Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 4, 2011 17:17:26 GMT -5
but also had some votes for scum Day One). 2) MHaye/HM-Idle/lyla don't seem to be around much so a case against them won't spark much discussion/defense from them. Plus with a possible vigilante around he might take care of them. Of these three I would vote for MHaye first mainly based on the reasons I voted him D2. After reading Renata's WoW on MHaye I'm less convinced of him being the worst of the three. The trouble I have with the others is that the cases a mostly based on a couple of posts Day One simply because. lyla was next on my list for targetting (hence my inital reluctance to lynch her at the start of Today) but now she turned up and avoided a second final vote. I still like to hear more from Red Skeezix (to my question of how I 'allowed avoiding pro-town action') and his thoughts on other. Unvote: Red Skeezix I'm tempted to vote Idle Thoughts for Hockey Monkeys "can we talk about timmy please" and her eventual vote for him Day One. His vote Today seems like an 'Idle' vote (brazen, spur of the moment kind of thing) but since I was wrong about Mahaloths behavior I don't think I really should be using that kind of argument anymore. So then it just a badly reasoned vote. lyla Day One scummy post were she avoided commenting on the now known scum pings about equal to HMs but she had no town vote at the end of the Day. But that is because she doesn't have votes at all so it's not a plus really. Then there is her comment Today that she had a note Day One that bob looked suspicious to her then (where my mind fills in: "oh bob's dead now? And scum?! I knew it!"). Vote: naturallylazy for not voting at all so far, while HM and Idle did even though they weren't the best ones.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 4, 2011 17:38:55 GMT -5
Just a reminder to myself of the current players (roughly from towny to scummy):
Sister Coyote -looks good for pushing bob D2+D3 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies -looks good for case against Mahaloth and voted by two scum D2 (bob switched later)
guiri -voted by Mahaloth, case on bob D1, sixth on Mahaloth D2, fifth on bob D3 peekercpa -second vote Mahaloth D2, but his changed playstyle is throwing me a bit off Renata -lots of extensive post, D1 votes for scum CatInASuit -fourth vote on bob, cases well reasoned texcat + sinjin -they blur together for me but the D1 bob votes make them look good - but both also Cookie voters D2
Romola -fifth vote on Mahaloth Romanic -second vote on bob D3 Red Skeezix Merestil Haye
naturallylazy Idle Thoughts
(last four discussed already Today). Looking at that list it's a bit too participitation based for my own liking.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Mar 4, 2011 17:55:14 GMT -5
RS--At the end of the first two Days, Renata didn't vote for scum...not even when the majority was voting for scum (on Day Two). She had a one off vote.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 4, 2011 18:00:44 GMT -5
1. Please point out where I discounted pro-town behavior because someone's final vote or 2. how that follows from narrowing down suspects by looking at the final votes? 3. Is having a final vote on scum instead of a town player is not pro-town (!= anti-scum) behavior according to you? 4.By hoodwinked you mean you unvoting Mahaloth? 5. Or me not voting Mahaloth Day Two because of his claim? Added numbers. Apparently I missed this whole paragraph. My apologies. 1. I meant it would enable you to do so, not that you had already done it. I feel like play that leaves options open, are things that scum will do. Scum benefit by having multiple options especially when they are laid out in advance. Having the option laid out in advance allows them to point to their "consistency" as a pro-town attribute later on. 2. By looking only at the final votes, you could point back to that reasoning later on, and say see, this is what I was saying about so-and-so. 3. Having a final vote on scum is largely a non-tell. Why the vote was put there, where the vote was previously, the timing of the vote, and any commentary about the vote is usually more important. 4. I mean anyone unvoting mahaloth. 5. Possibly yes, At this point I don't know if you didn't vote mahaloth because he claimed, or because you are scum and so was he and you didn't want to aid the lynch of a redirector.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 4, 2011 18:04:14 GMT -5
In addition I have an interesting data point. I wished to determine the quality of the fake PMs being constructed by the moderators first hand. (Also, I was in a shit mood and could do for a laugh, so I commissioned a false PM, with no intent of using it.)
