|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 18, 2008 16:51:28 GMT -5
OK, this is profoundly discouraging. I have interest in doing analysis and continuing discussion, but I really don't want to waste my time if no one is going to engage at all anymore. Is anyone still even playing?
|
|
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:
|
Post by Death By Irony on Feb 18, 2008 17:43:54 GMT -5
The top-of-the-page, "and then everyone took their toys and went home" vote count:
1 - Pleonast (Pygmyrugger) 1 - Hal Briston (storyteller0910)
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 18, 2008 17:49:24 GMT -5
OK, this is profoundly discouraging. I have interest in doing analysis and continuing discussion, but I really don't want to waste my time if no one is going to engage at all anymore. Is anyone still even playing? I'm still here, but being one of the quieter folks it means I may not provide enough feedback for you. I'm still listening though. I'm wondering whether part of the problem is that in the first couple of Days we've lost many of the more prolific posters - NAF1138, Drainbead (who was at least posting Yesterday) and Roosh come straight to mind. Secondly was the unfortunate fact that Day dawned on a Sunday, when most people's participation tends to be at its lowest. On that subject, the best recent rules on timing were Pleonast's Conspicacy timing rules. Making the diurnal cycle one week made sure thqat people were participating in the crucial first and last days, and that the scum were able to put some thought into their ploys. There was also the profoundly discouraging Night One, which butchered vanilla players, and that may have impelled some of the others to keep their heads down. I think we might need the Mandates of Heaven to issue some wake-up calls.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Gir! on Feb 18, 2008 19:00:37 GMT -5
In case you're wondering how I came up with this list, it's all the people that voted for drainbead within the last 2 hours of the Day. I think the drainbead lynch was insanely stupid. We had a plan set into motion that we spent a good part of the first Day discussing. 24 hours before the Day's over, everybody votes for the person with the most votes. Now I thought we had set this system up so we could always do what was best for the town. Apparently, though, we set it up so we could always lynch somebody because at 24 hours No Lynch had the most votes and then everybody came in and was like "eh, I don't feel like no lynching, let's put together a hasty lynch wee." For scum, any lynch is better than no lynch. For town, any lynch is NOT better than no lynch. In the case of yesterDay, when everybody was being non-committal and saying they didn't really have anything coming up on their scumdar, suddenly piling onto somebody just to get a lynch was not pro-town. Well, except that drainbead was tied with No Lynch at the time that I voted, and was in the lead at the time everyone else voted. Why doesn't the person who created the tie make your list? ;D Or, seriously, why doesn't storyteller make the list, having voted for Peasant Smurf after the 24 hour deadline, who had only 2 votes at the time of story's vote? It didn't require us to vote "No Lynch" to get the no lynch, anyway. All we really needed to do was not get a majority on someone. So, why did I vote for drainbead? I wanted my suspicion of her comment on record, and to avoid the inevitable "Didn't Vote Day Two" black mark, as well as any "Well, You Said You Were Suspicious, But You Didn't Bother To Put Your Vote Behind It" discussions.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 18, 2008 19:49:08 GMT -5
It didn't require us to vote "No Lynch" to get the no lynch, anyway. All we really needed to do was not get a majority on someone. So, why did I vote for drainbead? I wanted my suspicion of her comment on record, and to avoid the inevitable "Didn't Vote Day Two" black mark, as well as any "Well, You Said You Were Suspicious, But You Didn't Bother To Put Your Vote Behind It" discussions. Except that the Storyteller Plan TM meant that, if a player had the most votes at the 24 hour deadline, then everyone else was expected to fall in behind the lynch. However, no less than six players - more than one third of the living players - jumped onto the bandwagon to lynch Drainbead after the deadline had passed. That's a lot of conscientious objectors to the plan everyone had supposedly bought into. Chance expectation would have one or two goons in that block. Probably two. But for now, I'm going to look elsewhere - specifically at the posts of the two players we know to be scum; Diomedes and Hawkeyeop. Let's see if they dropped a hint or two to their co-conspirators.
