|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 16:30:51 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 5, 2013 16:30:51 GMT -5
Moley, More of the mass voting including yourself toDay? Ugh. To make it clear: I hadn't read this when I posted my FoS of Texcat (and unvote of myself). Not that it particularly changes my mind.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 16:44:34 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 5, 2013 16:44:34 GMT -5
Ah, what the hell.
Unvote: HockeyMonkey.
Still hate the voting rationale, by the way. But I was voting nineteen or more people until the last few hours of Day One. Might as well make things more clear-cut this time.
I'm not unvoting Solaris because the point I made still stands. But Solaris is not my preferred lynch right now.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 16:57:44 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Feb 5, 2013 16:57:44 GMT -5
You are wrong Moley; I did voice suspicion of Patricia very early on: #1.70 By the time I got back, Patricia had gone back and forth a few times on whether she had sins or Cardinal sins or a 3rd hint or no 3rd hint, and it was apparent that something was very wrong with her story, and I voted. Your argument that I have not helped town much so far could be applied to almost anyone. I did voice suspicion of scum and I voted scum. What do you want for Day One?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 17:39:05 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Feb 5, 2013 17:39:05 GMT -5
Man, crys, votes are like candy. You can't overmeasure their value. Look, vote: Lightfoot[/color] (Hock-Monk brang up an excellent point) and even vote: crys[/color] (safey safe McSaferton) Also that night kill just reeks of wine, so I'd rather we not delve into that subject too deeply. 'twould be a waste of time and get us far off track imho.[/quote] What reeks of wine? Reading and commenting but why shouldn't we talk of wine? You brought it up so lets delve.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 17:43:07 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Feb 5, 2013 17:43:07 GMT -5
Paranoia, The Martyr, a Christian and Manipulator is dead. I wonder if a Martyr is a similar type of role to a bodyguard? Also interested in seeing how the continuing to participate after being dead will work out. Hmm interesting, martyr, bodyguard, you might have a point there and the next question is who was S/he trying to protect or was the Martyr just NK'd?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 17:43:26 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Feb 5, 2013 17:43:26 GMT -5
Paranoia, The Martyr, a Christian and Manipulator is dead. I wonder if a Martyr is a similar type of role to a bodyguard? Also interested in seeing how the continuing to participate after being dead will work out. Hmm interesting, martyr, bodyguard, you might have a point there and the next question is who was S/he trying to protect or was the Martyr just NK'd?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Feb 5, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Sorry about 2 posts, my ISP is crap, Going back to read
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 17:46:42 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Feb 5, 2013 17:46:42 GMT -5
My ISP is bugging the crap out of me
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 18:41:48 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 5, 2013 18:41:48 GMT -5
You are wrong Moley; I did voice suspicion of Patricia very early on: #1.70 By the time I got back, Patricia had gone back and forth a few times on whether she had sins or Cardinal sins or a 3rd hint or no 3rd hint, and it was apparent that something was very wrong with her story, and I voted. Your argument that I have not helped town much so far could be applied to almost anyone. I did voice suspicion of scum and I voted scum. What do you want for Day One? Ah balls. Missed the early suspicion on Patricia, sorry. Yep, that looks like pro-town behavior. Unvote: Texcat. Damn, I thought I'd got one right for once then.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 19:10:08 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 5, 2013 19:10:08 GMT -5
<font style="font-size: 12px;"> Today at 9:20am, Sister Coyote wrote:<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" class="quote" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="100%"> To avoid a penalty:
vote: no lynch
I have trouble reading lightfoot, but I know that she and I both have a tendency when, for whatever reason, the lynch seems a sure thing to go looking elsewhere.