If at some point Natlaw turns up dead, and town, and the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Then this will stand as proof that the moderator will generate fake PMs regardless of whether that character is already in the game. Just saying, no reason not to be open about this.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 4, 2011 18:05:51 GMT -5
shit
Apparently they turned the swear filter on. That should be an anagram of "this".
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 4, 2011 18:06:17 GMT -5
hey, nat would you mind posting your pm's to the mods regarding your kill choices?
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 4, 2011 18:07:26 GMT -5
They also changed the poster's ranks. Man. It's trippy. When the white rabbit peaks, would someone please throw the tape recorder into the bathtub.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 4, 2011 18:16:45 GMT -5
btw, in case anyone left is obtuse as a box of fucking rocks i think natlaw is full of shit.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 4, 2011 18:19:54 GMT -5
tinny* = f u c k i n g bugger* = s h i t
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 4, 2011 18:26:08 GMT -5
btw, in case anyone left is obtuse as a box of tinny* rocks i think natlaw is full of bugger*. It doesn't really matter though does it? I mean, if he's lying the real vig (which there probably is one) will pop him like a zit.
|
|
|
Post by naturallylazy on Mar 4, 2011 18:31:12 GMT -5
I'm starting to like a NatLazy lynch, considering how she came back toDay, and the content of her post #100, commenting on Day 1 only, and still not voting and not much commitment except that she doesn't trust Romola for her vote on Bill. I came back today, have not been paying anywhere near full attention to anything in this game since Day One (Yes, I admitted it in the same post). To me, this is what you want me to do: You want me to vote without knowing what exactly I am getting into. Then you then don't like the fact that I am trying to show I was paying attention at one point during the game, trying to help avoid a mislynch - my own. Oh, I do like this. Give me time. That is all I ask. To my fellow Nat: I appreciate the fact that somebody thought it would be nice to target me for a town aligned hit. I am astounded that somebody thinks I'm special enough to protect even after failing to vote, which is a huge thing around here. This makes me assume something else is going on... >_> Whoever protected me, thanks very much, I guess. Did I miss where this MHaye idea is coming from? I mean, I get his post is from Day One thread, I saw it there, but why is it being brought up now?
|
|
|
Post by naturallylazy on Mar 4, 2011 18:36:02 GMT -5
Oh, god, the posts I miss when I do not pay attention.
Nat, I do not say that I suspected bob, I wrote a note on the board (this is the board used for scumhunting, if I were anywhere near it right now, I could show you it) about Bob and bill. I did not remember what the note was for, I simply remember writing it down.
I remember somebody in this thread mentioning I had a good reason to kill Paranoia. The truth is, I do not. I'm a manipulator when I'm mafia. I could have used my thoughts and opinions to take Paranoia where ever I wanted.
/me goes to work, will try to check in later.
|
|
|
Post by naturallylazy on Mar 4, 2011 18:40:27 GMT -5
Ugh, dumb buttons and shortcuts.
Texcat. The role claimed by Mahaloth was this one (according to the Day One thread): Hi Mahaloth - welcome to the game
England, 932 A.D.
You are a... shrubbery!!! Made by the famous ROGER THE SHRUBBER!!
These are sad time when passing ruffians can 'ni' at will to old ladies. And being a shrubbery in sad times can be... well... sad!
So you're kind of sad and when a shrubbery is feeling sad like you it sometimes wither away. We don't want that to happen to you. So now it's time to fight back and overcome the sad, sad, sad, sad times!!
Alignment: Town
Role: Vote-investigator
Power: Every Night (as long as you are alive in the game) you may target a player that voted the previous Day. You may ask the Moderators about one and only one of that players voted the previous Day only. You will then before next Day begins be informed by the Moderators if the target-player and the player voted for have the same alignment or not.
Wincon: You win with your team of fellow Townies. This will happen when all threats to Town have been vanquished or withered away from the game.
Even plants has to follow rules. You better as the well. The Moderators might invent shrubbery-shredding if you don't read, understand and follow the rules provided in the Thread of Rules.
