|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 17:49:03 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 29, 2013 17:49:03 GMT -5
Can I ask how sure you are of Plankton? I understand the situation as regards the two of us. I'm not sure I understand what's going on with him. Are you asking me this question? If so, are you asking why I voted him, or why I unvoted him? So your 'claim' (I use claim as a lack of a better word) is: there are no third parties? I'm certainly not ready to jump to that conclusion yet based on what we currently know. I don't believe you are scum (or a very bold one at that). But why are you voting the way you are (reversed) - is it something you've done before? It strikes me as very strange. I'm assuming that you have absolute knowledge (or close enough) that I'm not a devil, but aren't sure if I'm third-party or not. There's a way you could have that knowledge and I thought you were alluding to it in your post. If I'm wrong about that, let me know. There's no way that you could possibly have that particular knowledge if you were a devil (I know that for a fact from my own role PM) so I'm also assuming that you're not one. And yes, it seems highly unlikely to me that Pleo would put win-stealing third-parties in a game with wincons that specifically state you have to beat one faction (the devils) to win, unless he's being Gastardly. That wasn't why I posted the bit about third-parties though. I'm a Christian, I should have the same win-conditions as other Christians, and my win-conditions match those posted by other claimed Christians. Nobody's said anything about there being references to third-parties in their win conditions, nor to the best of my recollection have they expressly denied it. Ergo, the fact that I know there aren't references to third-parties in Christian win-conditions should provide at least negative confirmation that I'm exactly what I say I am: a Christian. (The majority of town games that I've played refer to "hostile elements" or "mafia and other threats" or suchlike. This one didn't.) All I'm really doing is voting against the people I think aren't scum, rather than voting for the people I think are. I'm ready to give a massive Internet wet snog to the first person (besides me, because rest assured I'll be saying it) who comments to a single-votor: "WHY are you only using one vote when you have twenty-six? Do you have no other suspicions to go on? That is so shady!"
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 17:55:28 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 29, 2013 17:55:28 GMT -5
Oh, and Chucara -
I'm not asking why you unvoted him. I'm asking if you're sure of the reasoning behind unvoting him. In plan speech - is it as unlikely to you that Plankton is a devil, as it is to me that you are?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 19:43:53 GMT -5
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Jan 29, 2013 19:43:53 GMT -5
I'm on my phone and don't know how to quote but Holy seriously you have te wrong impression of me.
I'm fine and know I won't agree with everyone in life but I can agree to call a truce.
Anyway you have a mistake there... I never had and still don't have a vote for Patricia. I was concerned with her PM discrepancies and voiced it but then wound up defending her that she may have a Jesus type role which is why she has no cardnal sins.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 21:17:24 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 29, 2013 21:17:24 GMT -5
@moley - I have no problem with your approach, philosophically at least, and I'm not sure why so many do. I do have some issues with the execution, at least so far. If you're going to play this way, then you need to have rationales for unvoting equivalent to what we'd normally expect for voting, if that makes sense. So far you've been unvoting people for reasons that are relatively flimsy - levels of evidence that would never fly if you were playing normally and using them to justify a vote. At the moment your methods seem like a way to exempt you from having to make a strong case of any kind - since unvotes simply don't generate the same heat, scrutiny, or controversy as votes do. I will be watching this closely as the game goes on. However, I dislike Suburban Plankton’s vote for Moley at #194. Specifically: I think the idea that one player can hold anyone hostage, let alone the entire game population, is a reach. None of us is harmed by having one random vote on us from Moley. “Backtrack” is a gently stretched characterization of this, one that seems to have been stretched to justify a vote. That there would be other reasons to unvote a player was incredibly obvious from the minute Moley announced his plan – suppose someone claimed Mason, for instance. The whole thing looks opportunistic – the use of slightly exaggerated scare language like “held hostage” and tiny twists like “backtrack,” the laying out of reasons without really explaining how those reasons make someone more likely to be Scum… and all against a typically controversial player who’s gone out of his way to draw attention to himself by an unusual approach. Yeah, why not? vote Suburban PlanktonAlso have an issue with Chucara at #225. First, he’s voting for both of the day’s easiest targets: Moley and patricia. Second, he’s using the multi-vote option to lay votes on no fewer than 11 targets in this post, while simultaneously voting for Moley for using his own shotgun approach to voting. Third, he does this: Why do either of them have to be Scum. Why are you choosing? This move – setting up a pair of players and saying that surely one must be Scum – is a great Scum tactic, because if Player A dies and flips Town, then you can just move on to Player B. Fourth, he votes for me ☺ And he accuses me of having only one post, when I actually had three. vote Chucarapatricia – I want to repeat a question I asked earlier: am I correct in understanding that you have no Cardinal sin, but you have also received an admonition against allowing anyone to learn your Cardinal sin? In what context did that appear? At first glance, you can see why that seems… odd… right?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 21:47:15 GMT -5
