|
Post by Paranoia on Aug 29, 2013 16:54:41 GMT -5
That was more in reference to point three - regarding point two okay sure but again this could go either way - either he was looking for pings on his scumdar or he was looking for pings on the gotta shoot them radar, neither tell us a whole bunch about his alignment.
Point one kind of doesn't really say anything.
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Aug 29, 2013 17:11:40 GMT -5
See here's the problem with your Haiku's Septimus.....
"Colby is not Scum" .....Is this your opinion? Do you have information to confirm this?
Vote: Swammerdami
Enough is enough with the Haikus, which can't be parsed properly. So as I'm interpreting this, Colby isn't scum, and the only way you would know that is if you were Scum, OR if you were Mason partners with him. Until then, I'm suspecting the first.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Aug 29, 2013 17:12:27 GMT -5
You guys must play a different game of scum then I do. The whole, scum would never vote for scum is alien to me.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Aug 29, 2013 17:15:59 GMT -5
That was more in reference to point three - regarding point two okay sure but again this could go either way - either he was looking for pings on his scumdar or he was looking for pings on the gotta shoot them radar, neither tell us a whole bunch about his alignment. Point one kind of doesn't really say anything. The point of Point 1, was that there were 46 posts between the point where he made his first meaningless post and then posted his "confusion" post. And yet, given all those posts he still felt "Out of the loop" What LOOP?
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Aug 29, 2013 17:23:27 GMT -5
This is a rather self-serving statement. Yes, you do get a little not-scum credit for boosting Mahaloth to a two-vote lead, but really only silverjan gets a full share. Your post here feels a lot like riding their coattails. I also thought Dizzy's post seemed to be trying too hard to scream that she was Town and taking credit for something that maybe wasn't so genuine. On the other hand, I haven't gotten a scummy vibe from any of her other posts yet. Let me rephrase, because I wasn't taking credit for it at all. Silver Jan broke the tie, I added to it. That's history and ALL that I meant by it. We had a couple of players tied. I leaning on thinking that most if not all of the rest of them were Town players. Furthermore, at the end of the day....Don't you think it would have made more sense if I was Scum to vote one of the one off players up to tie Mahaloth, and hope that someone else would have broken the tie in scums favor? I think Scum losing a Godfather on D1 Lynch is a pretty big deal.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Aug 29, 2013 18:14:48 GMT -5
In the "suspect" post Colby's speech is his normal. No slip -- no mispost. "Bussing" mahaloth? No way! Well explained vote was Key to bandwagon. Colby is not scum. I would rather suspect those who "suspect" Colby. Unless you are claiming investigator, this is one of the silliest/insulting posts I have ever seen. And quit it with the haiku, eh? A number of folks have asked you politely. You don't need to go from one extreme to another.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Aug 29, 2013 18:26:47 GMT -5
That was more in reference to point three - regarding point two okay sure but again this could go either way - either he was looking for pings on his scumdar or he was looking for pings on the gotta shoot them radar, neither tell us a whole bunch about his alignment. Point one kind of doesn't really say anything. The point of Point 1, was that there were 46 posts between the point where he made his first meaningless post and then posted his "confusion" post. And yet, given all those posts he still felt "Out of the loop" What LOOP? The "out of the loop" comment was because I sat out for a month, and I felt rusty because of it. This is fun, making people confused... Guess my Texan is showing
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Aug 29, 2013 18:32:03 GMT -5
See here's the problem with your Haiku's Septimus..... "Colby is not Scum" .....Is this your opinion? Do you have information to confirm this? Vote: SwammerdamiEnough is enough with the Haikus, which can't be parsed properly. So as I'm interpreting this, Colby isn't scum, and the only way you would know that is if you were Scum, OR if you were Mason partners with him. Until then, I'm suspecting the first. You are ignoring the obvious number 3 option about Swam, they could be an investigator. His alignment is another question. To not even consider that option, I wonder about your alignment.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Aug 29, 2013 18:58:14 GMT -5
You guys must play a different game of scum then I do. The whole, scum would never vote for scum is alien to me. Yes. This. In other news: the problem, Colby, is swammerdami's self-imposed "restriction" renders that statement ambiguous. I also thought he might be an investigator claiming an investigation, but on the other hand I can't know whether that's a bald "claim" by an investigator, whether that's swammer's gut feeling as restricted by his need to fit it in five syllables, or something else. Swammer, please stop. I say this as a) someone who likes poetry and b) someone who usually parses both peeker and meeko without too much trouble: your "restriction" isn't helping you or anyone else. Also, as a pedant, none of your haiku are correct, as haiku are more complex than the 5-7-5 English-speakers are taught. 5-7-5 plus a seasonal and a natural referent, among other things.
