|
Post by Sister Coyote on May 8, 2011 20:00:01 GMT -5
...the cook took the cauldron of soup off the fire, and at once set to work throwing everything within her reach at the Duchess and the baby- -the fire-irons came first; then followed a shower of saucepans, plates, and dishes. The Duchess took no notice of them even when they hit her; and the baby was howling so much already, that it was quite impossible to say whether the blows hurt it or not.
Much like the Duchess' cook, no blows landed last night, or at least none that did any damage, for you all wake up still alive and prepared to go about your business for the Day.
ToDay begins now. It will end at 6:00 p.m., PST, Friday, May 13.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on May 8, 2011 20:05:27 GMT -5
good news! unusual but good.
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on May 8, 2011 20:06:16 GMT -5
Just checking in now that the day has started. No night kill, thats good! It's been a long day here so I am headed to bed. Will be back on in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by special on May 8, 2011 20:09:11 GMT -5
Curiouser and curiouser
|
|
|
Post by special on May 8, 2011 20:17:27 GMT -5
Oh and
Vote: Captain Pinkies
for Pete's sake.
His 2 posts yesterDay:
1. An apology for not participating 2. "Town"
I don't think Town constitutes a statement that a lie detector could investigate. It leads me to believe that Captain is not Town. I believe we caught someone in the first Evil Dead game hedging his bets that way. And I almost caught Ulla in Malazan that way as well when I was a lie detector.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on May 8, 2011 20:48:37 GMT -5
Whew, I didn't die tonight.... Like I have done in the previous 2 games that I've played Now, the real question is why no night kill? First time that's ever happened to me
Now, how do I play on Day 2?
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on May 8, 2011 21:00:41 GMT -5
Whew, I didn't die tonight.... Like I have done in the previous 2 games that I've played Now, the real question is why no night kill? First time that's ever happened to me Now, how do I play on Day 2? ha ha ha! good to see you on Day 2.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on May 8, 2011 22:44:29 GMT -5
I wondered if Colby would get to see what a D2 looked like (grin)@ Colby D2 is like D1 except you are still alive and everyone thinks they know more
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 9, 2011 1:07:26 GMT -5
So the scum failed to kill, and if we have a sk/pfk, they also failed to kill. So possibly both went after the same target, or there were multiple protections, or protection and blocks.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 9, 2011 4:16:30 GMT -5
What a pleasant surprise.
@everyone except Honest Moley
Concerning his alleged "restriction and temporary revocation of it".
For starters, it does not determine which side he is on if any.
So, if he does speak toDay, he is providing information we can use to determine whether he is Town or not.
If he does not speak toDay, we can see if he has lied about the restriction. The lack of Final Vote would show that for his restriction at least, he is likely telling the truth, although it still does not determine which side he is on and if a Final vote does appear, then in this scenario, he should be lynched on Day 3.
So the question to be answered is: Is it preferable for him to contribute to the discussion, or can we wait a Day to see what the outcome of his silence is?
|
|
|
Post by guiri on May 9, 2011 4:23:38 GMT -5
@ everyone except Honest MoleyI'm not sure how his claimed post restriction is supposed to work but I think by simply mentioning his name, you've opened the door to him posting toDay: Now, what happens if he simply chooses not to respond for a full Day, even if he's been addressed or his name has been mentioned? Would he get a final vote for non-participation as it was intentional and not due to his post restriction? Or would he still be immune to the final vote? I'd guess the latter but maybe he can clarify with the mod.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 9, 2011 5:10:49 GMT -5
Why would you want to prove that you are telling the truth?
Unfair? Hmm...we all need to make a note of that.
Next time we play in a game where there is a silencer/jailer -- we just need to claim unfair to get the restriction removed. If there is a politician in this game, and someone is forced to vote for someone else, lets claim unfair. If you get lynched when you are town, claim unfair. If town don't win - it's unfair!
