|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 23, 2011 9:55:07 GMT -5
neta: for the mathematically challenged (zeener i am looking at you) i'll let paul explain it. he actually understood what i was saying and then translated it so everyone else understood as well.
and some of the references to other folks that are not here currently is because i have two universes. they overlap in odd freaking ways. plus i'd like to get even more new blood that we can immediately lynch and send off into the lala lands.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 23, 2011 10:16:35 GMT -5
@ peekercpaSo 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. i hear what you are saying but just don't necessarily agree with the conclusion. so while i understand your hypothetical i can see ways to mitigate that. most of us that have been around the block would see that possibility. and drain is a damn strong player. with no Night deaths she would (i think) jump to that conclusion unless she was blocked. but in either case i would expect a block explanation or i can't tell just yet because i suspect blah blah blah. i just feel that more information is good for town and mitigates the deficit that we naturally start with. but carp i am as dumb as a box of rocks so it's just my opinion. and i also think that we as town put way to much fucking value on a doc.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Oct 23, 2011 11:05:22 GMT -5
I've played with players from both schools of thought................ reveal all incase you wake up dead/ vs/ keep things close til you have a nice package........... either can work/backfire
(I have been chastized for sharing too early and for sharing too late)
Each power role has to make that decision for them selves and a major debate about it can be a waste of time.
Claimed powers have a different responsibility for what ever reason they have claimed, they put themselves in a position where they have to 'prove it'.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Oct 23, 2011 11:13:24 GMT -5
Unofficial Vote Count for Day 2
Silver Jan (3)-Honest Moley, Colby11, Drain Bead Colby11 (3) - moodymitchy, Silver Jan, sinjin JustbeingGinger (2)- Sister Coyote, Pollux Oil Mr. Special Ed (1)- JustbeingGinger Paulwhoisaghost (1)- Deon
People who have not voted today (10): Suburban Plankton, paulwhoisaghost, Mr. Special Ed, Texcat, Inner Stickler, Peekercpa, Deni, zuma, Lightfoot, BillMc
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Oct 23, 2011 11:27:44 GMT -5
It seems I'm a dog with a bone here. I still can't let go of the colby case. Nothing I've seen is changing my mind.......
Vote: colby as long as that bit is still on the table there will be a sniggle in the back of my ( and I imagine a few other's) brain.
The jan/ ginger thing bugs me but I almost always think jan is up to something so I'm letting that rest for now.
I am sicker than a really sick thing and plan to medicate to the hilt= may not make EOD
I'll be here til I'm not
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Oct 23, 2011 11:36:55 GMT -5
Reminder that EoD is at 10:00 PM CDT Tonight.
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 23, 2011 11:55:57 GMT -5
Vote: Ginger
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 23, 2011 11:58:34 GMT -5
[/color][/quote] apparantly taking a page from paul's playbook.
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 23, 2011 12:08:18 GMT -5
[/color][/quote] apparantly taking a page from paul's playbook. [/quote] care to explain?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 23, 2011 12:08:30 GMT -5
ok
vote sinjin[/color
her kind of blah blah vote for me on D1 is kind of typical and not unexpected. but with ed's joke vote it kind of gives me a twinge of let's see if this puppy will take off (and sure i am looking at it from a different perspective than the rest of you folks). then the hop on to colby. toDay THIRD vote colby.
and honestly i am kind of wishy washy between her and colby. but colby 's "slip" just reeks of newbiness more than dumb as a stump scum. i will qualify that with that i have seen some really good players make even dumber maneuvers in the past. and if that comes off as a waffle then moody can provide the syrup. i am just unsure at this point and am willing to give the cheese man a little more rope to convince me. much more inclined to get rid of sin.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 23, 2011 12:13:43 GMT -5
apparantly taking a page from paul's playbook. care to explain? shit it was pollux's. to many p's in this durn game. if i have to type it again i will if you can't be arsed to actually read my original post.
