|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 17:43:39 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Feb 9, 2013 17:43:39 GMT -5
And one more question for now...Is there anything in your PM about powers that might falsify your results? I am wondering about if you target a Godfather Devil (surely, they would be called something else in this game).
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 17:48:47 GMT -5
Post by ryjae on Feb 9, 2013 17:48:47 GMT -5
No a decline means nothing gained in knowledge or sin counts. If he is town and accepts we know 3 Christians and 2 still alive should I perish overNight. Should I die at lynch time then we know he accepted and is a Devil. Hope that makes sense.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 17:51:43 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 9, 2013 17:51:43 GMT -5
Yes Lightfoot, I get what you are saying.... I don't think it would be "offered to another" If I had a power and I offered my services to someone- which they declined- If I knew they declined I might offer another the same service then Bill would be absolved of sin and that’s good for the team that’s not how I read it- we need clarification you are assuming here I have not -----who is ‘they’ in this sentence- please- nothing is obvious to me- and I think ryjae was telling us in advance to look askew at Bill if ryjae pops up dead this Day
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 17:56:17 GMT -5
Post by scáthach on Feb 9, 2013 17:56:17 GMT -5
If Ryjae gets told at night whether or not Bill accepted her offer then I think Bill will be confirmed town/scum by tomorrow no matter what. I can't see a town reason for him not to accept the offer now, and I can't imagine this being a scum gambit by Ryjae.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 18:05:34 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 9, 2013 18:05:34 GMT -5
If Ryjae gets told at night whether or not Bill accepted her offer then I think Bill will be confirmed town/scum by tomorrow no matter what. I can't see a town reason for him not to accept the offer now, and I can't imagine this being a scum gambit by Ryjae. you are discounting the possibility that Bill has a reason to keep a sin ( or has none and doesn't want the power wasted)
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 18:08:51 GMT -5
Post by scáthach on Feb 9, 2013 18:08:51 GMT -5
If Ryjae gets told at night whether or not Bill accepted her offer then I think Bill will be confirmed town/scum by tomorrow no matter what. I can't see a town reason for him not to accept the offer now, and I can't imagine this being a scum gambit by Ryjae. you are discounting the possibility that Bill has a reason to keep a sin ( or has none and doesn't want the power wasted) True, I was discounting the possibility that he wants to keep his sin for some reason. But the power wouldn't be "wasted" in that it seems like it would confirm him as town.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 18:12:10 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 9, 2013 18:12:10 GMT -5
Ryjae if you offer to cleanse a Devil and they accept- but they have no Sins- do you still die?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 18:15:44 GMT -5
Post by ryjae on Feb 9, 2013 18:15:44 GMT -5
Pretty clear in my PM a Christian accepts they cleanse their sins, a Devil accepts I die attempting to cleanse the uncleansable*.
* My new word.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 18:27:37 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Feb 9, 2013 18:27:37 GMT -5
Interesting power ryjae. Is there a disadvantage of bill accepting if he is sinless? If not, he should just accept anyway.
Substitute question: what was Patricia's day 1 slip?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 18:31:56 GMT -5
Post by ryjae on Feb 9, 2013 18:31:56 GMT -5
Interesting power ryjae. Is there a disadvantage of bill accepting if he is sinless? If not, he should just accept anyway. Substitute question: what was Patricia's day 1 slip? Lightfoot posted hints a/b Guiri correctly said 3 hints a/b/c Patricia then said about Lightfoot posting 2, and asking Guiri to confirm getting 3. Guiri confirms getting 3 Patricia then states she got 3 as well then. And I got no downsides to accepting without a sin, only Devils/Christians and what will happen.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 18:34:48 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Feb 9, 2013 18:34:48 GMT -5
Ryjae, I'm not sure why you claimed so soon but it looks like it will provide some useful info if/when you die. If Bill's telling the truth about not having any sins, why do you find it suspicious that he didn't accept your offer? Is it just because he had nothing to lose and now your power is going to go unused? Why did you expect Bill to unvote Idle when he received the same offer Idle received yesterDay, why would that make Idle more likely to be town in Bill's eyes?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 18:45:45 GMT -5