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 9, 2011 7:09:05 GMT -5
Why would you want to prove that you are telling the truth? Let's look at the issue of "proof" for a moment. Let's say I stay quiet all day, and don't get a penalty, thereby proving my post restriction. Here's what it DOESN'T prove: - It doesn't prove that any of the rest of my claim is correct. - It doesn't prove my alignment. (Both town and scum have had post restrictions in games I've been in.) So what exactly is the point of me proving anything? CIAS, there's no way I'm not speaking now. I apologise to everyone for the long post, but this needs to be said. I'm going to start with my own statements yesterday. If this sounds like "I was right all along, nyah nyah nyah" I will point out right now that I wasn't by any means the only one saying this stuff. I'm highlighting myself because while my "post restriction" was being analyzed to death and beyond, the stuff I had to say that was actually important was largely ignored. Here it is. Along with the post restriction, I said three times that I thought Ace was town. Hell, by the final post just before day ended, I was pretty much certain of it. I gave excellent reasons why Ace, who'd previously been lynched as scum for over-compliance with town, wouldn't have any problems posting "I am town" as scum, when half the game had done exactly the same thing before him, unless none of those ten people were themselves scum. I pointed out, well before the end of the day, that when a scum is threatened on the first day there's usually at least one competing bandwagon. And yet - and this isn't just directed at CIAS and Ed, although I'm about to quote them specifically - the reactions, typically, to Ace's lynch, were similar to this one: @ace You are the lynch leader, by a significant amount actually. There are less than 36 hours remaining in the Day. Here, it is generally customary to fully claim your role (usually with your role PM quoted) before you go to the gallows. It helps us decide if we really wish to lynch you. It also allows us to better understand the game as we continue on. It's not how I play. Not as town, at least. You saw me play this exact way as Olimar, when I was scum, pointing out all the while how it encourages lazy town who don't actually help the game. And again: At this point in time, without a full claim, ace903 is very, very likely to be lynched. Very likely. If ace903 is a town power role and does not claim, she is likely to be lynched and the town loses that power role on Day 1. If ace903 claims, regardless of what role it is, it can be evaluated by those with a vote on her as to whether it is worth the risk of lynching the claimed role against the possibility that ace903 is scum. An alternative Lynch the Lurker on paranoia or Pinkies is lynching someone who may also be a town power role but has no chance of defending or explaining themselves. An outed power role on Day 1, while not good for the town, can also provide a focal point for other power roles to play off. The scum will have to decide whether it is worth going after the outed power role given that they may be protected or watched, which will waste an NK or give a scum away. Ok this is just so bad, it's unreal. It's outing a potential power role with zero net gain, since unless Ace has some kind of day role that can be demonstrated then and there, it's unprovable. Secondly it's unnecessary and anti-town. Finally, as it turned out, it was useless, since Ace didn't have a role anyway. Ace didn't have to "prove" anything. I don't have to "prove" anything. Anybody who claims otherwise either has no idea how to play this game, or they're scum. Simple as.It's the town's job to evalute if each player is scum, or not. (With the added possible question of whether someone is PFK, but let's take that out of the equasion for the moment since our only real evidence on Day One was whether somebody was scum.) When Ace was lynched, it wasn't her failure. It was ours. I count at least three people who mentioned Ace was probably newbie town. There may have been more that I'd missed. Yet there was still a MASS of votes on Ace at the end of the day. Nobody else had more than two votes. When it was obvious there was no competing bandwagon, which I'd say it was by late day four, every town player should have unvoted Ace. None of this "I'll unvote if you claim" crap. Because 1) there's no way to prove a power role claim at this point, let alone a vanilla one, and 2) You don't need a claim at that point to see that Ace probably isn't scum! Now there's always the question of whether the scum had tried to start a competing bandwagon to save Ace, and failed. Fortunately, that's not the only evidence we have. There's the point I made about ten people posting before Ace on the "lie detector" topic, and the unlikelihood of none of those people being scum. And then there's this: Metagaming, but I just modded a game in which she was scum, and got lynched Day One for going along with the trend and looking agreeable. It's the only example of how Ace plays as scum that we have. Again, not conclusive by any means - she may have