|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 3, 2011 11:16:17 GMT -5
Meatspace is eating my brain.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 3, 2011 11:33:37 GMT -5
Unlike a lot of people here, I don't see anything Scummy about Mahaloth's vote. I don't think it was a 'good' vote, but I can see where he was coming from. Frankly, I had a similar reaction when I saw Bill ask to be subbed out. It may be bleed-over from the Hotel of Heroes game where we seem to be having trouble keeping a full complement of players, but when I saw Bill's post my first thought was "oh no, not this again..." So I can understand Mahaloth making a 'statement vote' because of it. Is that what it was, a statement vote? Where do you get that idea from his post? My interpretation of Mahaloth's post was that he was basically saying to Bill, "You want to leave? Fine...there's the door...don't let it hit you on your way out!" In other words, purely a meta-vote based on an emotional reaction to an emotional reaction. Not a 'good' vote, but not a 'Scummy' one either.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 3, 2011 11:38:57 GMT -5
<FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"> vote Bill
I don't like the claim and I don't like the reasoning that follows. There isn't much to go on day one, but this pings me the most so far.
<bleached> ok, he doesn't like the claim and the reasoning that follows. got it It's frustrating when people claim vanilla out of the gate. IMO it doesn't mean anything because nobody knows anything about anybody <snipped> it's frustrating to boot because it doesn't mean anything. The reason I was quick to jump to a new bandwagon is because the case against Bill was pretty weak. I was voting him because I don't like vanilla claims and I think it hurts town. <snipped> fcs, we get that you don't like vanilla claims. I don't like his reasoning for voting Bill in this game because the reasons he gave had nothing to do with Bill being scum. <snipped and bolding and sizing mine> this is where he unvotes bill and votes for maha. now he rightly chastises maha for voting for someone for reasons that have nothing to do with them being scum. so he votes for bill not because he thinks he is scum and then turns around and votes for someone who had voted for bill not because he thought he was scum. jeebus, pot calls kettle black.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Feb 3, 2011 11:52:18 GMT -5
Is that what it was, a statement vote? Where do you get that idea from his post? My interpretation of Mahaloth's post was that he was basically saying to Bill, "You want to leave? Fine...there's the door...don't let it hit you on your way out!" In other words, purely a meta-vote based on an emotional reaction to an emotional reaction. Not a 'good' vote, but not a 'Scummy' one either. 1. It was a Day One vote and I like the policy of "vote early, vote often". I was actually surprised how much crap I caught for it. Still am, actually. 2. I initially thought it could be a scum tactic, like "only Town would ask to be removed," but I really think it's a null tell now. Hence, my unvote. Attracting votes the way I did practically makes me want to just shut up and fly under the radar, but I won't shut up because that it anti-Town. Still, I hope we don't just lynch the loud.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 3, 2011 11:55:19 GMT -5
What changed your mind about it being a null tell?
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 3, 2011 12:04:01 GMT -5
Here's Skeezix' vote on you, to which you said "I guess you have a good point" and unvoted:
So two questions, or comments or something. For you, Mahaloth: Skeezix says it's a null tell (based on what you've written yourself), and you see it then, but not when you actually wrote it? Is Suburban right, and it was just an emotional overreaction? You haven't given any indication that might have been the case.
Second, for Suburban: Why so quick to write the whole thing off as just emotion when Mahaloth himself doesn't even claim it? I can see it in the first part of Mahaloth's vote on Bill, but by the time he gets to point two about the WIFOM (and especially the disclaimer at the end of the post) it looks rather more like an attempt to find a valid reason to join a weak bandwagon. At least to me.