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Aug 29, 2013 19:39:06 GMT -5
I'm not ignoring the fact that he could be an investigator, but it would be ridiculously silly to claim at this point IMO. Why would he just out you when you aren't in serious danger of being lynched (Colby).
If you were on the block, and in danger maybe, but because you have 1-2 votes on you when the vote leader has a bunch more???
That's why I vocalized Mason/Scum. I'd like some sort of clarification over whether
"Colby is not scum"
Is his opinion or if he knows it.
FWIW, I don't think you are particularly scummy Colby. I went back in my notes and re-read earlier today and I was wrong in my post earlier toDay, I have you in my "possibly Town" column. I'm not questioning the validity of the statement, I'm questioning the delivery of the statement.
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Aug 29, 2013 19:40:46 GMT -5
And FWIW, I just discovered the notifications when you were quoted button. I was lost as to what that #1 meant up there! HA.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Aug 30, 2013 0:21:29 GMT -5
Anyway, I've already stated that I'll do a full claim at the end of the Day. Your vote for me is another one of your lazy votes, designed to avoid accountability. Funny, I actually want to be held accountable for keeping you accountable.i can accept but not approve the fact that you claim on day one in our games, but now, you've changed that up, and something needs to give for that. Perhaps you can explain how I avoid accountability with my votes, at the same time you explain how I can be forced to make the wrong votes.How is this not opportunism?
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Aug 30, 2013 3:06:03 GMT -5
I can see why Sinjin thinks that Colby could have posted on the wrong board, it sounds like a very intimate post as if he is talking to his team mates as opposed to talking to everybody. I could even change my vote based on that but for toDay I have a stronger feeling about KidV, especially as he hasn't posted for ages. Staying away from the game in no way helps your case and does make you look more guilty KidV.
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Aug 30, 2013 8:14:29 GMT -5
ok only have a minute to fix this
Unvote: cookies
Vote: Kid V
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Aug 30, 2013 8:53:32 GMT -5
I can see why Sinjin thinks that Colby could have posted on the wrong board, it sounds like a very intimate post as if he is talking to his team mates as opposed to talking to everybody. I could even change my vote based on that but for toDay I have a stronger feeling about KidV, especially as he hasn't posted for ages. Staying away from the game in no way helps your case and does make you look more guilty KidV. His last post was August 28th around noon my time (or about 44 hours from this post) And you think he hasn't posted in ages?
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Aug 30, 2013 9:40:59 GMT -5
Which simply highlights my pet peeve with single-voting: it forces players to make bad votes. Please elaborate. A player (let's call her Alice for clarity) will have some amount of suspicion on each other player. Alice will have some threshold of suspicion, above which she would like to see a player lynched. There may be zero, one, or more players above the lynching threshold. If Alice doesn't think any other player is above the lynching threshold, she'll vote no lynch. If she has exactly one, she'll vote for that player alone. There's no problem with either of those cases. The problem comes when Alice thinks more than one player is suspicious enough to be lynched. Does she vote for who she thinks is most suspicious? Or does she vote to make sure a player she'd like to see lynched actually does get lynched? Both choices are a poor ones: either she doesn't get a player lynched she thinks should be, or she doesn't vote for who she thinks is the best lynch. One could argue that votes aren't necessary and that the suspicions can simply be explained in posts. But posts don't count; they don't do anything. Votes are actions and do something. It's too easy for scum to say they were suspicious of a teammate, but then avoid acting on it. A single vote system forces townies to act like scum--talk suspicions without voting them. Furthermore, at the end of the day....Don't you think it would have made more sense if I was Scum to vote one of the one off players up to tie Mahaloth, and hope that someone else would have broken the tie in scums favor? I think Scum losing a Godfather on D1 Lynch is a pretty big deal. I agree your play is unlikely for scum, but only somewhat. I can see