|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 5, 2011 9:17:38 GMT -5
I'll still go with the hypothesis that you just slipped up and are doing a very quickly designed dance to try to save your skin. yaknow i kind of have to semi agree with ed. i mean you list a couple of hypothetical possibilities. the one that is conveniently omitted is the hypothetical possibility that you are scum and screwed up or determined that your original claim would ultimately be unsupportable. but as i have already mentioned that seems highly unlike you to not have thought it through better. but then again that would be highly like you to come up with that gambit as well. hey this looks funky so surely people will believe me since it is so unlikely that it has to be true. story, quick question? how do you normally feel about other players who might get into a little bit of a bind and their response is i have information that will help scum and either be harmful or neutral to town. and sorry, but you just have to trust me on this.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 5, 2011 9:20:53 GMT -5
Of course, you're very likely Scum, so you know all this already. <snipped> can you refresh my memory where this theory has been laid out?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 5, 2011 9:54:45 GMT -5
I'll still go with the hypothesis that you just slipped up and are doing a very quickly designed dance to try to save your skin. yaknow i kind of have to semi agree with ed. i mean you list a couple of hypothetical possibilities. the one that is conveniently omitted is the hypothetical possibility that you are scum and screwed up or determined that your original claim would ultimately be unsupportable. but as i have already mentioned that seems highly unlike you to not have thought it through better. but then again that would be highly like you to come up with that gambit as well. hey this looks funky so surely people will believe me since it is so unlikely that it has to be true. So if you agree with ed, I'll ask you the same question I asked him. I acknowledge, continually acknowledge, the possibility that I am lying. It is possible. Fuck, anything is possible. It's possible that you, personally, are an alien lizard from outer space or that Cookies is secretly a moderator with perfect information or that NAF was the only Scum in the game. Anything is possible. But - given that it's possible that I'm lying - what is the string of reasoning that leads you to the belief that it's so? Ed's saying he wants to go with the hypothesis that I'm lying - why is no one asking him why? I propose that the answer in your case is that you want me to be lying, so that you can say that you saw through me all along. The mislynch if you're wrong is worth it, to you, for the possibility that you're right. But you're not right, and I think if you look objectively you will see that you have no reason to believe what you believe other than "it's possible." But "it's possible" also applies to a dozen other scenarios, so it's insufficient reason to accept any given one of them. Well, that depends, doesn't it? You have (rather unfairly, IMO) portrayed me here as offering some vague assurance and you'll just have to trust mes, but that's not what I've done. I have been very specific. You don't have to trust me. I explained in detail specifically what harm I think will derive from revealing my restriction in full, and in detail why I think that Town won't benefit from it (beyond satisfying the "I WANT TO KNOW" urge, but that's not a productive way to play). Do you disagree? Do you think that my explanation of why Scum would benefit from knowing is in error, or incomplete? Do you see a potential benefit to Town from a reveal that I haven't figured? Let's talk about it - you might even convince me that I'm wrong (though it's unlikely). But to answer your question: if a player outlines reasons for keeping information quiet, and those reasons seem clear and rational to me, and I have no other reason to be suspicious of that player... yeah, I'm fine with the silence in a case like that. Why aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 5, 2011 10:29:48 GMT -5
ok, story here you go.
i do believe that more knowledge, generally, is better for town than less. as you point out this is not necessarily universally true, however. and if you were confirmed town then i would trust your judgement on the implications. but jeebs story i don't have the knowledge of the information that you have and the potential implications. i mean you have outlined various scenarios and have basically stated that we have to trust you on your implication calculations. i don't know your alignment. so i have no way of evaluating whether your conclusion is valid. certainly you can be sympathetic to that position.
and yes i am curious george but at this point i am not voting for you. and i'd like to say i have positive proof that you are lying. and boy ain't i one scum hunting demon. i don't and so i have to go with a just a general niggling suspicion.
