|
Post by Gadarene on Jun 15, 2007 13:41:16 GMT -5
So there are fifteen of us left, and twelve (including, admittedly, myself) have yet to cast a vote. Yipes.
|
|
|
Post by capybara on Jun 15, 2007 13:42:35 GMT -5
The Day doesn't end until Sunday-- don't fret.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Blaster Master on Jun 15, 2007 14:59:04 GMT -5
Okay, well since no one else of whom I'm currently suspicious is around, I'm going to go back and poke panamajack again for some stuff he said that twinged me: 5.22: Now, maybe I'm looking at it too deeply, but this stinks of the whole "So why'd the pirates kill!?" idea. Is it possible that you're a pirate trying to figure out what Auto did to draw Dick's suspicion? Is it possible that you're Dick trying to get the pirates to realize who you are, maybe interpret their reactions so you can avoid them in the future? I can't really see a townie ask if it's "too much open strategy". How exactly could discussing why someone was killed at night by scum POSSIBLY hurt the town? This is VERY suspicious to me. 4.150: This was said after the pile on on Idle Thoughts began and before the switch to Zuma. It looks like you're trying to sow seeds to save Zuma. Why would you do that, unless you were a pirate, had targetted him, and known he was lying when he said it was Idle who targetted him? In the same post: So one minute you're asking what we should do if Idle comes up crew... maybe Zuma had a good reason to lie. Then you say we should lynch him "NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS". 4.182: Wait a minute, you sounded sure that we should lynch Idle in the last post, why'd you wait seven hours to vote? Then you question someone else for "advising" Zuma to come up with a good excuse, when you were openly thinking about it in the previous post. You're not the one who twinges me the most, but you're the one with the most tangilble evidence in contradicting yourself. So, I'm gonna go ahead and give this another shot: Vote panamajack
|
|
|
Post by capybara on Jun 15, 2007 15:45:04 GMT -5
This was said after the pile on on Idle Thoughts began and before the switch to Zuma. It looks like you're trying to sow seeds to save Zuma. Why would you do that, unless you were a pirate, had targeted him, and known he was lying when he said it was Idle who targeted him? Well, slap my ass and call me Thibodeaux. I kept trying to think of why the hypothetical Mad-pirate (and other pirates, as is clear), could have been aware of whether Zuma-the-non-pirate-scum was regular crew or not or had been attacked by Idle or not, and this point just totally hadn't settled in my mind. If it was the pirates that attacked Zuma, they'd have known he was lying about Idle. Something to think on. Someone with a better attention span may have already made all these points rather explicit-- sorry. Ont he other hand. . . Perhaps THAT'S what Mad meant about Auto-- " Auto knows something we don't" but perhaps not in a good way. If we accept that it's less likely that two pirates would stick up for Zuma, it's possible that the second defender of Idle did it for more complicated reasons based on the action of the first. This train of thought is tentative but makes me feel better about Mad.Does this make sense to anyone else or do I need a nap? So one option might be (when I have more time later) to go over Day 4 and see not who voted for Zuma and obvious things like that, but who tried to more subtly derail the process or complicate matters-- like how BM is looking at Panama (not sure about your conclusion there but I think it's a good tack at this time). To recap for those as dense as me, there are a few individuals who could indeed have known that Idle did not attack Zuma. . . because they did. But they wouldn't have minded a lynching anyway. Their participation that day might looks out of synch with the rest of the crew.
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Jun 15, 2007 16:18:21 GMT -5
Blaster, I think you're on to something there, but first let me give you my take on a couple of your theories: I can't really see a townie ask if it's "too much open strategy". How exactly could discussing why someone was killed at night by scum POSSIBLY hurt the town? This is VERY suspicious to me. You know it, and I know it...however, there have been enough accusations bandied about stemming from someone asking an innocent question that I can see a player covering their ass like that. So one minute you're asking what we should do if Idle comes up crew... maybe Zuma had a good reason to lie. Then you say we should lynch him "NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS". No, he said "Is there any possible story zuma could come up with tomorrow that might convince us not to kill him IF Idle is honest crew?"...I took that as a rhetorical question, one with an unspoken "no, there isn't" at the end. Looked at in that light, there's less of a contradiction. However, I could easily be wrong on that note. Now then, that said, I think the rest of your post holds up very well to scrutiny. Something just ain't right in panamajackland...
