RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 0:15:27 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on May 31, 2008 0:15:27 GMT -5
This explanation doesn't make sense based on the timeline of actual posts: Post#148: You say to Hal "And this seems like you're basically saying you're possessed." Post #202: You suggest that possessed players might not know they're possessed. So, (1) Hal posted his hints that he was possessed, and you picked up on them, before (2) you speculated that the Possessed might not know they're Possessed. I never said you claimed Hal was lying. I never said you claimed your theory was fact. I do find it funny that you didn't include any comments about (1) when you posted (2), since the two possibilities are directly opposed. When someone posts contradictory theories without an explanation or acknowledgement of the difference and relationship between them, it raised my suspicions. Never mind the above. Newbie playing is one thing. INCONSISTENCIES in playing though- I'll frown at that at ANY level of play. Bad Vote + Bad Play+ Inconsistency > than just Bad Vote +Bad Plays That's a good enough reason for me to switch my vote: Unvote Czech Vote HockeyGuy
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 0:16:48 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on May 31, 2008 0:16:48 GMT -5
Damn, and I posted all that thought and you had to go and point out something like that, Kat!
Though my thoughts on the 4 of them still remain.
And on Preview: Damn you too Mr.Blocky for stealing my thunder!
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 0:24:44 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on May 31, 2008 0:24:44 GMT -5
This explanation doesn't make sense based on the timeline of actual posts: Post#148: You say to Hal "And this seems like you're basically saying you're possessed." Post #202: You suggest that possessed players might not know they're possessed. So, (1) Hal posted his hints that he was possessed, and you picked up on them, before (2) you speculated that the Possessed might not know they're Possessed. I never said you claimed Hal was lying. I never said you claimed your theory was fact. I do find it funny that you didn't include any comments about (1) when you posted (2), since the two possibilities are directly opposed. When someone posts contradictory theories without an explanation or acknowledgement of the difference and relationship between them, it raised my suspicions. Wow, just wow, I'm glad you showed that. Ummm, at the risk of sounding me too, that's, well that's some actual evidence. Very nice catch Kat. Unvote Czech Vote hockeyguy8435 To clarify I find Kat's argument very compelling, it's late, I have no time to hunt, but even if I did I don't think you'd really need to add to it. I still have a FOS on Czech though. And thanks to you, mister blockey (and Kat) for pulling this integral part of the case against hockeyguy out for closer inspection. I was so wrapped up in my own potential lynch, I don't think that I paid enough attention to Kat's catch the first go-round. Hell yeah, I find that way stranger than anything FCoD has posted. I can definitely see a scum contradicting himself while trying to play dumb, so I would like to: unvote FCoD[/b] vote hockeyguy
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 0:40:05 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on May 31, 2008 0:40:05 GMT -5
As for Buffy- I'm paranoid mostly because you're claiming Mason, and I don't like the crumb- simply typing out MASON in capitals? Really? And then the soft threat of "Believe or it's gonna suck if I have to have another person confirm...." I'm just paranoid, but fine. I really dislike that Claim. Just saying that for the future, but its damn near suicidal for a scum to claim Mason in games *unless there are no masons, but that's another risky thought that I'm not willing to take. So fine. Go ahead, and live another day, but I've got an eye on you now, as that's a TERRIBLE Breadcrumb. :grumble grumble: But you don't get my Vote Switch toDay. Dude, that would be fucking stupid if my crumb was in all caps. Don't you think you would've noticed that dumbass shit the first go 'round? That's probably what I meant by "caps added for clarity". Only the reprint had caps. They were added. I'm so sorry that you don't like my claim. I guess I should've just got lynched and kept my mouth shut, or maybe claimed a role that I don't actually have, one you might like better. Maybe if I didn't have a bunch of ill-reasoned votes on me, I wouldn't have had to claim. And there was no threat there. It's not gonna suck if I have to be confirmed by another mason, it would just take away a bit of Town advantage. Jeez, I know you're intimidated by me, but there's no need to feel threatened!!!