I am not certain where a role like this would have been seen by me, would you be able to point me in the right direction about where I have experience with it?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Mar 4, 2011 19:19:02 GMT -5
Back in the saddle... Me again – through here the analysis of Cookies rings no alarm bells for me. I never got the opportunity to really comment on the Cookies bandwagon, but I’ll just say now that I think CIAS’s argument about the protective role bit (for all that I think he’s town) is way off base, regardless of Cookies’ alignment. I think it’s a poor basis for a vote. That MHaye trots it out here as the main support for his own vote hardly fills me with confidence. As well Cookies is technically telling the truth about her OMGUS voting tendency, though I can’t remember if she’s explained yet. That leaves one decent point. Clearly this late in the day MHaye cannot be said to have been trying to save Mahaloth with his vote. I believe he’s a good enough player to realize that a poorly-justified or never-before-supported vote for Mahaloth at this point would have done more harm for him than good in terms of looking innocent (as is exactly what happened to BobArrgh the following day), so neither do I see his failure to vote for Mahaloth as indicative of not knowing which way Mahaloth would swing. I’m left with the merits of the case itself and his manner of addressing the Mahaloth issue; and while there’s nothing hugely alarming here there’s also nothing really great. Nor is there any real point to his vote on Cookies. (Does he follow it up the next day? Will check.) He could as easily have left his vote on Pedescribe for all the effect it had. Do you mean that you can't remember if I have explained yet at the point in time that MHaye was voting for me? Or are you speaking in the present tense? As I've gone over my voting history quite a few times now, I have to hope it is the former. I respond directly to that vote from Mhaye here: I had a vote on Mahaloth back on Day 1, before he ever voted me. Thanks for pointing out how much of the crap being brought up as being unfounded, but then you went and added more unfounded crap to the heap. But prior to his vote, I had a litany of posts where I discuss my Day 1 vote for Mahaloth specifically. I have to say that I'm with Peeker on not buying what Natlaw is selling. I think Mahaloth tried to set Natlaw up as a Townie with his fake power. And I think Natlaw supported that credibility machine by playing devil's advocate in favor of known scum Mahaloth and in disfavor of known town crazybunny: 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? And I still get a sense of attempted malicious spin on Natlaw's part in this exchange: No, I didn't a complete review of you nor of anyway I mentioned. I analysed the votes to narrow down who I wanted to look at Today. I just did't give you as much credit as the others based on you final vote Day Two. I remembered your vote being as a 'should have voted him earlier' (it was 'I should have just stuck with my vote on Mahaloth yesterday and avoided a lot of distraction.'). You made it 7-4 so not as much credit as those we voted him earlier and started the wagon. I'm not sure how it's anti-town to analyse votes. Note that I didn't say your vote was bad or scummy because it was self-preserving. Anyway it seems to draw a quite some people to the party - even if it's just to decline the invitation . Only looking at a single Day for vote analysis is what I think is anti-town. It is how people get accused of OMGUS voting when that is not the case. It is how people get accused of self-preservation voting when that is not the case. The difference? Context. Also, "I should have voted for him earlier" is a very different statement than "I should have just stuck with my vote on Mahaloth yesterday and avoided a lot of distraction." The difference? Context. This game has a context that evolves from beginning to the end. It is not just a train of compartmentalized Days that don't impact on another and to suggest otherwise is either foolish or malicious. I spent a lot of time on Day 1 deflecting vote after vote after vote based on being one of the lynchers of KidV combined with spurious reasoning if not reasoning manufactured completely out of whole cloth by confirmed scum. That was the distraction that I was referring to. I don't feel it is safe to leave Natlaw for the real Vig, because we may not have a real Vig. Vote: Natlaw My alternate vote at this time would probably be MHaye.