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Blaster Master on Jun 15, 2007 18:08:06 GMT -5
Blaster, I think you're on to something there, but first let me give you my take on a couple of your theories: I can't really see a townie ask if it's "too much open strategy". How exactly could discussing why someone was killed at night by scum POSSIBLY hurt the town? This is VERY suspicious to me. You know it, and I know it...however, there have been enough accusations bandied about stemming from someone asking an innocent question that I can see a player covering their ass like that. That's possible, it just seemed, to me, preemptively defensive. I only really brought it up because it grabbed my attention. But you're right, it could be confirmation bias. So one minute you're asking what we should do if Idle comes up crew... maybe Zuma had a good reason to lie. Then you say we should lynch him "NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS". No, he said "Is there any possible story zuma could come up with tomorrow that might convince us not to kill him IF Idle is honest crew?"...I took that as a rhetorical question, one with an unspoken "no, there isn't" at the end. Looked at in that light, there's less of a contradiction. However, I could easily be wrong on that note. [/quote] Okay... I see what you're saying, but you grabbed the wrong part of the quote. I really should have bolded it, so I will this time: As I pointed out, later in the same post he seems convicted that what we should do is lynch Idle... yadda yadda. But that bold part seems more like he wants to discuss other possibilities. Now that I can admit it, having been scum in M3, that whole quote is exactly the kind of subtle thing I would have used to attempt to communicate in day time. Remember, this was before we came to the conclusion that Zuma was lying. People were saying "well, maybe he's Ben Gunn and was trying to get himself hit." If I were a pirate, knowing that Zuma wasn't Steele (or why have said Idle hit him?), they had to figure he was either Dick or Sam. Thus, it looks to me like he was trying to tell Zuma to be prepared with another role claim as Ben Gunn for the next day, and then he can pretend the whole time he wanted him lynched no-matter what.
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Jun 15, 2007 19:04:18 GMT -5
Gotcha...either way, I have to agree he's got a bit of a scummy stink to 'em.
And on that note, I'll be unavailable for the next (roughly) 24 hours, and have spotty coverage through Sunday evening. I will, however, definitely pop in before deadline to cast my vote.
:dives overboard, swims to shore:
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jun 15, 2007 21:30:53 GMT -5
Pfft, I'm the only one in the thread right now. Hmmmmm..... Ha Ha, you all missed it! Probably a good thing. ;D OK, now that that is out of my system...I'm not going to be able to be on much this weekend, so I'm going to make sure I get my vote in before the end of the Day. I think that is Sunday 4 Eastern, and I know I won't be online then. For the reasons I have already stated... vote Lakai.
|
|
|
Post by Lakai on Jun 16, 2007 2:01:53 GMT -5
Now how do you know how the pirates pick their killer? I read the rules. Day 3, post #74: (which, incidentally, comes after post #13 in which you disagree with MAD's vote for zuma . MTS had a different reason for voting for Zuma than you did. I did not like his reason, but I liked yours. Day 3, post #143:Voting for someone because they made a lame vote for someone else is only cool when you do it? Day 1, post #140:Voting for someone because you didn't like the reasons he voted for another player is only cool when you do it? I don’t understand you here. I don’t have a problem anyone voting for anyone if they think their suspect is making lame votes or votes with loose reasoning. "good post, vote zuma" isn't what I'd call giving evidence. You did not say evidence earlier, you said sensible. Is it or is it not sensible to follow your rational for voting for someone. If you tell me it isn’t then I’ll just ignore what you say from now on. Try again. I'm not suspicious of Mad at all at the moment. In fact, what I said in that there post is my specific reason for not voting for him. Fair enough then, I misunderstood you.
|
|
|
Post by Lakai on Jun 16, 2007 2:29:29 GMT -5
Since people want me to post more, I'll post some theory on what the pirates knew about Zuma.
