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 Two
Feb 6, 2008 16:11:22 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Feb 6, 2008 16:11:22 GMT -5
Wikipedia wrote:Yuan Shao (? – 202) was a powerful warlord during the late Eastern Han Dynasty and Three Kingdoms era of China. He occupied the northern territories of ancient China during the massive civil war towards the end of the Eastern Han Dynasty and the beginning of the Three Kingdoms era. He was also the elder cousin of Yuan Shu, a warlord who controlled the Huai River region, though the two were not in good terms with each other.
One of the most powerful warlords of his time, Yuan Shao spearheaded a coalition of warlords against the tyrannical Dong Zhuo, who held Emperor Xian hostage in the capital Luoyang, but failed due to internal disunity. In 200, he launched a campaign against rival warlord Cao Cao but was defeated utterly at the decisive Battle of Guandu. He died of sickness two years later in Ye. His eventual failure despite his powerful family background and geographical advantages was commonly blamed on his indecisiveness and inability to heed the advice of his advisors. Top-of-the-page votecount: 1 - storyteller0910 (Roosh)
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2008 16:21:22 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 6, 2008 16:21:22 GMT -5
Story was on Roosh's case right out of the gate this morning, and Roosh's reaction seemed counter-productive to me, regardless of which filters of assumption I looked at Roosh with.
I felt it was presumptuous and unproductive of Roosh to try and deflect the conversation away from whatever topics of conversation that he had determined were a waste of our collective scum-hunting resources. I'm still not exactly clear on what he felt was acceptable vs unacceptable discussion topics, but that is moot.
If there is one thing I have come to believe while playing this game, it is that you never know what topic of conversation could result in a lead. I am not inclined to believe that any topic need be forbidden or discouraged.
"Townies should not want to discuss X..." "Only scum would be curious about Y..."
Bull horse puckie, says I.
That is where I was coming from in post #50. I was not outlining a schedule of analysis posts that I would be compiling and releasing to the public while processing the Roosh discussion. I was stating something that I consider to be obvious. As long as someone is talking about something, then we all in turn have something to analyze. Not necessarily analyze right now, but also tomorrow and on into the endgame.
When Roosh continued to speak out against the discussion of specific aspects of the conversations that involved him, I followed up with post #82. Paraphrasing: You made your bed, Roosh now you have to lay in it.
At the times that I made those posts, I had no idea how or when that particular arc would play out. I could not decipher Roosh's (seemingly) erratic and waffling behavior. Even with everything (allegedly) now on the table, I still don't get Roosh's approach (assuming for the moment that he is indeed town) to either his Day 1 claim, or how he decided to play it after the (alleged) dusk revoke of his powers.
And as a final OMGUS note, I'm not particularly thrilled with feeling like I have to explain myself as I just have. It is early in Day 2, and I have not, in fact, promised to deliver something and then not delivered it, contrary to what atarus' posts suggest....HOWEVER...as I am not a hypocrite, I am certainly not discouraging anyone from looking at my posts or talking about them in any way.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2008 16:35:04 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Feb 6, 2008 16:35:04 GMT -5
Oy vey. I have one little busy day and all hell breaks loose. Roosh, I have one question for you. In your second claim, you said: If this is true, how do you reconcile it with what Pleonast said about claiming, which was: The way I look at it, one of you has to be lying. If what you said in your second claim is correct, and you know this, why are you not voting for Pleonast because he was lying to the town and trying to force you to reclaim? Why are you instead voting for storyteller? Also, story and Pleonast, what about Roosh's second claim, specifically, reconciles this in your minds enough to cause you to unvote Roosh? I especially ask this of Pleonast, who should know that Roosh is still lying about his claim if it's truly a "bright line" as he stated it was earlier toDay. Is it just because you now think we're in a bastard mod game where the mods are lying to us about what the rules truly are? And if so, why are you so quick to believe that when the only person telling it to you is someone who you thought was scum eight hours ago? This post really just struck me as