Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2008 21:12:24 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jan 27, 2008 21:12:24 GMT -5
Roosh, here are yours:
In post #61, you included the following comments (I'm put them all into one quote here, although there were additional comments between them that have been cut out, also, any coding's been taken out, since I copied and pasted the bits):
And Question #1 is: Is there any reason why, after specifically naming Santo and Dio in the body of your post, they didn't get included in your list of "suspicions" or "on notice", but just lumped into "anyone else"?
Moving on: In #79, you said:
and then in #91, you wrote:
Question 2A is: Where do you see atarus comparing the scum to SKs? I found a comment from him in #67 where he compared them to a mason group, but not anything about SKs. Question 2B is: Why are you passing credit for an idea you brought up to someone else?
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2008 21:36:21 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Jan 27, 2008 21:36:21 GMT -5
(Note: "Cao Cao" is the mainland Chinese romanisation. The pronunciation of his name is closer to the Role PM, "Tsao Tsao".) Wikipedia wrote:Cáo Cāo (155 – March 15, 220[1], pronounced Ts'au Ts'au) was a regional warlord and the penultimate Chancellor of the Eastern Han Dynasty who rose to great power during its final years in ancient China. As one of the central figures of the Three Kingdoms period, he laid the foundations for what was to become the Kingdom of Wei (also known as Cáo Wèi) and was posthumously titled Emperor Wu of Wei (魏武帝). Although often portrayed as a cruel and merciless tyrant, Cao Cao has also been praised as a brilliant ruler and military genius who treated his officers like his family. He was also skilled in poetry and the martial arts, and wrote many war journals. Top-of-the-page votecount: 5 - Roosh (NAF1138, Pleonast, Pygmyrugger, CatInASuit, koldanar) 4 - koldanar (Diomedes, diggitcamara, Roosh, drainbead) 3 - Peasant Smurf (nesta, hawkeyeop, piratepete) 1 - piratepete (hockeymonkey) 1 - NAF (ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies) 1 - Hal Briston (storyteller0910)
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2008 23:33:03 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 27, 2008 23:33:03 GMT -5
Question #1 is: Is there any reason why, after specifically naming Santo and Dio in the body of your post, they didn't get included in your list of "suspicions" or "on notice", but just lumped into "anyone else"? Question 2A is: Where do you see atarus comparing the scum to SKs? I found a comment from him in #67 where he compared them to a mason group, but not anything about SKs. Question 2B is: Why are you passing credit for an idea you brought up to someone else? #1. I named Santo and Dio because that post was a summary of ALL the posts that had occurred when I wasn't there, and they voted. They started off with Random voting for people. And since that's kinda a toughie to judge on, I don't really view it as a big deal yet. It's annoying, and I'm not a fan of it. But I REALLY don't wanna call someone out on random voting early on, because that can lead to an easily distracting "Is random voting Good or Bad" discussion where both Townies and Scum can get lost in it. So yeah, I mentioned them by name since they voted, they didn't get my suspicions there because I didn't see anything else by them really to judge them on. Random voting at the VERY START of the game.... :Shrug: That could go either way, so it's not as scummy in my book. #2A. He didn't say that. I did. Atarus called them Masons, I called them SKs. And I didn't think I stated that Atarus came up with that idea. I think you're misreading it, either that or i didn't word it clearly. I made them two separate lines - one for each thought. The first is the Atarus's thought- that I liked his post and thought it was good. Then I added my own thoughts underneath it. Perhaps I should have put little "-" at the start of each line, but I had already hit enter and spaced it apart rather than in the same paragraph and thought that was enough. 2B. I don't see myself passing credit. I felt gave atarus props for his post, and then I talked about my own thoughts underneath in a new line.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2008 23:37:46 GMT -5
Post by piratepete v2 on Jan 27, 2008 23:37:46 GMT -5
drainbead's analysis (p.197), combined with a little of "Triggering [RoOsh's] scumdar like fuck" (p.195) seem apposite. Neither Smurf nor koldanar seem to have said aaall that much of late, but what koldanar's said has only made it worse.
unvote Smurf vote koldanar
Dio: What I (and hawkeyeop) said to hockeymonkey. The large number of separate factions and the relatively small amount of extra information the scum factions have — not to mention their desire to take out their more powerful rivals — makes them a large danger to each other, and less so to us toNight.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 0:29:38 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 28, 2008 0:29:38 GMT -5
<snip>We hit our Hawkeye's 48 hour countdown Thursday and storyteller's 24 hour countdown Friday<snip> How do you figure?