and since you are certain ed is scum any chance that the rest of us folks could be allowed into that conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 5, 2011 10:34:07 GMT -5
neta: it just seems oxymoronic that you kind of have accused ed based on the same type of reasoning that he has used against you.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 5, 2011 11:34:05 GMT -5
I'll still go with the hypothesis that you just slipped up and are doing a very quickly designed dance to try to save your skin. OK. That's your hypothesis. Great. You've made that very clear. Do you acknowledge that other possibilities exist? That it is possible that I am simply telling the truth? If you acknowledge that possibility, then on what basis do you consider it more likely that I am lying than that I am telling the truth? See, calling a wild-ass guess a "hypothesis" doesn't make it useful analysis. Of course, you're very likely Scum, so you know all this already. Certainly other possibilities exist. It's also possible that you are being honest. I have no mathematical calculation to determine that what you've said is more likely the truth or a lie. I cannot be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. In looking at your posts, I feel it quite likely that you made a mistake and have been covering for it since then. It seems the most reasonable explanation for your behavior. It is purely a subjective evaluation based on my experiences playing this game and my evaluation of you as a player. So, it's more than a wild-ass guess and less than a certainty. There's a huge grey area in there. Without having any mod-confirmed information in my hands it's the best I can do.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 5, 2011 11:42:54 GMT -5
@ peeker, my schools filter won't let me quote off of page 2.
I was under the impression that storyteller was accusing me of being Scum in an attempt to make my case look as whimsical as his.
I think what he was trying to sarcastical state was:
To a Town player: 1. storyteller may be Town 2. storyteller may be Scum
Since I don't know, I can't make a good decision about it.
He is accusing me of just 'deciding' that he was Scum and voting that way whimsically.
He's ignoring that I've performed an evaluation of his comments in the game and come to the conclusion that he is my most likely candidate for Scum. Because there is some uncertainty, he's trying to point out that there is no case at all.
I do agree with him that my case does not prove that he is Scum. It only make me very suspcious of him because of his actions. I view him as the player most likely to be Scum.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 5, 2011 12:28:26 GMT -5
and once again i am kind of agreeing with you ed. i was merely trying to make the point that his case against you (which i still don't recall seeing) was based on the same thing that your case against him was (and to a great extent mine as well). that seemed to be dichotomous. i mean it is based on assumptions and theories and not definitely provable facts, at least at this point.
i mean to a great extent is that not what this exercise is about. you goes with what you knows and feels. and to some extent that makes me even more questionable of story. when do we really have evidence of anything that is shut and closed? isn't part of this game trying to make a decision based on less than perfect information?
and to quote story
But - given that it's possible that I'm lying - what is the string of reasoning that leads you to the belief that it's so?
because you could be scum.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 5, 2011 12:34:03 GMT -5
and it ignores the fact that I think a Town story would rather say:
I can't post anything in blue. or I have conditions that must be met before I can vote
rather than:
I hate shoes. I mean I have a posting restriction. Bufftabby told me I have a posting restriction.
When that was pointed out to contradict the rules of the game:
Bufftabby corrected herself and told me I have a voting restriction. I've been upfront about things. I could be telling the truth, therefore you shouldn't vote for me.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 5, 2011 13:36:07 GMT -5
and it ignores the fact that I think a Town story would rather say: I can't post anything in blue. or I have conditions that must be met before I can vote[/quote[ What would be the advantage of that over what I did? rather than: I hate shoes. I mean I have a posting restriction. Bufftabby told me I have a posting restriction. When that was pointed out to contradict the rules of the game: Bufftabby corrected herself and told me I have a voting restriction. I've been upfront about things. ...unless, of course, this is exactly what happened. Which part of this string seems unlikely to you? This is such a profoundly dishonest interpretation of the point I have tried to make that it is no longer worth engaging with you on the subject. You're either Scum or not actually reading my posts for comprehension; either way my time is better spent on other things.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 5, 2011 13:41:44 GMT -5
exactly, it seems more likely that you made the error than that bufftabby did.
Sure it could have happened like you describe. I just believe that it didn't. It seems unlikely because I would have expected you, as Town, to have been clear from the outset.
