|
Day Two
Dec 7, 2010 23:21:47 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 7, 2010 23:21:47 GMT -5
are you claiming verbally abusive husband?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 8, 2010 0:44:46 GMT -5
If it helps, think of it as a hypothesis and not a conclusion. I am currently testing the hypothesis (by asking questions of Charr and Story. Not a great test I know, but what you gonna do?) Yes! Hypothesis! That is exactly the word I searched for in vain this afternoon. Thank you. And thanks for the further clarification; I think all is clear to me know. well crudinsky if it's good enough for bill it's good enough for me. yep he is a mason and so am i. roll over in your grave cookies. Oh, god...here we go again...
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Dec 8, 2010 4:20:30 GMT -5
posting as i catch up. well crudinsky if it's good enough for bill it's good enough for me. yep he is a mason and so am i. roll over in your grave cookies. here we go afrackingain. but at least bill is involved so it shouldn't quite get so nutty. hee hee. I confirm that Peeker is also a Mason
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Dec 8, 2010 4:23:08 GMT -5
We should probably be a bit less cryptic for the benefit of the newer players. "Hating shoes" is a code around here for claiming to have information/a role/whatever that the moderator does not allow you to claim. Personally, I know nothing of shoes in this game. The history, for those who are curious, once that once upon a time, Roosh was a doctor who protected against kills by the Shu faction in the Ancient China game. If a power role claimed in that game, they lost their power. Roosh tried to get around that by posting a long rant where he repeatedly said that he hated shoes. I guess after almost two years here I am still a newbie then :-)
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 8, 2010 9:36:06 GMT -5
Sorry for the vagueness - I was posting from my phone, and further trying to be all clever and stuff. In plain terms:
1. I have a post restriction. It may or may not relate to voting, but I'd prefer not to say, because;
2. My restriction is one that could, if known, be manipulated under certain circumstances; further,
3. I have had this description since the game began (it was part of my role PM); but I didn't speak before I did because
4. The wording in my PM was vague enough that I needed to confirm that it was a post restriction rather than something else; I have since received confirmation of this, and will further aver that
5. I do not know of any connection between myself and Charr.
As to why I mentioned it at all? Two reasons:
1. I think it's of value to know that there is at least one post restriction in this game (you don't know whether I'm truthful or not yet, but eventually, if/when I die or am investigated, you will); and
2. My own posting will involve a few quirks due to this restriction, and I figured it was best to disclose early rather than late.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 8, 2010 9:36:49 GMT -5
The word "description" in #3 above should be "restriction."
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Dec 8, 2010 9:44:27 GMT -5
1. I have a post restriction. 2. Posting There are no post restrictions at Day. As long as you are alive, you may post whatever you like. You may quote your role PM, and any PM sent to you by the moderators. You may discuss strategy by Day but not at Night. If you have access to outside boards, you may post to them on any subject by Day or by Night. Does your post restriction only apply at Night?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 10:07:21 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 8, 2010 10:07:21 GMT -5
Yeah...I thought so. This is what I get for trying to be cute, no one understands me. Must be how peeker feels. My suspicion is that we have a vote buyer in our midst, or something like it. Charr might have been forced to vote for someone but wasn't able to talk about it, hence the odd vote. Story then comes in talking about hating shoes. He didn't mention this before toDay so my feeling is that he probably acquired the condition that caused the shoe hatred in the Night or start of the Day, recently at any rate. He has not voted yet, but I am wondering if there is a connection between Charr's frankly inexplicable vote and story's shoe hate. Make sense? The first rule of fight club is that you can not talk about fight club, so violating that would mean that you can't answer the question without violating your post restriction. God, I feel silly now. Rysto, Ed, Cookies, some other old timer with an appreciation for our shared history, tell me that you were able to follow my post and make me feel better. actually i did get it. which, unfortunately, means that is was either very subtle (for some of us) or totally cryptic for the rest of the masses.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 10:16:37 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 8, 2010 10:16:37 GMT -5
Just don't use your Masonhood as a tool to be wrong and we'll all be fine. hey, we won.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 10:56:43 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 8, 2010 10:56:43 GMT -5
are you claiming verbally abusive husband? nah, not a bit. remember ed was pretty much an accomplice in all of the antics.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 11:08:23 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 8, 2010 11:08:23 GMT -5
Thank you storyteller for the clarification. I no longer feel like the slow kid in the back of the class. Of course, it potentially opens up another can of worms. I do hope the conversation does not now turn into a game of "let's all guess everybody's posting restrictions!"