|
|
|
Post by diggitcamara on Feb 18, 2008 21:06:18 GMT -5
OK, this is profoundly discouraging. I have interest in doing analysis and continuing discussion, but I really don't want to waste my time if no one is going to engage at all anymore. Is anyone still even playing? Well, I'm still interested in the game (if that helps at all). However, I'm kind of stumped. Before this game started, my main method of rooting out scum involved watching voting patterns. My second method was to watch out for "perfect knowledge" patterns. However, in this game, both methods are pretty much useless (scum don't know all other scum members). Still, by now we have at least some hard data. Which would be easier to use if Roosh's posting hadn't drowned everyone else out. But, like you ( storyteller) I'm willing... heck, I need some ideas. Where is everybody?
|
|
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 18, 2008 21:16:59 GMT -5
Oh, for the love of crap, how long are we going to pound on this misconception?? Yes, best case, scum will kill other scum. But better scum kill vanilla then take out a power role! If Pleo (assuming he's vanilla town, and this all came down the way you're thinking) is willing to roll the dice on a ploy like that, then that's up to him. But I will never, ever, be able to wrap my head around the idea that it's a good idea to vote for town just because they have a different play style than you do. Oh, unless that townie is on a different team than you are, of course. To put it mildly, I think you're wrong. To put it eloquently, what story said. I really with Pleo would get in here to defend himself, instead of having you do it for him (teammates?) although I understand why he might not be wanting to. Regardless, the way things stand right now, we know he's not one of two verifiable townies, so his chances of being scum are higher than everybody else's.
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Feb 18, 2008 22:24:52 GMT -5
(2) It is acceptable (and to be expected) for vanillas) to lie/shade the truth if they want, in an effort to deceive the scum and acheive their own ends. Ok story, fair enough -- I'll back off a bit on that part. No, vanillas shouldn't toss around any kind of claim that they want in the hope that they'll bait scum into ignoring power roles. I'll maintain that it can, in extremely rare cases, be a valid strategy -- but no, as a rule you shouldn't go that route. My frustration was born of Santo seeming to think that Pleo's death would be in the town's best interest, no matter which side Pleo is on. "Misleading = lying, and you should die" is a statement I just can't get behind. However, that's the chance you take if you're going to play that way (and again, this is all working under the assumption that Pleo is indeed playing that way). If he was trying a gambit and failed, then he's got a deep hole to dig out of. I'm just not going to kick extra dirt on him without another reason, and I'm sure as hell not going to take a "it doesn't matter if he was town, he lied" stance if he comes up clean.
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Feb 18, 2008 22:30:10 GMT -5
Ah, damnit...why is it that I so often click on the "most recent post" link on the main page, and it takes me to the second-to-most-recent page?? I missed everything from this page when I made my last post. Ah well...anyway... I really with Pleo would get in here to defend himself, instead of having you do it for him Agreed... Considering all the defending I'm doing, I certainly hope so.
|
|
|
Post by Greedy Smurf on Feb 18, 2008 22:32:51 GMT -5
I'm seeing some light at the end of the tunnel at work, so I can more than just briefly check in. Sp straight into it with a question Vote PleonastIf he was one of the two remaining town power roles, he would have KNOWN that one of the factions he was protecting against had died! Can you explain this statement to me please Santo, I've read it like 12 times and can't figure out what you're saying. I don't know if my brain has officially been turned to mush from my 12 hour days of late, but I can't quite grasp it. Yes I'm serious, I'm not being obtuse or anything, I'm probably not getting that 1 + 1 = 2 or something similar that will make me feel extremely stupid.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 18, 2008 22:43:17 GMT -5
I'm still here too. Kassia and I went up to my Mom's this weekend (aka dialup land) and instead of making a big fuss about being "away", I resolved to check in a couple of times. When I did, there had barely been a handful of posts since my last post, so I figured I could just get back in the fray upon our return (5 minutes ago).