|
|
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 Mar 4, 2011 19:57:42 GMT -5
Evening all. First off, an apology. In retrospect, I should not have signed up for this game. The problem is that my eyes don't like Idle's board very much, and the compromises I have to make to avoid eyestrain are frustrating. Hopefully I'll get a new pair of glasses soon (my eye test is due in April) and then will be able to settle back down. In the meantime, I'll just have to dot-and-carry along. (I've only just realised how much of an effect the eye problem is having on my ability to concentrate here; it's really not bothering me half as much on other boards.) So, in the spirit of dot-and-carrying, I'm going to look at Renata's case against Ms. Lazy found in post D05.016 and more clearly presented in D01.025. I found the discussion of vanilla claims useful to us. We have no prior knowledge of how she thinks, and she illuminates her Mafia “culture,” for want of a better word. I think we can trust this; assuming Ms Lazy is in fact Mafia, she would risk challenge by falsely representing the culture, unless both Texcat and Paranoia were also Mafia; and Paranoia was not. Yes, it's a side-issue. But it gives us a first insight into how Ms Lazy is going to think, and therefore makes us a better judge of her posts, actions and votes. Now the claim that the votes on Mahaloth are somewhat based on meta[gaming]. Renata claims that only HLB's vote was metagame based. Not true, I'm afraid. Red Skeezix's vote is in D01.153. Read it for yourself. I hate these kind of posts and following one that asks to be subbed out. It's a game, you got a couple early votes for reasons you don't like, and now you want to whine about it and ask to be removed? 1. That's lame and I didn't think it was like you. 2. I think it could be a scum tactic to convince us that you are town. I mean, a scum wouldn't ask to be removed or tell us to lynch him. Or would they. It's WIFOM I know, but it doesn't seem like you to do this. It's enough for me to put my early vote on you, too. Vote Bill Plenty of time to move my vote if a better case arrives. This is such a weak vote. The first reason isn't even a reason. The second reason is an explanation of why what bill has done is a pretty null tell. Plus it's infused with meta (Bill, this isn't like you) Smells like scum getting on a bandwagon. He even left himself a trap door in case the bandwagon turns sour. Vote Mahaloth Note where Red characterises the vote as “full of meta,” specifically referencing the statement that “It's WIFOM I know, but it doesn't seem like you to do this” from Mahaloth. I'd call that vote at least partly metagame-based, because Red was accusing Mahaloth of metagaming. Then we come to D01.156, where Renata placed her vote. In that quote she agreed with KidV, who had just agreed with Red. Therefore her vote was also partly metagame based, to the extent that it derives from Red's vote three posts before. I agree that HLB's vote is mainly metagame-based. The others have a metagame component that she suppresses, then calls the reference to it a blatant lie. That doesn't sit right to me. Then we come to analysis of Ms. Lazy's comments on Captain Pinkies. This was what originally caught my eye. I did not (and do not) like the way Renata waves the now-known status of Captain Pinkies as a reason for suspicion of Ms Lazy. Her contention is (or seems to me to be) that the use of words such as “strange” when describing a player is a tactic often employed by Mafiates to cast aspersions on a Townie. However, if this is true then the alignment of the”strange” player is, or should be, irrelevant to the case. A genuine Townie won't know what side the player they find strange is on, while a Mafiate can just as easily smudge a fellow Mafiate this way as out-and-out accuse them. Renata bringing up the actual alignment of Pinkies then is, at best, a seizing on new data to stoke a conclusion already reached. I don't have much to say on the last two paragraphs right now. Renata doesn't see them as substantive, but that's because she's already made up her mind on the case one way or another. All that being said, Ms Lazy has not yet produced a lot of substance, so that part of Renata's case is well-founded; Ms Lazy admits to having not followed the game since Day 1. That means she's got a lot of catching up to do, and I think she needs to start. There are other things I want to talk about, but I'm going to take them one at a time. I have most of tomorrow to deal with it. I've considered placing a vote, but I'm going to leave it until after I've slept on it (it's nearly 1am and I need my beauty sleep.) I also want to digest the case against Natlaw and Idle's case on Renata (which I did not like very much on first sight.) Back tomorrow (or later today, depending on your timezone.)
