|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 9:09:45 GMT -5
Post by Almost Human on Sept 29, 2008 9:09:45 GMT -5
May I offer a suggestion: Now that the consensus seems to be that we lynch sinjin, I think we should unofficially vote for one more lynching candidate. Not to actually lynch that person, but to achieve the same effects - in an attempt to draw someone out in the open. I'd be willing to count those votes if this seems like a good idea.. Sure: unvote sinjinvote Cat in a Suit for having an avatar too similar in colour to yours and making me confused unvote Cat in a Suitvote sinjinSorry, that was flippant but right now I don't have any major suspicions about anyone else. I do see why you suggested it though seeing as a lot of toDay's focus has been on just a few players.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 9:17:20 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 29, 2008 9:17:20 GMT -5
My PM indicates that anyone who mixes there blood with mine via feather is protected for the duration of the game. I don't know what would happen if I target someone who is already infected. Mod question.
What happens if I feather someone after they are already infected?Clear enough? UATU IS NEITHER WILLING TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION PUBLICLY, NOR WILLING TO DECLINE TO DO SO. NOR WILLING TO REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE SUBJECT OF WHETHER OR NOT HE MAY BE UNWILLING TO DECLINE TO REMAIN SILENT ON THE SUBJECT OF HIS WILLINGNESS TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 9:24:21 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 29, 2008 9:24:21 GMT -5
ALSO, YOU ARE CURRENT VOTING TO KILL THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE:
sinjin (9) – Santo Rugger, misterblockey, FCOD, zeriel, Almost Human, bufftabby, Darth Sensitive, Hoopy Frood, Almost Human Rysto (1) – peekercpa peekercpa (1) – hawkeye CatinaSuit (1) – KidV
-------------
Apologies for my absence over the weekend; it was an even busier weekend than I'd anticipated. Pleo, I'll post a final vote count in the S.H.I.E.L.D. Observation area after I finish the report I'm writing, which shouldn't take more than a half hour. I'll then put final vote counts in that area after each Day ends.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 9:30:38 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 29, 2008 9:30:38 GMT -5
May I offer a suggestion: Now that the consensus seems to be that we lynch sinjin, I think we should unofficially vote for one more lynching candidate. Not to actually lynch that person, but to achieve the same effects - in an attempt to draw someone out in the open. I'd be willing to count those votes if this seems like a good idea.. Well, the problem is that those votes don't really hold the same accountability as a regular voted. They don't really count, and the scum will treat it as such. It's a good idea in theory, but I don't think it is very practical.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 9:59:17 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Sept 29, 2008 9:59:17 GMT -5
I'll be rather busy this week (stupid government expecting progress reports at the end of fiscal year ), so don't expect too much from me. Something that's been bothering me: some people are analyzing powers as pro-Town or anti-Town. That's inappropriate. Pro-Town roles can have anti-Town powers. It's up to the player to use (or not use) it at a suitable time. For an example, in the Gastard Mod game my Executioner role was pro-Town, but the power, stopping the lynch, is very anti-Town if I used it without consideration. I decided could only use it if I absolutely knew the lynchee was Town. It never happened. And also, it's very possible for scum to have a pro-Town power. Something like an investigative power that would let them determine the powers of the target. Since this is a no-vanilla game, scum could have a use of this traditional pro-Town power. My point is, in a closed setup, no-vanilla game, it's very stupid to judge a role based on its power(s). We need to be looking at how the power is used. The motivation.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 10:04:42 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Sept 29, 2008 10:04:42 GMT -5
And to comment on Rugger, I think his choice of Idle was reasonable. Idle had a low life expectancy as soon as he claimed. That, combined with his self-protection made him a reasonable choice. I'm not sure I would have made the same choice, but it's something that is not outrageous.
