|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 17:38:05 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Feb 6, 2013 17:38:05 GMT -5
And I'd like to thank whoever it is that offered to remove my sins, but it is unnecessary.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 18:16:21 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 6, 2013 18:16:21 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. Legs? It barely has toenails. Patricia's slip was a very subtle slip that many people, including myself, totally missed. Lightfoot's statement put it front and centre. And let's say that Lightfoot was a paranoid scum, so paranoid that the first scumslip she sees, she feels the need to point out in order to cover her own backside. (Which is totally against the playstyle I've seen from her in the past, by the way.) Why, if she's scum, does she not VOTE for Patricia? Wouldn't that be the first thing she'd do when the bandwagon starts up? She was there and posting the entire time. If Lightfoot is / was scum on Day One, she fingered a scum when she had zero need to, and then handled the subsequent bandwagon in such a way that she'd gain the absolute least credit for it. And this is supposed to be scummy..? No bloody wonder she's having trouble making a defence here, she's being asked to defend against an accusation of scumminess that has some of the most bizarre backwards-firing logic I've ever seen on this board. (And with all due deference to everybody else here, that's saying quite a lot.)
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 18:26:36 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 6, 2013 18:26:36 GMT -5
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. Just that Pleonast has specifically mentioned the possibility of "recruiters" as a form of the Mechanic role. And the amount of scummy behavior I've been able to find, after analyzing a hella lot more people from Day One, is way, way lower than I'd expect in a game with five or six scum in it. Maybe I'm out of practice at this but I think there are less scum than the "expected" number, and they're still lurking hard. Especially after what happened to Patricia. Actually, given what happened there, the theory that the Devils are totally disconnected from each other seems to have a lot more merit than first appeared. That at least makes a damn sight more sense than the theory that the devils know almost nothing about cardinal sins, despite the fact that we've been specifically warned not to discuss ours.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 18:28:01 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 6, 2013 18:28:01 GMT -5
And I'd like to thank whoever it is that offered to remove my sins, but it is unnecessary. Wait... are you confirming that part of what Idle said, at least as it applies to yourself?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 18:53:52 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 6, 2013 18:53:52 GMT -5
~~snipp~~ Vote: Lightfoot [/color] 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. ~~snipp~~] [/quote] sure I pinged you yesterDay- I voted you yesterDay My comments about my vote or lack there of was after the fact you know- after it became the issue of the Day my comments are with hindsight now that my non vote is gaining me votes and the late voters are gaining votes as well My posts don't make sense- but my non-sense will get me lynched is the rest of the crew going to join the game before the last hour?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 19:07:32 GMT -5
Post by JustBeingGinger on Feb 6, 2013 19:07:32 GMT -5
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. Just that Pleonast has specifically mentioned the possibility of "recruiters" as a form of the Mechanic role. And the amount of scummy behavior I've been able to find, after analyzing a hella lot more people from Day One, is way, way lower than I'd expect in a game with five or six scum in it. Maybe I'm out of practice at this but I think there are less scum than the "expected" number, and they're still lurking hard. Especially after what happened to Patricia. Actually, given what happened there, the theory that the Devils are totally disconnected from each other seems to have a lot more merit than first appeared. That at least makes a damn sight more sense than the theory that the devils know almost nothing about cardinal sins, despite the fact that we've been specifically warned not to discuss ours. Someone mentioned in Day 1, what if the Devils were not allowed to Day talk during the day and since there was no Night 0, maybe they knew who their team mates are but could not "game talk". That could be a reason for the disconnect Day 1, but I would not assume it anymore. Knowing that in a typical game scum can always talk on a separate board. I personally have never been in a game where they cannot. OOG/ I am through the worst of days but I still have a cold, so depending on my cold meds, I am still fuzzy headed. Thank you for all the well wishes and thoughts!
