|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 19:37:51 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 8, 2010 19:37:51 GMT -5
And now I'm really confused, because the first part of my post just...disappeared. Are you going to repost it
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 8, 2010 20:14:52 GMT -5
Post by charr on Dec 8, 2010 20:14:52 GMT -5
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. Although I quoted you, I wasn't actually referring to you when I asked that question. I have two votes on me right now, right?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 9, 2010 4:29:46 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. Yes, all well and good. But somewhere between giving a 'sometimes, scum really wouldn't do that' pass and worrying about PFKs prematurely seems the best place to be, I think. To Charr, it seems like you are somewhat incredulous that people would be willing to vote for you but perhaps I'm misinterpreting you. To the people not inclined to believe Story about his restriction and/or his clarification exchanges with the Mod, can you elaborate if your suspicion is a gut reaction or more of a slow burn paranoia sort of thing?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Dec 9, 2010 4:38:53 GMT -5
Time flies when you're not having fun. I'll see if I can catch up today.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Dec 9, 2010 5:55:22 GMT -5
Page 1. Brewha - that was a curious thing to say. You know we can't assume anything, so why look for assumptions, especially because SK's tend to be the PFK Night Kill roles, so why double up on the meaning? You were probably more correct first time around, so why backtrack? SP - People are coming down on him for saying something stupid. Like texcat, I also feel that everyone should try and vote. Page 2 Storyteller - oh grief, not shoes again. Post restrictions?? More from brewha with a defence from Cookies this time. The Flight Club reference is my fault, see my Arkham Day 2 roleclaim and yes NAF I do follow your meaning. Page 3 - etc. Page 4 - etc. Yeah, I gave up trying to do it piece by piece.Ok, storyteller is making me nervous, slow burn paranoia to you Cookies. First off, there are no post restrictions during the Day, but everyone is restricted at Night to fluff only, so post restrictions should only happen during the Day, but as has been pointed out there are no Day Post restrictions. So, that's a pair of backtracks during the day on phrases used from storyteller and brewha. The other thing intriguing me though is Suburban Plankton and Cookies with IMHO "defences" of brewha. For the moment though because, despite the supposed clarification, I don't really believe it. vote storyteller
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Dec 9, 2010 6:14:37 GMT -5
Thinking about it further there is one kind of restriction that would make sense, but it is definitely not a post restriction and I wouldn't have said it was, which makes me think storyteller is either telling outright porkies or twisting something and slipped while doing so.
I am definitely curious as to what kind of post restriction it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 9, 2010 6:21:19 GMT -5
Do you think the restriction was a miscalculated gambit made out of whole cloth that he then had to try to salvage with yet another gambit? I mean...this is Storyteller we're talking about. While everyone can make mistakes I just have a hard time jumping (or slow-burning for that matter) to the conclusion that as scum he'd climb out on a limb naked and then try to offer up an explanation that it was because he thought bufftabby had told him he had to take off his clothes.
I have a less difficult time believing that as Town he'd decide that it was a calculated risk to climb out on a limb naked, and then realize he'd just thought he heard bufftabby say that he had to take off his clothes.
I also have to :eyeroll: at the idea that an opinion that something seems reasonable is a defense. Have you noticed how many times Townies get killed over statements that are subjectively reasonable?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 9, 2010 6:24:40 GMT -5
You'll probably interpret that as a defense of Story too. Think of it as more of a "convince me" and less of "How could they be scum? They smell like freshly-baked apple pie!"