Not sure where I'm going with this, really, but something feels a little off from you both. Time to get lunch.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 3, 2011 12:13:47 GMT -5
Second, for Suburban: Why so quick to write the whole thing off as just emotion when Mahaloth himself doesn't even claim it? I can see it in the first part of Mahaloth's vote on Bill, but by the time he gets to point two about the WIFOM (and especially the disclaimer at the end of the post) it looks rather more like an attempt to find a valid reason to join a weak bandwagon. At least to me. Not sure where I'm going with this, really, but something feels a little off from you both. Time to get lunch. I wrote it off as 'just emotion' because that's the way I saw it at the time. Mahaloth has now come in and said that wasn't the case, but he hadn't said that when I made my statement. Are you saying I should retroactively change my viewpoint based on information that I didn't have when I made it? I still think my interpretation is at least partly correct, based upon Mahaloth's #1 reason for voting Bill: "That's lame and I didn't think it was like you.", but I think he doesn't want to admit he voted based on a purely 'personal' reason. I just didn't get a Scummy vibe from it, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 3, 2011 12:24:44 GMT -5
What he had said at that time, IIRC, was something like "I guess you have a good point" to Red Skeezix' criticism of his point 2, which was a rebuttal of a logical issue, not an emotional one.
I know I'm splitting hairs. I guess what it boils down to is that that post of yours felt to me like a scum handwaving away a thin (though earnest) case on a townie, as scum so often do, without truly considering it. Obviously I'm not convinced enough by these thoughts to move my vote off of Mahaloth, so it'll just have to stay at that for now.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 3, 2011 12:50:41 GMT -5
Hmm... Not sure what I have to contribute at this point. I'm not sure if we have played before, but as many people who played with me in the past I don't really get a true feeling of a game until about day 3. I am not sure I what I done to "drawn your attention" other than ask some questions. See to me questions are a great way to determine intent... So what do you want to know? Everybody get a better feel as the game advances, and laying back will certainly not help you get a better one. Maybe you could start by naming who you find suspicious, and why. Voting, even with a weak case, would be helpful. I am pinged by your blanket statement, "I don't really get a true feeling of a game until about day 3.". What are you telling us here? That you won't be placing good votes before day 3 because you won't have a good feel of the game? And pushing it further: If you place a bad vote, we shouldn't care because you don't have a good feel yet? Also on your : "Not sure what I have to contribute at this point.", There's enough going on that it shouldn't be hard to find something to contribute, unless of course you are worried about a slip. Now I am wondering if you are a scum trying to lay low, or just a lazy townie. .
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 3, 2011 12:57:02 GMT -5
Meatspace is eating my brain. What are you saying Sister? I'm afraid that I am missing some knowledge to correctly appraise your post, and universal translator batteries are out of juice. In a nutshell: Did you just make a useless post? And why?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 3, 2011 13:01:34 GMT -5
Meat space = Real life = No time to play online.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 3, 2011 13:12:18 GMT -5
I've just started Second Read; it doesn't help that I'm fairly busy over Tuesday and Wednesday. Or that I'm DMing an RPG and have to keep up with both. I'll pick out stuff as I go through, today at least. For those mentioning Idle I don't remember him claiming unprovoked like Pleonast has done the past several games. I remember Idle in C3 where he wanted to get lynched as scotsman to confirm his info, in ED2 he had an investigation result and felt exposed. Idle has indeed been claiming early the last two or three games. I do feel compelled to thwap Natlaw with a wet trout though. He's mixing up his Conspiracy games. Idle was a Cabalist when he claimed Scotsman, and that was in C4. You should remember that he was not Cabalist in C3, because you were. Remember that lovely chaos after you redirected one of the Vampires onto the Vicar?