Post by ryjae on Feb 9, 2013 18:45:45 GMT -5
Ryjae, I'm not sure why you claimed so soon but it looks like it will provide some useful info if/when you die. If Bill's telling the truth about not having any sins, why do you find it suspicious that he didn't accept your offer? Is it just because he had nothing to lose and now your power is going to go unused? Why did you expect Bill to unvote Idle when he received the same offer Idle received yesterDay, why would that make Idle more likely to be town in Bill's eyes? He was accusing Idle of lying etc Day 1. Not so much about his offer but his other information but still. I was able to confirm Idle wasn't lying about the offer for sin removal by sending him the same one. Maybe because I am in looking at it, it made sense to me for Bill to look into his Idle vote based on that alone. And it may seem to early, and really I wanted to wait until I could confirm 3-4 townies. But then I realized if a Devil accepted no one would know why I died and it would be for nothing. And this actually accomplishes something else, BillMc should live the Day, he was in the trail to getting lynched, if he is a Christian I just saved a person we can confirm Christian with my reveal. I do not expect to live long after my reveal, but if I somehow do, that allows us to confirm another everyDay I am alive. My eventual death will 100% confirm those I have confirmed if that makes sense.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 19:17:58 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Feb 9, 2013 19:17:58 GMT -5
He was accusing Idle of lying etc Day 1. Not so much about his offer but his other information but still. I was able to confirm Idle wasn't lying about the offer for sin removal by sending him the same one. Maybe because I am in looking at it, it made sense to me for Bill to look into his Idle vote based on that alone. And it may seem to early, and really I wanted to wait until I could confirm 3-4 townies. But then I realized if a Devil accepted no one would know why I died and it would be for nothing. OK, if you are really concerned that Bill is a devil, the timing of your claim makes sense.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 19:52:47 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Feb 9, 2013 19:52:47 GMT -5
In other news, I have been re-reading. mrV still looks scummy as a slick on a pond to me. He repeatedly defending Patricia and then finally ended up voting her. To me this is much scummier than Lightfoot's actions. Patricia was A Thing but I would think that scum would just say "oh yeah I have the same PM as everyone else" rather than take the risk and point out a discrepancy. Also that patricia-wagon. Another reason I think she's probably town. Like Patricia's wagon has anyone else noticed how awful that is? 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[/color][/quote] Nevertheless, I am willing to believe Hockey's claim for the moment. I suspect that they are masons of some sort, whether they have something to do with Idle's offer or not.
SisC was another who defended Patricia. I am confused by Patricia's statements at this point, but not entirely convinced she's a Devil and not just an equally confused player. This strikes me as exactly the type of defense a fellow scum might make. A defense they could retract later. SisC was hit by RL, so we're not sure where her vote would have been had she been around, but she ended up voting NoLynch. 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? What is interesting here is not the vote, but SisC's theory about Cardinal Sins. It doesn't really make sense to me, and doesn't seem to match my PM very well at all. Vote: SisC
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 20:34:34 GMT -5
Post by scáthach on Feb 9, 2013 20:34:34 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? What is interesting here is not the vote, but SisC's theory about Cardinal Sins. It doesn't really make sense to me, and doesn't seem to match my PM very well at all. Vote: SisC [/color] [/quote] I tend to agree actually. My cardinal sin is one that you couldn't commit accidentally, as Sister C seems to suggest (you could fulfill the prerequisites for doing it, but to actually go and do it would require a conscious action). Now it is possible that for some people, their cardinal sin is one that is just triggered without their intervention, but actually Sister C's post seems to suggest that all sins must be one of the Cardinal sins, whereas the existence of the initial sins, and Idles hint that lynching a townie is a sin seems to disagree. vote Sister Coyote
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 20:50:08 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Feb 9, 2013 20:50:08 GMT -5
And I forgot to unvote.
