|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 19, 2008 16:34:30 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. Not mine. Pleonast is always interested in examining every corner of the rulebook no matter whether the rules obviously affect him or not. Until Dbi's post, as far as I could tell, he could just as easily be fishing scum, a power role looking for loopholes, or a curious vanilla hoping to identify a false claim. We all know your alignment last time you did 8-)that. 'tis true. What was your alignment that, time, remind me? ;D
|
|
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 17:04:24 GMT -5
<snip>Not mine. Pleonast is always interested in examining every corner of the rulebook no matter whether the rules obviously affect him or not. Until Dbi's post, as far as I could tell, he could just as easily be fishing scum, a power role looking for loopholes, or a curious vanilla hoping to identify a false claim. I disagree. Announcing it makes wonder why. Why would a power role say something like that? It doesn't make sense. But I digress. I'm not going to pound this one into the ground, but it saddens me that there's nobody else is really talking about anything. Damn it, give me a reason to think you're scum, scum! Fixed, sort of. Nested quoteboxes being so tempramental, I just deleted a set so not to cause problems.
|
|
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 17:06:05 GMT -5
Aww, shucks.... little help up there, DbI?
If anybody reads it before she gets to it, I flubbed the bottom part of the quote tags.
|
|
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 19, 2008 17:42:03 GMT -5
Top-of-the-page votecount: 1 - Pleonast (Pygmyrugger) 1 - Hal Briston (storyteller0910) 1 - CometotheDarkSideWeHaveCookies (nesta) 1 - Kat (atarus)
I think some people have yet to either post in-game or answer my prod. The Mandate of Heaven will begin replacing in about 1 hour, so please get your rear ends moving before then. Nevermind, everybody is present and accounted for. Please proceed with trying to lynch each other.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 19, 2008 19:01:33 GMT -5
Well since everybody says they're going to do it, I'll just go ahead and provide a summary of Diomedes-the-scum's posts.
Day One
Post 1.10 - Votes "Hawkeyepoop" (in jest?)
Post 1.87 - Mentions he doesn't think we can count on weak docs saving anyone because of logistics; pro Vig not killing at night (gee I wonder why?)
Post 1.88 - Provides Lurker-Vision Post Count
Post 1.131 - Unvotes Hawkeyepoop and votes Roosh
Post 1.173 - Explains vote for Roosh and casts suspicious on him for his "whininess" regarding Rugger's comments.
Post 1.188 - Mentions that hunting for scum is like hunting serial killers in this game, and the best way for an SK to stay alive is to lurk, votes koldanar for lurking.
Also this quote comes from his post which I find interesting:
This is a case of a scum trying to twist a no-lynch to make it seem like it's bad for the town. Remember: Any lynch is better than no lynch for scum aside from their partner.
Post 1.189 - Grammar correction for his previous post.
Post 1.207 - Semi-defends koldanar and talks about plausible newbie tactics.
Post 1.208 - Mentions his top three candidates are koldanar, pete, and Roosh.
Post 1.217 - Rugger questioned him on his interpretation of the deadline, he explains.
Post 1.232 - Further explanation of his vote for Roosh and why he switched to koldanar.
Post 1.310 - Smudges Cookies for presenting the idea that a no-lynch isn't necessarily bad on Day One, calls a no-lynch an "anti-town" move.
Post 1.366 - Calls out pete for unvoting and brings up no-lynch as bad again.
Post 1.367 - NETA fix on previous post.
Post 1.371 - Gives a vote count of sorts.
--- Day Two
Post 2.71 - Agrees with drainbead, says Roosh's play doesn't make any sense from a scum perspective (and he would know!); says "a scum has to do whatever it takes to stay alive"; Diomedes says Re: Pleo vs. Roosh: "Honestly, I believe we have a town on town power role matchup here"; says piratepete was going to be his top candidate but has to go back and reread now.
Post 2.127 - Reiterates he thinks a no-lynch is a bad idea.
Post 2.165 - Says that most of the discussion the first two Days revolved around Roosh and unfortunately most of the major discussors didn't come across as scummy; Votes for drainbead for "beating a dead horse" (involving the Roosh/Pleo thing)
Post 2.226 - Once again reiterates that "no lynch" is a bad idea and once again calls it an anti-town.
