|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 4, 2010 0:35:04 GMT -5
And as to your commentary on Jack, I find that I'm just as likely (which is quite likely) to point out possibilities that may exist but are left out of other players summaries whether I'm scum or town. And that is how I'm reading Jack's post. "Not a threat to town" is indeed not necessarily equal to being Town-aligned based on the data at hand.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Oct 4, 2010 0:46:43 GMT -5
Zedd did not say I was town, Rorschach. He said I was not a threat to town. I am, in point of fact, town but for all you or he knows, I am a survivor or some other nonexclusive third party. ::Takes two steps back, then moves three steps forward:: Jack you raise an argument that I didn't carry forward your statements as best I could. I suck at multi quoting on this board. Do we both agree that you said the quote above? Yes No. Rorschach was incorrect in his summation of Zedd's post. I was making sure that the summation was corrected before someone made an erroneous assumption based on it. No. You are drawing one conclusion and assuming it is the only conclusion. What players conclude are up to them. I wanted nothing more than to make sure Rorschach was clear on what Zedd's post meant.It is not a gambit, and I would hope no one would think it is spam. It is a correction. That would be because it is in no way related to Pleo's soft claim in LOTRNo. If one dies and is revealed as a mason, I will be relieved and trust the others to be acting in town's best interest a little more. If one dies and is revealed as scum, I will be relieved that I do not need to wonder about their motivations and can simply lynch the remaining scum masonry.I think it's past your bed time and stay out of the sunny D and rum next time.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Oct 4, 2010 0:48:16 GMT -5
Confusion is sowed, not sewn.
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Oct 4, 2010 0:49:44 GMT -5
Chitter?
Little Indian Girl: If you can't be watched because you don't visit the player you target... than how can you be redirected to a new target? It doesn't add up...
Vote: Zedd
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 4, 2010 1:01:17 GMT -5
Maybe we have a Weatherman role in our midst , or one of those super secret military weather-manipulating cloud tasers.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Oct 4, 2010 6:30:30 GMT -5
Another thought I had re: Zedd's possible redirection.
Why would scum redirect him to someone new, instead of just keep redirecting him to batman over and over again?
There are a few scenarios where this makes sense.
1. Redirector is not scum. 2. Redirector is target type and targetted me instead. 3. Zedd is lying. 4. Scum wanted Jack investigated for some reason. 5. Scum made a gaffe and didn't think of this.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 4, 2010 6:36:36 GMT -5
Zedd did not say I was town, Rorschach. He said I was not a threat to town. I am, in point of fact, town but for all you or he knows, I am a survivor or some other nonexclusive third party. Exactly. However, I am wondering if a Town aligned Vigilante would come up as a "threat to Town" since they can pose a threat. Anyway. I'm trying to think of how it is possible that Town has two investigators. I am sure that Batman is not a threat to town(unless he's some kind of godfather investigator...unlikely). It makes me wonder if one of our masons is not really a mason, but perhaps a spy scum. Disagree with my choice of investigation if you like, but that was my thinking. Anyway, are we sure it was a scum redirector that redirected me? And, if I was scum, why would I tell everyone my initial investigation and tell about my redirection?
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 4, 2010 6:38:20 GMT -5
1. Redirector is not scum. 2. Redirector is target type and targetted me instead. 3. Zedd is lying. 4. Scum wanted Jack investigated for some reason. 5. Scum made a gaffe and didn't think of this. We more or less simulposted, for the record. I more or less agree with your analysis, except for the the "Zedd is lying" part, but I totally understand your perspective on that.
