|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 15:13:54 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Jan 26, 2013 15:13:54 GMT -5
I know for a fact that not everyone has a second set of “ clues “ To post ‘ helpfully’ a piece of information from your PM as an absolute- which makes another player look very guilty- THEN post the whole thing which includes a qualifier for the ‘absolute’ is misleading=sneaky=scummy are you saying that YOU have a similar set of secondary clues? Don’t answer that- it’s Day one some secrets can be shielded- but do share as much as you can before they kill at you I have to answer this, my set of clues are similar but not the same as Idle's and I was wrong about what I picked up from you about exceptions. I am so mixing up things in this game. So there are other players with additional clues that may help Town- one wonders when/if they will be shared Or are they clues to help Scum? oh the wheels- they turn
|
|
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 26, 2013 15:15:11 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 26, 2013 15:15:11 GMT -5
Well yes, you did do that.
|
|
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 26, 2013 15:20:21 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 26, 2013 15:20:21 GMT -5
One day I'll learn how to code properly. I hate f-ed up quote tags.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 15:23:30 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 26, 2013 15:23:30 GMT -5
Something else just came to me. Since things happening beyond death plays a factor in the game, perhaps there's some sort of resurrection mechanic in play. Considering Conspiracy has the Witch Doctor, it wouldn't surprise me if a player or players could come back from Heaven or Purgatory based on some sort of resurrection power.
|
|
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 26, 2013 15:23:35 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 26, 2013 15:23:35 GMT -5
Also holy moley, I'm not voting for you because you voted for me. That's what OMGUS is. I'm voting for you for your tactic of voting for everyone and then making them have to earn an unvote from you.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 15:26:50 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 26, 2013 15:26:50 GMT -5
I'd like to point out that CatinaSuit (I think) did the same thing in the last Conspiracy game on this board, and he was Town.
It's anecdotal, but I remember as scum in that game Cat was a very inviting target because of that maneuver.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 15:34:56 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 26, 2013 15:34:56 GMT -5
~~~snipped~~ Whoof! OMGUS! You realise that I just voted the entire Devil crew in one fell swoop, right? That's gotta be a record. You guys are so not off my list. Unvote: Idle Thoughts. ~bleached~ As it stands you can call every vote on you an OMGUS vote since you made the brilliant move of voting everyone in game If you forget to – or just don’t – unvote a person that is eventually miss-lynched you can wash your hands of any responsibility for said miss-lynch because of your choice of play YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN TOWN PLAYERS AN AVENUE TO ‘EARN’ AN UNVOTE FROM YOU THAT IS VIABLE. And then you unvote the player that acted suspect towards Town in the same post I’m giving you a chance to “ come around” but you will have my vote at some point with this mind set Ok everybody LIGHTEN UP. Stop slinging caps around. That's my job. I've been doing it since I came to this board, and I'm probably better at it than you are. More experience. Three of the people I've "unvoted" - Sis C, Ryjae and Pollux - haven't provided any "info" of the kind that I asked for. I've still unvoted them because they didn't look scummy to me. I expect the end result of today will be me voting for a group of people who either 1) look suspicious, or 2) have contributed nothing to make me think they're not scum. In a game that allows multiple equal votes, which is something I've not played before (I've done Borda, elimination, and various other systems, but never this specific one to my recollection), then as far as I'm concerned, voting anybody who doesn't give me a "town" tell is just as valid a strategy as voting people who give off "scum" tells. Probably more so. What's the better strategy: vote the one person you think looks scummy, or the six people you think don't look townie? Seems to me the latter strategy has a much better chance of catching anti-town elements. Now if it comes down to two or three different "targets" at the end of the day, and if those targets are close, I'll make my picks accordingly, and give reasons for them. But right now? I'm happy with what I'm doing. Play your game, people, and if I don't think you're scum for it then I'll unvote you. And if your only reason for playing the way you're playing is to not be voted, the chances are good that you should be voted. Bear that one in mind. What player have I unvoted that acted suspect towards Town? Idle Thoughts? I've already said I didn't think he deliberately lied, and why. His mistake could've been a townie making a mistake, or scum. I don't think the fact that he MADE that mistake says anything about his alignment. Right now he's giving us a lot of potentially helpful, checkable information and I don't want to discourage that.