Unvote: mrV, wombat, Suburban, SilverJan
I'd still like to know what SilverJan was claiming. And I'd still like to know what Suburban meant when he said he knew what Town had to do to win.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 21:00:18 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Feb 9, 2013 21:00:18 GMT -5
Forgive my dumbness here, but why would being sinless prevent billmc from accepting the cleansing?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 21:06:12 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 9, 2013 21:06:12 GMT -5
Forgive my dumbness here, but why would being sinless prevent billmc from accepting the cleansing? speaking for myself- IF I was sinless and someone offered to remove my sins I would decline to allow them to offer that service to another that had sin?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 21:08:11 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 9, 2013 21:08:11 GMT -5
NETA in order to allow them to offer
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 21:09:01 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 9, 2013 21:09:01 GMT -5
Nothing in my PM says they are exposed, it just says pretty much bad things will happen if they accept and I try to remove a sin from a Devil. That is my worry EOD the lynchee is dead and I am also dead and the Christians sit aorund and wonder why. I wouldn't have said anything if BillMc removed his vote from Idle after confirming in this thread he got the same PM. I thought that was a nifty sneaky way of confirming Idle wasn't lying. But... he didn't. And that leaves me a bit concerned if ya know what I mean. That's assuming BillMC even responds before end-of-day. He's been absent for three real-life days now. So my initial read on BillMC was that he was town, simply based on the fact that he contradicted Idle's wincon claim and was later proven correct. Since then, however, he's: - Voted Idle Thoughts for two main reasons, one of which is his scepticism over somebody's offer to remove Idle's sins (now confirmed by Ryjae, counterclaimed by nobody), the other is Idle's stating his "rules" but not that there could be exceptions. BillMC pointed out that this wasn't "pro-town" but didn't provide any explanation of why it was "scummy".** - Voted DizzyMrsLizzy - and given how suspicious I am of her right now, I'd be REALLY interested to see how this one turns out. I could absolutely see this being a "distancing" vote since DML isn't in too much danger and BillMC is, but if I had to guess I'd say the antagonism between these two is genuine. Which means at least one of them is probably not scum, but the other could very well be. Not coincidentally, DML's vote of BillMC pings me more than BillMC's vote of Bill - she asks him "Why are you declining it??!!!" (the sin-remover's offer) as though this were in itself a suspicious action, yet at that time BillMC had posted that he had no sins to remove, and Ryjae hadn't spoken his piece yet. - Voted MisterVisceral, for misrepresenting him and skimming. I don't have a problem with this vote except that the person it was placed on is now, according to HockeyMonkey, a confirmed Christian. - And, of course, publicly refused Ryjae's offer to remove his sins. BillMC's said exactly why he did this. On this topic I have one question: Ryjae, do you have any idea whether or not the devils might have known that having sins "removed" would possibly kill the sin-eater? If so, it seems to me that their best course of action would be to accept your offer, provided that you didn't claim and let people know the possible consequences if you were wrong. If you hadn't claimed, and you'd targeted a devil and suffered the "negative consequences", that might effectively mean the extra night-kill of a power role - a big bonus for the devils. Does that sound right? I'm still leaning town on BillMC. But I really really do not like the fact that he's still voting Idle or that he hasn't appeared for the last three days. I'm not seeing him play this game. If there are real-life issues stopping him from doing so then he needs to be subbed out. I will reiterate that I still think the best lynch by far is DizzyMrsLizzy. Every time I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, something else happens to make me suspect her. **I HATE reasoning like Bill's here. I think negative action, or lack of action, can be scummy in itself - devils deliberately not taking part in discussions of town win-cons, for example, in case something happens like, well, exactly what did happen to Patricia. But if somebody takes positive action - makes a claim, makes a case with a vote, etc - it's not enough to say that that action isn't "pro-town". You have to say why it's "scummy". Otherwise you get lynches based on all kinds of "strange behavior" that really have no scummy rationale for them. Hell, this is why the newbies seem to get lynched on day one so often here. They don't know what's considered "normal" so they play in ways that might be considered "strange", and then get picked on for it.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 21:23:42 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 9, 2013 21:23:42 GMT -5
I meant, "Not coincidentally, DML's vote of BillMC pings me more than BillMC's vote of DML." In case it was confusing.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 21:42:26 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 9, 2013 21:42:26 GMT -5
