|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 22, 2011 20:53:46 GMT -5
I agree... I'm not saying don't discuss it as a possibility in a hypothetical scenario... but revealing your belief on it's possibility as it applies to this game could be dangerous.... so by all means, discuss the possibility of there being a mass roleblock... just be careful how you word things.... which makes me wary of a VT saying something that gives away that they are VT because they aren't worried about this kind of thing. and i am so backwards with this. i want scum to think i am vt. because maybe i am not. let's fuck with scum. nanner nanner boo bah i am niller, or maybe not. fucking swing at me toNight and maybe you are successful and you don't accomplish shit and you give our power roles another Night of freedom. hey, don't swing at me and maybe i am your worst nightmare. heh heh. i like scum on the griddle.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 22, 2011 20:56:27 GMT -5
~snipped quote~ Wow... not only did you misrepresent or skim over pretty much every thing I said yesterDay, you managed to be as mean about it as you could.... when did you turn into such a bitch? Was that last line necessary? It strikes a nerve. attack the avatar/character not the person? non town seem to get a little itchy when called. heh heh
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Oct 22, 2011 20:58:01 GMT -5
Perhaps BillMc's suggestion that there was a mass block in play... that would explain some part but I do believe that if that had been the case... surely Drain Bead would have mentioned this ? and yaknow this is what makes me nervous about bill. it's almost like he expected something to happen but it didn't. so i can't figure out what he was expecting to happen at this point. On one hand bill as Town is usually killed early and often. On the other foot bill alliance unknown may have been blocked?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 22, 2011 21:01:34 GMT -5
Here is what my thoughts are for the time being: Drain Bead giving us the reveal is a catch 22. While he was slightly in danger, he wasn't the lynch leader, and he would of had the opportunity to change his vote to save himself, if needed. I don't think that it warranted the reveal, and it makes me wonder whether he is telling us the truth or not. I don't think that it warrants a lynch right now, there are bound to be 4 other scum IF Drain Bead is scum. (based on the numbers) By reveal, I assume you mean the role claim. You feel there wasn't enough pressure to claim. She was trailing by 1 vote and had the momentum as we approached DayEnd. I completely disagree with your opinion. I also think that you probably would disagree with it as well if you weren't trying to find something Scummy about her. JustbeingGinger and Special Ed's arguement between the two of them has me wondering what exactly is going on. That, coupled with Ed not voting at the end of Day 1, does send a warning signal too. This is a fairly empty statement. You wonder what is going on with Ginger and myself. She's poked me yesterDay. I responded and found her giving off some Scum vibes. She's voted for Scathach. ToDay, she's voted for me for not contributing, even though I contributed to 2 cases yesterDay. You really should know what's going on. None of it has been in code. You also mention that my not voting sends a warning signal. Exactly what would be my Scum motivation for not voting? Certainly you can come up with scenarios where I, as Scum, wouldn't vote. But is that truly finding motivation? no. I can come up with Scenarios where are Town, I wouldn't vote as well. Of course, the simpliest scenario is the one you've all missed: My desire to have Drain Bead lynched had been diminished when she claimed. I was available to vote at DayEnd. I could have made sure that Drain Bead wasn't lynched. By not voting, I left more room for Scum to attempt to manipulate the vote and show their true colors. Granted, that's probably not a tactic that most players would use, it is a tactic I've used in the past, and probably will again. yaknow ed we go round and round in this game. and i don't know the correct analogy but you really are heartburn to my rolaids. this is honestly the silliest thing i have ever seen you post. so you don't vote to allow scum to manipulate the vote? ok, dude we've been all over the place but even this one is over the top for me. so you didn't vote. wimpee ass. what's your scum conclusion then based on this activity.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 22, 2011 21:08:24 GMT -5
@ texcat; I originally wrote a post calling Paul a dildo but decided not to post it. Wrong choice, huh? actually he is worse. so your characterization is generous. and i posted this on the g. i think sometimes that we get a wee bit too much defensive in this edeavor. it's a fracking game and unless someone is just being a total prick then it's water off a duck. matter of fact there are some that can be total assholes and i don't give a shit. i want everyone to know that nothing i post is personal. if you were to show up on my doorstep tonight you get a bed, breakfast tomorrow and a hunsky to help you along. even if i call into question the names of your simian ancestors.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 22, 2011 21:12:36 GMT -5
