|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 13:18:35 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 15, 2010 13:18:35 GMT -5
Quoting Brewha out of a quote box and slightly out of context because I a) want it to be legible and b) was pinged by this phrase:
I'm just wondering if a power role (h)as the phrase "by nature" used twice.
Maybe I read this statement in that post as more of a separate thought than brewha meant it, but this seemed to me to be suggesting brewha was willing to have a power role who wasn't "out" (e.g., not the Masons, who ARE "out" but who hadn't quoted their PMs) pipe up with what their PM said. Thereby outing themselves. Hence my raised eyebrow (though, strangely, if it were a fishing expedition I would be more likely to put brewha closer to the "Town" box than the "Scum" box).
That is to say, I read "a power role" as "any power role" not "the masons as representative of power roles."
|
|
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:
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 13:52:40 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 15, 2010 13:52:40 GMT -5
To all: Thanks for the well-wishes. (Add me to the list of those who wish you well.) I was going to write what buff did - so I'll just do a "me too" I'm failing to see where Brewha was trying to help "out" any powers with his remark and I'm starting to feel like this game is turning into a semantic puzzle rather than a mafia-game...
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 14:25:06 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 15, 2010 14:25:06 GMT -5
I'm starting to feel like this game is turning into a semantic puzzle rather than a mafia-game... See, but unlike those who insisted Mahaloth was trying to help out power roles instead of help out power roles (and despite the fact that Mahaloth turned up Scum I still believe him on that), I'm willing to accept that I probably misread brewha's statement.
|
|
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:
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 15:09:59 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 15, 2010 15:09:59 GMT -5
I'm starting to feel like this game is turning into a semantic puzzle rather than a mafia-game... See, but unlike those who insisted Mahaloth was trying to help out power roles instead of help out power roles (and despite the fact that Mahaloth turned up Scum I still believe him on that), I'm willing to accept that I probably misread brewha's statement. I know. I saw that as well. It was more a feeling that "we" tend to look for slips in this game and not so much look for "behavior". My comment wasn't based on you or others as players - more a feeling that this game has to more forward and maybe we're not doing it the right way...
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 15:11:23 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Dec 15, 2010 15:11:23 GMT -5
Sister C, do you want me to haunt those suckers and scare them away from you?
I hope the investigations get to the root of the problem, and that it's not too bad a cure.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 16:22:24 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 15, 2010 16:22:24 GMT -5
Then there is the Day 2 vote. Mahaloth's vote on Hockey puts her in the lead, and then comes along CrazyPunker to pretty much seal her fate. His vote was "confused" -- reasoned that he should vote Hockey over Story as he didnt want to test Story's claim -- he mixed up Story with Squink. When the error was pointed out by Ed he said his vote still stood - despite it being flawed reasoning. Vote: CrazyPunker [/color] [/quote] clipped If you go back and look at my vote I posted several reasons why I voted hockey over story. That was just one of them, so even though that particular reason was flawed I still had other reasons to leave the vote. I would not have voted either one except that the vote totals were very low at the time and I wanted to make it tougher for scum to sway the vote. My reasoning is this: If you leave it to the scum to make the last vote they will always make the vote that helps scum. If I come in and vote then it at least has some chance to help town. So while I didn't really think that Hockey was scum, I felt like Hockey was more likely to be scum than story was at the time.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 16:35:40 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 15, 2010 16:35:40 GMT -5
My vote against Catinasuit was because it seemed like a 'gotcha' case based on something quite subjective: alleged defense of another player. As I explained yesterday, my statements were intended as 'convince me this person is scum, because you're not convincing me' not 'this person is not scum, so you should stop attacking them'. The gotcha part comes in because no mater what happens with the player that I'm allegedly defending, if they die before me there is a pro-scum angle that can be found by continuing to refer to the alleged defense. They flip scum, it is spun as if I'm caught defending scum. They flip town, it is spun as if I'm caught defending a townie because I knew they weren't scum in the first place. But that was just a portion of your case, most of which seems to be that I'm not contributing enough and/or that what I am contributing is safe. I've been working a lot for the past couple of weeks, and you've already had it explained that people don't consider it likely that I would lie about such things, and you unvoted me yesterDay after that. Was there something that I did between now and that unvoting that has brought me back to the top of your list? If the meat of your argument against me is an absence of enough to form an opinion about, while Suburban has actually said something that could be seen as a suspicious but you don't consider the case against me as stronger, I'd counter that basing a case on something that is there might be better than basing a case on something that is missing. It is early and I've been busy. There will be more content from me. I unvoted you yesterday because of the low vote totals. I did want to make it too easy for scum to lynch whoever they wanted. I don't think you were lying about real life and I apologized for implying that. I do still feel like you have posted enough that you could have contributed a few things that were more meaningful. The way I see it scum should try to post enough to keep lurker accusations down, but they should also not ruffle feathers. If you rub people the wrong way they will examine your posts more looking for errors, etc. Your post numbers are high enough, but I feel like you are trying more to be non-abrasive than pro-town. I think to help town you have to attack people to get them to defend themselves. They have a higher chance to slip if you make them post more.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 17:15:50 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 15, 2010 17:15:50 GMT -5
My PM in it’s entirety – typos and all: Why are you claiming now?