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 0:30:57 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 28, 2008 0:30:57 GMT -5
Kat: To be honest, I haven't gotten around to reading post 91 yet. I'll check it out at work tomorrow, and let you know then.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 5:31:37 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 28, 2008 5:31:37 GMT -5
Ok, a few things to note.
1. storyteller, I reread your posts and my second thought was that you are deliberately setting yourself up to fail. You are a better player than that and so it seems to be a very scummy thing to do.
2. NAF1138 - your meta-game vote and issue with Cookies. You were voting on someone's playing style after they have played 1/2 a mafia game. If you are correct, you are a better spot of character than I. As for your problem with Cookies. I don't find her current actions scummy, far less doing the scum's work. Which is why I will point it out. Put another way, your methods for finding scum don't work on Cookies, that doesn't mean it affects the rest of us. Hence your problem, not hers.
3. denouement/piratepete - Currently this is more gut instinct than solid scum tells, but something seems fishy.
Roosh - You're up next
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 5:33:21 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Jan 28, 2008 5:33:21 GMT -5
<snip>We hit our Hawkeye's 48 hour countdown Thursday and storyteller's 24 hour countdown Friday<snip> How do you figure? Our Day ends on Feb 2, at noon (EST, I think... dot lives in Florida, if I recall correctly). 48 hours (Hawkeye's plan calls for separating the top to candidates out at that point) before then is Thursday at noon. storyteller's 24 hour plan (where we keep all candidates in play and then all switch our votes to the top vote getter) kicks in on Friday, Feb. 1st.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 5:44:38 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 28, 2008 5:44:38 GMT -5
RE: in Response to CAISdiomedes - votes Roosh and it would be good to get a reason for it as he may know, but some of the rest of us don't When i asked him about it last night, he stated it was a joke. The reason he's voting me is because I'm currently taking Anatomy and Physiology, which includes a dissection lab. Thusly, I cut up Cats and dead people, which I suppose is 'scummy'. The vote was posted following a Doper Chat last night. First things first. As far as I am concerned this is not acceptable. If you are going to play the game, it should be done on this board and not as the result of IM chat elsewhere. That goes for you too, Diomedes. I treated Night Zero as before the Game even started. The Pleo vote was a joke, as I don't even really think I had seen my role when I was doing that, I assumed Night 0 was before the game started. The retraction should be obvious... what evidence did I have BEFORE the game even started on Pleo? Umm, I was the last person to confirm in the game, you had confirmed your role and its understanding a couple of days earlier. ie. You knew your role, so this part of your defence is false. Having the vote as a joke was fine, what puzzled me was the retraction after it. To me, it was like you slipped up and wanted to try and correct it somehow. Yes, Night 0 is a joke, and neither Diomedes or I had retracted our votes, given the stupid reasons for which they were placed. But your's sent up a signal flare. The only way that you could know Pleonast's role before we started. Let's just check the roles again shall we, oh yes, the only people who know another's role is one of the scum factions. My vote stands at this time.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 9:11:47 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 28, 2008 9:11:47 GMT -5
Hey, all, sorry to vanish for the past two days... it's very hard to find extended time to read and post over the weekend, but I shouldn't let the game slip away like that. Won't happen again. Anyway, lots of responses to lots of things, beginning with this: You've hit it right on. I like to explore things from different points of view. eg the voting plan, or when I'm looking at someones actions. <snipped> Anyway to sum up your point of attack NAF, yep I am a very agreeable person, & not confrontational by nature and unless I am very certain that someone is scum, I'm not going to stand up point the finger and start screaming my head off at them. Instead I will put my thoughts out there, in a balanced way. stating both reasons for and against what I'm thinking. If that means I'm being agreeable or appeasing or (waffling) or (not being helpful by taking strong stances) so be it, that's the way I am and I'm not going to change, so if that means I get lynched early in the piece so be it. Lesson learned, I'm