Weren't there vote shenanigans yesterday? "No legitimate unvote" or some such?</td></tr></tbody></table> Why are you doing this? It seems scummy as hell, but somehow I don't see scum doing this. Is there a reason behind it, or aren't you expecting to vote today? I did it to have a vote down, on the off-chance work got crazy-busy before I had a chance to put one down on someone I consider a valid candidate. That said: Unvote: no lynchvote: lightfootIt is strange for her to have so clearly voiced suspicions at the very beginning and not voted, this I agree with. also vote: Mr VisceralDiscussion for the most part benefits Town. Pre-emptive dismissal of a discussion topic looks Scummy from where I sit.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 21:06:52 GMT -5
Post by mistervisceral on Feb 5, 2013 21:06:52 GMT -5
What reeks of wine? Reading and commenting but why shouldn't we talk of wine? You brought it up so lets delve. Fair enough, I did bring it up. At this point it probably did more harm than good to be proactive about this one, but so it goes~ Srry guys What reeked of wine was [what I explained earlier] BUT looking at a Martyr as someone who sacrifices themselves for the deaths (or whatever else) of others, it makes more sense. By the way, texcat, that's what I was doing when I brought the thing up before it became an issue. I (thought I) was being proactive. More at 10!
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 21:23:05 GMT -5
Post by mistervisceral on Feb 5, 2013 21:23:05 GMT -5
Oh right Vote wombat99 is totally still a thing. To clarify, I meant Para wasn't shot. Whoops. That changes everything. Let me know if further clarification is still needed. Holy, I'd wait for Texcat stuff to play out before drawing meta conclusions about it - what you've said right there fits parameters too specific for what we've seen thus far of Texcat's play (what a dumb sentence!). I guess I just mean I'll wait for more than just meta before I vote her. :K That's what I mean. YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT. Also, yes, Solaris, whenever you get in here, don't be afraid to ask questions about mafia in general. None of us bite (I think)!
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 23:14:26 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 5, 2013 23:14:26 GMT -5
If this helps--- Yes I did call Patricia on a point- at the time it was not an AHA it was a sniggle
I didn’t Know For Sure (I had no way to)
After the train was rolling on her I didn’t know if it was justified or not so I did not vote there-
IIRC SisC had a pretty good take on it – until she reneged –
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 5, 2013 23:25:47 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 5, 2013 23:25:47 GMT -5
NETA now players are suspect of the late voters on Patricia- It was a lose lose
If she would have flipped Town I’d be a big bad guy too
cut paste not friend
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 6, 2013 5:18:39 GMT -5
NETA now players are suspect of the late voters on Patricia- It was a lose lose If she would have flipped Town I’d be a big bad guy too Your attempt to gloss over the reasons people are voting you is not doing you any favors. It's not nearly as simple as "damned if you do, damned if you don't", and you know it. The fact is, you and many others expressed early suspicion of Patricia, but unlike those others you didn't follow up on it. Can you do a better a job of explaining why you didn't vote for Patricia? "I didn't know if it was justified" is a cop-out.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 6, 2013 9:23:11 GMT -5
Oh right Vote wombat99 is totally still a thing. To clarify, I meant Para wasn't shot. Whoops. That changes everything. Let me know if further clarification is still needed. Holy, I'd wait for Texcat stuff to play out before drawing meta conclusions about it - what you've said right there fits parameters too specific for what we've seen thus far of Texcat's play (what a dumb sentence!). I guess I just mean I'll wait for more than just meta before I vote her. :K That's what I mean. YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT. Also, yes, Solaris, whenever you get in here, don't be afraid to ask questions about mafia in general. None of us bite (I think)! FTR it's not "meta". "Agree with the most popular opinion" is a popular scum tactic. Texcat's early suspicion of Patricia certainly puts that in doubt though. I'm not 100% convinced - she didn't actually vote for Patricia - but it's enough to give her the benefit of the doubt. Ah well, when your sword breaks, you draw your dagger. Vote: HockeyMonkey. I'm still not satisfied with pretty much any of his votes, except the one on me and Patricia. The Scathach and Lightfoot ones look seriously trumped-up. I will