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Dec 9, 2010 7:01:27 GMT -5
Yayyyy I finally get a chance to sit down and post and it's a post to defend myself yayyyyyyyyyy. 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 paranoiaI'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! Yeah the thing about yesterday and me providing my thoughts on Night Zero - based on what I had read (and pretty much had time to read) Mr. Ed, Sache, and Pleo came off the worse to me; though to be honest most of my beef with Sache could probably be attributed to different thoughts on strategy and how one should handle talking at night. And to be further honest, those three were the big names that caught my attention night zero. And yes, two of them did flip town. I'm wrong; it happens. I don't claim to be an all knowing seer who knows who the mafia are just like that; I need time to be able to sit down and read everything and unfortunately so far I haven't had that time(Look below). Plus how is it exactly under the radar when I posted that behemoth yesterday? If nothing else it'll draw attention to the name of the person who posted it. 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. First off - The Night Zero stuff and my thoughts on it came along because partially I was going to need to know what happened going into day one because I was a "tad" (To put it in more truthful terms, way) behind (Running a game elsewhere that has a lynch every 24 hours with roles that have potential to resolve at any time of the day ( that game is now, thankfully, over) plus planning something else altogether saps time out of you; and last night I got a call about 10:30 P.M. when I had time to sit down and post regarding a family emergency). Second off - There is a difference between cluttering up the thread with posts that don't go anywhere (NAF I noticed was guilty of this day one) And just not posting because you haven't had the time to read and don't want to have to force people to read something that looks like it'd be helpful but really tells you jackshit. Thirdly - Is it me or did that post read like you expect me to flip town? From your point of view you shouldn't know what I should be from Jack over there in the corner. But then, and maybe it's just the me playing mind tricks with myself over the wording (help out the town roles SO CONSPICUOUS), but phrasing things like "The Town needs participation"; "Liability"; and "better off being shed of them" (as if I am dead weight; and I am in the state of mind that any townie is far from dead weight, regardless of how unhelpful, how few posts, or how much time they spend picking their nose doing nothing much in particular.) 1) I am still not happy with Paranoia. He didn't participate yesterDay! Even when he came back and started participating, his one big infodump post was an empty shell. There was no there there and I am a little disappointed that it got him some unvotes. Had I been around I would have been pushing hard for his and since I am here now... Vote: parinoia To expand on my point about Paranoia a bit, since I don't think my last post did a great job. While it was one thing to vote him for non participation, his behavior when he did come back is what I am finding suspicious now. The fact that he made no comments at all on the events of the Day yesterDay bugs me a whole lot and coming back and making one big meaningless post after being called out for not playing smacks of true lurking to me. Yes yes, he did a breakdown of Night 0, woohoo. Not good enough, and way too safe. That's why he is getting my vote again, and why he shouldn't have been unvoted yesterDay. Ok, I think that makes a bit more sense. I generally don't make comments on what *I* haven't had time to read and based on the fact I decided to read night zero before I went ahead and posted (as to not make an utter fool of myself), and to call it meaningless probably means you didn't read it because I did outright state what I was thinking as I read through everything, and when you get down to it, Most of your posts yesterday were regarding strategy and mass claiming while pretty much ignoring every thread of discussion (Pleo, with the exception to the fact that stuff like that regarding Pleo happens all the time and that it was bad for the town without really offering an alternative, and I'm Not sure if I really saw anything regarding the "Help out the town PRs" deal), and low and behold where does your vote fall? On the safe "non-participant". After saying he didn't like any of the cases yesterday, meaning he didn't want to attach his name to him. What is the safest way to end the day with a vote? With a vote on Someone who's had one post all game. (That someone being me BUT DETAILS). And how exactly is my post yesterday safe? At the end of the post, I had thrown my name in in favor of Pleo being scum, along with Mr. Ed. I admit I haven't been posting as much as I liked to be right now. In my estimation, you are looking for safe, easy lynches right now. Based on you ignoring how erratic Charr is right now, and excusing the fact he's contributed less than I have, what exactly makes me worse than him?
Or are you trying to stretch out the time he has to some other end? His explanation makes zero sense, and reads more as a hurried excuse (Which he admits as much), he's posted another vote with zero justification, other than a vote for self preservation that wasn't even necessary at the point which he made it!I'll be back (hopefully; depending on how this day goes I may not be back until this evening.) later; there's more I want to say but I need to start getting ready.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 9, 2010 9:22:10 GMT -5
@ peeker and Sister Coyote: If story is not town, what would he have to gain by lying about a posting restriction? Well, nothing, obviously... but with this group, that argument is a nonstarter. I think sometimes we have these truisms that start out as useful observations and wind up overwhemling good sense and being used in a more universal way than they ought. Somewhere down the line, someone pointed out that "Scum wouldn't do that" is a bad argument, because Scum can and will do nearly anything. But somewhere along the line that morphed into "don't bother worrying about motivation, just pick a random behavior and call it Scummy because since Scum will do anything, anything can be considered Scummy." We saw it with Pleonast yesterDay and again with me and with Charr toDay. But that's how it works these days, and I knew it when I said what I said. At any rate, there's no substantial defense to the case against me - bufftabby said what she said, I reported what information I had at the time, and there it is. If you don't believe that, then you don't. I'll certainly reveal the exact details of my restriction if and when I receive enough votes to feel in significant danger, but until then, I'm going to go light on my own defense. Now I want to look at: (1) the lynch of Pleonast; and (2) the case against Charr, which strikes me as not particularly overwhelming at first glance, but we shall see. More to come.
