|
Post by Mahaloth on Jul 16, 2014 20:07:22 GMT -5
Note: I have just returned to Michigan from California. Tired and did not respond to any messages today. I will try to get my store properly managed again quickly.
Please continue to make purchase offers. I will make sure all are honored before Nightfall.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 16, 2014 20:09:05 GMT -5
What ifs are all that I have to share at the moment, and lumping me in with Peeker's conspiracy theories is not appreciated ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) I have already said that Mahaloth seems to be a stand up merchant, but Peeker is quite fixated, it would seem.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jul 16, 2014 20:27:13 GMT -5
This is NOT what I want. Unvote: peekerNot withstanding; If you are dissing me I will vote you every single day of every single game I ever play with you ever again. Even if we are scum buddies some time in the future. I hold grudges forever. Perhaps you guys want the "There is Meeko, making a vote that only he understands, yet again" Meeko. Vote: SinjinIf we are voting for lurking, in game where everyone is lurking, the. We can also make policy votes. Holding grudges forever helps no one. I could go OOC and talk about the people in real life that are holding grudges on me, and how it's made my job, and home less than ideal. Did you not see where I apologized for that statement? What does this have to do with lurking? Are you even reading the thread?
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Jul 16, 2014 21:14:14 GMT -5
Dizzy, it seems like you'd have to be pretty confident in your target's towniness, or believe that they were a valuable power, in order to use that spell-- It's basically trading one half-kill for another. But I don't see you raising any objections to guiri's lynch on Day 2. OK, you were busy... but I also don't see much statement of trust from you during Night 2. What made you decide to target guiri? If you go back and read Night 2, I tried to draw some kind of a claim out from Guiri to see whether or not I should use it on him. I was satisfied with his partial claim enough to use it on him. But trust me I hemmed and hawed over it and submitted my request during the extension of night last night.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jul 16, 2014 22:29:39 GMT -5
and sorry sin but your vote really makes me nutz. cookies makes a post that gets kind of challenged. based on input i don't talk about puppies, don't rehash other stuff but try to answer her question clearly and not too obscurely. now they are my beliefs and theorems so they are easily wrong. so i get your vote because apparently they are wrong. would you care to educate the rest of us about what actually went on?
i get the vote because i spam the thread with stuff that is not game related but now i get voted because i have an idea that you don't like. jeebuz. write the script that i have to follow. do you do this for all of us or just me?
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Jul 16, 2014 22:42:35 GMT -5
[It's really a pain not being able to directly quote posts. I guess that's normal on this board, but why were all the previous threads locked so quoting doesn't work?] sinjin, perhaps you missed my question, but I asked in N2.51: I would still appreciate an answer to that question.
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Jul 16, 2014 22:45:52 GMT -5
Was that all there was to it? If so, I'm surprised. I was expecting that recruitment, especially to what seems to be an anti-town covenant, would offer an incentive, or a punishment, for not accepting. It would seem an uphill battle for a covenant to recruit anyone away from their known wincon to an unknown one without something to offer. If you received this last Night, I'm curious if someone received an orb Night 1 and didn't report it. Good point here. I believe in the past, refusing recruitment had a bit more of a bite, that is, convert or die. The target still had a choice to stay with the current win condition, but would pay a price. That said, lying about something so basic would be a terrible move by Cookies. I can't believe Cookies would make such an error. The next Townie to get a red orb would easily be able to expose Cookies as a liar. The only way the play makes sense is if Cookies knows that no one else will be recruited in the same manner she was, which is possible, but if all future reports of attempted conversion contradict her or if there are no future reports, then I'd be pushing for a Cookies lynch. It was promised that recruitment would play a substantial role in this game, so I would like to know as much about the mechanics of it as possible. Recruitment is voluntary, but as you say, voluntary doesn't mean without incentive, even if that incentive is avoiding a penalty. If all Cookies was offered was the chance to touch an orb that's one thing, but if the choice was that or being hollowed it certainly says something about Cookies current state. Lying is different than withholding information, which is why I asked Cookies to come clean if she left something out. She hasn't responded, so I still wonder if recruitment is as completely voluntary as she is presenting it. You do make a point, though. If I were Cookies and had either been recruited or started scum, I wouldn't have posted about a recruitment offer. That's a mark in her favor, so I'm taking it at face value as pro-town to let us know she received the offer. On the assumption that she's town, she should want us to have as much information as possible, and whether or not there were strings attached to the offer is important for us to know.
