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 9, 2011 17:41:27 GMT -5
Losing a cop role sucks. What is a "Questioner"? Is it a role where he gets to ask a question and the other person has to answer truthfully? (Sort of like Hypnagogic Bonafide in the Dr. Seuss game?) My first thought was a player who can ask the Mods about the truth or falsity of a statement made in the Game thread. However, that's because Vincent, the Dog who Knows Things, was probably the funniest role in Evil Dead Mafia, funnier even than the Evil Candaran Moosehead Demon. (Just how they failed to note that I was a hunting trophy hung on the wall I don't know.) As an aside, it's probably a mistake to say anything about an ongoing game in another game; hence Dr. Seuss has to be off-limits as a comparator. This is to avoid posting something in one game that reveals secret knowledge in another game. Once the game is over, then anything goes. About the non voters, I think they should explain why they didn't vote and maybe tell us who they might have voted for, or who they are seeing scummy. As per the rules, voting isn't mandatory, but that's not a reason to skip it: [quote=RULES]NOTE: There will be no voting requirement whatsoever. As long as you’re posting, you don’t have to vote at all, ever, as far as the moderators are concerned.[/quote] So I'd like to hear from Merestil Haye, naturallylazy and pedescribe, rather sooner than later, please. I didn't vote for the rather awkward reason that Total locked the thread while I was typing away. I'd planned to vote Sunday night while watching the Superbowl. However, my eyes came down with a bad case of strain, and had none of it. I tried to get up early to vote, but was still writing when Ulla rang down the curtain on the Day. I touched briefly on the case against KidV but decided against voting him, commented that I was surprised Pedescribe didn't vote, and scratched my head about the case against Timmy. I also commented on the contrast in Captain Pinkies' play in Day 1 with his play in Day 1 of Halloween Mafia - when he made one whole post, and got lynched for nonparticipation. This (to my mind) undermined the case Timmy was trying to make against Captain P. Having ascertained that there was no compelling reason to think Timmy must be Town, I believe I'd have voted Timmy over Pedescribe, since there was no more reason to think Timmy was Town than KidV was. If not Timmy, I'd probably have voted Pedescribe for efusing to vote on Day 1. The irony of that, when I did not vote myself that Day, has not escaped me.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Feb 9, 2011 18:50:57 GMT -5
Hi, sorry about my non-participation in the later part of yesterDay. RL has been all a twitter in both good and bad ways. Things should start to wind down Sunday.
I need to reread Day 1 the first again. Right now Cookies is pinging me like crazy. As is Sister C.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 9, 2011 19:35:10 GMT -5
Nice smudge, there, sinjin, on both Cookies and I.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Feb 9, 2011 20:38:04 GMT -5
Nice smudge, there, sinjin, on both Cookies and I. In what universe is that a smudge? Cite?
|
|
|
Post by BobArrgh on Feb 9, 2011 20:41:41 GMT -5
@Merestil: Thanks for the info on a "Questioner". Regarding the currently-ongoing game, I didn't think I was breaking any rules, since his role was revealed during the actual game play, but I get your point.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 9, 2011 20:51:41 GMT -5
Losing a cop role sucks. What is a "Questioner"? Is it a role where he gets to ask a question and the other person has to answer truthfully? (Sort of like Hypnagogic Bonafide in the Dr. Seuss game?) As funny as it would be to engender a hilarious series of misunderstandings, I feel I should inform you that I am Hypnagogic Bonafide over there (if you didn't know). About the non voters, I think they should explain why they didn't vote and maybe tell us who they might have voted for, or who they are seeing scummy. As per the rules, voting isn't mandatory, but that's not a reason to skip it: So I'd like to hear from Merestil Haye, naturallylazy and pedescribe, rather sooner than later, please. Basically, I didn't feel informed enough to vote when I had time, and I didn't have enough time to get informed before the end of the day. While some may think that any vote is better than no vote at all, I'd rather not be led around by the nose by scum, than simply not participate (did that make sense?). If I had to just go with my gut, I'd have probably voted for timmy. But that is literally nothing but gut.
