|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 6:59:56 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 17, 2012 6:59:56 GMT -5
@ DrainBead I really went to a lot of trouble with my case against Idle and I was only sort of half wrong if he is being honest. I mentioned the no lynch because it was an option. Sorry, I should have been more specific. My issue was with you not unvoting after a claim that was confirmable. Any issue you have with him should have been at the very least suspended or postponed after his claim.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 7:45:43 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Jan 17, 2012 7:45:43 GMT -5
[/color]for being the first to vote Ed because he voted for everyone who already had a vote. Too easy, and it reeks of an attempt to start a bandwagon. Note I am saying nothing about Ed and his alignment here. I don't necessarily have an opinion on that--I just think that this was an opportunistic vote. [/quote] I won't insist that you discuss Ed's alignment, but what do you think of Ed's voting style? Bandwagoning onto every vote existing at the time? I don't like it, and I wanted to discourage anyone else from doing it. It just makes it easier for scum to manipulate the votes. I find it strange that you vote me because you think I was trying to start a bandwagon, and yet you don't want to comment on Ed joining every possible bandwagon.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 7:50:08 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Jan 17, 2012 7:50:08 GMT -5
Mahaloth... I have to agree with the consensus, the way you did ask Ed regarding his role did sound a bit funny Vote: Vote Mahaloth [/color][/quote] I was just asking for him to explain. What did I say that was funny?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 7:50:43 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Jan 17, 2012 7:50:43 GMT -5
Oh, and I don't think it is a consensus, either, colby.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 8:56:30 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 17, 2012 8:56:30 GMT -5
[/color]for being the first to vote Ed because he voted for everyone who already had a vote. Too easy, and it reeks of an attempt to start a bandwagon. Note I am saying nothing about Ed and his alignment here. I don't necessarily have an opinion on that--I just think that this was an opportunistic vote. [/quote] I won't insist that you discuss Ed's alignment, but what do you think of Ed's voting style? Bandwagoning onto every vote existing at the time? I don't like it, and I wanted to discourage anyone else from doing it. It just makes it easier for scum to manipulate the votes. I find it strange that you vote me because you think I was trying to start a bandwagon, and yet you don't want to comment on Ed joining every possible bandwagon. [/quote] I got pretty metagamey to get there, but I'll describe my reasoning. I don't think Ed is a Wolf. Based on the past games, I believe him when he says that Wolf was his least favorite role. I'm getting an overall Town lean for him this game so far, but that's not entirely important. The key is that I don't think he's a Wolf. As a not-Wolf, I don't think he'd be engaging in vote manipulation. So he had to have some other strategy for doing what he did. Another thing that's important about Ed is that he's experimenting with a new playstyle. I think that part of his "voting for everyone who had a vote" strategy was to try to get us on the road to 13. But another part was...well, I guess a bit of a troll, which is part of his new playstyle. See who takes the easy bait of voting for Ed for voting in this way. In the end, Ed was making some early Day One votes that could easily be rescinded later. We learn more by who reacts to it, and how they react.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 8:59:04 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 17, 2012 8:59:04 GMT -5
[/color]for being the first to vote Ed because he voted for everyone who already had a vote. Too easy, and it reeks of an attempt to start a bandwagon. Note I am saying nothing about Ed and his alignment here. I don't necessarily have an opinion on that--I just think that this was an opportunistic vote. [/quote] I won't insist that you discuss Ed's alignment, but what do you think of Ed's voting style? Bandwagoning onto every vote existing at the time? I don't like it, and I wanted to discourage anyone else from doing it. It just makes it easier for scum to manipulate the votes. I find it strange that you vote me because you think I was trying to start a bandwagon, and yet you don't want to comment on Ed joining every possible bandwagon. [/quote] I got pretty metagamey to get there, but I'll describe my reasoning. I don't think Ed is a Wolf. Based on the past games, I believe him when he says that Wolf was his least favorite role. I'm getting an overall Town lean for him this game so far, but that's not entirely important. The key is that I don't think he's a Wolf. As a not-Wolf, I don't think he'd be engaging in vote manipulation. So he had to have some other strategy for doing what he did. Another thing that's important about Ed is that he's experimenting with a new playstyle. I think that part of his "voting for everyone who had a vote" strategy was to try to get us on the road to 13. But another part was...well, I guess a bit of a troll, which is part of his new playstyle. See who takes the easy bait of voting for Ed for voting in this way. In the end, Ed was making some early Day One votes that could easily be rescinded later. We learn more by who reacts to it, and how they react.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 9:00:46 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 17, 2012 9:00:46 GMT -5
Sorry for the double post. Somehow while checking my voice mail and attempting to multitask I hit the back button and forgot I'd posted it once already.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 9:01:03 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 17, 2012 9:01:03 GMT -5
@ DrainBead I really went to a lot of trouble with my case against Idle and I was only sort of half wrong if he is being honest. I mentioned the no lynch because it was an option. Sorry, I should have been more specific. My issue was with you not unvoting after a claim that was confirmable. Any issue you have with him should have been at the very least suspended or postponed after his claim. I actually did unvote him this morning or did you skip past that bit. Surely you noticed how upset I was last night and that I was venting?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 9:17:33 GMT -5
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 17, 2012 9:17:33 GMT -5
Vote guiri the vote on Texcat for fencesitting is just strange. there are more controversial posts and he keeps a vote on her and Idle but not on anyone else. he only shifted to Mahaloth after Idle Thoughts claimed.