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Jul 16, 2014 22:50:58 GMT -5
Dizzy, it seems like you'd have to be pretty confident in your target's towniness, or believe that they were a valuable power, in order to use that spell-- It's basically trading one half-kill for another. But I don't see you raising any objections to guiri's lynch on Day 2. OK, you were busy... but I also don't see much statement of trust from you during Night 2. What made you decide to target guiri? If you go back and read Night 2, I tried to draw some kind of a claim out from Guiri to see whether or not I should use it on him. I was satisfied with his partial claim enough to use it on him. But trust me I hemmed and hawed over it and submitted my request during the extension of night last night. With guiri's play D2 I'm surprised that you would be willing to put yourself on the line for him. I can see why you would consider it, though, since he was an obvious target N2, and if you had the ability to protect someone it would be tempting to use it. I checked your reference to feeling him out N2, and in N2.23 you said: I wish the rules of this game were a little more clearly defined. In this instance having a clear-cut order of operations would be helpful, because I would assume a sorcery protection would take precedence over a one-use protective item.
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Jul 16, 2014 22:54:51 GMT -5
I'm worried that scum are hanging out in the pool of players that have stopped participating. I'm happy to see patricia posting now, even if it took some vote pressure. In that vane:
Vote: Hal Briston
Hal, I hope a little pressure is enough for you to come back. But:
Unvote: Hal Briston
Because it's too late in the Day for a lynch the lurker vote.
So:
Vote: Meeko
It seems a lot of the case on him is due to meta reasons, but I don't think I've ever played with him before, so I don't have that going for me. Going back through his posts, though, it seems like he's aware of the game but choosing not to actively participate. Hiding in plain site is a proven scum tactic, and I get that feeling from him.
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Jul 17, 2014 5:32:06 GMT -5
That said, if you were prompting as to why both of us visited Guiri.... Unvote: Patricia and Vote: GnarlycharlieWait a second. I don't remember reading anything saying that Gnarly visited Guiri. Why are you making this assumption? Or do you know this for some reason? All Chronos said was that he received a message which made him want to know what you and Gnarly did last night. I'm really hoping to hear from him again with more details. Here's a possible scenario. You're scum (or some other baddie) and went to kill (or track) Guiri but failed due to his protection. Then you got caught because someone saw you visiting, and so obviously you tried to protect him (cough cough) - something completely unprovable due to him protecting himself. I do thank you for providing me with a reason to vote for you beyond OMGUS though. Vote: DizzymrslizzyIf we get more from Chronos then I'm open to reconsider, however right now I feel pretty good about this.
|
|
|
Post by Chronos on Jul 17, 2014 5:40:35 GMT -5
As promised, more detail: The person who contacted me claims to have gotten this result from Storyteller:
I've edited out the name of the person who contacted me. He or she expressed a hunch in the PM that dizzy's action was protective; this is borne out by what she says, and her willingness to come forward speaks in her favor. guiri's action targeting himself was presumably use of his armor. My contact also speculated that the unknown person was the attempted killer, and I agree that this seems plausible, but without hearing from gnarly I can't really give him the benefit of the doubt, and I can't wait any longer since I won't be around.
Vote: gnarlycharlie
Meanwhile, since dizzy has confirmed that she did in fact target guiri, this is strong evidence that the person who contacted me is in fact a watcher, and that's a role that's more often Town than Scum. It's to our advantage that demonstrated Town remain hidden, so I won't name him or her right now, but I will pass on his or her identity to the other masons so it won't be lost should I die.
|
|
|
Post by Chronos on Jul 17, 2014 5:41:35 GMT -5
Oh, so that's what happens if you forget to close a vote tag.
|
|
|
Post by Chronos on Jul 17, 2014 6:06:30 GMT -5
Oh, and Chameleon, dizzy didn't show all her work, but her reasoning seems sound. Asking people about their actions on a specific Night suggests either a watcher or a tracker, and asking two different people for actions on the same Night rules out tracker. If the information was due to a watcher, then that suggests that the other person being asked about targeted the same person as the first one did. Ergo, dizzy concludes that gnarly targeted guiri.
And I'm not fully convinced by dizzy's explanation: It's certainly not what I would have done in her shoes. My inclination would generally be to let a lynchee die, even if I didn't vote for them. But it is plausible enough that I don't think I can use her targeting of guiri as evidence against her.
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Jul 17, 2014 7:11:11 GMT -5
Exactly my reasoning for voting Gnarly.
Guiri claims he was attacked and his one time use item was broken in the attack. I assumed that Chronos's question was because He saw that the two of us visited Guiri last night. I know what I was doing, which means that Gnarly is guilty.