|
|
|
Post by moodymitchy on Oct 23, 2011 12:22:36 GMT -5
shit it was pollux's. to many p's in this durn game. if i have to type it again i will if you can't be arsed to actually read my original post. Was that a slip are you SCUM... ? ;D ;D OK so having seen a few folks views on whether a "claimed" power should give their results or not, how about this ? Drain Bead you say that you got results (ruling out a block on you at least).... but you don't wish to reveal who you tracked. How would you feel about letting us know who if anyone, the person you tracked visited ? At least that way... who ever was visited if they had a power and it didn't go through... then they would then perhaps have an idea why .. It's you giving us something rather than nothing which is what you seem to want to give us as the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 23, 2011 12:43:43 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. I didn't really think I had to defend myself too much, you had the result that Sach was Town so I thought that it cleared me a little bit, obviously I was wrong. You seem to be quite harsh, fair enough. So now I look like scum because I didn't defend myself against you being wrong, I am just shaking my head in disbelief. For the record You don't look very scummy to me at the moment or otherwise you wouldn't be pushing me so much. Also what "should" have happened doesn't always happen, you are playing with real people here and not a computer
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Oct 23, 2011 13:07:53 GMT -5
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. 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. I'll address this point by point. Point 1- This has already been beaten to a pulp already Point 2- Already discussed, but I will discuss some more, actually. I see the pros and cons about this arguement. I think that the doctor might be in trouble IF scum has a watcher. Not sure who the doctor (if we have one and not a person who had a massive block night kills ala Wonderland [and me]) Point 3- I tend to make my own opinions and decisions. On Day 1, I was the first person to vote for Drain Bead, and for my own opinions (which were copied later). You do bring up some good arguements.. I think someone has discussed the fact that scathath was lynched to possibly save me... though the only reason why that may happen (in my opinion) is that scum aren't worried about me.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Oct 23, 2011 13:11:46 GMT -5
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. I didn't really think I had to defend myself too much, you had the result that Sach was Town so I thought that it cleared me a little bit, obviously I was wrong. You seem to be quite harsh, fair enough. So now I look like scum because I didn't defend myself against you being wrong, I am just shaking my head in disbelief. For the record You don't look very scummy to me at the moment or otherwise you wouldn't be pushing me so much. Also what "should" have happened doesn't always happen, you are playing with real people here and not a computer Welcome to the game where if you defend yourself, you're wrong. and if you don't defend yourself, you're wrong too
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 23, 2011 13:12:21 GMT -5
and fart on a lillypad.
vote sinjin
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Oct 23, 2011 13:14:57 GMT -5
shit it was pollux's. to many p's in this durn game. if i have to type it again i will if you can't be arsed to actually read my original post. Was that a slip are you SCUM... ? ;D ;D OK so having seen a few folks views on whether a "claimed" power should give their results or not, how about this ? Drain Bead you say that you got results (ruling out a block on you at least).... but you don't wish to reveal who you tracked. How would you feel about letting us know who if anyone, the person you tracked visited ? At least that way... who ever was visited if they had a power and it didn't go through... then they would then perhaps have an idea why .. It's you giving us something rather than nothing which is what you seem to want to give us as the moment. Great idea! At least we will at least know if Drain Bead did get any information or not. Any information (whether it's good or bad) is better than guessing about it (or not knowing)
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 23, 2011 13:18:44 GMT -5
I didn't really think I had to defend myself too much, you had the result that Sach was Town .... <snipped> and this is a page out of colby's playbook. heh heh. seriously you folks are much more entertaining than the nfl. i mean no shit. the only thing that would make it funner if we were all sitting on my deck connected via wireless and sharing a brew or libation or for sis a glass of tea (i sure as heck hope she says unsweetened). that way i could throw a skoosh doll periodically just to see who is paying attention.