Vote Silver Jan i don't mind being voted for inactivity. i do mind using her flakiness as an excuse to vote for lurkers because she couldn't find anyone else to vote for.
Vote Hoopy Frood for voting Idle for behaving how he usually does and not unvoting after Idle's claim.
Vote Boozahol Squid voting for peeker for being peeker (disruptive) when that's a null tell. it's an easy vote.
Vote Ginger for also voting peeker for the same reasons.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 9:22:35 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Jan 17, 2012 9:22:35 GMT -5
We learn more by who reacts to it, and how they react. And how do you think I should have reacted? I think calling out and voting someone who is making reasonless copycat votes is the proper reaction. But I guess your mileage varies? FTR, Ed did unvote Idle after the claim, but I don't think he's unvoted anyone else.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 11:23:30 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 17, 2012 11:23:30 GMT -5
Just back after a long working weekend, with about 5 pages to read. I'm putting my head down now...hope to be back soon
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 11:47:34 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 17, 2012 11:47:34 GMT -5
Sorry, I should have been more specific. My issue was with you not unvoting after a claim that was confirmable. Any issue you have with him should have been at the very least suspended or postponed after his claim. I actually did unvote him this morning or did you skip past that bit. Surely you noticed how upset I was last night and that I was venting? You unvoted him after getting heat from a few people for not unvoting him immediately. You do anti-Town things, you get votes for it. That's how this game works.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 11:52:16 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 17, 2012 11:52:16 GMT -5
We learn more by who reacts to it, and how they react. And how do you think I should have reacted? I think calling out and voting someone who is making reasonless copycat votes is the proper reaction. But I guess your mileage varies? FTR, Ed did unvote Idle after the claim, but I don't think he's unvoted anyone else. You also have to think context. On Day 3, if people are making a bunch of meaningless copycat votes, voting for them is a fine idea. Earlyish on Day 1? It rates somewhere between "meh" and "hmph" on my scale.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 11:52:59 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 17, 2012 11:52:59 GMT -5
... and speaking of Peeker, WTF with your mason claim in a game that technically has no masons? (they're called witches) .... <snipped> psst. it's right here from the rules thread and shit. so sayeth pleoYou are a Freemason, a member of the Town. Each Day you may check if one other player is also a Freemason. If the target is a Freemason, both of you will be informed of the discovery. Otherwise, no effect.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 11:58:26 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 17, 2012 11:58:26 GMT -5
so scathath is the only person without a vote. wonder if this makes him feel like huntsman.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 12:05:34 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jan 17, 2012 12:05:34 GMT -5
First of all: Unvote: Idle Would you say that Cabal are the lowest priority for Town right now? Before Idle's claim, I would have said yes. Cabal can't touch witches (barring secret powers). But once two witches are out of the game, cabal needs to be dead for town to win. And cabal get their block as long as one of them is alive. So removing one cabalist from the game accomplishes very little other than furthering the Wolf and Undead win conditions. If town needs all cabal dead to win, then you take them all out. But if town doesn't need them all dead to win, town gets very little for taking them out. Secret powers affect this strategy a bit, but until the secret powers are known, it doesn't really pay to try to base a strategy on them. I think it'd be dumb on the basis that I don't think it would work. Obviously all three Witches would know the person is lying, so that'd probably be three for sure votes after the claim (if they weren't voting already). So yeah, I think it'd be dumb to attempt...that's just me, though, YMMV. If I were scum hoping for another day and saw I was in the lead with votes, I'd claim something like Vicar or Witchdoctor. Those are powerful roles (in my opinion) and nobody else would know if you were or weren't telling the truth. Yes, but again, I'm the sort of player who thinks it'd be dumb of Witches to counterclaim a false claim...so I wouldn't have expected that to work. Thus, if you look at it from my mindset's point of view, I'm telling the truth. idle i am inclined to believe you but this kind of simplicity is not real helpful. a fucking not town false claiming witch to suss other witches out is perhaps beneficial to your, if you are lyning, team but it fucking helps others even more. jeebuz, even you aren't that myopic. As someone mentioned, it has been done before where someone false claimed witch. It was on the dope, I'm pretty sure it was Conspiracy 2, and I think it was Nanook who did it, but it might have been NBC. The player was cabal, and