scum trying to prolong a heavy, wordy discussion and create more static and possibly still try to get motion towards getting Roosh lynched. The way I see it, it's an open-and-shut case. When Roosh made his non-claim yesterDay, he thought he was getting away with it. Turns out he didn't. Storyteller started pursuing him because of the idea that he might be lying and when Roosh defended himself, inconsistencies popped up. Pleonast and Rugger voted for Roosh because of these inconsistencies. Debate escalated, finally Roosh fessed up to what actually happened. Open and shut. One question. Why do you assume that a post that was equally harsh on Roosh and Pleonast was trying to get Roosh lynched? The way I look at it, I was actually leaning more on Pleonast than Roosh in that post. Pleonast said, both yesterday and today, that the mods told him that there was absolutely no way that someone could make a roundabout claim and still have their powers. Roosh first said that he could, and then that he found out that he couldn't, but only because of his choice of using the word "shoes" and not "footwear". That still flies in the face of what Pleonast said about the line in the sand. If it's truly a line in the sand, Pleonast should be harping on what Roosh said about how his word choice affected whether or not he still had his powers. And if it's not, Pleonast lied to us all in an attempt to cause Roosh to do what he just did. I really can't see how both of their statements could be true, short of bastard moddery.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2008 16:36:21 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Feb 6, 2008 16:36:21 GMT -5
I screwed up that quote somehow. Oh, well...you all can see what I said on Page 4.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2008 18:33:11 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 6, 2008 18:33:11 GMT -5
I think drain has a valid point. Not all of the inconsistencies between Roosh's statements and Pleo's statements have been reconciled. Pleo seems to think that they have been reconciled sufficiently to unvote Roosh, but I can't yet see how, considering what they have both said.
Unless Pleo has revisted his (alleged) mod conversations and is now allowing some more wiggle room as to interpretation?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2008 18:41:39 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 6, 2008 18:41:39 GMT -5
I also want to acknowledge that I over-simplified the claiming rule in post #82 (which Roosh corrected in post #85). "Forbidden" was not the word I should have used, as it implies that I am dumb as a post and not able to read the rules. Obviously (hopefully) I'm not as dumb as a post, and I know that that the consequence of a town power role claiming is to be stripped of powers, not be mod-killed. That being said, the intent of my post remains...negative consequences that degrade the town's chances would ensue.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2008 19:40:23 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Feb 6, 2008 19:40:23 GMT -5
This is exactly the issue that I have. Either (a) Roosh cannot imply he is more than just a peasant or (b) [/b]Roosh[/b] can say "I hate 'footwear' *wink wink*"
How is trumpeting how much you hate footwear not implying you're someone other than a peasant? The only way both of them can be telling the truth (as they see it) is if one of them was not clear enough in their question, or if one of them misunderstood the answer.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2008 20:28:49 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Feb 6, 2008 20:28:49 GMT -5
So we've now determined that Roosh is a fuck-up. He's the only one voting, and it's a pretty unsubstantiated vote on storyteller. I'll say again that a no-lynch is a bad idea for today, as counting on the scum to cross-kill is a very bad plan. Anybody have any ideas on where to, now?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2008 22:25:59 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Feb 6, 2008 22:25:59 GMT -5
So we've now determined that Roosh is a fuck-up. He's the only one voting, and it's a pretty unsubstantiated vote on storyteller. I'll say again that a no-lynch is a bad idea for today, as counting on the scum to cross-kill is a very bad plan. Anybody have any ideas on where to, now? Well, I for one, didn't chime in during the whole storyteller/ Roosh dustup because: a.) I found storyteller comments to be interesting and thought they were pointing out some inconsistencies in Roosh's acting and b.) I still thought Roosh's claim to be valid as long as there were no counterclaims Now that it has finished, I have to agree with one of storyteller's earlier quotes, which is: we are best served when we tell the unvarnished truth. Which Roosh didn't. I think he should have 'fessed up as soon as storyteller spoke about the inconsistencies he had detected and not lead us in a merry-go-round which pretty much has eaten up a couple of days (and added a whole lot of white noise) with not much to show for it. During this Day I already pointed out some statements that seem fishy to me (at best). I'll do my best to follow up on them later on.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2008 23:41:06 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Feb 6, 2008 23:41:06 GMT -5