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Dec 9, 2010 9:52:51 GMT -5
Vote Count
paranoia (3): naf1138 [23], suburban plankton [100], metallicsquink [108]
charr (2): mr blockey [27], billmc [31]
storyteller (2): peekercpa [115], catinasuit [124]
rysto (1): hockey monkey [101]
total ullz (1): texcat [16]
mahaloth (1): guiri [109]
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 10:05:59 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Dec 9, 2010 10:05:59 GMT -5
Of course you're right Cookies, scum wouldn't do it, least of all storyteller Also, there is a difference between someone saying an argument is reasonable and someone showing an argument is reasonable. The problem is that he has either lied or been misinformed, none of which paints him in a good light. His initial statement suggested he had a post restriction. He followed it up by saying he had a post restriction. It was then pointed out there are no post restrictions and he has come back saying that its not really a post restriction but a <something-else> restriction. Are you saying we should just ignore it? What are your thoughts, that its just a minor slip and a null tell really?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 10:10:52 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 9, 2010 10:10:52 GMT -5
The problem is that he has either lied or been misinformed, none of which paints him in a good light. How so? Obviously "lied" would not paint me in a good light. But I don't follow your thinking on the other.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 10:22:35 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Dec 9, 2010 10:22:35 GMT -5
Because if you are town and you have been minsinformed it makes you look like a liar even though you are not.
And that's my current dilemma, are you a lying scum trying to get out of a screwup or a misinformed townie, who then misinformed the rest of us?
I think you can guess which way I am leaning atm.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 10:25:23 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 9, 2010 10:25:23 GMT -5
@ peeker and Sister Coyote: If story is not town, what would he have to gain by lying about a posting restriction? Post restriction. <description of restriction is elided>. No sanctions relevant to this role will provide any sort of confirmation of your role or benefit to your teammates. the above is as near as i can tell story quoting buffok, and on re read this really twings me. i think there are a lot of benefits to scum alluding to some sort of *restriction*. 1) get asked a question or confronted and just go "so sorry can't address that because then i get *something bad to happen to me* 2) say something silly or non consistent and then go "so sorry it's part of my role and if i explain further then i get *something bad to happen to me*. 3) take either of the above cases and just change the response to something more along the lines of "just ain't going to for *insert something plausible* (and to be honest it doesn't really even have to be that plausible because of *insert restriction*). i mean seriously it could be along the lines of it makes me a newt. but it is the reference to teammates in the purported pm from buffy that has me going danger danger will robinson even more so. i mean that doesn't sound copacetic at all. teammates seem to infer being part of a coordinated group. and sure i guess as town any other town can be considered my "teammate". but jeebz, i don't think i have ever seen it referenced that way.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 10:30:25 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 9, 2010 10:30:25 GMT -5
It's almost a null tell, IMO, but not quite. Forget motivation -- the "scum wouldn't do that" thing is too simplistic, but so is the "what would scum have to gain" alternative. Story could be scum, actually have the restriction he says he has, have decided that the best way to deal with the situation was to be "open" with it, and made the very same mistake that he says he made. (etc etc) Identical to the situation if he is town.
I say "very nearly" a null tell, because there is one scum option I could think of that wouldn't apply if Story is town: he has some sort of restriction he would find difficult to hide, but wanted to tweak it slightly so as to go down easier for the townies -- and he made an oversight when he described the tweak. Everything since then is back and fill.