the witches were fine leaving him on a short rope for a bit until one of them had to claim and then countered the false claim. So Idle could be lying, but there's no good reason not to believe him at this point. You don't care that he's claimed witch? According to the rules, it seems like there needs to e 3 witches who are aware of each other if any exist. Every game so far has had 3 witches. I suppose it's possible to start with just 2 or even 4, but 1 doesn;t make sense, so he's somewhat like alconfirmable mason at this point. Actually, the rules say 3 witches. So barring some secret witch, there are 3 witches in this game if there are any. And not having any witches changes the complete dynamic of Consipiracy. They're pretty much the roles that make Conspiracy what it is. Idle Thoughts seems to skim a bit. Remember to read before posting- it helps a bunch. He thens attacks Silver Jan's playstyle, and claims Witch. The only thing saving me from voting for him is the Witch claim (wouldn't he be something like a warlock? cause witches are girls...). The game has freemasons as a role. They just don't know each other ahead of time. And it also has a warlock as a separate role. It's in the rules (you should read them.) But it doesn't matter really. As hoopy frood said earlier Witches are unlynchable. Nice prompt HF (#143). Understanding the basic strategies of a game, and stating those strategies, does not rise to the level of a "prompt". It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to conclude that witches are unlynchable. [colorBlue] Vote Hoopy Frood[/color] for voting Idle for behaving how he usually does and not unvoting after Idle's claim.[/quote] Yes because I posted so much after Idle claimed. In fact the total number of posts I made after Idle's claim was...let's see, carry the 2...calculate the differential...ah, here it is: None. See this is my first post since Idle claimed. I can't really unvote someone when I'm not around to do so. Now, my vote was way early in the day, and now you're stating you have a problem with it? At Day end? Why didn't you have an issue with it earlier. See, typically I'd be voting you for that since you're waiting this long to vote something that you had an issue with earlier. Except, I look at your posting history, and see you haven't posted at all since I voted. So I conclude that, you know, maybe you weren't around to see it, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. See how that worked?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 12:06:39 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 17, 2012 12:06:39 GMT -5
one other thing to keep in mind as we plough forward. i really don't like newbs that are low to no volume posters. i know we move at a glacial clip but i always get the heebs on whether they are being intimidated (not fucking likely with this lot), getting coached (more likely) or are just hanging back watching the shenanigans (most likely).
my two cents.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 12:12:52 GMT -5
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 17, 2012 12:12:52 GMT -5
[colorBlue] Vote Hoopy Frood[/color] for voting Idle for behaving how he usually does and not unvoting after Idle's claim.[/quote] Yes because I posted so much after Idle claimed. In fact the total number of posts I made after Idle's claim was...let's see, carry the 2...calculate the differential...ah, here it is: None. See this is my first post since Idle claimed. I can't really unvote someone when I'm not around to do so. Now, my vote was way early in the day, and now you're stating you have a problem with it? At Day end? Why didn't you have an issue with it earlier. See, typically I'd be voting you for that since you're waiting this long to vote something that you had an issue with earlier. Except, I look at your posting history, and see you haven't posted at all since I voted. So I conclude that, you know, maybe you weren't around to see it, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. See how that worked? [/quote] there are two parts for my reasoning. the vote is what pings me. the unvoting is secondary.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 12:16:50 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 17, 2012 12:16:50 GMT -5
OK, finished a quick read. First item: Regarding mine and mahaloth's "questioning" of Special Ed, which seems to have creted a bit of a stir: I was poking a bit of fun at Merestil Haye here for being wishy-washy (as he later acknowledged) I wouldn't assume a player who asked for Wolf last time will ask for it again. They might have done, though. So you're saying that Ed either did or did not ask for a Wolf role? I suppose at this point that's probably as good a basis for a vote as any other though, isn't it? As to the second sentence there, I submit that it was as good a reason for a vote as any other at that time, which is to say, none at all. It was an attempt at humor, which appears to have been entirely too subtle for some. The same goes for Post 21 So either Ed listed among his choices a role that he cannot possibly be assigned, or he's not being entirely upfront with us. Shocking thought, isn't it? It was a "shocking thought" that it was possible that someone might be lying in a game of Mafia. As for mahaloth, he seemd confused about Ed's statement that he would ask for a role that he