|
Post by sinjin on Feb 10, 2011 19:28:12 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. Ya know what FO. I've got stuff going on in my real life. I just wanted the players to know that I hadn't flaked off and who was "pinging" me. I didn't have enough time to present a case against anyone yet. I didn't vote anyone. But noooooo, that's not good enough for you. I guess I should have just joined the lurkers instead of trying to be a responsible player. My husband is leaving on Sunday for two months and ya know what? that is more important than this game. If Ulla wants to sub me out fine. I'm not posting anymore til Sunday at the earliest when I will have time to reread. Vote me off, I don't care. :crazy And sorry Cooks, like I said it was just a ping and I wanted to go back and re-read and didn't have time. I shouldn't have posted anything until I had a real case to present. See ya later, bye.
|
|
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 10, 2011 19:31:57 GMT -5
What is it with this board with people getting butthurt and flouncing when they get votes on them? It's a game, its supposed to be fun. You don't like my vote, fine. You don;t even have any more fracking votes, do you? Jebus.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 10, 2011 19:51:50 GMT -5
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" Answering the last part first: The situation at my work that resulted in long days and concomitant low internet time was resolved today when the ETA was Friday. Therefore, I am able to participate more at this point. Of course, "unlikely" != won't. Situations change. What I'm saying is: Either you think I'm an easy target for whatever reason, or you're trying to protect cookies for whatever reason, or scum love you for thrusting me to the forefront on a phenomenally weak case, as they know I'm a "safe" lynch -- safe for them, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by BobArrgh on Feb 10, 2011 20:19:55 GMT -5
@SisCoyote: In the rules, it says that we can fantasize about the other players. Your use of the "!=" in your post hints that you are a programmer or have knowledge of programming. *Sighhhhhhhhhh*
@ sinjin: I realize real life can get in the way, especially when a loved one is leaving for an extended period, and I think most of the anger in your post #60 is due to that. However, as Romola says, it is a game. There's no reason for any of us to get angry.
@ NaturallyLazy: Are you still concentrating on Captain Pinkies?
@ Captain Pinkies: I find it interesting that you don't really get into a game until Day 3 or so. I'm not saying it is bad, but it sure does seem strange.
|
|
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 10, 2011 20:55:09 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. I think it needs comment. Anyone can claim a power role. In fact, our three lynch leaders Day 1 all did.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 10, 2011 22:15:40 GMT -5
What is it with this board with people getting butthurt and flouncing when they get votes on them? It's a game, its supposed to be fun. You don't like my vote, fine. You don;t even have any more fracking votes, do you? Jebus. i'm fracking butthurt. but that's because my 8 - 2 volunteer shift ended up being 8 - 8. back in the morning if about a zillion tylenol don't coma me.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 10, 2011 22:53:37 GMT -5
i'm fracking butthurt. but that's because my 8 - 2 volunteer shift ended up being 8 - 8. back in the morning if about a zillion tylenol don't coma me. If your butt's hurting that bad, then I don't even want to know what you were volunteering for...