repeat my other point as well, since HM dismissed it without answering it to my satisfaction: his idea was that demons have to make it to hell to win. He'd just been told that Christians may be sent to hell after death (and quoted that very point in the same post as his idea). That being the case, I don't understand how you can make the assumption that demons have to get to hell to win if your role PM specifically states that killing demons will help your side. If you don't have this role PM, it might look like a reasonable idea to throw out to make yourself look helpful and put people off track a bit. And you know what, Vote: SisterCoyote. I absolutely hate the Lightfoot wagon right now. That somebody made a logical point to suspect a previously unsuspected scum, a point that eventually led to their lynch, but then didn't vote for that scum - that that should be a point of suspicion absolutely confounds me. Isn't this the exact opposite of how a scummy player would behave? I'm detecting - at least I'm HOPING - that there's more to this than I'm seeing right now. If there's some evidence that Lightfoot has been recruited, I want to know what it is. And no, before anybody states the obvious: it's not enough to say that "this evidence posted publicly will help the devils" or suchlike, because it sure as heck ain't helping the Christians either by being kept secret. Otherwise this looks like a completely unjustified, unsubstantiated wagon to me.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 6, 2013 9:32:23 GMT -5
Manipulators on both sides? Eeenteresting. And while we're on the subject of posts that I'm not "getting"... in what way could this possibly be a surprise? "Manipulators" are defined as a group that contains docs (mostly affiliated with town), bus-drivers (mostly scum), and roleblockers (probably 50/50). Plus there are occasionally scum docs and town role-redirectors. This is why I hate games with recruiters (I'm 80% sure that there are ones in the game now, if only because the incidence of anything I can find scummy on Day One is so ludicrously below what I was expecting to find). People who appear totally innocent on Day One may not be on Day Two. You have to effectively start again.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 6, 2013 9:37:43 GMT -5
I absolutely hate the Lightfoot wagon right now. That somebody made a logical point to suspect a previously unsuspected scum, a point that eventually led to their lynch, but then didn't vote for that scum - that that should be a point of suspicion absolutely confounds me. Isn't this the exact opposite of how a scummy player would behave? Not at all. Picking on little things their buddies do is exactly how scum behave in order to establish distance. And that's all it would have been, except Patricia flinched and got in over her head, and Lightfoot dithered instead of getting on the wagon right away, and there you have it. Didn't vote her early because she didn't want to get a wagon going, and didn't vote her late because she didn't want to appear to be bandwagoning. It isn't airtight by any stretch, but your declaration that you're "absolutely astounded" tells me you haven't thought it through. I want to hear from Lightfoot again before I put a vote on her, but the case against her absolutely has legs, your hyperbolic astonishment notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on Feb 6, 2013 9:59:24 GMT -5
Oh right Vote wombat99 is totally still a thing. To clarify, I meant Para wasn't shot. Whoops. That changes everything. Let me know if further clarification is still needed. Holy, I'd wait for Texcat stuff to play out before drawing meta conclusions about it - what you've said right there fits parameters too specific for what we've seen thus far of Texcat's play (what a dumb sentence!). I guess I just mean I'll wait for more than just meta before I vote her. :K That's what I mean. YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT. Also, yes, Solaris, whenever you get in here, don't be afraid to ask questions about mafia in general. None of us bite (I think)! FTR it's not "meta". "Agree with the most popular opinion" is a popular scum tactic. Texcat's early suspicion of Patricia certainly puts that in doubt though. I'm not 100% convinced - she didn't actually vote for Patricia - but it's enough to give her the benefit of the doubt. Ah well, when your sword breaks, you draw your dagger.Vote: HockeyMonkey. I'm still not satisfied with pretty much any of his votes, except the one on me and Patricia. The Scathach and Lightfoot ones look seriously trumped-up. I will repeat my other point as well, since HM dismissed it without answering it to my satisfaction: his idea was that demons have to make it to hell to win. He'd just been told that Christians may be sent to hell after death (and quoted