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Jul 17, 2014 7:12:45 GMT -5
<cont> Gnarly is at least guilty for attacking Guiri. Combine that with his lurking when he's usually more active, and that sounds like a scum play to me. Oh and Chameleon jumping on me, wants to make me vote her next. Convenient place for scum to jump on, the ir player's counterclaim ![:)](http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/tiere/animal-smiley-051.gif )
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Jul 17, 2014 7:26:37 GMT -5
<cont> Gnarly is at least guilty for attacking Guiri. Combine that with his lurking when he's usually more active, and that sounds like a scum play to me. Why are you ignoring the part where someone else seems to have visited guiri? I don't disagree with a gnarly lynch based on this new info, but even if you are 100% telling the truth about your Night action, it's not correct to say "he's at least guilty of attacking Guiri".
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Jul 17, 2014 7:44:36 GMT -5
Because the third person was the Tracker.
Now, there is a possibility that the Tracker is Scum, and trying to gain Town credit with Chronos, but I don't think so. It's possible that they only reported themselves and the Non-Scum players that visited Guiri, and left off the attacker. Bold move, because if we lynch Gnarly and he flips Town, They are dead next. I don't see Scum trading bodies like that.
Gnarly needs to answer for why he was at Guiri last night, and considering there are only 3 people that visited him, someone had to have attacked him.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jul 17, 2014 7:51:21 GMT -5
Vote totals
Meeko(4): Guiri[45], swammerdami[63], gnarlycharlie[127],Nesta[158] Colby(3): MentalGuy[65], bufftabby[109], Patricia[122] gnarlycharlie(2): dizzymrslizzy[138], Chronos[160] Patricia(2): peeker[84], dizzymrslizzy[86-138], Colby[102] peeker(1): sinjin[23-94,142], Chronos[110-135] Hal Briston(1): Sachertorte[129], Nesta[158-158] sinjin(1): Meeko[145] dizzymrslizzy(1): Chameleon[159] Guiri(0): Colby[41-102]
Day will end at 12:30PM Eastern time today, Thursday, July 17. Just over 3 1/2 hours to go.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Jul 17, 2014 8:25:06 GMT -5
As promised, more detail: The person who contacted me claims to have gotten this result from Storyteller: It looks to me that there are TWO unnamed players involved in the guiri lovefest. The one Chronos redacted, and the one the Mods concealed ("another player may have been involved") before informing Mr. Redacted. Nevertheless, the visitor whose name we know now tops the Suspect List. Unvote: Meeko Vote: gnarlycharlie
|
|
|
Post by MentalGuy on Jul 17, 2014 8:56:12 GMT -5
I was at the amusement park all day yesterday with my son so wasn't able to keep up. It seems as though we have had an interesting development.
Based on information I have, I don't think GnarlyCharlie would have any motive to attack Guiri. I also doubt that he had the means to attack him as of last Night. If he did happen to have the means to attack, there could have been a redirect. In that case, I am not sure how all the tracking and watching would work.
Anyway, from where I sit, it looks like the person most likely to have attacked Guiri is Dizzymrslizzy.
Unvote: Colby11
Vote: Dizzymrslizzy
Also, sach, you are right that we should each give our impressions of everyone. I just had not really thought about it and I am not going to have time to review everyone before end of Day. I will do that toNight or toMorrow, though. I am saying that here just to commit myself to doing it. I would likely get lazy and let it slide if I didn't.
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Jul 17, 2014 9:48:20 GMT -5
Because the third person was the Tracker. Then why did the Tracker suggest that the unknown player also could have been the attacker (provided Chronos's info is accurate, of course)?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jul 17, 2014 9:50:22 GMT -5
So it seems like the evidence points to gnarlycharlie as guiri's attacker. I'm on board with that. What I'm not quite clear on is why that makes gnarly Scum. If I recall correctly, we lynched guiri Yesterday. That means that we (collectively) thought he was 'most likely to be Scum'. More specfically, 6 players voted to lynch him; one of those was gnarlycharlie. So it would make perfect sense for gnarly to try to kill guiri in the Night if he (gnarly) was a Townie with a killing power; after all, he had just gone on record as being in favor of killing guiri.
At this point, I believe Chronos' Mason claim. I also believe that Mahaloth's vendor claim, though I'm not convinced that his long-term survival is in Town's best interest. I still have my suspicions of swammerdami , but not enough to warrant a vote at this point.
I think all of the votes on Meeko and peekercpa for 'not playing like themselves' are crap.
vote: dizzymrslizzy I don't buy her story about protecting guiri...it just doesn't ring at all true to me.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Jul 17, 2014 9:52:53 GMT -5
Okay. Let's try and sort this out.
