|
Post by special on Feb 22, 2011 15:13:02 GMT -5
Merestil Haye: Aye, very passable, that, very passable with a Night and no kill. Renata: Nothing like a good glass of Château de Chasselas, eh? Peeker: You're right there!! CatInASuit: Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here enjoying a Night with no kill, eh? ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCocunuts: In them days we was glad to survive the Night ourselves. Romola: And to vote the next Day! SisterCoyote: Or just be allowed to post in the game. Captain Pinkies: Or just to read it. Pedescribe: On a very small and old monitor. Peeker: Oh, we never had a monitor. We used to have to read and play on a blackberry Sinjin: The best we could manage was to use an ordinary mobile. Merestil Haye: But you know, we were happy in those days, though we had to put in the effort if we wanted to play. Hockey Monkey:Because we had to put in the effort. My old Mod used to say to us, "Monitors doesn't buy you a mafia-win, scum". Natlaw: Aye, 'e was right. Red Skeezix: Aye, 'e was. Romanic: I was happier then and I didn't even win any games. I used to play every game, analyze every vote, quote all players and still I never won. Guiri: Winning! You were lucky to dream of a win! I used to live with only the hope of surviving the Night! Texcat: Eh, you were lucky to have that dream! I never even dared to dream of making it through the Day! Naturallylazy: Oh, I used to dream of having that kind of hope! I played in constant fear the the Mod would strike me hard in the Day killing me without I even had a vote on record! Romanic: Well, when I say 'win' it was only the hope of making it to sign-ups. But making that was a win to me! Captain Pinkies: I was forbidden to sign-up and would spend all my time in the forbidden thread. Watching the lucky player actually play the game. Harmless little bunny: You were lucky to have the forbidden thread! There were a hundred and fifty of us scaring the same account. Made it almost impossible to even log in to the mafia board. Renata: An account? Harmless little bunny: Aye. Renata: You were lucky. I used to try and get a joined mafia-account. But the boards were completely closed for me. No matter how hard I tried I just couldn't get access. Guiri: Luxury. I used to have to have to buy a domain, set up the board and hunt down players for the games. Only to be deleted as a user as soon as the game would begin. CatInASuit: Well, of course, we had it tough. I used to have to get the domain, set up the board, hunt down players, buy the computers and set up accounts for them. Then I had to write all the color and role-PMs and balance the game... only to have to delete my own account as soon as sign-up where open! Sinjin: Right. I had to set up the boards, buy the domain, make all the games and set up accounts for all players wanting to join. Later I would be more than happy to also set up the scum-board and the mason-board and a special spoiler board. And it would be a pleasure for me to be asked to delete all my accounts before sign-up were even heard of. Only to be told in mocking emails how all the members of the board would have a thread of them dancing about on my deleted account singing Hallelujah. Peeker: And you try and tell the newbies of today that ..... they won't believe you. All: They won't! Ed: And so the Day begins with everyone alive Ulla: That is a terrible way to end the color Ed (crying): But it's my only line!!!!! Day will end at 2:00 PM (Chicago time) on Sunday, February 27th.which is sometime or the other in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 22, 2011 15:21:33 GMT -5
That's...odd.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 22, 2011 15:24:15 GMT -5
But the color is great and the news is even better, yay!