If the pirates attacked Zuma on Day Four, then they knew he was lying about Idle Thoughts being the attacker. One possibility is that Idle could have been Deadeye and attacked Zuma as well. The doctor having blocked the pirates first and then Deadeye fails and Steele sees everything. Though that would not make sense since Steele would reveal both attackers. So the only conclusion is that the pirates must have known that Zuma was lying about Idle.
Now if the pirates did not attack Zuma on Day Four, then they could have thought that Idle could have been Deadeye and they would still have reason to believe that Zuma was Steele. This would mean that they had to have attacked someone else and that either Steele or the Doctor blocked them. With two blockers we have plenty of possibilities.
If they attacked Zuma on Day Four, then they all should have been going after Idle Thoughts.
But why did Auto vote for Zuma? Maybe I'm giving an Auto vote too much credit, but I like to think there was a strategic reason behind it. That would mean that he thought Zuma was Steele, meaning the pirates did not attack him and they all could have still thought he was Steele. That is why I think MTS might have tried to swing the vote toward Zuma, because he thought Zuma was Steele.
This whole theory is based on the assumptions that Auto's vote for Zuma was:
1) Rational.
and
2) An attempt to kill an enemy of the pirates.
|
|
|
Post by tirial on Jun 16, 2007 5:51:59 GMT -5
(Sorry if this isn't too legible - I'm fighting a losing battle with a dying mouse.)
I haven't voted because I am not sure who to vote for.
Following up from Day One NAF looks suspicious, but since he's away its not possible to grill him on his comments about Idle Thoughts. I prefer not to vote for people in their absence.
I'm not sure about MadtheSwine. I wasn't particularly happy about the Idle/zuma situation myself so I can see why he might have unvoted early, particularly if he was more scpetical about zuma's roleclaim than I was or thought Autolychus knew something more.
Lakai still looks suspicious, but as I've said before that's largely due to his low post count, which also means there's not a lot of go on.
I'm not sure I agree with Lakai that the choice of pirate killer is essentially random - if there's a chance of the killer being caught doesn't it make sense not to send out Flint unless they really have to? Then we start getting into bluff and double bluff - if a pirate's under suspicion do they send them out to kill, or use someone less suspicious who is less likely to be watched? However, I'm not sure who the pirate-killer is is relevant to the crew or the doctor, although its obvously important to Steele and the pirates.
Auto and Rational? I think I’ve found a problem right there. Seriously, we know Idle’s crew so they wouldn’t exactly have jumped in early to save him (and as it looks like they killed him the next night – unless the pirates offed one of their own which is unlikely) they don’t seem to have wanted him alive. I don’t think two pirates would try to start a bandwagon against zuma that early, but I could see them piling on once he was exposed.
However what Blastermaster is saying about Panamajack is intresting and something I want to look at further before I cast my vote.
|
|
|
Post by cowgirl on Jun 16, 2007 8:38:26 GMT -5
So what can I do to assuage some of this suspicion that's swirling around me?
Mad The Swine and panamajack seem to be pretty town to me. I don't buy the arguments against them at all. Arguments against Lakai are more convincing but he does put up a good defense.
Where's DiggitCamara? I don't have any sort of read on him.
|
|
|
Post by capybara on Jun 16, 2007 11:16:09 GMT -5
I'm in a similar boat. I have gone back and reviewed everything numerous times and looked at the posts of everyone I haven't been paying attention to. I haven't found any tells that convince me, and most of the players seem to be being. . . "helpful" and crew-ey.