|
|
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 26, 2013 15:36:19 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 26, 2013 15:36:19 GMT -5
I'd like to point out that CatinaSuit (I think) did the same thing in the last Conspiracy game on this board, and he was Town. It's anecdotal, but I remember as scum in that game Cat was a very inviting target because of that maneuver. Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't in that game. However, when we look back at the voting record later, I think that there should be somereason for voting for someone, not "they didn't give me a good enough reason to remove my vote from the mass vote list".
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 15:52:53 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Jan 26, 2013 15:52:53 GMT -5
~~snipped ~~ What player have I unvoted that acted suspect towards Town? Idle Thoughts? I've already said I didn't think he deliberately lied, and why. His mistake could've been a townie making a mistake, or scum. I don't think the fact that he MADE that mistake says anything about his alignment. Right now he's giving us a lot of potentially helpful, checkable information and I don't want to discourage that. It was not a mistake It was a deliberately misleading comment Idle is not a n00b there is that whole URL on the site So there was something behind his reasoning and I don’t think it was pro-Town now it could have been a fishing expedition- but fishing the way he did- by using an absolute to give his vote a toe hold- is not pro Town to me
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 15:57:12 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 26, 2013 15:57:12 GMT -5
However, when we look back at the voting record later, I think that there should be somereason for voting for someone. Not so long ago I voted someone for three straight rounds, giving my reasoning as a longer-winded version of: "Hasn't done anything to help the town the entire game." When they were finally voted out, they were scum. If it helps, consider my votes as what Dizzy said: placeholders.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 16:13:03 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 26, 2013 16:13:03 GMT -5
~~snipped ~~ What player have I unvoted that acted suspect towards Town? Idle Thoughts? I've already said I didn't think he deliberately lied, and why. His mistake could've been a townie making a mistake, or scum. I don't think the fact that he MADE that mistake says anything about his alignment. Right now he's giving us a lot of potentially helpful, checkable information and I don't want to discourage that. It was not a mistake It was a deliberately misleading comment Idle is not a n00b there is that whole URL on the site So there was something behind his reasoning and I don’t think it was pro-Town now it could have been a fishing expedition- but fishing the way he did- by using an absolute to give his vote a toe hold- is not pro Town to me ANTI-TOWN =/= SCUM. I've said this about eight million times in various games here and it's proven true in about seven million, nine hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine cases. (Maybe some exaggeration there.) I don't know what motivation Idle would have to post a direct statement about his role PM, then make another post directly contradicting himself. You say it's not a mistake. What possible motivation would there be to do that deliberately, if he's scum? If he is, it seems to me it almost has to be a mistake. As scum, you don't go out of your way to contradict yourself and then rely upon the one guy who says "Wait a sec, this doesn't seem scummy" when there might be three or four other guys saying "You contradicted your own story! You must be scum!" Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of a mistake myself. I'm the undisputed king of the brain-fart. (Heck, it's got me lynched as town at least twice on these forums already.) As such I'm not ruling him out as scum. I regard it as a null-tell in terms of scumminess, regardless of whether it's anti-town or not. Since the rest of his actions seem relatively pro-town to me, I'm not voting him. And what URL? Am I missing something?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 16:22:49 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Jan 26, 2013 16:22:49 GMT -5
You are missing my point ( but I’m getting used to that happening- in game )
I dare not repeat myself for fear it brand me
Bill is looking at it as well so I do not feel unfounded.
the URL reference= what board are we on?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 16:32:16 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 26, 2013 16:32:16 GMT -5
Oh, and one more point that seems to escaped everyone... here's what I said about Idle's statement that he'd been offered a way to cleanse himself of sin: either that he's telling the truth, or he's lying for an apparently pointless reason.