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 22, 2011 15:25:10 GMT -5
I'm not complaining.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 22, 2011 15:28:21 GMT -5
ROFL Nice color! And no kills is nice too ;D
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Feb 22, 2011 15:48:50 GMT -5
w00t
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 22, 2011 16:12:02 GMT -5
Bunny, were you blocked again?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 22, 2011 16:18:05 GMT -5
Nice! I wonder if there is any light to be shed on what went down.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 22, 2011 16:23:17 GMT -5
Player | Name/Power | Day One | Day Two | Day Three | Renata | ? | KidVermicious | Plankton | bobarrgh | Merestil Haye | ? | No vote | Cookies | bobarrgh | CatInASuit | ? | timmy | Cookies | bobarrgh | peekercpa | ? | crazybunny | Mahaloth | bobarrgh | Sister Coyote | ? | KidVermicious | bobarrgh | bobarrgh | Captain Pinkies | ? | timmy | No vote | No vote | Romola | ? | sinjin | Mahaloth | bobarrgh | sinjin | ? | bobarrgh | Cookies | bobarrgh | Hockey Monkey | ? | timmy | No vote | bobarrgh | Cookies | ? | KidVermicious | Mahaloth | bobarrgh | texcat | ? | bobarrgh | Cookies | No vote | Romanic | ? | Sister Coyote | Sister Coyote | bobarrgh | naturallylazy | ? | No vote | No vote | No vote | guiri | ? | KidVermicious | Mahaloth | bobarrgh | pedescribe | ? | No vote | Mahaloth | bobarrgh | Natlaw | ? | timmy | MHaye | bobarrgh | Red Skeezix | ? | timmy | naturallylazy | bobarrgh | harmless little bunny | Sir Bedevere, Watcher | bobarrgh | Mahaloth | bobarrgh | bobarrgh | Dead Collector, Toughguy | crazybunny | Mahaloth | No vote | Suburban Plankton | Sir Robin, Paranoid Doc | KidVermicious | Mahaloth | Mahaloth | Dingo, Redirector | Guiri | Cookies | timmy | Frank the Historian, Vanilla | Captain Pinkies | Paranoia | Prince Herbert, Investigator | sinjin | KidVermicious | Sir Galahad, Archangel | No vote |
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 22, 2011 16:26:22 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 4 days, 22 hours and 33 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] Captain Pinkies (1) (1 0) Not Voting (18) Renata, Merestil Haye, CatInASuit, peekercpa, Sister Coyote, Captain Pinkies, Romola, sinjin, Hockey Monkey, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts, texcat, Romanic, naturallylazy, guiri, pedescribe, harmless little bunny, Natlaw, Red Skeezix With these votes, Captain Pinkies would be lynched.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 22, 2011 16:41:46 GMT -5
Voted scum three times: crazybunny. He's moving solidly into the town camp for me (if a scum roleblocker turns up before he dies that would be better of course).
Voted scum two times: peeker, Coyote, Romola, Cookies, guiri, pedescribe Some town credit for them but not as much for Cookies (self defense vote + not that early on bob).
Votes saving bob Day One: Renata, Cookies, Coyote, guiri on KidV Skeezix, Pinkies, Hockey, Natlaw, (Cat) on timmy Not really counting Cat because bob was out of danger when he voted.
Votes on Cookies Day Two: Cat, texcat, sinjin, Mhaye
Not much crossover. Also texcat and sinjin voted for bob Day One. Sister Coyote voted him D2+3 early. Cookies had two scum voting her D2.
So the people to look at for me are Renata, Red Skeezix, Pinkies, Hockey Monkey and MHaye. Maybe guiri as well.
Pinkies and HM haven't been that active and lyla has competely dodged the vote record.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 22, 2011 16:45:06 GMT -5
NETA: So the people to look at for me are ... (others could look at me based on that 'voted to save bob' reason I used to compile that list)
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 22, 2011 16:52:06 GMT -5
For sure look at all those people including me, but your choice to look only at final votes is, I can already tell, misleading.
I think crazybunny does look pretty good. I think I mentioned yesterday she was third on the Mahaloth bandwagon, and those votes all came quite early, before much else was going on. She had votes on herself at the time too IIRC, but how many scum in that position put their 'self-preservation' vote on another scum, much less the redirector?
But the first two votes on Mahaloth were Red Skeezix and me. Similarly I (along with someone else who I need to look up) was one of the early voters on BobArrgh following after an original vote from (again IIRC) Guiri. And then I argued that the typo thing was really a typo and eventually everyone unvoted, go me. But anyway. This is mostly just to say that there were so many competing bandwagons on day one (including not one but *two* on known scum, as well as one on a very likely townie), that context is absolutely indispensable.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 22, 2011 18:11:11 GMT -5
Votes saving bob Day One: I follow your logic but I'm not sure I agree with your phrasing. I initially thought the Day One case against Bob was weak; obviously, after being able to do a more thorough read-through once meatspace calmed down, I changed my mind. So although those votes were against players other than bob, I think we'd need to look at the rationale each of us gave for voting who we voted for before assuming we were trying to "save" anyone.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 22, 2011 18:25:22 GMT -5
Natlaw, did you forget to review my Day 1 play as well? This Day by Day perspective is crap and anti-town. My suspicions of Mahaloth were documented, restated, and defended on Day 1, yet somehow the motivation for voting for him on Day 2 is spun as OMGUS by a known scum, and now as self-preservation. I also had a history of suspecting Bob as well, but it doesn't matter because I don't want to hang out at your boring credibility party anyway. Pede's play with respect to Bob is just a bit too protective for my tastes at this point. I'll be taking a closer look at pede.