I think a vote for him (unless on grounds not related to the claimed error) should at last attempt to address that issue. Personally I'm more interested in his promised analysis of the Pleonast and Charr votes, after the Halloween game.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 10:33:59 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 9, 2010 10:33:59 GMT -5
1) get asked a question or confronted and just go "so sorry can't address that because then i get *something bad to happen to me* 2) say something silly or non consistent and then go "so sorry it's part of my role and if i explain further then i get *something bad to happen to me*. 3) take either of the above cases and just change the response to something more along the lines of "just ain't going to for *insert something plausible* (and to be honest it doesn't really even have to be that plausible because of *insert restriction*). i mean seriously it could be along the lines of it makes me a newt. That's totally a legitimate and reasonable argument. The only flaw in it is that I haven't done any of those things. Vote for me when I do, if you want - but saying I'm doing X in order to set up Scummy action Y only plays if I actually do Y. @ Renata - What does the Halloween game have to do with anything?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 10:40:58 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 9, 2010 10:40:58 GMT -5
@ peeker and Sister Coyote: If story is not town, what would he have to gain by lying about a posting restriction? Post restriction. <description of restriction is elided>. No sanctions relevant to this role will provide any sort of confirmation of your role or benefit to your teammates. the above is as near as i can tell story quoting buffok, and on re read this really twings me. i think there are a lot of benefits to scum alluding to some sort of *restriction*. 1) get asked a question or confronted and just go "so sorry can't address that because then i get *something bad to happen to me* 2) say something silly or non consistent and then go "so sorry it's part of my role and if i explain further then i get *something bad to happen to me*. 3) take either of the above cases and just change the response to something more along the lines of "just ain't going to for *insert something plausible* (and to be honest it doesn't really even have to be that plausible because of *insert restriction*). i mean seriously it could be along the lines of it makes me a newt. but it is the reference to teammates in the purported pm from buffy that has me going danger danger will robinson even more so. i mean that doesn't sound copacetic at all. teammates seem to infer being part of a coordinated group. and sure i guess as town any other town can be considered my "teammate". but jeebz, i don't think i have ever seen it referenced that way. peeks, you're arguing that the restriction is probably not for real, at all, but if that's the case then Storyteller wrote that PM himself, including the suspicious word "teammates", and that's just crazy WIFOM out the wazoo.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 10:44:13 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 9, 2010 10:44:13 GMT -5
1) get asked a question or confronted and just go "so sorry can't address that because then i get *something bad to happen to me* 2) say something silly or non consistent and then go "so sorry it's part of my role and if i explain further then i get *something bad to happen to me*. 3) take either of the above cases and just change the response to something more along the lines of "just ain't going to for *insert something plausible* (and to be honest it doesn't really even have to be that plausible because of *insert restriction*). i mean seriously it could be along the lines of it makes me a newt. That's totally a legitimate and reasonable argument. The only flaw in it is that I haven't done any of those things. Vote for me when I do, if you want - but saying I'm doing X in order to set up Scummy action Y only plays if I actually do Y. @ Renata - What does the Halloween game have to do with anything? The first thing that pinged me about you in that game was when you promised an analysis of the first day's bandwagons, implying there would be something of interest there; took forever and a day to follow through at the expense of any engagement with the current day; then came up with nothing but weaksauce from it all in the end. I think I have a better chance of evaluating you from that sort of thing than from WIFOM-y business like the (not) post restriction.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 10:48:59 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 9, 2010 10:48:59 GMT -5
@ peeker and Sister Coyote: If story is not town, what would he have to gain by lying about a posting restriction? Post restriction. <description of restriction is elided>. No sanctions relevant to this role will provide any sort of confirmation of your role or benefit to your teammates. the above is as near as i can tell story quoting buffok, and on re read this really twings me. i think there are a lot of benefits to scum alluding to some sort of *restriction*. 1) get asked a question or confronted and just go "so sorry can't address that because then i get *something bad to happen to me* 2) say something silly or non consistent and then go "so sorry it's part of my role and if i explain further then i get *something bad to happen to me*. 3) take either of the above cases and just change the response to something more along the lines of "just ain't going to for *insert something plausible* (and to be honest it doesn't really even have to be that plausible because of *insert restriction*). i mean seriously it could be along the lines of it makes me a newt. but it is the reference to teammates in the purported pm from buffy that has me going danger danger will robinson even more so. i mean that doesn't sound copacetic at all. teammates seem to infer being part of a coordinated group. and sure i guess as town any other town can be considered my "teammate". but jeebz, i don't think i have ever seen it referenced that way. Interesting. I guess the question is do we feel he's scummy enough to pressure him to give us more information by voting for him (since he said he would spill the beans if he had a chance of being lynched).