Well, here's the point, people: if Idle genuinely believes what he's saying regarding heaven / hell, and wants to make the scum think that he has no sin, they'd be less inclined to night-kill him. Self-preservation.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to stop acting as a one-man defence force of somebody I don't have a particularly strong tell on either way, and go examine some other people. And eat something.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 17:05:03 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Jan 26, 2013 17:05:03 GMT -5
Heads up: I'm in kind of a shitstorm at work, so the man has me working the weekend and I have a tenant moving into an apartment on monday, so I am seriously booked this weekend.. I will do what I can to catch up and get some votes in, but mafia isn't currently my top priority. Sorry about this.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 18:24:58 GMT -5
Post by ryjae on Jan 26, 2013 18:24:58 GMT -5
Anyway reading through the posts I must admit to a lot of ahhhs and ohhhs. This is the shitflinging I was wanting to see, so much totally escaped me as possibilities until brought up by others.
Some of which makes a lot of sense (at death sinless=heaven etc) and possibly solves one of the mysteries. The benefit side for town though still doesn't make much sense in relation to that but I am sure I am missing something or it was just added color by Pleo.
I was set on Patricia until this Bill PM issue came up, now I feel way less sure of the vote. The Idle votes confuse me more so though since his role PM information he put out, fits me to a T. It will take a lot more for me to vote for him than is currently out here.
The Holy Moley! method of voting certainly confuses matters but at the same time is something available to all. I wouldn't go that route unless I was forced too. Nothing stands out on him except his questions and his questions to me where more like shitflinging as I describe it. Maybe they were not the best questions but they got us talking and talking is good this game is complicated and looking at all angles is going to help us win.
On to the PMs it looks like 2 players are claiming to have extra hints, taking them on their word, these hints are pretty important. Important enough I would hesitate to take them at face value if you're about to get lynched.
Onto role claims, Pleo always does them so he probably has something to prevent us from doing so safely if I am metagaming enough? But I have seen no talk in here of them and I am so used to seeing that discussed Day 1 (pros and cons) yet haven't seen it nearly as much recently so i am assuming the consensus is it is never a good idea?
I know I am missing something but dang if I can remember, I seen something during lunch @ work I wanted to comment on when I got home but for the life of me I cannot find it in the thread.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 18:34:34 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Jan 26, 2013 18:34:34 GMT -5
Maybe there's a Mother Theresa? Mary? God himself? Who knows where Pleo is leading us. Well I doubt he'd making highly divisive figures subject of votes, claims, counterclaims and lynches and kills - just imagine the possible character-role combinations. I'm having trouble reconciling Holy Moley's motivation for voting for everyone and basically saying "guilty until proven innocent" as a Christian action. I presume you're using Christian instead of townie . I don't have a problem with voting for everyone, a change in strategy is good, his condition was unreasonable though. I have to answer this, my set of clues are similar but not the same as Idle's and I was wrong about what I picked up from you about exceptions. I am so mixing up things in this game. Are you saying you have a second set of rules? Or just the first set that Lightfoot quoted earlier in the Day? I don't know what motivation Idle would have to post a direct statement about his role PM, then make another post directly contradicting himself. Yeah, it doesn't make much sense. The only scenario would be a scummy Idle having info about most Christians having sins, deciding to partially reveal that info to add momentum to the case against Patricia, but then Bill called him out that the rule didn't apply to him either, so Idle saw his world falling apart, posted the full set of clues, along with the disclaimer, but pretended not to notice it or interpret correctly until Lightfoot and KidV called him out on it and only then did he realise how bad it all looked. Still doesn't explain why he'd make the accusation against Patricia knowing there could be more than one exception.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 19:21:05 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 26, 2013 19:21:05 GMT -5
Ok, I'm back, albeit briefly.