I am provisionally trusting Rugger for ToDay. But if sinjin comes back as anything other than a third-party (i.e., either Town or Scum), he is next up the scaffolding.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 10:05:43 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Sept 29, 2008 10:05:43 GMT -5
How can we trust that you actually are on our side? You haven't done anything so far that indicates you're townie. Sure, you claimed you were going to make a zombie ahead of time, but that doesn't mean you're aligned with town. I, for one, will start getting extremely nervous when you start getting more than a 2 or 3 zombies. Sure, the zombies were good in the Apocalypse game, but that doesn't mean they are in this game. Why should we trust you? As far as actions to make you trust me, I would think telling you in advance what I was going to do qualifies for that. Again, if I was malicious, why would I say anything at all? I could have said nothing, made my zombie, and left you all none the wiser as to who or what was going on. Santo, I'm not planning on holding out very long on the additional information, just a few days(not Days). I have a reason for this, and it will be clear when I explain.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 10:06:34 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Sept 29, 2008 10:06:34 GMT -5
Hmm, I'll need to rethink that. If sinjin turns up Scum, Rugger could be Scum colluding with her. But it's also quite possible that she was lying to throw suspicion on Rugger. If it comes to this, I'll have to re-evaluate.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 10:40:50 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 29, 2008 10:40:50 GMT -5
... if sinjin comes back as anything other than a third-party (i.e., either Town or Scum), he is next up the scaffolding. Sounds good. Hmm, I'll need to rethink that. If sinjin turns up Scum, Rugger could be Scum colluding with her. But it's also quite possible that she was lying to throw suspicion on Rugger. If it comes to this, I'll have to re-evaluate. Your previous statement only had an action item for the impossibility of sinjin turning up Town. What part are you rethinking?
|
|
Darth Sensitive
Mome Rath
With great power comes great responsibility / That's the catchphrase of Old Uncle Ben
Posts: 18
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 11:14:53 GMT -5
Post by Darth Sensitive on Sept 29, 2008 11:14:53 GMT -5
FoS FCODDid you even bother to read the set up? (From here) And seriously, you're jumping on sinjin for copy and pasting instead of quoting. What do you stand to gain by making up extra reasons for a lynch on top of the ones we already have? Oh please... I jumped on sinjin long before I noticed the discrepancies in her quoted PM. But you're right, we already found our lynch for the day we should stop looking for anything suspicious!!!! [/sarcasm] I didn't say anything about the "writing styles", I said her formatting was different than the THREE other PMs I can see. Santo made it clear that by just copying and pasting the formatting is lost, which I didn't realize. However, I still think it's strange her PM only says "Power" when the other three PMs say "Powers". But honestly, it makes no difference because even if her PM is 100% true she still needs to die. Her win condition precludes a town win and her power is severely dangerous. --FCOD And you'll note I haven't said we should stop looking for anything suspicious. For example, I've found you. I'm not saying don't lynch her, as I agree that she has a dangerous power and a non town win condition. I am saying that you throwing extra shit at the wall trying to see what sticks looks very suspicious to me. And it might make sense for someone who only has one power to not have the word pluralized in their PM. Crazy, I know. Unvote Sinjin Vote FCoD
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 11:18:56 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Sept 29, 2008 11:18:56 GMT -5
... if sinjin comes back as anything other than a third-party (i.e., either Town or Scum), he is next up the scaffolding. Sounds good. Hmm, I'll need to rethink that. If sinjin turns up Scum, Rugger could be Scum colluding with her. But it's also quite possible that she was lying to throw suspicion on Rugger. If it comes to this, I'll have to re-evaluate. Your previous statement only had an action item for the impossibility of sinjin turning up Town. What part are you rethinking? I had originally thought that sinjin coming up Scum (rather than third-party) would condemn you as a collaborating Scum. Obviously, that is not strictly correct, since she could be Scum lying about being a third-party to reduce confidence in you. So, if she does come up Scum, I won't automatically want to lynch you. To clarify, my current opinion: 1) sinjin is Town => we should lynch Rugger. 2) sinjin is third party => Rugger looks trustable, but is not confirmed. 3) sinjin is Scum => no info on Rugger's alignment. I base this on statements by both Rugger and sinijin. I think their role claims are mostly true (their names and powers), but I don't trust their claimed alignments.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 11:39:45 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Sept 29, 2008 11:39:45 GMT -5