|
|
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 3
Dec 15, 2010 17:46:53 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Dec 15, 2010 17:46:53 GMT -5
The way the votes piled up on me yesterday and with the condition for me to be able to be on a winning team met, I saw no reason not to get it into the open. My track record for staying alive in Mafia games is...well, dim. It feels like I get called out and lynched for being scum in nearly every game I've played when I've only been scum twice I think. If I don't get lynched I get night killed. I didn't want to get pushed into claiming and then having to defend why I didn't just come out and claim earlier. I feel like a I have a better chance at living to the end by truthfully claiming now. In other words, I think my chance of living to the end in ANY mafia game is zero. Maybe by putting it all on the table I'll be allowed to put a tick in my win column. I know the chance is still remote though.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 17:48:41 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 15, 2010 17:48:41 GMT -5
I'm very suspicious of Hockey Monkey's claim. I don't understand why she claimed now (and I am anxious to hear what she has to say about that) and I've never heard of a "competetive" survivor. I agree with others that she has to be lynched at some point.
@BillMc: I know you had many reasons to support your vote on crazypunker but I do kind of see where his vote yesterDay still stands despite confusing me and story. Basically, the first two reasons were specific to Hockey Monkey and only the third was about me (even though he said story).
Right now, I am going to vote Paranoia
YesterDay, he asked me for more details about why I choose my targets for blocking. From Post 252: The thing with Metallic is... well. I'd like her to go into a more in depth deal regarding her picks to block Total Ulla and Rysto. Particularly Rysto - was there anyone else you thought might have been a better block on reflection?
I think there is a fine line between giving town enough information to support my claim and giving scum enough information to elude my Night action. Paranoia is the only one who felt the need to ask for more details about how I was choosing my targets. Was he perhaps trying to anticipate if I would target a scum and which one so that someone else could do the killing?
@Guiri: I blocked Suburban Plankton last Night. And to be honest, I did not mean to. I actually meant to block Paranoia specifically for the post above. And I hate to say this since it seem to be happening all over the place but I must have confused the two.
I also have to say that I am concerned that we now have three people who claim to have forgotten that BillMc claimed. I think it's a null tell at this point. But, as someone who rarely believes claims, when we have one as strong as we do right now in this game, I think it's important as town that we read the posts of the claimants with some confidence that they have town's best interests in mind. So it's really important that we keep up with who has claimed and what they have claimed. Or maybe that's just me.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 18:17:43 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 15, 2010 18:17:43 GMT -5
There are multiple precedents of competing 3rd parties and competing PFKs. I don't recall the specific games but others might.
The way they have been set up is a level of competition mechanics that don't apply to anyone else, for example:
-competing serial killers. The one who kills the most 'wins' the PFK race. -tagging competition. The competing 3rd parties can 'tag' other players in the game. The first one to tag someone prevents the other 3rd party from being able to tag them. The player with the most successful tags wins. -etc.
As long as the people who are forgetting about the mason claims don't try to vig or otherwise harm them while having their memory lapses, I don't see enough to write home about.
For those playing along at home, this was a content-filled post and not a defense of Hockey Monkey or players who have forgotten about the masons. It is also not an attack nor a defense of people who suspect or are otherwise concerned about Hockey Monkey or those have forgotten the Masons.
