|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 21:43:45 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 16, 2010 21:43:45 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 ^^ Sorry about the busy days, but you ought to know that excuse will not work for very long...
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 16, 2010 23:51:55 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 16, 2010 23:51:55 GMT -5
Boy is my face red!
In the throes of finals week and the run up to it, I completely misremembered the end of the day for Day 2 and completely missed the second half of the day and didn't vote. 50 lashes with a wet noodle!*
I don't really have anything more to say about voting for Rysto other than it was Day 1 and he seemed really upset by people voting for Rysto. I couldn't really blame the voters and thought rysto was more abrasive than the situation warranted. (On the other hand, I think, I often find Rysto more abrasive than warranted.)
*Made all the more embarrassing by the fact that Sister Coyote is in the thick of things while dealing with cancer so that just showcases how pathetic I am. Good luck SisC! I'm pulling for ya!
|
|
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 17, 2010 4:33:02 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 17, 2010 4:33:02 GMT -5
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. But even IF I had a power, and IF it gave me results so I would know I had been blocked by someone. What would that prove other than we have a blocker in this game (and we now know we did in fact have a blocker). It would tell us nothing in regards to you or mine alignment. You could be scum using Mahaloths blocks as a cover claim, I could be Scum with an action or we could both be Scum plotting some weird confirmation in the Scum thread. So Town wouldn't really gain other information than we already have - there was a blocker in the game. Granted you didn't know Mahaloth would be lynched when you blocked (if you did) or when you claimed.
|
|
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 17, 2010 4:33:48 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 17, 2010 4:33:48 GMT -5
By the way, I'm posting this from 10,000 feet in the air. Pretty cool!
|
|
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 17, 2010 4:45:53 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 17, 2010 4:45:53 GMT -5
I don't really have anything more to say about voting for Rysto other than it was Day 1 and he seemed really upset by people voting for Rysto. I couldn't really blame the voters and thought rysto was more abrasive than the situation warranted. (On the other hand, I think, I often find Rysto more abrasive than warranted.) So are you saying you agree with the people voting Pleonast? If yes, why didn't you vote him yourself? If no, why did you imply that you wanted him lynched? Did you read the post Story did about your posts at that time?
|
|
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 17, 2010 4:56:49 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 17, 2010 4:56:49 GMT -5
I'll make a list. Ed always seem to deal better if I number my thoughts so here I go: A. Story has a post/vote restriction:1. He's town and has it 2. He's scum and has it 3. He's something else and has it He would then want us to know. And that is why he claimed it. B. Story is lying about his post/vote restriction:1. He's Town and is trying to pull the biggest gambit in the history of mafia. Something that will justify him giving up his voting. Nearly getting lynched and even possibly getting NK'ed before he even knows if it's going to work. 2. He's Scum and lying about it. This would imply something sort of gambit once more, because if you look at it he would then be giving up his vote for 3 Days to pull something out of his hat. 3. He's something else - like a Jester. Not that I like the Jester-role, but I'm fairly sure that Story wouldn't play it that clumsy. Okay, list was made and my conclusion is: If he's either A2 or B2 we should lynch him However I can't bring myself to lynching based on the restriction or the confusing about the claim and the restriction by itself. So unless someone can justify a vote on Story not related with the restriction, I just don't think there is any case and therefore I see no reason to vote for him. I'm not giving him the "townie"-badge. But I can't see why his restriction should be enough to a lynch.
|
|
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 17, 2010 5:02:12 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 17, 2010 5:02:12 GMT -5
Upon re-reading a bit I stumbled a cross this: No one has commented on this post from night 0, but I'm still not sure what it means. Ed? What was your PM titled? Vote: Ed Was that ever answered?
|
|
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 17, 2010 5:24:11 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 17, 2010 5:24:11 GMT -5
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. The votes for Crazypunker might not be what Cookie think is a strong case. But this comment keeps standing out to me. How would "really think that Hockey was scum" and still vote for her? Why make this into a Hockey >< Story-vote. With so few votes YesterDay anyone could have made a big difference with a vote backed up with reason and good observations on the game. Also I simply can't see why Crazy is so fixed on Cookie while leaving others with much less contribution to the game flying by. I tried to ask about it earlier but since he's not yet posted in this thread after that, I can't blame him for not giving me an answer (yet). Vote Crazypunker for voting for Hockey Monkey while really not believing she was scum the handwave post Day 2 where he's vote "still stands" not even acknowledging that Mahaloth also had votes on him Day 2 and for his double standards with past games. It's okay to ask guiri about past games and players game-style still talk about how games "in a galaxy far, far away" matters not. (the last is a minor point. But I didn't like it and so I added it to my list).
|
|
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 17, 2010 5:25:31 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 17, 2010 5:25:31 GMT -5
NETA:
Not How would "really think that Hockey was scum" and still vote for her? But How wouldn't "really think that Hockey was scum" and still vote for her?