|
|
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 9, 2011 21:29:22 GMT -5
Hi, sorry about my non-participation in the later part of yesterDay. RL has been all a twitter in both good and bad ways. Things should start to wind down Sunday. I need to reread Day 1 the first again. Right now Cookies is pinging me like crazy. As is Sister C. Do we wait till Sunday for you to explain why? Ah, but if you just drop it in there, a little examination and suspicion of the two named players might ensue and by Sunday a good old bandwagon will be going and people will forget what kicked the whole thing off. They might not even twig when they find at Day end that there's been another mislynch. And if a smudged scumbuddy gets lynched instead of the smudged Townie, well, you can always get town cred from reminding them that you were the 1st to spot her on Day 2. It's win-win for scum, isn't it? I thought you were scummy yersterDay for reasons posted there. Paranoia voted you and was killed last night. And now you drop a content free smudge of 2 other players? They could be both Town, both scum or one of each, it's all WIFOM. But I think you are scum. Vote SinjinNight all.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 9, 2011 21:39:32 GMT -5
Some specifics would be nice. What about us is scummy and why?
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Feb 9, 2011 21:54:23 GMT -5
Like I said, I need to go back and read. In short:
Cooks, this is metagamy, but when you defend me, like you did on day one I'm always a bit suspicious. You're a careful player and don't go out on a limb ever, yet you defended me on day one before I ever made any kind of presence in the game. Remember the last time you defended me? Two, you made a big deal of the "article" thing with KidV being protected by the Doc. As if there couldn't be two Docs. Then you didn't backtrack when someone corrected you and said an Archangel wasn't a Doc. Then you just left your vote on a town claimed protector, when you always used to caution about lynching town power roles on day one. It doesn't add up.
I'll be back on how I feel about Sis after I reread. Like I said I"m pinged by the both of them. I want to look at post times, etc.
Oh, and alls, check out romola when I'm killed and turn up town. That was a pretty lousy vote.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 10, 2011 0:04:03 GMT -5
I wasn't defending you as much as I was trying to argue a more (admittedly metagame) reasonable tone to Bill so that he wouldn't quit.
I would have said exactly the same thing to you if you were the one threatening to leave because you felt the attack from him was personal.
I've played so much with you both that I'm at least 99.9% sure that any perceived personal grudge is going to end up being due to hypersensitivity/oversnark and not an actual personal attack. Maybe I'm weird, but that's how I feel about it.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 10, 2011 0:09:42 GMT -5
And I didn't 'make a big deal' out of the article thing. I brought it up as a precedent on these boards as an example of scum-bussing that was pretty successful, and I was the historical player defending the use of an article that was (and to this day I still hold to my belief) not any kind of slip. Considering that KidV turned up as Town, I don't see what the implication you're insinuating would be about me bringing up that particular precedent.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 10, 2011 10:26:38 GMT -5
Ok, looking back over the end of Day 1, I am surprised by both Suburban Plankton and Cookies and the fact they decided to leave their vote on Kid V, given that he had claimed a protective role and they were well aware of it before Day end. I wish I knew if it was the same for SisC and guiri. So let's look at that again, on Day 1, you decide to leave your vote on a claimed protective role. Subplank: #21: fluff #22: not bothered by mod helping with role pms #25: fluff #31: comment to Natlaw. Is not commenting on whether he approves or not about role pms #32: fluff #45: agrees with Sis C about early role claims. Late Day 1 claims are another issue. #53: fluff #56: fluff #96: Objects to natlaw fishing for info from him, plays game close to chest. #97: Question to Kid V about his vote for peeker, if it is serious or a joke. #104: happy with Kid V's response. #105: Has no comment on the rules is happy for anyone to discuss it. #116: comment to peeker re; Mass name claim #186: Hates first post claims, thinks they are a null tell. Thinks romola's case against Bill is good, does not like sinjin's or HLB's vote following. Does not see anything scummy in Mahaloth's vote, says it was a