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 22, 2011 18:38:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by harmless little bunny on Feb 22, 2011 20:10:28 GMT -5
Bunny, were you blocked again?
|
|
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 22, 2011 23:36:09 GMT -5
Vote: Romanic Based on my case from yesterday. Pede's play with respect to Bob is just a bit too protective for my tastes at this point. I'll be taking a closer look at pede. Protective of whom? Of Bob? I said, over and over again, that my suspicions of Romanic did not mean that I wasn't also suspicious of BobArrgh. Because (again, which I said before) I was. When I became more suspicious of Bob than Romanic, I switched my vote. Now, I switch it back. Or do you mean protective of myself? In that case, why would I have made a case on Romanic at all? Wouldn't it have behooved self-protective!me to simply agree with Romanic?
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Feb 23, 2011 0:17:03 GMT -5
Cookies had two scum voting her D2. [nitpick]Bob had his vote on Cookies at one time, but I thought he ended D2 with his vote on Mahaloth.[/nitpick]
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 23, 2011 3:45:14 GMT -5
Hmm, that was a remarkable good Night and I'm not just talking about the colour.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 23, 2011 4:10:58 GMT -5
Day 1 Voting.
KidVermicious (5)(5 405) Renata [350], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies [360], Sister Coyote [361], guiri [389], Suburban Plankton [405]
timmy (5)(5 436) Red Skeezix [310], Captain Pinkies [335], Hockey Monkey [380], Natlaw [408], CatInASuit [436]
bobarrgh (3)(4 247) Natlaw [213 397], guiri [238 282], Renata [241 256], texcat [247], sinjin [273], harmless little bunny [330]
harmless little bunny (2)(6 346) Renata [141 156], Romanic [164 366], Suburban Plankton [186 358], Sister Coyote [260 359], peekercpa [263], bobarrgh [286], KidVermicious [346 382] sinjin (2)(2 295) Paranoia [174], romola [295]
Captain Pinkies (1)(1 252) timmy[252] guiri (1)(1 290) Mahaloth [290] Sister Coyote (1)(1 366) Romanic [366]
Mahaloth (0)(6 282) Red Skeezix [153 309], Renata [156 241 256 341], harmless little bunny [168 330], KidVermicious [271 303], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies [281 325], guiri [282 322] CatInASuit (0)(4 139) Romola [113 283], sinjin [128 273], harmless little bunny [131 168], Mahaloth [139 160] Hockey Monkey (0)(1 140) Renata [140,141]
Not voting (4) Merestil Haye, naturallylazy, pedescribe, KidVermicious
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Day 2 Voting.
Mahaloth (8) (8 192) harmless little bunny [3], peeker [163], Suburban Plankton [167], pedescribe [180], romola [182], guiri [184], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [187], bobarrgh [192]
ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts (5)(5 203) CatInASuit [41], texcat [128], bobargh [151 192], Mahaloth [178], sinjin [194], Merestil Haye [203]
Sister Coyote (1)(1 20) romanic [20] Bobarrgh (1)(1 97) Sister Coyote [97] Suburban Plankton (1)(1 121) Renata [121] Merestil Haye (1) (1 188) Natlaw [188] naturallylazy (1) (1 201) Red Skeezix [201]
pedescribe (0)(2 179) Natlaw [169 188], Merestil Haye [179,203] sinjin (0)(1 36) romola [36 111] Romanic (0)(1 47) Renata [47 72] texcat (0)(1 131) ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [131 187]
Not Voting (3) Captain Pinkies, Hockey Monkey, naturallylazy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Day 3 Voting.