not cut out for mafia. Smurf, I'm not trying to pick on you personally, but this is becoming a pattern and it's going to hurt the game itself. Lately it seems like every time someone falls under suspicion, they start in with the "I guess I'm just not cut out for this game" routine, which is not fair. It leads to all kinds of meta-gaming and out-of-game bad feelings, and it paralyzes discussion as a consequence. Please is it possible to not use this tactic? It's not that you're not cut out for the game, it's that you did something some people regard as suspicious. That's going to happen to everyone at some point. In this instance, what people are responding to is not that you're being "nice" or "presenting both sides of an argument." It's that your statements appear to be attempting to avoid taking responsibility for your opinions and ultimately, your vote. It seems like you're setting things up so that whichever way the wind blows, you can say you were blowing that way, too. Doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it's evidence all the same.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 9:15:47 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 28, 2008 9:15:47 GMT -5
1. storyteller, I reread your posts and my second thought was that you are deliberately setting yourself up to fail. You are a better player than that and so it seems to be a very scummy thing to do. I don't understand what this means. In what way am I setting myself up to fail? --------------------- So, more generally, the vote swing to koldanar seems a bit undermotivated. I'm going to take a little while and re-read the entire Day, see if I can get a feel for the rhythm of the voting. In the meanwhile, absent any kind of traction, unvote Hal Briston
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 9:26:11 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 28, 2008 9:26:11 GMT -5
1. storyteller, I reread your posts and my second thought was that you are deliberately setting yourself up to fail. You are a better player than that and so it seems to be a very scummy thing to do. I don't understand what this means. In what way am I setting myself up to fail? It means that despite everyone else saying that it might be possible to find scum through slips, you have been consistent is saying that your methods will not work. This rings me as a possible long term excuse for lynching the wrong people as required, ie your methods didn't work so, of course, you are going to have a much higher likelyhood of lynching the wrong person despite your best efforts. I think you are a better player than that storyteller, which makes me look for the ulterior motive.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 9:39:20 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jan 28, 2008 9:39:20 GMT -5
Good Morning
Greedy Smurf (2) : nesta, hawkeyeop koldanar (5) : Diomedes, diggitcamara, RoOsh, drainbead, piratepete NAF1138 (1) : Cookies RoOsh (5) : NAF1138, Pleonast, Santo Rugger, CatInASuit, koldanar piratepete (1) : Hockey Monkey
Edited becuase when scanning for blue, I generally don't see red.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 9:41:27 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 28, 2008 9:41:27 GMT -5
It means that despite everyone else saying that it might be possible to find scum through slips, you have been consistent is saying that your methods will not work. Two points: (1) I am not required to agree with everyone else. I could pretend to agree, in order to blend in, but I have no particular need to do so and thus if my opinion differs from that of the majority, I'll share it. (2) The above is a mischaracterization of my views. I have not said that "my methods will not work." I have said that standard methods, the sort by which scum have been found in previous games, will be less reliable in the present game. I have tried to promote discussion of different approaches. But at no time have I said, it's hopeless, nothing will work, let's just quit and go home. For what it's worth, I've played this game a bunch of times now, and as far as I can recall, every single time someone has accused me of doing something scummy using some variation on the phrase "you're a good player" or "you're a better player than that," said accuser has turned out to be scum. It's such a specious piece of argument that townies don't typically employ it.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 10:01:49 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 28, 2008 10:01:49 GMT -5