that very point in the same post as his idea). That being the case, I don't understand how you can make the assumption that demons have to get to hell to win if your role PM specifically states that killing demons will help your side. If you don't have this role PM, it might look like a reasonable idea to throw out to make yourself look helpful and put people off track a bit. And you know what, Vote: SisterCoyote. I absolutely hate the Lightfoot wagon right now. That somebody made a logical point to suspect a previously unsuspected scum, a point that eventually led to their lynch, but then didn't vote for that scum - that that should be a point of suspicion absolutely confounds me. Isn't this the exact opposite of how a scummy player would behave? I'm detecting - at least I'm HOPING - that there's more to this than I'm seeing right now. If there's some evidence that Lightfoot has been recruited, I want to know what it is. And no, before anybody states the obvious: it's not enough to say that "this evidence posted publicly will help the devils" or suchlike, because it sure as heck ain't helping the Christians either by being kept secret. Otherwise this looks like a completely unjustified, unsubstantiated wagon to me. BLEACHED by me I have seen scum bus other scum once they have made a mistake and are under fire, heck I think the one time I was scum, I did it. Now the fact that Lightfoot came out with her suspicions prior to the bandwagon starting... Hey Gnarly, care to play? You had 1 post Day 1 and 0 posts toDay. Vote Gnarlycharlie Vote Lauriern Vote Solaris Each of you have not bothered to post today. There could be more, I have not checked everyone so there could be more votes to come. Not saying that my votes will stay here.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 10:09:12 GMT -5
Post by JustBeingGinger on Feb 6, 2013 10:09:12 GMT -5
Manipulators on both sides? Eeenteresting. And while we're on the subject of posts that I'm not "getting"... in what way could this possibly be a surprise? "Manipulators" are defined as a group that contains docs (mostly affiliated with town), bus-drivers (mostly scum), and roleblockers (probably 50/50). Plus there are occasionally scum docs and town role-redirectors. This is why I hate games with recruiters (I'm 80% sure that there are ones in the game now, if only because the incidence of anything I can find scummy on Day One is so ludicrously below what I was expecting to find). People who appear totally innocent on Day One may not be on Day Two. You have to effectively start again. Can I ask what has happened in the game to now give you the assumption (80%) that there are recruiters in this game? I know the rules say that it is possible but I was wondering if I missed something in the game that gave you this.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 12:00:01 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Feb 6, 2013 12:00:01 GMT -5
/oog Apologies, I'm traveling this week and have less free time than expected, will catch up before EoD.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 13:46:14 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 6, 2013 13:46:14 GMT -5
NETA now players are suspect of the late voters on Patricia- It was a lose lose If she would have flipped Town I’d be a big bad guy too Your attempt to gloss over the reasons people are voting you is not doing you any favors. It's not nearly as simple as "damned if you do, damned if you don't", and you know it. The fact is, you and many others expressed early suspicion of Patricia, but unlike those others you didn't follow up on it. Can you do a better a job of explaining why you didn't vote for Patricia? "I didn't know if it was justified" is a cop-out. Gloss over? I’m getting votes because I questioned Patricia early on a point that led to her lynch- but didn’t vote her- right? Every one of us questions other players when we see something that is “ not quite right” Most of the time ( atleast for me ) it’s disregarded- explained away- no big deal- by the other players Pat waffled like a Belgian -which can be a Scum trait when busted- but it can also be a confused Townie reaction. I can’t speak for others but I wager there are more than a few of us that have typing in our Role PMs that is clear as MUD Hell didn’t we have a good portion of Day one discussing what our win-con actually is? We know we need to lynch/kill the Devils- so we have to find them first- I helped find one- but I didn’t know it- so now I’m Scummy- got it
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 13:50:14 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 6, 2013 13:50:14 GMT -5
Ginger -- I believe Laurie said meatspace was eating her brain, so I'm not sure her low participation is representative of anything.
The other two, on the other hand...
