|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 22:45:45 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Jan 28, 2013 22:45:45 GMT -5
First, (((((((((((Ginger)))))))))! Vote: Patricia It just doesn't add up. KidV gave a good summary, here. Also the summary by Burby, here. This posted after KidV's summary: 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 I keep reading that last paragraph. I cannot reconcile it with my PM nor with Patricia's earlier statements. First she had 2 hints, then she had 3, then she had 2 again, and then she is back with 3. I don't think so. In other news, I am getting town reads from both Lightfoot and Idle for their disclosures. Having missed things in my PM before, I can easily see how Idle saw that first statement and forgot about the exception statement preceding it.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 2:26:32 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 29, 2013 2:26:32 GMT -5
Guiri, I have 3 hints on how to win.
Vote Guiri
For repeating a fishing question to me when it was quite obvious that I had not posted anything or had even read his 1st question to me. It made it look as if I was ignoring him, which I wasn't, it felt very smudgy to me and it made me feel as if he wanted to make up a reason to vote for me.
Now that that is off my chest, I will carry on reading.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 2:32:54 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 29, 2013 2:32:54 GMT -5
Oh Mister Mod, I was looking at the vote count and it seems you've accidentally recorded my vote for crys as crys voting for me. Just as an fyi!Okay now that that has been said: *hugs everywhere for Ginger* Best wishes your way. And now that that's been said: The only person that reads like they are looking for a place to put their vote is you. Is this a ditch effort to save a scum buddy? This is extreme laziness from you pollux and I would have expected better. I appreciate the attempt to bait me and get me riled up, but I'm going to have to disappoint you. I don't understand exactly which scum buddy I'm saving here. Paranoia? You were the only person to vote him (I don't count Moley's votes) and Paranoia's a big boy, he can take care of himself. One of the golden rules of scum: don't get involved with other scum's battles. On the contrary, you are the lazy one it seems. You voted for a person's joke vote and the person with the runaway bandwagon that everyone is piling on. Easiest places for votes on the board. So yes, I do believe you're looking for a place to hide your votes without having to really build a case on anyone, and you can use Paranoia's defensiveness as a way to "back up" your bad vote. Your ha ha I voted everyone really pinged me, and then your snotty "Well can't anyone see I voted the ENTIRE scum team" just threw it over the edge for me. I'm sure you were joking, but a lot of the time the reality behind the truth really tells you a lot more about what's going on. Don't do this. Don't vote for someone for being "snotty" or whatever. You can not like a person's words, you can not like a person's attitude, you can not like a person's playstyle, you can not agree with a person's playstyle. But none of those things makes a person de facto scummy. I've made that mistake before, with voting for somebody because of their attitude over actually playing the game. It never helps. #200 Pollux Oil: The initial "To have a vote on the table" pinged me like crazy, but the rest of the top made up for it. No read. Just to clarify, I said that in reference to keeping myself from getting a penalty for not voting, and crys was simply the first person I had a scum vibe from.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 3:37:20 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 29, 2013 3:37:20 GMT -5
OOG/ My play may be on and off for the next couple of weeks. Since you all are virtual friends, I was pregnant, they found no heartbeat today, so I have to let nature take its course. My emotions are all over the place. For those that are friends on fb, please don't mention this over there, none of my family or real friends even knew I was pregnant. Moley, I will answer your posts when I am not on my iPhone. Way to much to respond to using this keyboard Aww, crap . So sorry, Ging.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 3:42:34 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 29, 2013 3:42:34 GMT -5
I don't like the Idle or Patricia Wagon to be honest. They did both start with merit, but I think like I stated a few pages back, I'm not ready to lynch Patricia until I see how her role unfolds. I would like to place a vote on Bill, because something about the way he called out Idle isn't sitting well with me. Bill never did come back and tell us what differed from Idle's PM leak. Did he make a mountain out a molehill? So Vote: Bill[/color] And why not, if making meaningless votes for everyone in their brother is appropriate, lets go: Vote: Holy Moley[/color] Your ha ha I voted everyone really pinged me, and then your snotty "Well can't anyone see I voted the ENTIRE scum team" just threw it over the edge for me. I'm sure you were joking, but a lot of the time the reality behind the truth really tells you a lot more about what's going on.[/quote] Vote: dizzy mr slizzy I don't like your vote for Moley. In fact, I don't like many of the votes for Moley, and I'm tempted to go through and vote all of you on general principles. Can somebody show me an actual case for Moley to be scum based on his play so far? Because all I see are irritation votes.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 8:44:56 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 29, 2013 8:44:56 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 I am having a hard time with this post. Firstly, why was Patricia worried about a Cardinal sin and how could she commit a Cardinal sin if she doesn't have one? Why would she think that she is the only one with an initial sin when Idle has told us that someone has offered to remove his sin so therefore he must have one to be removed as he was going to accept the offer. This really does sound like scum back peddling and making things even more confusing by doing so. Vote Patricia(((HUGS))) Ginger, you are in my thoughts.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 8:52:32 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jan 29, 2013 8:52:32 GMT -5
