|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 15, 2011 18:22:31 GMT -5
fuck a duck. let's try that again.
mod question#1: would a one shot power show up in the death reveal of an otherwise vanilla townie?
mod question #2: while you have indicated a willingness to assist folks in the construction of fake role pms would that assistance extend to assisting in the construction of any additional communication between a player and the mods or is it merely limited to a role pm?
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 15, 2011 19:00:02 GMT -5
ni* a duck. let's try that again. mod question#1: would a one shot power show up in the death reveal of an otherwise vanilla townie?
mod question #2: while you have indicated a willingness to assist folks in the construction of fake role pms would that assistance extend to assisting in the construction of any additional communication between a player and the mods or is it merely limited to a role pm?I'm more of a goose man than a duck man, but thanks all the same. Answer #1: huh? If your question is, "Can a Vanilla a have a power?" the answer is "no" Answer #2: No comment
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 16, 2011 2:01:46 GMT -5
8. Claiming [...]the moderators hereby offer any player assistance in producing fake mod-PMs/role-PM etc.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 16, 2011 6:13:38 GMT -5
Natlaw, did the mods tell you to look at the Dawn post or is that another assumption? It was my assumption since I didn't get any PMs at all. Looks like I wrong . So I most likely didn't kill Captain Pinkies. So I guess the kill only happens when I target a specific (type of) player or whenever the stars align in the way the moderator approve of . Oh great, he didn't answer the second question. I've send another question.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 16, 2011 7:38:49 GMT -5
Wouldn't that make him some sort of a weak investigator as well as a Vig? If his role PM mentioned a specific character/player/group he had to find, OK, but would the mods really mess around with a player by throwing in a red herring? I've no idea, but I also doubt they'd say in his role PM that he'd be informed if his kill was successful but then said he'd find out by reading the Dawn color. Natlaw, did the mods tell you to look at the Dawn post or is that another assumption? Yes, it would make him a limited investigator, the difference is that the role has no idea who or what side they are looking for until after they hit. Can anyone give me a reason as to why both roles cannot exist in the game on the town side as it seems to be the case that most people jumped on NatLaw after peekercpa's claim? Given that most people seemed happy to accept his claim on Day 5 and very little changed on Day 6, why should peekercpa's claim now mean that NatLaw is scum?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 16, 2011 7:44:30 GMT -5
As for theories and WAGs, I theorize that Natlaw is a scum bomb, not a vig. He may have claimed vigilante to draw the fire of the real vig during the night, causing him to assplode. So i hereby nominate CIAS being claimed vanilla to be the last voter on Natlaw, should we (and I hope we will) lynch him today. Failure for him to do his proper best vanilla behavior and jump on that possible grenade, will result in me pursuing him swinging tomorrow. Ok, you think NatLaw is a scum bomb. Go ahead, show me how you came to that conclusion. Telling another player how to vote and stating who is going to be lynched today goes down as completely scummy, or should I apologise for not realising you were actually in charge. Sorry, I think NatLaw is more likely town and as such I will say it is a bad lynch.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 16, 2011 8:26:29 GMT -5
ok, first things first. ]color=redunvote natlaw[/color][/b]. i too am wondering if his role is not some "red herring" for the rest of us. what if he is some type of back up vig. his "higher power" being my death. now to be totally frank testing this hypothesis doesn't have any type of attraction to me personally. i am inclined to vote for romola because the whole vote on bob because of timing seems off. the whole idle/ skeez/ natlaw vote thingy. i am also suspicous of cias primarily because of his recalcitrance to vote for either me or law. i mean his suggestion that both of us are potentially telling the truth is exactly the case i would make if i were scum. if law is town he gets to say "i told you so" and builds cred. and if law is scum he is taking the only path available to save law's butt. and while i am loath to type this because i feel they are helpful he is one list making muddafugga (if this needs any explanation please feel free to ask). but following the same type of reasoning sis is also most likely scum because of her D1 and D6 votes and skeez gets that same kewpie doll for D5. and where in the world has mhaye wandered off to? about the only person that i have any type of town vibe at this point is romanic. i mean following the path of most resistance this Day just smells like skeptical townie to me. last little administrative item. hey, natlaw any chance you can post your pms with time stamps like i did? just cut and paste. *imagines natlaw furiously using some sort of text editor to try and hide his nefarious activities*
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 16, 2011 8:27:13 GMT -5
fuck another duck.
unvote natlaw
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 16, 2011 8:38:10 GMT -5
neta: skeez gets additional scummitude consideration for what others have mentioned.
if x then y is an easy way for scum to justify crappy town activity (see pleo in skeezy's game over on the dope).