One problem is that so few people were actually active during the Day 4 action-- I thought there would be more information there but there ain't-- mostly now confirmed or now dead players and me, Mad and Gad , with most of the other players popping in a bit. Lakai is looking comparatively not-pro-crew-- he hasn't been too helpful and the disappearing act's odd. One reason I don't want to pounce on that, however, is because it's too obvious; another reason is because on Day 4 Auto DID pounce on it-- Auto was getting on Lakai's ass a bit near the end of the Day, making him his personal project, and I think that's something to consider.
Panamajack seems quite crew to me-- his reasoning tends to parallel mine more than anyone besides Gad (not that this means much to anyone else). Same with Tiral , actually-- his reasoning has struck me as quite sound. Mad is also getting higher up on my crew list. Diggit I have less of a feel for but strikes me as crew-- same for cowgirl .
I do find NAF confusing and Hockeymonkey scattered or something-- don't now how to describe her, but not necessarily scummy. Seems very driven to have direction quickly and sometimes her reasoning evades me, and this makes me a little suspicious, as she will collate gobs of data and hint that there is something meaningful there but doesn't say it; the connections she implies seem very spurious and Baroque to me. This could be just a disconnect between our senses of strategy or reasoning, but it seems like something you would try to do if you wanted to seem pro-crew -- like you were doing a lot of work to help, but to lead things in other directions/ red herrings/ deraillings. The appearance of logical reasoning but resulting in evidence for something misleading-- I know we shouldn't suspect people because of different strategy, but all that work for really iffy or dodgy results, IMO, looks weird to me. It's looks a bit, to me, like when Auto was being "helpful" and one would look at his logic and go "WTF was that?" Maybe she just shoots from the hip and I'm overthinking this. I have even less of a sense of what to think about NAF .
I reserve the right to suspect some other people as very-crew-ey sounding and actively-playing clever clever pirates.
|
|
|
Post by capybara on Jun 16, 2007 11:20:53 GMT -5
Then again, it strikes me that Auto relentlessly dogged "Hokey Pokey". Before I would feel anywhere NEAR comfortable voting for her I'd have to do a complete review of anything from Day 1 forward-- while I don't understand her logic, we are gallows-buddies, after all, and I remember her striking me as very crew back then.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jun 16, 2007 12:20:04 GMT -5
I'm in a similar boat. I have gone back and reviewed everything numerous times and looked at the posts of everyone I haven't been paying attention to. I haven't found any tells that convince me, and most of the players seem to be being. . . "helpful" and crew-ey. One problem is that so few people were actually active during the Day 4 action-- I thought there would be more information there but there ain't-- mostly now confirmed or now dead players and me, Mad and Gad , with most of the other players popping in a bit. Lakai is looking comparatively not-pro-crew-- he hasn't been too helpful and the disappearing act's odd. One reason I don't want to pounce on that, however, is because it's too obvious; another reason is because on Day 4 Auto DID pounce on it-- Auto was getting on Lakai's ass a bit near the end of the Day, making him his personal project, and I think that's something to consider. Panamajack seems quite crew to me-- his reasoning tends to parallel mine more than anyone besides Gad (not that this means much to anyone else). Same with Tiral , actually-- his reasoning has struck me as quite sound. Mad is also getting higher up on my crew list. Diggit I have less of a feel for but strikes me as crew-- same for cowgirl . I do find NAF confusing and Hockeymonkey scattered or something-- don't