Maybe you tried to be convoluted and got caught up in a mod error while explaining yourself.
It's possible. Yet, it seems unliekly to me.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 5, 2011 18:39:28 GMT -5
I'm curious about storyteller's vote restriction just as much as I'm curious to know crazypunker's true alignment, whether hockey monkey's wincon is as stated or not, and why Charr is no longer showing as a member of this board, but I still find CIAS scummier and so will return my vote there. Based on my Day 3 analysis of his play: Vote CIAS
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Jan 5, 2011 23:24:19 GMT -5
Part of me is very tempted to go with Guiri based on his analysis of CIAS - and the fact that several people, including CIAS have dropped off the face of the earth.
That's something I'd like to address actually. It's day what. Five?
And we're only on page 2 with 16 people living? Come on folks, it's not even the holidays.
That said, Charr hasn't been doing much all game. And looking back, he went from "Crazypunker isn't trying to avoid being lynched so it confirms he's scum" To I think "I think Crazypunker and Inner are town" kind of... you know. Bleeeh. Add into the fact I truly do think he and NAF were connected leads me to want to keep my vote on him.
Vote: Charr
Also, blast at being wrong about Plankton.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 6, 2011 9:25:22 GMT -5
For starters, a belated Happy new Year all.
Sorry to see you go SP and I wonder what Inner stickler was up to.
That it is quiet is never a good thing for town. It is also worrying that charr is no longer a member.
So, looking back over the game, I thought I would take a look at NAF1138 and see if anything was of use.
Early Day 1, there is a fair amount upfront on roleclaims and information vs numbers. Late Day 1/Early Day 2 is a case against paranoia. Day 2 He picks up on storyteller's comment about shoes. Questions to charr about his EOD1 vote. His leaves his vote against paranoia though. Day 3: he votes for crazypunker after his claim citing that the case against him was decent and its a testable role.
So after that, I would put paranoia more towards the non-scum category. What I am trying to figure out are his thoughts on charr, storyteller and crazypunker.
He spent time questioning charr about his EOD1 vote and his theory there was a vote buyer. Then again, there was his comment on Day 2, that he would place money on charr not flipping scum.
He was quick to follow up with storyteller about the post restriction, and said all signposts point to storyteller being a foolish townie.
crazypunker he seemed happier to lynch but whether that was to confirm his role (although not necessarily his side) or remove an obstacle, we don't know.
I'm going to think some more.
|
|
|
Post by brewha on Jan 6, 2011 10:06:02 GMT -5
Story, you seem to be going to great lengths to explain why you don't want to explain yourself. I understand what you claim your reasoning to be, but it just looking fishier and fishier to me. You say that the explanation will do nothing to help out the town - and maybe it won't. But, we can determine that by just taking your word for it. You are definitely in a precarious spot - whether you are town or scum. But, I'll leave this alone for now.
I really think that we still need to finish the Crazypunker lynch. So,
Vote Crazypunker
Like I said yesterday, if she was scummy enough to lynch once, she's scummy enough to lynch twice. Her non lynch did nothing to exonerate her.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 6, 2011 10:39:14 GMT -5
A crazypunker lynch definitely seems like a correct move, for the exact reason brewha gave previously - if crazypunker was Scummy enough to be lynched once, what has changed?
---
On another note, I am now basically assuming that we have no alignment investigator, and will be highly suspcious of an alignment Cop claim if one comes in the future. There is no good reason for a Cop to not claim at this stage if (s)he has even one single result to share - the hiding pool has shrunk to near vanishing now, and (on the basis of last night's kill), it seems evident that the Scum are choosing to shoot into that hiding pool.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 6, 2011 11:05:01 GMT -5
I shall now out myself: A watcher I be, Though my results are pathetic as a tiny flea:
On the first Night, I thought it would be best to keep my eye on Ed; even if Scum he was not, He is often one of the very early dead.
But while looking for light, and studying Ed; I saw nothing but the darkness instead.