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Feb 6, 2008 23:42:12 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Feb 6, 2008 23:42:12 GMT -5
:Sigh: All right Allright, I get the point. I delayed the game and all that jazz. But i only wasted 2 Days out of 9 that we were given. We still have about a Week left to find scum and I think that's PLENTY of time. So let's cut the pity parties short, What's done is done, and I'll offer to explain it here, but after this it's pretty much a moot point. Let's focus on trying to find scum for the next week then, alright? (Then again, I posted up vote counts, and I tried to move the discussion around, but I didn't exactly see anyone else trying to do anything else either really. Silent Townies, content to wait for fights to end themselves, before bringing up other issues always become Sheep as the game wears on). [quote author=kat board=rottk thread=1202165935 post=1202344823 How is trumpeting how much you hate footwear not implying you're someone other than a peasant? The only way both of them can be telling the truth (as they see it) is if one of them was not clear enough in their question, or if one of them misunderstood the answer.[/quote] The key thing to Claiming is this: -You CANNOT CLAIM YOUR OWN ROLE. -You may Claim ANY other Role. (Hence the Wang Chung business, it's perfectly okay to MAKE UP a role and claim THAT role). -You will lose your powers if you explicitly explain your roles or abilities. -You will Lose your powers if you IMPLICITLY explain your role. --This is the sucky part. The kind Mods don't explain what "implicit" means, and they're pretty much silent on the subject. The only way you get to discover this, is how I did. Which is getting a PM at night telling you how you fucked up. In my case apparently using homophones is implicitly implying something. But giving clues that are NOT implicit (apparently "footwear") is okay. That's the part I hate. Because it's NOT clear. And getting to just THAT level of clarification took like 4-6 PMs to the various Mods. It's really annoying. and then after all that work, REALLY frustration to find out that you were fine except for ONE little word choice usage. As for lying? What was I supposed to do Today? If you think just out and Claim that I'm a free target for tonight? Well that's just giving up, isn't it? I was a Doctor who lost his powers. I just wanted to keep quiet toDay, lay low, and try to maintain an aura that I had my powers. I realized that most people had accepted my claim, and since noone was going to Counter-Claim I felt pretty safe going into Today. I mean, I was an uncounter-claimed Power Role. Who CARES if I lost my abilities, I figured No Townies would worry about That sort of Problem. And I thought to myself- well only scum would worry if I had my abilities or not. And then I hoped that no one would remember my post in the previous Day were I had advocated claiming. I had already sent off a few angry notes to the Gods on that little note (a little WARNING would have been nice). But then I got embroiled into this mess, and it made me suspicious of Story. As I feel he's been bugging me about my Abilities, and not focusing on the simple fact that I was NOT COUNTER CLAIMED. I viewed my Role not as a Doctor, but as a Mason. All the weak Doctors are basically Mason group of ONE. ANYONE ELSE who claims such a role would immediately be counter claimed by the REAL Doctor. As finding 50% of the scum he's set to get rid of is quite useful. However, Story obviously didn't have this same line of thinking . And so to those who wondered, WHY did I wait so late to claim- 1. I didn't think that EVERYONE ELSE would simply STOP TALKING until they found out the extent of my abilities. 2. I figured this was like an other tiff between 2 players. Like yesterday between NAF and I. While we were arguing, the play was still continuing, people were still checking out stuff, and discussion was continuing. 