--------
Conclusion:
He doesn't really implicate anybody else. All the people he significantly mentioned and/or voted for are dead now, except for Cookies and Pleo. He does, however, hammer the idea that a no-lynch is a bad idea for many of his posts.
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Feb 20, 2008 0:05:46 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? Interesting chewbacca WiFoM defense. I wasn't trying to imply that you had perfect knowledge, but that with a little more knowledge than the rest of us that you would be more likely to think that the Vig had been active during Night 1. I probably would have just flagged this as a possible strange take on the Night 1 kills, but not necessarily noteworthy, but then the and in pete's death was pointed out, by none other than Hockey it turns out (post 2.16): [quoting hockeymonkey] Later DBI replied about the and saying (post 2.45): [quoting DBI] So I think you were right that Hockey killed someone, but that it was pete, not NAF. When Day 2 started and we found out who was dead it didn't occur to me that the Vig had been active because there were three kills and three scum factions, and the conventional wisdom is for the Vig to sit out until they have a good read on someone. It seems obvious in hindsight that Hockey knew there had been an overlap on pete due to extra knowledge she had (whom she had killed and the way she did it), and I think your conclusion that there had been an overlap falls into the same "extra information" camp. Whether you know that the scum don't have perfect information because you are scum or are just able to think like them is beside point, especially because we all know this or we haven't been paying any attention to the game setup. 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. Again it wouldn't have struck me as necessarily noteworthy if you had done it just once, but that you did it many times and it became a pattern. I think it was probably unconscious, but worrying that you might be lynched to the point of repeatedly trying to preemptively avoid it seems scummy.
|
|
|
Post by diggitcamara on Feb 20, 2008 8:37:57 GMT -5
Well, it's close to crunch time and the most solid lead I have seen all Day is the one pointing at those who were "Johnny-come-late" participants at the Drainbead. So, I'll vote Kat for now, pending further investigation of her posts.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Feb 20, 2008 9:58:32 GMT -5
Ok, I have not read the thread yet. I was on vacation (like I said at the beginning of the thread) until yesterday. And yesterday I spent my scant Mafia time on the SDMB game, which is at a critical juncture.
For all those voting or considering to vote for me: I've already made the best claim I can, and if the Town is too dense to see it, we never had a chance to begin with.
As for my lack of knowledge of the Factions, Chinese names don't linger in my memory.
|
|
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 20, 2008 10:02:29 GMT -5
<snip> For all those voting or considering to vote for me: I've already made the best claim I can, and if the Town is too dense to see it, we never had a chance to begin with.<snip> Way to rally the troops! Looks like it's game, set, and match.
|
|
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 20, 2008 12:08:07 GMT -5
<snip>As for my lack of knowledge of the Factions, Chinese names don't linger in my memory. I'm still really confused. If you admit to not knowing the names of the factions, why did you act so upset at Daybreak? That's like being a Hillary supporter, hearing the results in Wisconsin were 58-41, and celebrating, only to find out that they were 58-41 Obama. I simply don't understand. With a full four named players gone, one would think we got at least one scum. Yet you were immediately saddened. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Feb 20, 2008 13:28:30 GMT -5
<snip>As for my lack of knowledge of the Factions, Chinese names don't linger in my memory. I'm still really confused. If you admit to not knowing the names of the factions, why did you act so upset at Daybreak? That's like being a Hillary supporter, hearing the results in Wisconsin were 58-41, and celebrating, only to find out that they were 58-41 Obama. I simply don't understand. With a full four named players gone, one would think we got at least one scum. Yet you were immediately saddened. Why? Simple confusion about which names are on which sides. Focusing your efforts on me is not beneficial to the Town.
|
|
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 20, 2008 13:53:19 GMT -5
<snip> Focusing your efforts on me is not beneficial to the Town. That's what scum would say, too. Care to enlighten me on who I should be focusing on, oh noble one?
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Feb 20, 2008 14:06:50 GMT -5
<snip> Focusing your efforts on me is not beneficial to the Town. That's what scum would say, too. Care to enlighten me on who I should be focusing on, oh noble one? Ah, flattery will get you everywhere. I have no clue at this point. Unfortunately for this game, I've been focusing on the other one. If the game's not over now, I'll have the Night to reread this one.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 20, 2008 14:22:09 GMT -5
Focusing your efforts on me is not beneficial to the Town. I seem to recall Roosh saying the exact same thing yesterday, complete with hand waving and Jedi Mind Tricking. And I seem to recall a lot of people completely ignoring that and saying Roosh doesn't have any right to tell people where they should or should not focus their efforts. Why do you think you saying it now will result in anything different?