My "condition" was bad wording. I said I'd unvote people who gave out useful information. I didn't say I'd ONLY unvote those people. As I said above, three of the people I've unvoted so far did not fulfil that "condition", but do not seem to me to be behaving scummily.
And talking of which... I had the sudden thought that it would make a good deal of sense for them devils, or the majority of them, to be lurking about and waiting for the dust to settle. I would imagine they wouldn't want to risk being caught up in a debate about non-scummy wincons. They probably have sample role PMs (I can't imagine Pleo leaving them high and dry in case of a situation like this).
After going back over her posts, Unvote: Lightfoot. I'm getting an "aggressive town" vibe from her, rather than "tunnelling scum". At any rate she's willing to mix things up and take a position, which does not match my current idea of lurker-y scum.
Also, if Idle is town, a scummy BillMC would have to be pretty bold to contradict him. (Not that proves much, given who we're talking about here.) And if Idle is scum, why would a scummy BillMC contradict him? I'm blatantly ignoring the possibility of one of them being a third-party for the moment; but that aside, BillMC does not look like a likely devil suspect to me. Unvote: BillMC.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 26, 2013 21:27:33 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Jan 26, 2013 21:27:33 GMT -5
Also holy moley, I'm not voting for you because you voted for me. That's what OMGUS is. I'm voting for you for your tactic of voting for everyone and then making them have to earn an unvote from you. I'm Not quite sure how this is particularly scummy? In Other News: Moley is probably christian Unvote. I kind of want to Vote: Dizzymrsl-whateverI'm not liking how he was hanging back when patricia was busy getting dog piled and sort of poking at her without actually putting a vote down, followed up by info fishing from idle and in general seems more interested about roles. I am not getting a "got to find/kill/lynch the devils" mentality from him. Lightfoot actually probably is christian too, if only because I don't see scum hopping on someone over something like that. With regards to the victory condition chatter: Assuming all the info on thread is accurate, Devils almost positively don't want people going to heaven - my money is them either wanting people in purgatory or hell for their wincon. Therefore it stands to reason that a) Plenty of people in heaven is anathema to their win condition, and b) getting ganked to hell hurts our own, presumably by pushing devil's closer to victory. That is more or less what I'm getting out of this: Heaven = Good For Town, Hell = Bad for town. Go To Heaven and ignore temptations to do sin.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 1:15:28 GMT -5
Post by Solaris on Jan 27, 2013 1:15:28 GMT -5
Okay I have caught up, and I would like to start with saying that I do not have initial sins, and I will not say if I have a Cardinal Sin or not. I don't think that saying if you have a Cardinal Sin or not is a good idea, because there could be a bad role that tries to do bad things by guessing their sin, and there are seven sins and so maybe there are seven players with a cardinal sin??? to protect the people with the sins we shouldnt let people know about them
I don't like Holey Moley's question post a lot, it isn't easy to answer for most people and makes his voting everyone silly.
Post 119 by Hockey Monkey is good, I can make guesses at neat things with him and stuff.
I don't think Idle was lying to do bad things, he was just made wrong by his PM? I think that patrica is town too. I don't think that scathach is town, vote scathach for just pushing idle's thing and patricia and i havent liked him
I don't like Holey Moley later on either, he gets way too shouty and bitey and defensive of his silly and subjective thing with the VOTING EVERYONE
vote Holey Moley
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 4:14:27 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 27, 2013 4:14:27 GMT -5
mistervisceral, where are you?