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 4, 2010 6:48:42 GMT -5
Well, OK, the question would be "Why?" 1. Why vote for a claimed Mason toDay? 2. Why are you so focused on yourself that you assume that george isn't voting you because it would look like OMGUS? 3. Why not consider that he's voting for the person who seems the most like Scum and is just pretty much ignoring you? 4. Why did you make a post about Jack's comment that Zedd found him 'not a thret to Town?" Did you have something to add or just you just want to include an obscure and unrelated comment about Pleonast in another game. 5. Why do I bother? ::: Drinks an imaginary glass of water. Then a REAL glass of water, and does some mouth stretches ::: La la la la la. Me me me me me. 1. Claimed by whom? I think Nakookie previously stated to emphasize skepticism after witnessing the events of this game. I'm on board with that. More of this when I get to 4. He's claimed it. 2 others have also claimed it. 2. I voted for George. I don't think Zedd has yet [today at least]. You are going to tell me, that if George DID vote for me, it wouldn't be OMGUS on his part? [/quote] I would assume he's voting for someone who is voting for a claimed Mason.\ 2.5 Now I know we've had this conversation before Ed. Why do you want me to reduce the focus on myself? I know I'm town. Wasn't the argument made that I'm the only one I know for certain is town? OK, don't focus only on yourself. Sometimes, people do things in this game that have nothing to do with you. Be open to that possibility. Perhaps George thought that Zedd was Scum and didn't think anything about how he'd be perceived in voting for you. 2.75 I still don't get what you mean to say here. The words you use don't work for me. How do you suggest I unfocus from myself? Assuming it can be done [It can't, and if say you can do it, you are lying to yourself] where should my other focus go? Certainly having divided attention in a Mafia game would allow more cracks for scum to hide in. During a transition between my foci scum can and will slip in. This is silly. So, you're unable to look at anything that doesn't involve you because Scum can hide in the cracks in your focus? um......ok...... 3. I obviously consider Peeker to be scum. If indeed he is scum, he would need to make up reasons to vote people. I think a scummy peeker would be the type of player to come back to my vote on him and use it as reason* to vote me later. I want to make sure that doesn't happen. Peeker can't vote for me later, if he doesn't vote for me now. Otherwise I would have gotten his vote, not Zedd. So, a preemptive vote to stop him from casting an OMGUS vote later, which of course, he'd be unable to do if you didn't vote for you. Got it. 4. If my terminology is correct, I essentially had a policy vote on Pleonast for apparently claiming. The apparent equivalent in this game [that assumes no VT] is to say you are Town Aligned, but are a survivor type of some 3rd or 4th party. For this game being extra-factional is the new "I am town power". Everyone knows that "I am town power" is soooooooo last game. 4.1 I am not going to take someone's word for it when they say they are Town or Town Aligned. A non-mason, non scum can not tell the difference between mason members confirming each other as masons, or scum mates confirming each other as mason in a gambit. But don't you see that Jack said the exact opposite? He said to eeryone else, even if Zedd is proven true, he might not be Town. And, while we can't tell if the Masons are just really stupid Scum, why don't we wait a while to see if any of them dies of other causes before we kill them ourselves, eh? 4.2 Bonus Extra Credit : This is what I mean by my Policy vote post. I have no problems adopting and following an immediate policy vote on people thow blatantly claim Town, and dodge everything after. EXCEPT for the times when I realize that something is just not right with the immediate game at hand. Who did that? Oh crap, I think, that while this post made sense, albeit poorly reasoned, we're about to go off into the land of things I'll not understand. From this, I feel my policy is not what it once was [for the one game that it existed previously] Hence my question there. Is it still policy if just one game can cause you to call it off? A policy can't be cherry picked, able to discern, can it ? yup, I was right. 5. I believe you once used words on the order of "liking" me. If I could be this blatantly forward, it just might be that there is some experience I provide, that you have not had enough of yet. [I'm probably giving it to you filled with impurity.] You sense something here, and you want that something, at the very least you want to understand it. Why Mr.Anderson? Why? Why? Why Do you Persist? * Oh who am I kidding? Peeker would vote you if you didn't look at him Cross. If you did look at him cross, well then, you looked at him cross, what did you expect? He would probably vote you because he got a turkey sandwich and not a ham sandwich in his lunch today. Holy crap.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Oct 4, 2010 8:23:21 GMT -5
::: looks blankly to Raj ::: You asked questions, and I gave answers. Like Radio Shack. I think we are both hard-wired upstairs to not understand each other, ever. Ok. Let me see what I can save out of this burning house of a conversation.
-
Peeker may very well NOT be a mason. You seem to imply that anyone who can eke out or even dupe two other players into "claiming" for them is vote-proof.
If you follow this line of logic, you will be Scum MVP in every game. Scum would only need the night prior to conspire, and then pass on a player that you will immediately confirm. God help us if more town thinks on your same line of logic, to the same person.