BUt it's not like I saw that, and suddenly was suspicious of him, though. The point still stands: it's not stupid or necessarily scummy to be suspicious of peeker, and I don't like Pollux's implication that it is. That's not what I said AT all. You're taking two separate statements I made and smushing them together into a misrepresentation. I said: This is a specific point. I'm uncomfortable with people who say "Well, we've got to lynch him at some point." Because we DON'T have to lynch him at some point. We can wait and analyze how he behaves and see if he's scummy or not. WHICH people are doing, that's cool. But "Fuck, he's claimed Miller. Welp, we have to lynch him now." That's just poor reasoning and I'm suspicious of people who want to use that as their main and/or ONLY reason for voting for peeker. THEN I said: People who are using his "I get 5 posts and my role changes" as something for a reason to lynch him, I just interpreted that as him goofing around because he'd posted so damn much. This is me giving an interpretation of an event that has been discussed this Day. Never did I say that I thought people that jumped on him for this were scummy. So yeah, misrepresentation of what I said. I never even implied that I had a blanket suspicion of all people who were just suspicious of peeker. As for learning something from Molefan's lynch, I mean...just because somebody acts odd doesn't mean they're scum. I'll be the first to admit I was suspicious of molefan's behavior and was considering voting to lynch him. But those who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. And so far, two of the three people that have claimed in some form on Day One are dead and they were both what they said they were. It's something to think about. It's not a "misrepresentation". "Scummy to vote for peeker" refers to your first point. "Stupid to vote for peeker" refers to your second point, which was capped off by your statement about learning from the molefan lynch. I didn't conflate a thing. Besides, who the hell is wanting to lynch peeker for being "odd"? Anybody? Nope, didn't think so.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 11:39:57 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Sept 29, 2008 11:39:57 GMT -5
Sounds good.Your previous statement only had an action item for the impossibility of sinjin turning up Town. What part are you rethinking? I had originally thought that sinjin coming up Scum (rather than third-party) would condemn you as a collaborating Scum. Obviously, that is not strictly correct, since she could be Scum lying about being a third-party to reduce confidence in you. So, if she does come up Scum, I won't automatically want to lynch you. To clarify, my current opinion: 1) sinjin is Town => we should lynch Rugger. 2) sinjin is third party => Rugger looks trustable, but is not confirmed. 3) sinjin is Scum => no info on Rugger's alignment. I base this on statements by both Rugger and sinijin. I think their role claims are mostly true (their names and powers), but I don't trust their claimed alignments. Of course, option #1 would be downright bizarre given her claim. It would mean that she not only is a lying townie (for whatever reason) but she went to all the trouble to create an apparently legitimate claim.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 11:43:18 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 29, 2008 11:43:18 GMT -5
Sorry, I misread your first post.
But now that you clarified, why in the world would you have thought sinjin being scum would make me collaborating with her.
However, to address your bullets:
1)sounds good to me. 2)in all fairness, not really. Redirectors have been scum in the past, IIRC. 3)true.
I got lucky in that I was able to use my role in a pseudo-investigative fashion. Instead of trying to glean my alignment from that, I think we should just realize it is what it is. We've busted scum/PFK, let's just take it from there.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 11:44:53 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 29, 2008 11:44:53 GMT -5
But I still think 3) should give me a little bit of alignment cred, at least. But I'm not going to make the case for it.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 11:54:35 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Sept 29, 2008 11:54:35 GMT -5
Now, I don't know why somebody else didn't die last Night, but I'm guessing a scum role blocker and a scum killer both targeted Idle. Either sinjin is one of them, or there were four people that included Idle in their Night actions (including me). Regardless, I think it was a pretty good trade. Risky, maybe, but I think the risk-reward benefit was greater than 1. Role blocker, Killer, and you. Who is the fourth?
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 11:58:34 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 29, 2008 11:58:34 GMT -5
Role blocker, Killer, and you. Who is the fourth?