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 0:40:22 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on May 31, 2008 0:40:22 GMT -5
Well, there seems to be no opposition, so here's my lil crumb o'pumpernickel: "...Make Accommodations Solely On Niceness" (caps added for clarity) But I wouldn't say I'm exactly what you would consider a vanilla mason. I'm Town all the way, no D1&2mons here, but with a spicy kick. It's gonna lose its spicy kick a little bit if another Mason has to confirm me. Booger. OK, here's the thing. Just me talking here, but that crumb does nothing for nobody - crumbs are for finding other similiar roles, and for dropping hints of what you know in case of early death. Your crumb does nothing more than prove you had a contingency plan to claim mason. You know what I mean? And the claim itself is poor as well. I mean, if you were claiming any other role, I don't think I'd buy it. Because, lets face it, "you can confirm me but it's gonna cost you" is the same as saying "please don't confirm me"... you know? And thats more WIFOM motivation. The only reason I'm unvoting is because I can't believe anybody would claim mason unless they were a mason. I'll buy it unless you're countered, and if somehow there are no masons, well, that'll come out eventually too. Well, no help for it. I'm back where I started. Vote your gut, right? Unvote Bufftabby Vote Tragic
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 0:46:24 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on May 31, 2008 0:46:24 GMT -5
I'm so sorry that you don't like my claim. I guess I should've just got lynched and kept my mouth shut, or maybe claimed a role that I don't actually have, one you might like better. Maybe if I didn't have a bunch of ill-reasoned votes on me, I wouldn't have had to claim. Claim is a verb. I meant I didn't like HOW you claimed. Ie: the "should I wait?" "Oh no one's said anything except for you. I'll still wait" And then presenting us with the evidence that your "breadcrumb" was something brilliant. It's a TERRIBLE bread crumb- because anyone scum or not could have done it. Crumbs should be for leaving indications of OTHERS roles, you can't really crumb your own role as that's just suicidal. Especially if you're a mason- you've got a Partner for a reason. Now we have to worry that if there are only two of you, that if you die, we're gonna have to go through this again. Unless they too also spelled out there role somewhere- in which case, Yippiee! That'll totally prove it for us. Though I will ask- which post # of yours had the crumb? That would have been helpful in your original claiming post.
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 1:08:14 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on May 31, 2008 1:08:14 GMT -5
Well, there seems to be no opposition, so here's my lil crumb o'pumpernickel: "...Make Accommodations Solely On Niceness" (caps added for clarity) But I wouldn't say I'm exactly what you would consider a vanilla mason. I'm Town all the way, no D1&2mons here, but with a spicy kick. It's gonna lose its spicy kick a little bit if another Mason has to confirm me. Booger. OK, here's the thing. Just me talking here, but that crumb does nothing for nobody - crumbs are for finding other similiar roles, and for dropping hints of what you know in case of early death. Your crumb does nothing more than prove you had a contingency plan to claim mason. You know what I mean? And the claim itself is poor as well. I mean, if you were claiming any other role, I don't think I'd buy it. Because, lets face it, "you can confirm me but it's gonna cost you" is the same as saying "please don't confirm me"... you know? And thats more WIFOM motivation. No, I don't know what you mean. That's not what my crumb was for. My intention was that if I were killed, and there was a remaining, unconfirmed mason, s/he could point to that as evidence that we were aligned, lending some credence to the obviously much-hated mason claim. And please see my above post to RoOsh on the subject of my "threat", in which I rashly stated that "[my mason role's] gonna lose its spicy kick a little bit if another Mason has to confirm me." It's the truth. I mean, I said "a little bit". I'm not exactly implying that confirming me would bring a dark stormcloud of death over this already Apocalypse-blighted land. We'd just lose a little verve.
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 1:16:33 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on May 31, 2008 1:16:33 GMT -5
Though I will ask- which post # of yours had the crumb? That would have been helpful in your original claiming post. I can go find it in the morning if it's really that crucial, but I don't see how it could be. It's somehow terrible. Of course it's worthless *now*. Like I mentioned in my post above to Kid V, its purpose was not one that you listed as being worthless. If no mason claim happened by the time I died, another mason could point to that, with my role being revealed only by my death, to help corroborate his/her own claim if necessary. It was meant to be ridiculously subdued; I only wanted someone who already knew what I was to really be able to find it.
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 1:28:29 GMT -5
Post by stardragonman on May 31, 2008 1:28:29 GMT -5
Alright, I just got back from work, and I was actually going to unvote Hockeyguy but after reading some of the theories mentioned above, I'm actually going to keep it because it makes the most sense.