[fluff]Sorry, been away most the day, been busy. Catching up a bit before bed, but not sure I'll post until tomorrow, super tired.[/fluff]
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 11:04:49 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 29, 2013 11:04:49 GMT -5
[oog]real life has been kicking my ass, will try to read and catch up today.[/oog]
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 12:26:46 GMT -5
Post by wombat99 on Jan 29, 2013 12:26:46 GMT -5
<FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">OOG/ My play may be on and off for the next couple of weeks. Since you all are virtual friends, I was pregnant, they found no heartbeat today, so I have to let nature take its course. My emotions are all over the place. For those that are friends on fb, please don't mention this over there, none of my family or real friends even knew I was pregnant. Moley, I will answer your posts when I am not on my iPhone. Way to much to respond to using this keyboard I'm so sorry you're going through this... been there too. :/
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 12:35:05 GMT -5
Post by wombat99 on Jan 29, 2013 12:35:05 GMT -5
I don't think Patricia should be lynched Today. I think she stuck her neck out early, when it was not clear what information could be safely revealed or shared, got some heat, then tried to retreat. Vote: mistervisceral for this post:
I never said your joke vote started a bandwagon. I said that quite often when a band wagon starts off a joke vote, scum usually made that joke vote.
This is worse than "X is never scum" meta reasoning. It doesn't even make sense.
Also Suburban Plankton, I think it was you who had the recent post on Patricia. AFTER FURTHER REVIEW yeah that actually is too skeevy to let go, even if her wagon gives me the heebs.
Vote: Vote: patricia Vote: Vote: crys He's against the Patricia bandwagon yet jumps on board. Can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 12:51:24 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 29, 2013 12:51:24 GMT -5
I don't think Patricia should be lynched Today. I think she stuck her neck out early, when it was not clear what information could be safely revealed or shared, got some heat, then tried to retreat. Vote: mistervisceral for this post:
This is worse than "X is never scum" meta reasoning. It doesn't even make sense.
Also Suburban Plankton, I think it was you who had the recent post on Patricia. AFTER FURTHER REVIEW yeah that actually is too skeevy to let go, even if her wagon gives me the heebs.
Vote: Vote: patricia Vote: Vote: crys He's against the Patricia bandwagon yet jumps on board. Can't have it both ways. It's not about the fact that patricia stuck her neck out and then retreated, it's about the fact that her story seems to have changed three or four times. Sure, it's possible that she just got confused, but if that's the case it looks like she got confused three or four times. It just doesn't feel right. And her recent silence isn't helping her case; it makes it appear that she's 'given up'. As for mistervisceral's comments, I don't interpret it as saying he's against the bandwagon, just that a 'runaway' bandwagon on Day 1 of a game makes him nervous...but he's joining it anyway because he feels that patricia is likely Scum.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 13:02:55 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 29, 2013 13:02:55 GMT -5
I don't think Patricia should be lynched Today. I think she stuck her neck out early, when it was not clear what information could be safely revealed or shared, got some heat, then tried to retreat. This is problematic for me - this is like the defense version of a smudge. You're encouraging players not to vote for her, but you're not really putting any money down, are you? Can you formulate a specific scenario in which her actions make sense as a Town player? Because I'm not seeing it, and I'm wondering if you can either.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 13:07:16 GMT -5
Post by wombat99 on Jan 29, 2013 13:07:16 GMT -5
Vote: Idle Thoughts 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. He overlooked or omitted the fact that this rule has exceptions. Bolding mine below - <FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"> 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 Agreed - if true, it would be an open-and-shut case against Patricia. After it was pointed out that Patricia might be an exception to the rule (bolding mine) <FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">Yeah, ok, I guess with hindsight, it was a mistake and bad idea not to do it. But I honestly just didn't think of it at the time. Pointing it out makes me realize, yeah, okay... looks weird. It doesn't make my suspicions of Patricia any less, though. Which was it, a mistake or a bad idea? There's a difference.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 13:31:19 GMT -5