now how to describe her, but not necessarily scummy. Seems very driven to have direction quickly and sometimes her reasoning evades me, and this makes me a little suspicious, as she will collate gobs of data and hint that there is something meaningful there but doesn't say it; the connections she implies seem very spurious and Baroque to me. This could be just a disconnect between our senses of strategy or reasoning, but it seems like something you would try to do if you wanted to seem pro-crew -- like you were doing a lot of work to help, but to lead things in other directions/ red herrings/ deraillings. The appearance of logical reasoning but resulting in evidence for something misleading-- I know we shouldn't suspect people because of different strategy, but all that work for really iffy or dodgy results, IMO, looks weird to me. It's looks a bit, to me, like when Auto was being "helpful" and one would look at his logic and go "WTF was that?" Maybe she just shoots from the hip and I'm overthinking this. I have even less of a sense of what to think about NAF . I reserve the right to suspect some other people as very-crew-ey sounding and actively-playing clever clever pirates. I totally get where it could seem like I am all over the place. In a way, I kind of am. As I pick up on something, I try to bring it up. I'm not doing as an accusation so much as a "Hey, did anybody else think this was strange?" I guess I do shoot from the hip, although I try to compose coherent posts.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jun 16, 2007 12:23:22 GMT -5
Here is an updated version of voting events through Day Four. I reached the conclusion that Pleonast was the other mason about halfway through Day Four, as it seems a few others did too. Sneaky Sam’s manifesto seems to support my theory, and it was reached in much the same way. I don’t know about trusting his claim the FCOD is the Doctor. I’m going to list Pleonast as confirmed for these purposes. I’ve also got some analysis and questions, but I am going to split it into two posts because otherwise it’s going to get very long. Dead Crew or Crew Power Role – Lime Green Alive Confirmed – Orange SCUM - Purple Pirate - Teal (I hope someone continues my legacy when I get offed. Quote this post, copy and save it into a word file, and you will have all your coding.) Day One Votes ArizonaTeach = 0 zumaAuntbeast = 0 Mad The Swine, hockeymonkeyAutolycus = 0 Pleonast, Mad The Swine, Cookies, Gadarene, FCOD, Kyrie Eleison, Gadarene, CaerieD Blaster Master = 1 NAF1138, panamajack, capybara CaerieD = 0 NAF1138capybara = 5 FCOD, Blaster Master, fluiddruid, FCOD, MHaye, Mad The Swine Cookies = 1 Pleonast, Gadarenecowgirl = 0 Kyrie Eleison, fluiddruid DiggitCamara = 0 NAF1138FCOD = 0 NAF1138hockeymonkey = 1 Lakai Idle Thoughts = 1 capybara, hockeymonkey, cowgirl, capybara, capybara KatiRoo = 9 Pleonast, storyteller0910, panamajack, ArizonaTeach, Cookies, zuma, Gadarene, CaerieD, hockey monkey, NAF1138 Kyrie Eleison = 1 Idle Thoughts, LakaiLakai = 1 panamajack, Kyrie Eleison Mad The Swine = 1 KatiRoo, auntbeastNAF1138 = 0 Kyrie Eleison, ArizonaTeachPleonast = 0 panamajackstoryteller0910 = 2 diggitcamara, auntbeastzuma = 0 Pleonast Day Two Votes MHaye =7 Blaster Master, Gadarene, zuma, hockey monkey, Pleonast, ArizonaTeach, Gadarene, ArizonaTeach, hockey monkey, Kyrie Eleisonhockeymonkey =5 Lakai, NAF1138, FCOD, Hal Briston, Autolycus, diggitcamara, Idle Thoughts, ArizonaTeachFCOD =3 hockeymonkey, storyteller0910, Kyrie Eleison, MHaye, cowgirl, diggitcamara, Autolycus, MHaye, Gadarene, capybaraNAF1138 =2 Auntbeast, tirial auntbeast =1 Mad The Swine, Pleonast, MadTheSwine Lakai =1 panamajack, hockeymonkey MadTheSwine =1 capybara, capybara Cookies {now Tirial} =1 Pleonast, NAF1138 ArizonaTeach =0 zumaKyrie Eleison =0 Idle Thoughts, ArizonaTeachpanamajack =0 hockeymonkeyzuma =0 storyteller0910, MadTheSwineDay Three Votes auntbeast =5 Pleonast, hockeymonkey, Mad The Swine, panamajack, NAF1138, ArizonaTeach, Blaster Master