Vote: mistervisceral
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 4:24:15 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jan 27, 2013 4:24:15 GMT -5
"There MAY be some exceptions to SOME" That puts a whole lot of "ifs" in the equation. So you now say there may be exceptions - that there are a whole lot of if's...but you were absolutely certain in your prior post that Patricia was not a Christian since she did not have any sins. I'm never absolutely certain of anything in this game. But the easier explanation if Patricia doesn't have a sin is "She's in a group different than I". This makes it much more likely she's scum when I know I'm not. Not very hard to come to that assumption and you should know this by now with how long you've been playing the game. Seriously...what can I say here to NOT seem anti town? It doesn't seem like I can say anything. I already said it was bad hindsight not to include there MIGHT be some exceptions. I admit that,..and what do you think it is? Backpedaling. Why can't it just be "Oh, Idle is admitting he was wrong and CAN understand why some would find that weird"? Because that's what it is.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 4:26:21 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jan 27, 2013 4:26:21 GMT -5
It was not a mistake It was a deliberately misleading comment It was not deliberate. It was SHORT SIGHTED.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 4:26:43 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 27, 2013 4:26:43 GMT -5
So I'm trying to make sense of the Patricia thing. Here's the sum total of her posts so far Today - Guiri - Lightfoot posted two hints - do you have three? If so could you post the third hint? Not sure I'm ready for a game were you also have to find out HOW to win
question to anyone so devils in this game are like scum in most games? Thanks Dizzy - and ok Guiri I got that as well then I thought at first this was Patricia feeling out Guiri for a false claim. So far so good. But then:
Guiri - Lightfoot posted two hints - do you have three? If so could you post the third hint? Not sure I'm ready for a game were you also have to find out HOW to win
question to anyone so devils in this game are like scum in most games?
ok - I only have the two hints that Lightfoot listed above so when guiri said three I was trying to find out what the third hint was and when I found out it was about sins I realized that some must have started the game with sins
Now she says she only has two hints, even though her second post would have us believe she has three? And that she has no sins? (note the plural)
I will reveal one, however...the first one says:
a. Christians initially have sin.
This tells me something right away: If Patricia says she doesn't have any sins (something she seems to imply in post 78, unless I'm reading/taking it wrong), she must not be a Christian.
This seems to put the nail in Patricia's coffin if Idle is telling the truth. I will note that I do not have the "Christians intially have sin" hint in my PM though.
vote 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. This will most likely get me nightkilled by the devils but that is better than being lynched by your teammates I have Initial Sins: 1 Cardinal Sin: None
so in plain english no not everyone has every type of sin
Thanks Dizzy - and ok Guiri I got that as well then So your third hint was a warning, right?
ok - I only have the two hints that Lightfoot listed above so when guiri said three I was trying to find out what the third hint was and when I found out it was about sins I realized that some must have started the game with sins Now you only have two hints? What happened to the third one you had earlier? And you don't have any sins either?
Vote Patricia
One of these posts is a lie as it's a direct contradiction of the other, what are you hiding?
I was trying to hiding that I don't have a Cardinal Sin And now she says she does have sins (plural), but not a Cardinal Sin. And since then she hasn't said a word. The whole thing is hinky. It looks to me like she got caught fishing, tried to explain it away and got caught lying, tried to cover and got caught lying again, and now she's shut up and is hoping it'll blow over. I think she's scum, and if so, I think scum are in the dark too.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 4:33:40 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jan 27, 2013 4:33:40 GMT -5
Still doesn't explain why he'd make the accusation against Patricia knowing there could be more than one exception. I tried to explain before, but here it is with another try: Because I'm more apt to believe the exceptions are just those...exceptions, which means--more or less--most things will be a certain way, and only a rare amount won't. I was already suspicious of Patricia when catching up due to the same reasons others found her suspicious before I even posted the info I had. The extra info I had (That all Christians initially start out with sin) only made me more suspicious since it seemed she was imply she had no sin. Yes, there was that "Some exceptions" line. Doesn't mean I'm going to cancel out my whole suspicion against her when the odds are greater that she could be lying and have messed up rather than be an exception.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 9:51:14 GMT -5