statement vote. votes HLB for jumping on Bill bandwagon, then jumping on Mahaloth bandwagon. Strangely enough HLB is the third vote on both Bill and Mahaloth #211: response to renata about his comment on mahaloth's vote. Was a meta vote based on emotional reaction, so not a good vote, but not a scummy vote either. #216: further response to renata following Mahaloth's post giving reason for vote. just didn't get a scummy vibe from it. #261: does not understand what bob is saying. it's obvious what was said and what was meant were different things. #264: question to peeker about who he was referring to. #276: comments on bobarrgh's situation. is inclined to dismiss texcat's argument and thinks bobarrgh made a faux pas instead. #277: comment on Captain Pinkies #278: After a while finds mahaloth's explanation of his vote for Bill slightly scummy. gives reasoning #304: considers Pinkies current play a null tell #358: unvotes hmb following claim, doesn't like mahaloth's role because it is slightly overpowered, but wil not be voting for him. Top 2 suspects are sinjin and Kid V #405: Votes Kid V for bandwagon jumping and provides further reasoning #410: Comment to Kid V following flameout #418: Comment to Cookies re: Kid V's role claim #421: recaps Kid V's actions #428: Is leaving vote on Kid V. Quotes three Kid V posts and comments on his flip flopping on HMB #430: Neta that Kid V may not be contradicting himself, but original case stands so vote remains. Hmm. Interesting read. So votes on Day 1 are for two people for exactly the same reason. Bandwagon jumping. However, he is quite happy to accept the roleclaim from one, but not the other. Cookies: #41: Understands both sides of Role PM argument, thinks SubPlank says it well. #60: fluff #62: fluff #68: comment on bill's claim #69: fluff #72: considers bill's claim as silly Wifom #76: response to Kid V. As far as concerned, either joking or claiming, time will tell. #106: whole set of question to Bill about claim #107: adds "+ "if you're Town" to that last line. " to the last post #134: comments to Bill and sinjin #193: question to mods about Bill departure. If Bill is gone and not being subbed, he should be lynched, otherwise, not lynched. #255: doesn't like the Bill lynch, has reservations about letting final votes add up, but can see the case for the mechanic #275: comments on mahaloth, first his vote for BillMc, then his reasoning post for doing so. Will look at other front runners first before voting #281: Bob Stuff is boiling to a null tell, so votes mahaloth (note, that it doesn't include HMB) #314: Not willing to unvote Mahaloth immediately, has problem with role, only way to scum being able to pretend it would be the existence of 3rd party players in the game. #315: adds that a hypothetical scum would just deliver town roles and the 3rd parties would likely say nothing #317: fluff #325 States reasons why role may fail in long run, has reservations, but unvotes mahaloth #360: votes Kid V, citing his double standard on HLB #367: comment on Kid V and pre game discussion #368: correction to previous post #388: Is willing to switch back to Mahaloth from Kid V, says final vote will end up on one of the two. #396: response to KidV about his motives not being in evidence #401: Says Mahaloth is most suspicious person and Kid V is second. Would be happy to vote mahaloth with more of a concensus. points out others are voting for same reason #407: question to Kid V #411: Respone to Kid V #416: Question to Kid V about roleclaim #424: Says claim is using semantics and functions pretty much like a doc. I don't think he is the only protective role we have, but I do consider him as overlapping with the protective features in the balancing. Umm, you're currently voting for him. #425: fluff #427: Comment on metagame assumptions Umm, you're still voting for the guy you thought was not the only protective role we have. #431: Leaves vote on Kid V. You're kidding right? Umm. So after a large glass of deja WIFOM, we get the following: Of the pair, I would actually consider SubPlank more scummy. Considering his reasoning for voting was the same in both but his reasoning for unvoting bunny is not put into play when Kid V does exactly the same thing doesn't help. But, I cannot overlook that line from Cookies at Day end about protective roles in the game. No seriously, I can't. You consider him overlapping with the protective roles in the game and your vote remains on him? Please, feel free to explain Vote ComeToCamelotWeHaveCoconuts
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 10, 2011 12:21:18 GMT -5
CIAS,
My reasons for leaving my vote on KidV were pretty clearly stated in Post 430 Yesterday.