hockeymonkey =4 Autolycus, FCOD, panamajack, diggitcamara, auntbeastHal Briston =2 ArizonaTeach, Lakai, Mad The Swine, zuma, NAF1138Lakai =2 Hal Briston, Gadarene Autolycus =1 capybara Idle Thoughts =1 zumaNAF1138 =1 Idle Thoughtszuma =1 Mad The Swine, auntbeast, Lakai, Hal Briston, Idle Thoughts, ArizonaTeachcowgirl =0 Gadarenepanamajack =0 hockeymonkey, Blaster Mastertirial =0 zuma, NAF1138Day Four Votes Idle Thoughts = 1 NAF1138, capybara, Pleonast, FCOD, MadTheSwine, ArizonaTeach, Hal Briston, Hockey Monkey, capybara, panamajack, zuma, Blaster Master, tirialNAF1138 =0 Idle Thoughtszuma =17 Idle Thoughts, Autolycus, MadTheSwine, ArizonaTeach, Gadarene, FCOD, capybara, Pleonast, Hockey Monkey, panamajack, tirial, zuma*, Blaster Master, cowgirl, NAF1138, diggitcamara, Lakai Autolycus =0 Pleonast* zuma didn't unvote Idle Thoughts so his vote for himself didn't count. Again want to see if we can glean any info from these vote records. Autolycus had an active vote on me at the end of Day Two and Three when I was close to being lynched both times. I know that doesn't exhonerate me, but it is at least worth considering that since a known Pirate tryed twice to off me, maybe I'm not a pirate.
|
|
|
Post by Gadarene on Jun 16, 2007 16:31:57 GMT -5
I'd hoped to do more analysis, but I need to head out and won't be back before the end of the voting. I don't feel like I have any better bead on anyone else, so I'm going to vote Lakai for the reasons I gave on Day Three. I feel like his posts, what few there are of them, essentially offer us a shiny, slippery surface on which there's no good way to get purchase. And it seems like that's a deliberate strategy on his part. So.
|
|
|
Post by capybara on Jun 16, 2007 17:47:30 GMT -5
Ok, I've read up on Lakai (doesn't take long)-- I see what you mean, Gad, and it's a bit suspicious, but for now I will just demand that he help out a bit more. His posting has thinned progressively-- not bad on Day one but worse and worse.
Lakai-- don't just drive-by post, but help out a little, eh? Looks like you're already endeavoring to, but. . what do you think about players who aren't dead yet? There are several players with a couple of votes-- what do you think? We're a bit stuck for ideas today, so now is when you grab a rope and help haul, ok?
I don't feel like lynching Lakai for lurking. . . yet.
So sometime this evening I'm going to more carefully check out a couple of others.
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Parzival on Jun 16, 2007 19:49:32 GMT -5
I'm finally back to the thread (and with a new computer! Pirates fear the power of the Macbook Pro!) Though I'm not on it yet. Just wanted to drop in to say I'm not avoiding the suspicions. I'll be back in a few hours with a defense of my posts, and hopefully a good vote.
Right now I'm leaning toward Lakai, but I need to look back at his posts again.
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Parzival on Jun 16, 2007 22:24:24 GMT -5
Wow, slow night.
I'll split this into two posts:
Part One - the "open strategy" question (my post 5.22). Here's the full bit (from my post):
It's really the second part that of the question that had me worried about saying it. I couldn't see Dick going after anyone other than the Officers. The problem I saw is that since Dick is alone, it is possible he hadn't thought of that. As Hal Briston pointed out, this sort of reasoning has been viewed as scummy, so it was on my mind.
Another reason - I was already feeling a little guilty since a Day or so ago I had pointed out the same thing (that Officers are targets for Dick if not the Pirates). While this may have been actually useful, it also risked getting Flying Cow of Doom killed (bad if he really is the Doctor). I felt if I somehow could have surmised that (unlikely, I know), maybe I wouldn't have put him at risk.
I'll agree with you, Blaster Master, that pre-emptive defenses may be just as scummy-looking; I don't like them myself so I really ought not to have mentioned it.