-
If George isn't voting for me now, I'm not so sure he can come back to vote for me later, given that he went for Zedd over me. So, if he does switch to voting me, I would take his switch to me has being filled with scum motivation. If I unvote George now, I am not sure my vote switch back on him would be without onlooker comment.
So, I feel kinda frozen on my vote.
At the same time, if Peeker is giving me a pass now, to circle back later, the actions and inactions here should be brought up.
I wonder what influenced Peeker to vote Maha. If I influenced the vote, in some small part by ruling out me as a vote choice among two choices, then I think I can use it later, especially if Peeker votes me.
You may choose one option over another. Certainly you have reasons for doing so. There are also reasons for not choosing the alternate. There may very well be reasons for not voting the alternate, that voted chosen option has no piece of.
Was the vote on Zedd more a Vote for Zedd , or more NOT a vote against Marcel?
[[Giving the timing of my Vote, and the timing of George's vote. I think the timing is close enough to each other to be of consequence.]]
If you Knne-jerk an answer here, I believe you are not looking at everything you need to look at in a Mafia game. [You in the general sense.]
-
If you [general you] call attention to something, and effectively say that "Hey Scum! I will be over here! Be sure to be scummy someplace else!" They will be all too quick to oblige.
Obligatory comment that you can Bluff and Double Bluff here But I don't see a path down that route that DOESN'T include WIFOM and Lying and other lynching offenses. For better or worse, it would seem to be better to not telegraph plays, and possible plays to Scum.
But Scum have been known to exploit even lesser obvious telegraphs. They have been known to exploit things that are less than telegraphs.
Opposite sides of the same coin. The Cracks will be found and used. The cracks are still there, but it would be harder for scum to exploit if it was less obvious.
-
..... You understand me here?! Someone write this date down in history. [[Omgus Locking]]
-
Why are you so eager to take someone's own word for it? [To both Jack and George making claims.]
In this game, it would seem some assumptions are working against us. The only thing left after that, is if someone offers information un-solicited, I question the motivation.
In Mafia I would always offer that an unsolicited claim, by itself, with out additional information [Including question dodges] should not be trusted. It is a set-up for a play / gambit later.
I Have to cut and paste this part, and embolden it. ]
And, while we can't tell if the Masons are just really stupid Scum, why don't we wait a while to see if any of them dies of other causes before we kill them ourselves, eh?
1. An inverted "Scum would never do that" is still Scum would never do that.
2. I can't shake the notion that the second part here is an appeal to time, out of desperation, from the vantage of scum on the run.
-
Not sure Which Who you mean to inquire about.
Pleonast Dodged left right and center in LOTR. I can see myself enforcing a policy vote in future games. The Policy would be to vote for people who over offer, and make an apparent, non-confirmable claim in complete and total isolation.
Again, A play can be made on town being to eager to accept the non-confirmable as confirmed - either by action or inaction. -
You understood me here, too? Where is that Record book, we are certainly doing something no mere mortals have done before.
Oh. Darn, Premature Exaltation.
The definition of a Policy Vote is a vote that mechanically given out, with out exception. If P happens, the Q must follow as a vote against.
I was stating that Policy by definition can not give partial treatment. [Partial was the word I was actually searching for last night, as I typed it, the word would not come to me.]
For the most part, that's what that piece was about
-
I quoted the Matrix. I would have assumed that was an easier one to reference, over Pi.
You say "Holy Crap"
1. Holy Crap - He Nailed it!
or
2. Holy Crap, the cheese done slid off his cracker.
Which one?
-
I felt like I just slurped the worlds longest spaghetti noodle.
Wow. I DO NOT want to think about how much time it took me to do this one.
Ed: If we are to continue this, can we please make it bite size?
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Oct 4, 2010 8:35:40 GMT -5
::: Looks to Jack :::
Jack: FTR I will not attempt a noodle slurp with you, unless you ask for one*. I would like to think that you understand me a lot better than RajEd does.
One comment though: I am glad to see that you picked up on the fact that I am picking up on things.
It's not Wine, It's not the Vodka, I would not call it Sunny D and Rum - I think we can both call that joke an aside.