What it isn't is aggressive or antagonistic, which is a playstyle I tend to reserve for people making dubious cases about me or when I am more confident later in the game.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 19:10:07 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Dec 15, 2010 19:10:07 GMT -5
I'm going to follow up on an early Day 1 ping. I voted CIAS as a poke but have maintained a level of suspicion ever since. N0#50 Confirms N0#187 Complains about 7 pages of N0 posts N0#200 Literary criticism (or breadcrumb for necromancer?) D1#12 "Not a good start to the Day" D1#174 Will try to catch up D1#175 First content post, general comment on game setup, role names, not in favor of mass role claim, wonders why pleo didn't claim a name along with the vanilla role - thinks something is hidden D1#176 Disagrees with Special that power roles become less valuable towards endgame, queries Rysto about supposed PIS that pleo was not a power role, votes pending a response D1#186 Will think about Rysto's response. ( CIAS ignored Rysto's response in which he shows that he clearly meant "town power role" in the context of the exchange with crazypunker, does not post again until Night 1) N1#16 Fluff D2#6 "Suckage - Bye MHaye." D2#123 "Time flies when you're not having fun. I'll see if I can catch up today." D2#124 Posts summary of pages 1 & 2, gets tired and votes story based on the clarification of his restriction, doesn't believe it. Mentions being intrigued by Suburban and Cookies' defence of brewha. D2#125 Can think of a possible restriction which would make sense. Is curious to hear what the restriction is not. D2#131 Responds to Cookies: there's a difference between saying something is reasonable and showing that it is. Asks her if Story's backtrack should be ignored as a minor slip or null tell D2#133 To Story, is unsure if he's lying scum or misinformed townie, is leaning scum (Does not post again until Day 3) D3#47 Finally answers story's question about why he abandoned his Day 1 case against Rysto to vote Story, was "dragged into an argument with Cookies"? D3#50 Fluff His total contribution to scum hunting has been 5 posts: 17 posts total, 8 with content, 5 of which were successive posts (D1#174-176, D2#124-125). This basically means he made: - two posts on Day 1: quick summary with a vote and then a second post to promise to think about the vote - three posts on Day 2: quick partial summary with a vote, responds to Cookies, responds to votee I previously commented on his lack of participation and his latest game-related post just made me review his play: To those wondering why my vote switched, its simple, storyteller appeared scummier on Day 2 than rysto and I stated why. However, given Mahaloth's side, I'm going back to review again. No, I hadn't forgotten about rysto, but then I did get dragged into an argument with Cookies. Does he no longer find story scummy? What happened? Where was the argument with Cookies that took up so much of his time? This really looks like he's going through the motions: minimal participation, regular fluff, half-hearted votes ("pending an answer", "For the moment though"), half-hearted summaries (Yeah, I gave up trying to do it piece by piece."). I get the feeling he either doesn't really want to play or is scum trying to give an appearance of participation. I don't see him making an effort to find scum or committing himself to a case. Damning evidence? No, but he's no noob and there's something off about his play. For now I'll go with my gut and Vote CIAS
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 19:12:59 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 15, 2010 19:12:59 GMT -5
There are multiple precedents of competing 3rd parties and competing PFKs. I don't recall the specific games but others might. The way they have been set up is a level of competition mechanics that don't apply to anyone else, for example: -competing serial killers. The one who kills the most 'wins' the PFK race. -tagging competition. The competing 3rd parties can 'tag' other players in the game. The first one to tag someone prevents the other 3rd party from being able to tag them. The player with the most successful tags wins. -etc. As long as the people who are forgetting about the mason claims don't try to vig or otherwise harm them while having their memory lapses, I don't see enough to write home about. For those playing along at home, this was a content-filled post and not a defense of Hockey Monkey or players who have forgotten about the masons. It is also not an attack nor a defense of people who suspect or are otherwise concerned about Hockey Monkey or those have forgotten the Masons. What it isn't is aggressive or antagonistic, which is a playstyle I tend to reserve for people making dubious cases about me or when I am more confident later in the game. I still don't find it very useful and it's still very safe. And FYI I have no problem with you defending anybody. I actually found it more scummy the first time you said that you didn't want people to think you were defending story. If I'm going to defend somebody I won't claim that I'm not defending them.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 19:21:48 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 15, 2010 19:21:48 GMT -5
