|
Post by texcat on May 4, 2013 16:08:30 GMT -5
Well that posted before I was finished... SilverJan, I understand your frustration and I certainly believe that you didn't look at the other role, and don't think it matters even if you did, but you are the one who originally brought up the possibility of lying.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on May 4, 2013 17:03:32 GMT -5
[snipped]Is there any case against SilverJan beside the double login? If not, I hope we find a better Lynchee. There was a similar confusion about SilverJan in another recent game at Idlemafia -- I think she has two logins for two computers. In that game, there was much suspicion about that -- I thought there might be crossover from an account on scum board -- but she turned out to be Townie. Why are you trying to minimize the case against SilverJan? There are plenty of other reasons for voting her: Pleo voted for her vote on Sai. Cookies agrees and doesn't like SilverJan's reaction to Pleo's vote. Sai votes because Jan was non-commital on D1. Are the amount of post we have posted indicative of what we have posted in this environment (Idle's Board) I have just noticed that under your name there is how many posts you have posted. Scum have been caught out by this before so I am just putting it out there. Actually, scum weren't caught, the person that discovered this excused himself from the game. Of course I know it's Idles board, what I am thinking is that are scum boards here too? Probably not cos it has been discovered earlier in other games but if anyone wants to count.......go for it. I find this post extremely suspicious. My role has a QuickTopic for sending actions to the mods, instead of using PMs. I would guess that the witches also have a QuickTopic for communicating. I suspect Jan knows this and was really stretching for a way to show that she could not be a witch. And then there's the vote for herself another tactic that I always find suspicious. None of this is conclusive evidence, but certainly there's more there than a mistake by the mods of sending Jan two roles. vote: swammerdami for misstating and minimizing the case on Jan
|
|
|
Post by Sai on May 4, 2013 21:01:50 GMT -5
I have reread all of today and I don't see much other than a very frustrated silverjan. I don't know why you are all so intent on lynching her. Like I said I see more like a frustrated townie, than a witch. Now I know this is a bit meta, but I have known Jan for quite awhile through facebook, and when she says that she didn't open the other role pm right away, I tend to believe her. That doesn't make her town; it is a side issue that is in my opinion entirely irrelevant to the case. One other thing that I have also noticed is even though I also voted Sai yesterday that it has basically been ignored. I haven't even been questioned on the matter. I find this very odd to me. Now granted my vote was largely based on a misunderstanding on what Sai was getting at doesn't change the fact that I voted for him. Except I did respond. It was clearly based on you either not seeing or not understanding Peeker's slip, and then not understanding the Bishop/Nun v Priest/Acolyte bit. There's not much to respond to aside from clarifying things, which was done over and over again yesterday. I'd actually be more interested if anyone else DID respond to your vote. In some cases I feel that a mass claim might help us because of timing/counter claims that could pop up. However I do think that it is a bit too early in the game. I will admit to this much though I am a basic villager. Yeah, I'm not super keen on the massclaiming bit. It allows Witches to narrow down holy roles and potentially wave a flag for their unknown teammates as to their being not-spies. Except, see, I'm also not super keen on claiming after saying that it's too early for a mass claim because seriously dude. Edited to fix tags, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Sai on May 4, 2013 21:03:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by crys on May 4, 2013 21:31:53 GMT -5
I didn't mean that no one responded, because I recognize that you both responded yesterday, but no one has mentioned it today, but some of you are still grilling Jan about the whole thing. I guess I should go back and reread yesterday as well and see if there is something else I may have missed.
The main entirety of my point is that I don't see behavior that I would consider scummy, just more misunderstanding and frustration. At the heart of the matter both Silver Jan and I had both basically gotten pinged by you for the same comment.
|
|
|
Post by crys on May 4, 2013 21:34:37 GMT -5
[snipped]Is there any case against SilverJan beside the double login? If not, I hope we find a better Lynchee. There was a similar confusion about SilverJan in another recent game at Idlemafia -- I think she has two logins for two computers. In that game, there was much suspicion about that -- I thought there might be crossover from an account on scum board -- but she turned out to be Townie. Why are you trying to minimize the case against SilverJan? There are plenty of other reasons for voting her: Pleo voted for her vote on Sai. Cookies agrees and doesn't like SilverJan's reaction to Pleo's vote. Sai votes because Jan was non-commital on D1. Are the amount of post we have posted indicative of what we have posted in this environment (Idle's Board) I have just noticed that under your name there is how many posts you have posted. Scum have been caught out by this before so I am just putting it out there. Actually, scum weren't caught, the person that discovered this excused himself from the game. Of course I know it's Idles board, what I am thinking is that are scum boards here too? Probably not cos it has been discovered earlier in other games but if anyone wants to count.......go for it. I find this post extremely suspicious. My role has a QuickTopic for sending actions to the mods, instead of using PMs. I would guess that the witches also have a QuickTopic for communicating. I suspect Jan knows this and was really stretching for a way to show that she could not be a witch. And then there's the vote for herself another tactic that I always find suspicious. None of this is conclusive evidence, but certainly there's more there than a mistake by the mods of sending Jan two roles. vote: swammerdami for misstating and minimizing the case on Jan I don't really get a whole scummy read from Swammerdami's post. I just get the impression that he may have skimmed the thread, which I do have to admit on the first read through I often do that myself. I think we are actually getting served up a fair share of wine from some where in this whole situation. Who is actually doing the serving I am not sure of at this point.