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 10, 2011 22:54:25 GMT -5
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" Answering the last part first: The situation at my work that resulted in long days and concomitant low internet time was resolved today when the ETA was Friday. Therefore, I am able to participate more at this point. Of course, "unlikely" != won't. Situations change. I guess we're gonna have to take your word on that since we can hardly question you about real life. Since you've got unexpected time with us, why are you only using it to defend yourself instead of being constructive in some way? You only have my vote on yourself, and I am mostly the only one questioning you, so it's not like you couldn't make some time to work something.. What I'm saying is: Either you think I'm an easy target for whatever reason, or you're trying to protect cookies for whatever reason, or scum love you for thrusting me to the forefront on a phenomenally weak case, as they know I'm a "safe" lynch -- safe for them, anyway. Why would you think that I am protecting Cookies? That's an odd thing to say considering that I've pushed some suspicions at her for voting KidV in the same manner than you did.. Also, "phenomenally weak case", don't push it please.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 11, 2011 5:11:52 GMT -5
First of all, you should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. Yet you're not, apparently. Cookies - Day 1 #401: No, Mahaloth is the most suspect person I've seen all day, but you're a close second, and it is not that far of a reach. And yet your vote remained on Kid V. You did not vote for the scummiest person you found. 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. No, I consider SubPlank quite scummy, for roughly the same actions as you, but I think it is more likely that you are scum from that statement I pointed out. 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. With six hours to go on Day 1, you think he was fishing for power roles in particular a Doc. Kid V was quite correct in his role statement, he is no help unless a Doc can protect him. Besides, most Docs can protect anyone including themselves, which Kid V from his claim could not. It's semantics either way, but it was fairly clear to at least one other person (SubPlank) that Kid V did not consider himself a Doc. Saying that Kid V should have thought about you and Hockey Monkey taking a different view is not a good argument. Of course, I will point out he said "a doc" and not "the doc". Your indefinite slip was the opposite way around. ;D When I first read you post, it appeared as though you were making the assumption in that sentence and not further. Perhaps, you should be aware of perceptions like mine who would consider what you said afterwards as being a little too truthful and think you were deliberately lynching a protective role. 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. Consider it the view of someone who watched another player lynch a claimed protective role on Day 1, when the lynchee was not the scummiest person that player had pointed out, and who IMHO indicated that she found that the lynchee was not the only protective role in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Feb 11, 2011 6:47:13 GMT -5
I'm still here. I've been more focused on the other game, so I'll be back after work with my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 11, 2011 9:20:36 GMT -5
Silly me, thinking that unvoting a claimed power role needed no comment. I think it needs comment. Anyone can claim a power role. In fact, our three lynch leaders Day 1 all did. and would that at all be surprising in a game where scum can get custom made cover pm's? seriously, if you are scum are you going to request a niller type role or something that looks uber good for town? that's why to a great extent we have to be careful with claims. if someone is acting scummy they get to stretch regardless of what they claim. and to some extent even if we lynch a town power then we just have to bite the bullet and move forward figuring that there is no way that we will have a set up with 5 invests and 4 docs kind of crap. yaknow what just came to me that would be seriously ballsy yuckle chuckles. would be to have scum request a miller role with some awesome town power.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 11, 2011 9:22:22 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? Lots of scum have difficulty dealing with cases made against them, and sometimes it expresses itself in the sort of "well, you're completely full of it, but hey you might be town or scum, so meh" sort of phrasing you used in the bit I quoted. Plus, as I mentioned, I think you're wrong about the "most scummy" bit as it applies to Cat. So to answer your question in the next comment, yes, I do find you a bit suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 11, 2011 9:38:06 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. I'm not sure how to make it clearer. SisC unvoted bunny, then voted for KidV, who refused to. I don't think there's anything strange about her finding him suspicious under those circumstances. Bunny's claim does change things. Hah. You know me, Romanic. Someone starts agreeing with me and I start eyeing them sidewise wondering how I'm being played. But that's just me. I think you're basically right, but also misapplying the principle. Yes, KidV and SisC had both voted bunny. But then bunny claimed watcher, and SisC (if she is honest) thought that an appropriate reason to unvote, the implication being that she then thought it quite possible her original vote was wrong. KidV refused to follow suit. So at the point when SisC put her vote on him, he was NOT agreeing with her. I'll give you most of this stuff, to varying degrees. LOL. Don't ask me. I'm curious what you think of Cat's argument against Cookies, though. And, you're quite correct. Can I blame it on all the medicine I'm taking? Probably not. Anyway, that was the major "wrong note", so unvote[/color]
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 11, 2011 9:52:33 GMT -5
Another passage of play that is giving me pause for thought is this one.
Vote at the time HLB (4) Mahaloth (4) bobarrgh (4)
#275: Cookies thoughts on Mahaloth, but is not ready to vote him yet wants to look at the leaders #276: SubPlank gives thoughts on bob, thinks texcat is wrong and bob made a faux pas #277: SubPlank gives thoughts on Pinkies - gives pass for the day #278: Subplank gives thoughts on mahaloth - is more bothered by his posts now than previously #279: Guiri gives thoughts on Bob - Part 1 #280: Guiri gives thoughts on Bob - Part 2 - That's a load of confusion, misunderstandings and backtracks. All on Day 1. #281: Cookies says that the Bob is a null tell for her and votes mahaloth #282: Guiri is also leaning a null tell with Bob, suspects OMGUS with HLB's vote but it has inconsistency, thinks Mahaloth's vote and play as scum motivation, unvotes HLB, votes Mahaloth
New vote count Mahaloth (6) HLB (4) bobarrgh (3)
What's strange between the three, SubPlank and Cookies don't mention HLB though despite being the vote leader, but guiri does.