Post by mistervisceral on Jan 29, 2013 21:47:15 GMT -5
Thanks Wombat for finally getting it - I least one person understands me that is refreshing This looks astonishingly like scum commending a town. Publicly. And trying to get feels from it. In any case, I can't see wombat and patricia as being knowingly aligned, sooooo Unvote: Wombatstoryteller makes an excellent point on Burbs, but I've actually like most of what Suburban Plankton has had to say in this game. I'll do a reread of him at some point and see what I think. CHUCARAAre you asking me this question? If so, are you asking why I voted him, or why I unvoted him? So your 'claim' (I use claim as a lack of a better word) is: there are no third parties? I'm certainly not ready to jump to that conclusion yet based on what we currently know. I don't believe you are scum (or a very bold one at that). But why are you voting the way you are (reversed) - is it something you've done before? It strikes me as very strange. Oddly, this post tore me in two opposite directions regarding chucara. On one hand, the first line looks like dodging the question. BUT it's not really deflecting it in the way some does. He's committed himself at this point to explaining the question anyway. And then the last two little bits actually look like genuine inquiry. So. Unvote Chucara[/color] Moley vs. lizzy is looking pretty town vs. town to me. And now for your regularly scheduled OOG comments. SOLARIS <3 WHERE ARE YOU~~~ uguu **vic <3 solaris otp** I also miss hearing from Hockey Monkey. YOU ALL GET BACK IN HERE SO I CAN CONTINUE LIKING YOU~ THIS INSTANT! Ginger, you're in my prayers. patricia, get well soon and don't get me sick!
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 22:51:33 GMT -5
Post by crys on Jan 29, 2013 22:51:33 GMT -5
Eeeeeeugh I think a devil would know that you don't "get" a cardinal sin, you "have" one. As per the victory conditions posted all over the place... I have a real problem here. Patricia's mistakes look like the kind of mistakes you wouldn't make if you had a scum team backing you up. I've just gone over all her posts, including the recent one, and my impression is she's genuine, albeit new. So Unvote: Patricia. Now if the Patricia wagon goes down, here's who we got in second, third and fourth place: 1) Me. And I'm not ready to die, no matter how curious I am about purgatory. 2) Cris. Who barely seems to be playing the game - so much so that his first and damn-near-only positive action here has been to vote another player based on a joke vote from the top of the first page of the "Day 1" thread. I'm conflicted about him - on the one hand, I've got nothing from him to indicate he's not scum, but on the other, he hardly seems like a player with a team of four or five other devils behind him. But again, that might be because he's not into the game - not because he's innocent. I don't know. And of course I'm assuming there (and with my Patricia unvote) that the devils are playing as a team, not on their own, without any kind of basis to back up that assumption. 3) DizzyLizzy. I have issues with the way she's communicating with others, I have more issues with the way she's playing the game as a whole, and I could definitely get behind a DizzyLizzy lynch at this point. I think there's a far better chance of her being part of a working scum team than Patricia or Cris. And I kinda want to see her lynched to learn if she really is scummy or just a rhetorical-questioning joke-voting OMGUS-allergic insane person. (That last part's a given, by the way. It's whether or not she's scum that I'm debating.) This is why I hate this part of the game... twenty-five people to analyze, minimal information to do it with. Crys is a she by the way. It's not that I'm not into the game. This game did start at a bad time for me. My brain has been fogged up by painkillers pretty much the whole time the game has been going. I did have surgery on my hand on Thursday. If ya'll want I can post pics of me stitches lmao. I am hoping to be completely weaned off the painkillers in the next couple days because I haven't had to take the strongest dose of them all day today. To the added confusion my posts have been pretty short because, well to be honest it hurt to type. It is now getting better and I can take typing some longer responses. I don't know how I can be more clear about why I voted patricia. Her posts to me with the lying/changing things/making mistakes whatever just don't sit well with me. I'm not ready to die either. In fact I would really like a chance to play this role because I think it would be fun, even though the pm was confusing on my first read through. I have the same hints as the rest of the christian populace. So let's try to lynch us a devil ok?