What does this mean? I asked of myself, and having no answer, kept mum for the Day; The following Night, maintaining my stealth, It was story I watched, but in making of hay
I missed the deadline, and thus got no result. BRB facepalming forever.
Night Three I wanted to watch oer a Mason; BillMc I chose, one would think fortuitously, But the evil of NAF most sorely me chasened and I did not see him murder Bill most viciously.
Last Night it was Peeker I thought might be next But again by the darkness the light was most vex't.
===
(And yes, I have to post my results in verse.)
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 6, 2011 11:08:26 GMT -5
My conclusions are thus: Night One Ed had made insignificant fuss and so was unvisited by good or by ill Night Two I have no results to discuss By lack of good timing, not failure of will.
Night Three we all know of BillMc's bad end, and last Night poor peeker had nary a friend.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 6, 2011 11:18:40 GMT -5
That was so incredibly awesome. I assume you did not or could not investigate on Night Zero, correct? If possible, please phrase your answer in the form of a haiku.
Bufftabby writes fun roles.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 6, 2011 11:20:40 GMT -5
Hmmm...interesting...a few quick questions, Sister... Night zero? Night three you watched BillMc, but didn't see NAF murder him. Does that mean you didn't see who murdered BillMc? Or does that mean you did see and it was someone other than NAF?
|
|
|
Post by brewha on Jan 6, 2011 11:23:06 GMT -5
I dont' know why, but the Coyote's poems make me giggle. But, to sum up - you investigated 3 out of 4 nights and got no results?
Can you explain more of what your powers are? I'm assuming that you watch a person every night and only get results if there is an action involving that person. And trust me, I'm being very careful as to what I admit to assuming!
Is it only if the person makes an action that you get results? Or do you see if they are acted upon? OR both? Is it only when posting results that you have to write in verse? Or now every time that you've claimed?
Again, nice writing!
|
|
|
Post by Mister Blockey on Jan 6, 2011 11:33:32 GMT -5
well texcat already asked the question I had about night three, but let me add more interrogation to the pot.
In your first results post it's not entirely clear that ed and peeker were unvisited, you wrote it more like you were blocked. Is that the way bufftabby wrote it/are you sure you weren't blocked? Why didn't you try and watch story again? Watcher generally means that you see anyone who performs an action on your target. sometimes you also get to see anyone your target performs actions on as well, and sometimes that's all you get to see. I can see reasons for not telling us which form your powers take, but it would help town make better sense of your results
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Jan 6, 2011 11:44:03 GMT -5
I'm mid-post but just have to say :grin: to the poetry.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Jan 6, 2011 11:44:57 GMT -5
And, I just lost my post. I think I'm going to cry.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Jan 6, 2011 12:11:59 GMT -5
Trying again, necessarily in less detail.
Storyteller, this is regarding the post from yesterday (post 17) I flagged somewhat incomprehensibly. I was trying to say that while I agreed with (some of) your conclusions, the logic you were using to get there left me cold. And it looks worse to me today upon re-reading it with a bit more time to reflect.
No reason he should not be, and I'm saying that despite that I would have voted for him myself yesterday if not for Inner Stickler. There *is* additional information on him that was not available the first time he was lynched -- namely, he was not lying (or not entirely anyway) about his role. I'm not a fan of trying to outguess the mod (for one thing, I almost always get it wrong when I do), but clearly some players are going that route in arguing that the mafia would not have such a role. What makes that argument so wrong on its face that it should be completely left out of your analysis? In saying that a player that survives a lynch *always* should be relynched at the first opportunity, you are removing all opportunity for personal judgment and trying to maneuver the town into a box of just a single "right thing to do".
Inner Stickler was accused and lynched at least in part (not by you, but the point had been raised by the time of this post of yours) because he was suspected of PIS. He assumed NAF had died as a result of NAF's own actions in killing BillMc. You offer two options here for NAF's death, neither of which includes that possibility. I can't see how you could have missed it. But that aside, the point is that you are offering a false dilemma to account for NAF's death (vig or third party, no other options), eliminating one of the horns, then skewering Hockey Monkey with the other because she fits the profile -- a profile you've manipulated to omit at least one other plausible option.