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 3, 2011 13:12:46 GMT -5
2. I initially thought it could be a scum tactic, like "only Town would ask to be removed," but I really think it's a null tell now. Hence, my unvote. Asking to be replaced on Day 1, after attracting many votes, doesn't strike me as something a scum would do. I've seen this a few times, am guilty of doing it once, and the subject was never scum. If this is a scum tactic, I would rank it as a low blow as it is playing with people's emotions, some of friends who cares about Bill (assuming Bill is a "friend", for having played many games with you all). It's also putting the host on the spot, to find a replacement, and I hardly see how a host would like this coming from a scum. So I struggle to understand how you could conclude that this was possibly a scum tactic. Of course now you are saying it's a null tell, but your opinion was different before you got heat for your vote. The way I see it, you could be a scum backing down because he's afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 3, 2011 13:18:08 GMT -5
Meat space = Real life = No time to play online. Hmmft, so she doesn't have time for this game, but she does for her game on Giraffe. Hosted games are more important, so maybe I shouldn't say this, but oh well, I just did.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Pinkies on Feb 3, 2011 13:39:48 GMT -5
Hmm... Not sure what I have to contribute at this point. I'm not sure if we have played before, but as many people who played with me in the past I don't really get a true feeling of a game until about day 3. I am not sure I what I done to "drawn your attention" other than ask some questions. See to me questions are a great way to determine intent... So what do you want to know? Everybody get a better feel as the game advances, and laying back will certainly not help you get a better one. Maybe you could start by naming who you find suspicious, and why. Voting, even with a weak case, would be helpful. I am pinged by your blanket statement, "I don't really get a true feeling of a game until about day 3.". What are you telling us here? That you won't be placing good votes before day 3 because you won't have a good feel of the game? And pushing it further: If you place a bad vote, we shouldn't care because you don't have a good feel yet? Also on your : "Not sure what I have to contribute at this point.", There's enough going on that it shouldn't be hard to find something to contribute, unless of course you are worried about a slip. Now I am wondering if you are a scum trying to lay low, or just a lazy townie. . Well I have commented on things that have bothered me... I am asking questions. And I am happy to answer or clarify anything. So I have played a few of these games and I have found that I get really rolling until about day 3. That is my style, I don't post just to post (unless it is a pass a drink or the hookah). If was trying to lay low I wouldn't have asked Bill questions. And personally I have nothing to slip with... So please ask away... To me there is no such thing as a bad vote as long as I specify why I am voting. The only bad lynch is a no lynch. Odds are I am going to vote for a townie at some point. In fact I am certain that will be the case at some point.. I'm not lazy, far from it.... but do have other things to do in life... Sorry if I can't make this my all consuming venture in life...
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Feb 3, 2011 13:45:48 GMT -5
Asking to be replaced on Day 1, after attracting many votes, doesn't strike me as something a scum would do. I've seen this a few times, am guilty of doing it once, and the subject was never scum. So we disagreed then, but agree now. I thought it was something scum might do, but have reconsidered and think it is a null tell. That's all, really.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 3, 2011 13:52:14 GMT -5
Meat space = Real life = No time to play online. Hmmft, so she doesn't have time for this game, but she does for her game on Giraffe. Hosted games are more important, so maybe I shouldn't say this, but oh well, I just did. that's kind of low. skimming through a thread and counting votes is not nearly as time consumptive as actually reading for comprehension and trying to say something contributory. additionally, when you have a dozen or so folks depending on at least marginal attention from you i think that would be a higher priority in my free time list. re bill and his sub request and subsequent meta observations. i know exactly where bill is coming from and i think ed could relate as well. it gets frustrating when no matter what you do you become an easy lightning rod. post too little - hey what the heck up with that. post too much - you are being nothing but a distraction. post that you are niller townie - hey that's fracking suspicious. don't post anything - hey that's fracking suspicious. and if you get the right confluence or rl and grief in this endeavor sometimes it's easy to say "fuck it i don't need this shit".