Post by wombat99 on Jan 29, 2013 13:31:19 GMT -5
I don't think Patricia should be lynched Today. I think she stuck her neck out early, when it was not clear what information could be safely revealed or shared, got some heat, then tried to retreat. This is problematic for me - this is like the defense version of a smudge. You're encouraging players not to vote for her, but you're not really putting any money down, are you? Can you formulate a specific scenario in which her actions make sense as a Town player? Because I'm not seeing it, and I'm wondering if you can either. I'm not saying her actions make sense - I just don't think they are Devil-ish. This is the part that makes me think Town on Patricia. Clue C had been referenced earlier, but not posted word for word; in this post below, Patricia posts the exact wording. I doubt that the Devils got that exact wording as a hint. So she had that clue all along, and was just trying to be overly cautious about what she reveals because, as she posted later, she is starting off without a cardinal sin but was trying to avoid revealing that she might be capable of committing a cardinal sin:
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 That's my take on Patricia.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 13:57:31 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 29, 2013 13:57:31 GMT -5
@ Chuhura: I have been very, very, very, very slow to realise your point. I apologise for not doing this before now.
Unvote: Chuhura.
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.
Now regarding your doubts of me, here's part of my PM from this game:
Victory Conditions: "1. You must stop the Devils from winning. You don't exactly know what that entails, but here are some hints: a. Lynching or killing Devils will always help your team. b. Removing your sins will always help your team, but increasing them may or may not be beneficial. c. Never reveal to another player nor allow another player to figure out your Cardinal Sin."
(Yeah yeah yeah, it's obvious I have a cardinal sin from the shenanigans at the beginning of the game. No point hiding "c" any more.)
Now here's the wincon from "Wonderland", where I played town:
"You will win when Town has eliminated all threats."
My point here being - and I admit I didn't even realise the possible significance of this until now - that there is no mention of players who might be "playing for keeps" or other factions. My only stated wincon is to stop the devils from winning.
My other point is that my wincon specifically says "1: you must stop the devils from winning..." but there's no "2:" shown here. Unless this is one heck of a mistake or mislead, there's a second hidden wincon somewhere. I think I know what "2" might be, if Idle is telling the truth. (If you die, it's revealed that you have to make it to heaven. Or possibly stay out of hell. One or the other.)
What I don't believe likely is that it's something like "You must eliminate all win-stealing PFKs". Apart from the simple point that it's something you wouldn't need to hide as a mod (why not just put "defeat all threats" like in "Wonderland"?), that would effectively mean that you could beat the devils but lose the game anyway on a technicality that you didn't even know existed. I don't think Pleo would do that.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 14:05:46 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Jan 29, 2013 14:05:46 GMT -5
This is the part that makes me think Town on Patricia. Clue C had been referenced earlier, but not posted word for word; in this post below, Patricia posts the exact wording. I doubt that the Devils got that exact wording as a hint. So she had that clue all along, and was just trying to be overly cautious about what she reveals because, as she posted later, she is starting off without a cardinal sin but was trying to avoid revealing that she might be capable of committing a cardinal sin: Idle posted the third clue in full before Patricia did. Guiri, I have 3 hints on how to win. Vote Guiri For repeating a fishing question to me when it was quite obvious that I had not posted anything or had even read his 1st question to me. It made it look as if I was ignoring him, which I wasn't, it felt very smudgy to me and it made me feel as if he wanted to make up a reason to vote for me. Now that that is off my chest, I will carry on reading. The purpose of my questions was to engage players who had not posted in some time, it's had it's effect with you. I was asking you to clarify a statement you made before the weekend, where do you draw the line between questioning a player's statement and fishing?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 14:06:16 GMT -5
Post by mistervisceral on Jan 29, 2013 14:06:16 GMT -5
Which was it, a mistake or a bad idea? There's a difference. What are you even doing. It's like you looked at the votes and picked the biggest non-Patricia wagon and then bullshitted a reason for it. As for myself, Im scum for changing my mind?Functionally my vote is on you; ill type out the vote later. I don't have the patience to do the coding for it on my phone right now. And in the time it took me to type my explanation I could have bolder and blued a vote: wombat99How about that. (That is a vote for looking like fabricating reasons to vote people, btw)
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 14:24:21 GMT -5
Post by patricia on Jan 29, 2013 14:24:21 GMT -5
Sorry I haven't posted but RL has been a big issue as both of my kids have the flu and I think I'm coming down with it as well.