It means that despite everyone else saying that it might be possible to find scum through slips, you have been consistent is saying that your methods will not work. Two points: (1) I am not required to agree with everyone else. I could pretend to agree, in order to blend in, but I have no particular need to do so and thus if my opinion differs from that of the majority, I'll share it. (2) The above is a mischaracterization of my views. I have not said that "my methods will not work." I have said that standard methods, the sort by which scum have been found in previous games, will be less reliable in the present game. I have tried to promote discussion of different approaches. But at no time have I said, it's hopeless, nothing will work, let's just quit and go home. 1. You do not have to agree with everyone, especially if you are trying to set up a position later on in the game. 2. An example And that's hugely problematic for me. I'm used to trying to spot scum based on finding evidence that they know more than I do, or that they're trying to make a particular outcome. If scum can hide by not pretending to hunt other scum but by actually hunting other scum, then... well, frankly I don't know what to do then. This sounds like someone saying their methods will not be of great use. For what it's worth, I've played this game a bunch of times now, and as far as I can recall, every single time someone has accused me of doing something scummy using some variation on the phrase "you're a good player" or "you're a better player than that," said accuser has turned out to be scum. It's such a specious piece of argument that townies don't typically employ it. Actually, its a method I personally employ quite often on other players. A relative measure of their skill being part of how I determine the the validity of their plans and reasoning. It also works reasonably well. However, its a pretty strong statement to say that every time someone brings it up, they are scum. Put it this way, your posts and words are making me suspicious. Not enough to vote or even FOS you, but certainly something I want to raise here and now. Finally, you mentioned having some thoughts on other methods for assisting the town. Anything further?
|
|
Koldanar
Mome Rath
[on:I survived the apocralypse!][of:Into the void, go I]
Posts: 4
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 10:11:31 GMT -5
Post by Koldanar on Jan 28, 2008 10:11:31 GMT -5
drainbead's analysis (p.197), combined with a little of "Triggering [RoOsh's] scumdar like fuck" (p.195) seem apposite. Neither Smurf nor koldanar seem to have said aaall that much of late, but what koldanar's said has only made it worse. unvote Smurfvote koldanarDio: What I (and hawkeyeop) said to hockeymonkey. The large number of separate factions and the relatively small amount of extra information the scum factions have — not to mention their desire to take out their more powerful rivals — makes them a large danger to each other, and less so to us toNight. You seem to be jumping on the bandwagon quickly there, esp. since you just joined the game (you did replace Denoument correct?). Something to hide? I'm kind of shocked how fast people turned on me, first thanks to being quiet (I'm definitely the lurker type of person), then when I start to talk about what things make me wonder about the players. I'm not sure what I can do at this point, since some are convinced (and some quite possibly are just scum aggresively pursuing me) that I'm part of a faction myself. Either a day one lynch or time will tell for me. I apologize for bringing up the newbie card, Roosh[\b], I just think I came into this game unprepared for the amount of quoting and research going on in regards to investigating motives. I think I have a better handle on it now, but I'll only know that by surviving to day two. Oh, and voting because you're (well were) the most popular to vote for? Doesn't mean I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 10:27:38 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jan 28, 2008 10:27:38 GMT -5
Don't worry Kolbandar. Next game you will have a better handle on things and will be able to have stronger opinions. Then people can vote for you for changing tone. Kat, Yes, I purposely used the term initially in that instance. The main thing that Roosh did that bugged me was, early on, he seemed to put a FOS on anyone who came up with a new idea. It appeared like he wanted to stifle creativity. It wasn't enough to where I would of voted for him if I hadn't already, but it was a better reason then nicknames. If you will notice, I switched my vote once I had a suspect I felt more confident about.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 11:01:18 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 28, 2008 11:01:18 GMT -5
Apologies for being scarce since Friday. I was off being a weekend firewood warrior in the seemingly endless rain we're having here in California...and sitting in traffic for 2 hours to go 6 miles when they closed both Northbound and Southbound sides of 101 near Petaluma because of flooding on Friday night. The suck.
