Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Oct 11, 2012 3:02:04 GMT -5
One last thought before I go to bed. Pizza made what seemed awfully odd statements to me over the last few days. In particular, he seemed more concerned about "who's townie" than finding scum. The one post that struck me the most was when he actually drew up a list: <font style="font-size: 12px;">Listen, I think now would be a great time to post a list of players currently alive that we wouldn't mind lynching. I have a severe dearth of information other than what I've been referring to, so as such, most of these are acceptable. I have crossed off a few names I'm not particularly thrilled about lynching. Or vigging, for that matter. Player List 1. CometotheDarkSideWeHaveCookies2. gnarlycharlie 3. colby11 5. Meeko6. Pleonast7. crys 8. BillMc 9. dizzymrslizzy 10. wombat99 11. Lightfoot 12. storyteller 13. Merestil Haye 14. Sister Coyote 15. KidVermicious16. LaurieRN 17. patricia 18. Suburban Plankton 20. Inner Stickler 21. Parzival 22. richbeckman 23. Red Skeezix 24. scathach 25. guiri 26. Silver Jan 27. sinjin 28. JustBeingGinger 29. AskthepizzaguyDead 4. mahaloth, aka Arthur Dent (Third-Party Nonhostile One-Shot Killer), lynched Day One 19. peekercpa, aka Deadpool (Third-Party Serial Annoyer), killed Night One My guess is that to protect his so-called mason buddy, he's put them on this list. When you need to go hunting down the other part of his hostile team, look there. I can actually help this along a bit. I know Meeko's role name. If pizzaguy's claim has some truth to it, his partner would have a Blade Runner name. Meeko does not have a Blade Runner name. (He does have a name that could indicate a detective, in a weird way, but he'd likely be really good or really bad depending on how you interpret it). So it's probably not Meeko. And in response to Rich Beckman's question about the breadcrumb: I don't want to reveal Meeko's name, as it adds nothing to help us, and he can reveal it at his discretion. All he can do is confirm that I know it, so leaving a hint that only he understands is all that's necessary. My earlier note was really vague; in this post I think it's a lot easier for him to see.
Breadcrumb Received. Confirmed.I am not a mason buddy to Pizza. I do not have a Blade Runner name. Apart from the name, the specific role details I have for this game DOES NOT MATCH the role in the game it came from. Then again, given that this is a gastard game, it would appear that the role that some people have been given, doesn't match THIS game. ...... <coff> Peeker <coff>. I don't want to reveal Meeko's name, as it adds nothing to help us, and he can reveal it at his discretion. Or, you know, THIS.
|
|
|
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Oct 11, 2012 3:18:24 GMT -5
If I were to hazard a guess, Parzival is a hostile third party attempting to call out to his fellow hostiles who he thinks my mason buddy is so they can eliminate them.
What he's doing is obviously not townie, and it stretches the realm of credulity to think that he is. At least he knows he's so boned that he's mostly abandoning the pretense at this point.
And good luck cold reading me to figure out my mason partner, Parzipan. You find and kill this person within 3 rounds, and I'll owe you a coke.
|
|
|
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Oct 11, 2012 3:31:18 GMT -5
If one town plus all nonhostiles survive, town and nonhostiles win. Town and nonhostile third party mean precisely no difference except that nonhostile third parties can become hostile if recruited by the scummy scummy scums. You are saying these things as if they are established facts. I don't believe that is the case. Do you have some concrete evidence that these statements are true, or do these fall under the category of 'things that only Pizza has been able to figure out'? I have to wonder, SubP, why attempting to solve a game has suddenly become something bizarre and foreign to you. I have great respect for the folks I know who I have played mafia with, and most of them right now are disappointing me with their "WE DONT KNOW WHATS HAPPENING / GASTARD / NO SENSE TRYING TO SOLVE ANYTHING" stance. To me it seems like acting helpless and stupefied because the game setup is atypical seems to be an excuse for not giving it a serious try. Trying to determine if that makes you scum, or not up to par as a townie.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Oct 11, 2012 8:38:19 GMT -5
You have to remember that it appears you've been given the picture on the puzzle box. The rest of us are still sorting out all the edge pieces.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Oct 11, 2012 9:26:08 GMT -5