He had voted for crazybunny for dropping a role PM and making a crappy vote, then leaving it to let the rest of us sort things out.
Then when he was under pressure, he dropped a role PM, didn't even make a vote at all, and then left it to the rest of us to sort things out.
He seemed quite disinterested in helping the Town in its efforts towards the end of the Day. I find that to be 'anti-Town' behavior, so I thought he was non-Town.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 10, 2011 12:48:18 GMT -5
I'm trying to figure out why the claimed Investigator-plus was not blocked last Night, but the claimed Watcher was. Now it's possible that there is another Doctor (besides our dead Archangel) who protected Mahaloth, and that we have two other killing roles. Or it could be that whoever tried to do the Scum kill was blocked, and again there are 2 other killing roles. Or it's possible that Mahaloth is lying.
When he first gave his investigation results, I thought it was 'convenient' for Mahaloth that timmy just happened to be killed last Night; instead of simply knowing that timmy and Natlaw were the same alignment, he now knew that Natlaw was Town. But then I thought about it, and it made sense to me. timmy, being the runner-up lynch candidate Yesterday, would be a logical target for a Vig, so it would make sense for Mahaloth to target a vote for timmy, because that would increase the chances of him getting a 'confirmed' result. And that is exactly what happened.
Except that when I asked Mahaloth, he didn't say that. He said it was "Gut feeling, I guess. I have/had no idea who scum is, so picked them and just went with it." So apparently it wasn't a calculated (and correct) move; it was just 'luck'.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but it always bothers me just a little bit when it seems like I'm 'smarter' than another experiecned player like him.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 10, 2011 12:59:10 GMT -5
Or it's possible that Mahaloth is lying. Or crazybunny is lying. As I said Yesterday I think two alive linked players would be more valuable because it's information about living players and the 'confimation' will come eventually anyway. @ Mahaloth about this: what was your gut feeling exactly? That I and/or timmy were scum or both town or scum? Or just a gut feeling that investigating us was better than others?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 10, 2011 13:31:58 GMT -5
Or it's possible that Mahaloth is lying. Or crazybunny is lying. Good point. I was focusing (as I hope was clear from the rest of my post) on the "why wasn't Mahaloth blocked (or killed)" part of the equation. But your point is valid and noted.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 10, 2011 14:04:01 GMT -5
Ok, looking back over the end of Day 1, I am surprised by both Suburban Plankton and Cookies and the fact they decided to leave their vote on Kid V, given that he had claimed a protective role and they were well aware of it before Day end. I wish I knew if it was the same for SisC and guiri. I understand that you have no reason to believe me, but as I said I didn't make it back to the board until End of Day and so didn't know KidV had claimed anything. I would have unvoted him, but -- again -- I acknowledge that there is no reason for you to believe me.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 10, 2011 14:10:04 GMT -5
I agree that Romanic's case on SisterCoyote is quite weak. Noncommittal I'll give him, but the meat of it, that is is somehow odd to re-evaluate based on a claim, or to vote for someone who did not do so, that I don't agree with. Especially considering it's the same exact thing I did myself, and you apparently don't find me suspicious for that. I do get that SisC was more of a follower on it than I was, but that in itself is beyond weak for the level of confidence you're displaying -- going so far as to suggest you don't anticipate moving your vote.