<snippd> that is pure stupidity. someone one of these days is going to have to give me a scenario where it makes sense for scum not to kill at Night if they have a choice. i'll give you the something else but why mention it? I did make a little post about this earlier with possible answers ( did you miss it?) i did point out that i was posting as i catch up. i haven't been around very much since thursday. my natural inclination is just to pick up where i left off and continue onward. unfortunately that means that i have to backtrack and repeat over other folks at times. so i apologize if i have stomped all over your post. such was not the intent. just how i play the game.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Oct 22, 2011 21:16:41 GMT -5
No worries peeker you will get there then. Just mentioning it
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 22, 2011 21:19:34 GMT -5
and yaknow this is what makes me nervous about bill. it's almost like he expected something to happen but it didn't. so i can't figure out what he was expecting to happen at this point. On one hand bill as Town is usually killed early and often. On the other foot bill alliance unknown may have been blocked? this is so fucking meta. if bill is town scum will want him dead. immediately. but i can also see scum leaving him alive hoping that town will take him down since his mere existence increases the odds that he is scum or not town. his continue life makes me nervous on a number of fronts.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Oct 22, 2011 21:25:21 GMT -5
@ peeker that is sorta what I said? just different
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 22, 2011 21:26:14 GMT -5
By reveal, I assume you mean the role claim. You feel there wasn't enough pressure to claim. She was trailing by 1 vote and had the momentum as we approached DayEnd. I completely disagree with your opinion. I also think that you probably would disagree with it as well if you weren't trying to find something Scummy about her. This is a fairly empty statement. You wonder what is going on with Ginger and myself. She's poked me yesterDay. I responded and found her giving off some Scum vibes. She's voted for Scathach. ToDay, she's voted for me for not contributing, even though I contributed to 2 cases yesterDay. You really should know what's going on. None of it has been in code. You also mention that my not voting sends a warning signal. Exactly what would be my Scum motivation for not voting? Certainly you can come up with scenarios where I, as Scum, wouldn't vote. But is that truly finding motivation? no. I can come up with Scenarios where are Town, I wouldn't vote as well. Of course, the simpliest scenario is the one you've all missed: My desire to have Drain Bead lynched had been diminished when she claimed. I was available to vote at DayEnd. I could have made sure that Drain Bead wasn't lynched. By not voting, I left more room for Scum to attempt to manipulate the vote and show their true colors. Granted, that's probably not a tactic that most players would use, it is a tactic I've used in the past, and probably will again. yaknow ed we go round and round in this game. and i don't know the correct analogy but you really are heartburn to my rolaids. this is honestly the silliest thing i have ever seen you post. so you don't vote to allow scum to manipulate the vote? ok, dude we've been all over the place but even this one is over the top for me. so you didn't vote. wimpee ass. what's your scum conclusion then based on this activity. Check the end of day 4 in AlphaCentauri on Giraffe boards for a rationale for watching the voting at the end of a Day without casting a vote yourself. Or just ask paul. He was there. Granted, that was a situation where we wanted to lynch a Townie instead of our outed Scum (Sorry for bringing it up again, Sister). But the rationale still applies. Give Scum the opportunity to manipulate the vote and you might catch them. seems a little appropriate that I channel surfed to Bait Car while I typed this.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 22, 2011 21:55:12 GMT -5
Check the end of day 4 in AlphaCentauri on Giraffe boards for a rationale for watching the voting at the end of a Day without casting a vote yourself. Or just ask paul. He was there. Granted, that was a situation where we wanted to lynch a Townie instead of our outed Scum (Sorry for bringing it up again, Sister). But the rationale still applies. Give Scum the opportunity to manipulate the vote and you might catch them. seems a little appropriate that I channel surfed to Bait Car while I typed this. i guess i just don't see how not voting as a townie helps in catching scum in their votes. live and fucking learn, i guess. even though i think it's hooey.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 22, 2011 22:03:29 GMT -5
-Colby meant to post on the scum board to Bill and instead posted here -Colby had Bill on the brain because he was his scum buddy, but wasn't necessarily meaning to post on the scum board -Colby meant to post on the scum board to others about Bill, and instead posted here Vote: JustBeingGinger
<snipped and bleached> heh heh pollux. you give two of three scenarios where cheddarnswiss and bill are scum buddies and then you vote for maryanne. absolutely fascinating i tells ya. absolutely fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 22, 2011 22:04:47 GMT -5
neta: and the third fucking scenario is that colby just did a stupid scum activity. and still the vote on ginger.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 22, 2011 22:12:52 GMT -5
netata: pollux that is all sorts of fucked up.