Watcher - watched guiri guiri - self protected (makes sense) dizzymrslizzy - claims protection of guiri gnarlycharlie - ? some other dude - ?
According to statements, guiri claims to have been attacked. dizzymrslizzy claims that if guiri was attacked, the protection would have hollowed dizzy, but dizzy is not hollowed so guiri may have not been attacked. However, guiri's self-protection may explain why. Guiri claimed an attack early in the Day. Also there isn't any reason for guiri to lie about being attacked. If guiri wasn't attacked then guiri would simply stay silent on the matter, having been attacked or not is no big deal either way.
Chronos's contact has confirmed watching power. No indication of alignment, but dizzy's confirmation of Night Two action shows that at the very least the claimed watcher can watch something.
With multiple claimed-Town targeting guiri, I don't see how we can conclude that gnarlycharlie is a good lynch target. Plus there is the unknown one. It makes much more sense for the unknown to be the killer than gnarlycharlie or dizzymrslizzy. The unknown player seems like a serial killer to me, one that can't get caught by a watcher.
Then there is the promise from storyteller to take care of the missing players. Makes little sense for me to waste a vote on Hal Briston anymore as he is a missing player, who will presumably be taken care of. By my count, we have a tie between Meeko and gnarlycharlie. I think gnarlycharlie is not a good lynch choice. All the votes on gnarlycharlie have come after Chronos's reveal. I know there have been mutterings about "among other reasons" for the gnarlycharlie votes, but realistically, these votes are based on the accusation that gnarlycharlie targeted guiri. I would also remind the court that guiri was lynched on Day Two.
Unvote: Hal Briston Vote: Meeko
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Jul 17, 2014 10:06:18 GMT -5
I really don't like doing this to a player who hasn't posted his reasons as of yet but EOD is near and he seem a better lynch then the person my vote is currently on. Colby still has my FOS as when he posted yesterday after several vote he was like (maybe I should play better and then was gone again) But for now
Unvote: Colby11 Vote: Gnarlycharlie
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Jul 17, 2014 10:07:23 GMT -5
Another point:
Everyone that targeted guiri on Night Two are innocent of having killed BillMc, or hollowed whoever it was that was hollowed (Colby and Swammerdami?). lynching gnarlycharlie or dizzymrslizzy is a terrible shot in the dark. Especially since the unknown person is the true top suspect for being a killer.
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Jul 17, 2014 10:07:46 GMT -5
What is the case on Meeko - he not being Meeko like?
Yes the unknown player is most likely the killer - but who is a good lynch for today?
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Jul 17, 2014 10:07:52 GMT -5
Gah!
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Jul 17, 2014 10:20:25 GMT -5
I think the push to lynch dizzymrslizzy or gnarlycharlie is driven by a strong desire by the players here to lynch 'based on evidence.' So far in this game and pretty much every game, we are forced to lynch based on NOTHING.
Chronos provided something that the players here were desperately wanting, evidence. We now have evidence that someone attacked guiri and a list of people who targeted guiri. But the list is INCOMPLETE. For some reason, that doesn't matter. For some reason, an 'evidence-based' lynch, even if poorly reasoned, is better than lynching based on no information at all. People are ignoring the missing person from the list, People are ignoring the fact that guiri was lynched on day two. And people are ignoring that guiri lynch was also pretty darn shitty too.
Is Meeko a good lynch? Hell if I know. But Meeko was poised to get lynching before the 'evidence' got in the way.
If I have to choose between lynching based on nothing and lynching based on twisted facts, then I'll lynch based on nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jul 17, 2014 10:30:23 GMT -5
Then there is the promise from storyteller to take care of the missing players. Makes little sense for me to waste a vote on Hal Briston anymore as he is a missing player, who will presumably be taken care of. By my count, we have a tie between Meeko and gnarlycharlie. I think gnarlycharlie is not a good lynch choice. All the votes on gnarlycharlie have come after Chronos's reveal. I know there have been mutterings about "among other reasons" for the gnarlycharlie votes, but realistically, these votes are based on the accusation that gnarlycharlie targeted guiri. I would also remind the court that guiri was lynched on Day Two. Unvote: Hal Briston Vote: Meeko So, are you voting for Meeko because you actually think he's Scum, or because he's "not gnarlycharlie"?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jul 17, 2014 10:33:04 GMT -5
Yes the unknown player is most likely the killer - but who is a good lynch for today? Wait a sec...if the 'unknown player' is most likely the killer, then why exactly are you voting for gnarly?
|
|