Bobarrgh (15) (15 146) Sister Coyote [12], Romanic [30], Renata [31], CatInASuit [50], guiri [52], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [59], pedescribe [83], Red Skeezix [101], Hockey Monkey [102], peekercpa [104], Merestil Haye [113], harmless little bunny [127], Romola [132], sinjin [140], natlaw [146]
Captain Pinkies (1) (1 0)
Romanic (0) (1 42) pedescribe [42 83]
Not Voting (4) Captain Pinkies, bobarrgh, texcat, naturallylazy
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 23, 2011 4:44:34 GMT -5
Ok, suspicions.
1. Texcat - If Mahaloth was on the block, then bandwagonning the case against Cookies would have been one way to do it. There are already two scum on there, the only other likely scum would be texcat as by the time sinjin voted, Mahaloth's fate was pretty sealed barring a mass exodus, which was unlikely. As a side note to bobarrgh's side reveal, I think it is much more likely Cookies is town.
2. Pedescribe - Pedescribe gave me the feeling that he knew the scum were carrying out the Night kills to the exclusion of other parties. With bobarrgh's role revealed, it is quite likely the scum have been responsible for all 3 Night Kills. Hence my suspicion of pedescribe deepens.
3. Natlaw - I looked over Natlaw's posts on Day 3 and nothing seemed that wrong with them, but I still don't like the "you don't have to claim now" post he did for bobarrgh.
Time to look again.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 23, 2011 8:34:07 GMT -5
[/color] Based on my case from yesterday. Pede's play with respect to Bob is just a bit too protective for my tastes at this point. I'll be taking a closer look at pede. Protective of whom? Of Bob? I said, over and over again, that my suspicions of Romanic did not mean that I wasn't also suspicious of BobArrgh. Because (again, which I said before) I was. When I became more suspicious of Bob than Romanic, I switched my vote. Now, I switch it back. Or do you mean protective of myself? In that case, why would I have made a case on Romanic at all? Wouldn't it have behooved self-protective!me to simply agree with Romanic?[/quote] This case needs at least some acknowledgment of the fact that it was Romanic's (lousy, in your opinion) case against BobArrgh that began the bandwagon on him yesterday. For all you or anyone who wasn't planning on bringing up Bob at some point anyway knows, if Romanic had not made that post, there never would have been a bandwagon. Do you believe that was a bussing? Do you believe Romanic is third party? If you are basing your vote just on behavior without trying to ferret out motivations, have you considered the rest of what he's done, or is your entire case based on one single overly-exaggerated paraphrase of a scum's statement? I agree with Cookies' gist here -- what you did yesterday has a very obvious potential scum motivation. At the time you went after Romanic, IIRC, there was only his vote and mine (which was just a "me too") on Bob -- you attack the weak point in the prime accuser's argument and you just might succeed at derailing the whole thing. And I think you're probably ballsy enough to try such a thing and deal with the consequences later. In addition: you failed to vote on day one, when two scum were in trouble, something that must have been a VERY difficult situation for the scum to get a grip on. Non-votes/late votes on day one are suspicious in themselves under the circumstances. And, your vote on Mahaloth on day two came in a situation where the scum must have known he was very likely to be lynched, if not that day, then the next. Bussing under such circumstances is almost mandatory. (In fact, more than one of my current or former suspects is someone who did not vote Mahaloth on day one but did on day two.) I was about to say I wanted to look at a couple more people before voting, but really I think this is solid enough, since you're here and making noise anyway. vote: Pedescribe[/color]
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 23, 2011 8:57:47 GMT -5
wow first Night = two deaths. second Night = 1 death. third Night = 0 deaths. following simple linear regression modeling that means toNight someone comes back.
in all seriousness. a mass roleblock? that seems to be all the rage these days.
and this is for the group because i really don't know. i the absence of the above if town has a blocker and if this hypothetical blocker knows that their action went through would this not be a good time for that information to be disclosed?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 23, 2011 9:09:56 GMT -5
I agree with Cookies' gist here -- what you did yesterday has a very obvious potential scum motivation. At the time you went after Romanic, IIRC, there was only his vote and mine (which was just a "me too") on Bob -- you attack the weak point in the prime accuser's argument and you just might succeed at derailing the whole thing. And I think you're probably ballsy enough to try such a thing and deal with the consequences later. Actually, there were three votes at that point on bobarrgh. You are missing Sis C's vote #12 who was first following on the previous Day's vote. But your point is possible on the grounds that it gave other options for people to look at. And Romanic's argument was the first one of the Day put forward against bobarrgh.