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 19:45:26 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Feb 6, 2013 19:45:26 GMT -5
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. Legs? It barely has toenails. Patricia's slip was a very subtle slip that many people, including myself, totally missed. Lightfoot's statement put it front and centre. And let's say that Lightfoot was a paranoid scum, so paranoid that the first scumslip she sees, she feels the need to point out in order to cover her own backside. (Which is totally against the playstyle I've seen from her in the past, by the way.) Why, if she's scum, does she not VOTE for Patricia? Wouldn't that be the first thing she'd do when the bandwagon starts up? She was there and posting the entire time. If Lightfoot is / was scum on Day One, she fingered a scum when she had zero need to, and then handled the subsequent bandwagon in such a way that she'd gain the absolute least credit for it. And this is supposed to be scummy..? No bloody wonder she's having trouble making a defence here, she's being asked to defend against an accusation of scumminess that has some of the most bizarre backwards-firing logic I've ever seen on this board. (And with all due deference to everybody else here, that's saying quite a lot.) +1 In fact, the initial mistake by Patricia was so subtle that KidV himself defended her saying that Patricia was checking for a false claim and not making one. I think it was the pushing by Lightfoot and Idle that caused the Patricia meltdown.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 20:16:04 GMT -5
Post by ryjae on Feb 6, 2013 20:16:04 GMT -5
And I'd like to thank whoever it is that offered to remove my sins, but it is unnecessary. A couple things, you're confirming that you got a similar message as Idle did? Yesterday you said you could contradict Idles PM, was that just about initial sin or was there more? You are laying your vote on him so I am hoping it is more and if it is more then you should help the rest of us. RE: win-con I have 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. although there is not a clue how to remove a sin At this point I'm going to focus on finding and removing Devils I'm not sure what you're seeing, but nothing seemed fishy in that exchange to me. My thought process was that IF Patricia had the same clues she would have known why there was no need for me (or another) to post #3 Vote Lightfootidlemafia.com/index.cgi?board=pleoapoc&action=display&thread=2105&page=2 I am also leaning toward voting for guiri the last part almost makes it look like he is trying to help out Lightfoot, he knows there are 3 yet doesn't question Lightfoot only posting 2 more of a nudge that 3 did exist. Patricia failing at knowing about Christian PMs makes this all the more possible imo. FOS: Guiri for being first - very scummy Ha ha! Sorry, my question was a veiled reference to the game on the dope where I suggested trying out Pizza's 4-phase plan. Is shit flinging a term for brainstorming, or just saying the first thing that comes to mind? You appear to have a habit of posting something and then writing it off in the same post. I have 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. If everyone received the same three hints, there's not much to go on.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 20:38:53 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 6, 2013 20:38:53 GMT -5
you've quoted nicely- but can you tell me WHY you are voting me?
I posted ( as I've stated before) the 2 'clues' that I was given point C is not a clue bloody ridiculous
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 20:50:44 GMT -5
Post by ryjae on Feb 6, 2013 20:50:44 GMT -5
you've quoted nicely- but can you tell me WHY you are voting me? I posted ( as I've stated before) the 2 'clues' that I was given point C is not a clue bloody ridiculous They are all called "hints" under number 1, but whatever. If you had instead posted that could have flown, instead I believe based on your You knew absolutely nothing about C, much like Patricia knew nothing about C. I recommend anyone interested to go over idlemafia.com/index.cgi?board=pleoapoc&action=display&thread=2105&page=2 I could be wrong, but basing my judgements on Patricia getting caught by not knowing, I felt going through and seeing who else was not "in the loop" was appropriate. And it sure seems like you were not in the loop based on that post.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 21:03:01 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 6, 2013 21:03:01 GMT -5
I've been known to pit bull a point but this is...... OH wait- who called out pat- again ryjae I was leaning Town on you
insert eye roll here---
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2013 23:42:21 GMT -5
Post by mistervisceral on Feb 6, 2013 23:42:21 GMT -5
If Lightfoot is / was scum on Day One, she fingered a scum when she had zero need to, and then handled the subsequent bandwagon in such a way that she'd gain the absolute least credit for it. And this is supposed to be scummy..? No bloody wonder she's having trouble making a defence here, she's being asked to defend against an accusation of scumminess that has some of the most bizarre backwards-firing logic I've ever seen on this board. (And with all due deference to everybody else here, that's saying quite a lot.)Remember, kids. Dogmatism is a logical fallacy! On that note, I've been known to pit bull a point but this is...... OH wait- who called out pat- again ryjae I was leaning Town on you insert eye roll here--- You seem to have one single defense here, and that is that you "pointed out Patricia early". If you're really town, I admonish you to actually respond to people's arguments instead of recycling the same defense over and over again. For now, Vote: LightFoot[/color] again! (yaaaay!) The reason this wagon isn't bothering me so much is because it reminds me of Patricia's wagon - quickly springing, but based on solid reasons. It unheebies my jeebies. LF flips town, we look the everliving stars out of ryjae. Actually we look the everliving stars and garders out of a lot of people. But that's potentially tomorrow's issue (and every day has enough trouble of its own!). SO.