let's sum your case up shall we.
colby and bill are scum lather, rinse repeat. colby and bill are scum let's change our mouthwash. colby is scum.
silver and jan's relationship is wonky but they are both town based on meta.
ipso fuckto vote ginger.
yaknow i have been accused of some serious silliness in the past. but even i can't connect these dots.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 22, 2011 22:22:55 GMT -5
and i would say sorry for the data dump because of rl. but yaknow you folks are just going to have to deal with it.
and i like to give newbs shit from the get go just to see if they really deserve to be included in our little club. so i was inclined to give colby some rope but if he keeps referring to folks by the wrong name (for some odd reason i always thought it was brain dead) i am going after him with a damn louisville slugger. only i have the lattitude to fuck up names. get it gnarlie?
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Oct 22, 2011 23:14:25 GMT -5
I have already asked Paul to point out where I misconstrued what he said. I ask the same as you; you made an accusation but gave no examples. Finally the blah, blah, blah was due to the length and densigy of some of Paul's posts. In at least one he basically writes the same thing twice several paragraphs apart. I urge you to go back, read, and summarize those posts and show me how I've given skewed opinions. Paul's already done one example, but 'kay, I'll do it, too. First off it wasn't until Peeks post #28 that anyone mentioned colby's Bill/Ed mistake. First item is skewed, as somebody else mentioned. Bill and mitch both mention colby's mistake before peeker ever gets to it. This is glaringly odd since you yourself actually said something about Bill's 'uh?' on Day One through your questions about him 'bussing on his first post.' 'Nother skew here. First, by saying that post #59 got scathach lynched. Yes, this post pinged people (myself included obviously) but there were other factors that had people voting for her later, such as her defensiveness and the vote-flipping incident. Going on the record, if this post had been the only suspicious thing about scathach prior to my voting for her, I probably wouldn't have voted for her because it wasn't enough. Second, the footnote you leave is very Monday morning quarterback-ish. It gives the representation that the people that voted for scathach missed something glaringly obvious to everyone else, and oh hey look, you're pointing it out so you must be on the side of town! --- Second post: PolluxOil pops in at #72 with the first ding on Scathach: [Overlooked here is that "I'm new here" was attached to a question about whether or not Special Ed was named Bill in real life.] Instead of posing a question to me about my post, you instead assume that I 'overlooked' why scathach was saying she was new and stick it into your summary for people to read. I didn't. There are plenty of ways she could have said I'm new here without me feeling like she was playing the newbie card. Instead, what she did was paired a vote with a declaration of "I'm new" and not really putting any reasoning behind her vote. She could have voted and said "I'm new, do you guys prefer bananas or waffles" and it would have had the same effect: It didn't matter what context the declaration of newbieness was for, it's that she paired it with her vote, so everybody reading her vote also knew she was new. I hope this makes sense. This is a kind of passive-aggressive calling out of moodymitchy for being a fence rider. The transcript of the post is fairly accurate, but the side opinion puts a negative spotlight on mr. moody mitchy for not making a clear decision on the colby issue. --- I won't do the third post because I'm tired, but I'll try to do it tomorrow if needed. And these specific examples aren't the only way you can skew a summary. Best example, you leave holes in your second post from post 73 to post 97. An unskewed, unbiased summary would have included something from that area as there were posts of note. The big, glaring, obvious omission here is that in post #90 Suburban Plankton votes for you but you happen to leave that part out of your summary. I get that you said you started off doing the summary for yourself, but this was the second post which obviously means you knew you were posting it on the board for other people as well. (Yes, I'm aware it was a vote because of a joke-ish vote. Still.) Anyway, there you go. That's how a