couldn't have. Now, he may have been legitimately confused by Ed, or he may have been feigning confusion for reasons of his own: i don't know. What is apparent to me is that there is no connection between my posts and mahaloth's. Which makes me wonder why scathach lumps us together when he votes in Post 113. It seems as though he is trying to create an association where there is no reason to believe that one exists. vote scathach[/color] Ed later mimick's scathach's votes, adding only a "+1" as his comment. Also, Ed's "I'll just vote for everyone that already has a vote on them" strategy seems to be lacking in any real effort. And lastly, his vote on Silver Jan strikes me as opportunistic. Jan voted for Idle before his claim. Her post afterward was obviously motivatesd by emotion rather than logic, something which Ed should know full well that Jan has a tendency to do. Plus, as was pointed out, Ed himself was still voting for Idle at the time, evidence that Ed doesn't really know or care who he's voting for. vote Special Ed[/color] Also, vote Pollux Oil[/color] He too treats mahaloth and I as a single unit. Also, he pointed out Idle's apparent PIS slip but didn't vote him for it (the same sort of behavior he uses as a basis for his vote on me). Now I need to look at the case against mahaloth in a bit more detail...
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 12:17:21 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Jan 17, 2012 12:17:21 GMT -5
Yes it was me that claimed Witch as Cabal. I was screwed, and knew that no other claim would keep me alive. At least that way I had a few Days to try and cause chaos. Interestingly, other than my mistake with saying Boozy was a wolf(when he was actually a vamp), my fake investigation results were both accurate and mimic'd the Witches actual results. I remember reading the spoilers afterwards and seeing all the witches freaking out that our secret power was being able to see their communication or something.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 12:31:23 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jan 17, 2012 12:31:23 GMT -5
there are two parts for my reasoning. the vote is what pings me. the unvoting is secondary. I know. But the unvoting reason is, to put it plainly, stupid. You do see that don't you? Or have you been watching the thread all this time and really did decide at the last minute to put all your votes out just to make it look like you're actually doing something?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 12:57:47 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Jan 17, 2012 12:57:47 GMT -5
Vote guiri the vote on Texcat for fencesitting is just strange. there are more controversial posts and he keeps a vote on her and Idle but not on anyone else. he only shifted to Mahaloth after Idle Thoughts claimed. I'd like to see Texcat lynched toDay - her post about Ed, her fence-sitting and subsequent responses. I also support the Mahaloth lynch - gut reaction to his response to my poke. I have other lesser suspicions, as indicated by my questioning, but hope to get better reads as the game progresses: - Sister for her first post of the Day - Hoopy for voting players for things that make no sense to him, his post about Cabal - Inner for his comments about VT - Colby for his comments on the randomizer - Deon and Boozy for not posting more - Pollux for the weak PIS accusation
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 13:01:23 GMT -5
Post by scáthach on Jan 17, 2012 13:01:23 GMT -5
What is apparent to me is that there is no connection between my posts and mahaloth's. Which makes me wonder why scathach lumps us together when he votes in Post 113. It seems as though he is trying to create an association where there is no reason to believe that one exists. I certainly wasn't trying to imply a connection. If anything I think it's unlikely. I voted ye for 2 different reasons, you for what I read as smudging, and Mahaloth for jumping on what you said immediately and saying it again except presenting it as his own logic. I think Maha is currently lynch leader - and nothing else he's done today has really made me change my mind. He hasn't really made any cases about anyone. The only posts of his that aren't just expressing surprise he's been voted and resignation tend to be of the "Vote all of X because of Y" variety.: Vote Boozahol Vote Ginger I don't support voting for people who make distracting posts. I see other votes for peeker, but based on something. Except Catinasuit, who just voted all of us. vote CatinASuit Voting all of us is, to me, a way to look like having a vote out there but not really. I see you unvoted three people, but still. Voting people who vote for peeker, and voting CatinASuit for voting everyone. The CatInASuit thing I kind of agree with actually. As for voting people who vote peeker, it's a bit broad a brush. (Do scum really start voting for Peeker all the time as an easy vote because of the way he plays or is this something that happened once or twice and became a meme? It seems to get mentioned in every game I've played with Peeker) Vote deon Vote gnarly Vote Nanook For not talking. Votes lurkers. Although Nanook had actually posted just before him (in fairness I guess Nanook could have posted while he was composing his post or something) I think Pollux has merely voted me because I have votes. He explains