|
|
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 Two
Feb 6, 2013 23:43:03 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Feb 6, 2013 23:43:03 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. You vote me, then unvote me, then vote me again for the same "offense"? Huh? I think a scummy player might want to say to the rest of the players "look how townie I am being, pointing out this scummy behavior!" But scum don't generally WANT to actually lose one of their team. What reads scummy to me is that she brought it up as a fairly substantial point - one that I agreed with and was not hesitant of voting on. As someone else said, votes are like candy in this game, and on Day One that was an excellent reason to place a vote. It was early in day one and she had no reason to think at that time that such a bandwagon would form. The fact that she pointed it out, but never followed up even to say she no longer felt Patricia was scum, and therefore wasn't voting for her is why I am voting for Lightfoot now. She dropped the subject like it was hot. She says now that she didn't vote her because she didn't know if the wagon was justified? Really? If you feel like your reasons are justified, vote! Wagon or no. I don't see why you think me voting for what I feel is justified scummy behavior is scummy behavior. I also simply don't understand what you are trying to say about my Hell comment. All I was doing was postulating. I have no idea what the mechanics are regarding the game other than I need to kill Devils. I am not assuming they are in Hell already because they are on Earth here with us. I don't know if they will go to Purgatory and have a chance to come to our side. Christians aren't in Heaven already, so maybe the Devils aren't in Hell already. I don't know! I was speculating and bouncing ideas. If you aren't satisfied with those explanations, I don't think I can change your mind with more discussion about it.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 7, 2013 0:08:33 GMT -5
The reason this wagon isn't bothering me so much is because it reminds me of Patricia's wagon - quickly springing, but based on solid reasons. It unheebies my jeebies. The thing is, I kind of understand Lightfoot's reasoning in that up until the end, I wasn't sure if patricia was confused townie or caught scum. It wasn't until I asked her why she wasn't voting and who she'd vote for and her reply was "well I'd vote for YOU, you poopyheaded poopster" that she fell solidly into the more likely to be scum column, and that was late in the Day. It just strikes me as fishy. Patricia was handed to us on a silver platter, and it feels like everybody got complacent and immediately jumped on the "obvious" vote. There's very little discussion happening here outside of the back and forth between Lightfoot and her j'accusers.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Feb 7, 2013 2:12:40 GMT -5
I don't get all these votes on LightFoot. If she was scum why would she have pointed out Patricia's mistake in the first place, surely she would have gone to the scum board and corrected her there. Scum really don't want to be outed on D1, if it was D4 or D5 and Patricia was already getting a lot of scrutiny then I could understand it but on D1, it doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Feb 7, 2013 2:20:12 GMT -5
And I'd like to thank whoever it is that offered to remove my sins, but it is unnecessary. This post caught my eye and I think it needs more of an explanation. BillMc, don't you have any sins to remove? Can you remove sins? (best not answer that) I don't know why you would post such a thing. If BillMc is Town then it would confirm Idle's post that there are exceptions to the rule that everyone starts off with a sin. Patricia was pretty confused about sins and whether she had one or not and looking at this post it seems as if BillMc doesn't have one. Vote BillMcHis post made me very uncomfortable and I would like to know more, it still feels like a scummy post to me.
|
|
|
Post by ryjae on Feb 7, 2013 9:53:56 GMT -5
I don't get all these votes on LightFoot. If she was scum why would she have pointed out Patricia's mistake in the first place, surely she would have gone to the scum board and corrected her there. Scum really don't want to be outed on D1, if it was D4 or D5 and Patricia was already getting a lot of scrutiny then I could understand it but on D1, it doesn't make sense to me. I am going to muff these quotes I am sure but this is all on page 2 Day 1. Lightfoot posted this Guiri posts this, in response to Lightfoot Patricia posted I do also find it odd that Guiri didn't question Lightfoot on having a C. Lightfoot pointing it out as "fishy" would be a good scum move since others would have seen the problem with Patricias post as the Day had more players entering and reading. This wasn't spread out over the entire Day, this was all in the space of one page. I am not dead set on this vote, I do find it suspicious and the best place to set my vote at this time. When I went over yesterDays posts I made a mental note beforehand that I was going to place a vote on whomever seemed the most out of the loop, not posting a C made that note.