summary gets skewed, even just a little. ---- heh heh pollux. you give two of three scenarios where cheddarnswiss and bill are scum buddies and then you vote for maryanne. absolutely fascinating i tells ya. absolutely fascinating. Uh, peeks, you're a little confused here. Sinjin was asking me about clarifying this post I made on Day One: The problem with the case on colby is that it leaves a lot up to interpretation. There are several scenarios already provided as to why he said Bill instead of Ed. On top of that, the voters on him tend to disagree on whether he was overreacting or underreacting to the scrutiny of his post. It's just weird to have a case built on him due to two posts and have those two posts be completely differently interpreted by people and yet they both come to the same conclusion. So I was outlining the scenarios that were outlined about colby's slip for sinjin. I don't actually agree with these scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by deon on Oct 23, 2011 0:42:58 GMT -5
netata: pollux that is all sorts of fucked up. let's sum your case up shall we. colby and bill are scum lather, rinse repeat. colby and bill are scum let's change our mouthwash. colby is scum. silver and jan's relationship is wonky but they are both town based on meta. ipso fuckto vote ginger. yaknow i have been accused of some serious silliness in the past. but even i can't connect these dots. So silver you and jan is so close that you decided to name yourself silverjan is it? LoL
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 23, 2011 0:56:43 GMT -5
Ok then. Woooow. Before I go into what I have to say, let me give you guys three pieces of advice. 1) Don't buy from PC World. 2) Don't buy a Microsoft Sidewinder X6 keyboard. 3) Don't buy a Microsoft Sidewinder X6 keyboard from PC world. Right, glad I got that out of the way. If anybody wants reasons, I got 'em. Oh boy, do I got 'em. Learn from my mistakes, friends. Anyways... My thoughts on today's events: @ Ed: I just went back and had a look at that post of yours that Sinjin mentioned. I'm in a weird place with you because I agree with a lot of what you've said. I too am suspicious of Ginger for her Scat vote and reasoning for it (although will be much less so if Silver Jan is lynched and flips scum, the two don't obviously "fit" as a scum couple). But I still gotta take issue with your logic. Specifically: Good luck getting anyone else to agree. Everyone is busy looking for 'play I don't like' rather than play with potential Scum-motivation Silly me for pointing out Scum-motivated play. Maybe I should have just said that I didn't like it. And yes, Ginger's play today can still be seen as possibly Scum motivated. It's really not that complicated. Of course, as she points out, my play is less popular. I wonder why I would do that...? Of your four points, point one (that Ginger's said Peeker is talking, as you put it - or encouraging others to talk, as Ginger did - and that she doesn't agree with the case on Colby) is a null tell unless we can find out what alignment Colby and Peeker are. Point four ( Ginger pokes Ed) is also a null tell, because schoolyard rules apply here. The new guy gets picked on, dirty names are thrown about, and I fully expect to see Lightfoot pulling Sinjin's pigtails at some point. Point three I partially agree on, it looks backpedally - is that even a word? - although as devil's advocate I would say that it could be read that Ginger's just questioning Colby to verify the likelihood of a theory being true. Point two though, I have an issue with. This is what you said: All I read into the comment you quoted is that Ginger didn't agree that a mistype of a name warranted two votes. By Sinjin's own summary, three other people said similar things. You can disagree with a case against somebody without "defending" them, in a way that implies a scum defending another scum. It seems to me that you're doing what I criticised Inner Stickler and Pollux for yesterday, and making assumptions about someone's motiviations that aren't justified by what they actually wrote. That pings me quite a bit. @ DrainBead: I accept that nobody's contradicted your claim yet, and a (hypothetical) cop would probably have investigated you last night (given that you're pretty much unlynchable now unless something drastically changes). I'd say I'm not going to vote you again, but I REALLY hate admitting that I was probably wrong. I will however take issue with a point of mafia theory