I find her claim believable enough to leave her alone and see what happens. But again you are trying to box the town into a corner on this. And you're using false logic for your nails.
I'm not sure how else to put it. I liked my first version better, but it's lost. You feel dishonestly manipulative, like you are trying to get the town to do the wrong thing for the "right" reasons. Or maybe just one notch off of that, like you can't believe that the town isn't already doing that wrong thing, because it's so obviously "right". Except it isn't.
I'm a little torn on whether to vote for you or crazypunker, but I think between crazypunker's accusation from NAF that CIAS pointed out (hardly definitive under the circumstances, but still) and the way you are talking today (that "but you're probably scum" or whatever it was directed at Ed just screamed frustration of the sort that can't be accounted for by the threat of maybe having to make an honest claim; and the logic against him is not perfect either) tips it to you over him.
vote: Storyteller[/color]
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 6, 2011 12:21:23 GMT -5
This is what I get for writing poetry in a rush; my dates are off by one; Zero was Ed, Story was One, and also Night Two; The rest of the Nights my mem'ry is true. == I don't have to post everything in verse, just my results, and yes -- I watch. Night zero? Night three you watched BillMc, but didn't see NAF murder him. Does that mean you didn't see who murdered BillMc? Or does that mean you did see and it was someone other than NAF? I saw that Bill was murdered, but the shape of his killer was made of such dark I dove back in my bed, pulled the covers oer my head, And could not a name give. If I had to guess, I'd say NAF's Godfather-level Evil was too much for my delicate sensibilities. <font style="font-size: 12px;">I dont' know why, but the Coyote's poems make me giggle. But, to sum up - you investigated 3 out of 4 nights and got no results? Can you explain more of what your powers are? I'm assuming that you watch a person every night and only get results if there is an action involving that person. And trust me, I'm being very careful as to what I admit to assuming! Is it only if the person makes an action that you get results? Or do you see if they are acted upon? OR both? Is it only when posting results that you have to write in verse? Or now every time that you've claimed? Again, nice writing! Yes, your assumption is correct as written, the second thing not the first thing, and as I said above, only when posting the results. I'm glad you were amused. I've had my poetry published professionally, and I'm kind of horrified. <font style="font-size: 12px;">well texcat already asked the question I had about night three, but let me add more interrogation to the pot. In your first results post it's not entirely clear that ed and peeker were unvisited, you wrote it more like you were blocked. Is that the way bufftabby wrote it/are you sure you weren't blocked? As near as I dare, those are the results I got from buff. Though there was no "only darkness instead" for story; For the result I got, he snored away merrily. I saw nothing at all, no signs of my quarry, And the difference in reporting makes me a bit, um, warily. I did; see above. The first thing, not the second -- I see influences from the outside of the person I watch.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 6, 2011 12:48:24 GMT -5
There *is* additional information on him that was not available the first time he was lynched -- namely, he was not lying (or not entirely anyway) about his role. But that's irrelevant. The votes against crazypunker mostly came before he claimed, and had nothing to do with any suspicion of him lying about his role. Thus the fact that he was telling the truth about his role is meaningless. Nothing has changed about the reasons he was lynched in the first place; if those things make him suspicious as a non-scotsman, they should also make him suspicious as a scotsman. I could make the argument that the Mafia would not have an Investigator; would you both to give such an argument any sway at all? The argument that the Mafia would not have a Scotsman is a bad argument, and is blatantly contradicted by multiple examples in past games including many that I myself created and moderated. Am I to be blamed for disregarding an argument that is patently, provably, and historically false? Frankly, I think a no-reveal Scotsman is more likely to be Scum than Town anyway. A no-reveal Town Scotsman is, basically, a free half-mislynch handed to the Scum, so it plays as mostly anti-Town. A no-reveal Scum Scotsman also plays as anti-Town, but Scum roles that are anti-Town are more common than Town roles that are anti-Town. But a Scum Scotsman that reveals alignment just means that the subsequent Day