|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jan 27, 2012 12:21:06 GMT -5
Just a sneaking suspicion. Early on he decided that I was likely Town because I wasn't likely undead or wolf. It left out cabal. He stated it several times until I called him on it Yeah, you called me out on it wrongly, and because you called me out on it, I forgot I had actually mentioned you could have been cabal multiple times. I should have remembered that you never go back and actually look at posts anymore and done your homework on my posts. Thing was, I really didn't care if you were cabal which is why I didn't recall the posts where I mentioned you could be. But there is clearly at least two posts mentioning you being cabal. Day 2, reply 52: www.idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=consp5&thread=1824&page=2#85581Day2, reply 187: www.idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=consp5&thread=1824&page=7#85732(This was the one that prompted your "did you mention cabal before") So, I did mention it before, and didn't even remember it, because I wasn't concerned with cabal, and had been clearly consistent on that point multiple times. There was one post where I didn't mention you and cabal at all (which I'll leave it for you to find, since I'm not going to do all your work for you), but from what I can tell, that was it. So, if my counting is correct, there were 3 posts I discussed your wolfiness (or lack thereof), all 3 mentioned undead, 2 mentioned cabal, one didn't mention cabal. So it seems you're picking one sample from a small set and because I happened to leave one possibility out--once--you keep bringing the point up. It's not as if I kept going around the thread saying "Ed's not a wolf." I only mentioned it a second time because peeker was voting you. After that, it came up because you kept asking questions about it. So let me ask you this? Why are you so concerned about me leaving out cabal as a possibility, when I only left it out once?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 27, 2012 12:24:41 GMT -5
That's why i don't think a wolf lynch is smart at this point. those poor bastards are about 7 or 8 cycles from pulling it out of the stove. You need a flea collar, peeker. only when you come over to visit. although, i sincerly doubt that you are in any way canine inclined. i am much more comfortable thinking that you want the crucifix off the wall.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 27, 2012 12:25:47 GMT -5
Okay guys, I hate to break it to you, but I lied. I'm not a Witch, I'm a freemason. ... Just kidding. Oh and Pollux a question for you and your supposed Witch buddies. Why did you investigate Idle? Two reasons. One, knowing what kind of scum Idle was would be instrumental in when one of us would reveal the information. If he came back Wolf or Undead, we would have counterclaimed on Day Two immediately since they're more prominent threats. Two, considering the secret power the Cabal had last game, we thought we'd investigate him and see if there was a similar power in play this time. Getting insight into what secret powers the scum have in the game would be very useful. We weren't all in agreement on investigating Idle at first, believe me. Also, as a personal reason for myself, I know Idle likes to play wacky and often does abnormal things in the name of pro-Town. As far as I'm concerned, it didn't hurt to double-check his story because he's often crazy like that. ---- Okay, so this is quite possibly the most convoluted claiming I've ever seen. If I count correctly: Peeker Silver Jan Guiri Suburban gnarlycharlie Bill Boozy Have all said they're masons. This is ON TOP of JBG possibly being a mason as well. I feel like I'm in a demented replay of Who's On First. Peeker: I'm a mason! Jan: No you're not. Peeker: Yes I am! Bill: No he isn't! Guiri: Yes he is! Peeker: No I'm not! Boozy: Third base! I'm going to try and summarize everything to see if I'm correct. Bill says he's a mason and peeker is not one. Boozy says he's a mason and peeker is not one. Claims to have forgotten to handshake one day. Guiri says he's a mason and peeker and Silver Jan are both masons with him. Silver Jan says she's a mason and peeker and guiri are both masons with her. Gnarlycharlie says he's a mason and peeker is not one. Claims to have forgotten to handshake one day. Suburban says he's a mason and peeker is a mason with him. Claims to have forgotten to handshake one day. Peeker says he's a mason and suburban and guiri are masons with him. We also know JBG basically claimed to be a mason and is at least confirmed to be somewhat town. If we look closely at this, it seems peeker, guiri, Suburban, and Jan are the strongest block. Include JBG in this and that's FIVE freemasons. Five freemasons + three witches + a coroner = 9 town. Going from past Conspiracies, that only leaves THREE other Town roles, maybe four. No Vicar means no way to stop a Necromancer, so that's probably one of them? I'm trying to see if having five freemasons would break the game or not. That plus the witches means there's eight readily confirmable town. It basically becomes shooting fish in a barrel for town once they're all confirmed. I'm not sure how balanced that would be, honestly. For now: Vote: Boozahol Squid Vote: BillMc Because those two plus gnarlycharlie seem to be the most likely liars of the Who's a Mason? scandal. I doubt the necromancer is involved in all of this, so I'm guessing they're in the unclaimed pool.