Something feels wrong here. vote: Romanic[/color]
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 10, 2011 14:16:34 GMT -5
By the way, Romanic: The 2 posts made by Sister Coyote today are particularly devoid of commitment: This is bullshit. I had more than 2 posts yesterDay; admittedly the first one was a bit more cryptic than it might have been. Now, I won't deny that the unvote/vote you quoted following this statement probably could have used more backup, but I'm not sure how they were devoid of commitment. Devoid of commitment would have involved me wishy-washily saying "Well, I have to unvote so-and-so but nobody else seems voteworthy and I won't make it back before the End of Day." Or as sinjin did with regards to cookies and I above. That's a lack of commitment right there, even with the "I'm going to look back over yesterDay" promise. A vote is a pretty strong commitment, even when wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 10, 2011 14:35:02 GMT -5
Ok, looking back over the end of Day 1, I am surprised by both Suburban Plankton and Cookies and the fact they decided to leave their vote on Kid V, given that he had claimed a protective role and they were well aware of it before Day end. I wish I knew if it was the same for SisC and guiri. So let's look at that again, on Day 1, you decide to leave your vote on a claimed protective role. Subplank: #21: fluff #22: not bothered by mod helping with role pms #25: fluff #31: comment to Natlaw. Is not commenting on whether he approves or not about role pms #32: fluff #45: agrees with Sis C about early role claims. Late Day 1 claims are another issue. #53: fluff #56: fluff #96: Objects to natlaw fishing for info from him, plays game close to chest. #97: Question to Kid V about his vote for peeker, if it is serious or a joke. #104: happy with Kid V's response. #105: Has no comment on the rules is happy for anyone to discuss it. #116: comment to peeker re; Mass name claim #186: Hates first post claims, thinks they are a null tell. Thinks romola's case against Bill is good, does not like sinjin's or HLB's vote following. Does not see anything scummy in Mahaloth's vote, says it was a statement vote. votes HLB for jumping on Bill bandwagon, then jumping on Mahaloth bandwagon. Strangely enough HLB is the third vote on both Bill and Mahaloth #211: response to renata about his comment on mahaloth's vote. Was a meta vote based on emotional reaction, so not a good vote, but not a scummy vote either. #216: further response to renata following Mahaloth's post giving reason for vote. just didn't get a scummy vibe from it. #261: does not understand what bob is saying. it's obvious what was said and what was meant were different things. #264: question to peeker about who he was referring to. #276: comments on bobarrgh's situation. is inclined to dismiss texcat's argument and thinks bobarrgh made a faux pas instead. #277: comment on Captain Pinkies #278: After a while finds mahaloth's explanation of his vote for Bill slightly scummy. gives reasoning #304: considers Pinkies current play a null tell #358: unvotes hmb following claim, doesn't like mahaloth's role because it is slightly overpowered, but wil not be voting for him. Top 2 suspects are sinjin and Kid V #405: Votes Kid V for bandwagon jumping and provides further reasoning #410: Comment to Kid V following flameout #418: Comment to Cookies re: Kid V's role claim #421: recaps Kid V's actions #428: Is leaving vote on Kid V. Quotes three Kid V posts and comments on his flip flopping on HMB #430: Neta that Kid V may not be contradicting himself, but original case stands so vote remains. Hmm. Interesting read. So votes on Day 1 are for two people for exactly the same reason. Bandwagon jumping. However, he is quite happy to accept the roleclaim from one, but not the other. Cookies: #41: Understands both sides of Role PM argument, thinks SubPlank says it well. #60: fluff #62: fluff #68: comment on bill's claim #69: fluff #72: considers bill's claim as silly Wifom #76: response to Kid V. As far as concerned, either joking or claiming, time will tell. #106: whole set of question to Bill about claim #107: adds "+ "if you're Town" to that last line. " to the last post #134: comments to Bill and sinjin #193: question to mods about Bill departure. If Bill is gone and not being subbed, he should be lynched, otherwise, not