|
|
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 23, 2011 9:36:25 GMT -5
[/color] Based on my case from yesterday. Protective of whom? Of Bob? I said, over and over again, that my suspicions of Romanic did not mean that I wasn't also suspicious of BobArrgh. Because (again, which I said before) I was. When I became more suspicious of Bob than Romanic, I switched my vote. Now, I switch it back. Or do you mean protective of myself? In that case, why would I have made a case on Romanic at all? Wouldn't it have behooved self-protective!me to simply agree with Romanic?[/quote] This case needs at least some acknowledgment of the fact that it was Romanic's (lousy, in your opinion) case against BobArrgh that began the bandwagon on him yesterday. For all you or anyone who wasn't planning on bringing up Bob at some point anyway knows, if Romanic had not made that post, there never would have been a bandwagon. Do you believe that was a bussing? Do you believe Romanic is third party? If you are basing your vote just on behavior without trying to ferret out motivations, have you considered the rest of what he's done, or is your entire case based on one single overly-exaggerated paraphrase of a scum's statement? [/quote] Third Party. BobArrgh was an obvious target that was "not Romanic" to continue with Romanic's plan to get "not Romanic" players to die instead of Romanic. I suspect. I agree with Cookies' gist here -- what you did yesterday has a very obvious potential scum motivation. At the time you went after Romanic, IIRC, there was only his vote and mine (which was just a "me too") on Bob -- you attack the weak point in the prime accuser's argument and you just might succeed at derailing the whole thing. And I think you're probably ballsy enough to try such a thing and deal with the consequences later. In addition: you failed to vote on day one, when two scum were in trouble, something that must have been a VERY difficult situation for the scum to get a grip on. Non-votes/late votes on day one are suspicious in themselves under the circumstances. And, your vote on Mahaloth on day two came in a situation where the scum must have known he was very likely to be lynched, if not that day, then the next. Bussing under such circumstances is almost mandatory. (In fact, more than one of my current or former suspects is someone who did not vote Mahaloth on day one but did on day two.) I was about to say I wanted to look at a couple more people before voting, but really I think this is solid enough, since you're here and making noise anyway. vote: Pedescribe Wow...when you put it that way, you're absolutely right. I look super scummy in retrospect, don't I? Well, nothing I can say to that except that I'm not scum. I'm town.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 23, 2011 9:53:44 GMT -5
Other than that single incident of exaggeration, is there anythign that makes you feel that way?
|
|
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 23, 2011 11:55:06 GMT -5
Other than that single incident of exaggeration, is there anythign that makes you feel that way? You are framing the discussion uncharitably. Yes, it's one incident, but it's a really big deal for a player to forge evidence to ensure someone who was getting heat will be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 23, 2011 12:39:20 GMT -5
WARNING: Long post may be long. Right now, I'm struggling with Romola's play, with pedescribe's play, and with Natlaw. Romola: I'm struggling to work out Bunny being blocked again, unless suburban's power still worked despite him being killed. Most Doc powers carry through the Night and (if there's a negative effect) into the Day; also, whether or not Bunny was blocked by Suburban's paranoia would be a factor of in what order powers are resolved, which is a matter for the mods. This part of this post bothered me yesterDay and is still bothering me toDay. I misremembered Maha's role, sorry. Scum could still have a roleblocker, you're right. Damn. I know the voting thing isn't a standard element, but however unlikely it is, it's worth a vote from Bunny. I disagreed with this yesterDay, and I still disagree with it toDay. And then there's this: I'd like to see more from SisC about her vote for Bob toDay. She cited the reasons she gave yesterDay, which didn't grip me at the time, and hasn't given further reasons. Sis, what do you think of the other votes for Bob and his claim? Just some commentary about the other cases and the claim. You don't find the claim convincing, but do you agree that it is overpowered? Do you agree that the 'bussing' confusion is a scum tell on Bob's part? That kind of thing, more detailed commentary on the stuff that has arisen since your Day one vote. Which I then provided: I'm inclined to agree with most of the other cases against Bob, and where I disagree with them I think I covered in -- again -- Post #92. And she followed up with: Sis, I'm seeing where you disagreed with the other cases against Bob, but not where you agreed. Could you indulge me? It was just that things had moved on a lot with Bob since you made your vote and the only comments that you had made about the situation had seemed more in Bob's favour than against him. This almost felt to me like Romola was looking to catch me in a contradiction, somehow, as a way to invalidate my argument on Bob and then -- possibly -- use that to undermine everyone else's argument as well, since I was the "ringleader" on the Bob vote. Finally, this exchange: and romola i never saw your answer to my question about what you saw about bob's claim that caused you not to buy it at "face value". because coming through the peek filter it reads to me like "i kind of believe bob and i kind of don't but i am still not going to vote him although i think he is full of it to some extent". It was the timing that I didn't like, rather than finding the stated role unbelievable. I dithered as long as I did because I wasn't convinced by most of the other cases against him. It was the investigation choices that swung it, and that post about wanting to question Sinjin despite having already apparently investigated her does seem like a major slip. Doesn't help my suspicions, although the argument against Bob's investigation choices and the statement about him pursuing Sinjin is sound. (biab with pede and Natlaw, sorry, meatspace is calling.)