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Jan 27, 2012 13:03:31 GMT -5
Because those two plus gnarlycharlie seem to be the most likely liars of the Who's a Mason? scandal. I doubt the necromancer is involved in all of this, so I'm guessing they're in the unclaimed pool. Why would I have stuck my dick into this mess if I wasn't telling the truth? I was up in the top ranks of vote-getters on the first two Days. All of this nonsense was going to lead to other lynches today and likely tomorrow whether or not I said anything. If I was scum, it would be an ideal time to keep my head down, avoid attention, and let other people get hanged. And what's my motive? Help BillMc? That would assume I'm either Cabal or a Wolf, as the Undead don't know each other. Neither the Cabal nor the Wolves are close enough to a win to justify putting one of their number out on the line to postpone a lynch of one of them by sacrificing another.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 27, 2012 13:21:30 GMT -5
I think this is a complete list of the Mason claims, investigation results, etc. so far: Day 1peeker claims Mason - D1-185 Night 1peeker claims that someone can confirm his Masonhood and claims that Sepcial Ed is not a MAson - N1-16 JustBeingGinger claims Mason - N1-18 Silver Jan claims Mason and claims Special Ed is not a Mason - N1-17 JustBeingGinger claims septimus is not a Mason - N1-18 Day 2peeker is unaware whether or not Jan is a Mason - D2-15 Night 2Jan claims peeker is not a Mason (later recanted) - N2-7 peeker claims to have received information that Jan is a MAson - N2-11 Jan recants her earlier statement and claims that peeker is a Mason - N2-14 Ed claims he is not a Mason - N2-15 BillMc claims Mason, and says that peeker is not - N2-22 peeker claims to have shaken hands with more than one Mason - N2-45 Day 3Ginger revealed as Town (so most likely a Mason) - D3-1 Boozahol Squid claims Mason, and says that peeker is not - D3-33 peeker claims to know of " a couple (or maybe one)" person who can confirm him (and "at least one other (or more)" that can confirm Ed is not a Mason) - D3-44 Boozahol Squid says "Peeker's my only found mason" (later recanted) - D3-46 Boozahol corrects his earlier stateemtn and reaffirms that peekre is not a Mason, per his Day 2 investigation - D3-49 Jan has found another Mason, but will not reveal the identity - D3-55 guiri claims Mason, and claims peeker is a Mason per Day 1 investigation) and Jan is a Mason (per Day 2 investigation) - D3-56 Jan confirms that she investigated peeker, and was told about guiri, on Day 2 - D3-57 gnarlycharlie claims Mason, and claims peeker is not a Mason - D3-59 gnarly investigated peeker on Day 2, and investigated nobody on Day 1 due to a misunderstanding of the role - D3-64 Jan claims the left a breadcrumb in the Night 0 thread - D3-68 Suburban Plankton claims Mason, and claims peeker is a Mason per Day 1 investigation. He investigated nobody on Day 2 due to an oversight - D3-85 peeker confirms that Suburban Plankton and guiri are Masons - D3-95 Boozahol investigated nobody on Day 1 - D3-119 So, the claimed Masons, along with their investigations, are: peeker Day 1 investigated Special Ed (not a Mason) Day 2 investigated ?? JustBeingGinger Day 1 investigated septimus (not a Mason) Killed Night 1, confirmed Town Night 2 Silver Jan Day 1 investigated Special Ed (not a Mason) Day 2 investigated peeker (Mason) BillMc Day 1 investigated nobody (assumed, because we has non-participatory) Day 2 investigated peeker (not a Mason) (again assumed, as he did not state and is not adround to clarify) Boozahol Squid Day 1 investigated nobody Day 2 investigated peeker (not a Mason) guiri Day 1 investigated peeker (Mason) Day 2 investigated Silver Jan (Mason) gnarlycharlie Day 1 investigated nobody Day 2 investigated peeker (not a Mason) Suburban Plankton Day 1 investigated peeker (Mason) Day 2 investigated nobody peeker was identified as a Mason by two people on Day 1 (guiri and Suburban). On Day 2, he was identified as a Mason by one person (Jan), and identified as non-Mason by three others (Bill, Boozahol, and gnarlycharlie. [This is assuming that Bill's investigation was on Day 2.]So, if peeker is a Mason, then Bill, Boozahol, and gnarlycharlie are all lying. If peeker is not a Mason, we seem to have several possibilities: - Jan, guiri, and Suburban are all lying
- peeker 'impersonated' a Mason on Day 1 to fool guiri and Suburban, and Jan is lying
- peeker impersonated a Mason on Day 2 fooling Jan, so guiri and Suburban are lying