lynched. #255: doesn't like the Bill lynch, has reservations about letting final votes add up, but can see the case for the mechanic #275: comments on mahaloth, first his vote for BillMc, then his reasoning post for doing so. Will look at other front runners first before voting #281: Bob Stuff is boiling to a null tell, so votes mahaloth (note, that it doesn't include HMB) #314: Not willing to unvote Mahaloth immediately, has problem with role, only way to scum being able to pretend it would be the existence of 3rd party players in the game. #315: adds that a hypothetical scum would just deliver town roles and the 3rd parties would likely say nothing #317: fluff #325 States reasons why role may fail in long run, has reservations, but unvotes mahaloth #360: votes Kid V, citing his double standard on HLB #367: comment on Kid V and pre game discussion #368: correction to previous post #388: Is willing to switch back to Mahaloth from Kid V, says final vote will end up on one of the two. #396: response to KidV about his motives not being in evidence #401: Says Mahaloth is most suspicious person and Kid V is second. Would be happy to vote mahaloth with more of a concensus. points out others are voting for same reason #407: question to Kid V #411: Respone to Kid V #416: Question to Kid V about roleclaim #424: Says claim is using semantics and functions pretty much like a doc. I don't think he is the only protective role we have, but I do consider him as overlapping with the protective features in the balancing. Umm, you're currently voting for him. #425: fluff #427: Comment on metagame assumptions Umm, you're still voting for the guy you thought was not the only protective role we have. #431: Leaves vote on Kid V. You're kidding right? Umm. So after a large glass of deja WIFOM, we get the following: Of the pair, I would actually consider SubPlank more scummy. Considering his reasoning for voting was the same in both but his reasoning for unvoting bunny is not put into play when Kid V does exactly the same thing doesn't help. But, I cannot overlook that line from Cookies at Day end about protective roles in the game. No seriously, I can't. You consider him overlapping with the protective roles in the game and your vote remains on him? Please, feel free to explain Vote ComeToCamelotWeHaveCoconutsFirst of all, you should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. Yet you're not, apparently. Which tells me that you either don't really know what you think is scummy, or maybe you're just trying to hedge your bets until you get some reactions from others and see what sticks. Some may consider this hypocrisy considering my suspicion levels of Mahaloth and KidV yesterday, but there is a key difference in the fact that they had both claimed power roles. Here, there is no pro-town reason for Cat to state that he has more suspicion for another player yet is voting for me. Secondly, his case against me apparently boils down to one exchange late in the day that he does a pretty crappy job of paraphrasing. So let's take a closer look: *sigh* I don't know what's wrong with me. I don't play for a year and suddenly I'm a freaking drama queen. I can simultaneously protect Mahaloth, which is good if he's Town, and remove any excuse he might try to provide for why he got no results, which is good if he's scum. Except you all have forced a claim, so now I won't be any help unless there's a Doc that wants to get my back. Or you can lynch me, and find scum on my bandwagon when I come back Town. I'm easy. You mean another Doc, right? You mean another Doc, right? Implying that I could be faking my role claim, because it's less likely that there would be 2 Docs? And I'm calling for protection because I know I'm not one? That would be great, Cookies, except I'm not a Doc. You mean another Doc, right? No, I think what KidV is claiming is that his 'protection' prevents any actions from being taken against his target, not just killing actions. *sigh* I don't know what's wrong with me. I don't play for a year and suddenly I'm a freaking drama queen. I can simultaneously protect Mahaloth, which is good if he's Town, and remove any excuse he might try to provide for why he got no results, which is good if he's scum. Except you all have forced a claim, so now I won't be any help unless there's a Doc that wants to get my back.