his other votes, then just agrees with "hinky" and puts a vote on me. He's trying to bandwagon me. Why not vote him then? But I'm also voting for you because you seem kind of hyperdefensive in all your posts. Every time somebody votes for you, you're like "what, really? how could you vote for me?!" and seem incredulous people aren't seeing things the same way you are. I'm not incredulous at all. I am defending myself. Why wouldn't I? Otherwise, I'm just "taking it." I am really trying to play the best game I can, which includes being involved, making votes, explaining my votes, and defending myself(especially when a bunch of votes are flying my way.) I don't want to just sit idly by and get killed. I'm committed to the game. Actually the incredulous thing is a pretty good characterisation, he hasn't actually given a defence as such, he's just asked a few times for more clarification on what people thought was weird about his post. What I don't understand is if he's town, why hasn't he claimed? Maybe there's some strategy to Conspiracy games that I haven't quite grasped, but I can't see being town and not claiming before lynch?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 13:03:39 GMT -5
Post by scáthach on Jan 17, 2012 13:03:39 GMT -5
so scathath is the only person without a vote. wonder if this makes him feel like huntsman.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 13:18:28 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 17, 2012 13:18:28 GMT -5
I've reread all of mahaloth's posts in this game, and I don't see what all the fuss is about. So I thought I'd look at who voted for mahaloth, and why, and the following posts popped out at me: guiri had never mentioned anything about being suspicious of mahaloth before this post. He never mentioned mahaloth after this post until this morning when he said " I also support the Mahaloth lynch - gut reaction to his response to my poke." [/color] for purely metagamey reasons. I just reread the whole thread and I can't remember a single post he made, and I know he's made quite a few posts. He plays like this when he's Scum. [/quote] This was vote #11 on mahaloth, out of 13 needed to lynch, and it's made "for purely metagamey reasons"?!? Vote MahalothBecause players that are a lot better at playing than I am seem to think there is something strange about his posts. This was vote #12. Again, you can't come up with a better reason at this stage of the Day than that? Mahaloth... I have to agree with the consensus, the way you did ask Ed regarding his role did sound a bit funny Vote: Vote Mahaloth [/color][/quote] And this was vote #13, and was also the first time all Day that colby even mentioned mahaloth. vote guiri vote Drain Bead vote Silver Jan vote colby11
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 13:23:11 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 17, 2012 13:23:11 GMT -5
What I don't understand is if he's town, why hasn't he claimed? Maybe there's some strategy to Conspiracy games that I haven't quite grasped, but I can't see being town and not claiming before lynch? This is a good point. I can't think of a reason why a Townie mahaloth wouldn't make a claim at this point.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 13:29:19 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jan 17, 2012 13:29:19 GMT -5
- Hoopy for voting players for things that make no sense to him, his post about Cabal So what is your opinion of how Town should treat cabal? You have issues with my opinion on it, but I don't recall you stating one of your own.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 13:39:34 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 17, 2012 13:39:34 GMT -5
I've reread all of mahaloth's posts in this game, and I don't see what all the fuss is about. So I thought I'd look at who voted for mahaloth, and why, and the following posts popped out at me: guiri had never mentioned anything about being suspicious of mahaloth before this post. He never mentioned mahaloth after this post until this morning when he said " I also support the Mahaloth lynch - gut reaction to his response to my poke." This was vote #11 on mahaloth, out of 13 needed to lynch, and it's made "for purely metagamey reasons"?!? This was vote #12. Again, you can't come up with a better reason at this stage of the Day than that? Mahaloth... I have to agree with the consensus, the way you did ask Ed regarding his role did sound a bit funny Vote: Vote Mahaloth [/color][/quote] And this was vote #13, and was also the first time all Day that colby even mentioned mahaloth. vote guiri vote Drain Bead vote Silver Jan vote colby11
[/quote] bleached This post is just weird, all your votes are for people who voted for Mahaloth and yet in the very next post you wonder why he hasn't claimed yet.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 13:50:01 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 17, 2012 13:50:01 GMT -5
Does anyone know when EOD is and how many hours away it is?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 17, 2012 13:51:13 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jan 17, 2012 13:51:13 GMT -5
I don't like it when people are attacked based on their personality/play style. Again, my main beef with her was the reason she was voting. Voting for someone just because they say they're Town seems extremely weak and out there.
|
|