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 5, 2011 2:51:49 GMT -5
hey, nat would you mind posting your pm's to the mods regarding your kill choices? If it convinces you... [/i][/ul] I don't think listening to the intermission really helps me deciding on a target . A bad Day by me but the results seems to nice: scum redirector dead. I think I figured a possibility why the Night is split in two. The power that decide whether or not to kill my target do get to know it first. But I'm a bit worried that Mahaloth quite possible targeted me to redirect (in case I was watched). Looks like they took my claim for real -or- knew my role was out there. Since Mahaloth flipped scum I'm not confirmed so not that worried I get killed so I don't feel I have to kill because it might be my last chance. Plus there is a serial killer out there... Looking at the votes I'll give some town credit to (thus I won't be killing them): crazybunny, peeker, plankton, romola, guiri. sinjin looks abit suspect for keeping Cookies in the race (also voted by paranoia Day One but he had a weak case IMO). [/i][/ul] Of the non-participants, lyla now hasn't voted for two Days. But I kinda liked her contributions Day one. Totally out of the left field I'm suspicious of Renata but I think that that more of fear of a good player. Still her vote was on KidV Day One and a one-off vote Today. [/i][/ul] Screw it, I'll target naturallylazy Night Two for not voting two Days. [/i][/ul][/quote]
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 5, 2011 3:08:03 GMT -5
RS--At the end of the first two Days, Renata didn't vote for scum...not even when the majority was voting for scum (on Day Two). She had a one off vote. I agree on the end votes but I was talking here about votes on Mahaloth and bob when considering their time. Someone up thread listed here as voting Mahaloth twice - it was just a revote IIRC and dunno about the timing. To me, this is what you want me to do: You want me to vote without knowing what exactly I am getting into. Then you then don't like the fact that I am trying to show I was paying attention at one point during the game, trying to help avoid a mislynch - my own. Er, which mislynch are you talking about, you had no votes D1 I think and when you posted Today you had no votes either (except for the final vote for not posting Yesterday) nor responded to Renata's case in that post meaningfully (only that you liked coming back with a case agasint you or some such). To my fellow Nat: I appreciate the fact that somebody thought it would be nice to target me for a town aligned hit. I am astounded that somebody thinks I'm special enough to protect even after failing to vote, which is a huge thing around here. This makes me assume something else is going on... >_> Whoever protected me, thanks very much, I guess. Nice? I don't read sarcasm there but it must be. I targeted you for not voting not because it thought it was nice. I seriously doubt you where protected. I am starting to doubt that the "greater power" is a player (although not everyone has checked in since I claimed I think). I don't think it's random chance because why not simply tell me that? Maybe it's the counting thing (since the third time I targeted it went through but that is just silly (which makes it a bit more likely with this game color I guess ). Not sure what you're talking about? Where you normally play mafia people don't look at past post to decide if someone is mafia?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 5, 2011 3:11:22 GMT -5
In retrospect, I should not have signed up for this game. The problem is that my eyes don't like Idle's board very much, and the compromises I have to make to avoid eyestrain are frustrating. Hopefully I'll get a new pair of glasses soon (my eye test is due in April) and then will be able to settle back down. In the meantime, I'll just have to dot-and-carry along. [oog] Did you try different skins? I use the default which is basically the same as the SMDB (black on not-bright-white). I have the font size increased on this page as well I think (Firefox CTRL++ and it remembers it per page).
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 5, 2011 3:15:58 GMT -5
NETA: remebers it per website. [/oog]
Maybe the "greater power" decides to kill if my target has a final vote (more of a non participant clean up than a real vigilante - I think Storyteller had a vig ones who could only kill between the three lowest posters)?
