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 7:36:21 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 16, 2010 7:36:21 GMT -5
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. I think there are more than one way to help Town in this game. Sure - you can ask people to explain their behavior and state their reasons for voting. But you can also look at the votes, where they went and why. And then you could also look at what people said at the time they said it. And then there is my favorite - sometimes you have to look at what wasn't said at a certain time. But do you really believe Cookie is the most "non-abrasive" player in the game right now?
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 7:45:06 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 16, 2010 7:45:06 GMT -5
Vote: storyteller
I'm still not satisfied. The misplay, mistake, misrepresentation, misinformation is just puzzling.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 9:05:46 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 16, 2010 9:05:46 GMT -5
[/color] I'm still not satisfied. The misplay, mistake, misrepresentation, misinformation is just puzzling.[/quote] Still working on reviewing the past two and a half days, but I just want to point out that this vote is still no better than the last time you made it, yesterDay. It's still basically the same vote that Charr made on Rysto that got him run around the block six times, but you're savvy enough to dress it up so that it looks like you're making an argument. But you're not, and you've played enough to know it, too.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 9:22:22 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 16, 2010 9:22:22 GMT -5
[/color] I'm still not satisfied. The misplay, mistake, misrepresentation, misinformation is just puzzling.[/quote] Still working on reviewing the past two and a half days, but I just want to point out that this vote is still no better than the last time you made it, yesterDay. It's still basically the same vote that Charr made on Rysto that got him run around the block six times, but you're savvy enough to dress it up so that it looks like you're making an argument. But you're not, and you've played enough to know it, too.[/quote] What are the similarities between Charr's vote and mine? Is Charr the one who voted with the "I really don't have a reason"? Because I have reasons. You might not like them, but they are there. I can detail them more specifically again if you'd like 1. You claimed a post restriction. (This, in and of itself isn't suspicious because I cannot for the life of me figure out why a Scum would want to claim something that cannot be true and wasn't needed) 2. When it was pointed out that there were no post restrictions, you, at first, claimed that sachertorte told you it was. 3. later, you calimed that he back tracked, and while he says it really isn't a post restriction, he told you it was. 4. then you stated that it was really a vote restriction. 5. When I asked you to vote anyway for us to see if it would count or not, you completely ignored me. 6. You seem to want to dismiss any further discussion of what has occurred and rely on the "why would I do this if I were Scum" approach without even touching base on the "why would you do this if you were Town" So, since this game explicitly allows us to post anything we wish, I ask you again, to post a vote in bold and blue
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 9:25:26 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 16, 2010 9:25:26 GMT -5
PS, I'm still waiting for the promised analysis of the 'variety of reasons' why you are suspcious of me, Catinasuit, and Inner Stickler
|
|
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 9:30:19 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 16, 2010 9:30:19 GMT -5
2. When it was pointed out that there were no post restrictions, you, at first, claimed that sachertorte told you it was. 3. later, you calimed that he back tracked, and while he says it really isn't a post restriction, he told you it was. Pssst - I think the mod in this game is the lovely Miss Bufftabby
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 9:34:19 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 16, 2010 9:34:19 GMT -5
2. When it was pointed out that there were no post restrictions, you, at first, claimed that sachertorte told you it was. 3. later, you calimed that he back tracked, and while he says it really isn't a post restriction, he told you it was. Pssst - I think the mod in this game is the lovely Miss Bufftabby yeah, you're right. I'm embarrassed. um, sorry, were my other facts still appropriate for this game? My mind is starting to clear up, but the last few days have been a jumble of headaches, barbituates, codeine, and coughing.
|
|
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 9:41:08 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 16, 2010 9:41:08 GMT -5
Pssst - I think the mod in this game is the lovely Miss Bufftabby yeah, you're right. I'm embarrassed. um, sorry, were my other facts still appropriate for this game? My mind is starting to clear up, but the last few days have been a jumble of headaches, barbituates, codeine, and coughing. I have to say I didn't notice before. But it seems to be true that Story hasn't voted at all in this game... I've not read all his post yet - but I can't find a vote so far.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 10:36:54 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 16, 2010 10:36:54 GMT -5
Ed, did you miss Mahaloth's vote (and almost-immediate unvote) of Storyteller late yesterday, or are you dismissing it as important?
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 10:42:34 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Dec 16, 2010 10:42:34 GMT -5
Guiri - my participation in this game and my enthusiasm has not been as much as it should be.