changed her style because of the loss - but why would Ace, as scum trying out a more combatative style, choose to make a stand then, over the lie-detector thing? It's easy to see this with hindsight. The point is that people were saying this YESTERDAY, and yet were being ignored. Bad, bad, bad. Apologies for the lecture, but damn, this stuff needed to be said after yesterday's fiasco. What I hope to see is that we learn from it. Town can still win this game, but not by playing like we were yesterday. * The lie-detector thing was a bust. (Well, unless there is an actual lie-detector in the game and he / she found someone lying about the "I am town" statements.) Don't think I've ever seen a "lie detector" role contribute anything to a game, and I'm not going to bank on it happening now. Fortunately we have some real evidence. There's the evidence of activity. Who's contributed, and what have they been doing? Have they just been trying to look good or have they actually helped the town? There's the evidence of conspiracy. Has anybody tried to shield anybody else? Have two people collaborated to throw suspicion on somebody else, but tried to do it in such a way that they aren't really linked together? There's the evidence of prediction. I've said how I thought scum would act generally. It should be possible to narrow down, with some accuracy, what role the members of a five- or six-man scum team would play in the Ace bandwagon, the argument over my role, etc. Look at what the scum would probably do, and then see who's done it. * Unless somebody's blatantly caught in a massive lie about their role, then this is how we're going to catch the scum. Not arguing pointlessly over every role claim and lynching anybody who doesn't jump through whatever the designated hoop is. I'm reading back through Day One in detail now. I've reconsidered my stance on CIAS. I still think he's been wrong in 80% of what he's posted, from asking Ace to claim as late in the day as he did (instead of asking the people voting Ace to stop), to asking me to stay silent the entire day. Hell, even just proposing the "lie detector" thing turned out badly, although that was more a fault of the role concept than CIAS himself. But wrong =/= scum. Ok, that's all I got for the moment. Again, apologies for the essay.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 9, 2011 7:11:58 GMT -5
I'm not sure how his claimed post restriction is supposed to work but I think by simply mentioning his name, you've opened the door to him posting toDay: Oh, and on a lighter note: you guys could at least have offered me a Scotch! I asked Sis C to send a polar bear into the night thread for that one, but she didn't do it... Such a pity.
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on May 9, 2011 7:26:17 GMT -5
Why would you want to prove that you are telling the truth? Unfair? Hmm...we all need to make a note of that. Next time we play in a game where there is a silencer/jailer -- we just need to claim unfair to get the restriction removed. If there is a politician in this game, and someone is forced to vote for someone else, lets claim unfair. If you get lynched when you are town, claim unfair. If town don't win - it's unfair! I agree! I was silenced in my last game and could not post at all, meaning I did not even have the luxury of having restrictions, for a week. This is a game and it should be taken as a game. If you don't like your role, sub out. In my opinion it is mechanics like these that make the game more interesting and fun. anyways... So no kill. May need to hear from the Veterans as to why there might not of been a kill. I think I might have how some of the roles work now, but just so I am sure. *The Roleblocker could of prevented the killing if the Strongman was used. ( I am guessing that the Roleblocker is TOWN and the Strongman is SCUM) *The NK Target was protected by the DOC *The JOAT blocked the kill with a one shot power. (Guessing that the JOAT is TOWN) *There is NO Vigilante role in the game *The Vigilante role was blocked *The same theory of the Serial Killer as the Vigilante. *The NK Target is the SCOTSMAN (I have been on 2 wiki sites and cannot find this role. I remember from Scooby Doo that the SCOTSMAN stays alive as long as a certain person is still in the game, correct?) *If the Roleblocker was a SCUM role, they could of prevented the Vig kill. Am I leaving missing a reason or do I have a reason wrong? Can the WATCHER effect any of the Kills? Meaning can the WATCHER ever prevent a killing by watching or do they just basically see what is going on? Cap Pinkies finally showed up, thanks... I agree with ED that the way he just wrote "TOWN" I don't think will help in the lie detector inquiry. @ Cap Pinkies: Why do you not check the boards everyday? In this type of game I find it almost imperative. It is hard to catch up if you miss a day.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 9, 2011 7:33:48 GMT -5
There are multiple ways that last Night could have gone in which no deaths occured up to and including the scum not sending in a target. Given the roles and variants is just to vague at this point in the game.