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 3, 2011 14:08:52 GMT -5
Whooooops. I go by Nat back on my home boards, so I apologize for not taking into account that there might already be a Nat on here. In which case, if you choose to call me by all thirteen letters of my username, that is quite alright. ((I've had this problem before, so I don't know why I don't just automatically check)) While there are two Nats, there is one easy way to distinguish between you. You are Ms Nat, while the other Nat is Mr. Nat. Or I can call you Lazybones if you'd like. Peeker is usually concerned to get genders right, but he doesn't seem to care this time. It's common around here to publish the vanilla PM, just to avoid handshaking attempts. That avoids outing the Mafia on Day 1, but also avoids oopsies like uncovering a player who doesn't know the Vanilla PM but who the Mafia know isn't one of them, and losing a Doc on Night 1. There are two such PMs in their own thread in this forum. The only conclusion to draw from them is that they are all individually written. This matched with my last Ulla game, where some people had nameless vanilla roles but individually written colour.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 3, 2011 15:34:12 GMT -5
I do feel compelled to thwap Natlaw with a wet trout though. He's mixing up his Conspiracy games. Idle was a Cabalist when he claimed Scotsman, and that was in C4. You should remember that he was not Cabalist in C3, because you were. Remember that lovely chaos after you redirected one of the Vampires onto the Vicar? Yup, I do remember that vampire-immune-vicar-who-died-anyway. It just got the numbers wrong. I didn't remember that he was atually Cabal and not town but still as far as I know the unprovoked Day One claims town claims have all been truthful. I don't think his International Mafia claim was unprovoked (because he was one of the starting travellers).
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 3, 2011 15:35:11 GMT -5
I'll be really sorry if Bill dumps the game because of my vote, as he is a great player. In my defence, I did ask my questions politely first, I certainly wasn't asking for cites. Sometimes it takes a vote before people will acknowledge a question. Since you have an anwser now, what did you not like about it that you haven't unvoted or do have you have new reasons to keep your vote on him?
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 3, 2011 15:48:27 GMT -5
There seems to have also been votes on Mahaloth. These seem to be somewhat based on Meta which I clearly don't have, so I can't really do much about that, other than go back and read these rounds. Considering what I'm working with, that would be almost ridiculously counter-productive, and unnecessary. If it's there (I'm moving quite a bit slower this round, probably because I actually have to think more), the following bugger* does seem weird, I can't deny that, but I'd like to see a decent paragraph from him (her?). Another, if he has already posted one and I missed it. Would a link to oour very own Wiki help a little? I can't guarantee its completeness (exactly the opposite, since my player page is woefully incomplete]) but it might give you a few pieces of knowledge. Captain P doesn't tend to post at all on Day 1 (except for drinks recipes). He seems to have stepped up his participation somewhat this Game. It must be doing Peeker's head in... Role speculation isn't helpful in tthe early game; it's just something to keep in mind. (I did have one game where I needed to make educated guesses about how the roles split, because my investigative powers were subject to error; hence I needed to know role distribution to estimate the chane that a particular role result was correct. I turned out to be almost spot on. I had one too few Monks (think of them as masons) in my initial guess.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 3, 2011 15:54:04 GMT -5
This has been pointed about by Guiri and sinjin before but there hasn't been a straight anwser yet: @ guiri ... I'm not sure I totally understand sinjin's comment regarding a Town Watcher watching Bill. It's the part after the ellipses that seem a little strange. I've read Bill's post several times and just can't come to the same conclusion that sinjin does. bobarrgh doesn't understands sinjin comment about Bill's WIFOM but he likes it. He also liked Bill comments. He seems to be dodging the question why he liked it and instead answer he didn't understand it of how he understanded it. So it seems to me he just made the "I like" comments were to snuggle up which I can see scum doing (this assumes of course town for sinjin/bill) and I think so far the best lead to scum. Vote: bobarrgh I do think bob explained his " little strange vote this early" ok although it also had to be pulled out. Not voting BillMc because it don't think the unprovoked vanilla claim is worth it. Not voting Romola becuase I think her vote-to-get-an-answer is reasonable Day One even if the questions might be too meta-game. I do have an outstanding question to her. Not voting Mahaloth his sub-out-here-is-my-vote seems a bit to attention grabbing for a scum to do (at least if I was scum, not sure how he plays as scum - someone accused him of doing so but I didn't see any specific on that?).