you brought up: you said all "power roles" should take every step to make sure they're not lynched. Well, I would say this for all townies, power role or not. The greatest weapon town has against scum is almost always the lynch. By allowing this to be wasted on him- or herself, a townie guarantees that we waste one such weapon - and they may be in short supply. Ok, if a townie is inevitably going to be lynched, better it be a vanilla one than a role-player. But thanks to the incomplete knowledge of the townies, that's rarely a decision that the votors have to consciously make. On the subject of Silver Jan: I find it very interesting that she came back and posted, but didn't mention any problems with my case on her. Because I was reading back over yesterday's posts and I did. It regards the bit about where she told Scathach "WE failed to catch scum", despite the fact that she had accused him of being scum himself and was actually voting for him at the time. If you believe someone is scum - and are voting them because of it - then the statement that they both failed in this way makes no sense. Hence, my assumption that she didn't actually believe Scat was scum, and had given herself away as a big fat liar. Here's the flaw: I assumed that when she said "we" to Scathach, she was referring to Scat and herself specifically. Looking back, although I assumed the "we" referred to Scat and Jan, it might very well have meant something else - Jan and the other townies, for example. The most interesting part of this is that I'm the one bringing it up, not Jan herself. This isn't a minor thing either - I brought up the issue of that "we" TWICE in my case against her. As to why Jan didn't bring this up herself when she was online earlier, I see two possible explanations: 1) It never occurred to her, because she, as scum, knew that my initial assumption (that she was referring to herself and Scat, and accidentally gave herself away) was correct. 2) That she is town, but hadn't even read my case against her - which, again, brought up this specific point twice - or at least hadn't bothered to correct me about it. Add that to the problems I had with her play yesterday (in particular the "tactical" vote six hours before the day's end). I'm still leaning strongly towards possibility (1), but I now feel a lot better about my vote than I did yesterday; and I felt pretty good about it then. I STRONGLY think she has to be lynched now. If this lynch is between Jan and Ginger then we have to get rid of Jan. Final point: I still think there is at least one scum between Ginger, Pollux, and Inner, due to their early Scat votes yesterday; but if Jan turns out to be scum, Pollux looks like a front-runner for the position of second scum. If not then it's a slight point in his favour (he was dismissive of the point made against Jan early yesterday). I'm also going to be looking in a good bit more detail about Paul, Lightfoot and Plankton, as I feel I've been neglecting these three. (Always seems to happen with Plankton for some reason. Dunno what it is about that guy that seems to put him naturally off my radar.) Hopefully I'll be able to get some kind of analysis up about them soon, although I doubt it'll make me switch my vote now. This is even worse than your initial case against me! If I was referring to Scathach and myself as a scum "we" then Scathachs mislynch shows that you were erroneous in your thinking. The "we" was a generic term for town. I must say that you have a lengthy case against me but it isn't a very good one, especially to me, I know I am Town!
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 23, 2011 0:58:27 GMT -5
netata: pollux that is all sorts of fucked up. let's sum your case up shall we. colby and bill are scum lather, rinse repeat. colby and bill are scum let's change our mouthwash. colby is scum. silver and jan's relationship is wonky but they are both town based on meta. ipso fuckto vote ginger. yaknow i have been accused of some serious silliness in the past. but even i can't connect these dots. I was about to comment on that next lol, yes I am very close to myself More name twisting in this game I see. So silver you and jan is so close that you decided to name yourself silverjan is it? LoL
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 23, 2011 0:59:58 GMT -5
NETA
How did I manage to post on the wrong line, sorry.
I was about to comment on that next lol, yes I am very close to myself More name twisting in this game I see.