I also think some post-mortem dissection of Hawk and Dio is worth some attention, and will be seeing what I can come up with from there.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 18, 2008 23:13:54 GMT -5
I'm seeing some light at the end of the tunnel at work, so I can more than just briefly check in. Sp straight into it with a question Vote PleonastIf he was one of the two remaining town power roles, he would have KNOWN that one of the factions he was protecting against had died! Can you explain this statement to me please Santo, I've read it like 12 times and can't figure out what you're saying. I don't know if my brain has officially been turned to mush from my 12 hour days of late, but I can't quite grasp it. Yes I'm serious, I'm not being obtuse or anything, I'm probably not getting that 1 + 1 = 2 or something similar that will make me feel extremely stupid. FWIW, here is my take on what Santo said: I'll start with a link to the Role PMs for the town roles that are still with us (I was going to quote the Role PMs in this post for ease of reading, but started to second guess my specific recollection of the rules, so I opted to just link to the Mod post instead.... ): psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=rottk&action=display&thread=1200699218&page=1#1200699218Each of the Zhangs are able to protect only against one scum faction each. Santo alleges that Pleo would not have been thrown for a loop by the Dawn role call of the dead if he truly was a town power, implying that the Zhangs (and Zuo Ci) would all be intimately aware of their charge, i.e. all connotations of the roster of players and alignments. As for how compelling I find Santos' argument... Meh. Some roles have multiple names (for example, the scummies have unique first/lasts and a shared faction). I personally just refer to my notes and the sticky posts from the Mods quite often. It is at least reasonable to think that Pleo is just as lost as I am without my notes, and it is also at least reasonable to think that Pleo might try and post relying on just his memory of his notes (which is also something I've done on occasion). The second thing that comes to mind with the Santos statement is the meta-game memory of his pointing out my infamous "slip" as a fellow scum in the Firefly game. In summary, at this point neither Pleo's nor Santos' pieces are moving on my mental continuum board.
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Feb 19, 2008 0:57:11 GMT -5
Something has been nagging me about Cookies, which has kept me moderately suspicious of her. Looking back through her posts I think the primary reason early on was that she seems very worried about how she is perceived. I think scum are more likely to be concerned about this, especially in this game. The best examples are:
1.111:
1.323:
[underline mine]
1.382:
[underline mine]
This one is a little less clear, but in post 2.180 she says this:
This was about why NAF might have been killed, which might implicate her since she had been going after NAF on Day 1.
Another thing that pinged my scumdar was her response to the Night 1 kills in 2.7:
I found this odd because I saw no reason at the time for her to assume NAF was Vig killed. She said this before it was revealed that NAF was town instead of scum. When asked why she thought this her justification was:
2.13
It was later pointed out that maybe piratepete was a cross-kill due to the and in the way he was killed, but this wasn't the reason she thought that Hockey had killed someone. This strikes me as someone with a little extra information about who one of the factions targeted.
Vote Cookies
On preview: I tried to link to the posts but I can't seem to get it to work, so I removed the links.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 19, 2008 1:09:28 GMT -5
WIFOM Defense for you.
The scum do not have the perfect knowledge that you imply I am displaying. They have the same imperfect methods of hypothesis as the rest of us. With only their own target being known, they each have no idea which of the other killing roles are responsible for any other night deaths.
Now, do I know this because I'm scum, or because I'm thinking like one?
|
|
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 19, 2008 1:13:06 GMT -5
<snip>My frustration was born of Santo seeming to think that Pleo's death would be in the town's best interest, no matter which side Pleo is on. "Misleading = lying, and you should die" is a statement I just can't get behind.<snip> While this is all hypothetical until Pleo decides to bring his ball back, that was just a bit of overstatement, because even if Pleo is Vanilla, how are we supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff if we're being misled. In other words, bad Pleo, no donut! The thing is, though, as we all know, scum in this game are probably going to claim Vanilla when they're under the knife. That is, unless they have a strong fake claim they've already been setting up that they can point to. In other words, what I meant was, when Pleo claims Vanilla, I think he should die, because I think he'll be lying.
|
|
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 19, 2008 1:33:04 GMT -5
Upon preview, Smurf, cookies got the gist of my argument down, but I've added more detail to the first part of my response below to perhaps clarify it in case it's still a bit murky. <snip> As for how compelling I find Santos' argument... Meh. Some roles have multiple names (for example, the scummies have unique first/lasts and a shared faction). Sorry, Cookies, but this simply isn't true. Since in China, the family name is written first, each group shares the same "first" name. Tsao, Sun, and Liu. That's it, just a four letter name. A four letter character name of somebody I'm able to protect against is something I, personally, would remember. I've never taken notes on a Mafia game. Just not my style. But then again, I've never taken notes in class, either. Regardless, I don't see how somebody would just not remember a four letter word of the people they're protecting against. You'll recall that we've both stated that we believe our respective sides of that debacle would have been identical had we been town. This is a null tell, at best. Umm, Pleo doesn't have a piece, he hasn't been here to defend himself yet.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 19, 2008 2:34:23 GMT -5
I mean "piece" as in the little iron or race car or top hat that I use to distinguish players on the "playing board" that I neglected to sufficiently detail from my over-active imagination.