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 7:30:54 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 17, 2010 7:30:54 GMT -5
That is a good catch of a dubious statement by crazy. I'd consider switching if there is more of a consensus there than for Cat.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 7:36:20 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 17, 2010 7:36:20 GMT -5
And the metagaming double standard too. Consider my hesitation and fear of too much OMGUS overcome.
Unvote: Catinasuit Vote: crazypunker
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 9:35:38 GMT -5
Post by brewha on Dec 17, 2010 9:35:38 GMT -5
I have been following closely, despite my lack of posts. It's getting late in the Day, so here's where I stand on the issues.
I don't think Story is scum. I can't imagine scum being dealt a vote restriction - it's too much of a red flag. It would make them and unfairly easy target. He may not be town, but I dont' think he's scum.
Crazypunker pinged me as well with her vote for HM despite not believing that she is scum. I nearly posted that, but last game I said something very similar - though I thought had a reason to. With the recent rash of unproductive quibbling over my posts, I thought I'd leave that one alone.
Catinasuit also looks scummy to me. In both the 'brewha assumption debacle' and in Story's case, she seems to be attempting to manufacture suspicion.
I'm leaning towards a CIAS vote right now, but I gotta go back and read the case against CrazyPunker.
Scratch that. For now, I'll
Vote Catinasuit
I really think that there was a least one scum force keeping the conversation on me for my whole "assumption". The two other players were HM and Squink, but it now looks like they were more on the persuaded side than the persuading side.
I am going to go back and see if there's more meat on the case against Punker than the one line.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 9:38:29 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 17, 2010 9:38:29 GMT -5
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... My posts have been behavior related. We're seeing how that's working out.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 9:42:29 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 17, 2010 9:42:29 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. I'm also starting to feel like I just don't get you. From everybody's reactions it seems like this is how you always play, though. So while I don't think it benefits town as much as it could at this point I am starting to think it's a null tell. Also there is somebody else who I think has a better case against them right now, so I need to do some research, but for now: Unvote CookiesI'll have a vote in before the deadline.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 9:58:46 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 17, 2010 9:58:46 GMT -5
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. The votes for Crazypunker might not be what Cookie think is a strong case. But this comment keeps standing out to me. How would "really think that Hockey was scum" and still vote for her? Why make this into a Hockey >< Story-vote. With so few votes YesterDay anyone could have made a big difference with a vote backed up with reason and good observations on the game. Also I simply can't see why Crazy is so fixed on Cookie while leaving others with much less contribution to the game flying by. I tried to ask about it earlier but since he's not yet posted in this thread after that, I can't blame him for not giving me an answer (yet). Vote Crazypunker for voting for Hockey Monkey while really not believing she was scum the handwave post Day 2 where he's vote "still stands" not even acknowledging that Mahaloth also had votes on him Day 2 and for his double standards with past games. It's okay to ask guiri about past games and players game-style still talk about how games "in a galaxy far, far away" matters not. (the last is a minor point. But I didn't like it and so I added it to my list). I explained already that I voted for the more likely of the two because if we let scum fill in the rest of the votes they would almost certainly lynch town. I voted the more likely of the two because even though I didn't think that they were extremely likely to be scum I felt that they were more likely to be scum than who the scum would have chosen to lynch. (does that make sense?) Also on second look there are more nonabrasive people. Cookie stood out to me because a couple of her posts seemed too deliberately nonabrasive. She was trying to show that she didn't want to ruffle feathers rather than just not ruffling feathers. The last point (your minor point) is fair. I think that it's a bit different to ask about previous player behavior rather than previous roles which existed though. Players do evolve though, so I guess previous behavior isn't enough to go on by itself.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 10:01:24 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 17, 2010 10:01:24 GMT -5
Oh, and Malhaloth did also have votes on him, but if I voted him it would have been a 3 way tie and in my mind it would have been even easier for scum to pick which of the three they wanted to lynch. It turns out I was wrong, but that was my reasoning.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 10:10:39 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 17, 2010 10:10:39 GMT -5
Vote Count
crazypunker (4): hockey monkey [39], billmc [44], sister coyote [77-100], total ullz [127], cookies [130]
storyteller (3): mr ed [91], catinasuit [99], suburban plankton [102]
catinasuit (2): guiri [71], cookies [112-130], brewha [131]
paranoia (1): metallic squink [69]
mr ed (1): renata [78]
cometothedarksidewehavecookies (0): crazypunker [38-133]
|
|
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 17, 2010 10:39:09 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 17, 2010 10:39:09 GMT -5