And, having given it a day:
vote paranoia
Maybe he just has a very odd posting style, but it's rubbing me the wrong way. So far we've gotten an in-depth review of Night 0, and that's it. No analysis of anything that's transpired in the last 9 days, no vote last Night, and nothing of substance Today. The town needs participation from all in order to succeed. If a person is not going to participate, then they are a liability, and we're better off being shed of them.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 11:13:05 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 8, 2010 11:13:05 GMT -5
Vote Count
paranoia (2): naf1138 [23], suburban plankton [100]
charr (2): mr blockey [27], billmc [31]
total ullz (1): texcat [16]
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 11:33:31 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 8, 2010 11:33:31 GMT -5
I didn't think I was confused, but now I'm not so sure.
I really would like Charr to come back in and asplain him/herself, tho.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 11:51:20 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 8, 2010 11:51:20 GMT -5
I didn't think I was confused, but now I'm not so sure. I really would like Charr to come back in and asplain him/herself, tho. Charr did come back but the explanation was pretty lame, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 12:08:24 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 8, 2010 12:08:24 GMT -5
1. I have a post restriction. 2. Posting There are no post restrictions at Day. As long as you are alive, you may post whatever you like. You may quote your role PM, and any PM sent to you by the moderators. You may discuss strategy by Day but not at Night. If you have access to outside boards, you may post to them on any subject by Day or by Night. Does your post restriction only apply at Night? Actually, it applies only by Day. But I have just received clarification. The original response (to my question of whether this constitued a post restriction or something else) was: The follow-up, which just arrived, was this: So there you go.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 12:18:29 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 8, 2010 12:18:29 GMT -5
So...Charr came back with an explanation that makes no sense and puts the final nail in the coffin of my hypothesis (it would have been sweet to have gotten that right though.) and story has a restriction that isn't actually a posting restriction but is another restriction of some sort.
Woohoo.
I love spinning my wheels.
For what it's worth, even with the nonsense explanation I still feel Charr is more likely town than scum. I can't imagine any scum ever doing that. Yeah yeah, scum would never do that, blah blah blah. Sometimes they wouldn't and you are a fool if you don't take the scum mindset into consideration. You will never convince me otherwise so don't try.
Anyone else have anything interesting happen to them that we can talk about? I am still good with my vote.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 12:26:07 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 8, 2010 12:26:07 GMT -5
Nope, nothing happened with me.
Charr's explanation makes me go o.O, but it is an explanation.
And we have outed masons. If we do (well, okay, we probably do).
What goes up/must come down/spinning wheel/got to go round...
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 13:21:13 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Dec 8, 2010 13:21:13 GMT -5
Why am I not surprised that peek is a mason? :-P
At this point there are a few people who haven't posted much - myself included, so I am loathe to single out one person to vote for on the lurker principle. I am going to be out of town this weekend and will miss the end of the Day. I want to have a vote on record in case I can't get back to the board. I have gotten scummy vibes from 2 different people and won't mind voting for either. charr for the no reason vote at the end of yesterDay with a lame explanation of it toDay, and Rysto came across as very defensive about the votes he received yesterday, especially since they were "Day One don't really have much to go on" votes. I think I'm going to let my vote from yesterDay ride for a little while.
vote Rysto
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 16:37:11 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 8, 2010 16:37:11 GMT -5
I've been re-reading Day One. I don't see the case against Rysto. I don't think he said anything that other people hadn't already said about Pleo's claim so I'm not sure why he was the one with the votes.
I do agree about paranoia, though. I read through his one post from yesterDay. I see a little analysis but not much. Plus, he never came back to give any thoughts on Day One even though at the point of his one post, we were already on page seven of Day One. So as a prod to a lurker (i.e., someone trying to look helpful but still stay under the radar), I am going to
vote paranoia
I'd like to hear what he has to say toDay since he was feeling pinged by Ed, Pleo and Sach yesterDay and now two of those three are dead townies.
Ooo, and I see now that I am the third vote on paranoia. Everyone start voting for me now!