is going to be a foregone conclusion, which means a boring Day, which is something Moderators will often try to work around. Thus, not only do I disregard the argument that Mafia would never get a Scotsman role, I think if we're going to meta-game I'd call it much more likely that a no-reveal Scotsman IS Scum. Well, no. My opinion is that a no-reveal Scotsman (anyone who survives a lynch for any reason, actually, without an alignment reveal) should be re-lynched (I mean, obviously, barring some weird thing like an investigation result or what have you). Always. I acknowledge that others may have different opinions and invited others to engage with me on the subject. How else should I play? Is it really necessary to couch every sentence with three hundred "in my opinion"s and "from my perspective"s in order to avoid accusations like yours? Mule poop. The quoted section was intended to indicate that I don't think we have a Vig; I tried to signal this by saying that "I don't think we have a Vig." I did not "discount" the possibility that NAF died as a result of his own actions - if he did, then he wasn't killed by a Vig... which is exactly what I said in the section you quote. Though I did leave out that possibility in my brief outline of reasons to lynch Hockey Monkey, below the portion you quoted. I will now reword the section appropriately: 2. Hockey Monkey (why are we leaving her alive again? If the death of NAF was not the work of a Vig, then it wasstands an excellent chance of being the work of a third party. Hockey Monkey is a claimed third party. Is there any reason to believe that she may not be the killer)? And I stand behind all of that. The fact that you don't understand how I feel about this, or why I feel that way, is an indicator that you didn't play in Arkham Nights with me ;D I don't apologize for my opinion on this. We're crazy to let Hockey Monkey live. She could be anything except for Town. She could be a killer. She could be an exclusive third-party. She could even be Scum. She could even be what she says she is... in which case, that's unfortunate for her, but there's really no way for us to know (especially as it now appears that we have no alignment Cop). There's really no way to answer this. Thanks for accusing me for something other than my claimed restriction. It's still just as incorrect, but it's much more interesting to discuss!
|
|
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:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 6, 2011 13:40:40 GMT -5
A crazypunker lynch definitely seems like a correct move, for the exact reason brewha gave previously - if crazypunker was Scummy enough to be lynched once, what has changed? I agree - somewhat with this. crazypunker was the best lynch (for me) when I voted to lynch her (did I have the gender wrong before???). Then came along a (for me) more scummy player and I wanted to vote for him more than I wanted to vote crazypunker. That doesn't mean I changed my mind on crazypunker - just that I changed the order in which player I viewed as most scummy. For now I'm still thinking about who is the best lynch toDay. I'm inclined to think it's Hockey Monkey. We don't know anything other than her being non-town. The reason I voted her in the first place was her actions in the Brewha-debacle and thought she has since played a nice little townie-girl, I'm just not convinced. I can't see us allowing her to live to Endgame. So at some point IMO we have to get rid of her. I've been hoping for a vig-kill. But it's starting to seem unlikely and therefore I think we have to lynch her. I loved Sister Coyote's claim. That is a fun role and a fun way to write the results!! Great read!!
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Jan 6, 2011 14:53:35 GMT -5
Caution: Wet Trout Ed inadvertently posted in the Forbidden Thread, due to the New Posts button or somesuch. I've slapped him with a wet trout, and I think it's only fair to share these posts with the rest of the class. (And yes, I have to post my results in verse.) Liar. There are no post restrictions. This seems true Sister, I would appreciate it if you would post, not only your role PM, but each and every PM you've sent to or recieved from the moderators. Additionally, storyteller, if you would post your role PM, (redact the parts that you feel might hurt Town) as well as your interactions with the moderator. (I know you've already shared some.) well crap, how did I get in here? I think I just saw a new post was posted and ended up here. My apologies to the moderator. I'll not post anything until you decide if I am to be modkilled or not.
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Jan 6, 2011 14:54:14 GMT -5
Vote Count
charr (2): peekercpa [11], paranoia [42]
storyteller (2): mr ed [21], renata [54]
catinasuit (1): guiri [41]
crazypunker (1): brewha [44]
|
|