|
|
|
Post by moodymitchy on Oct 23, 2011 13:27:54 GMT -5
Was that a slip are you SCUM... ? ;D ;D OK so having seen a few folks views on whether a "claimed" power should give their results or not, how about this ? Drain Bead you say that you got results (ruling out a block on you at least).... but you don't wish to reveal who you tracked. How would you feel about letting us know who if anyone, the person you tracked visited ? At least that way... who ever was visited if they had a power and it didn't go through... then they would then perhaps have an idea why .. It's you giving us something rather than nothing which is what you seem to want to give us as the moment. Great idea! At least we will at least know if Drain Bead did get any information or not. Any information (whether it's good or bad) is better than guessing about it (or not knowing) Bolding and re sizing mine.... Drain Bead has already said that they did get a result but would rather not share it with us at the moment.. I can understand them not wanting to reveal who they tracked... but not why they shouldn't reveal if they know that the person they tracked actually visited someone and if so , who ?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 23, 2011 13:39:08 GMT -5
Welcome to the game where if you defend yourself, you're wrong. and if you don't defend yourself, you're wrong too ok, i addressing this in connection with silver's post. there are four boards where i play this game. 2 x 2: which is for clowns the dope: which is for folks just kind of learning giraffe: step up in level from the dope but still a touch whimsical here: this is where the great whites swim. the fact that you are here means you've got stones. and the fact that you are still alive means you are doing something right. you stuck your foot right in it, my friend. to not expect a ration of carp is unrealistic. some folks think it scummy others not so much. there are many ways to approach this endeavor. some are analytical, some are contemplative and then there is a subset that are just button pushers. if you can't handle your button being pushed this is not the place to be. to some extent take the fact that you are getting your button pushed as a form of acceptance. kind of like some of the greybeards are sniffing your ass and arriving at the conclusion that you would be a good pack member. that goes for silver, deni, deon, etc. and anyone else that i am missing. the first time that guiri joined us i was inclined to just send him out to fetch beer and pizza. c'mon little man we'll teach you how to play the game in due time. problem was that he already knew more than the collective. if you have an opinion or observation make the bastard. if someone pushes you for what you believe to be a silly reason push back harder. that's how town wins.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 23, 2011 13:48:09 GMT -5
I didn't really think I had to defend myself too much, you had the result that Sach was Town .... <snipped> and this is a page out of colby's playbook. heh heh. seriously you folks are much more entertaining than the nfl. i mean no shit. the only thing that would make it funner if we were all sitting on my deck connected via wireless and sharing a brew or libation or for sis a glass of tea (i sure as heck hope she says unsweetened). that way i could throw a skoosh doll periodically just to see who is paying attention. So I really have to defend myself against such an outlandish fucking vote??? Really??? Christ almighty, it was a load of absolute garbage and beneath my dignity to respond to. The only reason I did bother was that he/she had realms of worthless junk against me and some of you might see it as the truth, Bah fucking humbug!!!!
|
|
|
Post by moodymitchy on Oct 23, 2011 14:05:08 GMT -5
@Silver Jan.... I think what peekercpa was referring to in the post of yours that he quoted was the fact that you used Sach as a shortened version of Scathach .
So he made the colby11 reference because you (to him anyway) got a name wrong... something that a few of us have jumped on colby11 for.
If I'm wrong about this then please feel free to correct me.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 23, 2011 14:14:16 GMT -5
I wasn't really referring to Peeks (and I just want to apologise for my language). I was talking about Holey Moley's vote ( I might as well join the club ) If I used Sach as short for Scathach it may have been because it reminds me of sasanach? I don't actually remember getting a name wrong, but I won't rule it out yet.
|
|
|
Post by moodymitchy on Oct 23, 2011 14:40:36 GMT -5
OK so if you were ranting against Holey Moley , why use a peekercpa post as a quote to do it in?
Also you say IF you used Sach as short for Scathach.....
There's no IF about you using Sach, it's right there in your post... the questioning about it could be about who you might be referring to.