- peeker has the ability to impersonate a Mason repeatedly, thus fooling everyone, so nobody is lying (except peeker)
I know for a fact that options 1 and 3 in the 'peeker is lying' set are out, so we have three choices left peeker is a Mason and anyone who says different is lying peeker is not a Mason, and Jan is lying when she said he is. peeker is not a Mason, but can repeatedly impersonate one, thus fooling all of the other Masons. The middle option seems the least likely to me. It requires the following scenario on Night 2: Jan claims that she attempted to handshake with peeker and found that he is not a Freemason. Then a few minutes later she recants her statement, says that she made a mistake, and that peeker really is a Mason. If Jan is not a Mason, why the recant? Are we supposed to believe she accidentally typed Bloody Hell, Peeker was a lying shit!!! I am so upset, I am devastated, first Ed and Then Peeks. Crap I need my bed. Note to self, don't trust anyone"!! then thought "Oh, shit! I was supposed to confirm him!" and then recanted her first statement? So either peeker is a Bad Guy dressed in a Mason suit, or thee people have false claimed Mason in order to discredit him. I've already explained why I think Bill might have done so. But what motivation would Boozahol and charlie have? That I haven't been able to figure out yet. That's about all I have at the moment. I'm not sure what to do with it, but I think the best thing at the moment is just to sit on it. Another Day/Night of investigation results might help sort out the matter. In the meantime we have two competing Witch claims which cannot both be true. And even if we should guess wrong, then we will have outed one Witch who we can deal with tomorrow (or Tonight assuming we have a Vigilante, as he will then have a safe target). As far as that goes, I'm with the majority that believes Idle at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 27, 2012 13:23:39 GMT -5
NETA: That last paragraph should have read "And even if we should guess wrong, then we will have outed one Cabal who we can deal with tomorrow"
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Jan 27, 2012 13:43:26 GMT -5
peeker is not a Mason, but can repeatedly impersonate one, thus fooling all of the other Masons. Note that this one doesn't work, because he didn't fool me, charlie or Bill on Day Two. The only person he 'fooled' was Jan. The only problem with this is that now we're stuck with trying to figure out why Jan would have lied for him, but only after first indicting him. If she was his partner in crime, she probably would have been a little more surreptitious about it. Requiring peeker to have used a secret power on Day One to impersonate a Mason makes a fair amount of sense: he claimed mason, and then put on his one-shot mason-pants on the day when it was most likely for everyone to investigate him. I'm not entirely going to let you or guiri off the hook, but it does work theoretically.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Jan 27, 2012 13:47:45 GMT -5
Just how many masons do we actually have? *confused*
For the time being, I'll just vote for the ones who I don't believe to be masons now
Vote: Bill Vote: gnarlycharlie
I'll leave it at that for now
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 27, 2012 14:11:56 GMT -5
Just a sneaking suspicion. Early on he decided that I was likely Town because I wasn't likely undead or wolf. It left out cabal. He stated it several times until I called him on it Yeah, you called me out on it wrongly, and because you called me out on it, I forgot I had actually mentioned you could have been cabal multiple times. I should have remembered that you never go back and actually look at posts anymore and done your homework on my posts. Thing was, I really didn't care if you were cabal which is why I didn't recall the posts where I mentioned you could be. But there is clearly at least two posts mentioning you being cabal. Day 2, reply 52: www.idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=consp5&thread=1824&page=2#85581Day2, reply 187: www.idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=consp5&thread=1824&page=7#85732(This was the one that prompted your "did you mention cabal before") So, I did mention it before, and didn't even remember it, because I wasn't concerned with cabal, and had been clearly consistent on that point multiple times. There was one post where I didn't mention you and cabal at all (which I'll leave it for you to find, since I'm not going to do all your work for you), but from what I can tell, that was