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Oct 23, 2011 1:16:05 GMT -5
@ texcat; I originally wrote a post calling Paul a dildo but decided not to post it. Wrong choice, huh? actually he is worse. so your characterization is generous. and i posted this on the g. i think sometimes that we get a wee bit too much defensive in this edeavor. it's a fracking game and unless someone is just being a total prick then it's water off a duck. matter of fact there are some that can be total assholes and i don't give a shit. i want everyone to know that nothing i post is personal. if you were to show up on my doorstep tonight you get a bed, breakfast tomorrow and a hunsky to help you along. even if i call into question the names of your simian ancestors. I would say that commenting on someone calling me a dildo by saying I'm worse is taking things to a personal level.... and kinda hurts my feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Oct 23, 2011 1:31:51 GMT -5
NETA, and upon further review... you're right Mitch... it's probably a bad idea for DB to post any results that could have a negative impact on Town... I didn't think that one through. aaaiiiiieeeee. really? i mean really? claimed roles should always disclose results. that's called information. farking bad boyz and girlz know what the fuck happened (or at least can surmise) but to leave town in the dark with information deficit is about non ideal. jeebuz i truly do think that paul and i exist in alternate universes. How are you so sure that scum know what happened? For an average townie the only thing you can assume the scum know is that their kill didn't go through... or that they didn't kill for one reason or another. Assuming they know why their kill didn't go through is ridiculous. Here's a scenario for you.... DB tracks Player A who targets Player B. The scum attempted to kill Player B. DB reveals his results and tells everyone that Player A targeted Player B last Night. Now the scum know that Player A is the reason that their kill didn't go through and that Player A is the doc. Essentially, DB could potentially out the doc by giving his results. Now, if he tracked someone and they didn't do anything... that would be okay to reveal in my eyes... it gives us some data... not very useful data... but some... and suggests that his target is VT. The only danger there is that it reduces the pool for the power roles to hide in... one less spot for the scum to look... and if town chooses to believe that person is VT and that's why they didn't act last Night... then it's one less place for town to look for scum.... but it doesn't necessarily mean they are VT... the scum could have to designate a killer and not have any scum power roles... so any scum not performing the NK would show up as having not taken any actions. So yeah... him revealing his results could definitely have a negative impact on town... I'm assuming you agree that forcing the doc out of hiding would be a bad thing?
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Oct 23, 2011 1:33:52 GMT -5
Check the end of day 4 in AlphaCentauri on Giraffe boards for a rationale for watching the voting at the end of a Day without casting a vote yourself. Or just ask paul. He was there. Granted, that was a situation where we wanted to lynch a Townie instead of our outed Scum (Sorry for bringing it up again, Sister). But the rationale still applies. Give Scum the opportunity to manipulate the vote and you might catch them. seems a little appropriate that I channel surfed to Bait Car while I typed this. I see what you are saying now Ed... but I also see a difference between being around at the end of the Day to watch what happens, being ready to move your vote if needed, and not voting at all.
|
|
|
Post by moodymitchy on Oct 23, 2011 3:37:06 GMT -5
@peekercpa
So are you saying that any TOWN power should not hold back on giving us any results they might have...
A TOWN cop , even IF they haven't claimed, should come straight out and give us their results ?
Or are you just meaning "claimed" powers should give results?
I agree normally that they should as it gives us something/someone to look at and base stuff on.
But in the case of Drain Bead and their claim... As Paulwhoisaghost has just pointed out... IF the "claimed" tracker came in at the start of toDay and said.. "player x" visited "player y" and "player y" had been SCUM's intended NightKill then and that kill hadn't gone through... then it's likely that he's just outed "player x" as the Doc.