3. Just as much as Story viewed me as Scum who was lying, and for some reason, not being counter claimed. I view Story as Scum who simply wanted to press me into Claiming NOT MY ROLE, but simply wanted me to expose myself to LOSE my abilities (as he if he was scum would be unsure of if I had lost my powers). (I had hoped that the other Power roles out there would realize that he's lost his powers, and so they'd just quietly move on knowing that I was stuck out at sea without any chance of helping myself but I had to keep up the illusion of having powers). But obviously that was NOT the case. I viewed the absence of Counter Claiming as the Key part to this role, because as I said in Day 1, I felt this role was similar to being a MASON more than a Doctor. Basically a proveable role that No scum in their right minds would want to try to fake claim because the risks were NOT worth the rewards. Especially not early in a game. Others did not, and perhaps still DO NOT see this as the key. However, I suggest in the future that you TREAT this role (the weak doctor role) as such. Basically if someone claims a role that YOU HAVE. YOU SPEAK UP ASAP. And if NO ONE else counters that role, then you give the guy a break and let him go under the radar. It's this difference in thinking though that has obviously exasperated many of you though. But i still feel it's the right thing to do. BELIEVE an Un-Countered Weak Role, a nd COUNTER CLAIM the LIARS if someone claims your own role. No one goes about trying to lynch a Mason, and I didn't understand why Storyteller kept on pursing such a line of thought. But I see now that many of you simply do not think this way.... To me, basically Re-Claiming means Suicide. I did NOT want to do that if I could help it. But since nothing else was happening, fine, my death toNight will give me time to work on some things I suppose and at least get the Town back into Action again. Roosh, I have one question for you. In your second claim, you said: If this is true, how do you reconcile it with what Pleonast said about claiming, which was: It comes down to what is your Mods' interpretation of "Implicit". That's all basically. So it doesn't matter what You or I think about it. It's what the Mods think, they have a line in the Sand yes, but we can't really see that line until its too late. And he was right that my claim crossed the line. Unfortunately I had no idea of that until NIGHTFALL and basically DAWN toDay. Which is why I wanted Story to disregard my previous Day's posts, because I didn't know then what I knew NOW. Which I think REALLY sucks (I figured with all the Qs and all, that If I lost my powers, I'd be told I lost my powers upon claiming. That was apparently not the case, and I still to this point have No idea what the Mods consider Implicitly implying your roles- I only know now that "shoes" is implicit). ~~~~~~~~~ Hopefully we can move on from this. We still have a WHOLE week to figure stuff out, it's not like I wasted SO Much of your precious times everyone, and If I did, well I didn't see anyone out there with a Valid enough reason to complain except for Storyteller that they lost so much precious time ToDay. What did you miss in 2-3 Days, that a WEEK isn't gonna help you now with? :sigh: But call me a fuck up if you like, and blame this Day on me if you want; but now then let's move on. What's done is done. There's still scum out there to find. 6 of 'em. And I'm not as optimistic as SRugger that 3 cross kills could happen tonight magically (Yeah, look at last night for that sort of wishful thinking). Anyways, that's all I gotta say about this whole mess, unless anyone has a specific Question for me. But i think we can move on.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 7, 2008 1:20:37 GMT -5
[oog]
*blows in tuning pipe* *clears throat*
Mmm....
*deep breath*
生日快乐。 生日快乐。 生日快乐亲爱 Hal 并且 autolycus... 生日快乐!
并且许多...
[/oog] ;D
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Feb 7, 2008 1:24:37 GMT -5
This might be a really dumb point.... But I was just reading the SMDB BBQ pit on "Why do people hate the patriots". NAF died by being killed by Giants. This makes me think that specific killer was probably A fan of the Giants and NOT a Patriots Fan. Storyteller- You seem to be a HUGE patriots fan over on that BBQ Pit. In my mind thusly, I think its probably unlikely that You are the one who killed NAF. that's all I've got so far. Anyone else here REALLY REALLY hate the Giants/Love the Patriots?
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Feb 7, 2008 1:30:46 GMT -5
Storyteller- You seem to be a HUGE patriots fan over on that BBQ Pit. On further review, I need to insert a Forehead slap smiley here. The above post has been pointed out to me as Untrue. Apparently you're a Giant's Fan that is fed up with the Anti-Patriots Sentiment. Fair enough. :Shrug: that's what I get for reading threads other people's posts quoting You in the Pit at 1:30am... (for those curious it was Aangelica's post. I really like the SMDB. I really should join someday, as I enjoy reading these things) Never mind then, you could have killed NAF as you are a fan of the Giants. Carry On. I guess I am a fuck up.