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 16, 2011 9:12:15 GMT -5
i am also suspicous of cias primarily because of his recalcitrance to vote for either me or law. Now I know how sachertorte feels Last thing I want to do today is just blindly wander into a lynch, nod, nod, sure, what ever you say, I guess I will follow along etc. etc. My biggest fear is if the town has two vigs, albeit one of them heavily limited, we could have 6 starting scum, which would make today LoL. It would also account for the determination by some to get Natlaw lynched today without considering any of the options. I still think we have a scum roleblocker somwhere and tbh, no masons, otherwise if they had claimed, it would have upped the odds of hitting a scum today considerably. I don't think the town has a roleblocker, because if they had, they might have mentioned blocking someone on Night 3. I don't believe there was a mass block, because Renata certainly seemed to think the idea of the scum screwing up was more feasible than a mass block. As she was a watcher, she would likely have gotten a result on that Night and so be able to judge which was the more likely result. Frankly, I would like a claim just want to nail the scum down to some roles that they have to play out and to force them to use whatever claims they have. Of course, they are probably asking for the assisting PMs from Ulla/Ed as we speak
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Mar 16, 2011 10:10:36 GMT -5
Given that most people seemed happy to accept his claim on Day 5 and very little changed on Day 6, why should peekercpa's claim now mean that NatLaw is scum? Just for the record? I was not happy with Natlaw's claim on Day 5 -- which is why it took me so damn long to unvote him -- and I wasn't sure what the hell to think yesterDay. i am inclined to vote for romola because the whole vote on bob because of timing seems off. the whole idle/ skeez/ natlaw vote thingy. I'm not thrilled with Romola's play, and could get behind her lynch without feeling too much pain about it. I would like a claim just want to nail the scum down to some roles that they have to play out and to force them to use whatever claims they have. I guess I can get behind this. And I'll note that I tried to breadcrumb this on Day One
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 16, 2011 10:36:04 GMT -5
I guess I can get behind this. And I'll note that I tried to breadcrumb this on Day One You can call me Tim, but there's no guarantee I'll answer. Breadcrumb?! I'd say you used the entire bloody loaf. ;D I just wish it could confirm something other than your name, but it is more positive than not, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Mar 16, 2011 10:58:37 GMT -5
Breadcrumb?! I'd say you used the entire bloody loaf. Hey! I'm extremely subtle. So subtle you can hear the b! I just wish it could confirm something other than your name, but it is more positive than not, I believe. Yeah, well, you and me both but we're kind of stuck with what we've got the whole way 'long.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 16, 2011 11:25:08 GMT -5
I agree we should not make any rushed decisions about toDay's lynch.
My role:
My PM doesn't explicity say Sir Lancelot is Town or even in the game but I'm inclined to believe Peeker's claim.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 16, 2011 11:53:36 GMT -5
Oh great, he didn't answer the second question. I've send another question. That was unhelpful. But I doubt I killed Pinkies at this point. peeker, let's agree I'm perfectly capable of faking timestamp if needed and it would be a null tell, mkay? So, guiri could be the reason for a no-kill Night 3 if scum targeted him, but with bunny blocked that's doesn't explain why peeker failed to kill. no killed the first two Nights. then pinkies, sin and then texcat. i was basically shooting at the bottom of the pool. Ah, he later added he didn't try to kill Night 3 (and the timestamp is indeed correct for the N3 deadline ).
|
|
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 16, 2011 15:52:20 GMT -5
So, Peeker claims Sir Lancelot, Vig.