Post by JustBeingGinger on Jan 27, 2013 9:51:14 GMT -5
Just getting caught up. I have been watching Sons of Anarchy from Season 1, been kind of engrossed. Moley I do not agree with your strategy of voting everyone and then for them to qualify as a unvote you have to answer questions about game mechanics that either Christians have no way of knowing or if they do know something they are going to be revealing too much. You even post that you are seeking more information. We all are seeking information but it is not very Christian like to force a fellow Christian to possibly reveal more than they should simply to get a unvote from you. It also makes for a good excuse if you happen to mis-lynch a Christian due to " Well I voted everyone". So for that Vote Holy Moley I'm having trouble reconciling Holy Moley's motivation for voting for everyone and basically saying "guilty until proven innocent" as a Christian action. vote: holy moley[/b][/quote] Whoof! OMGUS! You realise that I just voted the entire Devil crew in one fell swoop, right? That's gotta be a record. You guys are so not off my list. Unvote: Idle Thoughts.[/quote] I don't care if I am on your list or not. I have done nothing to gain suspicion from you except be in the game. Tell me how you are playing pro-town?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 9:59:16 GMT -5
Post by JustBeingGinger on Jan 27, 2013 9:59:16 GMT -5
~bleached~ As it stands you can call every vote on you an OMGUS vote since you made the brilliant move of voting everyone in game If you forget to – or just don’t – unvote a person that is eventually miss-lynched you can wash your hands of any responsibility for said miss-lynch because of your choice of play YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN TOWN PLAYERS AN AVENUE TO ‘EARN’ AN UNVOTE FROM YOU THAT IS VIABLE. And then you unvote the player that acted suspect towards Town in the same post I’m giving you a chance to “ come around” but you will have my vote at some point with this mind set Ok everybody LIGHTEN UP. Stop slinging caps around. That's my job. I've been doing it since I came to this board, and I'm probably better at it than you are. More experience. Three of the people I've "unvoted" - Sis C, Ryjae and Pollux - haven't provided any "info" of the kind that I asked for. I've still unvoted them because they didn't look scummy to me. I expect the end result of today will be me voting for a group of people who either 1) look suspicious, or 2) have contributed nothing to make me think they're not scum. In a game that allows multiple equal votes, which is something I've not played before (I've done Borda, elimination, and various other systems, but never this specific one to my recollection), then as far as I'm concerned, voting anybody who doesn't give me a "town" tell is just as valid a strategy as voting people who give off "scum" tells. Probably more so. What's the better strategy: vote the one person you think looks scummy, or the six people you think don't look townie? Seems to me the latter strategy has a much better chance of catching anti-town elements. Now if it comes down to two or three different "targets" at the end of the day, and if those targets are close, I'll make my picks accordingly, and give reasons for them. But right now? I'm happy with what I'm doing. Play your game, people, and if I don't think you're scum for it then I'll unvote you. And if your only reason for playing the way you're playing is to not be voted, the chances are good that you should be voted. Bear that one in mind. What player have I unvoted that acted suspect towards Town? Idle Thoughts? I've already said I didn't think he deliberately lied, and why. His mistake could've been a townie making a mistake, or scum. I don't think the fact that he MADE that mistake says anything about his alignment. Right now he's giving us a lot of potentially helpful, checkable information and I don't want to discourage that. and my vote on you was not OMGUS vote it was because you said in your post that you would unvote those that game you answers to the following questions that you had. Which sharing some of those answers would of been anti-town. You unvoted those for not doing what you asked, maybe because they are your devil buddies, yes that was a smudge!
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 10:01:50 GMT -5
Post by patricia on Jan 27, 2013 10:01:50 GMT -5
I haven't been "quiet" in a game play way - just busy with RL. Anyway, the bottom line is I don't think Marfia is a game for me because getting my point across in words has always been hard for me - that being said I guess with will be my last "very short" game.
but for my teammates one more try - What I wanted to point out is that Light posted two hints and then Guiri said she had a third - as I have three as well I was trying to point out Lightfoot and what I felt was a slip then she explained she had three as well and everyone dog piled me.