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 20, 2008 15:07:19 GMT -5
And here's Hawkeyeop-the-scum's posts in a nice little summary.
Day One:
1.5: Asks question about how the town will deal with role-claims. Supports "shoot first, ask questions later" idea.
1.6: Suggests his modification to storyteller's lynch plan.
1.14: Votes Roosh for starting the hawkeyepoop nickname trend.
1.16: Continues discussion with storyteller about lynch plan.
1.17: Discussion about in what case power roles lose powers.
1.23: Asks for reasoning from NAF about vote for him.
1.44: Response to NAF. Says he is more comfortable now so that's why his tone is different.
1.45: Votes to use his system of voting.
1.58: Clarifies his voting for Roosh because of the nickname.
1.114: Says NAF's case against Roosh is fairly strong.
1.137: Clearing up a vote tally mistakes by a God-Mod.
1.153: Unvotes Roosh and votes Smurf because he is "playing scared" and only scum would have reason to play that way.
1.163: Response to the Roosh-Rugger argument and Roosh's oog note.
1.202: Provides some math about likelihood of scum killing scum at night as well as town's chances of lynching scum. Mentions town should think about moving away from the idea that lynching for the sake of lynching is always good. (!)
1.203: Edit by way of post for previous post.
1.226: Response to Kat that he initially voted for Roosh for the nickname, but had a more concrete reason because he felt Roosh was trying to stifle creativity.
1.257: Mentions that Denouement/pete is his #2 suspect, but the things he has issues with was what Denouement said so he can't ask pete to clarify.
1.282: Is not sure about Roosh's not-exactly-a-claim. Says his claim does not confirm him as town but doesn't give anyone the ability to refute the claim.
1.287: Realizes he misread Roosh's claim and takes back his previous post.
1.333: Semi-joking post towards NAF about other game.
1.380: Switches vote to koldanar under the lynch plan established.
1.383: Asks if a majority has been hit yet.
---
Day Two
2.3: Initial reaction he really thought NAF was town. Says that koldanar and pete were both rookies making rookie mistakes and too much was read into it.
2.5: Says that he doesn't think scum would care if they killed town or scum, they would be more concerned with not overlapping with other scum in order to maximize death. Says he thought scum would be unlikely to kill pete since he was a prime lynching target.
(A little insight? Does this possibly imply Hawkeye and his pal did not kill pete Night One?)
2.12: After mod-fix of NAF's role, says we had as bad a night as possible to be expected.
2.14: FOSes drainbead for asking a question to a mod about the issues around Roosh's role-claim.
2.28: Provides counterpoint to story saying that Roosh might have known he would lose his powers from his claim, but wanted to keep scum guessing in terms of if he still had them. Says he will not vote Roosh unless there is a counterclaim.
2.36: Continued debate with drainbead. Assumes she is not a power role because power roles already know the answer to her question. Says vanilla town has no real use for the answer to her question, so he thinks she's scum.
2.40: Says without a counterclaim, he can't see how Roosh is lying.
2.43: He says a trade-off of lynching a scum for a weak doc losing their abilities is worth it.
2.48: Doesn't see how Roosh is a "major power role". Thinks Roosh's half-claim is helpful to the town because the power roles have the same amount of info, vanilla doesn't need the info the power roles have, and the scum would lack the knowledge of who they can successfully kill.
2.52: FOSes storyteller for changing his mind about never lynch a claimed role without a counterclaim.
2.55: Another question towards storyteller about why he changed his mind on Roosh.
2.92: Continues his defense of Roosh and the fact that he won't vote Roosh without a counterclaim.
2.98: Argues that losing the "little power" of a weak doc to catch and lynch a scum is worth it.
2.192: Apologizes for lack of posting because of focus on the other game.
2.197: Mentions he is very against a no lynch (!) because the numbers didn't make sense since 3 townies had been killed at Night. Says even picking randomly we are more likely to lynch a scum than a townie.
2.204: Lists his current suspects:
#4 - Hockeymonkey for her vote on piratepete Day One. #3 - Smurf for same reason as Day One, plus he hasn't done much of anything. #2 - Storyteller for the fact that he changed his mind on lynching claimed power roles. #1 - Drainbead for searching for info a power role already should know and a vanilla townie wouldn't care about. Also cites the fact that she attempted to get Pleonast lynched because "she believes he is a power role."