(And yes, I was only told the game started on Wednesday, Tilghman assumed I was checking the board, I wasn't)
And to Hockeyguy saying it was suspicious that I posted right after him, you do realize that after my initial post (which you failed to notice) I actually started paying attention to the game and, thus, posted to defend myself.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 1:38:33 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on May 31, 2008 1:38:33 GMT -5
No, I don't know what you mean. That's not what my crumb was for. My intention was that if I were killed, and there was a remaining, unconfirmed mason, s/he could point to that as evidence that we were aligned, lending some credence to the obviously much-hated mason claim. OK. THIS makes me feel better. Then I kinda wished you hadn't said it. As that really DOES help us out, and it's a smarter move. I guess I should give you some credit for that- having the OTHER Mason point it out as proof of their mason-ness- that's WAY more helpful. But it's silly of YOU to make that play when YOU had to spill the beans. You shoulda kept it secret, so that THEY could point it out in the future, as it wouldn't really Help YOUR case any way, because any scum could point out their own little spelling things, but having ANOTHER player point it out woulda been much better. Either that, or figure out some way that they can STILL confirm themselves should you bite the big one, since they can't use that method any more.
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 1:53:08 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on May 31, 2008 1:53:08 GMT -5
No, I don't know what you mean. That's not what my crumb was for. My intention was that if I were killed, and there was a remaining, unconfirmed mason, s/he could point to that as evidence that we were aligned, lending some credence to the obviously much-hated mason claim. OK. THIS makes me feel better. Then I kinda wished you hadn't said it. As that really DOES help us out, and it's a smarter move. I guess I should give you some credit for that- having the OTHER Mason point it out as proof of their mason-ness- that's WAY more helpful. But it's silly of YOU to make that play when YOU had to spill the beans. You shoulda kept it secret, so that THEY could point it out in the future, as it wouldn't really Help YOUR case any way, because any scum could point out their own little spelling things, but having ANOTHER player point it out woulda been much better. Either that, or figure out some way that they can STILL confirm themselves should you bite the big one, since they can't use that method any more. Yeah, I should've left it alone. I guess I was in an overly-confessional mood. I get that way sometimes. 'S okay. I'm sure that'll work itself out.
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 2:11:51 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on May 31, 2008 2:11:51 GMT -5
So, (1) Hal posted his hints that he was possessed, and you picked up on them, before (2) you speculated that the Possessed might not know they're Possessed. I never said you claimed Hal was lying. I never said you claimed your theory was fact. I do find it funny that you didn't include any comments about (1) when you posted (2), since the two possibilities are directly opposed. When someone posts contradictory theories without an explanation or acknowledgement of the difference and relationship between them, it raised my suspicions. My post about him basically saying he was possessed was in reference to earlier posts about atarus making it so people wouldn't be able to just out right say so, which I agreed would be the case. Hal then made his comment: I disagree, there are some weird things here and he may be the answer to our exorcism questions. I only have one request for our exorcist role don't do it tonight, wait until tomorrow. That'd be ok with me...I have time. Not an unlimited amount, but time. Which I took to be him basically admitting to being possessed (assuming that's what he was talking about), which after the talk of atarus not allowing players to do that, I found odd, so I commented about it when I said "And this seems like you're basically saying you're possessed." That was never a theory, just an observation about what he said based on what I, and others, thought would and wouldn't be allowed. I'm not sure where this idea of contradictory theories was brought up as I only ever offered the one theory about possessed players not knowing they're possessed.
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 2:56:09 GMT -5
Post by Rebel on May 31, 2008 2:56:09 GMT -5
I honestly almost feel hesitant to vote for hockeyguy for the simple fact that from the looks of it almost everyone seems to be saying ‘I agree’ so far. However, I can’t help the fact that from reading everything I am also finding him suspicious. Kat!’s case against him was good and I already stated how I didn’t like his vote for stardragonman. I know he’s played a different type of mafia before so I’m kind of wondering how he managed to get caught up in inconsistencies and voting from my eyes what seems to be the easy option.
So for now I vote: hockeyguy
I'll see what tomorrow has it store though.
Hockeyman you said your vote was for stardragonman because he was being the least helpful player around here. He picked up on his posting so do you still agree with the reason behind your vote for him?
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 2:57:41 GMT -5
Post by Rebel on May 31, 2008 2:57:41 GMT -5
Also before I forget I honestly don’t get where Tragic’s vote for buffy came from seeing buffy had already claimed a mason type role. I’m not sure if she’s been so busy that she hadn’t read up on it (which could very well be the case) or it’s just a way to add another vote onto buffy to try to get her eliminated but I find that vote very odd.