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 23:11:28 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 29, 2013 23:11:28 GMT -5
@moley - I have no problem with your approach, philosophically at least, and I'm not sure why so many do. I do have some issues with the execution, at least so far. If you're going to play this way, then you need to have rationales for unvoting equivalent to what we'd normally expect for voting, if that makes sense. So far you've been unvoting people for reasons that are relatively flimsy - levels of evidence that would never fly if you were playing normally and using them to justify a vote. At the moment your methods seem like a way to exempt you from having to make a strong case of any kind - since unvotes simply don't generate the same heat, scrutiny, or controversy as votes do. I will be watching this closely as the game goes on. snipped Yes, this is what is bothering me about Moley's vote strategy. It is absolving him of his responsibility for the votes he makes. I still feel as though Patricia is a Devil that got caught with her pants down and is trying to convince us all that we didn't see anything. I'm not seeing the case on crys. Plus she made a veiled reference to claiming if she needed to. I'm getting a Christian read on her.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 23:22:18 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 29, 2013 23:22:18 GMT -5
<oog> Ginger, I'm so sorry to hear your sad news. I had a miscarriage when I was 21, and it was very difficult. I hope when you are ready to try again that you won't have any difficulities./<oog>
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 0:53:54 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 30, 2013 0:53:54 GMT -5
How the hell do you multi-quote??? I wanted to do a nice, easy to read and understand post concerning scathach, but I have no idea how to multi-quote. So psychopathgame.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=scathach is her profile page with links to all 5 of her current posts. OK, so I'll open another window and copy and paste. Just checking in to note that I do in fact have internet here although I'll probably be away a bit simply because I'm so tired (skiing is hard! And my legs hurt!) Sent from my GT-N7100 using proboards Check-in. I wonder why it was an offered thing though. As in not just a day action but something Idle had to accept? (presuming he's telling the truth obviously) Sent from my GT-N7100 using proboards Casting out a line. Yeah, patricia's defense seems plausible enough, but it could easily have been come up with on the spur of the moment, particularly since Idle has already revealed the existence of cardinal sins. A weak defense of Patricia. See what I get for trying to tell my follow christians about something we " c. Never reveal to another player nor allow another player to figure out your Cardinal Sin. " are not to talk. I thought you didn't get that in your role PM though? Or am I misreading? Testing for a nibble. Interestingly enough mine says nothing about discussing our sin count I have b which discusses sins and c which discusses Sins. And b says it will always help town to "remove" ones sins while increasing them can hurt or help. So yeah you have me confused I admit I have a sin as a sorta opening to possibly get it removed and you either have something far different than me or you read things different than me. ryjaeI know what you mean about the sin count, but do you have the same reference to Cardinal Sins that Idle mentioned? Still trying to set the hook. Vote: scathatch [/b]
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 0:57:55 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 30, 2013 0:57:55 GMT -5
So obviously I'm thinking scathach has contributed nothing to the discussion and only seems to be fishing for info. I thought I had posted that at the beginning of the post above, but I apparently did not. Y'all can read my mind though, right?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 6:50:26 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jan 30, 2013 6:50:26 GMT -5
[/color] He told us that because of information in his PM, Patricia could not be Christian and then voted for her because of this seemingly absolute statement in his PM, not because of Patricia's waffling and inconsistent postings.[/quote] BWUH? Ummmm.............if you look at the post where I vote for her, you'll see this, very plainly: ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ME:So no, you're quite wrong, thank you. In fact, I wonder if you even read my post at all or just chose to take the parts out that gave strength to your vote. As I clearly state there, I was already suspicious of her due to those reasons. Anyway, I have replied back to Pleonast and accepted the offer to cleanse my sin. Don't really have much more to add as I'm still happy with my vote..although wombat99 is now on my suspicions list for that weak voting, not only based on something she was wrong about but also in not knowing I had posted the third rule set before Patricia did. I mean, come on now...