You are saying these things as if they are established facts. I don't believe that is the case. Do you have some concrete evidence that these statements are true, or do these fall under the category of 'things that only Pizza has been able to figure out'? I have to wonder, SubP, why attempting to solve a game has suddenly become something bizarre and foreign to you. I suppose you can go ahead and wonder, but I'm not sure why. My question to you was not "why are you trying to figure these things out?"; it was "why are you stating things as fact when they aren't?" Let's look at what you said: First, "If one town plus all nonhostiles survive, town and nonhostiles win." First of all, "one town plus all nonhostiles" are not going to survive, because we've already had a 'nonhostile' killed. But let's forget about that, and look at the end of this statement: "town and nonhostiles win". It's pretty obvious that Town wins in this situation, since the Town wincon has been given as 'eliminate all hostiles'. But I don't see any generic 'Nonhostile wincon', so I don't know how you can state with such certainty that all nonhostiles will win. It's been stated that there are no pure Survivor roles in this game, but that's all we know about any Third Party wincons. It's likley that some nonhostiles will need to survive in order to win, while others may be able to win even if they are killed. Second, "Town and nonhostile third party mean precisely no difference except that nonhostile third parties can become hostile if recruited by the scummy scummy scums." Again, I don't recall it being stated that 'nonhostile third parties can be recruited (full stop)'. Where did you get this information? My issue with your statements is not related so much to the content, as to the method of delivery. you say things as if they are demonstrably true, and they aren't. That's a dangerous thing to do, and I don't think you should do it. If people start making decisions based on your 'facts', that can turn sour very fast if you happen to be mistaken. I don't necessarily think your intentions are 'scummy', but I do think your actions are needlessly reckless.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Beckman on Oct 11, 2012 9:29:18 GMT -5
My guess is that to protect his so-called mason buddy, he's put them on this list. I don't know about that guess. Speaking for myself and regardless of the apparent smear at myself and KidV, if I were posing as a Mason something like that is the last thing I would do to either try and protect or breadcrumb another Mason-poser, whether I was Scum or PFK aligned. And why is this an "apparent smear" of yourself and KidV? And what if you were not "posing as a Mason something" but actually were a Mason? Would you then cross your Mason buddy off the list of players you considered reasonable lynches?
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Oct 11, 2012 9:41:11 GMT -5
ATPG made a list with 5 players he didn't want lynched. One of those players is himself, another is dead. Parzival is saying that we should look for ATPG's teammate among the other lined-through peeps which is an indirect way of saying either KidV or Cookies is scum since he already explained why he doesn't think meeko is scum. That's why it's a smear.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Beckman on Oct 11, 2012 10:36:37 GMT -5
ATPG made a list with 5 players he didn't want lynched. One of those players is himself, another is dead. Parzival is saying that we should look for ATPG's teammate among the other lined-through peeps which is an indirect way of saying either KidV or Cookies is scum since he already explained why he doesn't think meeko is scum. That's why it's a smear. Ha! Now I understand. I read it completely wrong. When she said "Speaking for myself and regardless of the apparent smear at myself and KidV..." I read it as meaning the smear that was inherent in what she was about to say rather then the smear that had already been delivered by someone else. For the life of me I could not figure out how what followed was a smear!
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Oct 11, 2012 11:04:01 GMT -5
Can I just say how exciting it is that we have yet to have a game thread under 100 posts? Usually Day One is gargantuan and then we experience a precipitous drop off but there is a high level of activity here that excites me.
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Oct 11, 2012 11:41:17 GMT -5
Inner I think that's because there's just so much information that's been thrown out all at once that it makes for a lot of discussion.
BTW I love Pizza's smear on me that he hates all of my targets.
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Oct 11, 2012 11:42:50 GMT -5
NETA- Of course Pizza isn't going to be happy that He was on that list.
I also love that yesterDay I drew a OMGUS vote from him yesterDay over calling him arrogant, yet someone else did and he completely ignored it.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 11, 2012 11:55:30 GMT -5
And what if you were not "posing as a Mason something" but actually were a Mason? Would you then cross your Mason buddy off the list of players you considered reasonable lynches? No, I wouldn't do it then either. A) I don't usually use lists as tools in my analysis. I keep track of things in more of a three dimensional cluster diagram that I see in my head. YMMV. B) That blatant of an association with a co-mason, especially so early in the game, would feel over-exposed to me. It would also depend on how big the masonry was. With only two, I'd lobby for us both to drop some pretty subtle breadcrumbs that are explicit and clear in hindsight when pointed out by the survivor in case one of us dies that can be used to 'confirm' the survivor. Otherwise, I'd hope that we stay just disassociated enough not to look like we were blatantly ignoring each other while also not obviously defending each other in ways that could only be supported by perfect information.
