And poor put upon Skexis is a Watcher, and he's pretty damn sure Ed's going to be taken out, so he watches Ed.) SQUEEK! (Each person sends me, the moderator, the PM indicating what they're going to do. In the end, I tell Skexis he saw Buff "visit" or "target" Ed, because that's what happened, regardless of her intent. And the only thing Buff knows about the Night is that she targeted someone who wasn't on the Kill List.) Squeek. (So as the moderator, the information I have given to Skexis is accurate, but says nothing toward intent. Just because Skexis sees Buff take a shot at Ed doesn't mean she had any idea that's what she did the Night before.) Squeek (and that's what cookies and puft are trying to get you to wrap your little monkey brain around: Not that the information from Blocky is inaccurate, but that it says nothing of what anyone at the party intended to do with their evening.) squeek? *cough* (water?) hey, i understand that. the masons are 100 percent sure that their results are not the result of a redirection. does that help?
|
|
|
Post by special on Sept 30, 2010 17:59:31 GMT -5
George,
Imagine:
Scenario A: Stay Puft targeted Batman. Scenario B: Stay Puft targeted Dexter and was redirected to Batman.
Would the results you've been given by the moderators be identical in these 2 Scenarios?
I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. Please answer with a simple yes or no before going on to discuss the issue further. I also invite the other masons to answer.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 30, 2010 17:59:54 GMT -5
Ah, fuck it.
unvote Buddy Christ vote Curious George
Nobody, and I mean nobody, could possibly be as dim-witted as you are pretending to be. I could list the number of Scummy things that you and your "Mason" brethren have done Today, but I don't really feel like repeating myself yet again. It suffices to say that if any individual had posted the crap that you have been spewing, you would be the first one to hold them down so we could measure their neck for a noose. But because you are all "Claimed Masons" we're supposed to give you a pass, because "Scum wouldn't do that".
I call bullshit. I don't expect anybody to join me in this, and I don't care if it gets me lynched Today instead of Buddy. At least then the truth will start coming out at Dusk tonight instead of having to wait until at least Dawn tomorrow.
It's quittin' time here, so I'm going home. I'll check in later to read George's tearful confession.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Sept 30, 2010 18:01:40 GMT -5
Ok. I have probably missed this. But would anyone who claims to have not targetted Batman, but appeared on the watch list, like to name Dexter as their target? As a target redirect, would explain a lot of this, and would provide a possible alibi for Stay Puft? I'll consider silence in response to the question to be the same as "I don't want to answer". Wait a minute. I thought you told us that Then you reiterated that The 100% Surety... statement refers to the fact that there exists evidence in this thread which confirms that Batman was the intended target AND was the actual target of whatever power determined who visited him. I'm not going to draw a circle with red arrows around it, but it's there and can be explained at a later date. Now you want people to tell you if they targeted Dexter, because maybe that would show that they were redirected too? It seems like you're back to slightly less than 100% certain now. Would you kindly mind picking one story and sticking to it? yes batman was 100 percent our intended target. that is who we received results on so i do believe that batman received our "watch". once again, this entails a certain amount of credibility being attributed to the mod, however.
|
|
|
Post by Dirx on Sept 30, 2010 18:03:28 GMT -5
For flying fuck's sake.
"Batman was the intended target AND was the actual target of whatever power determined who visited him."
repeat:
"whatever power determined who visited him."
In other words, the power that determined who visited Batman--ie, the mason watcher--intended to and ended up targetting (watching) Batman.
"The I can't comment on redirections... statement refers specifically players being redirected to or away from batman."
This is referring to the fact that he can't comment on whether or not the other players who targetted Batman (ie, you and the rest of the guest list) were redirected or not. Because he doesn't know that.
This is getting aggravating.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 30, 2010 18:03:29 GMT -5
hey, i understand that. the masons are 100 percent sure that their results are not the result of a redirection. does that help? SQUEEK. (No. Because if you are saying that you were not redirected, then you do not, in fact, understand the point of my post.)
|
|