However, I will point out, Rysto's explanation occured after I finished posting on Day 1. So to say I ignored it is a misrepresentation.
Two, do I find storyteller scummy? oh hell yes. No vote and backtracking on explanations as has been pointed out by more than one person. Oh and no explanation of what is going on. He has ignored all requests and doesn't seem to think he is going to get lynched anyway.
Not to mention he is going to look at three of us and conveniently ignores the fact that peekercpa also voted for him. What's different, oh wait, he's a claimed mason. It looks like cherry picking someone to vote for.
What I am trying to understand is why Mahaloth switched like that to storyteller and then Hockey Monkey. And you know what, I get the feeling storyteller is a vanilla scum bluffing the town. A scum roleblocker is worth more than scum vanilla so its a scum sacrifice. The extra vote makes it more certain the more valuable scum is saved. Oh wait, HM is also there, here's a chance to save both scum at someone's else expense, hence the second vote switch straight after. At that point, even if someone else ties up the lynch count, HM still goes down.
If there is a flaw in the argument, someone please point it out, but considering how close to the deadline it got, I think it's viable.
Storyteller, you're still the scummiest one around to me.
vote storyteller
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 11:03:46 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 16, 2010 11:03:46 GMT -5
Unvote: crazypunker
Posting while stoned is never a good idea.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 11:14:29 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 16, 2010 11:14:29 GMT -5
Ed, did you miss Mahaloth's vote (and almost-immediate unvote) of Storyteller late yesterday, or are you dismissing it as important? Can you clarify its importance for me?
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 12:09:12 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 16, 2010 12:09:12 GMT -5
I've been trying with limited success to make sense of things, but my brain doesn't seem to be firing on all synapses these days. Here's how I see things right now.
I had said earlier that I felt there was Scum 'stirring the pot' in the "brewha assumption debacle" (thanks Total) early on Day 2. Going back over it, the only thing that really stands out is CatInASuit's post #124. At the time he made that post, there had been no discussion on the issue for about 36 hours; it had pretty much died out after metallicsquink backed off in post #40. But given that post #124 was CIAS's first substantive post of the Day and summed up his thoughts on a number of subjects, I don't know how much weight I can give to 'pot stirring' there.
I took a look at Mahaloth's posts and the thing that's nagging me most surrounds his late votes for storyteller and Hockey Monkey. In post #266, Sister Coyote voes for Mahaloth, creating a 3-way voting tie between storyteller, Mahaloth, and Hockey Monkey, with storyteller leading the tie-breaker. After Mahaloth's votes, Hockey Monkey is leading the voting, with storyteller a full vote plus a tie-breaker behind.
The problem is that Mahaloth didn't need to vote at all at that point, because he was still in third place behind story and HM. I can see him wanting to vote anyway, just to give himself breathing room, and with that in mind his vote on storyteller makes perfect sense. But his vote on Hockey Monkey doesn't. I know the assumption is that he somehow mistook "Hockey Monkey" for "Sister Coyote", but I'm just not seeing that. The bottom line is that Mahaloth's voting moved storyteller from the lynch leader to being effectively two votes behind HM (considering the tie-breaker).
Which only makes sense if storyteller is Scum. I said yesterday that I couldn't see a reason for a Scummy storyteller to have made his 'claim' in the first place. I still can't, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a reason, or that he isn't Scum. And I find very little pro-Town behavior from him. He has been spoonfeeding us information about his 'restriction'. He has suggested, and the evidence seems to bear out, that he actually has a voting restriction. It seems to me that it's not pro-Town for him to continue to refuse to fully disclose what his restriction is.
For the moment, I'll take it as given that story is not allowed to cast a vote at this point. Fine. But what he also has failed to do is place any real suspicion on anyone in three Days now.
A summary of his stances on various players:
Day 1 He doesn't like the votes on Pleonast. He doesn't agree with his strategy, but thinks it "does not constitute a Scum tell".
Day 2 He thinks the case against Charr is "not overwhelming" He points out the odd timing of Mahaloth's vote on Pleonast following crazypunker's He thinks that Rysto made a "pretty good argument" when voting for me. He thinks Rysto is making pro-town arguments He says Inner Stickler (along with other, unnamed people) are "on my list" He says, regarding Charr's vote: "we must lynch Charr for this for the inarguable reason that if this sort of vote is permitted without sanction, it will never be possible to find Scum." (underlining his)
He posts this "Quick summary of my findings so far:"
- Rysto seems pro-Town to me. - I am ambivalent on Cookies. - I will lean either Town or Scum on NAF and/or Mr. Ed depending on paranoia's eventual alignment. - Charr's vote seems like it deserves a lynching on general principle. - I want very much to hear from Stickler and Catinasuit on Rysto.'