it. So, if my counting is correct, there were 3 posts I discussed your wolfiness (or lack thereof), all 3 mentioned undead, 2 mentioned cabal, one didn't mention cabal. So it seems you're picking one sample from a small set and because I happened to leave one possibility out--once--you keep bringing the point up. It's not as if I kept going around the thread saying "Ed's not a wolf." I only mentioned it a second time because peeker was voting you. After that, it came up because you kept asking questions about it. So let me ask you this? Why are you so concerned about me leaving out cabal as a possibility, when I only left it out once? Because odds are against you being town. Cabal seems to fit.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 27, 2012 14:19:57 GMT -5
I hope there's a head-slapping "oh now it all makes sense" moment when I'm reading the set-up thread after the game.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 27, 2012 14:26:41 GMT -5
Why would I have stuck my dick into this mess if I wasn't telling the truth? I was up in the top ranks of vote-getters on the first two Days. All of this nonsense was going to lead to other lynches today and likely tomorrow whether or not I said anything. If I was scum, it would be an ideal time to keep my head down, avoid attention, and let other people get hanged. And what's my motive? Help BillMc? That would assume I'm either Cabal or a Wolf, as the Undead don't know each other. Neither the Cabal nor the Wolves are close enough to a win to justify putting one of their number out on the line to postpone a lynch of one of them by sacrificing another. It's possible there are two groups of four masons: you, Bill, charlie, and the late JBG in one, and peeker, Jan, guiri, and Suburban in the other. But that would mean there are 8 masons, 3 witches, and 1 coroner which totals 12, which leaves room for maybe, MAYBE one vicar and no other town power roles which is quite frankly insane. If that were true, my two witch buddies could reveal themselves now and literally everybody else who hasn't claimed could be considered almost definitely scum, because the town result we got was NOT one of the claimed masons involved in all this. There's one thing everyone's forgetting in all of this, though. Idle's already "investigated" guiri as Town. Since it seems like everybody believes Idle over me, if you're taking Idle's word at face value then it should be easy to figure out who's telling the truth and who's lying and this entire craziness should essentially spell out for everyone who is scum and who isn't, and Town has essentially already won. On the other hand, if I'm telling the truth (which I am) then Idle setting up guiri as "Town" obviously has greater implications in whatever overall plan the Cabal have. Maybe it was a lucky guess on Idle's part or they have some sort of secret investigative power, OR guiri's lying and the entire thing was a set-up for what's going on now. In either scenario, lynching me is a mistake. If I'm telling the truth, Idle is lying about being a Witch and you're lynching a Witch. That's bad for many reasons I don't need to outline. In addition, any killing parties aren't going to go after any of the claimed masons because they want this discussion to go on for as long as possible to draw attention from them. If I'm lying, then I'm a Wolf and a known quantity. As opposed to the freemason debacle, which is a bunch of unknown quantities. You lynch me and knock the Wolves down, giving whatever the fake freemason plan is another Night to do whatever they're planning. I'm obviously at the mercy of the majority in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 27, 2012 14:56:20 GMT -5
In either scenario, lynching me is a mistake. If I'm telling the truth, Idle is lying about being a Witch and you're lynching a Witch. That's bad for many reasons I don't need to outline. In addition, any killing parties aren't going to go after any of the claimed masons because they want this discussion to go on for as long as possible to draw attention from them. If I'm lying, then I'm a Wolf and a known quantity. As opposed to the freemason debacle, which is a bunch of unknown quantities. You lynch me and knock the Wolves down, giving whatever the fake freemason plan is another Night to do whatever they're planning. I'm obviously at the mercy of the majority in this case. Then who should we be lynching today? Not Idle, apparently, because you're not voting for him. You are voting for Bill, Boozy, and gnarly, so it looks as though you think they are all lying?