So for the moment we have Roosh and Koldanar duking it out for the lynchman's noose. The vast majority of the justifications against Koldonar have come in while I was away, and have little to nothing to do with any conversations I've participated in, so I'd like to take some time to re-read and ensure that I'm not letting the more direct issues I've had with Roosh get in the way of being as objective as possible.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 11:36:04 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jan 28, 2008 11:36:04 GMT -5
Gah! Too much to absorb!
Roosh, my two complaints about you are 1) your huge posts that throw accusations in all directions. I don't mind the long posts so much (you do write engagingly and I like to read them--you really should join the SDMB), but it feels like you end up being suspicious of everything/one. Not helpful. Instead, choose one player (or two, but three is pushing it, and four is right out) to focus on. Doing that will make your arguments more persuasive.
And, 2) you have a tendency of misinterpreting what others say. Looking at posts your own unique way is expected and often helpful. But I think you let your biases warp your viewpoint too much. This puts those you mischaracterize in a defensive/antagonistic mood. And it undermines your arguments: everyone else can see how your twisting others' statements.
My vote for you is because these two factors are anti-Town. You used these to good effect in the Bladerunner game and I want to eliminate this threat.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 12:46:01 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 28, 2008 12:46:01 GMT -5
You used these to good effect in the Bladerunner game and I want to eliminate this threat. Fair enough. Though this line was quite amusing to me, [because in the BladeRunner game, my tactics were quite explicitly outlined in the scum boards as basically a step by step way to ID my scum style] but the main reason it's so funny to me, is that in the Blade runner game.... I was lurking. I actually lurked QUITE a bit in that blade runner game, which was amusing because put in the top 3 posters still. but anyways, onto more serious matters. I cannot refute what you have said, I am always very accusatory and paranoid in my thoughts (because hell, if i trust you, then that's a reason right there for me to automatically distrust you). As for the misinterpreting... I'm sure that's probably a valid point too- i know i'm QUITE capable of bias, and so at times i have to back away (as is the case with NAF currently, I think i've put ideas out there, but now I need time to see if it's correct over the next few Days). -I think my general first 2-3 posts where I summed up everyone was probably unhelpful to everyone besides myself, I just wanted my opinions to be known, since I'm of the school of thought that leaving MASSIVE amounts of Data for the rest of the town to pour over in the case of an unlikely demise is the best thing to do, but I certainly do tend to go overboard.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 13:04:56 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 28, 2008 13:04:56 GMT -5
Umm, I was the last person to confirm in the game, you had confirmed your role and its understanding a couple of days earlier. ie. You knew your role, so this part of your defence is false. Fair enough. I knew my role at that time. I should have said "some of us", rather than use myself as the subject there. Having the vote as a joke was fine, what puzzled me was the retraction after it. To me, it was like you slipped up and wanted to try and correct it somehow. Yes, Night 0 is a joke, and neither Diomedes or I had retracted our votes, given the stupid reasons for which they were placed. But your's sent up a signal flare. This one just doesn't make sense to me. How can you slip up on Night 0? The whole thing doesn't matter to begin with. To me, retracting a night 0 vote is the only logical thing, because it doesn't COUNT. It's based on NOTHING, and I'm not a fan of random voting. So to keep a vote based on no reason at all is simply against the style of play that I prefer. My entire post in Night 0 was this: 0.49: Vote Pleonast
Liar!