Also defends Roosh and the fact that town power roles do sometimes lie for the good of the town.
2.207 - Clarifies his thought: says "town power roles never lie is a false statement."
2.208 - More arguing for the idea that what Roosh did is not necessarily bad. Once again mentions the idea that scum will most likely try to avoid targeting the same person so they won't target anyone obvious. Mentions forcing Roosh to reclaim was bad for the town because it gave scum vital information on what claims would allow roles to keep their powers.
2.210 - Surprise that Pleonast was forced to lie in Blade Runner.
2.217 - Asks for everyone who hasn't voted to get a vote on the table, even if it is for no lynch.
-----
Conclusion: Like Diomedes, he doesn't really implicate anybody else. Of his top suspicion list he gave at the end of Day Two, two are dead. The other two are storyteller and Smurf. He kept his vote on Smurf until the artificial deadline forced him to switch to koldanar. Would a scum keep his vote on his scum buddy until the faux-end of the Day? Probably not. As for storyteller, he and storyteller butted heads for most of Day Two about whether it was okay for town power roles to lie. I don't think it was a manufactured argument or a planned disagreement, so I don't think storyteller is Hawkeye's partner either.
Hawkeye championed the idea that it was okay for town power roles to lie. Why would a scum do that? Probably because any power roles lying would keep attention off him and on the town power roles. He was also defending Roosh a lot, perhaps to gain some townie cred if Roosh died and turned up town.
Also, on Day One he subtly snuck in the idea that maybe no lynch was an okay idea that should be thought about, but on Day Two when it became put up or shut up, he reversed opinion and found reason to support any lynch is better than no lynch.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 20, 2008 15:22:24 GMT -5
Focusing your efforts on me is not beneficial to the Town. I seem to recall Roosh saying the exact same thing yesterday, complete with hand waving and Jedi Mind Tricking. And I seem to recall a lot of people completely ignoring that and saying Roosh doesn't have any right to tell people where they should or should not focus their efforts. Why do you think you saying it now will result in anything different? I'm not Pleonast, but I did try to describe some of what I see as the salient differences between his situation and Roosh's situation yesterDay in my last lengthy post. Most fundamentally, we had very strong indication that Roosh had, in fact, lied, a situation that demands attention. Is there any indication that Pleonast has lied or manipulated the truth so far? If not, I'd prefer - given what we know - to leave him the heck alone. I'll just say it, since me saying it won't affect his powers if I'm right. I think there's a really good chance that he turns out to be the full doctor, which is the one power role that, if it is left unmolested, could win us the game at the end, or dramatically increase our chances of winning. Is there evidence that he's lied or otherwise been scummy that's compelling enough to justify pursuing him, and risking the loss of that advantage? I'd vote "No."
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Feb 20, 2008 15:31:08 GMT -5
Focusing your efforts on me is not beneficial to the Town. I seem to recall Roosh saying the exact same thing yesterday, complete with hand waving and Jedi Mind Tricking. And I seem to recall a lot of people completely ignoring that and saying Roosh doesn't have any right to tell people where they should or should not focus their efforts. Why do you think you saying it now will result in anything different? I thought Roosh was trying to disavow some things he said. I'm simply saying it's not going to help us to keep harping on me. I've defended myself as much as I'm going to. I haven't posted much in this game. Go back and reread what I've said. I'm not scum.
|
|
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 20, 2008 16:02:46 GMT -5
<snip>I'd prefer - given what we know - to leave him the heck alone. <snip> Who do you prefer we go after?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 20, 2008 16:13:30 GMT -5
<snip>I'd prefer - given what we know - to leave him the heck alone. <snip> Who do you prefer we go after? That's a bit of a disingenuous question. I presently have a vote on the table, which outlines my preference on that front pretty clearly.
|
|
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 20, 2008 16:51:22 GMT -5
That's a bit of a disingenuous question. I presently have a vote on the table, which outlines my preference on that front pretty clearly. Fair enough. My bad. I'm just frustrated that (almost) nobody else does.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 20, 2008 19:03:15 GMT -5
OMGUS me all you like, but vote Nesta. The perfect knowledge portion of his accusations against were pointed out to be baseless, but that didn't change his vote. I think what is left of his case against me is very weak.
|
|
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 20, 2008 19:34:05 GMT -5
OMGUS me all you like, but vote Nesta. The perfect knowledge portion of his accusations against were pointed out to be baseless, but that didn't change his vote. I think what is left of his case against me is very weak. You're right. That's pretty much the definition of OMGUS! First, the accusation wasn't "perfect knowledge", it was a specific piece of knowledge. Second, you're voting for nesta because you think his case against you is weak? OMGUS is the only way to describe it, and you know that, or you wouldn't have tried to sidestep the ensuing accusations before they were even hurled. That seems to be your forte in this game. May I ask why?