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 27, 2012 15:11:51 GMT -5
Then who should we be lynching today? Not Idle, apparently, because you're not voting for him. You are voting for Bill, Boozy, and gnarly, so it looks as though you think they are all lying? I think it's much more likely that Bill, Boozy, and gnarlycharlie are the lying group because basically all of their claims revolve around "peeker is not who he says he is." While yourself, guiri, Jan, and peeker all have interconnected stories and are confirming each other. Plus, I think guiri's indignation about being outed as town by Idle on Day Two looked like an honest reaction and not something scripted. It's much more advantageous to lynch one of the mason liars and find out what unknown quantity we're dealing with. Maybe they're Wolves trying a last ditch effort to save themselves and one of them is the Omega, trying to get credit. Maybe they're the Cabal and are trying to use this distraction to out other power roles so they know who the Witches are, or are looking to gain information to use their own secret power. Or maybe the Undead's secret power is that they are actually allowed to talk and strategize and know who each other are this game, or at least have some sort of communication, and this is an organized attack. The point is, this mason problem is an unknown quantity. You know I'm either a Witch or a Wolf, and you know Idle is either a Witch or a Cabalist. Meanwhile, Boozy, Bill, and gnarly could be freemasons OR Wolves, Cabal, or Undead. Or maybe you're lying and you know they're the actual masons, and you, guiri, peeker, and Jan are all Cabal, or Wolves, or Undead. My personal belief is that it's the former, and that's why I'm voting for those three.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 27, 2012 15:54:24 GMT -5
Well, last time I went away I posted in the going away thread and people didn't notice, so I'll post here that I'm going camping this weekend, and won't be back until Sunday morning. I'd appreciate it if you didn't lynch me.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 27, 2012 15:55:46 GMT -5
Well, last time I went away I posted in the going away thread and people didn't notice, so I'll post here that I'm going camping this weekend, and won't be back until Sunday morning. I'd appreciate it if you didn't lynch me. I'd suggest that you have your affairs in order before you leave...
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jan 27, 2012 16:19:15 GMT -5
Oh and Pollux a question for you and your supposed Witch buddies. Why did you investigate Idle? This is actually a good point. I think it's a slip by Pollux Oil On Day One I claimed Witch...so if you're telling the truth why investigate me at all after that?If you're really a witch, you'd have known I wasn't and there would be no reason to investigate me since you'd know I wasn't Town already. I don't believe a real Witch would waste an investigation like that (we certainly wouldn't).