|
|
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 Mar 5, 2011 9:56:08 GMT -5
I'm trying to develop a slightly different approach to the game to compensate for my eye difficulties. We'll see how it works out. Back in D05.058 CIAS asked me what I thought about the Day 3 cases on Bob other than Romanic's – that is, Guiri's and CIAS's own, because I didn't say anything about them at the time. The trouble is that I don't clearly remember now what I was thinking about them then, so any answer that I give will inevitably be contaminated by things I have learned since Day 3, and that's something that it's a good idea to avoid if possible. So, with the caveat that I might be contaminating my response with knowledge gained after the fact, my comments on the Day 3 cases. D03.050 sees CIAS voting for bobaargh. His reasoning is that there is no (or little) contemporary explanation for Bob's shift of suspicion from HLB to DarkCoconut to Mahaloth in Day 2. This is built on Guiri's question to Bob in D02.161 and Bob's lack of contemporary response. CIAS then handwaves away the Day 3 responses by suggesting that they were written with hindsight (and, by implication, cannot be trusted.) Now do you understand why I started with that caveat? I don't think it's worth my while to pick Bob's Day 3 reply apart at this stage. They're in D03.037 if you want to read them. In any case, Bob's explanation for not responding at the time is that he did not see the question. I do that all the time (it's why I read and reread – to reduce instances of missing things.) So I find the delayed response quite credible, even though we now know he was a Mafiate. That undermines, for me, a plank of CIAS's case. I suspect that I followed the path of least resistance, and focussed more on the first and last issues that bothered me – those being Romanic's paraphrasing and Bob's claim – and skipped out on everything in the middle. The same comment applies to Guiri's primary vote posts, which followed CIAS's in short order, being found in D03.052. As for Guiri's case, I'm fairly sure none of the pointers he brought forth clashed with my Day 3 memory of how Days 1 and 2 had evolved, or I would have researched the differences, and I know I did not. I suspect I was thinking something like “I'll have to reread to check that, so I'll go over it later,” and then never went back. I don't think that my going over that ground now will shed any further illumination on my thought processes in Day 3, so I don't propose to devote any time to it now, at least not for that reason. I might take a look at it again if I have time unencumbered with other stuff. The other thing that bothers me about CIAS's Day 3 case is that, Today, CIAS referred to it not as “my case” but as “CIAS's case.” I just find his referring to himself in the third party like that strange; as if he's trying to distance himself from his Day 3 case. Any reason for that, CIAS? For now, I'm going to take a break and read a real book (or D&D module, more like) to rest my eyes. But I'll be back; after all I have to vote.
|
|
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 Mar 5, 2011 9:58:24 GMT -5
[oog] @ Natlaw : Yes, I've tried different skins thanks. I also have the view scaled up six times; any more and the post won't fit on the screen without horizontal scrolling (I already lose the lhs of the poster information section). Thanks though
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 5, 2011 10:42:25 GMT -5
Just so everyone knows the Day ends in less than 20 hours. I'm rather interested in those who have not unvoted Natlaw to explain fully their reasons why, including his recent posts.
|
|
|
Post by naturallylazy on Mar 5, 2011 11:44:07 GMT -5
Not sure what you're talking about? Where you normally play mafia people don't look at past post to decide if someone is mafia? ~snipped~ Where I play mafia, a lot of things are different. I simply did not see the post where MHaye was brought up as a target, therefore I had not (before the post in which my confusion was indicated) looked into MHaye. As I have said several times, I have not been paying much attention since Day One. Where I am from, I get pestered daily about ideas and facts, the game feels more interactive. This round relies on me focusing more, which is a little difficult to do. Seeing as the phase is ending relitvely soon, I suppose I should see about just reading this thread and figuring out whose thoughts and opinions I might agree with.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 5, 2011 12:02:29 GMT -5
Unoffical vote count: Natlaw(4): Red[52-119], CiaS[59], Peeker[60], Renata[62-112], Sister[63], Guiri[98-115], Cookies[134]
Idle(3): Romanic[76], Guiri[115], Red[119] Natlazy(3): Renata[4-62,112], Natlaw[120]
Renata(1): Idle[29]
Red(0): Natlaw[45-120] Romola(0): Sister[51-63]
Not voting: MHaye, Romola, sinjin, texcat, natlazy
I don't think we should lynch Natlaw toDay.