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 12:02:37 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 29, 2008 12:02:37 GMT -5
Role blocker, Killer, and you. Who is the fourth? Whoops, sorry, I thought you were accusing me by asking who the fourth horseman was. The fourth person would have been sinjin. By including Idle in their Night actions, I included my redirecting of her.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 12:06:15 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 29, 2008 12:06:15 GMT -5
And you'll note I haven't said we should stop looking for anything suspicious. For example, I've found you. I'm not saying don't lynch her, as I agree that she has a dangerous power and a non town win condition. I am saying that you throwing extra shit at the wall trying to see what sticks looks very suspicious to me. And it might make sense for someone who only has one power to not have the word pluralized in their PM. Crazy, I know. The sheer ridiculousness of your attack against me leads me to believe you are just a misguided townie. Not only does Santo's PM have only one power and the word "Powers," but so does mine. I guess I am crazy! Oh wait, no, you're just accusing me of not paying attention and then not paying attention. I already admitted that my original point was mostly nullified, so I don't know what else you want from me. I noticed a discrepancy that I thought was significant to the game and posted it. Santo pointed out additional facts that made my point, well... pointless and I conceded as such. Can you tell me exactly what is suspicious about bringing up what appeared to be a player lying about his/her role? 'Cause I'd prefer if people posted evidence that might show a player is lying. --FCOD
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 12:10:29 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 29, 2008 12:10:29 GMT -5
Whoops, sorry, I thought you were accusing me by asking who the fourth horseman was. The fourth person would have been sinjin. By including Idle in their Night actions, I included my redirecting of her. Maybe instead of saying they included Idle, I should have said, "...people whose Night actions affected..."
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 12:43:18 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Sept 29, 2008 12:43:18 GMT -5
Of course, option #1 would be downright bizarre given her claim. It would mean that she not only is a lying townie (for whatever reason) but she went to all the trouble to create an apparently legitimate claim. Yes, I can't imagine a good reason a Townie would false claim alignment. But no matter why a Townie- sinijn lied, it means that something is not right with Rugger's actions. Sorry, I misread your first post. But now that you clarified, why in the world would you have thought sinjin being scum would make me collaborating with her. However, to address your bullets: 1)sounds good to me. 2)in all fairness, not really. Redirectors have been scum in the past, IIRC. 3)true. I got lucky in that I was able to use my role in a pseudo-investigative fashion. Instead of trying to glean my alignment from that, I think we should just realize it is what it is. We've busted scum/PFK, let's just take it from there. But I still think 3) should give me a little bit of alignment cred, at least. But I'm not going to make the case for it. In case two ( sinjin is revealed as third-party), it means the facts, the results and your claims are consistent with your actions. So not a confirmation, but positive evidence in your favor. And since in future purpled people will point back to you it puts a leash on your power. For me at least, that puts you a step more trustable above the average player who has nothing to show. If sinjin turns out to be Scum, the chance of you being a colluding Scum is too great for me to give you any trust at all. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ About Flying pointing out problems in the sinjin's role PM, I think he was right to do so. I figured the formatting was a copy/paste issue. But the singular "Power" is something I would not have caught. That slip is certainly a problem for sinjin and makes me 100% for her lynch ToDay. We don't know what she else might be able to do. It's too risky to let her live. I'll also note that given that two players with one power both have "Powers", Darth has soft claimed to have more than power. (Yes, there's other possibilities, but I think this is the most likely.)
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 12:53:24 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Sept 29, 2008 12:53:24 GMT -5
Frack. I just finished my read of the Day so far and would like to accept the condolences of Peekercpa for my Raider fandom. It's hard to root for the silver and black these days, but you can't really choose the teams you root for any more than you can change who you fall in love with. Sometimes it just hurts.
Ok, enough of that sillyness, let's:
vote sinjin but not really because I don't want to start the countdown accidentally without talking about it first and as far as I can tell we are only 2 votes away.
My vote will be on her before the Day is over though.
Why? Because we net a lot of information from her death, and right now what we need more than anything is information.