Day 3 "For toDay, CatinaSuit, Inner Stickler, and Mr. Ed are my primary suspects, for a variety of reasons. I will begin my own investigations with a closer reading of all three." He's not happy with Ed's vote, likening it to Charr's vote on Day 1
In all this, the only time he's come anywhere close to advocating a lynch on anyone, it was Charr. His reasoning is not that Charr is Scum, but that it deserves a vote on general principle. I can understand a 'voting restriction', but even if he is unable to cast a vote in bold and blue, I would expect him to be doing a fair bit more than he is trying to help us identify Scum.
vote storyteller
Also, I keep getting the feeling there's something going on with CatInASuit, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, and crazypunker. But since they seem often to be at odds with each other, I'm having trouble figuring out which of the three 'long c-something names' said what, and about whom, so I can't make any informed decisions about them at this time. I don't know when or if I'm going to be able to sort that out...
And finally I notice that Charr has gone AWOL. This can't be allowed to continue for too long.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 12:44:19 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Dec 16, 2010 12:44:19 GMT -5
IBut his vote on Hockey Monkey doesn't. I know the assumption is that he somehow mistook "Hockey Monkey" for "Sister Coyote", but I'm just not seeing that. The bottom line is that Mahaloth's voting moved storyteller from the lynch leader to being effectively two votes behind HM (considering the tie-breaker). He mistook SisC for Hockey, not Hockey for SiSC.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 12:50:30 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 16, 2010 12:50:30 GMT -5
IBut his vote on Hockey Monkey doesn't. I know the assumption is that he somehow mistook "Hockey Monkey" for "Sister Coyote", but I'm just not seeing that. The bottom line is that Mahaloth's voting moved storyteller from the lynch leader to being effectively two votes behind HM (considering the tie-breaker). He mistook SisC for Hockey, not Hockey for SiSC. I think that it makes sense either way, but if the one is 'correct' and the other isn't then I guess I stated it backwards...anyway, my point was that he confused the names, and I find that hard to believe.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 13:06:28 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 16, 2010 13:06:28 GMT -5
Vote Count
storyteller (3): mr ed [91], catinasuit [99], suburban plankton [102]
crazypunker (2): hockey monkey [39], billmc [44], sister coyote [77-100]
cometothedarksidewehavecookies (1): crazypunker [38]
paranoia (1): metallic squink [69]
catinasuit (1): guiri [71]
mr ed (1): renata [78]
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 13:53:05 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 16, 2010 13:53:05 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?[/quote] I know you did not explicitly ask who I was going to block but the fact that you asked for more detail behind my reasoning when no one else questioned it, made it look like fishing for information helpful to scum. So I didn't vote for you just for asking; I voted for you because asking makes you look scummy to me. And if you recall, I've voted for you before so this just another data point as far as I'm concerned. I considered not blocking randomly the first Night but like I said, I wanted to use my action because I think it's pro-town and secondly, if Total Ullz (or anyone else I block) claims to have been blocked, I can confirm it. So even though there may be anti-town reasons to block with little information, I think ther are pro-town reasons as well. Obviously, as the game progresses I have more information to choose better targets.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 13:53:33 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 16, 2010 13:53:33 GMT -5
By the way, I'm posting this from 10,000 feet in the air. Pretty cool!