|
|
|
Post by ryjae on Feb 7, 2013 9:59:23 GMT -5
ETA: Silverjan you are assuming they had access to scum boards. Seriously just reading her attempts at digging herself out leads me to think she was in it alone Day 1. Am I the only one that thinks that?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2013 10:07:13 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Feb 7, 2013 10:07:13 GMT -5
So..since you're wrong, why vote for me? Nice OMGUS vote there The bottom line is that you lied. I didn't lie. Lie requires intent. I just didn't think of it too much because of the words "maybe" and "exceptions" there (which I later admitted, in hindsight, was a mistake). So....what can I say here that would make you convinced? Seems like nothing. If I stand my ground, then I'm "lying". If I say "You're right, I made a mistake", I'm "backpedeling". Either way, I lose and you're just destined to vote for me. If you scum (which I'm starting to think you are), it's a weak case. If you're town, you really suck at reading people.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2013 10:10:27 GMT -5
Post by Silver Jan on Feb 7, 2013 10:10:27 GMT -5
ETA: Silverjan you are assuming they had access to scum boards. Seriously just reading her attempts at digging herself out leads me to think she was in it alone Day 1. Am I the only one that thinks that? I have never played when scum couldn't talk during the Day but I suppose it's possible, unusual perhaps but possible. What I don't understand is LightFoots motivation behind bussing a fellow scum on D1. That's what doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2013 10:21:35 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Feb 7, 2013 10:21:35 GMT -5
And another thing which I find VERY, VERY interesting. Here you make the point: And I'd like to thank whoever it is that offered to remove my sins, but it is unnecessary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this tells me that you received the very same offer via PM, right? Well, if that's the case, then that should tell you that there obviously IS someone who offers to cleanse people of their sins via a PM. So your point of "Oh ho ho, and then someone just happens to offer to take your sins away--meaning it's likely you won't be killed" does happen to be true, as you now see. So why are you still voting for me if that was one of your points against me? Makes no sense.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2013 10:22:46 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Feb 7, 2013 10:22:46 GMT -5
Sorry for the tags being messed up in the last post...let's try that again. And another thing which I find VERY, VERY interesting. Here you make the point: States that is bad for the devils for those with no sin to go to heaven And lo and behold - someone volunteers to remove his sin - so he's now unlikely to be killed. ...which you use as a point against me, like you're saying "Ohhh, someone happens to offer to remove his sin...HOW CONVENIENT." Yet HERE you say: And I'd like to thank whoever it is that offered to remove my sins, but it is unnecessary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this tells me that you received the very same offer via PM, right? Well, if that's the case, then that should tell you that there obviously IS someone who offers to cleanse people of their sins via a PM. So your point of "Oh ho ho, and then someone just happens to offer to take your sins away--meaning it's likely you won't be killed" does happen to be true, as you now see. So why are you still voting for me if that was one of your points against me? Makes no sense.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2013 11:46:05 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 7, 2013 11:46:05 GMT -5
And I'd like to thank whoever it is that offered to remove my sins, but it is unnecessary. When did you receive this offer? Last Night, or earlier Today? I'm not liking the case against LightFoot. I understand the argument; I just don't agree with it. But I will admit that this game hasn't received my fullest attention over the past few days, so perhaps there's something there I'm not seeing...will try a quick reread to find out.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2013 12:27:54 GMT -5
Post by wombat99 on Feb 7, 2013 12:27:54 GMT -5
After re-reading the first part of Day 1, I can't see Patricia and Lightfoot knowingly being on the same team. I don't think Lightfoot would have bussed her teammate like that. There was no reason to do so. It seems an extreme way for Lightfoot to get a little townie cred at a time at the beginning of the Day when nothing was known about clues yet.
Pointing out the original slip but then not voting for Patricia is somewhat suspicious, I agree with that. But - I think what this hinges on is this: If the Devils are a traditional scum team with off-board communication, I don't believe Lightfoot can be a Devil.
However: after re-reading the rules post - It doesn't say anywhere that there's a traditional scum team. It just says that Killer is a possible role. I think it is possible that the Devils don't know each other - at least while alive. We didn't have a Night 0. I think it is possible that the Devils don't have off-board communication - at least while alive (another reason why Patricia got into trouble - she was alone, and didn't have any teammates advising her on how to get out of her pickle).
So, to say it another way: In a scenario where the Devils know each other, I do not think Lightfoot is one. In a scenario where the Devils do not know each other, it is possible that Lightfoot is one and the reason she didn't vote for Patricia yesterday after pointing out the slip is that she realized that she might well be voting for her (previously unknown) teammate.
I'm not sure where to place my vote(s) yet Today.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2013 12:37:13 GMT -5
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Feb 7, 2013 12:37:13 GMT -5
I'm very mixed on the case against Lightfoot I see where the bandwagon is going, and I agree with a lot of it, but I really don't want to throw in a "me too" vote just yet.
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???