so I posted about not having a cardinal sin - which I don't but I do have initial sin - I posted that to point out and to show that there are different types of sin but I guess I'm the only one with a initial sin I feel I got all three hints because I think I could commit a cadinal sin during game play. Hope that clears things up a little for my teammates as I would like to see my team win with or without me
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 11:16:40 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 27, 2013 11:16:40 GMT -5
Ok everybody LIGHTEN UP. Stop slinging caps around. That's my job. I've been doing it since I came to this board, and I'm probably better at it than you are. More experience. Three of the people I've "unvoted" - Sis C, Ryjae and Pollux - haven't provided any "info" of the kind that I asked for. I've still unvoted them because they didn't look scummy to me. I expect the end result of today will be me voting for a group of people who either 1) look suspicious, or 2) have contributed nothing to make me think they're not scum. In a game that allows multiple equal votes, which is something I've not played before (I've done Borda, elimination, and various other systems, but never this specific one to my recollection), then as far as I'm concerned, voting anybody who doesn't give me a "town" tell is just as valid a strategy as voting people who give off "scum" tells. Probably more so. What's the better strategy: vote the one person you think looks scummy, or the six people you think don't look townie? Seems to me the latter strategy has a much better chance of catching anti-town elements. Now if it comes down to two or three different "targets" at the end of the day, and if those targets are close, I'll make my picks accordingly, and give reasons for them. But right now? I'm happy with what I'm doing. Play your game, people, and if I don't think you're scum for it then I'll unvote you. And if your only reason for playing the way you're playing is to not be voted, the chances are good that you should be voted. Bear that one in mind. What player have I unvoted that acted suspect towards Town? Idle Thoughts? I've already said I didn't think he deliberately lied, and why. His mistake could've been a townie making a mistake, or scum. I don't think the fact that he MADE that mistake says anything about his alignment. Right now he's giving us a lot of potentially helpful, checkable information and I don't want to discourage that. and my vote on you was not OMGUS vote it was because you said in your post that you would unvote those that game you answers to the following questions that you had. Which sharing some of those answers would of been anti-town. You unvoted those for not doing what you asked, maybe because they are your devil buddies, yes that was a smudge! Ok now you are DEFINITELY not off my list. My OMGUS suggestion was a joke, plainly; but I'm dead serious now. Since you have thrown out hints and suggestions without giving a single specific detail to back them up, let me put this to you: exactly what questions did I ask that could possibly have had an anti-town bias? - I didn't ask anybody what cardinal sins they had. - I didn't ask anybody how many sins they had. - I didn't ask anybody for information regarding power roles, or their use. What I did ask for was information about GAME MECHANICS. I've gone back and re-read my post and I do not for the life of me see how that simple point can be misinterprited. What I was hoping for is exactly what Idle, assuming he's honest, has provided - details about the after-death mechanics, for one thing. By suggesting anything other than that, you are misrepresenting me. I notice you've nothing to say about my other suggestions, in particular the one regarding "lurkery" players who stay out of potentially trappy discussions about things like win-conditions. Which describes exactly how you've played so far. You've come up with one suspicion in total, and it's 1) dead wrong, and 2) a classic case of scum hiding in the background while coming out to pick on the most vocal player (which is exactly what you did in the first round of the last game we played, "Wonderland". You were scum then as well, correct?) This is really obvious. FOS: JUST BEING GINGER.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 11:21:47 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 27, 2013 11:21:47 GMT -5
Whoof! OMGUS! You realise that I just voted the entire Devil crew in one fell swoop, right? That's gotta be a record. You guys are so not off my list. Unvote: Idle Thoughts. I don't care if I am on your list or not. I have done nothing to gain suspicion from you except be in the game. Tell me how you are playing pro-town? I've made evalutations of several players according to the evidence I've seen. I've suggested that Idle is probably not lying, that Sis C is not a recruiter, and that BillMC is unlikely to be a devil unless he has very specific information regarding Christian roles. I've given opinions on Ryjae, Lightfoot, Patricia, DizzyLizzy, and you. Probably others that I can't recall right away. That's what I've done. What have YOU done?
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Jan 27, 2013 12:54:41 GMT -5
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
|
|