His claim neatly explains nearly all the observed Night Deaths, as he claims to have not acted on Nights 1 to 3, then claimed responsibility for Pinkies, Sinjin and Texcat.
I'm not quite comfortable with this list of victims though. I spent a lot of time last night (between naps bought on by Ibuprofen) trying to work out why. I think, on reflection, that it's because he killed people he's not suspicious of.
That sounds like it's a strategy difference, and that's because it is (so mulling things over during the day and particularly on the train to the office, helped me see.) At this stage in the game, I'd expect a responsible Vig to be shooting at players they are suspicious of, rather than trying to stick a burr up the backsides of nonparticipants. Peeker doing so is consistent with Peeker's expressed attitudes, namely that nonparticipation is harmful to the game as a whole, which makes the action a null tell. However, it is also anti-Town in that he's shooting at people for reasons other than believing them to be Mafia-aligned.
The Vig taking pot-shots at silent players and eliminating deadweight is a viable strategy in the early- to mid-game, but I think that the time for that has passed, and indeed had passed during Day 6 at the latest. I cannot understand why Peeker put a policy kill above a kill on suspicion at this late stage.
If there is a nonparticipant Mafiate, he or she is not voting (thereby making it harder for their fellow Mafiates to control the lynch), and is not available to send in actions at Night - so if you kill all the active Mafia, there will be no more Nightkills (unless the dead Mafiates are allowed to discuss and submit actions for the living, and the only time I've known that was in Pleo's Conspiracy games; the Witches and Cabal could both continue to participate on their forums after death (although when they were all dead that was the end of the group)).
So I'm somewhat suspicious of Peeker, because of his claimed Night 6 target.
I'll be back later; I need to do a couple of things in preparation for a job interview tomorrow afternoon. I also want to rest my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 16, 2011 16:34:26 GMT -5
Well since we're doing this. Here goes.
European swallow « Message sent on Jan 31, 2011, 6:42am » [Reply]
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 17, 2011 5:01:32 GMT -5
Grief, it's all gone quiet again.
Ho hum, well looking at what we have. WAGs and Assumptions galore.
24 players, being comprising 17 town, 5 scum and 2 3rdP
Alive: 5. Merestil Haye 3. CatInASuit (BillMc)- claim vanilla 4. peekercpa - claim vig 6. Sister Coyote - claim vanilla 8. Romola 15. Romanic 20. guiri - claim scotsman 23. Natlaw - claim limited vig 24. Red Skeezix - claim vanilla
Town: (20 ish on the JSexton scale) 1. KidVermicious, Sir Galahad, Archangel (3) 2. Renata, King Arthur, Tracker (2) 7. Captain Pinkies, Hiccoughing Guard, Vanilla (1) 9. sinjin, Witch, Vanilla (1) 10. Paranoia, Prince Herbert, Questioner/Investigator (4) 11. Idle Thoughts (Hockey Monkey), Patsy, Vanilla (1) 14. texcat, Dennis the annoying peasant, Vanilla (1) 17. Suburban Plankton, Sir Robin, Paranoid Doc (3) 18. timmy, Frank the Historian, Vanilla (1) 19. naturallylazy, Sir Not Appearing in this Film, Vanilla (1) 22. harmless little bunny, Sir Bedevere, Watcher (2)
Scum: (14 ish on the JSexton scale) 13. bobarrgh, Dead Collector, Scum Toughguy (7) 16. Mahaloth, Dingo, Redirector (7)
3rd Party: 12. ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, The Black Knight, Survivor 21. pedescribe, The Spanish Inquisition, Mad Bomber
Ok so it's town 20 - scum 14, mad bombers and survivors not really affecting the score.
Throw in a scum roleblocker (6.5) (because HLB was still blocked on Night 3 after SubPlank had died) and a couple of scum goons (9) and we have a scum score of 29.5. It's 32 if one of the goons is a godfather.
Given those scores, it is highly unlikely that there are 6 scum, because even if they were all goons, it would still be well overpowered in favour of the scum.