Vote: Bill
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2013 12:40:33 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 7, 2013 12:40:33 GMT -5
So, to say it another way: In a scenario where the Devils know each other, I do not think Lightfoot is one. In a scenario where the Devils do not know each other, it is possible that Lightfoot is one and the reason she didn't vote for Patricia yesterday after pointing out the slip is that she realized that she might well be voting for her (previously unknown) teammate. So you think that if LightFoot knew that she and patricia were both Scum, then LightFoot would not have acted the way she did. So far, so good. Then you say that if LightFoot didn't know her other Scum teammates, she might have 'outed' patricia by mistake, then tried to 'cover up' her error. This I have a bit more trouble with. If a Scum LightFoot was told up-front "you have teammates, but you don't know who they are yet", doesn't it stand to reason that she would be trying to figure out who they were? And if she saw someone make an 'obvious Scum slip', wouldn't her reaction then be more along the lines of "hey! maybe that's one of my teammates!" rather than "Scum! Raise the alarm!"? One can question whether or not LightFoot was bussing a teammate or if she was simply an unsure Townie, but I think the idea that she was an 'unsure Scum' doesn't hold water...
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2013 12:48:54 GMT -5
Post by wombat99 on Feb 7, 2013 12:48:54 GMT -5
So, to say it another way: In a scenario where the Devils know each other, I do not think Lightfoot is one. In a scenario where the Devils do not know each other, it is possible that Lightfoot is one and the reason she didn't vote for Patricia yesterday after pointing out the slip is that she realized that she might well be voting for her (previously unknown) teammate. So you think that if LightFoot knew that she and patricia were both Scum, then LightFoot would not have acted the way she did. So far, so good. Then you say that if LightFoot didn't know her other Scum teammates, she might have 'outed' patricia by mistake, then tried to 'cover up' her error. This I have a bit more trouble with. If a Scum LightFoot was told up-front "you have teammates, but you don't know who they are yet", doesn't it stand to reason that she would be trying to figure out who they were? And if she saw someone make an 'obvious Scum slip', wouldn't her reaction then be more along the lines of "hey! maybe that's one of my teammates!" rather than "Scum! Raise the alarm!"? One can question whether or not LightFoot was bussing a teammate or if she was simply an unsure Townie, but I think the idea that she was an 'unsure Scum' doesn't hold water... Maybe. I am not at all sure that anything was obvious at that point, to anyone, that early on Day 1. Everyone was feeling things out, Devils ( Patricia) included.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2013 13:09:39 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 7, 2013 13:09:39 GMT -5
I don't get all these votes on LightFoot. If she was scum why would she have pointed out Patricia's mistake in the first place, surely she would have gone to the scum board and corrected her there. Scum really don't want to be outed on D1, if it was D4 or D5 and Patricia was already getting a lot of scrutiny then I could understand it but on D1, it doesn't make sense to me. I am going to muff these quotes I am sure but this is all on page 2 Day 1. Lightfoot posted this Guiri posts this, in response to Lightfoot Patricia posted I do also find it odd that Guiri didn't question Lightfoot on having a C. Lightfoot pointing it out as "fishy" would be a good scum move since others would have seen the problem with Patricias post as the Day had more players entering and reading. This wasn't spread out over the entire Day, this was all in the space of one page. I am not dead set on this vote, I do find it suspicious and the best place to set my vote at this time. When I went over yesterDays posts I made a mental note beforehand that I was going to place a vote on whomever seemed the most out of the loop, not posting a C made that note. point "c" was not a hint to the Town win-con
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2013 13:14:14 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 7, 2013 13:14:14 GMT -5
that turned out bigger than I thought it was going to be but I did have a point to make
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2013 13:54:26 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Feb 7, 2013 13:54:26 GMT -5
This thing about sins is bugging me
We KNOW that b. Removing your sins will always help your team, but increasing them may or may not be beneficial
My PM ( as I stated before ) does not give a clue how to remove sins
So it stands to reason that there is a mechanic- presumably a player- that can remove sins.
So far we only have Idle’s word that 1. You have some important knowledge about the game. There may be exceptions to some of the following facts. a. Christians initially have sin. b. Lynching a Christian is a sin. c. Christians that die without sin will go directly to Heaven (this is good). d. If a Devil can determine a Christian's Cardinal Sin, the Devil can claim their soul for Hell (this is bad). e. Christians that die with sin will go to Purgatory until their final fate is determined.
Idle has also told us that he had to PM his response to the offer----so WHY did Bill feel the need to announce his declination of the offer in public?
Is Idle short cutting the truth ( which he did before by omission) ? OR Is Bill sharing useless information ( for reasons only he knows) ?
OR has my frustration made me see imaginary spiders
|
|