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 6:54:04 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 30, 2013 6:54:04 GMT -5
Yes, this is what is bothering me about Moley's vote strategy. It is absolving him of his responsibility for the votes he makes. I can't disagree with this, nor Storyteller's statement that I need to justify my unvotes. The real negative to my strategy is that by the end of the day, I'll realistically have needed to unvote probably upwards of twenty people. And that's gonna be hard. Here's why I've unvoted the people that I have so far: Ryjae: his quick confirmation of the posted wincons, plus general gut feeling that he's in it to help town. Nothing more than that. BillMC: his contradiction of Idle's wincon statement. I think it unlikely that he got this information from, say, a "sample PM" given by Pleonast to the scum, or was confident enough to directly contradict someone who presumably would not be on the same scum team as him. More likely that he's telling the truth. Idle Thoughts: I know there's a contradiction in his statement, but I don't think it's one that can be explained by scummy intent. I feel that the info he's given us, if true, indicates that he's likely to be playing on the town side. I also feel that he wouldn't have contradicted Patricia as strongly as he did if he was a devil and knew that other Christians would simply call him out on it (as BillMC did). Lightfoot: Lot of meta-gaming with this one. She was scum in "Wonderland" and her playstyle seems very different here. That and her willingness to participate in the early discussions, which is not something I'd expect a more passive scummy player to do. MisterVisceral: Seems to be observing and questioning things in a way that strikes me as pro-town. Regarding Lightfoot (although I don't necessarily agree with the idea that she's scum) and Patricia in particular. Pollux: Specifically for his admonition to the town not to discuss how many sins we have. A lot of his suggestions since seem to be pro-town. It would be severely ironic if, in the one game we've played together where I don't think he's likely to be scum, he turns out to be exactly that. ;D Chucara: can't say. Literally can't. If I'm wrong, I'll find out soon enough and it won't matter anyway - it's just an idea that turned out to be wrong, discard it and move on. If I'm right and I say what I'm thinking / know, it would be giving information to the devils that they absolutely should not have access to. Either way, it affects Chucara, me, and possibly Plankton (depending on what Chucara says); nobody else. Sister Coyote: I unvoted her, not because I felt she was likely town, but because I felt she was unlikely to be a recruiter-type role for the devils. I could put this vote back, technically speaking, but I haven't had a chance to re-read her posts and nothing's stuck out to me in terms of either what she's said or what's been said about her that would be a definite reason to do so. Patricia: I just can't believe the other scum, if they were able to communicate at all, would let her go down the road she went down. She's made a play that didn't work, and in doing so, left a trail of contradictions a mile long. If she's scum, it seems unlikely to me that she'd put herself in that position in the first place. Why not just keep out of those kinds of arguments? Ginger: purely for reasons not related to the game. I think that's everybody. Have I left anyone out? Cris - apologies for getting your gender wrong. I'm not passing judgement on why you haven't played or anything - just pointing out that you haven't done much yet gives me a handle on what side you're playing for. I've been kinda caught up in my own way of thinking here, which may be dangerous. I'll try and give some opinions on others' cases.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 7:25:40 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 30, 2013 7:25:40 GMT -5
I'm on my phone and don't know how to quote but Holy seriously you have te wrong impression of me. I'm fine and know I won't agree with everyone in life but I can agree to call a truce. Anyway you have a mistake there... I never had and still don't have a vote for Patricia. I was concerned with her PM discrepancies and voiced it but then wound up defending her that she may have a Jesus type role which is why she has no cardnal sins. It was your vote for me that I was referring to. My position right now is: I know I'm town and think there's a good chance Patricia is too. If I'm right about this then with six votes on me and (last time I checked) thirteen on Patricia, there is a strong likelihood of scum votors on both players - it's easy to hide one vote among six, let alone thirteen. If any of those votes look more voting-by-bandwagon then voting-because-of-genuine-suspicion, it's an indication that the votor might be scum.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 8:26:16 GMT -5
Post by patricia on Jan 30, 2013 8:26:16 GMT -5
@storyteller - I didn't want to give the devils to much information but yes I had warning C - and yes I didn't have a cardnal sin at start of the game - but without details - I can or maybe already have commited one or more sins during game play.
hope that answers your question going back to bed as I'm sick
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 11:11:53 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Jan 30, 2013 11:11:53 GMT -5
Storyteller You're right. I guess I was tired last night - I don't know why you were in the 1 post bunch. I used the post count from this board. Even if you had just one post, you are no longer in my lurker pile as per your post. All I wanted to achieve was to poke the lurkers. On that note, I will unvote those that have responded since (my remaining lurkers now have 2 posts in total).