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Feb 7, 2008 1:56:05 GMT -5
What a clusterfuck. I'm glad we are now getting past this. So we've now determined that Roosh is a fuck-up. He's the only one voting, and it's a pretty unsubstantiated vote on storyteller. I'll say again that a no-lynch is a bad idea for today, as counting on the scum to cross-kill is a very bad plan. Anybody have any ideas on where to, now? I understand why Roosh is voting for storyteller. I'm half-tempted to vote for him myself. Storyteller, starting this Roosh discussion is either the scummiest thing or the towniest I've seen from you. I admit in most games I've played with you or spectated in which you played I've shared the feeling that you were probably scum because everything you say seems to make so much sense that it must be because you were scum and playing the townie very well. I usually nod-along while reading your posts thinking it makes perfect sense, and yet I know that if scum you will probably push very logical pro-town ideas. This is what has me baffled about how things have gone down Today. I agree on the minor points: there is an inconsistency between what Pleo and Roosh said regarding implied claims; and I agree with lynching all liars to a point. What seems very strange is that it made no sense to me Yesterday to lynch Roosh unless there was a counter-claim. It made even less sense to lynch him Today unless there was a counter-claim. If Roosh was lying there is someone out there that knew it. We would have to eventually lynch Roosh to win (or get a lucky cross-kill), but if he was lying the real Zhang Bao would have either claimed or would have ended up dead and revealed Roosh as scum. To me it wasn't worth wasting time on now since it would be cleared up one way or another, and if we went into end-game with no counter-claim we could trust that even if we disagreed with the way Roosh semi-claimed that he was most likely telling the truth. What did you hope to accomplish with this early push for a Roosh lynch? Did you really think Roosh was the best chance we had for catching scum Today, even though there was ample opportunity for a counter-claim Yesterday? If Roosh isn't Zhang Bao the real Zhang Bao made a mistake by not counter-claiming Yesterday and getting us a guaranteed scum lynch on Day 1. What changed your mind about lynching claimers without a counter-claim? Even with Pleo seemingly contradicting Roosh this doesn't seem nearly enough to me to think lynching Roosh was a good idea. I find it very strange to suspect you for disagreeing with you instead of agreeing too strongly. Your Roosh case seems anti-town to me, and that isn't something I'm used to from you.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Feb 7, 2008 1:56:21 GMT -5
It's not so much that I think we'll have 3 cross kills tonight, I'm just hopeful that the maximum of 3 cross kills will be achieved.
My paranoia today came from the fact that a scum false claim of a weak doc while under pressure might not be counterclaimed immediately, because the real role wouldn't want to claim and end up losing their power. Sure, it's a moot point for now, but the opportunity has the chance to present itself twice more this game.
My interpretation of the Giants in the colour was that the method wasn't submitted, and dotchan chose it herself in order to show that there was a double target, and to show her support for the Giants. (see post 32 from last Night)
Roosh, you're not a fuck up, you're just the protege of Leroy Jenkins.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 7, 2008 9:33:57 GMT -5
OK, here we go: How is trumpeting how much you hate footwear not implying you're someone other than a peasant? The only way both of them can be telling the truth (as they see it) is if one of them was not clear enough in their question, or if one of them misunderstood the answer. Yeah, but I don't see that last sentence as such an unlikely possibility. Put it this way: prior to Roosh's clarification, the disconnect between what he was telling us and what I believe to be the most likely truth was large enough to warrant a vote for him even in the absence of a counterclaim. His explanation has changed the calculus, such that in the absence of a counterclaim, he no longer appears untrustworthy enough to be voted for. Roosh: I think that you're looking at this wrong. You seem to be under the impression that if the scum think you have no powers, you will be an obvious target, but if the scum think you might have powers, you won't be targeted. There is no reason to believe this. Your power, even when it was intact, protected you against kills from only one quarter. Even if the scum thought you still had your powers, two groups among them could have targeted you. It appears that none did last Night. Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because they thought you still had your powers? Why would, say, a Wu faction member care about your powers? Answer - they don't. But your status as the only claimed and uncounterclaimed power role at this stage of the game makes you a dangerous target for any scum; I'm sure you can figure out why. The same reason will apply toNight; it will be diluted a bit by the fact that Pleonast has - as someone else pointed out, and I wish they hadn't, but that's water under the bridge now - essentially revealed himself to be either a power role or scum, but it will also be strengthed by the fact that your claim is more plausible now. Roosh: My thinking on this obviously keeps mutating, but right now I'm pretty sure I disagree. I do not think power roles should counterclaim reflexively if they see a false claim. I think they should use their best judgment. If we can find holes in a false claimant's story and lynch them without a counterclaim, that's much