Lightfoot: You made the initial case and never voted. I haven't reneged. I have looked at the facts and come to a conclusion that -- while taking into account our shared tendency to look elsewhere for votes when the lynch is a lock -- your behavior looks more scummy than townie.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 13:59:02 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 6, 2013 13:59:02 GMT -5
Sorry folks...work has been extremely busy this week...thanks for not being too verbose so far. I'll get caught up today.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 14:00:57 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 6, 2013 14:00:57 GMT -5
Your attempt to gloss over the reasons people are voting you is not doing you any favors. It's not nearly as simple as "damned if you do, damned if you don't", and you know it. The fact is, you and many others expressed early suspicion of Patricia, but unlike those others you didn't follow up on it. Can you do a better a job of explaining why you didn't vote for Patricia? "I didn't know if it was justified" is a cop-out. Gloss over? I’m getting votes because I questioned Patricia early on a point that led to her lynch- but didn’t vote her- right? Every one of us questions other players when we see something that is “ not quite right” Most of the time ( atleast for me ) it’s disregarded- explained away- no big deal- by the other players Pat waffled like a Belgian -which can be a Scum trait when busted- but it can also be a confused Townie reaction. I can’t speak for others but I wager there are more than a few of us that have typing in our Role PMs that is clear as MUD Hell didn’t we have a good portion of Day one discussing what our win-con actually is? We know we need to lynch/kill the Devils- so we have to find them first- I helped find one- but I didn’t know it- so now I’m Scummy- got it Again, you're misrepresenting the situation. Patricia didn't waffle, she flat out contradicted herself several times. I don't buy that you were suspicious of her early but were swayed by her brilliant defense. Your actions then are not consistent with what we know and what you're telling us now. I don't like it. And again, you're not scummy because you found a scum, stop saying that. You're scummy because you found a scum and didn't vote for them, and can't explain why not. Vote: Lightfoot
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 14:21:35 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 6, 2013 14:21:35 GMT -5
Waffle was a euphemism used in a borderline witty comment But I doubt that matters a whit to you at this point
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 15:47:31 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 6, 2013 15:47:31 GMT -5
Scum are loving this … I am currently underfire for starting a discussion that started a wagon- that I did not join that netted a Scum. Vote: Hockey monkey for starting it with out asking me a question prior. Vote: misterv discourages discussion of the NK but the LightFoot and patricia show is fair game And then there is this comment I wonder if a Martyr is a similar type of role to a bodyguard? This is weird, then. Scathach, how did you come to this conclusion on your own? This makes me think you knew Para was shot. There’s aslo his D1 comment on the patricia wagon that he eyeballs me for –calls pat “ probably Town”- but later votes her It’s bloody disconnected to me
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 16:54:52 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 6, 2013 16:54:52 GMT -5
You know what the Martyr role is, right? I'd say Paranoia correctly guessed who the scum were going to target last night. No wine needed. It's interesting to me that some people immediately assumes that the "Martyr" title to Paranoia's role is 100% tied to and indicative of whatever power he might have and why he died. I think that assumption is a bad idea. I'm having trouble getting a read on anybody toDay. For some reason my brain's been pretty fuzzy every time I come to the site and try to make some analysis. I'm probably going to take a breather, come back later and look at all the patricia shenanigans from Day One and see who really stands out. Honestly, I'm not a terribly big fan of the Lightfoot wagon. Especially since it seems to be the easy way out and...also, where's all the discussion? We're halfway through the Day and it seems like participation is already dying.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 17:12:24 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Feb 6, 2013 17:12:24 GMT -5
Ok, time to get some votes in. I think we really need to spark discussion, the Day seems almost dead.
Vote: wombat99 He is drawing attention, and has not yet posted today. Scum hiding from attention?
Vote: Lightfoot She pinged me yesterday. Her not voting for Patricia yesterday isn't as much what is causing me to vote - her reasoning behind it today is. The fact that she mentions that she is conscious about how she votes is irking me.
Vote: crys Post #19 gets to me a little. Do you know some knowledge of how death works in this game?
Rest of the non-participating players (that do actively appear to be playing) Vote: storyteller0910 Vote: Solaris Vote: lauriern Vote: dizzymrslizzy
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 17:36:45 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Feb 6, 2013 17:36:45 GMT -5
So..since you're wrong, why vote for me? Nice OMGUS vote there The bottom line is that you lied. 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. You knew the statement that not having sins did not equal not being christian. Your lie added weight to your vote on Patricia. I can't think of any pro-town reason for this lie.
|
|