It was 3 words for god's sake. I assumed the vote didn't count on Day 1, so I don't really see myself as "retracting" the vote, because hell the post I was referring to was pleo saying he was a peasant. (0.46): Jan 18, 2008, 6:34pm, Death by Irony wrote: Pre-game smack talk goes here. To avoid metagaming, please confirm your role in thread. "Yep, I'm a peasant. But won't it break the game to have everyone confirm their role here?"- PleonastI called him a liar with no evidence, why? Because that's the sort of thing that you do at Nights when you're joking around sitting by a proverbial bar. There is no evidence nothing really going around there, and the fact that you would take such a vote seriously is REALLY puzzling. The only way that you could know Pleonast's role before we started. Let's just check the roles again shall we, oh yes, the only people who know another's role is one of the scum factions. My vote stands at this time. So you're saying... that Me and Pleo are on the same Scum team? And that on Night Zero, I called him out on the fact that he's lying about being a townie in order to what? To give myself a handicap for starting the game? Come on, CAIS, give me a LITTLE bit of credit here as a Mafia Player. This idea is just silly. Why would I do that? It makes NO sense at ALL. Who the hell would try to get rid of their ally BEFORE the game STARTED?? So, by this statement though, do you believe then that Pleonast is also equally implicated as my Scum buddy, CaiS? I'm curious as to what your whole take on this "calling out my fellow scum" deal is on Night 0, because the logic here is REALLY weak, and not something I'd expect of you normally, Cais. You're certainly a strong player, and I respect you from last game. But REALLY? Night Zero? I want to hear more of this, just because it amuses me that this is such a weak reasoning to vote for me. (and in that vein, I will say that I am preparing my defense post, so I'll prolly check it out tommorrow night, and If i'm close still to being lynched, I'll post it then sometime on Weds or Thursday to give people enough time to not lynch me hopefully.) First things first. As far as I am concerned this is not acceptable. If you are going to play the game, it should be done on this board and not as the result of IM chat elsewhere. I agree with you fully. But to clarify, we weren't playing Mafia anywhere else. I was simply punning alot, and talking about my courses. The chat had nothing to do with Mafia, other than Dopers and myself were involved (so I use the term Mafia people rather than just Dopers). You can ask Kat and Atarus as well, as both were there to validate my statements. The vote that Dio put on me, was a result of NON-MAFIA talk, and had nothing to do with the game itself. I was still not a fan of that, and am still quite disappointed to see that the vote's still there with a weaker reasoning. So i agree with you on the Voting someone for OUT of game reasonings sucks. But I wanted to clarify that the vote had nothing to do with MAFIA being played or discussed really out of the game.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 14:18:30 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 28, 2008 14:18:30 GMT -5
I actually have to agree, to a degree, with Roosh. Dio's vote (and justification) are just as suspicious as NAF's early vote that resulted in my vote for him [NAF]. My computer access was chaotic and interrupted on Friday, but on many occasions I started posts directly asking Dio to explain his "He knows why..." vote rationale, but I never had the chance to finish and actually post any of them. When he eventually did explain himself, reading that explanation certainly didn't fill me with a warm townie feeling.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 15:00:40 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Jan 28, 2008 15:00:40 GMT -5
The vote that Dio put on me, was a result of NON-MAFIA talk, and had nothing to do with the game itself. I was still not a fan of that, and am still quite disappointed to see that the vote's still there with a weaker reasoning. So i agree with you on the Voting someone for OUT of game reasonings sucks. But I wanted to clarify that the vote had nothing to do with MAFIA being played or discussed really out of the game. Christ almighty, people. I made the vote as part of a joke, and for no greater or lesser reason than I random-voted Hawkeye earlier. Roosh then gave me some reason to vote for him, so I left it there. Weak reason or not, it was more than anyone else gave me. Now, I think I've found some dissemblance in koldanar. So I changed my vote. I still don't have much of a problem switching it back to Roosh if that's required to get our first day lynch in. But my vote isn't one of the many that are on you, Roosh old bean.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 15:21:27 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 28, 2008 15:21:27 GMT -5
But my vote isn't one of the many that are on you, Roosh old bean. Ah sorry then, it seems like everyone at some point or another has had a reason to vote for me today. Ah well, still a fishy vote, but 'appreciate it not being there anymore.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 15:22:35 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jan 28, 2008 15:22:35 GMT -5