Unvote: Wombat99 Unvote: storyteller0910 Unvote: texcat Unvote: BillMc
HoleyMoley! You are confusing me. I am not 100% certain you are not scum. I think I have an idea at the moment, but there are still too many confusions and uncertainties. I haven't reread Plankton, so I still don't really understand why you are asking that question. I know you are hinting at something, and I thought I knew what that was until you brought him into the picture. I also do not understand how you can know I am town (other than you being scum or you having an investigative day power).
In short: No, I am not at all certain about Plankton, but I will reread him.
I don't see scum HolyMoley! acting the way he does, so: Unvote: HolyMoley!
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 11:17:19 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Jan 30, 2013 11:17:19 GMT -5
NETA: storyteller: No I don't know that either of them are scum. I wrote what I wrote because my short list of people I thought could be scum contained both of them. If lightfoot hadn't been so agressive with Idle, I'd have voted both. But I don't see scum being quite so direct with other scum, so I only voted the one of the two I found the most scummy - this being lightfoot.
If I knew one of them had to be scum, I'd vote them both.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 11:28:09 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Jan 30, 2013 11:28:09 GMT -5
I’m surprised there has not been comments on this post. ~~~snipped~ I'm assuming that you have absolute knowledge (or close enough) that I'm not a devil, but aren't sure if I'm third-party or not. There's a way you could have that knowledge and I thought you were alluding to it in your post. If I'm wrong about that, let me know. There's no way that you could possibly have that particular knowledge if you were a devil (I know that for a fact from my own role PM) so I'm also assuming that you're not one. You have additional knowledge- according to this bit here- If I were a devil you would be on the short list for NK ----please consider sharing as much as you can before that happens Are you advocating a non hostile third ‘faction’ or denying one? I’m just trying to track your statements I think you meant you are unvoting at the people you think aren’t Scum- The problem with using multi votes in the manner that you have is -- if the game takes a turn- in your absence – your vote on that person could be a tie breaker and you have not a whit of culpability. Using your tactic I think it’s important that you be sure to be here EOD
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 12:05:13 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 30, 2013 12:05:13 GMT -5
@storyteller - I didn't want to give the devils to much information but yes I had warning C - and yes I didn't have a cardnal sin at start of the game - but without details - I can or maybe already have commited one or more sins during game play. hope that answers your question going back to bed as I'm sick You say you "can or maybe already have committed one or more sins during game play"... When you say that, are you referring to "sins", or "Cardinal Sins"?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 13:30:28 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 30, 2013 13:30:28 GMT -5
@storyteller - I didn't want to give the devils to much information but yes I had warning C - and yes I didn't have a cardnal sin at start of the game - but without details - I can or maybe already have commited one or more sins during game play. hope that answers your question going back to bed as I'm sick You say you "can or maybe already have committed one or more sins during game play"... When you say that, are you referring to "sins", or "Cardinal Sins"? Both these posts sound odd to me, how can you commit a Cardinal sin if you don't have a Cardinal Sin to begin with? From my read of things, you can only commit a sin. Colour me confused here.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 13:36:18 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Jan 30, 2013 13:36:18 GMT -5
You say you "can or maybe already have committed one or more sins during game play"... When you say that, are you referring to "sins", or "Cardinal Sins"? Both these posts sound odd to me, how can you commit a Cardinal sin if you don't have a Cardinal Sin to begin with? From my read of things, you can only commit a sin. Colour me confused here. Theology aside the comment drips of " I know something- but I'm not telling"
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 13:45:46 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 30, 2013 13:45:46 GMT -5