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 3:35:08 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on May 31, 2008 3:35:08 GMT -5
No, right now I don't see SDM as the least helpful anymore. He showed up and is talking now, and there are others who have still failed to do as much. My vote will change before the deadline, I'm not sure who to yet though.
But for the record: Unvote: Stardragonman[/color]
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 3:36:06 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on May 31, 2008 3:36:06 GMT -5
Also, what time tomorrow does the Day end? If anyone knows?
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 5:52:36 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on May 31, 2008 5:52:36 GMT -5
Caught up with the overnight action.
The time of Sunset is given in the opening post; it is at 8pm EST.
Am I correct in thinking that that's 8pm by your current clock with DST in force, or does that really mean Eastern Standard Time (which would give everyone another whole hour)?.
I'm worried about BlaM - he's not nomally around at weekends. This means he might well miss the postcount bar.
My only gut reaction to overnight events is that I was surprised Tragic voted for Bufftabby after Buff's Mason claim. Claiming Mason is a dangerous thing for an evil entity to do, especially on Day 1. The most common scenario is one Mason group; it only takes one person to counterclaim that they are a Masson and Bufftabby is not, and we have an evil entity (henceforth EE) exposed. The worst case, losing a Mason for an EE, is a good trade for survivors. Thus, for someone to vote for the claimant after the claim is suggestive of skimming.
Bufftabby's claim post was at 4:31am, and Tragic put her vote in at 5:35am (all times BST). That post isn't going to take an hour to draft; even taking into account the suggestion that she had to write it twice. I'll concede it's plausible that the post drafting got interrupted (I sympathise with having lots of things land in one's lap at once) so I'm not going to vote based solely on that; it's not enough. It is, however, something to bear in mind. (Guess I'd better start up a note file).
Right now, I'm considering a vote for Hockeyguy, but I want to reevaluate his defence, think about something Hal said earlier which hasn't really been noted, and consider the case against another player.
As I write it's coming up to noon, thus I still have 13 hours for the reread.
*Goes off singing*
Here we go Here we go Here we go again...
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 8:41:57 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on May 31, 2008 8:41:57 GMT -5
I know I had a list of people I would choose from to vote for, but I'm not going to vote for a claimed mason, the bandwagon on hockeyguy seems to be gaining speed way too fast, with a lot of "me too" type votes, and FCOD just isn't pinging me the same on re-read.
vote tragic
...for voting for a claimed mason.
That is probably all I will be able to do today, as I will be working thru the deadline. (Next week will be better - no training crap to deal with.)
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 8:50:33 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on May 31, 2008 8:50:33 GMT -5
On Hal. Hal has spent quite a number of posts building up an impression – that he is trying to say something about his role without explicitly saying it. The general consensus regarding this was that Hal is possessed by an incorporeal demon, that he knows this but is forbidden from saying so outright, and he's trying to use a similar sort of manoevre to get around the restriction as Roosh did when he claimed to hate shoes. (Apropos of nothing; Roosh's graveyard marker in Ancient China is a cobbler's last.) Is this consistent with Hals's known character in Mafia? The main thing long-time players will know about Hal is that he plays these games to win, within the rules. One of the early games saw Hal the Mason, offered a chance to gain a win for the Masons only (excluding other Townies), grab at the chance. He played the whole game trying to steer for a Mason-only win. So he likes to win, and likes to win with as much of the glory as possible. If he starts this game possessed, he's going to evaluate the chances of winning with the EEs and the chances of defecting and getting a Town win, because that's Hal. If he decides the latter offers more chance, he'll swing for it. However, he won't break a rule that he knows about. Back in Ancient China, the Mandate of Heaven ruled that (a) Roosh's attempt to skate round the prohibition just failed, and (b) he would not learn of it until he tried to use his power that Night. It's possible that Hal has overstepped the bounds and has not yet learned of his misstep. That is (as the saying goes) for Atarus to know and Hal to find out. All this careful buildup of implicit statements is undermined by one single post. In post D1.277 Hal states “I'm just a vanilla townie.” If he's a possessed EE, that is not true. He's flatly contradicting everything he's built up. Is that enough for me to vote Hal? Not yet; there's a couple of other people for me to look at. More later.