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jan 27, 2012 16:23:40 GMT -5
Two reasons. One, knowing what kind of scum Idle was would be instrumental in when one of us would reveal the information. If he came back Wolf or Undead, we would have counterclaimed on Day Two immediately since they're more prominent threats. Two, considering the secret power the Cabal had last game, we thought we'd investigate him and see if there was a similar power in play this time. Getting insight into what secret powers the scum have in the game would be very useful. We weren't all in agreement on investigating Idle at first, believe me. Also, as a personal reason for myself, I know Idle likes to play wacky and often does abnormal things in the name of pro-Town. As far as I'm concerned, it didn't hurt to double-check his story because he's often crazy like that. Sounds to me like someone who put together some lame reasons really fast when you learned your logic of investigating me doesn't hold up. It's very simple: If you were telling the truth, you'd know I wasn't and there would be no need to investigate me. Period. You could have put me on the backburner and investigated people in the unknown pool. You can't tell me that three witches would agree to waste an investigation.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 27, 2012 16:25:09 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong: Excluding SilverJan's confusion, every claimed mason who attempted to handshake with Peeker D1 succeeded (Suburban and I) while every claimed mason who attempted D2 failed (Bill, Boozy, Gnarly). I was the only one to handshake with SilverJan D2 and succeeded.
I fail to understand how: 1. SilverJan did not attempt to handshake with the only claimed mason D1 2. SilverJan misunderstood a Pm which said: "Peeker is a mason. Guiri is a mason" 3. Suburban attempted to handshake D1 but missed D2 because he "kept thinking it was a Night power" 4. Gnarly and Boozy forgot to use their only power D1 5. Boozy confirmed Peeker as a mason between the counterclaim and later rectification 6. Bill actually used his power on D2 and shared his result in his only post of the game
Anyway, if I follow my theory that one group of players (possibly undead given the apparent lack of coordination, but also wolves or cabal) have a secret power, the only chink is SilverJan's claim. Assuming she's not for real, the "logical" explanation is that: - Peeker managed to imitate the Freemason role D1, claimed openly hoping to attract all the masons to handshake - SilverJan claimed N1, used the power D2, but I was the only one to fall for her ploy - Several of Ginger, Bill, Boozy, Suburban, and Gnarly are masons. Possibly one has chosen to use the same power as Peeker and SilverJan so will pass the mason handshake toDay while another will fail toDay but pass toMorrow. The two first games had 4 masons.
My gut says I've been baited.
Unvote Bill Vote Peeker Vote SilverJan
Can anyone come up with a better explanation for the claims?
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Jan 27, 2012 16:28:38 GMT -5
Exactly Idle. That's one of the two big reasons why I believe you. The other is that I requested a couple roles at the start of the game and did not receive any of them. My number one choice was Witch. You requesting and receiving Witch fits in with that, especially if the other two witches did as well.
It seems to me now, with everything that's piled up in the last bit, that there's two ways to really go. One is to lynch in the Witch mess, and the other is to lynch in the Mason mess. In my last post, I was of the opinion that we should lynch in the Mason pool, and voted for Peeker. Since then we've had a whole bunch of new information come out. I think I've come up with a better solution.
Unvote: peeker Vote: BillMC
This gives us a crapton of information, on peeker and on people that aren't peeker. And it does so at the cost of someone who has more or less said he isn't going to be playing anymore. Or to put it another way, it's a lot of upside(figuring out the mason mess), with not a lot of downside(even in the worse case scenario, where Bill is Town and telling the truth, he's not a lot of use to us since he's not going to be playing).