Both these posts sound odd to me, how can you commit a Cardinal sin if you don't have a Cardinal Sin to begin with? From my read of things, you can only commit a sin. Colour me confused here. Theology aside the comment drips of " I know something- but I'm not telling" No, not at all, you have a Cardinal Sin, be it one of 7 or not I don't know, you have that sin. If you commit a Cardinal sin then you get a sin. For example: The Cardinal sin is Sloth, if you do not place a vote during the Day then you will get a sin added to your sins, so you have committed a Cardinal Sin but you get +1 sin, got me. Disclaimer about the Cardinal Sin I used to illustrate my drawing.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 15:36:46 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Jan 30, 2013 15:36:46 GMT -5
Theology aside the comment drips of " I know something- but I'm not telling" No, not at all, you have a Cardinal Sin, be it one of 7 or not I don't know, you have that sin. If you commit a Cardinal sin then you get a sin. For example: The Cardinal sin is Sloth, if you do not place a vote during the Day then you will get a sin added to your sins, so you have committed a Cardinal Sin but you get +1 sin, got me. Disclaimer about the Cardinal Sin I used to illustrate my drawing. Hello Mizz-Understood here ( remember me) What I meant was When Patricia says “- I can or maybe already have commited one or more sins during game play. “ It alludes to her having some information about gaining sins And I certainly hope you didn't just expose your Cardinal Sin- and if you didn't---- now you will be accused of knowing some one else's- and we all know where the thought process goes from there
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 15:58:32 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 30, 2013 15:58:32 GMT -5
No, not at all, you have a Cardinal Sin, be it one of 7 or not I don't know, you have that sin. If you commit a Cardinal sin then you get a sin. For example: The Cardinal sin is Sloth, if you do not place a vote during the Day then you will get a sin added to your sins, so you have committed a Cardinal Sin but you get +1 sin, got me. Disclaimer about the Cardinal Sin I used to illustrate my drawing. I think maybe I understand what you're saying through most of this, but you really lost me at the end there...
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 16:00:24 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 30, 2013 16:00:24 GMT -5
Extrapolating from what we know, and from Jan's example, it seems to me one could earn a Cardinal Sin by multiple unforgiven instances of a particular Sin. E.g., You don't vote Days One and Two; suddenly, you have Sloth in addition to any initial Cardinal Sin you might or might not have had.
Speaking of which: vote: no lynch
As a placeholder.
Someone discussed Jesus and Mother Theresa; does anyone think we might have a Sin Eater?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 16:01:19 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 30, 2013 16:01:19 GMT -5
If Patricia was doing Cardinal Sins during her gameplay then it would make her look much more Townie to me.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 16:03:56 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 30, 2013 16:03:56 GMT -5
What she's saying, Lightfoot, is that assuming one's Cardinal Sin is Sloth, that maybe one of the ways to commit that sin is to not vote during a Day. It's conjecture, she's not claiming to be Slothful.
I agree with you about Patricia. I know how my Cardinal Sin works, but I don't know how Patricia knows how they work if she doesn't have one. If she keeps this up she's going to need a bigger shovel.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 16:04:46 GMT -5
Post by mistervisceral on Jan 30, 2013 16:04:46 GMT -5
And I certainly hope you didn't just expose your Cardinal Sin- and if you didn't---- now you will be accused of knowing some one else's- and we all know where the thought process goes from there Well if they didn't catch it before~ Don't mention stuff like this until it becomes relevant plz thx~
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 16:04:52 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Jan 30, 2013 16:04:52 GMT -5
If Patricia was doing Cardinal Sins during her gameplay then it would make her look much more Townie to me. what are you saying here?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 16:07:24 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Jan 30, 2013 16:07:24 GMT -5
And I certainly hope you didn't just expose your Cardinal Sin- and if you didn't---- now you will be accused of knowing some one else's- and we all know where the thought process goes from there Well if they didn't catch it before~ Don't mention stuff like this until it becomes relevant plz thx~ Balderdash Scum is going to notice this stuff way before I do
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2013 16:07:56 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 30, 2013 16:07:56 GMT -5
If Patricia was doing Cardinal Sins during her gameplay then it would make her look much more Townie to me. That's also not what I meant, Patricia could be just a Vanilla Town and doesn't have Cardinal sins.
|
|