I'm going to follow up on an early Day 1 ping. I voted CIAS as a poke but have maintained a level of suspicion ever since. N0#50 Confirms N0#187 Complains about 7 pages of N0 posts N0#200 Literary criticism (or breadcrumb for necromancer?) D1#12 "Not a good start to the Day" D1#174 Will try to catch up D1#175 First content post, general comment on game setup, role names, not in favor of mass role claim, wonders why pleo didn't claim a name along with the vanilla role - thinks something is hidden D1#176 Disagrees with Special that power roles become less valuable towards endgame, queries Rysto about supposed PIS that pleo was not a power role, votes pending a response D1#186 Will think about Rysto's response. ( CIAS ignored Rysto's response in which he shows that he clearly meant "town power role" in the context of the exchange with crazypunker, does not post again until Night 1) N1#16 Fluff D2#6 "Suckage - Bye MHaye." D2#123 "Time flies when you're not having fun. I'll see if I can catch up today." D2#124 Posts summary of pages 1 & 2, gets tired and votes story based on the clarification of his restriction, doesn't believe it. Mentions being intrigued by Suburban and Cookies' defence of brewha. D2#125 Can think of a possible restriction which would make sense. Is curious to hear what the restriction is not. D2#131 Responds to Cookies: there's a difference between saying something is reasonable and showing that it is. Asks her if Story's backtrack should be ignored as a minor slip or null tell D2#133 To Story, is unsure if he's lying scum or misinformed townie, is leaning scum (Does not post again until Day 3) D3#47 Finally answers story's question about why he abandoned his Day 1 case against Rysto to vote Story, was "dragged into an argument with Cookies"? D3#50 Fluff His total contribution to scum hunting has been 5 posts: 17 posts total, 8 with content, 5 of which were successive posts (D1#174-176, D2#124-125). This basically means he made: - two posts on Day 1: quick summary with a vote and then a second post to promise to think about the vote - three posts on Day 2: quick partial summary with a vote, responds to Cookies, responds to votee I previously commented on his lack of participation and his latest game-related post just made me review his play: To those wondering why my vote switched, its simple, storyteller appeared scummier on Day 2 than rysto and I stated why. However, given Mahaloth's side, I'm going back to review again. No, I hadn't forgotten about rysto, but then I did get dragged into an argument with Cookies. Does he no longer find story scummy? What happened? Where was the argument with Cookies that took up so much of his time? This really looks like he's going through the motions: minimal participation, regular fluff, half-hearted votes ("pending an answer", "For the moment though"), half-hearted summaries (Yeah, I gave up trying to do it piece by piece."). I get the feeling he either doesn't really want to play or is scum trying to give an appearance of participation. I don't see him making an effort to find scum or committing himself to a case. Damning evidence? No, but he's no noob and there's something off about his play. For now I'll go with my gut and Vote CIAShmm... basically the same reasons I am voting cookies. Have you played with both CIAS and Cookies? The reason I ask is because I'm starting to wonder if Cookies always plays this way. You've already said that this is "off" for CIAS.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 20:14:24 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 15, 2010 20:14:24 GMT -5
Vote Count
crazypunker (2): hockey monkey [39], billmc [44]
cometothedarksidewehavecookies (1): crazypunker [38]
paranoia (1): metallic squink [69]
catinasuit (1): guiri [71]
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 20:20:16 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 15, 2010 20:20:16 GMT -5
There are multiple precedents of competing 3rd parties and competing PFKs. I don't recall the specific games but others might. The way they have been set up is a level of competition mechanics that don't apply to anyone else, for example: -competing serial killers. The one who kills the most 'wins' the PFK race. -tagging competition. The competing 3rd parties can 'tag' other players in the game. The first one to tag someone prevents the other 3rd party from being able to tag them. The player with the most successful tags wins. -etc. As long as the people who are forgetting about the mason claims don't try to vig or otherwise harm them while having their memory lapses, I don't see enough to write home about. For those playing along at home, this was a content-filled post and not a defense of Hockey Monkey or players who have forgotten about the masons. It is also not an attack nor a defense of people who suspect or are otherwise concerned about Hockey Monkey or those have forgotten the Masons. What it isn't is aggressive or antagonistic, which is a playstyle I tend to reserve for people making dubious cases about me or when I am more confident later in the game. I still don't find it very useful and it's still very safe. And FYI I have no problem with you defending anybody. I actually found it more scummy the first time you said that you didn't want people to think you were defending story. If I'm going to defend somebody I won't claim that I'm not defending them. So you want to encourage people to be concerned about Hockey Monkey even though it is quite possibly a waste of time and effort that will do little or nothing to advance the win conditions? You want to build a case on people based on their forgetting of claimed masons? Are you afraid they'll succeed in convincing people to lynch our claimed masons while you aren't looking?