|
|
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 19, 2008 8:46:57 GMT -5
I mean "piece" as in the little iron or race car or top hat that I use to distinguish players on the "playing board" that I neglected to sufficiently detail from my over-active imagination. Ahh, I understand. I thought you meant it as in, the piece of information he's provided us to analyze.
|
|
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 19, 2008 8:51:38 GMT -5
Ehh, what the hell, I was going to hold off on pointing this out, but I figure most people have already figured it out by now anyway. Perhaps the most compelling reason Pleo can't be a minor doc is because all the docs have the same family name, Zhang. I understand what Cookies is saying about the notes, but I would imagine one would know at least their own character name. I still don't understand why Pleo was so quick to "assume" the worst, either, I wish he'd get his butt in here, though.
|
|
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 19, 2008 8:54:12 GMT -5
WIFOM Defense for you. The scum do not have the perfect knowledge that you imply I am displaying. They have the same imperfect methods of hypothesis as the rest of us. With only their own target being known, they each have no idea which of the other killing roles are responsible for any other night deaths. Now, do I know this because I'm scum, or because I'm thinking like one? Why did you present this as WiFoM? In reality, it's a pretty obvious fact. It's inherent in the game, since each individual scum only has (had) a partner, and not a whole team.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 19, 2008 10:35:25 GMT -5
I'd hazard a guess that I'm one of those folks who uses the phrases "WiFoM" (and "begs the question") a bit too often and in certain situations that don't correctly apply.
After reading my (rather short) response draft to nesta's vote, the paranoid voice in my head countered, "Aha! But you could be aware of that because scum are intimately aware of that, ergo, you are scum!", which is what prompted the WiFoM comment. One of these days I'll consistently and correctly capitalize the acronym too.
|
|
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 19, 2008 11:58:06 GMT -5
I'd hazard a guess that I'm one of those folks who uses the phrases "WiFoM" (and "begs the question") a bit too often and in certain situations that don't correctly apply. After reading my (rather short) response draft to nesta's vote, the paranoid voice in my head countered, "Aha! But you could be aware of that because scum are intimately aware of that, ergo, you are scum!", which is what prompted the WiFoM comment. One of these days I'll consistently and correctly capitalize the acronym too. The thing is, nesta's post wasn't about you exhibiting perfect knowledge. It was about the five specific quoted posts where you are intentionally distancing yourself from all other players.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 19, 2008 13:03:08 GMT -5
I'd hazard a guess that I'm one of those folks who uses the phrases "WiFoM" (and "begs the question") a bit too often and in certain situations that don't correctly apply. After reading my (rather short) response draft to nesta's vote, the paranoid voice in my head countered, "Aha! But you could be aware of that because scum are intimately aware of that, ergo, you are scum!", which is what prompted the WiFoM comment. One of these days I'll consistently and correctly capitalize the acronym too. The thing is, nesta's post wasn't about you exhibiting perfect knowledge. It was about the five specific quoted posts where you are intentionally distancing yourself from all other players. <snippage> I found this odd because I saw no reason at the time for her to assume NAF was Vig killed. She said this before it was revealed that NAF was town instead of scum. When asked why she thought this her justification was: 2.13 It was later pointed out that maybe piratepete was a cross-kill due to the and in the way he was killed, but this wasn't the reason she thought that Hockey had killed someone. This strikes me as someone with a little extra information about who one of the factions targeted. Vote Cookies
<snippage>
Well, this is a different "thing" than the question as to my use of "WiFoM".
As for a transparent desire to distance myself from other players, that is simple. I trust none of you, and I've seen plenty of innocents die due to guilt by association.