But yeah, I feel different. I felt it more last night that I do today. It could be similar to an intoxication, or it could be some new source testing things on for size. Once it finds it's best fit, look out Mafia, Papa's got a brand new bag.
* Note to self, Never use the word Slurp in Mafia, ever again.
Noodle Slurp for A Meeting of the Minds. ..... Hrm I choose to stick with Noodle Slurp.
Noodles, Crutons, Potatoes. I could have given Atkins a Heart Attack by just looking at him.
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 4, 2010 9:05:15 GMT -5
I'll leave most of this alone, since I really don't understand it. And I know at this point, that I will fail to make myself understood to you. You say "Holy Crap" 1. Holy Crap - He Nailed it! or 2. Holy Crap, the cheese done slid off his cracker. Which one? More of a "holy crap, I can't believe we both speak English."
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 4, 2010 9:22:21 GMT -5
marcel just so you know i am not not voting you because of any omgys ramifications. matter of fact, i really don't get the whole omgys stigma. sometimes someone will vote for you for reasons so outlandish that you just gotta call them on their bullshit. i think you are more likely town than scum at this point (despite your current vote) and that is why i am not voting for you. i kind of have that as my internal policy that i don't vote for folks that i consider to be town (when i am town, of course).
and i kind of agree with some of the obvservations. the masons have confirmed each other. now could we be a group of really dumb scum. shoot anything is possible, i guess. but as we continue to narrow the field the truly unconfirmed's will begin to dwindle. at that point scum have a real problem. they won't want to winnow that field much, less places to hide. but they probably won't want to take out a mason either because that just confirms the other two. in which case they are well and truly fucked. a total conundrum for them.
i like to give scum conundrums.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 4, 2010 9:35:33 GMT -5
<font style="font-size: 12px;">Chitter? Little Indian Girl: If you can't be watched because you don't visit the player you target... than how can you be redirected to a new target? It doesn't add up... SQUEEK! (I will admit to being dubious; however, we could have the kind of redirector that says "everyone who takes an action on Person X gets redirected to Person Y instead." Now, why they'd choose to "protect" a confirmed mason in that fashion...I dunno. It seems unlikely; on the other hand, yesterday we were all convinced it was likely that StaPuft was in fact a PFK.) i like to give scum conundrums. SQUEEK! (Could you try not giving Town conniptions while you're at it?)
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Oct 4, 2010 9:43:00 GMT -5
I'll leave most of this alone, since I really don't understand it. And I know at this point, that I will fail to make myself understood to you. You say "Holy Crap" 1. Holy Crap - He Nailed it! or 2. Holy Crap, the cheese done slid off his cracker. Which one? More of a "holy crap, I can't believe we both speak English." :: Looks at Raj, and mimes eating a cracker, after pointing to it:: My cheese is still intact? Why do I feel like this conversation is closer to one that Gir! would have over Marcel?
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Oct 4, 2010 10:07:37 GMT -5
vote: Zedd[/color], for reasons given previously. I think he's a MURDERER, heehee.
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 4, 2010 10:28:37 GMT -5
My cheese is still intact? If by "my cheese" you mean "my ability to convey my thoughts to you using the written word as a medium" and by "still intact" you mean "only moderately substandard" then, no your cheese is not intact.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 4, 2010 10:45:21 GMT -5
My cheese is still intact? If by "my cheese" you mean "my ability to convey my thoughts to you using the written word as a medium" and by "still intact" you mean "only moderately substandard" then, no your cheese is not intact. SQUEEK! (Actually, I think Marcel is asking if you think he's nuts -- if his "cheese has slipped off his cracker." Which is not an expression I've heard before, and I've heard a lot, but from context that's the only thing he can mean. If we're all still speaking English.)
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 4, 2010 10:48:26 GMT -5
ok, someone needs to help me out. can someone at least attempt to put marcel's recent posts in something comprehensible? i mean it appears that the words are english. it also appears that there is some sentence structure to them. but the intent of the meaining is being lost, at least to me.
i mean a sentence like, "potatoes eat cheese crackers" is constructed correctly but doesn't really tell me anything.
and this is coming from the simian lord of obfuscation.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Oct 4, 2010 10:51:55 GMT -5
I usually hear it as "his cheese has slid off the cracker." I wanna say that it's a british turn of phrase but I really have no evidence for that position. I have a question for all those who think Zedd is scum and are voting for him currently. Why do you think a scum zedd would counterclaim Batman on Day 2 unprovoked in the manner that he did?