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 11:00:10 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Dec 9, 2010 11:00:10 GMT -5
Well first of all Unvote Charr. Not taking my eye off but it seems like he's just playing very poorly, rather than being scummy.
I'm on the fence about storyteller at the moment because he's certainly not acting like himself, however as far as the post "restriction" goes. Mods make flubs sometimes. When I read the rules again to check on what my gut was saying:
it occurred to me what kind of flub could be going on. Change the first sentence to: There are no universal posting restrictions at Day." and you have no issues reconciling that with storyteller having a specific posting restriction. If that's what bufftabby intended then she's backed into a corner because clarifying now basically gives mod confirmation to what storyteller is saying and may unfairly influence the game.
Of course story could be lying as well. He could even be telling the truth and still be scum. Still I wanted that possibility to be out there as I've been in that situation as a mod where players completely misconstrued something I'd said due to a quirk in my language and being unable to clarify because doing so might influence the game unduly.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 11:12:23 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 9, 2010 11:12:23 GMT -5
@ peeker and Sister Coyote: If story is not town, what would he have to gain by lying about a posting restriction? I don't know, but I also don't know why he felt the need to say he had a restriction at all. Also, please note that he is now saying that it is not a posting restriction as such, but a restriction; I have no idea what that might be, but I have put random not-exactly posting restrictions on characters before (e.g., House in the House game could vote behind the scenes so long as he "played" obtuse in the game thread), and that's why I'm on the fence about him at the moment. can you elaborate if your suspicion is a gut reaction or more of a slow burn paranoia sort of thing? Gut reaction, as 90% of my responses to people are when playing Mafia. And now I'm really confused, because the first part of my post just...disappeared. Are you going to repost it Yeah, sorry. What I was saying is that I was caught as Scum in the Dr. Horrible game for exactly that sort of "Can scum talk during the day" slip.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 11:21:55 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 9, 2010 11:21:55 GMT -5
<font style="font-size: 12px;"> Only one death? That's good - I think. So, can we assume that there's no vigs/SKs? Or did our protection roles do what they needed to do?
<snip> I don't think we can assume that we have no vig or SK since we don't even know if MHaye was killed by scum, unless you know something that I don't. <font style="font-size: 12px;"> (snip quotes) Indeed, Brewha, what leads you to the conclusion that scum made the kill last night? Brewha's statement didn't assume anything it shouldn't have. One kill implies one killer -- that is, the mafia -- as a default (even ignoring Night Zero being the same), so where's the faulty assumption? He only said what probably every odd player in the game, minus any with knowledge to the contrary, was thinking.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 11:36:47 GMT -5
Post by brewha on Dec 9, 2010 11:36:47 GMT -5
@ peeker and Sister Coyote: If story is not town, what would he have to gain by lying about a posting restriction? I don't know, but I also don't know why he felt the need to say he had a restriction at all. When he claimed the restriction he explained why. Well, not explained so much as just told us why. I'm going to go back and find it, I just wanted to address this here - kinda as a place holder. As far as my comment about who killed who last night, I don't believe I said anything wrong and I certainly wouldn't call my comment stupid, Catinasuit. Up until that point, it was all condolences and no real conversation. I just wanted to get people talking. I would have been just fine without all the FOSs that went with it, but it did get people to talk.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 11:43:01 GMT -5
Post by brewha on Dec 9, 2010 11:43:01 GMT -5
I see CIAS was referring to SP's stupid comment. So, scratch that.
Also, it seems we have a dissconnect - definitionwise. To me, an SK is a single person who has to be last man standing to win. A PFK is a third party. Part of a group that may win with scum or by themselves, but are anti town. But, I guess I could have just said PFKs and assumed that encompassed SKs as well.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 11:52:45 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 9, 2010 11:52:45 GMT -5
It's almost a null tell, IMO, but not quite. Forget motivation -- the "scum wouldn't do that" thing is too simplistic, but so is the "what would scum have to gain" alternative. Story could be scum, actually have the restriction he says he has, have decided that the best way to deal with the situation was to be "open" with it, and made the very same mistake that he says he made. (etc etc) Identical to the situation if he is town. I say "very nearly" a null tell, because there is one scum option I could think of that wouldn't apply if Story is town: he has some sort of restriction he would find difficult to hide, but wanted to tweak it slightly so as to go down easier for the townies -- and he made an oversight when he described the tweak. Everything since then is back and fill. This more or less sums up my feelings on the story situation. I don't see how anything he posted is worth a vote mainly because it seems just as likely that a townie would have landed in his situation as it does that a scum would. It's something to notice, but there isn't anything to be done with it yet.