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 23, 2011 13:05:22 GMT -5
Pedescribe (and CIAS): I'll just point out, you are the only player stating outright that it was a scum kill on Night 2. But there is no reason for you to state this because the general Town cannot know what happened. The only people who do know are likely to be the scum and any SKs/Vigs should they exist. Also why are you so hooked up on Mahaloth, Natlaw and Timmy. I think that I've already addressed my feelings about stating a single kill is a Scum kill. But I also don't know that Pede ever answered CIAS about his focus on those three players. 2. Pedescribe - Pedescribe gave me the feeling that he knew the scum were carrying out the Night kills to the exclusion of other parties. With bobarrgh's role revealed, it is quite likely the scum have been responsible for all 3 Night Kills. Hence my suspicion of pedescribe deepens. I am not convinced by CIAS' reasoning here, and I really don't understand how bob being a Toughguy indicates that Scum have all night Kills; could you clarify your thinking, Cat? This case needs at least some acknowledgment of the fact that it was Romanic's (lousy, in your opinion) case against BobArrgh that began the bandwagon on him yesterday. For all you or anyone who wasn't planning on bringing up Bob at some point anyway knows, if Romanic had not made that post, there never would have been a bandwagon. (This is in response to pede's case on Romanic; I accidentally trimmed that one) Which relates to: Third Party. BobArrgh was an obvious target that was "not Romanic" to continue with Romanic's plan to get "not Romanic" players to die instead of Romanic. I suspect. I wish to make a statement about this: If Romanic is Town, then he knows his survival is important to Town, and thus it makes sense to try to get other players -- who may be Scum -- lynched. If Romanic is Scum, then he knows his survival is important to the Scum Team, and thus it makes sense to try to get other players -- who are not Scum -- lynched. If Romanic is Third Party, then odds are he is independent of anyone else's wincon and thus he's happy as long as he's not the one lynched. Therefore -- in Romanic's case and anyone else's -- I don't see trying to get "non-player" players lynched as anything other than a null tell, for crying out loud, and I say this as one of Romanic's targets. But Pede is sure trying to make Romanic's behavior look like case 2 or 3 up there. and You are framing the discussion uncharitably. Yes, it's one incident, but it's a really big deal for a player to forge evidence to ensure someone who was getting heat will be lynched. I appear to have missed something in my re-read: what evidence are you suggesting Romanic forged? Natlaw (and CIAS): Two quotes, here, both CIAS arguments that raise the same question for me. This kind of thing is pinging me and I cannot put my finger on why. Natlaw, why did you not just unvote Bobarrgh, but also tell him that he doesn't have to claim? 3. Natlaw - I looked over Natlaw's posts on Day 3 and nothing seemed that wrong with them, but I still don't like the "you don't have to claim now" post he did for bobarrgh. On the one hand, Bob is a newish player and thus I could see offering him advice when he's said he's not sure what to do. On the other hand...if Bob was in danger, and he was a Town Power, why discourage him from claiming? Also, there is still the issue of Scum Mahaloth tying Natlaw to Town timmy; yeah, it's a hell of a lot of WIFOM but I think we do have to factor it in when considering Natlaw's actions. I'm not ready to vote yet; just wanted to get these thoughts down "on paper" before I forgot them.
|
|