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on May 9, 2011 7:34:13 GMT -5
I'm not sure how his claimed post restriction is supposed to work but I think by simply mentioning his name, you've opened the door to him posting toDay: Oh, and on a lighter note: you guys could at least have offered me a Scotch! I asked Sis C to send a polar bear into the night thread for that one, but she didn't do it... Such a pity. I know how hard it is to sit there and read the boards and not be able to post. I could not wait till that Day was over, in my last game! I don't understand the Polar Bear reference, is it from another game?
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on May 9, 2011 7:37:38 GMT -5
Oh, and on a lighter note: you guys could at least have offered me a Scotch! I asked Sis C to send a polar bear into the night thread for that one, but she didn't do it... Such a pity. I know how hard it is to sit there and read the boards and not be able to post. I could not wait till that Day was over, in my last game! I don't understand the Polar Bear reference, is it from another game? Oh, do I have to address you to let you respond, Honest Moley
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 9, 2011 7:39:18 GMT -5
I know how hard it is to sit there and read the boards and not be able to post. I could not wait till that Day was over, in my last game! I don't understand the Polar Bear reference, is it from another game? I think that was an Arkham Knights reference. NAF was a mason who was allowed to read the mason board but not post to it, so the masons came up with some crazy scheme that let NAF communicate simple things back to them, only they kept getting it wrong. Eventually NAF got frustrated and told mods to smack one of the masons with a fish -- and they did. I think the polar bear came in later.
|
|
|
Post by special on May 9, 2011 7:43:07 GMT -5
@moley
In the first run of Evil Dead, we did catch a player who was hesitant to state clearly that they were Town. That player was Scum.
So, in that instance, just the presence of a lie detector enabled us to catch a Scum who acted just the way that Ace acted in this game.
Also, I disagree on the claiming. I feel it is almost always responsible of a town player to fully claim before they are lynched. of course, this is more true of power roles than of vanilla. It provides information to the Town that would otherwise be lost.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 9, 2011 8:14:46 GMT -5
In the first run of Evil Dead, we did catch a player who was hesitant to state clearly that they were Town. That player was Scum. So, in that instance, just the presence of a lie detector enabled us to catch a Scum who acted just the way that Ace acted in this game. The problem with this is that it leads to a lot of policy votes and gets rid of requirement to justify the vote when those who vote, do vote this way. and then after the event, they can just say "Oh well, it worked last time."