And just in case people think we should lynch in the Witch pile instead, Vote: Pollux . I mean seriously. If we assume you're telling the truth, you KNOW you're going to counter claim Idle at some point. You KNOW he's going to be lynched. And your argument is you used something that there's a limited number of, investigations, on a desire to figure out where to claim Day 2 or Day 3? And two other people went along with this idea? Yeah, that's a load of BS.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 27, 2012 16:31:44 GMT -5
Idle's already "investigated" guiri as Town. Since it seems like everybody believes Idle over me, if you're taking Idle's word at face value then it should be easy to figure out who's telling the truth and who's lying and this entire craziness should essentially spell out for everyone who is scum and who isn't, and Town has essentially already won. I can get behind this logic as well, actually. If Idle isn't lying, then guiri is Town. If guiri is Town, then his little group of masons are masons. Of course, if Idle is lying then the whole thing goes to shit. vote: BillMc
vote: gnarlycharlie
vote: boozy[/color]
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 27, 2012 17:10:05 GMT -5
Last post from me until Sunday as I'm getting ready to head out the door. It's very simple: If you were telling the truth, you'd know I wasn't and there would be no need to investigate me. Period. You could have put me on the backburner and investigated people in the unknown pool. You can't tell me that three witches would agree to waste an investigation. And you can't tell me that three witches would agree to out a Townsperson on Day Two for no reason other than to confirm you had an investigation. Except wait, that's what you did. Loads of people disagreed with your tactic on that, but for some reason they trust that you did it out of good intentions, eh? As far as I'm concerned, it wasn't a waste of an investigation. If this were any other game and a Detective role false-claimed and I knew he or she was false claiming, yeah, I agree that I wouldn't investigate because it's assured they're at the very least scum or third-party. But this is a Conspiracy game and there are several different scum groups, and knowing what scum group your opponent's in has it's advantages. I felt that way, and so did one of my other partners. The third took some convincing. Furthermore, I remember pretty clearly you getting into arguments with storyteller about town-aligned people lying for pro-town reasons, and you being on the side of pro-town lying if it was for the good of the game. Investigating you was the only way to be certain you weren't pulling some convoluted gambit for the sake of town, and us going toe-to-toe over miscommunication. Lord knows you've done crazy things in the name of all alignments over your mafia stints. I mean seriously. If we assume you're telling the truth, you KNOW you're going to counter claim Idle at some point. You KNOW he's going to be lynched. And your argument is you used something that there's a limited number of, investigations, on a desire to figure out where to claim Day 2 or Day 3? And two other people went along with this idea? Yeah, that's a load of BS. But we don't know he's going to be lynched, do we? Right now you're all lynching me, not him. It's obviously going to take one of the other Witches coming out to confirm me to get anyone to change their mind, and even then most likely everyone would question it. I just don't think it makes sense for you to use having a different logical conclusion on how to use an investigation as a reason to not believe me, when yesterDay lots of people disagreed with Idle outing guiri and yet that hasn't played a factor into choosing which of us is telling the truth. I'd suggest that you have your affairs in order before you leave... I've said everything I can, bar asking my fellow Witches to come out and defend me. I'd appreciate not ending the Day immediately because for one, I'd like to give them a chance to come out and protect me before you mislynch, and two I think using as much time as possible for discussion on myself/Idle and the mason dilemma is beneficial before simply closing the book and preventing any more strategy talk until Day Four.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Jan 27, 2012 17:57:14 GMT -5
But we don't know he's going to be lynched, do we? Right now you're all lynching me, not him. It's obviously going to take one of the other Witches coming out to confirm me to get anyone to change their mind, and even then most likely everyone would question it. This is all fine and good, but it's a post hoc argument. You had no idea AT THE TIME you choose to investigate Idle that we would end up in this situation. It was just as likely that he wouldn't "investigate" you and you'd counter claim him Today, or Tomorrow, or whatever the hell Day you were planning to do so, and we would have all been like "HAH I knew there was something wrong with him!" and speed lynched him.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 27, 2012 17:58:40 GMT -5