As to why I would post that in the first place if I thought it dangerous - when I made the post I thought it likely that Ben Gunn had been activated, and was giving my reasoning. You explained how autolycus might have looked like Steele, so I'm not nearly as confident in my guessing about Ben Gunn.
|
|
|
Post by Lakai on Jun 16, 2007 22:56:39 GMT -5
Lakai-- don't just drive-by post, but help out a little, eh? Looks like you're already endeavoring to, but. . what do you think about players who aren't dead yet? There are several players with a couple of votes-- what do you think? We're a bit stuck for ideas today, so now is when you grab a rope and help haul, ok? Since I came up with a workable theory on MTS, I think I'm doing better than you today.
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Parzival on Jun 16, 2007 23:04:46 GMT -5
Lakai, that may be the first relevant post you've had all game. I wouldn't be so smug. The second part of Blaster Master's post revolves around a misinterpreting of this quote (from me, 4.123 *) here: *Blaster Master, you have this as '4.150', but they're actually two separate posts. Since zuma is still somewhat suspicious, I'm wondering if we shouldn't come up with some ideas to stick to, just in case Idle Thoughts turns up crew. Is there any possible story zuma could come up with tomorrow that might convince us not to kill him IF Idle is honest crew? It looks like you're trying to sow seeds to save Zuma. Why would you do that, unless you were a pirate, had targetted him, and known he was lying when he said it was Idle who targetted him? I'm not sure how you get that as 'sow seeds to save Zuma'. When I said 'ideas to stick to' I was referring to the crew - so that we can refute anything zuma comes up with. Pleonast articulated it far better than I did, but at that point there was no rational reason not to vote for Idle Thoughts. I was making this case, even though we could not be completely sure he was not crew. On the other hand, the logical conclusion of him being crew was that zuma was lying. I was asking a rhetorical (and also open to correction) question to ensure that, if it had gone down that way, that we had already anticipated zuma's protest and that no scenario could be contrived whereby he might actually not be scum. Given the various variables in this game, I wanted to make sure the case was logically airtight. I don't know how you read that the way you did, especially in light of my other statement ("kill Zuma no matter what he says"). It only seems 'contradictory' and scummy if you've already assumed I'm a pirate; in the case that I'm crew there's nothing odd about it (or subsequent statements) at all. On the last bit - I've bolded the important part. Besides, by pointing out ArizonaTeach's certainty, you're offering us 3 for 1 on your life! That's a fantastic deal! By the way, why advise zuma to come up with a good excuse? If you turn up honest crew we'll be as heartless in killing him as we are you. I didn't want to get a speed lynch going, but since I will probably be putting my computer under the knife tonight and may well be out of action for a day, I'm going on record:vote Idle Thoughts Wait a minute, you sounded sure that we should lynch Idle in the last post, why'd you wait seven hours to vote? Then you question someone else for "advising" Zuma to come up with a good excuse, when you were openly thinking about it in the previous post. My reason for holding off on voting then is right there in the post! Have you just assumed I'm a pirate, so disbelieve whatever I'm saying? I actually wouldn't have voted then except that I thought I might not be back for the end of the Day - at the time, it wasn't clear if a speed-lynch might go into effect on a later day. I'd already put in a 'unofficial vote' quite early in the day (4.47 & 4.50).
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Parzival on Jun 16, 2007 23:11:58 GMT -5
screwed up the quoting - the quotes are alternately from myself and Blaster Master. I also see I quoted the question (from BlaM) about 'advising zuma' - I hope it's sufficiently clear I did no such thing. That line from Idle Thoughts actually had me pretty sure that he was scum (for much the same reasons you've accused me for).