|
|
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 9, 2010 12:05:59 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Dec 9, 2010 12:05:59 GMT -5
<font style="font-size: 12px;"> I don't think we can assume that we have no vig or SK since we don't even know if MHaye was killed by scum, unless you know something that I don't. <font style="font-size: 12px;"> (snip quotes) Indeed, Brewha, what leads you to the conclusion that scum made the kill last night? Brewha's statement didn't assume anything it shouldn't have. One kill implies one killer -- that is, the mafia -- as a default (even ignoring Night Zero being the same), so where's the faulty assumption? He only said what probably every odd player in the game, minus any with knowledge to the contrary, was thinking. I've been on scum teams where planned the kill we sent in didn't happen, but another one did. Brewha's statement assumed that there were no other killing factions beside the scum team, which is possible, but not definite. I raised an eyebrow at the statement because someone on the scum team would know if it was their kill or not and might jump to the conclusion that there are no other killers. Even though night zero had only one kill, I still wouldn't jump to a one kill faction conclusion because in the Halloween game, I believe we were thwarted twice in a row. Three nights in a row with only one kill, and I'll concede there is probably only one killing faction, though in a game with this many people there are usually provisions for multiple deaths to occur so we aren't still playing come Spring. I would still have to wonder if there weren't a non-compulsory vig in play or some other role(s) with a one shot killing ability.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 12:08:32 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 9, 2010 12:08:32 GMT -5
Brewha's statement didn't assume anything it shouldn't have. One kill implies one killer -- that is, the mafia -- as a default (even ignoring Night Zero being the same), so where's the faulty assumption? He only said what probably every odd player in the game, minus any with knowledge to the contrary, was thinking. In a game this size, there could be more than one killer so to just assume that the scum did it is faulty, I think. Making assumptions with so little information at this point could hinder future decisions and that's all I wanted to address. I think it's very likely that the scum did the killing but I'm not going to go so far as to assume as much.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 12:10:48 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Dec 9, 2010 12:10:48 GMT -5
@ Mahaloth, your vote on pleo was, in my opinion, opportunistic and therefore caught my attention. Obviously I’m going to analyze every post you make after that vote and see if my suspicions of you continue to grow or fade away. Each post or action taken individually may be quite insignificant but when taken together I can see a possible scum motivation and so have resumed my vote to have you lynched. 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. My goal is to “achieve glory when the all threats to The Light have been vanquished.” I think you’re a threat and therefore need to be lynched - I wouldn't be voting you if that were not the case.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 9, 2010 12:14:24 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 9, 2010 12:14:24 GMT -5
Yeah the thing about yesterday and me providing my thoughts on Night Zero - based on what I had read (and pretty much had time to read) Mr. Ed, Sache, and Pleo came off the worse to me; though to be honest most of my beef with Sache could probably be attributed to different thoughts on strategy and how one should handle talking at night. And to be further honest, those three were the big names that caught my attention night zero. And yes, two of them did flip town. I'm wrong; it happens. I don't claim to be an all knowing seer who knows who the mafia are just like that; I need time to be able to sit down and read everything and unfortunately so far I haven't had that time(Look below). Plus how is it exactly under the radar when I posted that behemoth yesterday? If nothing else it'll draw attention to the name of the person who posted it. <snip> I'm not saying that you had to be right in your initial assumptions about Ed, Sach and Pleo. What I was asking is how your perception of the game has changed now that you know two of them are town. Does that make you also rethink your position on Ed? Do you have any comments about Day One? And your post from yesterDay looks like a very helpful post but doesn't have a lot of substance. It didn't generate much discussion so your opinions weren't that controversial and so you managed to post a lot but not get a lot of attention for it. That is what I would consider "under the radar." Whether you are doing it on purpose or not is the question and that obviously depends on your alignment (which I don't know).
|
|