|
|
|
Post by special on May 9, 2011 8:28:24 GMT -5
In the first run of Evil Dead, we did catch a player who was hesitant to state clearly that they were Town. That player was Scum. So, in that instance, just the presence of a lie detector enabled us to catch a Scum who acted just the way that Ace acted in this game. The problem with this is that it leads to a lot of policy votes and gets rid of requirement to justify the vote when those who vote, do vote this way. and then after the event, they can just say "Oh well, it worked last time." I'm not saying it's a policy vote. I'm saying it evidence of Scum motivation. And it's worked in the past. Should we abandon Scum-hunting techniques because they've worked? especially when dealing with new players who don't have the experience of seeing it work? It worked before. A Scum player tried to avoid making the "I am Town" statement because of the presence of a lie detector. That player was lynched because of thier evasiveness. Obviously it isn't a foolproof Scum-hunting technique. But it was certainly better than anything else I saw on day 1. And, unlike Moley, I'm somewhat suspicious of people who seemed to be more certain that Ace wasn't Scum. Although, to be honest, Moley actually had reasoning to back up his assertion so he's not included in that group.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 9, 2011 8:39:42 GMT -5
And, unlike Moley, I'm somewhat suspicious of people who seemed to be more certain that Ace wasn't Scum. Although, to be honest, Moley actually had reasoning to back up his assertion so he's not included in that group. Oh, I definitely agree with you there. I'm not saying ALL scum were on the Ace bandwagon. It would be good sense to have some of the scum be neutral or oppose it so that they don't get lumped together. But again, that comes under the category of trying to predict what the scum would do. Which IMO is not only a valid scum-hunting technique, when done well it's one of the most reliable.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 9, 2011 8:42:16 GMT -5
I know how hard it is to sit there and read the boards and not be able to post. I could not wait till that Day was over, in my last game! I don't understand the Polar Bear reference, is it from another game? I think that was an Arkham Knights reference. NAF was a mason who was allowed to read the mason board but not post to it, so the masons came up with some crazy scheme that let NAF communicate simple things back to them, only they kept getting it wrong. Eventually NAF got frustrated and told mods to smack one of the masons with a fish. Indeed he did, and I still have the bruises... *shudders.*
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 9, 2011 9:01:14 GMT -5
I agree! I was silenced in my last game and could not post at all, meaning I did not even have the luxury of having restrictions, for a week. This is a game and it should be taken as a game. If you don't like your role, sub out. In my opinion it is mechanics like these that make the game more interesting and fun. Hey, it was Squink who said I didn't "like" my role, not me. I thought (and don't forget the mod agreed with me) that it was unfair that over half of Day One could go by and I wouldn't have had the chance to post a single thing. And that's ALL. I'm not saying that the role is unfair, and I'm not subbing out! You're not getting rid of me that easily!
|
|
|
Post by special on May 9, 2011 9:06:19 GMT -5
And, unlike Moley, I'm somewhat suspicious of people who seemed to be more certain that Ace wasn't Scum. Although, to be honest, Moley actually had reasoning to back up his assertion so he's not included in that group. Oh, I definitely agree with you there. I'm not saying ALL scum were on the Ace bandwagon. It would be good sense to have some of the scum be neutral or oppose it so that they don't get lumped together. But again, that comes under the category of trying to predict what the scum would do. Which IMO is not only a valid scum-hunting technique, when done well it's one of the most reliable. So, basically you're stating that each Scum player did one of the following: 1. Supported the lynch of Ace 2. Opposed the lynch of Ace 3. Was neutral as to the lynch of Ace. I think I understand.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 9, 2011 9:07:48 GMT -5
Looking over Archangel again. Starting with this: My alignment is also Town. Just a clumsy turn of phrase. I believe the people that were eager to claim town first in case of a lie detector probably are town. However, now I'm concerned about whether my statement could be properly evaluated in case some of them are NOT town, so I am going to restate it in the next post. The problem is you can never say whether the people in front of you are Town or not. Bad turn of phrase or not?Of course, if the phrase was true, then it would confirm everyone ahead of Archangel as being town as well as Archangel. *Note to self - No longer use "I am Town", use " Everyone who has claimed in front of me is Town" instead for a Lie Detector test * [/color=Blue]Vote Storyteller[/color][/b] I feel his vote on Ace is disingenious. If she is scum she will have scum buddies telling her that not claiming town in this situation would make her look scummy. This is a third vote on a growing bandwagon for a statement that I believe is attributable to her being a new player. (Ace, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is your third game? And in the first 2 you were scum?)