|
|
|
Post by crys on May 4, 2013 21:39:57 GMT -5
What I would actually like to see at this point is to know what some of the others think of the whole situation. I don't think we actually have posts in today's thread from about half of the players. To be honest the lack of participation bothers me quite a bit. I know I haven't really been too vocal up until now today either, but I thought we would have more discussion about now. Hopefully it will pick up some soon.
|
|
|
Post by Sai on May 4, 2013 22:57:26 GMT -5
What I would actually like to see at this point is to know what some of the others think of the whole situation. I don't think we actually have posts in today's thread from about half of the players. To be honest the lack of participation bothers me quite a bit. I know I haven't really been too vocal up until now today either, but I thought we would have more discussion about now. Hopefully it will pick up some soon. I actually share this sentiment. I normally don't talk about this much, since saying "Wow, there's a lot of inactivity here!" has never really done much to increase posting in my experience, but honestly if we don't get more people talking, we're just going to straight up lose by default.
|
|
|
Post by Sai on May 4, 2013 23:00:42 GMT -5
Also this is probably one of those "cultural" things, but you guys use the term 'wine' to mean something very different from what I've seen it used to mean, in a mafia context. I've always seen "Wine" as in Wine In Front Of Me to refer to things like "I wouldn't do that as mafia" or a random D1 Holy claim and stuff like that.
This here isn't the first time I've seen Wine to mean something that obviously doesn't refer to a train of thought leading in a circle, so do you guys just use it to refer to things that generate discussion or things that generate confusion?
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 5, 2013 7:42:53 GMT -5
I read all the posts, but my concentration and recall isn't what it used to be (if it ever was ), so it may seem I'm skimming. But anyway most the Day 1 or Day 2 "tells" against a player are usually proven wrong. Sincere Townies often write things that attract attention, while Scum lays low. And frankly, some of the changes to BB software make it harder for me to read these threads. For starters, is there still a way to changes posts per page? (Reading and especially searching is much easier with many posts per page.) BTW, if we're throwing out charges of skimming, how about: One or two other players on Day 1, including Cookies, seemed to reveal they weren't Basic. I did? Saying that you're Basic/Holy is meaningless. Everyone is Basic/Holy aside from the Witches, and you're not going to come out and claim Witch. Everything after 'Scum never...' is metagame crap. You first. In the post you quote I claim to be Basic AND Expanded. (I should have written it that way, but my followup about "claiming non-Holy" should have clarified.) Thus if your "You first" doesn't show skimming, what does? Yes, I could be lying. Just as you might be lying if you claim Holy -- though your claim can be checked. I don't get any Scum tells from you, but with 7 Witches and 4 Holy Villagers, the odds are you're a Witch and the Witches already know that assuming they've picked up on the fact that you're not Basic. I wasn't the only one to pick up that Cookies is probably not Basic -- if I knew the easy way to Search here I'd post a link! I see no reason to give details now: others may make the same slip, but if I'm right that Cookies is Holy or Witch (or even Holy, Spy or Witch) then Witches already know you're Holy.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 5, 2013 8:00:16 GMT -5
Let me ask again if anyone has studied previous games with rules like these, and can give hints on how to proceed. I'm at a loss. (I Google and find a previous game by Chocolate Pi, but lack the patience to review it.)
For me, the death reveals are key to scum-hunting. We do have some limited reveals possible in this game due to roles like Gravedigger. I don't know how to advise Gravedigger, and of course the Gravedigger might be Witch anyway. I do think limited self-reveals or conditional reveals might help, eventually -- we might end up with a giant logic puzzle and a caveat like "ten of these speakers are Witches or Spies and likely to be lying."
In addition to Gravedigger and Priest, there are other investigative powers before Halftime. Consider Inquisitor and Investigator. Either of these powers would be powerful in the hands of a Witch but, ISTM, much less useful in the hands of a Villager. Yet, AFAICT, the 20 non-Holy players are assigned the 20 non-Holy roles purely at random, without regard to alignment.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on May 5, 2013 11:22:42 GMT -5
Swammerdami , you are right. Reveals are the most important thing.