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 5, 2011 12:22:35 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 0 days, 17 hours and 37 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] Natlaw (4) (6 98) Red Skeezix [52 119], CatInASuit [59], peekercpa [60], Renata [62 112], Sister Coyote [63], guiri [98 115], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [134] Idle Thoughts (3) (3 76) romanic [76], guiri [115], Red Skeezix [119] naturallylazy (3) (3 120) Renata [ 4 62 112], Natlaw [120] Renata (1) (1 28) Idle thoughts [28] Red Skeezix (0) (1 45) Natlaw [45 120]Romola (0) (1 51) Sister Coyote [51 63]Not Voting (5) Merestil Haye, Romola, sinjin, texcat, naturallylazy With these votes, Natlaw would be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Mar 5, 2011 12:54:11 GMT -5
Unvote: unvote Vote: naturallylazy
I hadn't unvoted Natlaw because I wanted to consider the claim and the subsequently posted PMs before I made a decision.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 5, 2011 13:58:08 GMT -5
Cookies, why do you think we have no vig?
|
|
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 Mar 5, 2011 14:50:19 GMT -5
Now a review of Idle/HM HM's Day 1 was a little suspicious, now I go over it again. There's some fluffiness at the start and finish, but we can leave those aside. Her comment on Bill, self-admittedly late, didn't grab my attention at the time. I would not have made the post, only because the replacement for Bill had been announced by then. I do understand the desire to not have thoughts go to waste, though. In D01.291 HM claimed that the people she thought scummiest were Mahaloth and Crazybunny, with some suspicion of Timmy because of his one-off vote. However, she then says she wants to vote Timmy but can't because that would mean that she's one-off voting. One-off voting is, in itself, a null tell. Yes, nonTown sometimes do it, but so do Townies when they have noticed (or believe they have) something no-one else has. Not voting because of how the vote would appear to others is a non-Town trait, rarely shared by Townies; however the fact that she was quite honest about it is a point in her favour. (And yes, the Mafia can follow that logic.) Besides, taking this to its ultimate conclusion, if everyone did this, no-one would vote. Ultimately, then, discouraging one-off votes is an anti-Town position. Another point against her is that she used the one-off vote by Timmy as an excuse to not vote the players she thought were most anti-Town at that point. She also seemed eager to drop Mahaloth from discussion (see D01.292). As far as the exchange with KidV about whether he was a Doc is concerned, I find myself generally in agreement with both of them. I did consider KidV to be a doc; I also considered it likely that there was another protective role who could keep KidV alive. That was likely (for reasons of balance) to be Suburban Plankton; two Docs able to protect each other at Night is a very powerful nigh-unkillable core. This may be why the Mafia had a redirector, though; to get round an unkillable pair of players. HM really did nothing more in the game. Idle took over late on Day 4 and promptly voted Pedescribe; no quarrel with that. His Day 5 vote for Renata (see D01.028 for Idle's reasoning) is built on two planks, one of them a false claim (that Renata never voted for either of the known Mafiates), and then he shifted the goalposts for when called on it (see D05.042). I've already dissected Renata's case on Ms Lazy, and Idle's assertion that Renata is trying to get a case going against Ms Lazy is plausible. However, Renata's post may may simply reflect a clash of cultures. HM's play, what their was of it, could be read either way. Idle's, though, seems like he came in and looked for reasons to vote Renata. I think that's enough for a vote. Vote: Idle Thoughts I'll go over the rest later.
|
|
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 Mar 5, 2011 16:41:02 GMT -5
In addition I have an interesting data point. I wished to determine the quality of the fake PMs being constructed by the moderators first hand. (Also, I was in a bugger* mood and could do for a laugh, so I commissioned a false PM, with no intent of using it.) If at some point Natlaw turns up dead, and town, and the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Then this will stand as proof that the moderator will generate fake PMs regardless of whether that character is already in the game. Just saying, no reason not to be open about this. I find it really hard to believe that a fake PM would be given with the same character name as someone in the game. That leaves me with the thought that either you or NatLaw are lying. I can see a scum motivation for doing so, as he had a fair number of votes on him. I can't presently see a scum motivation for you to make this post but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Re-reading Red and Natlaw.
|
|