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Oct 11, 2012 12:08:36 GMT -5
I also think it would be pretty obvious that one of his buddies was one of the crossed out players. I'm leaning towards it being one of the other random people on the list.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 11, 2012 12:19:33 GMT -5
OK - so -
@askthepizzaguy: If we lynch Parzival as you recommend (or he dies in some other way), and if he turns out to be Town or non-hostile Third Party, do you agree that you should be subsequently lynched? Because you have a tendency to mix things you know with things you believe very strongly, I want you on the record on this.
Assuming the answer is "yes..."
On balance, I tend to provisionally believe askthepizzaguy, for two reasons. If he is Scum (or hostile 3rd, which I'm going to lump together from here on out for analytical simplicity unless the difference is relevant), the short-term benefit of getting us to lynch Parzival via a false claim would be very small indeed, as pizzaguy himself would follow Parzival to the noose almost immediately and the trade-off seems modest.
More than that, though, if askthepizzaguy is hostile to Town, then what does that say about his ostensible partner? He has, through color, given us that player's role name: that player is either Lee Hallen (the Rogue Blade Runner from the New Canaan game) or Rick Deckard (the regular Blade Runner from the New Canaan game). If we lynch Parzival, Parzival turns out to be nonhostile, and we subsequently lynch pizzaguy and he IS hostile, then anyone claiming to be or revealed to be one of those two role names is going to be in very hot water.
Of course, pizzaguy could just be flat out lying about the existence of a confederate. But even then, he has very little to gain by lying here. He may be telling the truth about Parzival but still be hostile to Town... but I think he very well may be telling the truth.
Meanwhile, if anyone in the game is Lee Hallen or Rick Deckard, and if you are not a Mason buddy of pizzaguy... well, it might be a good idea to let us know that before we string up Parzival.
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Oct 11, 2012 13:50:34 GMT -5
The sun is late coming up today... could be a bad sign
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Oct 11, 2012 13:51:55 GMT -5
Hey everyone, I apologize for the delay, had a rough night last night and didn't get much sleep, a little out of it but I'll get Dawn up as quick as I can.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 11, 2012 13:54:06 GMT -5
[Oog] Everyone should listen to (more than watch) this NSFW video while we're waiting for Dawn. Just trust me. There will come a few points where you will wonder wtf and maybe throw up in your mouth a little bit, but.... Just trust me. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt2MIB8oCK0&feature=youtu.be[/oog]
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 11, 2012 14:18:56 GMT -5
Now why on earth would I watch something that was going to make me throw up in my mouth a little bit?
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 11, 2012 14:23:35 GMT -5
Now why on earth would I watch something that was going to make me throw up in my mouth a little bit? That just makes me want to puke
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 11, 2012 14:27:51 GMT -5
It won't. But it might make you think about maybe wanting to. You are not trusting me.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 11, 2012 14:27:56 GMT -5
I was laughing last night -- I regularly watch Dirty Jobs and while some of them have turned my stomach it took...
...camel spit
to make me truly gag.
I don't even know.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 11, 2012 14:32:12 GMT -5
It won't. But it might make you think about maybe wanting to. You are not trusting me. It's the throwing up a little in your mouth that wants to make me do the full on vomit thing, give me blood anytime.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Beckman on Oct 11, 2012 17:51:59 GMT -5
<snip> I know Meeko's role name. If pizzaguy's claim has some truth to it, his partner would have a Blade Runner name. Meeko does not have a Blade Runner name. (He does have a name that could indicate a detective, in a weird way, but he'd likely be really good or really bad depending on how you interpret it). <snip> I don't want to reveal Meeko's name, as it adds nothing to help us, and he can reveal it at his discretion. All he can do is confirm that I know it, so leaving a hint that only he understands is all that's necessary. My earlier note was really vague; in this post I think it's a lot easier for him to see.
Breadcrumb Received. Confirmed.I am not a mason buddy to Pizza. I do not have a Blade Runner name. Apart from the name, the specific role details I have for this game DOES NOT MATCH the role in the game it came from. Then again, given that this is a gastard game, it would appear that the role that some people have been given, doesn't match THIS game. ...... <coff> Peeker <coff>. I don't want to reveal Meeko's name, as it adds nothing to help us, and he can reveal it at his discretion. Or, you know, THIS. Note the detail If none or some of that is not true, it seems like Meeko's post above would be the time to point that out, rather than confirming it. If it is true, it seems a stretch that Parzival did not know Meeko's name.
|
|