I wanted to play this game different then I had my other 3 - by trying to make a different and not coast along but to be honest (and why not at this point) by PM scared the hell (not a pun btw) out of me. So when Lightfoot said she only had two hints and Guiri claimed she had three - I felt that maybe I could make a case by pointing that out. Any yes I lied and yes you all caught me. Maybe I can set some sort of record by having everyone vote for me day one. I know now that I made a hugh error by not being more honest when I posted about my PM but you all need to know that I didn't start with a cardinal sin but from my PM I can commit one or more. Maybe I already have, I don't know. But I took a&b as hints towards winning and c as more of a warning. So I lied about it and you all know were that got me. I'm afraid to even vote as I feel a wrong vote at this point may give me a cardinal sin and because even after death you still play in this set up - I want to be able to help my team from the grave if I can. It is very clear that Mafia isn't the game for those bad with the written word as I have been misunderstood in so many ways in this one day that at this point it is funny - I read what has been posted about me and and I think no that not what I said - anyway I'm rambling on here. At least I gave everyone a easy first day vote hope you all enjoy your lazy first day. Lastly, I want to think Idle bring me to this type of games - I have enjoyed it even if I suck
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 14:28:37 GMT -5
Post by patricia on Jan 29, 2013 14:28:37 GMT -5
off topic post
Ginger - Hugs - I know personally that what happen to you is hard, and words don't help. Time helps some - don't quit anything you enjoy like playing mafia it is a good escape from the pain. Sorry to bring it up here but I did want to send hug and understanding your way
Patricia
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 14:30:46 GMT -5
Post by patricia on Jan 29, 2013 14:30:46 GMT -5
This is problematic for me - this is like the defense version of a smudge. You're encouraging players not to vote for her, but you're not really putting any money down, are you? Can you formulate a specific scenario in which her actions make sense as a Town player? Because I'm not seeing it, and I'm wondering if you can either. I'm not saying her actions make sense - I just don't think they are Devil-ish. This is the part that makes me think Town on Patricia. Clue C had been referenced earlier, but not posted word for word; in this post below, Patricia posts the exact wording. I doubt that the Devils got that exact wording as a hint. So she had that clue all along, and was just trying to be overly cautious about what she reveals because, as she posted later, she is starting off without a cardinal sin but was trying to avoid revealing that she might be capable of committing a cardinal sin: 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 [/size][/quote] 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 [/size][/quote] That's my take on Patricia. [/quote] Thanks Wombat for finally getting it - I least one person understands me that is refreshing
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 14:51:06 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 29, 2013 14:51:06 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.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 15:20:19 GMT -5
Post by wombat99 on Jan 29, 2013 15:20:19 GMT -5
This is the part that makes me think Town on Patricia. Clue C had been referenced earlier, but not posted word for word; in this post below, Patricia posts the exact wording. I doubt that the Devils got that exact wording as a hint. So she had that clue all along, and was just trying to be overly cautious about what she reveals because, as she posted later, she is starting off without a cardinal sin but was trying to avoid revealing that she might be capable of committing a cardinal sin: Idle posted the third clue in full before Patricia did. So he did. Searching fail on my part. That makes my Patricia needle swing a bit back towards possible Devil, but overall I still think confused Christian.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 15:26:17 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 29, 2013 15:26:17 GMT -5
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.) I think your analysis here hinges on the key assumption that the scum have had a chance to get organized and work as a team. There's nothing mentioned in the rules about the scum being able to talk to each other during the Day. I'd start looking more for these types of cues during Day Two, a day where we know for sure the scum have had time to plan and confer with each other.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 16:02:27 GMT -5
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Jan 29, 2013 16:02:27 GMT -5
\ 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. And what part of my "game" are you not liking? You are the one who opened up by voting every single player in the game..... I'm not voting you because you voted me. I could care less. I know I'm a Christian, your play is Anti-Town. You are begging people to answer questions that we are all trying to figure out dangling an unvote infront of them. Am I asking Rhetorical Questions? I don't think so, I'm throwing ideas out trying to make sense of this game set ups. Please let me know though where you think I've been devilish. No hard feelings dude, but you are barking up the wrong tree here.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 16:09:20 GMT -5
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Jan 29, 2013 16:09:20 GMT -5
NETA: Oh and before anyone goes off on me being defensive here....