Oh, and Malhaloth did also have votes on him, but if I voted him it would have been a 3 way tie and in my mind it would have been even easier for scum to pick which of the three they wanted to lynch. It turns out I was wrong, but that was my reasoning. But it only illustrates my point for voting you. How am I to tell if it wasn't your vote (the one that almost saved Mahaloth) that was the manipulated scum vote? For where I'm sitting scum didn't want Mahaloth lynched. Your vote helped (somewhat) them. Town don't want townies lynched and voting for a player you don't see as scum doesn't help IMO. Not that I'm one to pick on people with reasoning that might not be 100% fool-proof. But to me it looks like your vote did exactly the opposite of what you say you wanted.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 10:51:48 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Dec 17, 2010 10:51:48 GMT -5
@sister, I am sending good wishes and prayers your way. I hope things get resolved soon for you. @total, yes, Ed answered right away...<snipped> I'm not my aptly titled PM. That should have been I recieved my aptly titled PM, which was called "PM" Vote: crazypunkerThe end of yesterDay voting was definitely suspicious, as noted by Total. I am also not liking the togetherness of Mahaloth and crazypunker. First the alleged cross-post votes of Pleo. Then at the end of yesterDay, Mahaloth comes in and votes Hockey Monkey to break the tie. He is followed by crazypunker who also votes Hockey Monkey to break the tie, which of course was not a tie at that point. It pings me as if both votes were discussed on the scum board.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 11:21:57 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 17, 2010 11:21:57 GMT -5
my fingers so badly want to type [ b ] [ c o l o r = b l u e ] v o t e s t o r y [ / c o l o r ] [ / b ] .
but i won't, for now. i still think you are being deliberately evasive in answering questions about something that you kind of stirred the pot on, fcs.
jeebus, c'mon story you bring up a "post restriction". oh no wait a minute it's not a "post restriction". oh shoot it's a "vote restriction". if i go against it i will *have something bad happen to me*. and, btw, trust me because if i gave out information it would be bad for town. fracking hogwash.
i'm going for a lurker. better now than in a Day or two.
vote charr
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 11:35:00 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 17, 2010 11:35:00 GMT -5
*Made all the more embarrassing by the fact that Sister Coyote is in the thick of things while dealing with cancer so that just showcases how pathetic I am. Good luck SisC! I'm pulling for ya! Thanks for pulling for me but whoa whoa whoa -- tumors, not cancer. I have been assured that the odds of the tumors (IF that's what they find, Lord) being cancerous are less than 0.01%. Let's not make me sicker than I am! <font style="font-size: 12px;">Upon re-reading a bit I stumbled a cross this:
No one has commented on this post from night 0, but I'm still not sure what it means. Ed? What was your PM titled?
Vote: Ed Was that ever answered? I don't think Ed ever answered this but I read it as a reference to "I am Joe's Pancreas" or "I am Joe's Liver", a series of articles that were published in Reader's Digest lo these many many moons ago and referred to in Fight Club.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 11:38:46 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 17, 2010 11:38:46 GMT -5
Hey guys, the headcold I had took me out for most of the last couple of days. I'm catching up now. Sorry I haven't been around.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 11:45:54 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 17, 2010 11:45:54 GMT -5
I think I've finally made sense of the crazypunkerComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookiesCatInASuit confusion i had earlier. And having done so, I'm going to unvote storytellervote crazypunkerOn crazypunker: Day 1 He votes for Pleonast because he doesn't understand Pleo's claim and wants an explanation( D1-103). When he's asked to explain his vote he says he doesn't believe Pleo is being truthful ( D1-109). Then near the end of the day he unvotes Pleo because "the benefits make sense" ( D1-107), not because he believes Pleo is Town. He never does make it back to place a vote, even though Dusk is 18 hours away. Day 2 He votes Cookies for posting fluff ( D2-244). In his next post (the following morning) he unvotes Cookies because there is a four-way tie for first. ( D2-255). Then comes the trainwreck near the end of the day, with vote, unvote, and misvotes flying all over the place. This has been well documented already; he misvotes Hockey Monkey based on a confusion between storyteller and metallicsquink, but doesn't reconsider it even after his mistake is pointed out. Day 3 He opens with a revote on Cookies for the same reason as on Day 2 ( D3-38). On the subject of his vote on Hockey Monkey he says "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." ( D3-65), then a few hours later he tells us "I wouldn't vote for Hockey at this point." ( D3-80). Why the change of heart? He comes back a few minutes later to say "I haven't voted Hockey, nor have I asked or encouraged anyone to vote Hockey."( D3-85). Has he forgotten about the end of Day 2? And most recently, he again unvotes Cookies, once again promising to come back with a vote before Dusk( D3-133) He keeps voting Cookies for 'posting fluff', but the only time he's made a meaningful vote was when he voted for Hockey Monkey, which was based on a false assumption, and he still hasn't managed to come across anyone who he thinks is likely Scum. The closest he has come is feeling "Hockey was more likely to be scum than story". In 3 Days, that's all you can come up with? I'm still not sold on storyteller. I think his play has been anti-Town. But I have enough niggling doubt that I'm going to go for the player who appears to be being helpful, but really isn't, over the player who has been quite straightforward about his unhelpfulness.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 11:53:06 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 17, 2010 11:53:06 GMT -5
I think that if I had a voting restriction (whether as Town or as Scum), I would want that out there as soon as possible as it wouldn't take long for the other players to notice that I never voted.