Or you can lynch me, and find scum on my bandwagon when I come back Town. I'm easy. Aren't you the doc? NETA: aaaaaand as I was reading more posts appeared. You say you aren't a doc, but since your role protects players from any action, I would assume that includes killing. In my eyes, you are a doc, albeit one with additional power. I think it is just semantics. He can function like a Doc, though he may not be titled that, assuming he is being truthful. I consider 'Doc' pretty much synonymous in the vernacular to 'protective role'. His role as describe has obvious protective applications. I actually think it would make it less likely that we have another full-blown Doc role with the ability to self-protect or choose a target for full protection each cycle. I don't think he is the only protective role we have, but I do consider him as overlapping with the protective features in the balancing. I've also been heavily suspected (led by a bus by fellow scum) on these very boards over the use of one article over another. I have purlpe-bolded the part in that last statement that Cat seems to have missed. Considering that I was voting for him at the time, and continued to vote for him, you can perhaps guess how I felt about that assumption, but it is the assumption that I was making the duration of that post. Yet you blow right past that assumption and perceive me as voting for someone who I truly believed was a Town protective power, which would make no sense at all and I don't really know what to think about what caliber of player you think I am if you think I would have voted like that. If he truly held the role, I would not have expected him to use the phrase "unless there's a Doc who wants to get my back", I was expecting him to be more aware of perceptions like mine and Hockey Monkey's, and aware of the possible perception of people thinking he was scummily fishing for reactions from Town protective roles. And lastly, what is the point of typing up a whole long list of watered down and (arguably inaccurate) paraphrases of Suburban's and my posts, if you're just going to ignore all of the apparently suspicious stuff you found about Suburban in them, and instead vote for me based on one statement? I think it is a bunch of non-substance dressed up as substance, and you're just seeing if something will stick. Unfortunately, both scum and town do that so I don't know what it says about you.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 10, 2011 14:37:32 GMT -5
forgot the add the purple, but the bold is at least visible
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 10, 2011 14:46:20 GMT -5
Is that really an accurate characterization, though? I know it's what he *said*, but in context it seemed clear he thinks SP is pinging more often, but what you said that one time was just so super scummy it overwhelms all of that.
As well, and I know it's meta, but just the fact that he built this case at all is so entirely opposite from how he's acted the previous times he was scum that I have a serious inclination to give him a lot of benefit of the doubt. And that's not even taking into account who he was replacing. What was your opinion about Bill?
This looks awfully waffly to me.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 10, 2011 14:57:29 GMT -5
I thought Bill over-reacted to some early votes, and I try not to metagame about how x acted when he was y. Bill's play is included in my conclusion (so far) not to go further on the offensive against Cat for voting for me.
I take it you would rather I had gone all OMGUS on him instead of trying to just poke holes in his case in case he is just wrong?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 10, 2011 16:04:47 GMT -5
Renata, do/did you think what I said was scummy? Before and after my clarification?
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Feb 10, 2011 17:05:09 GMT -5
@ Mahaloth about this: what was your gut feeling exactly? That I and/or timmy were scum or both town or scum? Or just a gut feeling that investigating us was better than others? I guess "gut feelings" is not the best way to describe it, though I am definitely not positive about any decision I made/will make and my gut feeling does play into it. I'm not really planning on laying out my full plan for investigations. I investigate based on my own reasoning and see no reason to share with the rest of Town and the Scum(and God knows what else), all of whom read this thread. I chose my investigation and will continue to choose future investigations based on what I think it best for Town. That's it.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 10, 2011 17:52:27 GMT -5
I agree that Romanic's case on SisterCoyote is quite weak. Noncommittal I'll give him, but the meat of it, that is is somehow odd to re-evaluate based on a claim, WHAT'S THIS?? ---> or to vote for someone who did not do so, <edited for clarification> What's the last part? That's not part of my case, or I don't understand what you mean. And you are simplifying my case if you think the meat of it is the part where Sister Coyote was voting little bunny, then voted for KidV (who was voting little bunny). I think it's a good point, but it's not "the" case. Anyway, I'm surprised that you don't agree with this. How do you usually react when someone shares your suspicions in a mafia game? Is he more or less suspect for it? I can't be wrong to assume that most players will see that player as less suspect for sharing the same ideas. So it's curious that Sister would vote KidV, who was sharing her suspicions before bunny claimed, and that, without adding new arguments to a pre-existing case (yours). It's even odder in this game because a claim doesn't mean much when we know