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 20:21:33 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 15, 2010 20:21:33 GMT -5
Thanks typo God. Just what I needed.
That should be 'Town win condition', not 'win conditions'.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 20:49:01 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 15, 2010 20:49:01 GMT -5
So you want to encourage people to be concerned about Hockey Monkey even though it is quite possibly a waste of time and effort that will do little or nothing to advance the win conditions? (Warning: post is made with author on sedatives. Coherency not confirmed or guaranteed) You know what? I called Severe Delays on exactly this sort of behavior in Halloween Mafia, and I was absolutely right about her being Scum. Trying to get Town to "waste" a lynch at this point on someone who has a "reasonable" chance of not actually being a threat to Town -- or, at least, less of a threat than Scum at this point -- well, I don't see that as very pro-Town. I went with my gut the last time and was right. I'm going with my gut this time, too, right or wrong. Vote: crazypunker
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 20:56:28 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 15, 2010 20:56:28 GMT -5
Apparently my playstyle these days allows for a nice spot to place loosely defined subjective votes based on terms like 'fluff' and 'meaningful'. As much as I appreciate the perspective of our claimed 3rd party as to the insult of my town integrity, I will not be OMGUSing at this time, though I am tempted. Since being attacked by my own scum-buddy Santo Rugger over the use of 'the scum investigator' vs 'a scum investigator' [[within a hypothetical that included a scum investigator, ergo usage of 'the' was (as I still firmly defend, even though I was a scum investigator) not a slip]], Plankton's post does continue to read like a pretzel of logic to me, but that does not speak to crazy's alignment for calling it out. Which is just more data for the theory that people who harp on supposed slips and PIS when objectively there is probably nothing there are disproportionately scum, regardless of the alignment of the person they're targeting. And which is why I'm voting Special Ed. vote: Special Ed[/color] In passing, I'm also finding Bill's case on crazypunker persuasive, wherever the heck it is. Too tired to find it again. My son is sick; I don't know when I'll be able to catch up the rest of the way.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 21:06:51 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 15, 2010 21:06:51 GMT -5
meh. i will leave it to bill on whether we should post our pms or portions thereof. i am not seeing a town benefit so undoubtedly he will suggest we do otherwise. which would not surprise me a lick.
more importantly, get well sis. thoughts and prayers will be headed your way constantly. course that might turn you into a frackin newt or some such curious george nonsense.
woot the fucking woot.
aiiieeee.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 21:46:59 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 15, 2010 21:46:59 GMT -5
I still don't find it very useful and it's still very safe. And FYI I have no problem with you defending anybody. I actually found it more scummy the first time you said that you didn't want people to think you were defending story. If I'm going to defend somebody I won't claim that I'm not defending them. So you want to encourage people to be concerned about Hockey Monkey even though it is quite possibly a waste of time and effort that will do little or nothing to advance the win conditions? You want to build a case on people based on their forgetting of claimed masons? Are you afraid they'll succeed in convincing people to lynch our claimed masons while you aren't looking? Are you putting words in my mouth? I didn't encourage anybody to be concerned about anything. I didn't even mention Hockey or the masons. I wouldn't vote for Hockey at this point. I just don't think it's very useful to say that a certain thing might have happened in another game a long long time ago in a galaxy far away. To me that has no bearing on this game. I feel like in each game it's possible and even likely that new roles exist that haven't been in previous games. As for your comment about people forgetting masons, it doesn't help anything. You didn't add anything. So no, I'm not encouraging people to do anything except participate and help find scum.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 22:18:43 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 15, 2010 22:18:43 GMT -5