So let's get down to it, I'm the Gravedigger.
And for the record, we are down to 6 witches, because Peeker was the Elder Witch Summoner.
I do not get Reveals from NK's, so I cannot say what alignment or role Patricia is.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on May 5, 2013 11:29:28 GMT -5
SilverJan made a fuss about mechanics, and about there possibly being a scum board. All I have is a Quicktopic to talk to myself to regarding what I am thinking, and notes. I assume that possibly the mod would have one for each set of Witches.
Her not seeing her second PM, I can see that happening, because i want to say that she had a second account as scum, which is how we got her in that game. i thnj the second PM went to that account. SilverJan- do you have two account on here?
I get more of a frustrated Townie from Jan than scum, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by crys on May 5, 2013 12:06:13 GMT -5
Also this is probably one of those "cultural" things, but you guys use the term 'wine' to mean something very different from what I've seen it used to mean, in a mafia context. I've always seen "Wine" as in Wine In Front Of Me to refer to things like "I wouldn't do that as mafia" or a random D1 Holy claim and stuff like that. This here isn't the first time I've seen Wine to mean something that obviously doesn't refer to a train of thought leading in a circle, so do you guys just use it to refer to things that generate discussion or things that generate confusion? In my limited experience it can mean both. I guess many of us use it as a general term. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 5, 2013 12:49:38 GMT -5
Swammerdam, I have no idea what non basic slip you are talking about and no one but you has said anything similar that I am aware of. I also have no idea what you are trying to say in the post where you apparently accuse me of skimming. I made a slip in that post though, I slipped that I am not a Spy because I forgot for a moment that Spies are non holy original Village roles and not the effect of randomly receiving a character card. Shortly after that I responded to Pleo that I was not in fact a Spy. As you seem to be mistaken and misinterpreting many of my posts, it would be helpful if you could cite your smears so that I can address the specific language in question.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on May 5, 2013 22:30:48 GMT -5
Good information to know Colby. Glad we managed to nail Peeker, and the Summoner role is a bonus to get rid of because that was a killing role at Halftime. That in scum hands would have been extremely dangerous.
Silver Jan's gotten the most attention toDay, and I'm not particularly fond of setting a lynch the loud exercise here, especially since there hasn't been a lot of activity. I'm not normally an advocate of lynch the lurker either, but honestly right now all I've been able to process is the white noise from Jan.
Vote wombat99
She's been absent over on Giraffe too.
I really blame the board's new format. I'm still adjusting and finding it hard to focus and read.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on May 6, 2013 1:50:44 GMT -5
Well that posted before I was finished... SilverJan, I understand your frustration and I certainly believe that you didn't look at the other role, and don't think it matters even if you did, but you are the one who originally brought up the possibility of lying. I was just frustrated but I honestly don't cheat. Unvote silverjan
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on May 6, 2013 1:52:24 GMT -5
Answering as I'm reading, what's a quick topic?
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on May 6, 2013 2:03:21 GMT -5
SilverJan made a fuss about mechanics, and about there possibly being a scum board. All I have is a Quicktopic to talk to myself to regarding what I am thinking, and notes. I assume that possibly the mod would have one for each set of Witches. Her not seeing her second PM, I can see that happening, because i want to say that she had a second account as scum, which is how we got her in that game. i thnj the second PM went to that account. SilverJan- do you have two account on here? I get more of a frustrated Townie from Jan than scum, but that's just me. You are misremembering, I was a mason in that game and I do have 2 accounts on here for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on May 6, 2013 2:09:12 GMT -5
Now that we know Peeks was a witch that really puts Dizzy and Sai on my Townie list. Dizzy because she picked up on first and Sai because he wanted peeks to claim, I still don't agree with forcing someone to claim on D1 but in this case it was a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on May 6, 2013 7:23:36 GMT -5
Well, this is embarrassing, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not the only one who missed it. What are these "deadline" votes? I have apparently missed this aspect of the game.
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on May 6, 2013 11:53:18 GMT -5
I don't quite understand the deadline vs hammer votes?
Is it:
Hammer votes = get 1/2 the players hammer voting and the day is over?
vs
Deadline vote = the day doesn't get shortened when 1/2 the players vote a player.