Still no vote from me; more analysis to be done. (And I don't recall Safari sucking like this; time to get Camino.)
|
|
|
Post by capybara on Jun 16, 2007 23:35:17 GMT -5
Since I came up with a workable theory on MTS, I think I'm doing better than you today. Ahhhhh. . . ha ha. I've argued in your defense, so. . . um, yeah. Cheers. As you were, sailors.
|
|
|
Post by capybara on Jun 16, 2007 23:35:59 GMT -5
Panama-- just get Firefox-- they have it for Mac you know.
|
|
|
Post by Lakai on Jun 16, 2007 23:49:57 GMT -5
Since I came up with a workable theory on MTS, I think I'm doing better than you today. Ahhhhh. . . ha ha. I've argued in your defense, so. . . um, yeah. Cheers. As you were, sailors. Laugh all you want, but I don't see you voting for anyone. What that means to me is that you aren't sure about anything you say. You just post, and post and post. What good is all that unless you put your weight behind a vote?
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Parzival on Jun 17, 2007 0:54:37 GMT -5
Not much to go on today. I said I would look at Lakai again. I called him for lurking early on, and I've mentioned a few other things before. To describe what I people are calling the 'weak reasons for voting' - I haven't seen any of those votes that might convince me or anyone to go along with them. Today's (for Mad The Swine) might be the best, but they just don't seem to be argued for convincing anyone, they seem more like just to have something in there. That's not really why I want to vote for him, though. I had almost forgotten about this post from yesterDay: 4.210Here he's actually arguing that instead of doing a one-for-one to get scum (which was the worst case), we ought to hold off until Steele dies! I can't see how anyone could think it logical to let scum live (since one of them was lying) while waiting for our most powerful role to die. That's just too crazy for me. I think someone asked about it yesterday but I don't see a defense in his post history. This is the most likely to be scum player for me. I'm not supremely confident - as I said, not much to work with, but this is the best shot at scum today, in my opinion. vote LakaiOne more thing - I'm liking Blaster Master's conflation of my posts less and less. Mostly I think it's an honest mistake, but it's just as easily a slippery move to make me look worse. I can't let that entirely pass by. Black mark for Blaster Master. (P.S. to capybara - Camino = Firefox base done Mac-style. It lacks Firefox extensions but has some nice options of its own)
|
|
|
Post by Lakai on Jun 17, 2007 1:22:59 GMT -5
Can you tell me what is wrong with waiting to see if Steele dies before we decide if we can lynch Idle? You put it in italics and make it sound bad, but can you tell me what is wrong with the idea?
If Zuma was Steele, one way to confirm this would be to kill Idle Thoughts. That way you have a dead Town and a dead pirate if Zuma lied.
Another way to confirm if Zuma is Steele is to wait for Steele's inevitable death or role claim. Let Idle run around for a little while, we will always have time to lynch him. The real Steele has to either role claim or die sometime. When that happens, we wouldn't have to risk killing a town, we would know if Zuma lied or not.
If Zuma was the real Steele, then he would have died soon, then we would have confirmed all his info.
If Zuma was not the real Steele. The real Steele would soon show up and we would know Zuma is scum.
In both scenarios we don't risk killing a Crew member. What is wrong with that?
|
|
|
Post by tirial on Jun 17, 2007 9:28:24 GMT -5
The problem as I see it is that if you are refering to zuma as Steele, then letting him run around actually means giving Sneaky Sam time to investigate more players, possibly find the real Steele and direct the board towards lynching crew instead of pirates e.g. Idle Thoughts.
Now I don't think there was any way anyone could have known Sneaky Sam's role except maybe Steele if he watched him, (and I don't think you're Steele) so if you were assuming by not lynching zuma or Idle you'd be letting a default scum wander around I can see your reasoning. This doesn't mean I agree with it.
Neither of these are good things, and we want them to occur as late in the game as possible. This means under your scheme, allowing zuma (possible pirate) and Idle (possible pirate) to continue playing for as long as the real Steele could protect himself and stay under cover. I don't think allowing two pirate suspects to keep going for that long is really wise - especially when one of them turns out to be Sneaky Sam.
In both scenarios we risk losing Steele (zuma dies/real Steele is forced to claim or killed). What's right with that?
|
|
|
Post by Mad The Swine on Jun 17, 2007 9:37:43 GMT -5
Hello...boy, I was expecting more than this after being gone for three days.Gonna go read a bit.
|
|