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 4, 2010 10:58:09 GMT -5
If by "my cheese" you mean "my ability to convey my thoughts to you using the written word as a medium" and by "still intact" you mean "only moderately substandard" then, no your cheese is not intact. SQUEEK! (Actually, I think Marcel is asking if you think he's nuts -- if his "cheese has slipped off his cracker." Which is not an expression I've heard before, and I've heard a lot, but from context that's the only thing he can mean. If we're all still speaking English.) I don't think he's nuts no. I think I run into problems because he doesn't actually talk about what he's talking about. LEt's take a recent and small post for example and do it line by line OK, post restriction comment. That's fine Jack: FTR I will not attempt a noodle slurp with you, unless you ask for one*. OK, now, this appears to be nonsense, but I can make out from previous posts that I think Marcel is saying that he doesn't want to go point by point on Jack's recent post unless Jack wants him to. Why on Earth he didn't say it that way, I have no idea. I would like to think that you understand me a lot better than RajEd does. This sentence makes sense to me. One comment though: I am glad to see that you picked up on the fact that I am picking up on things. A more complicated way of saying, "thanks for noticing that I'm noticing things" but it's still fine. It's not Wine, It's not the Vodka, I would not call it Sunny D and Rum - I think we can both call that joke an aside. This is a joke. However, at this point, I'm not sure if it's just a joke of if there's some meaning to it, because I so often don't find meaning in parts that aren't jokes. But yeah, I feel different. I felt it more last night that I do today. It could be similar to an intoxication, or it could be some new source testing things on for size. Once it finds it's best fit, look out Mafia, Papa's got a brand new bag. My brain begins to hurt. He feels differently about something than he did last night. I think he's talking about the game. And then we have 3 analogies to explain that? 1. He was drunk last night 2. He has a new supplier of things for which he needs fittings. 3. When he finds something that fits, he'll need a new man purse. OK, so I think I got it. 3 metaphors for feeling different about something, but he didn't actually say what he's feeling different about or how he is feeling different about it. * Note to self, Never use the word Slurp in Mafia, ever again. Another joke, I assume. Unless Slurp is one of his words that Marcel has applied meaning to but I don't yet have a grasp on the concept, like potato Noodle Slurp for A Meeting of the Minds. ..... Hrm I choose to stick with Noodle Slurp. I think he's trying to explain the meaning. Noodle Slurp means people understand each other? Noodles, Crutons, Potatoes. I could have given Atkins a Heart Attack by just looking at him. I think this is a carbohydrate joke. I hope it's meaningless, but I would't be surprised if we later get a rant on how Carbohydrates have no place in Mafia and it's a consipiracy to make him less Vanilla than other vanillas.
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 4, 2010 11:00:44 GMT -5
I usually hear it as "his cheese has slid off the cracker." I wanna say that it's a british turn of phrase but I really have no evidence for that position. I have a question for all those who think Zedd is scum and are voting for him currently. Why do you think a scum zedd would counterclaim Batman on Day 2 unprovoked in the manner that he did? 1. He's not playing very well 2. He wanted to get an investigation of himself 3. He thought they could pull off the 'weak investigator' claim much like I had claimed a weaker version of a Vig than Stay Puft. 4. He knew he could maintain a believable story as an alignment investigator
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Oct 4, 2010 11:24:37 GMT -5
Day One:
Maniac: George [8-325] Meeko: Eleanor [19-26], Marcel [68-119], Eleanor [194-221] Marcel: Eleanor [26-88], Stay Puft [230-291], Gir! [340], Death of Rats [437] Nakor: Corinthian [141-434] Rorschach: Rajesh [161-300] Stay Puft: Strangelove [233-391], Marcel [235], Nordom [289-383], Rorschach [311], Buddy Christ [315], Zedd [319-425], Rajesh [321], Dexter [375] Eleanor: Maniac [248-270], Iskaral [258-277], Death of Rats [265-267] Iskaral: Stay Puft [291-406], Rajesh [300-321], Skellington [308], Columbo [309-398], Nakor [313], Eleanor [415] Batman: Iskaral [320-396] Fangirl: George [325], (extra vote) [371], Nordom [383], Strangelove [391], Iskaral [396], Stay Puft [406], Columbo [410], Batman [414], Zedd [425], Corinthian [434] Joe/Elizabeth: Death of Rats [342-378] Death of Rats: Galadriel [369] Dexter: Columbo [398-410]
Not voting (3): Joe/Elizabeth, Fangirl, La Duquesa/Narrator
266: Eleanor claims doctor 323: Stay Puft claims compulsive vigilante 423: George claims mason
Night One Marcel uses mass block Stay Puft targeted Batman
Day Two:
Stay Puft: Rajesh [37-376], Death of Rats [39-241], Buddy Christ [45], Meeko [52-76], Marcel [77-162] Batman: Iskaral [50-319], Stay Puft [287-437], Zedd [347] Gir!: Eleanor [96-99] Maniac: Nordom [133-329], George [303-332], Iskaral [460] Marcel: Corinthian [160-250], Marcel [162-408], Meeko [168-237], Rorschach [171-420], Skellington [175-411], Zedd [346-347] Iskaral: Eleanor [187-359], Batman [281-536] Rajesh: Meeko [237-510], Strangelove [471-513] Corinthian: Columbo [251-450], Nakor [407-414], Skellington [411-444] Columbo: Corinthian [261-393], Maniac [299], George [332-502] Zedd: Gir! [265-354], Corinthian [393-511] Gir!: Galadriel [278-290], Eleanor [359-531] Death of Rats: Galadriel [290] Narrator: (extra vote) [295], Rajesh [479], George [502], Nordom [504], Stay Puft [506-530], Meeko [510], Corinthian [511], Strangelove [513], Eleanor [531], Marcel [535], Batman [536], Dexter [539], Elizabeth [541] Strangelove: Nordom [337-480], Rajesh [376-479], Stay Puft [464-485], Narrator [469-515] Elizabeth: Skellington [444], Nakor [526], Narrator [529], Stay Puft [530]
Not voting: Rorschach
37: Rajesh claims vigilante with diminshing returns 183: Marcel claims single shot mass role block 289: Batman claims cop (later role + alignment) 347: Zedd claim investigator (either threat-to-town or powers) 413: Corinthian claims mason 450: Columbo claims role blocker 471: Strangelove claims mason
Night Two: No kills Eleanor is jailed (cannot take a Night action) Batman investigates Buddy Christ as Mafia Corruptor Zedd investigates Batman as no threat to town Columbo blocks Death of Rats Rajesh does nothing Stay Puft tried to kill dexter but failed The masons see the following people target Batman: Rorschach was there and he agrees Maniac was there and he agrees Stay Puft was there and he disagrees Gir! was there and she disagrees Galadriel was there and she disagrees Zedd says he was there and the masons disagree.
(almost all vote Buddy Christ Day Three, I might fill it in later. Did we have an extra mystery vote Yesterday?)
Night Three: Columbo dies Rajesh kills Stay Puft, weapon at 50% The masons see Rajesh target Stay Puft Zedd targets Corinthian but investigates Skellington as not a thread Galadriel is jailed
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 4, 2010 11:25:15 GMT -5
I usually hear it as "his cheese has slid off the cracker." I wanna say that it's a british turn of phrase but I really have no evidence for that position. I have a question for all those who think Zedd is scum and are voting for him currently. Why do you think a scum zedd would counterclaim Batman on Day 2 unprovoked in the manner that he did? 1. He's not playing very well 2. He wanted to get an investigation of himself 3. He thought they could pull off the 'weak investigator' claim much like I had claimed a weaker version of a Vig than Stay Puft. 4. He knew he could maintain a believable story as an alignment investigator 1. That's your judgement, I guess. Not much of an argument as to how I'm scum. 2. What do you mean? 3. It's too lame a lie/scam for me to pull. 4. It's too lame for me to think it would really work on any of you. You either think I'm pathetic and dumb or you think that I think everyone else is lame and dumb. I and all of you are neither and my claim is genuine.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Oct 4, 2010 11:32:04 GMT -5
I forgot that N2 Maniac boosts Batman to be unblockable and unredirectable and he claimed that somewhere Day Two.