|
|
|
Post by naturallylazy on Feb 3, 2011 16:09:43 GMT -5
Hmm... Not sure what I have to contribute at this point. I'm not sure if we have played before, but as many people who played with me in the past I don't really get a true feeling of a game until about day 3. I am not sure I what I done to "drawn your attention" other than ask some questions. See to me questions are a great way to determine intent... So what do you want to know? ((Extra, not so relevant quotes and things taken out)) I have never played a round with you, as far as I know, so I am unaware as to how the, ah, normal routine goes. Typically when I'm asking somebody to talk, I'm asking because I feel as if there's something more that I can't see in just the average post. Certainly it doesn't take until Day Three to form opinions about the activities going on in this thread. Maybe it takes until Day Three to form ideas about specific players - I always think that I'm more accurate any day other than Day One - but it certainly does NOT take that long to decide, "Okay, I agree with Player X, because you know, this is what seems right for the way I would play things, which is Tactic Y." I realize I do not have much space to talk with the way I am approaching this round, and how few times I have posted. However I do think it's safe to say that most of my posts have been substantiative and while they may be a little rarer than I would like, they will probably bounce back as I get used to a thread that actually moves, as opposed to one that I can check in on once a day and find the mafia in five minutes. Timmy: (( Something I wanted to Answer and clear up)) Texcat invited Paranoia here. Paranoia invited me here (The latter should be obvious from the sign-up thread - Paranoia mentions that I'm a frequent Night One hit). I imagine that Paranoia, knowing my play style, wanted my opinion on things faster than I've been putting out as of late. The other issue might be that I promised I'd vote Day One, and I haven't done so yet, so I need to figure out what I'm dooooooooiiiiiinnnnnnnnngggggggg Peeker: I've been third faction and mafia recruited, so it's nice to know that I probably won't be recruited. =) Annnnndddd I wandered away from the computer again while making a post. *Sigh* This post is sadly outdated, after checking in on a different tab. I'm going to post it anyway, since there's little point in just not posting at all. I'll address the other posts later, but this one definitely caught my eye... Merestil Haye: I'd love a link to the wiki. Had no clue there was one. Our Wiki is almost sitting on people's laps when they walk into the forum. =)
|
|
|
Post by naturallylazy on Feb 3, 2011 16:10:44 GMT -5
Ahahaha, my quotes fail. I'll get used to it eventually, for now, I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by BobArrgh on Feb 3, 2011 16:15:35 GMT -5
@Natlaw: Thanks for totally misrepresenting my position regarding Bill and sinjin. If you go back to my #144 (which is whence you quoted me), I did not say I liked sinjin's comment. I said that I don't understand her comment. My original comment on Bill's post is in my #111.
I did say I liked Bill's explanation of the presence of Watchers. I have followed several games now and it appears as if the whole "claim Vanilla Town" debate started fairly recently. As I said to Bill, I don't think that type of strategy is for me. (I find myself on the side of what appears to be the majority opinion in that it is not the best move to make.) What I liked about his explanation, though, is that I thought it was a good argument for what I would consider to be the "minority opinion".
But, as I said, you are misrepresenting my position to make it appear that I am cozying up to Bill and sinjin by "liking" both of their statements. That's isn't the case.
You might be getting confused when I said that I liked KidV's change of attitude.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 3, 2011 16:17:40 GMT -5
First off, Sinjin, I don't even read that as a smudge - it wasn't really taking a post out of context or trying to put it in a certain point of light to make it look scummy - a smudge is something more like KidV implying that Renata's post about liking instantaneous fake pms means that she is scum herself - ignoring the context of having to use such services in the past. I think both statements are smudgy in the sense that they point something out as 'interesting' and a 'little strange' without actually saying why or voting the person. I can explain both as implying scummy: -Scum would like good fake PMs so it's 'interesting' Renata likes them. Didn't check if Renata explained it also town benefits (no town lynching because the name spelled with a capital but not in the vote count) before or after KidV's comment but if it was KidV was ignoring that context. -bob's comment implies an easy, opportunistic vote which scum would do so they don't have to build a more solid case.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 3, 2011 16:23:09 GMT -5
Merestil Haye: I'd love a link to the wiki. Had no clue there was one. Our Wiki is almost sitting on people's laps when they walk into the forum. =) Would a link to oour very own Wiki help a little? I can't guarantee its completeness (exactly the opposite, since my player page is woefully incomplete]) but it might give you a few pieces of knowledge. It's hiding in that quote. As for quoting posts, the syntax is much more complicated than some other software. For example, the header for your quoted post above is (with square brackets removed) "quote author=naturallylazy board=lalalala thread=1556 post=73916 time=1296767383"
|
|
Romola
Mome Rath
One of them saw two words of the joke and spent several weeks in hospital.