The thing is, we are all smart people. Chances are we are not going to bear all original thoughts all the time. Sometimes I feel it is important, especially in cases where topics of conversation are lacking, to agree with something publicaly. Along with a general (and healthy) lack of trust for you all, I don't always trust you (or myself sometimes) to think and/or choose wisely. So I reiterate the obvious sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 19, 2008 13:04:34 GMT -5
Gah. Missed a quote tag or two in there, between the <snippage>s
|
|
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 19, 2008 13:11:13 GMT -5
Uh, oh, here we go with the whole and thing again! <snip> The thing is, we are all smart people. Chances are we are not going to bear all original thoughts all the time. Sometimes I feel it is important, especially in cases where topics of conversation are lacking, to agree with something publicaly. Along with a general (and healthy) lack of trust for you all, I don't always trust you (or myself sometimes) to think and/or choose wisely. So I reiterate the obvious sometimes. It's one thing to agree with somebody publicly. It's another to say, "I agree with Cookies, but it's not because we know we're teammates!". I don't think we need to dwell on this though. To me, it's something that's been noted, and can come back to later. Speaking of a lack of conversation, though, does anybody else wanna come post, or should we make this the " Cookies and Rugger" show? Just kidding. Kind of.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 19, 2008 14:58:28 GMT -5
Sorry to all, came back from Boston last night and a 10 hour train ride bodes not well for the brain. atarus, two things: While I understand where you're coming from on the 24 hour plan, I guess I didn't recognize "No Lynch" as being "the person with the most votes". Although, I will note that Pleo is on your list, which brings me to... Part of the problem is that we didn't talk about all possibilities. The way I saw it, when there was 24 hours to go 8 people had voted out of 16, that's half. Of that half, half voted no lynch. 8 people weren't confident enough to have their vote on anybody before 24 hours were up (when we had more than a week to decide). In my opinion that should trigger a no lynch since 8 people didn't have a strong enough opinion on anything to vote for somebody before our self-imposed deadline and out of the other 8, half wanted a no lynch. Of course, my opinion apparently wasn't shared with everyone else. One thing I've been suspicious of Pleonast about is the fact that he is normally the type of player who looks for the loopholes. In Blade Runner he tried to remove the Governor plan as he found it anti-town. So if he was pro-town, I would think that Pleonast would applaud Roosh's trying to work around the no role-claim policy and not try to bring him down publicly. I voted with my scumdar ping. Drain's statement stuck out like a sore thumb to me. I would have been fine with a no lynch, but lynching a scum would have been better. I'll need to review the vote counts a bit, but from my memory the "no lynch" crew only had the "most votes" for a little while, and there were plenty of other votes on the table as well. You [ atarus] make it sound like it no lynch had a much stronger presence than it actualy did, if my memory is correct. Here's the schedule of voting: Noon, Feb. 12: First No Lynch vote by me. 5:46 PM, Feb. 12: Fourth No Lynch vote by you. At midnight, Feb. 12, the vote count looked as so: 4 - No Lynch (atarus, drainbead, mhaye, Cookies) 3 - drainbead (Diomedes, diggitcamara, hawkeyeop) 1 - storyteller0910 (RoOsh) At 5:10 PM Feb. 13, Roosh votes drainbead - the fourth vote. At 10:18 PM Feb. 13 , Kat votes Drainbead - the fifth vote. Voting for a no lynch had just as strong a presence within the last 24 hours as voting for drainbead did. And as I said to Rugger above, at the time of the artificial deadline there weren't "plenty of votes" on the table, there were 8. Half were for no lynch, the other half were for people. Or, seriously, why doesn't storyteller make the list, having voted for Peasant Smurf after the 24 hour deadline, who had only 2 votes at the time of story's vote? It didn't require us to vote "No Lynch" to get the no lynch, anyway. All we really needed to do was not get a majority on someone. So, why did I vote for drainbead? I wanted my suspicion of her comment on record, and to avoid the inevitable "Didn't Vote Day Two" black mark, as well as any "Well, You Said You Were Suspicious, But You Didn't Bother To Put Your Vote Behind It" discussions. It's the timing of the votes. 5 votes for drainbead came within the last 2 hours of the Day. If 5 people jumped on and voted for Peasant Smurf within the last two hours of the Day, I'd be looking at them. The fact is we had an artificial deadline in place and a plan to ensure we didn't make a dumb mistake and a last minute lynch and a good portion of everyone completely ignored it. The drainbead lynch was completely anti-town. Lynching her so quickly only helped scum. If you wanted your suspicion of her comment on record? Why didn't you vote for her BEFORE the last 2 hours of the Day? You made a reply before the 24-hour deadline but only decided to vote when there were 2 hours left, and conveniently in time to start a last-minute bandwagon to get someone lynched. That's highly suspicious to me. I'll go ahead and Vote Kat for the moment as I am most suspicious of you, but Pleonast is close behind.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 19, 2008 15:04:13 GMT -5