Oh, and voting because you're (well were) the most popular to vote for? Doesn't mean I'm wrong. Except I know the answer to that one. And you are wrong. So your conclusion sucks, and your reasoning for it sucks as well.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 16:05:08 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jan 28, 2008 16:05:08 GMT -5
Okay, Kat, to answer your question, Roosh[b/]'s post length is no longer the reason I'm voting for him. My reasons now include his OMGUS vote, paralleled with "Oh, poor me!" attitude which he successfully employed as scum in BladeRunner.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 16:16:02 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 28, 2008 16:16:02 GMT -5
Hidey-ho, here I am trundling in after a long busy weekend again. Hmmmm. Okay, first things first. I have found CatinaSuit somewhat suspicious. The first thing I noticed was in his Post 1.134 and Post 1.135. In his summary in these posts, any time anybody votes Roosh he makes sure to mention that they voted for him as well as their reasoning. Plus, when he gets to Roosh, instead of a one or two sentence summary like he does for everybody else, he has several paragraphs. But when other people have cast votes, he doesn't mention it. (For example, drainbead voted for Denoupete, but Cat just mentions that drainbead "raised an interesting point" and didn't say she voted for her.) To me, this entire "summary" of posts that he did seemed to be a giant smudge of Roosh in disguise. I'm not entirely certain if it can be constituted as scummy, though. However, Cat doggedly hanging on to one of his reasonings for voting Roosh (the Night 0 Pleonast thing) strikes me as very scummy. It was very clear to me during the Night that Roosh's vote was a joke vote, just like Diomedes' joke vote for CatinaSuit himself during Night Zero. (Strangely, this is acceptable, but Roosh voting for Pleonast is not!) It's a silly reason to include for voting for somebody, and even sillier to try and defend it. To turn around what he said to storyteller, I think CatinaSuit is a much better player than to rely on this kind of hokey vote reasoning. Another person that struck me as suspicious was koldanar. As has been stated by others, his reasoning for voting for Roosh seem opportunistic and scapegoatish. Koldanar gets a vote or two for lurking, so he jumps in and votes for Roosh, with his reasoning being "he's talking a lot" and "he has the most votes." In addition, when he posts about Denouepete, he says: You seem to be jumping on the bandwagon quickly there, esp. since you just joined the game (you did replace Denoument correct?). Something to hide? So he calls out Pete for jumping on a bandwagon quickly, but that's exactly what he did earlier with Roosh. Kat's posts floating questions at certain people gave me a weird feeling. I can understand her questions, but she managed to post something that seems useful without posting any of her own thoughts. I don't know, maybe I'm reading into it too much. I don't find Denouepirate suspicious for his no-lynch thing. To be honest, I've been considering the advantages and disadvantages of a no-lynch myself. Haven't really come up with much, though. It did, however, draw me to a question for storyteller. This is a bit meta-game-y, but in Firefly you were a proponent of the idea that a no-lynch isn't that bad. In this game, you are the proponent of the "let's make sure we lynch" idea. I can understand why you proposed the idea in the game over on the Dope, because in that one, a townie is dying every Night no matter what, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. In this one, though, the town's got Doctors, a Vig, and possible cross-kills all at Night, so the town has some advantages. I'm just curious as to what made you change your mind between Firefly and this game as to why we should have this always lynch set-up in place. --- For now, I will vote Koldanar. The reasons I find him scummy are stated above.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 19:21:38 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 28, 2008 19:21:38 GMT -5
[completely oog] Am I the only one who thinks the dumplings (those are dumplings, right?) have been purposefully drawn to look like they're mooning us with their little bare pink dumpling butts? And what emotion is supposed to be communicated by shading over where the eyes should be on the two non-sisterly individuals in frame #3? [/oog]
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 20:13:14 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Jan 28, 2008 20:13:14 GMT -5
And what emotion is supposed to be communicated by shading over where the eyes should be on the two non-sisterly individuals in frame #3? [/oog] A voice booms from the heavens:
"It's a Japanese manga convention used to convey shock, embarrassment, and/or disgust.
...Also, the rear-end shaped objects are peaches."
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2008 21:07:26 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Jan 28, 2008 21:07:26 GMT -5
And what emotion is supposed to be communicated by shading over where the eyes should be on the two non-sisterly individuals in frame #3? [/oog] A voice booms from the heavens:
"It's a Japanese manga convention used to convey shock, embarrassment, and/or disgust.
...Also, the rear-end shaped objects are peaches."[oog] Cite? [/oog]
|
|