Also, I think I'm going to reinstate my
Vote: crazypunker
My stoned reasoning may not have been sound, but in conjunction with the Day 2 EOD vote shenanigans and the fact that Plankton effectively has caught him in a lie because he DID vote Hockey.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 13:37:20 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 17, 2010 13:37:20 GMT -5
I think that if I had a voting restriction (whether as Town or as Scum), I would want that out there as soon as possible as it wouldn't take long for the other players to notice that I never voted. Also, I think I'm going to reinstate my Vote: crazypunker [/color] My stoned reasoning may not have been sound, but in conjunction with the Day 2 EOD vote shenanigans and the fact that Plankton effectively has caught him in a lie because he DID vote Hockey.[/quote] I posted that in response to Cookies post about me trying to get Hockey lynched toDay. In the context of why she was voting me my claim of not trying to get Hockey lynched wasn't a lie. The whole time I meant I wasn't trying to do anything to Hockey toDay.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 13:41:37 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 17, 2010 13:41:37 GMT -5
I may as well post this now:
It may or may not help anything, but at least the information is out there.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 13:57:52 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 17, 2010 13:57:52 GMT -5
I think I've finally made sense of the crazypunkerComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookiesCatInASuit confusion i had earlier. And having done so, I'm going to unvote storytellervote crazypunkerOn crazypunker: Day 1 He votes for Pleonast because he doesn't understand Pleo's claim and wants an explanation( D1-103). When he's asked to explain his vote he says he doesn't believe Pleo is being truthful ( D1-109). Then near the end of the day he unvotes Pleo because "the benefits make sense" ( D1-107), not because he believes Pleo is Town. He never does make it back to place a vote, even though Dusk is 18 hours away. I explained why I never got back to vote. Also, when I was saying that the benefits made sense I was saying that while I didn't agree with his opinion, his reasoning made sense. In other words, I wouldn't have done it if I was him, but I understand why he did it. I've explained this as well. My vote on Hockey wasn't just based on the confusion. It was based on several things and the other things still made sense even when I was corrected. I feel like my case against Cookies was meaningful. We are looking for scum and I felt that her behaviors were very similar to how I would play if I were scum. I've since revised my opinion because it seems like it's just a personality thing with her and not a scum strategy. Also, I've posted bits about other players as well, including you. And I will be back with a vote. Thank you very much.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 14:02:02 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 17, 2010 14:02:02 GMT -5
There is a full day left for me to vote. I don't understand why you even posted about me not coming back to vote toDay.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 14:49:13 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 17, 2010 14:49:13 GMT -5
There is a full day left for me to vote. I don't understand why you even posted about me not coming back to vote toDay. I didn't post about you not coming back to vote Today. I posted about you not coming back to vote on Day 1. The only way I'll post about you not coming back to vote Today is if you don't come back and vote. And yes, you've posted things about a number of people, including me. You said that Hockey Monkey was more likely to be scum than storyteller, but you didn't really think he was scum You said that there wasn't really a good case against me. You've said several times that Cookies seems scummy, but then again, perhaps not. You thought Pleonast's claim was bad, and you didn't believe him, but then it all made sense. Basically, you seem to be "playing it safe", which is exactly the reason you've used to vote for Cookies twice now. I'm not sure what to make of your claim right now...
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 17, 2010 15:02:33 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 17, 2010 15:02:33 GMT -5
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. But even IF I had a power, and IF it gave me results so I would know I had been blocked by someone. What would that prove other than we have a blocker in this game (and we now know we did in fact have a blocker). It would tell us nothing in regards to you or mine alignment. You could be scum using Mahaloths blocks as a cover claim, I could be Scum with an action or we could both be Scum plotting some weird confirmation in the Scum thread. So Town wouldn't really gain other information than we already have - there was a blocker in the game. Granted you didn't know Mahaloth would be lynched when you blocked (if you did) or when you claimed. Understood but at the very least, I would have information to share with town which is what I think is most important. Also, as you'll note, I didn't say anything about being able to confirm your alignment. I would only have been able to confirm that you had been blocked if you had said anything about it in the game. Also, just to clarify, I am talking about what I was thinking when I blocked you (randomly) on Night 0. I'm not sure what you mean about knowing there was a blocker in the game. When did we already know that?
|
|