scum making the same play you did. While jan's play is very unlikely to be scum. So some credit to you, but not too much. I'm simply try to hold you to "not too much". Anyway, I've already stated that I'll do a full claim at the end of the Day. Your vote for me is another one of your lazy votes, designed to avoid accountability. Funny, I actually want to be held accountable for keeping you accountable. i can accept but not approve the fact that you claim on day one in our games, but now, you've changed that up, and something needs to give for that. Perhaps you can explain how I avoid accountability with my votes, at the same time you explain how I can be forced to make the wrong votes. How is this not opportunism? You avoid accountability by 1) not stating why you vote or 2) not stating why you find who you vote for is suspicious. And often who you vote for is a player who's expressed some skepticism about your play. So it looks like you're not voting for who you find suspicious, but purely defensively. It's a barely passable way to play if you're not town. It's self-defeating if you are. Do you really think that Cookies or me are scum? If so, can you articulate why you think that? If not, why the heck vote for us? If you actually explained your votes, you may even find other players agreeing with you. As it is, no one pays you any mind because your votes are simplistic knee-jerks to being prodded. That does a disservice to yourself and to your team. I've seen you make cases in other games. So please make cases with your votes in this one.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Aug 30, 2013 10:18:00 GMT -5
Here is my complete role PM. Welcome to the Game; you are Doug RothSTARTING ALIGNMENT: Third Party SUB-ALIGNMENT: Provocateur ROLE TYPE: Investigator
Subject ID #15008: Douglas Roth (b. ca. 1930) – Undistinguished personal background... currently investigative reporter for the publication "Nova Express." Widely expressed distaste for costumed superheroes suggests that he will not take a side in present conflict... may seek to prolong said conflict, in an effort to generate maximum possible distaste for "masks..." generally considered outstanding investigator but easily manipulated using his own personal opinions and biases. ABILITIES:Doug Roth is an outstanding investigative reporter, his skills in this area bolstered by his questionable ethics. Once per Night, he can investigate a player and learn their alignment and role.
Note that some players may be able to fool an investigator. Roth is no less susceptible to such trickery than anyone else. However, if he conducts a follow-up investigation - ie, investigates any player previously investigated by either Roth or any other investigative role - he will always determine the truth. WIN CONDITION:Roth will be happy as long as the conflict is prolonged, and his story extended. Accordingly, he will win along with Town, Scum, or PFK if the game has not ended before Dawn of Day 6, whether he is alive or not; they give Pulitzers posthumously, after all. I was the one who asked about the color discrepancy with the original rules. The obvious way to play the role is to simply not use the power and vote "no lynch" every Day. Less information and fewer lynches extends the game. But that is too boring. So instead I'm going to use my power in a very prescribed manner, in order to make the game more interesting. Each Night, I'll look at the post counts of all the players from the previous Day. Like thus: Day One 1. Sister Coyote 11 2. FruitandGarbage 7 3. BillMc 4 4. Paranoia 6 5. gnarlycharly 8 6. Jaade 5 7. peekercpa 0 8. ...cookies 12 10. Meeko 12 11. texcat 9 12. colby11 12 13. Pleonast 15 14. scathach 6 15. dizzymrslizzy 8 16. abstain 4 17. KidVermicious 8 18. patricia 5 19. silverjan 17 20. swammerdami 8 I'll then pick off the bottom few: at least two and skipping anyone I've already investigated. This time: peeker, billmc and abstain. I'll then use random.org to decide who to investigate. Results will be reported at the end of the next Day or the beginning of the next Night, whichever is more convenient for me. The plan is that all teams will find the information more useful than not. I will report scum if I find them. I'm not going to redact results to hide town power roles. And my investigation is easy to avoid. If you don't want to be investigated and have your role and alignment publicly revealed, simply post more than at least two other players. The results for Night One are " peekercpa is The Comedian, and he is Third Party."
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Aug 30, 2013 11:27:04 GMT -5
That's a LOT of 3rd party players according to your claim.....