the Scums will have cover roles, yet I have the impression that Sister Coyote doesn't suspect bunny anymore. Maybe I'm getting this impression because she hasn't said anything when she unvoted bunny, and because she hasn't talked about this since it happened. Especially considering it's the same exact thing I did myself, and you apparently don't find me suspicious for that. I do get that SisC was more of a follower on it than I was, Yes, I would be less inclined to suspect you because you made the case instead of following behind with a "me too" vote. However I did mention that Cookies was suspicious for doing the same thing than Sister, perhaps you should consider that. Anyway, we see that kind of situation in every games: Someone does a thing, another does the same thing and only one get accused for it. That's because people factor other arguments in their thinking before figuring if the thing should be considered suspicious. For example you usually don't fos a confirmed innocent for voting without a reason, but another player yes. Extreme example maybe, but you get the idea. Here I am lashing at Sister, even though Cookies did the same (follow your lead without adding a new argument), but Sister's got more going for her. That's not to say that I completely forgot Cookies. You know that, why am I arguing this? but that in itself is beyond weak for the level of confidence you're displaying -- going so far as to suggest you don't anticipate moving your vote. I said that yesterDay, with 5-6 hours to the deadline, and I added "unless something big happens", meaning exactly what it meant. You're not evaluating my statement in context, it would be different if I said the same toDay when I voted Sister, but I didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 10, 2011 18:00:48 GMT -5
By the way, Romanic: The 2 posts made by Sister Coyote today are particularly devoid of commitment: This is bullshit. I had more than 2 posts yesterDay; admittedly the first one was a bit more cryptic than it might have been. Now, I won't deny that the unvote/vote you quoted following this statement probably could have used more backup, but I'm not sure how they were devoid of commitment. Devoid of commitment would have involved me wishy-washily saying "Well, I have to unvote so-and-so but nobody else seems voteworthy and I won't make it back before the End of Day." Or as sinjin did with regards to cookies and I above. That's a lack of commitment right there, even with the "I'm going to look back over yesterDay" promise. A vote is a pretty strong commitment, even when wrong.1) I was not saying that you made only 2 posts yesterDay. Notice that I wrote yesterday, no capital D, meaning that real life day, Feb 06, after things started to get hot. 2) Are you really arguing that these two posts were not devoid of commitment? Sure a vote is a commitment of sort, but everyone has to vote if they don't want to get called for it, Scum specially, so a vote in itself isn't much commitment if you don't back it up with something you can be held responsible for. Here you unvoted without any comment, and you followed with a "me too" vote after Renata. I think it speaks of a lack of commitment rather than the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by naturallylazy on Feb 10, 2011 18:02:39 GMT -5
About the non voters, I think they should explain why they didn't vote and maybe tell us who they might have voted for, or who they are seeing scummy. As per the rules, voting isn't mandatory, but that's not a reason to skip it: So I'd like to hear from Merestil Haye, naturallylazy and pedescribe, rather sooner than later, please. I'm here. I shall start by apologizing for my negligence inadvertently causing KidV's Death. I was not paying enough attention to this round the day the lynch occurred. In general, I have been paying less attention to this round than I should be. I am clearly too used to playing at a slower rate. I probably would not have helped much anyway, since I was more interested in Pinkie than anybody else, honestly. *continues reading the thread*
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 10, 2011 18:06:44 GMT -5
Here you unvoted without any comment, and you followed with a "me too" vote after Renata. I think it speaks of a lack of commitment rather than the other way around. Silly me, thinking that unvoting a claimed power role needed no comment. As to the rest of it -- again; if I'd had no commitment, I would have had no vote. Personally, with you harping on me despite explanations, clarifications, and finally having time to defend myself to the contrary, I'm thinking that you're either Scum using me as a convenient target, or you're engaging in Town-on-Town that's got to be thrilling the Scum to no end.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 10, 2011 19:00:26 GMT -5
Silly me, thinking that unvoting a claimed power role needed no comment. As to the rest of it -- again; if I'd had no commitment, I would have had no vote. Personally, with you harping on me despite explanations, clarifications, and finally having time to defend myself to the contrary, I'm thinking that you're either Scum using me as a convenient target, or you're engaging in Town-on-Town that's got to be thrilling the Scum to no end. I find your "explanations and clarifications" unconvincing, obviously. Also it's such a blanket statement to say that I am either Town or Scum for yapping at you. Where are you getting with this? And what happened to "I'm unlikely to make it back (much) until Friday at the absolute earliest" ? Perhaps we should have understood the hidden meaning attached at the end "unless I feel threatened, but I certainly won't have time to look for Scum, no no.". *cackle*
|
|