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on May 6, 2013 11:56:44 GMT -5
- The lack of reveals sucks big time, and the target on Colby's back is big and bright now But the news was good. - I'm glad my instincts were right about Peekers! and Yay, I finally got credit for calling someone out. I feel like I've done that the last couple of games, but the credit went elsewhere Thx Jan. - The whole Jan thing. I think the major problem is it's so quiet, there's not much to go on here. I'm reading Jan mostly as frustrated. I can't really tell whether she's frustrated Town, or trying to play frustrated Town. I know I'm guilty of it too, but we need more information here. We need more players participating here, with 21 players left, I think only 10 checked in today or something like that (guesstimating, haven't really counted at all)
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on May 6, 2013 11:59:22 GMT -5
Jan, I don't really put any merit on Sai putting pressure on Peeks to claim as being Town positive. Peeks should have claimed under pressure D1 because, he made a big slip. Instead he clammed up and disappeared letting himself slip into oblivion.
Sai is still on my radar. Maybe Sai is a Spy, and trying to gain Witch credit? Maybe he's a witch trying to gain Town credit? Maybe he's just curious town. I can go any of the three ways on him right now.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on May 6, 2013 12:25:47 GMT -5
Ah ha! We at last have some information to go on. I am willing to assume for the moment that Colby is telling the truth and peeker was a witch. Looking at the votes from Yesterday (with page numbers of the votes(ugh)): peeker(13) Dizzy[p4], Pleo[p4], texcat[p4], guiri[p6], swammer[p6], mahaloth[p6], cookies[p6], ginger[p6], scathach[p6], sario[p6], laurie[p6], colby[p6], patricia[p8] Sai(2) crys[p5], silverjan[p5] silverJan(2) Sai[p5], gnarly[p7] texcat(1) peeker[p8] Colby(0) Guiri[p1-p1] Cookies(0) Sai[p1-p1] Dizzy(0) Sai[p2-p2] Hal(0) peeker[p2-p8] No votes(5): Idle, Wombat, BillMc, Pollux, Hal
Normally, I would be most suspicious of those late on the bandwagon. But with 13 needed to lynch, it looked like peeker was going to escape the rope until the last few minutes of day when Patricia voted.
I am still suspicious of Swammer misstating the case on Jan, but I see he was a fairly early vote on peeker, and Jan was a non-peeker voter.
unvote: Swammer deadlline vote: SilverJan
|
|
|
Post by texcat on May 6, 2013 12:50:57 GMT -5
I don't quite understand the deadline vs hammer votes? Is it: Hammer votes = get 1/2 the players hammer voting and the day is over? vs Deadline vote = the day doesn't get shortened when 1/2 the players vote a player. Yep. That looks right. So with the current votes and 11 needed to lynch: SilverJan(4+2) Pleo[p1], Cookies[p1], Sai[p1], Guiri[p2], SilverJan[p2-p3], Sario[p2]*, Texcat[p3]* Wombat(1) Pollux[p3] Swammer(0) Texcat[p3-p3] *deadline SilverJan would need 7 more non-deadline votes to be hammered immediately, or 5 more votes of any kind to be lynched at dusk (in less than 24 hours at noon, tomorrow).
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 6, 2013 13:32:50 GMT -5
There is reasonable suspicion against SilverJan, and no other likely Lynch candidate. Better to Lynch her than leave it up to the Judge, who might well be Witch.
Vote: SilverJan
SilverJan, I hope you claim your role soon. I might Unvote.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on May 6, 2013 14:43:41 GMT -5
There is reasonable suspicion against SilverJan, and no other likely Lynch candidate. Better to Lynch her than leave it up to the Judge, who might well be Witch. Vote: SilverJanSilverJan, I hope you claim your role soon. I might Unvote. I have claimed already but I don't mind doing so again. I am the Hunter, a basic villager. At halftime (or whatever) I cannot be NK'd but I can kill someone, it's just a one of thing that I can do.
|
|
|
Post by lauriern on May 6, 2013 15:33:41 GMT -5
- I'm glad my instincts were right about Peekers! and Yay, I finally got credit for calling someone out. I feel like I've done that the last couple of games, but the credit went elsewhere Thx Jan. <snipped> *sigh* Day 1, Page 4, 2nd post down.......three posts above yours......
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 6, 2013 15:38:37 GMT -5
I have claimed already but I don't mind doing so again. I am the Hunter, a basic villager. At halftime (or whatever) I cannot be NK'd but I can kill someone, it's just a one of thing that I can do. I am so distracted in this Game, even forgetting your claim, that I almost want to ask to be Lynched in your stead. I'm also Basic with a Power likely to be weaker than yours. I won't -- even if Players agreed to Lynch me toDay, they'd probably go ahead and Lynch you toMorrow anyway. I'm not sure how strong your Power really is -- you'll have to make your decision before any Halftime reveals and, if Witch is exposed on the Day before Halftime, that Witch will be Lynched anyway. With some other Halftime Killers around, you might waste cross-kill(s) on the same likely Witch. ... And all this assumes you really are Villager.
|
|