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 23, 2011 14:58:41 GMT -5
shit it was pollux's. to many p's in this durn game. if i have to type it again i will if you can't be arsed to actually read my original post. Well in any case I think my suspicions of ginger are well stated already
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 23, 2011 15:00:26 GMT -5
shit it was pollux's. to many p's in this durn game. if i have to type it again i will if you can't be arsed to actually read my original post. Was that a slip are you SCUM... ? ;D ;D OK so having seen a few folks views on whether a "claimed" power should give their results or not, how about this ? Drain Bead you say that you got results (ruling out a block on you at least).... but you don't wish to reveal who you tracked. How would you feel about letting us know who if anyone, the person you tracked visited ? At least that way... who ever was visited if they had a power and it didn't go through... then they would then perhaps have an idea why .. It's you giving us something rather than nothing which is what you seem to want to give us as the moment. this is brilliant!! Great idea! This way the scum will know the person who is possibly the doctor or a town rooleblocker!
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 23, 2011 15:02:26 GMT -5
Was that a slip are you SCUM... ? ;D ;D OK so having seen a few folks views on whether a "claimed" power should give their results or not, how about this ? Drain Bead you say that you got results (ruling out a block on you at least).... but you don't wish to reveal who you tracked. How would you feel about letting us know who if anyone, the person you tracked visited ? At least that way... who ever was visited if they had a power and it didn't go through... then they would then perhaps have an idea why .. It's you giving us something rather than nothing which is what you seem to want to give us as the moment. Great idea! At least we will at least know if Drain Bead did get any information or not. Any information (whether it's good or bad) is better than guessing about it (or not knowing) You can't seriously agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by moodymitchy on Oct 23, 2011 15:28:36 GMT -5
How....?
Yes I'm probably being dumb again Mr Special Ed but it's been a while since we've had one of our "you say potato, I say potato" discussions...
How will Drain Bead stating that a player was visited, reveal who the Doc or Blocker or anyone might be in the game?
If they do this, surely the person that did the visiting would then know that Drain Beads claim holds some merit.
It would also mean that IF the player that was visited, had an action and it didn't go through.... they would have a better idea as to why.
I'm not asking them to reveal the visitor because yes that would reveal a player to have a power. I'm asking them to reveal the visitee (made up word) ...
|
|
|
Post by special on Oct 23, 2011 15:49:24 GMT -5
How....? Yes I'm probably being dumb again Mr Special Ed but it's been a while since we've had one of our "you say potato, I say potato" discussions... How will Drain Bead stating that a player was visited, reveal who the Doc or Blocker or anyone might be in the game? If they do this, surely the person that did the visiting would then know that Drain Beads claim holds some merit. It would also mean that IF the player that was visited, had an action and it didn't go through.... they would have a better idea as to why. I'm not asking them to reveal the visitor because yes that would reveal a player to have a power. I'm asking them to reveal the visitee (made up word) ... OK, I guess I had thought through it improperly. I see what you are saying now.
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on Oct 23, 2011 15:59:07 GMT -5
I am back. So let me make thing clear. I did not vote Special Ed because he thinks I am scummy, or the fact that his vote on peeker was weak. I voted him because he was present on the boards at the end of Day1 and could not place a vote. He was even questioning me about what I thought about the whole Silverjan and Deni comment. He simply could not place a vote. To me that is not pro-town. Being neutral is just as bad as being scummy. He maybe meta gaming and giving reasons he saw on another game, but I am not on that game. On my long drive for the past two days, I thought about what motivation would he have scum wise for not voting, I am not sure. Is this WINFOM? Don't know. I know I don't like his play in this game.
Yes, he finds my play scummy. Ok. On the Colby issue, I first stated that I didn't think it was scummy to mistake a name, it has been done before in almost every game. I have also seen bandwagons start on Day1 by Scum. I decided to go back and re-read Day 1 and that is where I thought the statement about Peeker's game play from Colby and thought it odd and maybe I brushed off the theory of it being scum slip too easy.
As for my vote on Scat, I was wrong. I didn't like the " I guess" statement. That tells me that, well I am not sure where I want my vote, but I might as well place it here. To me that is almost as bad as a bandwagon vote.
I will try to be around for Day end, I won't have time to re-read everything, I have taken my break from unloading and I must get back.
AI have not read all the posts from where I left off.
|
|