better than having a power role claim and lose his/her powers. We don't want to create a situation where every scum we do catch can easily out a power role by claiming one and waiting for the reflexive counterclaim. And now to something else: nesta: All true. But there are few things you're ignoring. First of all, we have to decide on someone to lynch toDay long before we get to the endgame. If Roosh is scum and can be demonstrated to be so without a counterclaim, then toDay, we lynch scum. I will always prefer to vote for the person I think is most likely to be scum. Anything else clouds the water, and makes a positive outcome less likely. Also, the truth or falsity of Roosh's claim has other implications - about Pleonast, about town power roles in general, about what kind of false claims the scum can reasonably attempt. Hashing out the truth of this now gives us more information with which to analyze future actions, even independent of Roosh himself. See above: I hoped to elucidate the situation to the best of our collective ability, generate true information from which to work, and lynch scum if scum had been found. Per my response to Roosh, I disagree. I do not agree that reflexive counterclaiming a false claim is necessarily the best move. If I don't agree, then it's possible the putative "real Zhang Bao" doesn't agree either, and thus the absence of a counterclaim isn't definitive evidence of anything. The appearance of what I considered to be extremely strong evidence that Roosh was lying. Anti-town? In what way? What have we lost here? We've gained the ability to feel a bit more confident about Roosh. We've gained information on acceptable (and unacceptable) claiming techniques for power roles. We've had a lively discussion, producing plenty of posts for later analysis. And we haven't lynched a townie. What have we lost? Two real-life days of discussion, from which we can now springboard into five more? I reject the proposition that starting this conversation, or following it to its conclusion, was an anti-town action. And I'd like to hear your justification for characterizing it as such. How were we hurt by this discussion? Edited to fix quote tags
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 7, 2008 9:34:47 GMT -5
Would a passing Mod be kind enough to correct those quote tags, please? Many thanks.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2008 12:13:51 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Feb 7, 2008 12:13:51 GMT -5
Your power, even when it was intact, protected you against kills from only one quarter. Even if the scum thought you still had your powers, two groups among them could have targeted you. It appears that none did last Night. Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because they thought you still had your powers? Why would, say, a Wu faction member care about your powers? Simply put, I had thought about this (and had debated making this point on Day 1 in an attempt to try to stay alive longer. By keeping my alive, the OTHER two factions know I'm not a threat to them, and I can be killed off at anytime. HOWEVER, they know that by KEEPING me alive, they're hindering the 3rd scum group. Especially if I chose not to self-protect. Towards the end game, the wise move is to keep the Doctors from the factions that AREN'T yours alive, if you as a scum want to win this game. Because if you kill lets say a Shu dude, now suddenly you've got 1 person out there who you cannot kill. He is immune to scum killers. You've got to work around that, and he's got the advantage of the 3 scum groups of being the safest now. So you need to buy time to lynch him as scum during the Day, if you wish to win. So by keeping an empowered Shu Doctor alive, you're only impeding your opponent. As you know you have a free kill there when you need it, but you don't want to worry that the doctor might be protected by the full doctor or not. Instead, you don't worry about it, because even if the ShuDoc protects your target, it means nothing, your kill will go through. However, the Shu person is in a dilemma as they have to worry should they kill the shu doc, or should they shoot in the dark, etc etc. every night. Basically keeping the doctors that aren't your own alive, helps the scum closer and closer to endgame, and its only when they need to kill off trusted townies should they go and kill off the Doctor. That's why I believe I was kept alive. Because of the fact that i didn't hurt any other scum but one. And there was the mild threat that I could have been night protected by a super doctor.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2008 13:02:02 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Feb 7, 2008 13:02:02 GMT -5
生日快乐。 生日快乐。 生日快乐亲爱 Hal 并且 autolycus... 生日快乐! 并且许多... Ha! It took me a couple of minutes, but once I figured out the pattern, the message became clear. Thanks!
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2008 13:22:23 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Feb 7, 2008 13:22:23 GMT -5
生日快乐。 生日快乐。 生日快乐亲爱 Hal 并且 autolycus... 生日快乐! 并且许多... Ha! It took me a couple of minutes, but once I figured out the pattern, the message became clear. Thanks! I still don't get it, but it sure makes a lot more sense on my work computer than it did on my home computer last night!
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2008 13:28:23 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Feb 7, 2008 13:28:23 GMT -5
:nod: I had to look at the main page to see what was so special about Hal and Autolycus. Happy Birthday indeed!
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2008 20:53:27 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Feb 7, 2008 20:53:27 GMT -5
Come on guys, no post since 10:30? Do we really need Roosh to stir up shit to add something to the Day?