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 14:22:51 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 16, 2010 14:22:51 GMT -5
That's better, Ed. I disagree with your reasons, but at least you're giving them, which is what you haven't done the last two times you've voted for me. "I am not satisfied" is sort of impossible to argue against, isn't it? Well, OK, you're not satisfied. Why not? You expand on that, below, which gives us something to talk about. 1. You claimed a post restriction. (This, in and of itself isn't suspicious because I cannot for the life of me figure out why a Scum would want to claim something that cannot be true and wasn't needed) OK. Actually, I claimed that bufftabby told me it was. She's the moderator. This is the second time you've said "sachertorte," which would seem weird to me except it doesn't seem to mean anything. Correct. Correct. Which, to me, is synonymous with a post restriction. I u]vote[/u] by posting. Under certain circumstances, I am not permitted to vote. If I put a vote in blue under those circumstances, I will be subject to sanctions. This is why I asked my initial question of buff in the first place: to clarify whether this constituted a post restriction or a mechanical one (ie, whether I could do as you asked, and vote and have it not show up, to prove my role). I was told it was a post restriction. Missed that. Wouldn't have mattered. Not allowed. I HAVE touched that base. I WOULDN'T do this ("this" being falsely claim a post restriction out of the blue) if I were Town and I WOULDN'T do it if I were Scum and I WOULDN'T do it as third party and I wouldn't do it with a fox or in a tree. I wouldn't lie about this whatever my alignment, because it would be stupid. It doesn't prove me Town, that I have a post restriction. I could be Scum, honestly reporting my post restriction (I'm not, but whatever). This is not exactly new ground I'm going over here, and I find your point #6 to be disingenuous. Can't. Sadly, I'm screwed by wording mix-up here. I'd ask the moderator to step in and help me out here, but that would be unfair to her, so I am explicitly not. If the Town chooses to lynch me on this basis, the Town deserves what it gets.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 14:36:25 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 16, 2010 14:36:25 GMT -5
He has ignored all requests and doesn't seem to think he is going to get lynched anyway. Actually, I think I probably will. I've played enough to know that. But here's the thing: I have explained everything of value to explain, wholly and truthfully. I can answer questions about this all Day, but if you (global "you") don't believe me then you don't, and there's no additional evidence forthcoming that's going to change your mind. So why waste the Day on arguing my own situation? If I get lynched, I'd really rather use the time I have to leave something useful behind. That's crap. Everybody take a look at this quote, when I'm dead, whenever, whatever. The paragraph above is crap. Shall we count the "whys?" Yes, let's: 1. First of all, I didn't say I was suspicious of the people I was suspicous of because they voted for me (well, Ed was for that reason). I became suspicious of CatinaSuit well before he voted for me and Stickler has never voted for me at all. Cat, above, is trying to make it look like I'm just going after people who voted for me. Not true. 2. Second, the whole "conveniently ignores the fact that peeker voted for me too" is disingenuous garbage. Of course I'm not going to spend a bunch of time researching peeker. He's a Mason! Acting like not doing that is some nefarious act is just pushing it way too hard. 3. Most importantly, the characterization of my plans as "cherry picking" is completely unfair. What I've done is identified three players that have pinged me for their behavior in this game. Now I'd like to narrow the field by looking at each more closely, and see which (if any) warrants a vote (or, in this case, an aggressive push to get OTHERS to vote, since I can't do it myself). If this is cherry picking, then how could one play this game without cherry picking? Detailed post histories on every player? Bah. I want to vote for you so bad. This is very frustrating.
|
|
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 16, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Dec 16, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
If we correctly determine what your vote restriction is, can you confirm or deny?
I think if you have votes against you, you can't vote. Would that be right? Scum could manipulate your ability to have your say by keeping a vote on you at all times. I mean, you could still build a case, but without voting, it carries no weight. I propose everyone unvote storyteller and see if he can vote. You can always revote after the test if you still feel you need to.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 14:59:05 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 16, 2010 14:59:05 GMT -5
If we correctly determine what your vote restriction is, can you confirm or deny? I think if you have votes against you, you can't vote. Would that be right? Scum could manipulate your ability to have your say by keeping a vote on you at all times. I mean, you could still build a case, but without voting, it carries no weight. I propose everyone unvote storyteller and see if he can vote. You can always revote after the test if you still feel you need to. Look, I'll be honest here. I really don't see a good reason to tell what the restriction is, because it won't matter; it won't make anyone NOT lynch me. But it will help the Scum plan. Your guess is not correct. It's unlikely that anyone will be able to guess. I do think that discussing the whole restriction thing is a waste of resources, though.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 14:59:16 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 16, 2010 14:59:16 GMT -5
FWIW and for better or worse, I'm still inclined to believe you, Story, and your apparent vote restriction.
Vote: Catinasuit Carrying over my personal reasons from yesterday, and dovetailing that with Story's assessment above.