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 9:07:43 GMT -5
Post by Rysto on May 31, 2008 9:07:43 GMT -5
MHaye, any particular reason why you're so sure that possessed players can win with the EEs? I don't see any reason why they couldn't be townies in need of a shoehorning if they're to survive long-term.
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 9:17:55 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on May 31, 2008 9:17:55 GMT -5
MHaye, I believe, is working from the same thought that I was at the start of the day, that is that D2mons are a role, rather than the mechanic that's the general opinion of them now.
In other words he's thinking that Hal can stay possessed and play to the end of the game and have an achievable (albeit probably difficult) win condition, as opposed to the tacitly accepted idea that it's more like: if we don't exorcise Darth and Hal relatively quickly the D2mon will kill them and move on to a new player.
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 9:18:23 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on May 31, 2008 9:18:23 GMT -5
I got internet in my hotel, so really quick here's a vote count before I head out on an 8 hour drive. Vote Counthockeyguy8435 (8): stardragonman, Kat, hawkeyeop, ryjae, misterblockey, Roosh, bufftabby, Rebel bufftabby (5): tdpatriots12, Survivor Smurf, Hal Briston, FlyingCowofDoom, Tragic misterblockey (2): NAF1138, Nanook Tragic (2): KidVermicious, hockeymonkey Stardragonman (1): Darth Sensitive FlyingCowofDoom (1): Rysto Not Voting: (7) Also, stardragonman, I'm going to have to have a word with you about editing. *dramatic lightning clap and thunder boom*
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 9:24:34 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on May 31, 2008 9:24:34 GMT -5
MHaye, any particular reason why you're so sure that possessed players can win with the EEs? I don't see any reason why they couldn't be townies in need of a shoehorning if they're to survive long-term. I suspect I was making an assumption about game design. Firstly, I suspect Atarus followed the template he used for the vanilla PM for all role PMs. That would mean the bottom of the PM has a section like this. Role Summary Role: Survivor Generic Mafia Role Name: Vanilla Town Alignment: Town Win Condition: All evil entities are dead. If (as I believe) some players start off possessed by incorporeal demons, I deduce that their alignment will read "Evil Entity" rather than "Town." So the players are playing on the side of the bad guys here. That being so, why should they not share in the EEs win? That's my reasoning (although I hadn't consciously checked all the links, so thanks for asking). The consequences of trying to ride two horses like this is that the horses might go off in different directions leaving the players stranded - ie they might lose no matter who wins. I suspect that depends on how the exorcism is handled. Such a possibility makes for interesting choices on the part of the players so positioned, doesn't it?
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 9:36:32 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on May 31, 2008 9:36:32 GMT -5
MHaye, I believe, is working from the same thought that I was at the start of the day, that is that D2mons are a role, rather than the mechanic that's the general opinion of them now. Actually I think I'm sort of a hybrid view. Incorporeals are a role, but if the player is killed in the wrong way the possessing demon can switch players and convert a new player. Players who are possessed when the game ends win or lose with the EEs. Players who were killed when possessed - I don't know what happens to them. I think Hal had a choice - fly a flag and try to get exorcised, or keep quiet and play as a vanilla EE. I think he's chosen the former. Warning - unfounded speculation ahead I suspect that there are also eligibility rules for possession - that is, when a possessed player dies, the choice about who the incorporeal can possess is restricted. This comes on top of players who's role renders them immune to possession. If no player is eligible for possession, the incorporeal demon is eliminated. My grounds for thinking this? It's what I'd do. I might be spectacularly wrong. Hence the warni9ng.
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 11:01:39 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on May 31, 2008 11:01:39 GMT -5
Couple notes things on Hal and Hockeyguy.
Mhaye could be right, but I don't think so. I think town is town, possessed or not. I have no reason to think this better than he's got to think his way. Just throwing this out.
When hockeyguy says "and this basically sounds like you're saying you're possessed" or words to that effect, it sounds to me like he's reacting to the way Hal is claiming, not the claim itself.
Taking HG's comment in context with his concern over what Hal is allowed to say, I would parse his statement as "you just said you can't claim possession, but this sounds like you're claiming possession", as opposed to doubt over the claim itself. I think at that point he's confused about the restrictions that Hal claims to be operating under, not confused or misdirecting re: the possession itself.
Hope that makes sense. I'm not opposed to the lynch, cus we're coming down to it and we gotta lynch somebody... but I don't think the case against HG is solid as it appears to be.