On that note, I'm headed to San Diego, so I may or not be on till Tuesday. Find some scum while I'm gone, will ya?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 7, 2008 22:18:34 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Feb 7, 2008 22:18:34 GMT -5
Come on guys, no post since 10:30? Do we really need Roosh to stir up shit to add something to the Day? On that note, I'm headed to San Diego, so I may or not be on till Tuesday. Find some scum while I'm gone, will ya? Well, if you were still around, I'd ask you to post a bit more analysis yourself before you went around asking for more participation... but since you won't be around for a couple of days, I'll lay off. Anyhow, drainbead's perceived slip (perceived as such by myself only, apparently), and her continued poking into the Roosh/ storyteller affair, especially after it had been pretty much wrapped up satisfactorily, has kind of roused my suspicion. Sadly, though, I can't say I see much more of that behavior yesterDay. She pretty much got into an argument about perceived scumminess/townihood acording to volume of participation (she says loud participants during Day 1 are usually town). She also added assorted other reasons to recognize players as townies but not much more than that... I'm still uneasy about her, but not enough to vote for her. Yet.
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Feb 8, 2008 1:14:06 GMT -5
All true. But there are few things you're ignoring. First of all, we have to decide on someone to lynch toDay long before we get to the endgame. If Roosh is scum and can be demonstrated to be so without a counterclaim, then toDay, we lynch scum. I will always prefer to vote for the person I think is most likely to be scum. Anything else clouds the water, and makes a positive outcome less likely. I think this is where we disagree. I wasn't 100% sure that Roosh was town based on his semi-claim, but with the lack of a counter-claim it was around 75% at the beginning of the Day. Unless you were going to counter-claim (which obviously isn't the case now) I couldn't figure out why you were so sure Roosh was scum that we needed to lynch him Today. I mean, this is Roosh we're talking about. We've both played multiple games with him, and we know he'll make strange plays as town. I generally agree with lynching all liars, but it wasn't clear that Roosh was lying in this case, and even if he was, it was Roosh after all. As much as making an example of him would be satisfying to us that play a more straightforward game I felt he was most likely town and I'm having a hard time understanding why you were so convinced that his semi-claim made him scum. Also, the truth or falsity of Roosh's claim has other implications - about Pleonast, about town power roles in general, about what kind of false claims the scum can reasonably attempt. Hashing out the truth of this now gives us more information with which to analyze future actions, even independent of Roosh himself. Encouraging discussion is good, and we all have different ideas about what discussion is the most productive, but I disagree that this was a discussion worth having. In the end we will have more information about claims, true, but we already had a fail-safe against false claims. Per my response to Roosh, I disagree. I do not agree that reflexive counterclaiming a false claim is necessarily the best move. If I don't agree, then it's possible the putative "real Zhang Bao" doesn't agree either, and thus the absence of a counterclaim isn't definitive evidence of anything. I don't think counter-claims should be reflexive. The real holder of a claimed role should think the options through. On Day 1, though, when the chances of a mis-lynch are so high, I think a counter-claim would be much better than holding back. The lack of a counter-claim isn't definitive, but in this case we have a lot of other scum to lynch and if there was a "real Zhang Bao" it would have been better to leave things alone and let them lay low or claim as they saw fit. Anti-town? In what way? What have we lost here? We've gained the ability to feel a bit more confident about Roosh. We've gained information on acceptable (and unacceptable) claiming techniques for power roles. We've had a lively discussion, producing plenty of posts for later analysis. And we haven't lynched a townie. What have we lost? Two real-life days of discussion, from which we can now springboard into five more? I reject the proposition that starting this conversation, or following it to its conclusion, was an anti-town action. And I'd like to hear your justification for characterizing it as such. How were we hurt by this discussion? Perhaps anti-town was a bit strong. I guess if you are town I just think it was a bad idea, but I think it benefited the scum more than the town in this case. First, I have about the same trust in Roosh's claim as I did before. Maybe it helped others, but his pulling out "oh, I thought my claim was OK, but then found out it wasn't last Night" doesn't help or hurt his case with me. Second, the power roles could seek guidance from the G[M]ods themselves, and I don't think they needed Roosh's revelation that he was mistaken to figure out that claiming a role without specifically naming it wasn't kosher. Third, the discussion was dominated by a minority of the players, so later analysis will be worth less than the discussion that would have happened without it. If you are town I suppose we just disagree on how likely Roosh was to be scum going into Today. I've been trying to look at possible motivations, though, and to me this Roosh hunt was a waste of two or three days that would have been better spent elsewhere. If you are scum, even if you think it was pro-town to go after Roosh, I think the real motive was to keep the spotlight on Roosh to distract us, or possibly you were hoping to get clarification on whether Roosh was indeed the doc he claimed and if he still had his powers, or possibly to out the other docs through their reactions to Roosh's claim. I see many reasons for scum to go after Roosh Today. That said, it wasn't starting the conversation that had me wondering what you were up to, but the fact that you were calling for Roosh's lynch with so little evidence. We are at a severe disadvantage in this game, and need to lynch scum Today or our chances of a win go way down. Lynching someone who can be counter-claimed if scum, but hasn't been, seems either shortsighted or scummy.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 8, 2008 2:41:55 GMT -5
Well, it is quite easy to take this idea (that the days spent discussing Roosh and his claim as being "wasted", and the people participating in it as being suspicious because they mis-spent our scum-hunting resources) and turn it on its ear. A scum could easily choose to not participate in such a conversation (regardless of the alignment of Roosh or any of the people discussing him), just add water and...*magical chimes*...you have a tidy little position from which to smear other players without directly getting your hands dirty.