----
It starts to look like the jailer is scum - first the claimed doctor and now someone who might have been a protector. I don't remember Stay Puft having any outspoken suspicion of Columbo, so it think the most likely action was that scum killed the role blocker who blocked Stay Puft.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Oct 4, 2010 11:50:43 GMT -5
It appears I got blocked last night - well no results. I tried to investigate Galadriel -- interesting that she ended up in jail.
At this point, I am actually inclined to believe that Zed is telling the truth.
We have full and partial/weak versions of various powers, and there was a reasonable amount of scepticism on whether the masons were telling the truth or not.
N2 we had a lot of folk redirected to the batcave; so whether we want to call it a nexus, mass redirect or whatever - someone has some sort of power that influenced.
Given what we have seen so far, it is possible that there may be a 3rd party/pfk redirector - so I can def see a why they would redirect Zed to cast suspicion on him.
Did the masons watch anyone last night?
At the moment, I find Story's claim from yesterday the hardest to swallow....arbitrarily make someone unstoppable/unblockable -- that would be really hard to swallow - potentially create a strongman through a random action.
Vote: story/maniac
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 4, 2010 12:12:19 GMT -5
Did the masons watch anyone last night? <font style="font-size: 12px;">nah, columbo blocked him and raj whacked him. SQUEEK (Which rather implies that they watched Puffy.) At the moment, I find Story's claim from yesterday the hardest to swallow....arbitrarily make someone unstoppable/unblockable -- that would be really hard to swallow - potentially create a strongman through a random action. SQUEEK (But didn't he claim that was only one device? I thought he was claiming Jack of all Trades yesterday, based on this: ) <font style="font-size: 12px;">Heh. No, but seriously. Because I targeted Batman intentionally (and wasn't redirected, as far as I know). And I am reasonably confident that my action was successful. Since the action was a one-shot, I think it's probably time to share what I did. I used an item that would ensure that Batman's intended action, whatever it was, would be successful and correctly targeted. This suggests to me that: (1) There is probably an anti-Town role-blocker, else why give me this ability; and (2) There is almost certainly an anti-Town redirector, else why give me this ability. I may have additional devices with other powers; then again, I may not. I hope you understand that, for now at least, that's all you get to know about that.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 4, 2010 12:14:17 GMT -5
SQUEEK (Oops. In that last quote, he says his action was a one-shot, which means he can't make anyone else unstoppable/unblockable.)
|
|
|
Post by julie on Oct 4, 2010 12:29:39 GMT -5
Current Vote Count
4 Zedd: Curious George (37), Raj (53), Meeko (63), Iskaral Pust (75)
1 Curious George: Marcel (27)
1 Homicidal Maniac: Batman (85)
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 4, 2010 14:09:00 GMT -5
1. He's not playing very well 2. He wanted to get an investigation of himself 3. He thought they could pull off the 'weak investigator' claim much like I had claimed a weaker version of a Vig than Stay Puft. 4. He knew he could maintain a believable story as an alignment investigator 1. That's your judgement, I guess. Not much of an argument as to how I'm scum. 2. What do you mean? 3. It's too lame a lie/scam for me to pull. 4. It's too lame for me to think it would really work on any of you. You either think I'm pathetic and dumb or you think that I think everyone else is lame and dumb. I and all of you are neither and my claim is genuine. by 2, I meant that it's plausible that you are a godfather type hoping to be investigated. HGowever you want to look at it, something isn't adding up. 1. You claimed a 'weak' investigator when your power isn't weak. 2. You claimed to be undetectable by a watcher, but controllable by a redirector 3. You've claimed to have investigated a claimed Cop and a claimed Mason, instead of allowing their claims to play out which would give us information in the long run and investigating someone who is flying under the radar. I'm not saying you're stupid, but maybe that you've erred and "scum wouldn't do that' just doesn't work. In LotR, I erred greatly with my handshake. Does that mean I'm stupid? I hope not. Suburban and Natlaw botched their Scum claims. Are they pathetic/lame/dumb? I don't think so. They just played poorly. Everyone does sometimes.
|
|