What is interesting here is not the vote, but SisC's theory about Cardinal Sins. It doesn't really make sense to me, and doesn't seem to match my PM very well at all. Vote: SisC [/color] [/quote] I tend to agree actually. My cardinal sin is one that you couldn't commit accidentally, as Sister C seems to suggest (you could fulfill the prerequisites for doing it, but to actually go and do it would require a conscious action). Now it is possible that for some people, their cardinal sin is one that is just triggered without their intervention, but actually Sister C's post seems to suggest that all sins must be one of the Cardinal sins, whereas the existence of the initial sins, and Idles hint that lynching a townie is a sin seems to disagree. vote Sister Coyote [/quote] I kind of agree... but I already voted Hockeymonkey partially based on an idea that he "threw out there", and unless he's pulling one heck of a ballsy scum-play in clearing MisterVisceral, it looks as though I was wrong on that one. My point is I don't want to vote somebody for "throwing out an idea". My role PM says "Cardinal Sin:" in the same way that it says "Alignment:", "Victory Conditions:", etc. But it doesn't actually state that I can't pick up a second Cardinal Sin, just that I only have one. The fact that it uses the term "Initial Sins:" but not "Initial Cardinal Sin:", plus the phrasing "Never let a player figure out your cardinal sin" would lead me to make the assumption that you only have one permanent cardinal sin. But again, it's just an assumption. I'd like to know if SisC has definite information that contradicts it. My gut feel on SisC is more "townie with post / vote restrictions" than "scum". The double "no lynch" vote in particular seems like a really out-there scum tactic - most scum would at least make a pretence at taking a position - which makes me think that it's probably not one. I'm not ruling her out though. It's definitely difficult to judge her play when there's so little of it.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 21:56:21 GMT -5
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Feb 9, 2013 21:56:21 GMT -5
Yes Lightfoot, I get what you are saying.... I don't think it would be "offered to another" Part 1- I was assuming that if "you" offer a service to a player and they decline, then you can't offer again until the next Day/Night, or whatever timeframe is specified. Not if Player A declines, you can send a request to Player B ToDay. Part 2- But Bill claims he has no sin....That's why I said "nothing would happen" Of course anyone who is sinless is helpful to the team, but I'm going on what Bill has already told us. He doesn't need the service because he's sinless. I'm assuming that while Devils may or may not have sins. Devils don't have sins that they need removed, or they don't care if they remove their sins, or maybe they need to rack up sins. IDK. Just assuming they don't care one way or another about whether they are sinless or not...They are Devils? So I was saying before RyJae explained it further was: Would a Devil even get a PM, or would RyJae automatically die and the Devil be exposed. Kind of wondering if receiving the PM would clear a player. That's all.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 22:06:10 GMT -5
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Feb 9, 2013 22:06:10 GMT -5
Not coincidentally, DML's vote of BillMC pings me more than BillMC's vote of Bill - she asks him "Why are you declining it??!!!" (the sin-remover's offer) as though this were in itself a suspicious action, yet at that time BillMC had posted that he had no sins to remove, and Ryjae hadn't spoken his piece yet. . Of course BillMC not accepting the sin-remover's offer in and of itself was suspicious....To suggest otherwise makes me more suspicious of you. I don't know about your Role PM, but mine specifically says Someone not wanting to remove their sins is suspicious.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 22:08:35 GMT -5
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Feb 9, 2013 22:08:35 GMT -5
I tend to agree actually. My cardinal sin is one that you couldn't commit accidentally, as Sister C seems to suggest (you could fulfill the prerequisites for doing it, but to actually go and do it would require a conscious action). Now it is possible that for some people, their cardinal sin is one that is just triggered without their intervention, but actually Sister C's post seems to suggest that all sins must be one of the Cardinal sins, whereas the existence of the initial sins, and Idles hint that lynching a townie is a sin seems to disagree. I also agree 100% here. My Cardinal sin is spelled out to the T in my Role PM. What it is, How I activate it, and What it does..... SisC is reaching here, and looking like she has no information on what the Cardinal sins are. Vote: SisC
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 22:11:30 GMT -5
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Feb 9, 2013 22:11:30 GMT -5
Ugh that didn't double quote correctly....I'm unsure how to fix it to be correct. SisC's Quote that I was referring to.... 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.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 22:29:21 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 9, 2013 22:29:21 GMT -5
Someone not wanting to remove their sins is suspicious. Somebody not wanting to remove the sins that they claim not to have?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 22:30:36 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 9, 2013 22:30:36 GMT -5
Someone not wanting to remove their sins is suspicious. And AGAIN with the double quote madness... it's insanity, I say! Insanity!
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 22:32:30 GMT -5
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Feb 9, 2013 22:32:30 GMT -5
*sigh*
Bills first post just said something like (paraphrasing) "Nah, I don't need you to remove my sins" He didn't explain in THAT post why. That's why I asked him Why he was declining the request? It wasn't until after that that he declared that he had no sins to cleanse....
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 9, 2013 22:41:57 GMT -5
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Feb 9, 2013 22:41:57 GMT -5
Holy to not paraphrase: And I'd like to thank whoever it is that offered to remove my sins, but it is unnecessary. My Response: I also agree with Idle's case on Bill. It's very ironic the offer you were scoffing at, and scoffing at Idle posting publicly yesterDay you now got, and are not only posting about it, but are declining it? Why are you declining it??? And then almost 24 hours later: Wait... are you confirming that part of what Idle said, at least as it applies to yourself? I can confirm I got a message ToDay via Pleo offering to remove my sins. As for who sent it, their alignment, what their motivation for sending it is, and whether it is genuine is unknown. I do not need my sins forgiven as I have no sins to forgive.
|
|