[/quote] Then we have the vote on storyteller for his vote. What I don't understand is why vote Storyteller when metallicsquink voted for ace using pretty much the same reasoning shortly before Archangel placed her vote on storyteller. Then there is some back and forth between archangel, metallicsquink and storyteller before archangel unvotes storyteller and votes ace903 with the reason being that ace903 is likely to be 3rd party. Then this post about moley saying we are scum buddies. CatInASuit: I find it interesting that you don't address Moley's comment about your comment to me that "skimming is a scum tell." I took the comment as a joke, but Moley thinks it's possible we're scum buddies and you were warning me. I don't know what your alignment is but whatever it is, you know we're not scum buddies. So not correcting that suspicion is highly suspicious to me. Now, this was another skim by Archangel and after that wasn't responded to either despite not only my comments but a vote on Archangel. so 1. The "I am also Town" which looks IMHO like extra knowledge 2. The debate with storyteller where she goes from voting on him to agreeing with him in the space of a few posts. It really does seem like buddying up. 3. The response to Moley about buddying up with CIAS, and the complete lack of response when the point was rebutted. Hmm, my current suspicions haven't gone away. vote Archangel
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 9, 2011 9:54:15 GMT -5
Looking over Archangel again. Starting with this: My alignment is also Town. The problem is you can never say whether the people in front of you are Town or not. Bad turn of phrase or not?Of course, if the phrase was true, then it would confirm everyone ahead of Archangel as being town as well as Archangel. *Note to self - No longer use "I am Town", use " Everyone who has claimed in front of me is Town" instead for a Lie Detector test * Then we have the vote on storyteller for his vote. What I don't understand is why vote Storyteller when metallicsquink voted for ace using pretty much the same reasoning shortly before Archangel placed her vote on storyteller. Then there is some back and forth between archangel, metallicsquink and storyteller before archangel unvotes storyteller and votes ace903 with the reason being that ace903 is likely to be 3rd party. Then this post about moley saying we are scum buddies. CatInASuit: I find it interesting that you don't address Moley's comment about your comment to me that "skimming is a scum tell." I took the comment as a joke, but Moley thinks it's possible we're scum buddies and you were warning me. I don't know what your alignment is but whatever it is, you know we're not scum buddies. So not correcting that suspicion is highly suspicious to me. Now, this was another skim by Archangel and after that wasn't responded to either despite not only my comments but a vote on Archangel. so 1. The "I am also Town" which looks IMHO like extra knowledge 2. The debate with storyteller where she goes from voting on him to agreeing with him in the space of a few posts. It really does seem like buddying up. 3. The response to Moley about buddying up with CIAS, and the complete lack of response when the point was rebutted. Hmm, my current suspicions haven't gone away. vote Archangel [Bleached} Cat, I've stated several times in this game that I have an (unfortunate) tendency to skim. Yes, I missed your (2 or 3 words in the middle of a long post) response here. And no, I didn't address it after you voted me, because I can say again that I do skim. Is that going to change your mind? I don't think so, but for the record, I skim. Less so when I'm scum because I'm being more careful.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 9, 2011 9:56:43 GMT -5
Sorry, one of the sentences above doesn't make much sense. What I was trying to say was that I didn't address it after you voted me because all I could say to defend that is repeating that I do skim. I didn't think you'd find that a particularly compelling argument so I didn't bother to respond.
|
|
|
Post by Dirx on May 9, 2011 9:57:04 GMT -5
Why would you want to prove that you are telling the truth? Unfair? Hmm...we all need to make a note of that. Next time we play in a game where there is a silencer/jailer -- we just need to claim unfair to get the restriction removed. If there is a politician in this game, and someone is forced to vote for someone else, lets claim unfair. If you get lynched when you are town, claim unfair. If town don't win - it's unfair! A) Nice slippery slope B) I believe a silencer is patently unfair, and should never be used outside of a Bastard Game (and even then, I have my doubts). Forcing a player to not participate for a full game Day (which often lasts the better part of a week!) is ridiculous.
|
|