So, for 17 town we, have 5 power role and 6 vanilla. That leaves 6 players left and would expect 8/9 split either way between power role and vanilla. The 3 above power roles, Scotsman (2) and 2 vigs (5) and 3 vanilla (3) would be would give a town score of 30.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 17, 2011 5:22:03 GMT -5
Ok general thoughts so far. guiri's claimed role would certainly explain the Night 3 no-kill better than a mass block or the scum missing out on a kill. Even at a meta level, he is the kind of player you want to get rid of early Looking at the setup, I doubt there are any masons, but so far I think the 3 claimed roles are highly likely to be true. So for me the list of likely town personas hasn't changed and my guess for scum currently looks like this romola MHaye Red Skeezix I think it would be well worth the remaining three people role claiming. Oh and I think my vote will be staying where it currently is.
|
|
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 17, 2011 8:34:25 GMT -5
I'll try and get this in quickly, before I have to go out.
Natlaw's claim as a killing role always had the fundamental loophole of a "higher power" that decided whether his kill worked or not. Aside from the fundamental issue that if I'd put the HHG in a game I'd have made it a Crazy Townie role1, the fact that there is a reason the kill might not go through makes the claim about as provable as a Vanilla. Natlaw claimed he targeted Pinkies N4, and Pinkies died. This seemed to have some sort of credibility, but (at least to my way of thinking) that was much reduced with Peeker's claim. I keep having to remnd myself that Peeker's claim doesn't disprove Natlaw's. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
That being said, something "clicked" this morning, and I finally traced something bothering me about Natlaw's claim.
Why does Natlaw not know the limits of his power?
I don't find it plausible that he wouldn't know. The Joker did (see Arkham Asylum, where Santo Rugger made a game of seeing if we could work it out from statements of who he could or could not have killed in prior Days. I got it quickly, but then I'd been examining postcounts to try and catch an unexplained shift in posting volumes.) It's a common paradigm that players should know the limits of their own powers. Having one's power work or not according to whim doesn't make for a fun power. Having it be a puzzle that the player can solve might, but if the "higher power" is another player's choice, it's unknowable.
Thus, either Natlaw is making his condition up, or the "higher power" is a rule or condition the Mods set in place and then didn't tell Natlaw, so he could guess what it was.
On balance, I'm more suspicious of Natlaw than Peeker, but there's at least one person I want to look at closely later.
[oog]
Right now I have to dust down my suit and clean my shoes in preparation for the job interview, which is at 4pm. Wish me luck.
[/oog]
1Crazy Townie is a Town role who, on death, kills someone of their choice. It's fallen out of favour here. Bring it back!
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 17, 2011 8:38:04 GMT -5
[oog] Best of luck Mhaye [/oog]
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 17, 2011 9:58:58 GMT -5
well we need to get some votes on the board.
because of her voting and reasoning behind it. primarily because of her actions surrounding the idle lynch. this is how the peek filter works.
so it plays that one of either nat or red is scum. so she votes idle to put him in the lead and gives him the tie break. she "aw crudinsky" it publicly and moves to law (which makes sense because she believes red and idle was nowhere on the radar). then, i surmise, she "aw crudinsky" it privately because i've endangered my scum buddy so she moves to red.
vote romola
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 17, 2011 10:04:38 GMT -5
neta: good luck mhaye
and as an additional discussion element. should i kill toNight? if so who would be your choice?
i mean i may or may not go with any concensus but it would be kind of interesting.
additionally, if you believe natlaw's claim should he go hunting? if so where should he aim?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 17, 2011 10:47:13 GMT -5
Well there are two extra names in my list above, so either vig can visit one each. Umm, peekercpa picks Red Skeezix and Natlaw gets MHaye.
However, unless we take out the scum roleblocker, it may be a moot point.
As for should you kill, if we hit town today, I would be tempted to say not unless you are really sure of your target, as we will likely go into tomorrow as LoL. If we hit scum, then we have a buffer and you should go for it.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 17, 2011 12:13:08 GMT -5
However, unless we take out the scum roleblocker, it may be a moot point. <snipped> ding ding ding alarm bells are going off. and i don't know why this is such a burr in my saddle but it is. you keep arguing against a mass block and instead scum forgot to send in a NK. but you are also operating under the assumption that scum blocked bunny and then they just forgot to submit a Night kill. that makes not a lick of sense to me. additionally, how in the world do you so positively arrive at the conclusion that scum even have an rb?
|
|
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 17, 2011 14:54:50 GMT -5
[totally oog post]
Thanks for the wellwishes.