Or IF SCUM have a watcher and watched Drain Bead ... Drain Bead says toDay that they tracked "player x" who visited "player y" .... this tells SCUM that "player x" has some sort of power" and if "player x" isn't on the SCUM team then it's just outed another power for them to shoot at.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Oct 23, 2011 6:59:20 GMT -5
This is even worse than your initial case against me! If I was referring to Scathach and myself as a scum "we" then Scathachs mislynch shows that you were erroneous in your thinking. The "we" was a generic term for town. I must say that you have a lengthy case against me but it isn't a very good one, especially to me, I know I am Town! Yes, I realise that I could have been wrong about the "we" bit NOW. I made that exact point in my last post. My question is, why didn't you? If my assumption that "we" referred only to yourself and Scat was wrong, why was I the one who pointed it out, not you? You could've said this yesterday. The fact that you didn't say this yesterday is exactly what tells me that my assumption probably was warranted. Ok... here's my thoughts on Colby. Let's look at Mitch's case, which seem to summarise the points made against him pretty well. Vote colyby11I wasn't particularly happy with what might or might not have been a slip yesterDay. Then we have you instructing the Doc as to who they should target Night 1. Which I have already said was most likely not in TOWNS best interests and which , you yourself in hindsight agree with. But then you place a vote on Silver Jan because of a post where she states that she hadn't intended to start a bandwagon on you... You say it sounds over defensive (my interpretation of your words) and was trying to cover all bases.. Honest Moley has a vote on her too which goes into a lot more detail as to why yet, you use none of this... I feel you have found a train that might gain speed so want to jump on it early... Oh and there was your complete mis spelling / writing call it what you will... of Drain Bead's name. In my opinion not a helpful thing to do at all. Blimey another thing.... how do you KNOW that This to me seems to be just an acceptance of the square root theory.. without taking into consideration and 3rd party / pfk's that could affect the balance of the game. Point 1) "May or may not have been a slip." Describes it pretty well. Maybe Colby was speaking to Bill on another board. On the other hand, maybe he was just thinking of Bill in a past game. Or maybe his good cousin Bill was making him breakfast in the next room, which seems just as plausible as any other reason anybody's come up with. Point 2) Leading the doc: anti-town, maybe. As I've already said twice (and will probably end up repeating about twenty times before we're through, assuming I survive that long), anti-town =/= scum. Point 3) Colby is scummy because he didn't justify his vote by copying someone else's reasoning? If this pings me about anybody then it's Moody, not Colby, because that's a BIG stretch. Point 4) Colby assumes at least five scum in a twenty-one man game. To me the fact that he points this out is actually in his favour - if a scum slips up and reveals the number of other scum, they're not likely to say "based on the numbers" or something like that. Interestingly, the one genuine point against him (in my opinion) has barely been mentioned here - the fact that Scat's bandwagon could have been an attempt to divert the lynch away from a scum who's under pressure. If I was wrong yesterday and DrainBead isn't that scum then Colby is obviously the next best candidate. That would imply that at least one of the early Scat votors is scum ( Inner, Ginger, Pollux); but until it's proven that I'm totally off-base about those three, I'm pretty much assuming that anyway. I do not see that bandwagon as town-driven. But other than that, I don't agree with the case against Colby. He presents himself in much the same way as he did in "Wonderland", in which he also gathered some suspicion early on but turned out to be town. I'm very much neutral on him in this game - I'm not convinced he's town but I don't see any reason to vote him over the people I think are not. Beyond your suspicions of Colby (which I don't share), and pointing out a possibly unwarranted assumption I'd made in my case (but not until after I'd already pointed it out myself), I've seen nothing to suggest I'm wrong about you. If you genuinely are town then give me something to work with here.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Oct 23, 2011 7:37:42 GMT -5
This is even worse than your initial case against me! If I was referring to Scathach and myself as a scum "we" then Scathachs mislynch shows that you were erroneous in your thinking. The "we" was a generic term for town. I must say that you have a lengthy case against me but it isn't a very good one, especially to me, I know I am Town! Ok, I'm sorry, but this is just bugging me more and more. Let's look at what SHOULD have happened here using two hypothetical players: George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington, and Nancy "One of these days these boots are going to walk all over you" Sinatra. Nancy has made a case on George. Nancy: I think Player B is scum. My reasoning includes a statement, X, that I believe to be true. George: You are wrong. Statement X is based upon a false assumption you made about why I acted the way I did. Nancy: That is correct. That part of my case is flawed. Only that's not what happened, is it? Let's look again... Nancy: I think Player B is scum. My reasoning includes a statement, X, that I believe to be true. George: You are wrong, but I will not highlight any flaws in your case to justify myself. Nancy: Actually Statement X is based upon an assumption about your motivation that may have been false. George: That assumption IS false. Your case is wrong. ...So you are obviously reading my posts - you picked up on the flaw that I pointed out in my own case easily enough - but it didn't occur to you to make this point yesterday? Despite the fact that you came back and specifically posted that there were votes on you? Or to put it more simply: I made an assumption that would only be true if you were scum; you had the opportunity to correct me but didn't do so.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 23, 2011 9:21:00 GMT -5