Thank the Mandate of Heaven, actual chatter! Some interesting ideas getting floated here. Time for re-read; see you in a few.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 19, 2008 15:29:41 GMT -5
Ehh, what the hell, I was going to hold off on pointing this out, but I figure most people have already figured it out by now anyway. Perhaps the most compelling reason Pleo can't be a minor doc is because all the docs have the same family name, Zhang. I understand what Cookies is saying about the notes, but I would imagine one would know at least their own character name. That's a fair point, and one I hadn't thought of myself. But it's not really enough to generate suspicion, because I can just as easily imagine that the minor docs mostly glanced at their character name and then internalized: "I'm a minor doc and my enemy faction is X." The name, really, is secondary and not worth the head space. Pleonast is an interesting case, actually. Unlike Roosh, he has clearly said nothing even implying the existence of powers; we have done the extrapolating and assumed some things. Notice that he has assiduously avoided engaging any of us in discussion on this subject. Even during the Roosh kerfuffle, when the rest of us were saying things like "clearly, Pleo is either a power role or scum," he never even quoted those statements or acknowledged their existence; he just acted as if they never happened. Which means, if he is a power role, he very likely still has his powers. He is trying to avoid being drawn into a discussion about this because, unlike Roosh, he still has something to lose. And yet, on this page, we have Santo Rugger and Hal Briston, calling for Pleonast to "defend himself" on the specifics of a role claim he didn't make. Why should he defend himself? He made no claim. And if he does have a power role, he may very well cross some sort of line in the defending, and lose his powers. This would be bad for the town. It would be good for certain others. "But Frank," you say to me, "didn't you do the same thing to Roosh?" Not exactly. Roosh made a claim. He said something that he clearly intended us to read as a power role claim of the role he turned out to have. Pleonast has done no such thing. His only statement that is being read as an indicator of possible power role status was when he indicated that he had spoken to the moderator, and that she had told him that implicit claims were verboten. "Ah!" you say. "So Pleo was doing the same thing Roosh was - making a statement we were intended to read as 'I have a power role.' After all, if Dot said that only power roles get an answer to that question, and Dot gave an answer to Pleo, then Pleo is a power role." Except... Pleo described his conversation with DbI some time before DbI told us that only power roles would be given information on valid role claims. He wasn't even attempting an implicit role claim. At the time, Pleo had no way of knowing that in a few posts, DbI would make a statement suggesting that Pleo's previous statement implied that he was a power role. This is fundamentally important. What Pleo said was neither a role claim or an implicit attempt at one - the information that turned it into a power role tell came later. It is this information that argues, to me, strongly in favor of the idea that Pleo is telling the truth. More importantly, it means that calling upon him to come in here and "defend" his role claim, which was not a role claim, amounts to fishing for him to lose his powers if he's telling the truth. So my vote on Hal stands, for the moment, since he has agreed with Santo that Pleo should mount a defense. But I'm also going to send a big FoS in the direction of the estimable Former Gvr. Rugger, and begin the next wave of analysis with him. God, I hope some of that made sense.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 19, 2008 15:30:17 GMT -5
Oh, geez, heh.
Well, I guess you all know my real name now.
|
|
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 19, 2008 16:26:30 GMT -5
I didn't realize that DbI's post was made after Pleo made his remark. Regardless, the only reason he was so interested in Bladerunner was because he had a role that it mattered to. Why else would he care enough about how the power roles can and can't claim if he wasn't one. It wasn't an implicit claim, but it sure planted a seed in a lot of people's heads. Remember that we're allowed to speculate as much as we'd like about a players role without any adverse effects to said role. That may have been why he kept zipped up on that front. Defending may be too strong of a word, but I would like for Pleo to address this ASAP, because it's frustrating to keep coming up with my own hypothetical to shoot down. Oh, geez, heh. Well, I guess you all know my real name now. Some of us already knew it. It's pretty easy to remember when it's your dad's name. <snip>But I'm also going to send a big FoS in the direction of the estimable Former Gvr. Rugger, and begin the next wave of analysis with him.<snip> We all know your alignment last time you did 8-)that.
|
|