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Gir! on Feb 20, 2008 20:25:19 GMT -5
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. You may have missed it, but she didn't make the post that brought me to vote for her before the 24-hour deadline.
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Feb 20, 2008 21:01:09 GMT -5
OMGUS me all you like, but vote Nesta. The perfect knowledge portion of his accusations against were pointed out to be baseless, but that didn't change his vote. I think what is left of his case against me is very weak.
Did you even read my last post? I'm not claiming you have "perfect" knowledge, and I think the case for you having more knowledge than you should is anything but baseless. Two people came out early on Day 2 and said the Vig had killed: you and Hockey. We now know that Hockey had more knowledge than most of us. There were two other people who shared this knowledge, and I think you are one of them. Setting up this "perfect" knowledge strawman isn't helping your case with me, not to mention the OMGUS vote.
|
|
|
Post by Greedy Smurf on Feb 20, 2008 22:53:46 GMT -5
Good posts by Atarus, with Dio & Hawk's postings.
I think it illustrates nicely one of the things making this game so difficult, i.e. with 3 small scum groups there is a distinct lack of evidence to be found in scum interaction and that the scum have a much smaller margin of additional knowledge to trip themselves over with.
Just to go back a page, thanks to Cookie & Santo, I think I get where Santo was coming from now. Althought I can't say I particularly agree with the statement.
I've reread the start of the day a couple of times, in light of Nesta's posts about Cookies, and I can't quite decide if Cookies was just throwing out some reasonable suppositions, or was availing herself of some additional knowledge.
I will Vote Cookies, because at this juncture the strong possibility of some additional knowledge is the best of a handful of almost nothing I've got on finding scum.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 21, 2008 0:10:08 GMT -5
What additional knowledge am I supposed to have had? And how am I supposed to have gotten it?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 21, 2008 0:17:31 GMT -5
OMGUS is all I have at the moment,. You were just whining about how no one was putting their suspicions down. So I put mine down, and I call it what it is...an OMGUS vote. Sometimes all you have to go on is enough.
I'd really like some clarification as to how any extra, perfect, special, tasty, crispy information could have possibly come into my, or anyone else's possesion? It is not a game dynamic that I am aware of.
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Feb 21, 2008 1:34:02 GMT -5
OMGUS is all I have at the moment,. You were just whining about how no one was putting their suspicions down. So I put mine down, and I call it what it is...an OMGUS vote. Sometimes all you have to go on is enough. I'd really like some clarification as to how any extra, perfect, special, tasty, crispy information could have possibly come into my, or anyone else's possesion? It is not a game dynamic that I am aware of. I'm not sure this was addressed to me, since I don't think I've been "whining" that no one was putting their suspicions down, but I'm the one saying you had extra information so I'll answer. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on this. I've already said it three times, and I suspect you well understand already, but I'll say it again. On Night 1 there were three kills. I think that when we found out who had died the assumption most of us made was that the three factions had managed to kill without an overlap, and without the Vig attacking anyone. You chimed in early on saying you thought perhaps the Vig did kill someone, citing the "color" of the Day 2 opening post. Hockey then pointed out the and in the way pete was killed, and made a statement saying she wished the Vig had sat out. Hockey was the Vig, and I think it's very likely that both she and one of the scum factions killed pete. Hockey knew there had been an overlap in pete's kill. So did the two members of the faction that also killed pete. No one else did, so it was extra information that only the Vig and two scum knew. Your thinking the Vig was active during Night 1 points to you having the same information that Hockey did, ergo you are part of the faction that killed pete. Notice I'm not saying you had perfect information. I'm just saying you knew that your faction killed pete and how you killed him. When you saw your way of killing him combined with another one you knew that someone else had also killed him, so there must have been a fourth killer, and that could only be the Vig, which you pointed out. It isn't just this particular point that makes me suspect you, but I do think it's the smoking gun. I also think you have been behaving as I suspect scum would in this game, as evidenced by the pattern of distancing yourself from other players so that if they turn out to be scum you aren't implicated for agreeing with them, as well as trying to simply shrug off the case I've made against you.