Pleo- Investigator 3rd Party Gnarly - Investigator 3rd Party Peeker/SinJin - Comedian 3rd Part A PFK Possibly Bill being a 3rd Party
It actually makes me wonder if the game is made up with a small Town team, a bunch of 3rd parties, and a small scum team.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Aug 30, 2013 11:37:34 GMT -5
That could be the case Jan.
Interesting win con Pleo - you win if the game lasts to day 6. So I'll congratulate you now on a win - can't think of many games of this size that haven't lasted to at least day 6.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Aug 30, 2013 11:51:04 GMT -5
A player (let's call her Alice for clarity) will have some amount of suspicion on each other player. Alice will have some threshold of suspicion, above which she would like to see a player lynched. There may be zero, one, or more players above the lynching threshold. If Alice doesn't think any other player is above the lynching threshold, she'll vote no lynch. If she has exactly one, she'll vote for that player alone. There's no problem with either of those cases. The problem comes when Alice thinks more than one player is suspicious enough to be lynched. Does she vote for who she thinks is most suspicious? Or does she vote to make sure a player she'd like to see lynched actually does get lynched? Both choices are a poor ones: either she doesn't get a player lynched she thinks should be, or she doesn't vote for who she thinks is the best lynch. One could argue that votes aren't necessary and that the suspicions can simply be explained in posts. But posts don't count; they don't do anything. Votes are actions and do something. It's too easy for scum to say they were suspicious of a teammate, but then avoid acting on it. A single vote system forces townies to act like scum--talk suspicions without voting them. Furthermore, at the end of the day....Don't you think it would have made more sense if I was Scum to vote one of the one off players up to tie Mahaloth, and hope that someone else would have broken the tie in scums favor? I think Scum losing a Godfather on D1 Lynch is a pretty big deal. I agree your play is unlikely for scum, but only somewhat. I can see scum making the same play you did. While jan's play is very unlikely to be scum. So some credit to you, but not too much. I'm simply try to hold you to "not too much". Funny, I actually want to be held accountable for keeping you accountable. i can accept but not approve the fact that you claim on day one in our games, but now, you've changed that up, and something needs to give for that. Perhaps you can explain how I avoid accountability with my votes, at the same time you explain how I can be forced to make the wrong votes. How is this not opportunism? You avoid accountability by 1) not stating why you vote or 2) not stating why you find who you vote for is suspicious. And often who you vote for is a player who's expressed some skepticism about your play. So it looks like you're not voting for who you find suspicious, but purely defensively. It's a barely passable way to play if you're not town. It's self-defeating if you are. Do you really think that Cookies or me are scum? If so, can you articulate why you think that? If not, why the heck vote for us? If you actually explained your votes, you may even find other players agreeing with you. As it is, no one pays you any mind because your votes are simplistic knee-jerks to being prodded. That does a disservice to yourself and to your team. I've seen you make cases in other games. So please make cases with your votes in this one. I'll take the last bit as a compliment.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Aug 30, 2013 11:51:34 GMT -5
That's Lizzy, Bill. Not Jan.
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Aug 30, 2013 12:19:40 GMT -5
That could be the case Jan. Interesting win con Pleo - you win if the game lasts to day 6. So I'll congratulate you now on a win - can't think of many games of this size that haven't lasted to at least day 6. Probably is, in fact, since I am, too, Third Party. My potential mason friend got shived last night though so there goes some of my fun right there.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Aug 30, 2013 12:19:40 GMT -5
Interesting win con Pleo - you win if the game lasts to day 6. So I'll congratulate you now on a win - can't think of many games of this size that haven't lasted to at least day 6. It's unlikely town or scum can win before Day Six--it'd take a perfect lynch or mislynch record to do that, by my calculations. And third-parties can't end the game, by definition. The major risk to me, and many others, is a PFK win-stealer satisfying their victory conditions early. And since we don't know what those conditions are, we're kind of in a tough spot to stop it.