Today was (it turned out) a screening by a recruitment agency. They put me through to phase 2, a paper screening by the employer (who wants 20 candidates to choose 7 for interview.) So cross fingers that I get an interview?
I should know by Monday or Tuesday next week whether they'll call me up.
[/tog post]
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 17, 2011 14:55:14 GMT -5
Natlaw's claim as a killing role always had the fundamental loophole of a "higher power" that decided whether his kill worked or not. Aside from the fundamental issue that if I'd put the HHG in a game I'd have made it a Crazy Townie role 1, the fact that there is a reason the kill might not go through makes the claim about as provable as a Vanilla. I guess with the second fundamental issue you meant irrelevant? Actually I could have been tracked or watched so a bit more provable than a vanilla but since both a tracker and a watcher are dead now it is. Sidenode, I forgot to mention that the same goes for guiri claim. I guessed it would have been another player making the decision and played it like a vigilante (but that's obviously wrong now). I don't see how another player makes it "unkownable" but a unkown role doesn't. Are you more suspicious of me than peeker just for the "not plausible greater power"?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 17, 2011 14:58:30 GMT -5
and i don't know why this is such a burr in my saddle but it is. you keep arguing against a mass block and instead scum forgot to send in a NK. but you are also operating under the assumption that scum blocked bunny and then they just forgot to submit a Night kill. that makes not a lick of sense to me. I liked the argument (whoever made it up thread) that Renata didn't think it was a mass block so might have gotten a result that Night (but it's still guesswork. Plus no-one has claimed responsibility for it. What do you think of guiri's claim?
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 17, 2011 15:07:27 GMT -5
Like CIAS, I'm starting to think it's possible that we have 2 vigilantes, albeit maybe not being active at the same time. Natlaw's power may work only under certain conditions such as : the other vigilante being dead (would explain why his kills so far didn't work), the target has to have final votes (so Natlaw would be a mechanism to kill inactive players, not a real vigilante) or maybe something else (maybe only able to kill PFKs). The "greater power" leaves a lot of possibilities, and we can't know for sure if Natlaw killed Pinkies on N4, with peeker also targeted him. On peeker, if he's telling the truth, I don't like how he handled his kills, and his claim toDay (instead of killing Natlaw at night, and keep his identity secret), but I can't explain the two kills per nights on N4, N5 and N6 otherwise. What's are the alternatives to peeker telling the truth? - peeker is a Serial Killer? If so, the Town has no real vigilante, because Natlaw, the other vig claim looks useless to me. I'm not sure that I buy a peeker/SK would start killing on N4, and that he would claim at this point. Also, his kills were all on less active players, and that makes more sense for a vigilante than a serial killer. - peeker is Scum? ....and the Scum have 2 kills per night, but failed one kill on N2 and N3. Could explain why we have 2 "doctors", I guess, but 2 kills per night doesn't leave us much margin for errors. And again, Natlaw would be our only vigilante, and he's not killing anyone. I don't like this possibility either. Natlaw doesn't feel scummy either to me. Yes his role is suspicious, claiming to be able to kill but always failing to do so, meh. However his early claim of being the Holy Grenade feels right with the "greater power" mentioned in his PM. It looks good that he would ask the hosts for a fake Grenade claim and post it: Just to see how far the moderators will go with writing a fake PM, I asked for one. I gave a name (Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, inspired by Red Skeezix's avatar) and role (vigilante) and I got an entire role PM so it's not just editing something scum would have written. Claiming his real name, with a fake role, to tell the "greater power" who he is, if it's another player. It makes sense to me. And the quoted PMs that he's posted on Day 5 (#136), that I won't quote here, but they also feel true to me. If he's made this whole story up, he's got me completely fooled.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 17, 2011 15:10:09 GMT -5
Here's my role PM. Not much there, unless you like soup.
|
|