Bill? Crazy? Squink? Renata? Hockey? The one-off votes, if left standing, are setting us up for a very slim margin for scum to overcome.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 15:06:39 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 16, 2010 15:06:39 GMT -5
The World According to Stickler [/center] By the way, here’s my disclaimer. This is not a wall of words. It is not an attempt to represent everything said by the subject. I freely acknowledge that I will be choosing which posts to discuss in order to reduce noise (cherry picking, perhaps. Heh). There’s no way I can make a decent argument if I do otherwise, so there it is. Still, I’ll make an effort to be reasonably complete. Stickler has not participated much. On Day One, he begins with idle wondering about sach’s death: Stickler doesn’t really go anywhere other than this. It pinged me when I read it – the game just started, what other reason could there be? – but it seemed too minor to mention. OK, Mahaloth asks why Pleonast claimed, and Stickler says: Not to read too much into it, but this phrase sort of implies a few things: (1) it’s answering Mahaloth’s questioning of Pleonast; (2) it’s suggesting that Pleonast “always does this;” so (3) questioning it is pointless. Moving on, Stickler has a few posts offering lukewarm support for mass name claiming (null tells all). There’s this: I don’t necessarily agree, but wanted to note it. Back to Pleonast, we get this, somewhat later (#120): …which seems like a pretty big departure from his initial response to Mahaloth. But OK, anyway. Stickler’s basic thesis, moving through a few more posts, is that what Pleonast does is bad and he should stop doing it and lynching him on general principles would be all right by Stickler. I understand where Stickler is coming from here. But… it’s problematic. Because Stickler is saying, it seems to me, that what Pleonast is doing is bad not because it’s an indicator of his alignment, but because it’s anti-Town. I’m OK with that. But then Stickler goes and votes for Rysto because Rysto argues that what Pleonast is doing is not an indicator of his alignment whether or not its anti-Town. In other words, Rysto and Stickler are offering two sides of the same opinion… but Stickler interprets Rysto as “defending” Pleonast and votes for Rysto. And the crazy part is, he does it at a time when if he had voted for Pleonast he had a good chance of swinging the vote TO Pleonast. (It swung eventually anyway). Does any of this make sense? I can try to give it more detail, if it will help. In my big Day Two summary, I said this about Stickler’s vote (and Cat’s vote, btw): In that post, I asked Cat and Stickler a question, which follows: Each of you voted for Rysto yesterday, Stickler in particular at a sensitive time when it was entirely possible your votes might send him to the gallows; they were not throwaway votes. Neither of you has voted for him today [ie, Day Two]. What has changed?Stickler definitely never responded to this question (neither did CatinaSuit). --- Anyway, that’s about it for Stickler. He posts a bit after Day Two starts, talking again about the previous Night’s results and looking for explanations, and then he’s gone with the wind. Which makes this: Kinda funny. --- In total: I continue to harbor very strong suspicions of Inner Stickler based on his behavior so farCatinaSuit next.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 15:07:55 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 16, 2010 15:07:55 GMT -5
FWIW and for better or worse, I'm still inclined to believe you, Story, and your apparent vote restriction. Well, thanks :-) On the other hand, the tight margins do force players to make considered votes and justify them well. This isn't altogether a bad thing (although we're taking it to an extreme in this game!).
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 15:10:13 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 16, 2010 15:10:13 GMT -5
Yes, and technically Hockey and Bill aren't one-off votes but I'm not compelled by their crazy cases at this point in time.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 15:10:50 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 16, 2010 15:10:50 GMT -5
And that's cases about crazy, not cases that are crazy...
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 19:44:25 GMT -5
Post by charr on Dec 16, 2010 19:44:25 GMT -5
Yo~!
No, I'm still here. Sorry I haven't got around to participating alot, 'cause it's been a busy few days ^^
|
|
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 16, 2010 20:34:35 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Dec 16, 2010 20:34:35 GMT -5
Yo~! No, I'm still here. Sorry I haven't got around to participating alot, 'cause it's been a busy few days ^^
|
|
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 16, 2010 20:39:25 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Dec 16, 2010 20:39:25 GMT -5
If we correctly determine what your vote restriction is, can you confirm or deny? I think if you have votes against you, you can't vote. Would that be right? Scum could manipulate your ability to have your say by keeping a vote on you at all times. I mean, you could still build a case, but without voting, it carries no weight. I propose everyone unvote storyteller and see if he can vote. You can always revote after the test if you still feel you need to. Look, I'll be honest here. I really don't see a good reason to tell what the restriction is, because it won't matter; it won't make anyone NOT lynch me. But it will help the Scum plan. Your guess is not correct. It's unlikely that anyone will be able to guess. I do think that discussing the whole restriction thing is a waste of resources, though. Gotcha. Oh well, I thought it was worth a shot to ask. For the record, I do not think at this time that you are scum. I have a hard time reconciling you volunteering that you have a restriction and calling attention to yourself in that manner, and being scum. I just can't see the motivation for doing it.
|
|