|
Post by Inner Stickler on Sept 26, 2012 15:58:45 GMT -5
Quantum mechanics does not apply to mafia and whether or not lynching pleo is a mislynch is not suddenly determined at the reveal.
All other things being equal lynching pleo means you get confirmation or refutation of his claimed alignment (something that most people seem to have already determined for themselves.)
Lynching someone else means you get an entirely different verified alignment plus a chance for someone to verify part or all of pleo's claim or for pleo to provide info verifying part or all of another players clain. Therefore lynching "non-town" is 'more bad' than lynching an unknown.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Sept 26, 2012 16:03:23 GMT -5
Lynching Pleo means we get to be sure he won't steal the win from us. Not lynching Pleo means we don't get to be sure he won't steal the win from us.
I'm starting to wonder why Inner is using such pretzel logic to defend Pleo, and what it means about what Inner knows that the rest of us don't.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Sept 26, 2012 16:06:24 GMT -5
Well, it's day 2. Any wincondition that allows a win this early is lame.
And it's not pretzel logic. It's clear and proceeds clearly from its premises. The pretzel logic is coming from the camp that just likes murdering easy targets.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Sept 26, 2012 16:06:27 GMT -5
Question to KidV- did you investigate anyone last night, or did you kill Peeker? I'm going to hold off answering that, if you don't mind, except to say that I didn't have anything to do with anybody dying.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Sept 26, 2012 16:07:52 GMT -5
I'll lay this out for you one more time, and then I'm done with it (again). We can't trust you because we don't know your wincon, and if we can't trust you we can't trust your results, and if we can't trust your results and we don't know that you're not going to steal a win then not only are you not useful to us but you're actually threatening, and must eventually be lynched or NKd. You aren't Town and don't have Town's wincon, ergo it isn't a mislynch, no matter how much you or anybody else declares otherwise. If this was an open game where we knew what roles were out there and what their wincons were and could KNOW that you were non-hostile, you're right, it'd be a mislynch. But that isn't the case, so until Pollux or somebody we can trust announces that your wincon really is nonhostile, you're a threat. Threats get lynched. I guess you're playing a different rules set than the rest of us. This game is open enough that we know there exists non-hostile third parties. Lynching them sets back town. Killing them sets back scum. I'm no more a threat than any other player. That is not the same as saying I am not a threat! If you have reasons to believe I'm a hostile third party, then lynching me is a good response. But to say I should be lynched simply because I've claimed third-party is putting the cart before the horse.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Sept 26, 2012 16:07:56 GMT -5
Lynching Pleo means we get to be sure he won't steal the win from us. Not lynching Pleo means we don't get to be sure he won't steal the win from us. Or, Lynching KidV means we get to be sure they won't steal the win from us. Not lynching KidV means we don't get to be sure they won't steal the win from us.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Sept 26, 2012 16:08:05 GMT -5
The description of his body and the number of reallys in the purple text put me in mind of a nexus ability. How did you come to this conclusion based on the opening mod text? Sounds like you are hearing zebras while I am only hearing horses.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Sept 26, 2012 16:23:12 GMT -5
Because a killer who freezes, shatters, decapitates and melts the brain of his target strikes me as a tad exuberant for just one person and the repetition in the reveal text has been used before when a player was targeted by multiple killers, I do believe.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Beckman on Sept 26, 2012 16:31:21 GMT -5
<snip> yes Scum would know if Pleo is Scum or not But they would not know what other carps he had up his sleeve You typed an absolute = and now you are fixing it- Myself I think Scum Would know that so your origional comment is not vote worthy but it deserves notice Carps?? What are carps?
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Sept 26, 2012 16:41:35 GMT -5
It's a kind of fish.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 26, 2012 16:43:42 GMT -5
Some things are just typos. I believe she meant to say 'cards'.
As for the Pleo/KidV/Inner debate, there are good points on both sides. As someone who advocated for lynching some of the claimed/exposed Third Parties in the latest Arkham Game, all I can say is that it was reasonable through the prism of my role at the time.
In general, when Third Parties are exposed whether voluntarily or otherwise, it makes for a mess and doesn't allow for much traction on other topics. In that vein it is particularly sucky/ironic if Pleo did indeed end up with the role he claimed considering his proclivity for claiming on Day 1. Extra ironical that Mahaloth decided it was a good idea to wander out on the branch with him. Extra crispy ironical that Peeker ends up really, really, really dead and also Third Party, when the last thing this game needs is more discourse regarding Third Parties.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Beckman on Sept 26, 2012 16:52:23 GMT -5
Please remember, you asked for this... I knew Pleo's claim was fishy.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 26, 2012 16:58:11 GMT -5
Pleonast is not asking us to trust him, and the he goes and gives us multiple things to trust him on.
VOTE PLEONAST
GTFOff it already.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Sept 26, 2012 17:00:27 GMT -5
This game is open enough that we know there exists non-hostile third parties. Lynching them sets back town. Killing them sets back scum. I'm no more a threat than any other player. That is not the same as saying I am not a threat! If you have reasons to believe I'm a hostile third party, then lynching me is a good response. But to say I should be lynched simply because I've claimed third-party is putting the cart before the horse. I know you're Not Town, Pleo. That's not something I know about any other player yet, so all other things being equal, you should be lynched. Vote Pleonast[/color] Don't wanna be lynched? Let's find some scum.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 26, 2012 17:02:09 GMT -5
On Pleonast
Given that Peeker was an "annoyer" one could believe Pleonast. But he's playing the role wrong. I have no clue what the role is, but the roe is not this stuck up. You are hiding multiple things, and your limited options on how to,dodge them grow older by the day.