Last post from me until Sunday as I'm getting ready to head out the door. It's very simple: If you were telling the truth, you'd know I wasn't and there would be no need to investigate me. Period. You could have put me on the backburner and investigated people in the unknown pool. You can't tell me that three witches would agree to waste an investigation. And you can't tell me that three witches would agree to out a Townsperson on Day Two for no reason other than to confirm you had an investigation. Except wait, that's what you did. Loads of people disagreed with your tactic on that, but for some reason they trust that you did it out of good intentions, eh? <rest of post snipped>There is a big difference between what you claim to have done and what Idle claims to have done. You say that you investigated Idle. That means you must have had the consent of all three Witches. From the rules: What Idle did was reveal the results of the Witches' investigation. As far as I can tell there is no requirement for all Witches to agree on what information is revealed. Idle could easily have made a unilateral decision, wheresas you could not have.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 27, 2012 18:18:19 GMT -5
Or maybe the Undead's secret power is that they are actually allowed to talk and strategize and know who each other are this game, or at least have some sort of communication, and this is an organized attack. What if Peeker and Jan are both undead, but had a chance of finding each other by imitating the mason handshake? It would explain Jan's N0 breadcrumb and Peeker's D1 claim. Meh, my imagination is running wild. When does the weekend start?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 27, 2012 19:08:37 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong: Excluding SilverJan's confusion, every claimed mason who attempted to handshake with Peeker D1 succeeded (Suburban and I) while every claimed mason who attempted D2 failed (Bill, Boozy, Gnarly). I was the only one to handshake with SilverJan D2 and succeeded. I fail to understand how: 1. SilverJan did not attempt to handshake with the only claimed mason D1 2. SilverJan misunderstood a Pm which said: "Peeker is a mason. Guiri is a mason" 3. Suburban attempted to handshake D1 but missed D2 because he "kept thinking it was a Night power" 4. Gnarly and Boozy forgot to use their only power D1 5. Boozy confirmed Peeker as a mason between the counterclaim and later rectification 6. Bill actually used his power on D2 and shared his result in his only post of the game Anyway, if I follow my theory that one group of players (possibly undead given the apparent lack of coordination, but also wolves or cabal) have a secret power, the only chink is SilverJan's claim. Assuming she's not for real, the "logical" explanation is that: - Peeker managed to imitate the Freemason role D1, claimed openly hoping to attract all the masons to handshake - SilverJan claimed N1, used the power D2, but I was the only one to fall for her ploy - Several of Ginger, Bill, Boozy, Suburban, and Gnarly are masons. Possibly one has chosen to use the same power as Peeker and SilverJan so will pass the mason handshake toDay while another will fail toDay but pass toMorrow. The two first games had 4 masons. My gut says I've been baited. Unvote BillVote Peeker Vote SilverJanCan anyone come up with a better explanation for the claims? read your pm. you have handshook both of us. unless you are on board with the weird ass idea that someone is fucking with pms or that pleo is purposely fucking with us then you know your vote is full of shit. c'mon dude. me on D1 and jan on D2. you know it's true.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 27, 2012 19:39:50 GMT -5
unless you are on board with the weird ass idea that someone is fucking with pms or that pleo is purposely fucking with us then you know your vote is full of shit. c'mon dude. me on D1 and jan on D2. you know it's true. No, I don't know it's true. I know what my role PM says and I know what results I've received but the only information we can truly trust is Pleo's death reveal. Any other information can be interfered with. Give me a plausible explantion for the claims and I'll reconsider. Three players are false claiming and will be found out once you're lynched? Some power prevented 3 people from handshaking with you last Night, but not the fourth? Your secret power is to imitate a mason? You started off as a mason but got recruited? You used the handshake to find your buddies or to be found?
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 27, 2012 19:50:50 GMT -5
Know what's better than BRAINS
Freemason BRAINS -- so light and fluffy! Bwhahahaha!
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 27, 2012 20:29:00 GMT -5
To test Guiri's hypothesis, should all the masons agree to handshake with Jan or Peeker today?
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Jan 27, 2012 21:03:43 GMT -5
I'll be away from computer on real-life errands for the rest of the day (small d), but will voice my game confusion with simply
Unvote: End of Day
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 27, 2012 22:35:40 GMT -5
Oh and Pollux a question for you and your supposed Witch buddies. Why did you investigate Idle? This is actually a good point. I think it's a slip by Pollux Oil On Day One I claimed Witch...so if you're telling the truth why investigate me at all after that?If you're really a witch, you'd have known I wasn't and there would be no reason to investigate me since you'd know I wasn't Town already. I don't believe a real Witch would waste an investigation like that (we certainly wouldn't). this hurts my head. i mean he should know whether po is full of shit without having to logic it out. wtf up with dat?
|
|