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 16:59:08 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Dec 8, 2010 16:59:08 GMT -5
I'm going to repeat my Day 1 vote and hope to have more success in getting mahaloth lynched. My original case is in post D1-113 but to summarize: - I believe it was an opportunistic vote in reactoin to crazypunker's vote on Pleo (who we now know made himself an easy lynch candidate for lazy scum) - He claimed to have simulposted with crazypunker when in fact he made his two-sentence vote post 13 minutes later - He seemed to know that Pleo wasn't vanilla scum - He accused Pleo of either being scum/3rd party OR vanilla Town (not much of an accusation) but voted anyway for making the claim - He voted Pleo for his unforced claim but then backtracked and stated ( more than once) that he'd reconsider the vote if Pleo explained why he'd made the claim After that mahaloth continued to ping my scumdar albeit to a lesser extent: - prodding non-participants without actually naming them - asking if scum can talk during the Day and if the rules said so! - Ignoring my request to share his opinion on Pleo's explanation, and ignoring Pleo's explanation itself, despite his insistence that his vote was a prod, until prodded- asking how many non-voters there are - claiming that the same thing happened again (leaving the PC whilst composing a post, posting it and then reading the thread noticing charr's vote on Rysto) His play since the vote on Charr hasn't stood out in any particular way but, between my initial reaction to his vote and his subsequent play, I'm comfortable to: Vote Mahaloth
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 17:54:15 GMT -5
Post by charr on Dec 8, 2010 17:54:15 GMT -5
I didn't think I was confused, but now I'm not so sure. I really would like Charr to come back in and asplain him/herself, tho. Charr did come back but the explanation was pretty lame, in my opinion. Yes, yes it was. Wait, do you honestly think I'm scum? Because I couldn't explain my vote well enough? Or do you just think that I'm a bad player? Anyways, I'm going to vote Paranoia, to save my own skin now. :/
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 18:46:41 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 8, 2010 18:46:41 GMT -5
My posting frequency is taking a bit of a hit now due to work, but I promise that I'm reading. I appreciate the level of effort that guiri has put into his case, but I don't parse it as scummy behavior on Mahaloth's part at this point. I'm sticking a pin in it though.
I also have a question for NAF regarding his apparent giving a pass to Charr: What about the possibility that he's 3rd party acting alone and not scum with any coaching buddies?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 18:49:41 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Dec 8, 2010 18:49:41 GMT -5
Guiri, crazypunker's vote was based in part of my inquiry to Pleo. I don't get why it is so hard to grasp that I opened my reply box, began typing, left, and then returned with my vote. Backtrack? I didn't back track, I just admitted I could see people's point of view. I don't see what is so bad about that. I never did unvote until Pleo explained his action. I did not know Pleo was not vanilla scum. I just took from his claim of vanilla that he meant vanilla town, that's all. Right, I stated that I would unvote Pleo if he explained himself....then did. The rest is just a bunch of superficial "feeling" stuff. Oh, and I did cross post twice. Don't know what to say about that other than it happened. And your stated goal is to "have more success in getting" me lynched. Nice goal. Sounds like I pissed you off and you just want me out of the game.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 18:50:40 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 8, 2010 18:50:40 GMT -5
Third party acting alone is possible, but right now not something to worry about. I don't think we should start looking for PFK's until we have bagged at least a few scum first. For reasons why think back to Evil Dead II. You might recall a PFK or two in that game.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 18:52:51 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 8, 2010 18:52:51 GMT -5
Does your post restriction only apply at Night? Actually, it applies only by Day. But I have just received clarification. The original response (to my question of whether this constitued a post restriction or something else) was: The follow-up, which just arrived, was this: So there you go. yaknow it hate to say it but am going to anyways, what's fracking new. but neither of these response read like buff. they read like story pulling some sh*t.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 18:58:58 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 8, 2010 18:58:58 GMT -5
neta:
i think he is full of it.
and this whole post restriction escapade is highly questionable. i don't have one. i think we have a couple of live ones on the hook.
vote story
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 19:09:28 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 8, 2010 19:09:28 GMT -5
- asking if scum can talk during the Day and if the rules said so! And I am almost tempted to vote Mahaloth for making the same kind of slip I did in conjunction with MHaye's argument that I agreed with yesterday. Almost. However, I am also tempted to slap a vote on Story because I'm kind of inclined to agree with peeker. Only story is now saying that he doesn't have a "post" restriction, but some other sort of restriction. Which...I have seen and designed into games previously. In short: I have no clue what to do at this point.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 19:10:30 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 8, 2010 19:10:30 GMT -5
And now I'm really confused, because the first part of my post just...disappeared.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 19:23:12 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 8, 2010 19:23:12 GMT -5
Charr did come back but the explanation was pretty lame, in my opinion. Yes, yes it was. Wait, do you honestly think I'm scum? Because I couldn't explain my vote well enough? Or do you just think that I'm a bad player? Anyways, I'm going to vote Paranoia, to save my own skin now. :/ I haven't come to any conclusions regarding your alignment. I simply said your explanation was lame. Day 1 votes can be tough and a lame explanation is better than none, although I do wish you had given it at the time of your vote.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 19:27:21 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 8, 2010 19:27:21 GMT -5
@ peeker and Sister Coyote: If story is not town, what would he have to gain by lying about a posting restriction?
|
|