|
|
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 21, 2008 7:57:35 GMT -5
So where am I after all my reading? Lost, that's where. The following is an attempt to think my way out of the muddle. On preview, the third point is as long as the rest put together, so to avoid producing one excessively long post I'll split it into it's own post. (Insert sound of frantic text chopping and splicing here). 1. DarkCookies Until I read Nesta's most recent post, I was struggling to understand his case and was somewhat suspicious of his actions. That last post has enabled me to "join the dots" as it were. Now I have done so, I have to say I don't find it compelling. DarkCookies' expressed willingness to use deceit as a Villager did put her on my suspect list, and this doesn't help - but it's not going to make me vote for a DarkCookies lynch right now. If I'm still stuck in 10-12 hours or so, I'll reconsider. After all, a slight tick on the scum-o-meter is better than nothing, right? 2. Hal Speaking of suspecting players who advocate Villagers lying as a tactic, what about Hal? I haven't forgotten you Hal, don't worry. But D3.37, and the fact that I haven't actually caught you out in a lie yet, means I'm not going to vote for you right now. I still think advocating Villager deceit as a strategy is a pro-scum attitude and action, because it sows doubt in the minds of the Villagers. But it's not enough unless I have absolutely nothing else to go on. I am willing to accept your caveat that there are rare cases where it is the right thing for a Villager to knowingly make a false statement. But those should (IMO) be few and far between. 3. Pleonast Regarding the Pleo debate, I can't see how we can expect him to defend himself from the charge of being a power role. - If he is a power role, he really can't say much without losing the power so he should keep his mouth shut.
- If he's a Goon he won't want to dispel the idea that he might be a power role.
- If he's a vanilla Villager, by keeping his mouth shut he keeps the pool of possible power roles as big as possible. If the Goons eliminate him as a power role, they have that many less targets to consider.
Before you start in on me, go and read post D1.178. I'm OK with Villagers not telling the whole truth. I've even played like that myself on occasion. "Everything a Villager says should be true (to the best of their knowledge and belief)" =/= "A Villager should say everything he knows or believes to be true." As far as I'm concerned, then, Pleo's actions are a null tell - any player should be doing what he is doing. i'm going to break here and move on to the Drainbead bandwagon next post.
|
|
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 21, 2008 8:11:50 GMT -5
This is a continuation of the thought processes set out in my previous post. That's why it begins with point 4. 4. The Drainbead bandwagon I found myself nodding in agreement with Atarus's analysis of the bandwagoning of Drainbead. I nearly voted for Kat last night because of that. The reason I did not was that Kat posted an explanation of why she voted in the last 24 hours, and I wasn't up to evaluating her statement properly at gone 1am. Kat's defence is that her vote (D2.227-8) was triggered by a post made after the voting deadline was ended. On the face of it that's an entirely reasonable statement (and 100% factual). But the comment that triggered the vote was a comment that sought to set some late votes for Peasant Smurf in context for Roosh (who'd just made a comment about it being interesting that PS had drawn two votes so quickly). My question now is, does Drainbead's post really support the case Kat is trying to make it bear? I'm having some difficulty evaluating this because hindsight is 20/20, and we didn't know then that Drainbead was indeed a good guy. However, I know that at the time I saw nothing significant in it. Certainly, before Roosh set the cat among the pigeons with his assertion of shoe-loathing, there was some pressure on Peasant Smurf. To be honest, the votes on Drainbead and PS smack of opportunism. I'm just not sure, in any given case, whether that opportunism is that of a Townie who really dislikes no-lynching and seized on the best lynch prospect they could find, or that of a scumbag dropping onto someone not of their faction and advancing their cause that way. That's one of the reasons I studied Nesta's case against DarkCookies so hard last night. I was looking for evidence of trying to get from the posts to a preconceived result, rather than reading the posts and following where they lead. Right now, if I voted I'd vote for Kat because she put Drainbead in the lead. The others all jumped on later, but she created the possibility. However, I want to think some more, and I have things to do this afternoon to search for jobs. Back in four hours or so to look for a vote.
|
|