You don't get my posts anything close to a,fair shake, so anything you say in response to me is moot.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Beckman on Sept 26, 2012 17:07:59 GMT -5
Some things are just typos. I believe she meant to say 'cards'. Gawd, I really am slow. I hope this is not evidence of senility.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Beckman on Sept 26, 2012 17:11:17 GMT -5
<snip> I know you're Not Town, Pleo. <snip> Let's find some scum. This is where I'm at. Enough with Pleo. He will be here to lynch at EOD if no better options arise. I'm hoping for a better option.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Beckman on Sept 26, 2012 17:13:51 GMT -5
On Pleonast Given that Peeker was an "annoyer" one could believe Pleonast. <snip> Shocking I know, but I do not understand this. How does Peeker's being an annoyer affect the believability of Pleo?
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 26, 2012 18:12:41 GMT -5
On Pleonast Given that Peeker was an "annoyer" one could believe Pleonast. <snip> Shocking I know, but I do not understand this. How does Peeker's being an annoyer affect the believability of Pleo? If a game has an 'annoyer' , that leads credence to an ,anti-lurker. At once it would seem playing style is going to be looked at, if not a m.o. In so many words, this a gastard game, and if we can trust Pleonast, it fits with Peeker's reveal.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 26, 2012 18:37:17 GMT -5
If a game has an 'annoyer' , that leads credence to an ,anti-lurker. Why? Because they both end in 'er'? Aaaand no idea what you mean here, especially since you seem quite resistant to trusting Pleo, seeing as you're voting for him.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Beckman on Sept 26, 2012 18:39:49 GMT -5
What ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies said.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Sept 26, 2012 18:41:48 GMT -5
I believe that he's implying that since Peeker got a role that Meeko thinks is fitting in a meta sort of way, that we can infer something about whether or not Pleo is telling the truth.
I'm not sure that I've ever especially associated Pleo with lurking or anti-lurking, so I'm not sure I'm following Meeko either. But I think that's the direction he's going.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Sept 26, 2012 19:02:50 GMT -5
What Becks said. I am clueless.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 26, 2012 19:52:49 GMT -5
Ah, ok, so Meeko may be saying that roles/powers may have been distributed in such a way that playstyle was considered.
If that's the case, I think it probably ranks rather low on the probability list with the idea that the game has no Scum.
For one, I don't consider Peeker's playstyle to be 'annoying'. Distinctive? Sure. And Pleo's playstyle/history doesn't scream lurker or anti-lurker nor does he have (that I recall) a track record of passionate pontificating. And Mahaloth, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have a history of being recruited or being suspected of being recruited, etc
But more importantly, that level of role customization would a) be quite unfair/unbalanced in a game with newbies and old farts and b) be an extra level of crazy for a masochistic Mod who has already gone out of his way to be crazy and masochistic.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 26, 2012 19:55:17 GMT -5
NETA : ...a track record of passionate pontificating on the topic of lurking.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Sept 26, 2012 20:08:28 GMT -5
But more importantly, that level of role customization would a) be quite unfair/unbalanced in a game with newbies and old farts and b) be an extra level of crazy for a masochistic Mod who has already gone out of his way to be crazy and masochistic. I wouldn't consider myself a masochist. Much more of a sadist, really.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 26, 2012 20:13:37 GMT -5
I believe that he's implying that since Peeker got a role that Meeko thinks is fitting in a meta sort of way, that we can infer something about whether or not Pleo is telling the truth. I'm not sure that I've ever especially associated Pleo with lurking or anti-lurking, so I'm not sure I'm following Meeko either. But I think that's the direction he's going. For the first paragraph, yes. I think that an annoyer and an anti lurker might both be categories in the set of ur-example mafia game. An archetype if you will. Peeker and Pleonast interms of role might be apples and oranges.... But at least the are both fruit. (And fruity) Remember that this game asked people to offer role ideas. But beyond that, I don't think that we are playing a game where the mod spent endless hours making "the perfect role for Peeker" "the perfect role for Pleonast" I don't know that balance, even in a gastard game can make that happen. I just logistically don't see it, I any event. In general, I think Peeker, and the alleged role that Pleonast has. Alludes to a general mafia game. Tough luck / coincidence that Peeker got one that describes him. I don't know that you can have any game, of Amy type without some theme. That is, on the meta level, at least for set up, I wonder if Peeker and Pleonast don't have unaccounted for, as of yet, set pieces in other players.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 26, 2012 20:26:56 GMT -5
But more importantly, that level of role customization would a) be quite unfair/unbalanced in a game with newbies and old farts and b) be an extra level of crazy for a masochistic Mod who has already gone out of his way to be crazy and masochistic. I wouldn't consider myself a masochist. Much more of a sadist, really. I'm equal opportunity myself. While we have you though, I believe someone asked an unanswered Mod question in green from a page or two back: What was Peeker's hostile/non-hostile designation?[/color]
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 26, 2012 20:27:41 GMT -5
I seem to recall that Pollux was trolling for ideas but said he wasn't going to hand them out based on requests.
And overall I think I agree with cookies.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 26, 2012 20:27:45 GMT -5
In that case, Meeko, your elaboration just confuses me further.
|
|