I am not so much defensive, but the name calling was really ridiculously uncalled for.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 16:31:34 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 29, 2013 16:31:34 GMT -5
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.) I think your analysis here hinges on the key assumption that the scum have had a chance to get organized and work as a team. There's nothing mentioned in the rules about the scum being able to talk to each other during the Day. I'd start looking more for these types of cues during Day Two, a day where we know for sure the scum have had time to plan and confer with each other. Absolutely agreed - in fact, I think I made the point myself earlier on that we don't even know if the devils know each other, so even considering these points on Day Two may be futile. In a closed game you HAVE to make some kind of assumptions like this. If the devils are a minority then it makes sense that they'd have to have some kind of way to communicate, and unless Pleonast has gone down the Gastard Mod route, he's probably not going to make this game one of those where there's no "night zero" and the scum can't daytalk. All assumptions, any or all of which could be wrong. Like I said, it's a closed game. If I find something better to go on, I'll go with it.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 16:53:43 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 29, 2013 16:53:43 GMT -5
NETA: Oh and before anyone goes off on me being defensive here.... I am not so much defensive, but the name calling was really ridiculously uncalled for. Ok, stop the freaking attitude, now. Please. You are annoying the hell out of me. I'm not your "dear". If you are town and we both survive through this game then honestly I don't get how we're going to be able to communicate in this game, because to me you come off as patronisingly insincere, and to you I'm obviously just insulting. Honestly that's fine with me. Unless things change a lot, I don't particularly want to engage with you more than I have to in terms of gameplay, and I doubt your feelings are any different right now. Secondly, and I've said this before - I will play this game as I think is best for my side. Just because the "vote for everybody, then unvote who you think is innocent" strategy is unorthodox doesn't make it invalid or ineffective. Its effectiveness will, I presume, be determined by how many scum it catches. Thirdly, I accuse you of using rhetorical questions becuase YOU POST QUESTIONS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SUGGESTED THE ANSWERS TO. You understand what a rhetorical question is? Read your own posts! Fourthly, I've already said what my problems with an early post of yours were, and why I wasn't altogether satisfied with your answers. I don't think your later posts are outright scummy but I do think that you are probably the most obvious of people who've jumped on a bandwagon - either mine or Patricia's - without giving any satisfactory justification for it. You've posted a vote that nobody could possibly scrutinise because there is literally zero reason behind it. Not even "I thought Paranoia's joke vote in the beginning might start a bandwagon". Do I think you're scum - I don't know. I don't think there's enough information yet to make that call. I think you look more likely to be scum than the majority of the other people who've been voted for by more than just Chuhura or myself right now. I also think your lynch would be one of the better ones in terms of providing information. That's the best I got because there's very little I'm certain of right now.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 16:54:58 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 29, 2013 16:54:58 GMT -5
You know what, forget it. Now I AM being needlessly insulting.
I suggest we both cool off and disengage for a while, ok?
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 16:56:03 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Jan 29, 2013 16:56:03 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.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 29, 2013 17:05:50 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 29, 2013 17:05:50 GMT -5
Absolutely agreed - in fact, I think I made the point myself earlier on that we don't even know if the devils know each other, so even considering these points on Day Two may be futile. In a closed game you HAVE to make some kind of assumptions like this. If the devils are a minority then it makes sense that they'd have to have some kind of way to communicate, and unless Pleonast has gone down the Gastard Mod route, he's probably not going to make this game one of those where there's no "night zero" and the scum can't daytalk. All assumptions, any or all of which could be wrong. Like I said, it's a closed game. If I find something better to go on, I'll go with it. I had to go back and check, but as wolves/scum in the last Conspiracy game on this board, Pleonast disallowed strategy talk during the Day. Granted, as you said this is a closed game so the rules may be different this time around. So your 'claim' (I use claim as a lack of a better word) is: there are no third parties? Third parties is an interesting question. In a closed game, there are usually hints given to Town members that there are non-scum we need to watch out for. However in this case, we're left trying to figure out our win condition. My win condition involves stopping Devils, nothing more. Until evidence arises that there may be third-parties involved that are dangerous to Town, I'm going to focus my analysis on finding Devils and not thinking suspiciously about third parties.
|
|