So I was outlining the scenarios that were outlined about colby's slip for sinjin. I don't actually agree with these scenarios. <snipped> fair enough, kind of. ok to recap the scenarios that you outline are that bill and colby[/b] are scum. or that colby is scum. and you are correct in saying these are not the only available options. the others being that bill is scum and colby is town or that they are both town, right? so you don't agree with the ones you note therefore i kind of make the conclustion that you agree with the ones you don't. is that kind of the skinnny on the situation?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 23, 2011 9:32:29 GMT -5
I must say that you have a lengthy case against me but it isn't a very good one, especially to me, I know I am Town! <snipped> oh goodie. thank og we have a townie in the bag. ed any chance you want to claim town as well since pleo and NAF aren't here.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 23, 2011 9:42:09 GMT -5
actually he is worse. so your characterization is generous. and i posted this on the g. i think sometimes that we get a wee bit too much defensive in this edeavor. it's a fracking game and unless someone is just being a total prick then it's water off a duck. matter of fact there are some that can be total assholes and i don't give a shit. i want everyone to know that nothing i post is personal. if you were to show up on my doorstep tonight you get a bed, breakfast tomorrow and a hunsky to help you along. even if i call into question the names of your simian ancestors. I would say that commenting on someone calling me a dildo by saying I'm worse is taking things to a personal level.... and kinda hurts my feelings. ok, that's fair. it was actually meant to be complimentary in a peek smart ass way. and i really did ask this question on the g. how gloves off is this? because i can tell you from personal experience that ed and kid rub me all sorts of the wrong way in the context of this game. but having met ed and getting to know kid in a non game experiece way i'll tell you this. i'd be the first to hop on a plane to chicago or salt lake if needed. and to be honest i think they'd do the same. of course with winter coming san antonio does look like a better destination than either of those waste lands. i'd probably be laid up in a hospital getting ready to have the wrong leg amputated and those derelicts would be down on the riverwalk drinking margaritas. there was certainly no offense intended.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 23, 2011 9:50:40 GMT -5
aaaiiiiieeeee. really? i mean really? claimed roles should always disclose results. that's called information. farking bad boyz and girlz know what the fuck happened (or at least can surmise) but to leave town in the dark with information deficit is about non ideal. jeebuz i truly do think that paul and i exist in alternate universes. How are you so sure that scum know what happened? For an average townie the only thing you can assume the scum know is that their kill didn't go through... or that they didn't kill for one reason or another. Assuming they know why their kill didn't go through is ridiculous. Here's a scenario for you.... DB tracks Player A who targets Player B. The scum attempted to kill Player B. DB reveals his results and tells everyone that Player A targeted Player B last Night. Now the scum know that Player A is the reason that their kill didn't go through and that Player A is the doc. Essentially, DB could potentially out the doc by giving his results. Now, if he tracked someone and they didn't do anything... that would be okay to reveal in my eyes... it gives us some data... not very useful data... but some... and suggests that his target is VT. The only danger there is that it reduces the pool for the power roles to hide in... one less spot for the scum to look... and if town chooses to believe that person is VT and that's why they didn't act last Night... then it's one less place for town to look for scum.... but it doesn't necessarily mean they are VT... the scum could have to designate a killer and not have any scum power roles... so any scum not performing the NK would show up as having not taken any actions. So yeah... him revealing his results could definitely have a negative impact on town... I'm assuming you agree that forcing the doc out of hiding would be a bad thing? first i am not suggesting that any power claim shit unless they feel it is helpful. and i think we are having this same discussion currently on another board. it's my belief that once someone claims something they should immediately disclose what they did and why if they ar alive. this gives us information and to some extent trips up false claims. that's all i was suggesting. i mean the other example on the other board is just patently absurd. but in my opinion once a claim is out on the board i want to know who, what and why. certainly that gives scum information but it gives town information as well. 2 cents v a nickel. or 3 cents v 6 cents. we've had this discussion before so i hope i am making my point clear.
|
|