I may not be back before end of Day, busy weekend for me. I think I'm ok with my vote on Tragic.
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 11:11:42 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on May 31, 2008 11:11:42 GMT -5
Obviously I won't be voting for an un-counterclaimed Mason. Unvote bufftabby.
I'm gonna have to go with hockeyguy, as I agree that he is obviously not paying attention and I do think skimming is a scum tell. Yeah, I have nothing new to add beyond what Kat and misterblockey said, but I don't care. He's moved to the #1 spot on my list of suspicion. Vote hockeyguy8435
This is why I feel everyone should be voting MUCH SOONER in the Day. Now we've got (*checks his avatar*) 8 hours left and we have to scramble to find a lynch candidate. There's very little time left for hockeyguy to make a claim, should he want to.
--FCOD
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 11:22:44 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on May 31, 2008 11:22:44 GMT -5
On Hockeyguy. Kat made a case showing that Hockeyguy was inconsistent. Hockeyguy's defence is post D1.372. I'm afraid I dont find that it addresses the discrepancy Kat called out. He makes a post at 7:26pm on 28 th May saying that Hal is “basically saying he's possessed,” then, not twelve hours later (7:00am on 29 th May) suggests that players may not know they're possessed. When he puts this forward, he makes no attempt to reconcile this hypothesis with his earlier observation. This was the fundamental discrepancy Kat pointed out. His defence, that he only ever advanced one theory, is true but irrelevant. He was advancing a theory which was contradicted by an observation he had made not 12 hours earlier, and made no effort to reconcile the two. Why not? I could vote for Hockeyguy; the trouble is that his defence problems may be caused by honest new-guy confusion. FCOD : please note that when Hockeyguy was last on line (about 8 hours ago) he had 8 votes, and led the count by three. That he's in danger of lynch should hardly come as a surprise. There's one more person I want to research before voting today, and that is misterblockey. Back soon (although getting dinner will also have to happen, probably before I get the post written up).
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 11:27:03 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 31, 2008 11:27:03 GMT -5
I don't have a lot of time right now, but I will in a few hours. So until then, quick hit thoughts:
1. My initial reaction is that I hate the Tragic votes. I know there are only two of them, but the rush to vote for her because "she voted for a claimed Mason" smacks of opportunism. Really, what scum would be dumb enough to do that if buff is really a Mason? What possible benefit could Tragic have hoped to accrue? I find it far more likely that Tragic posted and voted while re-reading, and missed the role claim in one way or another.
But then I think, isn't that reflective of skimming? And isn't skimming often a scum tell?
So I'm not sure, but I think I hate the Tragic votes.
2. If there is a real Mason, and bufftabby is not one of your number, please claim! I'm saying that straightforwardly because if you counter buff, we'll lynch one of you toDay and the other toMorrow, and we'll net a scum. A first Day scum lynch is extremely valuable, both in itself and because it means we net scum without the danger of forcing yet more pro-Town claims.
3. I need to read more carefully to see what I think of this hockeyguy wagon, which has developed far too quickly for my taste.
|
|
Darth Sensitive
Mome Rath
With great power comes great responsibility / That's the catchphrase of Old Uncle Ben
Posts: 18
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 11:40:28 GMT -5
Post by Darth Sensitive on May 31, 2008 11:40:28 GMT -5
I would expect that if type 2 demons can't talk about what they are, they wouldn't be able to claim something too.
Can't any one else see the logic behind this.
Claim mason, get voted for. I agree the breadcrumb sucked, but other breadcrumbs have been missed. Unless someone counterclaims our 'mason' or we have another reason to not trust them, I'll be treating them as a maon.
Either tragic has info we don't (share it), or he's skimming (scumtell) or some permutation of that.
Unvote Stardragonman Vote tragic
|
|
|
Day One
May 31, 2008 11:57:22 GMT -5
Post by Czech on May 31, 2008 11:57:22 GMT -5
I could vote for Hockeyguy; the trouble is that his defence problems may be caused by honest new-guy confusion. This is the primary reason why I'm still holding back my vote for Hockeyguy. I am leaning toward voting for him, because his defense against Kat is fairly lame. If he could pop back in and explain himself a little more lucidly, then maybe I'll sort through the posts again before the deadline (ugh). If he doesn't, then he's getting my vote.
|
|