However, SubPlank already had a vote on HLB, so it's perhaps understandable that further analysis was not forthcoming, but Cookies she says she is going to look at the vote leaders and at that point she hasn't even voted. But nothing further on HLB.
A Simple Question for Cookies: What were your thoughts on HLB and why didn't you voice them at all?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 11, 2011 9:55:18 GMT -5
EBWOP: That should be guiri unvotes bobarrgh and votes Mahaloth Still doesn't change Cookies scummitude though.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 11, 2011 9:56:18 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 read KidV's claim and subsequent interactions shortly before Day end. For oog reasons I wasn't in the right state of mind to react or comment. In hindsight, I'd like to think I'd have unvoted and would have ended the Day without revoting. But that didn't happen and I messed up.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 11, 2011 10:29:44 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. Looking at guiri's reply, I noticed I missed one. Renata, this one also applies to you as well. I can't tell if you were online or not, so in general: what were your thoughts on Kid V and what would you have done?
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 11, 2011 10:54:09 GMT -5
I wasn't online, and I most certainly would have unvoted, probably in favor of Timmy.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 11, 2011 10:58:33 GMT -5
I think it needs comment. Anyone can claim a power role. In fact, our three lynch leaders Day 1 all did. and would that at all be surprising in a game where scum can get custom made cover pm's? seriously, if you are scum are you going to request a niller type role or something that looks uber good for town? that's why to a great extent we have to be careful with claims. if someone is acting scummy they get to stretch regardless of what they claim. and to some extent even if we lynch a town power then we just have to bite the bullet and move forward figuring that there is no way that we will have a set up with 5 invests and 4 docs kind of crap. yaknow what just came to me that would be seriously ballsy yuckle chuckles. would be to have scum request a miller role with some awesome town power. I mostly agree with peeker here. We need to assume that every Scum will have a plausible cover available whenever they need it, and I think it's safe to assume that most of those will be Power Roles, so we need to be even more critical than usual of our analyses of claims here; however, I wouldn't put it past Scum to claim a Vanilla role, just because that seems like the 'unlikely' thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 11, 2011 11:14:00 GMT -5
and burby i agree with you. but right now we have three dead (two "power" roles) and two other claimed "power" roles. and since our niller didn't show up until this morning it potentially was unsafe to claim niller. plus, to some extent, if you have competing claims among folks that are potentially scummy who do you think gets it in the neck? i would hazzard to guess that it would be the niller (just human nature dontchaknow) as opposed to who is being the most scummy regardless of what they say they are.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 11, 2011 11:18:56 GMT -5
Who are you finding scummy, peeker?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 11, 2011 12:02:01 GMT -5
Who are you finding scummy, peeker? right now maha is a the top, but i want to go back and re-read some of Day 1 again. but we have a dead "questioner" and a claimed "watcher" so his role as described sounds too uber good to be true. additionally, it is convenient that he picked timmy to look at. what do you know, timmy is dead so he confirms nat. i had my vote on bunny yesterDay and i find it hard to believe that both of them are telling the truth. but a watcher doesn't seem to overpower town as much as this voter thing that maha is claiming.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 11, 2011 12:04:41 GMT -5
neta: and i hope nat is not giving a lot of credence to the "investigation" because if maha is scum he already knows that you are not. now if nat just happens to be some sort of 3rd party i sure wouldn't mind if he piped up and said maha was full of shit.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 11, 2011 12:05:15 GMT -5
shit shit shit
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 11, 2011 12:05:40 GMT -5
fucking shit shit fuck
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 11, 2011 12:06:18 GMT -5
fucking mc carthyism is what it is i tells ya.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 11, 2011 12:07:00 GMT -5
crap shit fuck damn fuck shit crap
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 11, 2011 12:09:04 GMT -5
oh, fuck here we go afuckinggain
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 11, 2011 12:28:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 11, 2011 12:30:48 GMT -5
|
|