With the only real negative consequence to avoid (besides being lynched him/herself) being that of contributing to the lynch of his/her scum buddy (add to that the fact that we've all seen scum sacrifice their own for town cred in other games, and in this game selling out a partner also earns them cross-kill immunity) and we are looking at 6 scummies who have the potential and incentive to facilitate the death of any other player.
Which brings me back to my opinion that any topic of conversation is worth talking about, and those of you who think we wasted time looking at Roosh (this includes Roosh himself) or otherwise rank discussion topics somehow, are going to be marinated in the above paranoia.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 8, 2008 8:47:10 GMT -5
nesta -
I guess I get where you're coming from, but:
(1) You are right that we differed on the likelihood of Roosh being scum, given what I perceived as his lie;
(2) I think the discussion we did have produced useful information;
and, most of all:
(3) I find it hard to credit the assertion that the discussion regarding Roosh stifled other, more putatively useful discussion, when in the aftermath of my supposedly time-wasting conversation hardly anyone said hardly anything.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Feb 8, 2008 8:50:33 GMT -5
Come on guys, no post since 10:30? Do we really need Roosh to stir up shit to add something to the Day? On that note, I'm headed to San Diego, so I may or not be on till Tuesday. Find some scum while I'm gone, will ya? Well, if you were still around, I'd ask you to post a bit more analysis yourself before you went around asking for more participation... but since you won't be around for a couple of days, I'll lay off. Anyhow, drainbead's perceived slip (perceived as such by myself only, apparently), and her continued poking into the Roosh/ storyteller affair, especially after it had been pretty much wrapped up satisfactorily, has kind of roused my suspicion. Sadly, though, I can't say I see much more of that behavior yesterDay. She pretty much got into an argument about perceived scumminess/townihood acording to volume of participation (she says loud participants during Day 1 are usually town). She also added assorted other reasons to recognize players as townies but not much more than that... I'm still uneasy about her, but not enough to vote for her. Yet. How is it that people keep ignoring Pleonast in all of this? This is twice now that someone has taken what I've said and interpreted it only to include Roosh, without taking any note of the fact that Pleonast came off to me as more scummy than Roosh after the whole argument was over. I just cannot see any way to reconcile what both of them have said. Pleonast has ignored direct questions to him to clarify what he asked to the mods to get the "line in the sand" idea. It's his statement that caused storyteller to jump on Roosh in the first place. He then unvoted Roosh after the second roleclaim contained information that directly contradicted something that he claimed the mods had said. To me, Pleonast caused this whole second roleclaim to happen. Semi-thankfully, if Roosh is telling the truth, he had already lost his powers before being forced to re-roleclaim, but I think this was done with the specific intent of forcing Roosh to lose his powers. vote Pleonast
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 8, 2008 14:50:47 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Feb 8, 2008 14:50:47 GMT -5
Where the hell is everyone? This is getting sucky.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Feb 8, 2008 15:24:13 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 8, 2008 15:24:13 GMT -5
I think we're just entering a weekend phase, in which participation is normally low. But the last 24 hours have been bad.
I'm going to think through the results of the argument and put the new situation into context, then reread - again. This time, taking notes.
|
|