So you want to encourage people to be concerned about Hockey Monkey even though it is quite possibly a waste of time and effort that will do little or nothing to advance the win conditions? You want to build a case on people based on their forgetting of claimed masons? Are you afraid they'll succeed in convincing people to lynch our claimed masons while you aren't looking? Are you putting words in my mouth? I didn't encourage anybody to be concerned about anything. I didn't even mention Hockey or the masons. I wouldn't vote for Hockey at this point. I just don't think it's very useful to say that a certain thing might have happened in another game a long long time ago in a galaxy far away. To me that has no bearing on this game. I feel like in each game it's possible and even likely that new roles exist that haven't been in previous games. As for your comment about people forgetting masons, it doesn't help anything. You didn't add anything. So no, I'm not encouraging people to do anything except participate and help find scum. No more than you are muting the words coming out of my mouth and decreeing that they say nothing. There are precedent and there is metagaming. They are not one in the same. Precedents are actually a way to dispell metagaming, which is exactly how I have used it here. Squink was inclined to suspect Hockey because Squink has never played a game with competetive 3rd parties. That is the metagaming part. I cite the precedents. That's the dispelling of the metagaming part.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 22:22:55 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 15, 2010 22:22:55 GMT -5
As much grief as I've been giving crazy, I'm just not sold that his motivations are scummy. I think it is quite possible that he just doesn't 'get' me. I'll need more before I vote for him, regardless of how 'safe' that makes me sound.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 22:31:20 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 15, 2010 22:31:20 GMT -5
So you want to encourage people to be concerned about Hockey Monkey even though it is quite possibly a waste of time and effort that will do little or nothing to advance the win conditions? (Warning: post is made with author on sedatives. Coherency not confirmed or guaranteed) You know what? I called Severe Delays on exactly this sort of behavior in Halloween Mafia, and I was absolutely right about her being Scum. Trying to get Town to "waste" a lynch at this point on someone who has a "reasonable" chance of not actually being a threat to Town -- or, at least, less of a threat than Scum at this point -- well, I don't see that as very pro-Town. I went with my gut the last time and was right. I'm going with my gut this time, too, right or wrong. Vote: crazypunker [/color][/quote] Medicinal haze acknowledged, and I wish you happy healing thoughts. Squink is the one who has explicitly stated continued suspicion of Hockey. My statement was an attempt to get crazy to see how my comment that he things is full of nothing is actually a cautionary tale to Squink. I'm also inclined to believe Squink's claim at this point, fwiw.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 15, 2010 22:59:09 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 15, 2010 22:59:09 GMT -5
I'm still not functioning at a human level yet.
But, I have 2 things to say:
1. Look, Renata is voting for me! 2. All my best thoughts, vibes, and other stuff, Sister.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 5:47:22 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 16, 2010 5:47:22 GMT -5
So you want to encourage people to be concerned about Hockey Monkey even though it is quite possibly a waste of time and effort that will do little or nothing to advance the win conditions? (Warning: post is made with author on sedatives. Coherency not confirmed or guaranteed) You know what? I called Severe Delays on exactly this sort of behavior in Halloween Mafia, and I was absolutely right about her being Scum. Trying to get Town to "waste" a lynch at this point on someone who has a "reasonable" chance of not actually being a threat to Town -- or, at least, less of a threat than Scum at this point -- well, I don't see that as very pro-Town. I went with my gut the last time and was right. I'm going with my gut this time, too, right or wrong. vote crazypunkerIf your gut is telling you that I am trying to get Hockey lynched then your gut is wrong. I haven't voted Hockey, nor have I asked or encouraged anyone to vote Hockey. You can vote for me if you like, but please examine your reason.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 7:08:15 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 16, 2010 7:08:15 GMT -5
On a note I am here - I'm going over Rystos posts - and from there noticed a potential thread leading back to SP, So once I'm done with that I'll be posting.
Oh and Squink, I wasn't asking to know who you would block that night. As far I'm concerned, I was asking you to elaborate on the reasons behind your selection of Total Ullz (which I believe you said was random), and Rysto (because they'd gotten the second highest votes) - Both seemed kind of silly to me, especially since you'd have the potential to be Role blocking potential town PRs for little to no reason. Thankfully Rysto was a Survivor, so no harm no foul there, but there's still potential for harm on Total's front - and here's another thing.