Posts: 107
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Romola on Feb 3, 2011 16:23:51 GMT -5
I'll be really sorry if Bill dumps the game because of my vote, as he is a great player. In my defence, I did ask my questions politely first, I certainly wasn't asking for cites. Sometimes it takes a vote before people will acknowledge a question. Since you have an anwser now, what did you not like about it that you haven't unvoted or do have you have new reasons to keep your vote on him? I don't have an answer. Bill says he's objected previously and seems to have stropped off. He implied that he'd answered earlier in the thread, but he hadn't. I did consider taking the vote off, but the only reason would be that I feel guilt tripped about pissing him off by voting for him, which I do. Is that a good enough reason for taking a vote off when I thought I had a good enough reason to place it? I don't know, I haven't decided yet. I also don't have another better vote candidate in mind at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 3, 2011 16:24:57 GMT -5
@ sinjin ... I wasn't really trying to "drive-by smudge" Romola. I was reacting more to the early vote rather than the vote itself. As far as I can see, there really isn't much to go on at this point, other than what appears to be a few null tells. I realize the voting needs to start somewhere. I do like your second-to-last comment on Bill's posting. Vote BobI suspected snuggling but waited to see how you'd reconcile liking both Bill explanation and sinjin's criticism. You haven't. Why misrepresent yourself while accusing Natlaw of misrepresenting you?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 3, 2011 16:34:36 GMT -5
You might be getting confused when I said that I liked KidV's change of attitude. No, as I noted I Guiri pointed this out already here, but I'll repeat: I do like the points you [BillMc] raised with regards to the possible presence of Watchers. It actually answered some questions in my mind about the relative merits of starting out that way. Maybe not my personal cup of tea, but hey, we all play the game the way we feel best. You like Bill's point about scum/town watchers. I do like your [sinjin] second-to-last comment on Bill's posting. You like sinjin comment where she doesn't like Bill watcher scenarios as his (town watcher could watch me to catch a scum killer! But oh, a scum watcher could watch me and catch a town investigator!) seemed to imply a "don't kill me scum, don't investigate me town, ignore me or you'll hurt your team" (that's how I read it at least). @ guiri ... I'm not sure I totally understand sinjin's comment regarding a Town Watcher watching Bill. It's the part after the ellipses that seem a little strange. I've read Bill's post several times and just can't come to the same conclusion that sinjin does. But here you don't understand it and don't answer the question why you don't like it. The way I read Bill's post, it is not an absolute given that the Scum Watcher (if there is one) would be able to see the Town Watcher (if there is one), since that is at the discretion of the mods. Yes, I agree that if the Doc protects him or if the Cop investigates him, then a Scum Watcher would see those visits. However, I thought Bill was talking about having the Town Watcher (and not the Cop or Doc) watch him to see who comes near him. If the Town Watcher sees anyone kill Bill, then that could be the subject of a lynching the next Day, hence the one-for-one. I just didn't see it as a specifically anti-Town statement. Again you don't answer why you don't like it. Unless you mean you like any not specifically anti-town comment? The why single some out and mention you like them (or have all other comment been anti-town?). Are you familiar with the "anti-town is not the same as pro-scum" reasoning?
|
|