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Aug 30, 2013 12:26:06 GMT -5
So, with Pleo's claim in mind, my own alignment, presumably Bill (if not town), and Colby's as well, we are looking at what. A whole bunch of third parties, with probably some sort of recruitment mechanic in play to try to sort some of those into the town and/or scum team? This game now feels kind of similar to Pollux's last game.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Aug 30, 2013 12:32:51 GMT -5
That's Lizzy, Bill. Not Jan. Those avatars look all the same on a tiny screen lol. The vote count appears to be: KidV (6): Paranoia, Swammer, silverjan, cookies, patricia, Fruit Abstain (3): texcat, colby, Pleonast swammer (2): Jaade, Dizzy Colby (2): SisC, Sinjin BillMC (1): abstain Cookies (1): Patricia Paranoia (1): KidV Pleo (1): Meeko (108) Abstaining: BillMC, scathach It looks like a foregone conclusion with KidV. I do have issue with Patricia's vote in #99 (which was invalid) - "i don't want to waste my vote, but let me make sure kidv get's lynched" putting him at 5 votes; but you fixed the vote in #133 making it 6. I think you are scum playing safe. Vote: Patricia@fruity - yes I do play emotionally and often illogically but do have a pretty good track record of finding scum.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Aug 30, 2013 12:41:47 GMT -5
Interesting win con Pleo - you win if the game lasts to day 6. So I'll congratulate you now on a win - can't think of many games of this size that haven't lasted to at least day 6. It's unlikely town or scum can win before Day Six--it'd take a perfect lynch or mislynch record to do that, by my calculations. And third-parties can't end the game, by definition. The major risk to me, and many others, is a PFK win-stealer satisfying their victory conditions early. And since we don't know what those conditions are, we're kind of in a tough spot to stop it. Agreed. Given your tendency to claim, and claim truthfully, I'd tend to believe your wincon. However, for the game to be fair - it can't be a forgone conclusion for you to win. As you say, it would take a perfect lynch record for town to win - and with the number of 3rd parties, the odds of town lynching scum every day are even lower than usual. For scum to win before you, the number town plus pfk's must be 5 or less. Traditional PFK wincons of serial killer or mad bomber would be hard pressed to win by day 6 - it would need a blood bath. Something must be really quirky - and Story claims it isnt gastard..
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Aug 30, 2013 12:43:01 GMT -5
That's Lizzy, Bill. Not Jan. Those avatars look all the same on a tiny screen lol. The vote count appears to be: KidV (6): Paranoia, Swammer, silverjan, cookies, patricia, Fruit Abstain (3): texcat, colby, Pleonast swammer (2): Jaade, Dizzy Colby (2): SisC, Sinjin BillMC (1): abstain Cookies (1): Patricia Paranoia (1): KidV Pleo (1): Meeko (108) Abstaining: BillMC, scathach It looks like a foregone conclusion with KidV. I do have issue with Patricia's vote in #99 (which was invalid) - "i don't want to waste my vote, but let me make sure kidv get's lynched" putting him at 5 votes; but you fixed the vote in #133 making it 6. I think you are scum playing safe. Vote: Patricia@fruity - yes I do play emotionally and often illogically but do have a pretty good track record of finding scum. Query: which is worse for Patricia here: KidV flipping scum, or him flipping anything else. Because by time she voted him, KidV looked like he wasn't getting out of getting lynched.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Aug 30, 2013 12:44:46 GMT -5
Probably is, in fact, since I am, too, Third Party. My potential mason friend got shived last night though so there goes some of my fun right there. You're saying that Gnarly was your potential mason partner?
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Aug 30, 2013 12:47:15 GMT -5
Probably is, in fact, since I am, too, Third Party. My potential mason friend got shived last night though so there goes some of my fun right there. You're saying that Gnarly was your potential mason partner? Yes. I am the Silk Spectre II, and Gnarly and I would have been masoned if we had found each other.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Aug 30, 2013 12:47:43 GMT -5
So, with Pleo's claim in mind, my own alignment, presumably Bill (if not town), and Colby's as well, we are looking at what. A whole bunch of third parties, with probably some sort of recruitment mechanic in play to try to sort some of those into the town and/or scum team? This game now feels kind of similar to Pollux's last game. Colby? Did I miss a claim somewhere? The rules do allow recruitment, and given the number of 3rd's I would hazard a guess that there could be multiple recruitments. Indeed, with two claimed 3rd party investigators, changes in alignment seem more likely. Given that the rules say it is voluntary requirement, that usually implies that the choice is "accept or die".
|
|