Most games I play anywhere that have a town roleblocker in the game is generally more effective in the later stages of the game - when they have information to go off of. Blocking randomly as a town RBer is a good way to hurt your side. Blocking for something as simple as someone had the second most votes without reading for anything else is a good way to hurt your side (granted Rysto wasn't town but effects the same - not scum means scum had no vested interest in keeping Rysto alive means they don't care.) Trying to block someone because they question you about why you are picking who you picked is a Bad Idea, as most people will probably thinking "why?". Those who aren't are the scum because they probably don't care about you at the moment, hate to break it to you. Claimed RBer who is blocking based random or bad ideas is going to be an asset to them, and assuming for a game this size there's more than two scummers means they'd still probably get their kill off. So yes I want to know why you're blocking who you're blocking, [i[because so far it's all been for the wrong reason.[/i] </rant>
Also Three pages and it's thursday morning. usually by now this'd be page 6 or 7 and everyone'd be asking where I am.
Oh and NAF~ Did you finish that nightmare of a post?
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 7:09:25 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 16, 2010 7:09:25 GMT -5
B-B-Broken Tag! </fluff>
|
|
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:
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 7:17:41 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 16, 2010 7:17:41 GMT -5
WOW on Mister Blockery Night Zero 1 post #64 PM received and understood Day One 3 posts #90 catching up + busy + mass claims at this time are a bad idea + should happen Day 3 at the earliest and states his reasons for thinking this + There are exigent circumstances at times, however I have yet to see any in this game.#102 answer to Speical Ed regarding his view on mass claim: eventually enough of the bad aspects of a mass claim will happen accidentally that it becomes a net gain to let the rest of them happen. That point is almost never reached day 1 #245 having trouble following + That said I want to get some sort of vote in before days end and I really haven't been following well enough to be comfortable enough to do anything other than Vote Charr , because the hell man, you don't vote for no reason.Day Two 4 posts #27 explains he voted Day One but was minutes too late + rl will prevent him for being as involved in this game as he has in the past + That said I'm going to open up with a bit of a prod and Vote Charr. Until there's an explanation for voting someone with no reason whatsoever, I'm good with that vote.#70 Yes but charr complained in the night thread that he had an explanation but couldn't give one because strategy isn't allowed at night. So yeah I'm waiting for his explanation.#140 unvotes Charr for playing poorly, rather then scummy + on the fence about Story + checked the rules and think it might talk about no universal posting restrictions at Day + Of course story could be lying as well. He could even be telling the truth and still be scum.
#300 want a vote officially on the record + going with gut and votes Mahaloth for his vote on Hockey Monkey
My comments in my next post.
|
|
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:
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 7:29:44 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 16, 2010 7:29:44 GMT -5
What stands out at first sight is the low number of posts from Mister Blockery and the very late votes both Day One and Two. I've played with him before and therefore the number of posts doesn't really bother me. However the strange vote pattern does a bit. I can't recall that he should a notorious late-voter. In this game it's a vote 5 minutes after Day-end and 40 minutes before Day-end.
So let's look at the vote Day Two:
The vote on Mahaloth seems like a dangerous gameplay for Scum. Before the vote the vote count said:
hockey monkey (5): renata [160], total ullz [256], billmc [264], mahaloth [270], crazypunker [276]
storyteller (3): peekercpa [115], catinasuit [124], mr ed [242]
mahaloth (3): guiri [109], texcat [248], sistercoyote [266]
In comes MB and votes Mahaloth making the vote count:
hockey monkey (5): renata [160], total ullz [256], billmc [264], mahaloth [270], crazypunker [276]
mahaloth (4): guiri [109], texcat [248], sistercoyote [266], Mister Blockery
storyteller (3): peekercpa [115], catinasuit [124], mr ed [242]
So was it really that dangerous? It seems to be risky, but not really that risky. Looking at the votes now I notice that Mahaloth looks like he need 2 more votes to be lynched over Hockey Monkey. He has to move ahead of her in the vote count to be lynched. So even with 1 more vote Mahaloth would still be safe. This was with less than 40 minutes of the Day left.
But what happened was something different. Because when Bill unvoted Hockey he created the tie and when he then voted Mahaloth he sealed the deal.
So while I still think the vote looks good for MB and also feel it was made for that purpose alone. He even said it in the post where he votes. He wanted a vote on the official record. Why? Because he wanted to lynch Scum or because he didn't want to stand out too much?
|
|