The question then becomes, do we end the Day ASAP or try and find a second candidate to start talking about?
In the past we have always tried to allow Days to run for as long as possible, but the problem with this is we are generally incapable of actually discussing anything once the lynch candidate has been decided upon. In that case it is probably in the towns best interest to end the game quickly so as to keep momentum going. The biggest harm to the town is the towns own apathy, and games that draw on too long end up with apathetic townies.
On the other hand, if we are able to start actually looking at and talking about other players, a longer Day may actually be better.
I would like to hear from everyone what they think about when to end the Day and why. I am currently in favor of starting the clock quickly, but am open to persuasion.
And with that, I am going to try to re-read Day1 and Day2 in a block and see if I see any patterns.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 13:00:39 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 29, 2008 13:00:39 GMT -5
That slip is certainly a problem for sinjin and makes me 100% for her lynch ToDay. We don't know what she else might be able to do. It's too risky to let her live. Come on now. I'm all about lynching sinjin, but let's not get silly. I really don't see how that was a slip. What I'm guessing happened is that the original formatting template was written by story and he sent it to the gals to help him write them up. One of them noticed that sinjin only had one power, so they changed the pluralness accordingly. If we start trying to use this as a reason for our lynching now, it could come back to hurt us in the endgame. This, combined with the way you're acting towards me the same way Idle did in the Gastard game (saying you suspect me almost exclusively because of my role, multiple times) is making me quite uneasy.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 13:23:54 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Sept 29, 2008 13:23:54 GMT -5
That slip is certainly a problem for sinjin and makes me 100% for her lynch ToDay. We don't know what she else might be able to do. It's too risky to let her live. Come on now. I'm all about lynching sinjin, but let's not get silly. I really don't see how that was a slip. What I'm guessing happened is that the original formatting template was written by story and he sent it to the gals to help him write them up. One of them noticed that sinjin only had one power, so they changed the pluralness accordingly. If we start trying to use this as a reason for our lynching now, it could come back to hurt us in the endgame. This can be resolved immediately: Open request to everyone: please tell us if A) you have exactly one power and B) your role PM uses "Power" and not "Powers" in a heading. If you do not meet both conditions, please say nothing. I only want to know if anyone meets both A and B, besides sinjin. If no one is willing to claim this, I will view anyone who later meets those conditions to be extremely suspect. If someone ToDay claims they meet these conditions, then I will retract that accusation against sinjin and not hold it against anyone else in the future. Reasonable? Are you confusing me with someone else? My suspicion (or lack of it) is based on your actions and the claims of both you and sinjin. And will be affected by the results of sinjin's upcoming lynching. Given that for the most probable result (she is a third party survivor), I've stated I'm inclined to trust you, I'm confused about this statement by you. For the second most probable result (she's Scum), I've said null tell. And in the unlikely event that she is Townie, even you have agreed that you're a good lynch candidate. I'm hardly throwing a lot suspicion at you. So, can you explain what you meant?
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 13:59:04 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 29, 2008 13:59:04 GMT -5
If no one is willing to claim this, I will view anyone who later meets those conditions to be extremely suspect... Reasonable? Not really. sinjin is going to come up as anti-town. What's to stop some other anti-town element from simply claiming their PM is different now. Also, what's to stop anti-town elements from changing their PMs when they do claim. Something like this, if it even is an actual slip (which I'm doubting), is only going to work once. I brought up the point because I didn't want it to be able to be used in the future, because I don't think it's a valid method of scum/PFK confirmation. Your response was to try to find a way to possibly be able to use it as such in the future. Odd.I disagree that her being PFK is most likely. And you didn't say her showing up Scum would be a null tell. To be more precise, you said there would be no info on my alignment in that case. But you said you didn't trust my alignment. In doing so, when referring to the three possibilities, we've agreed there's almost zero possibility sinjin is town. You said I would be "trustable, but not confirmed". The third possibility, the last one you listed, was that there would be no info. You immediately followed by saying you didn't trust my alignment. To me, that is your way of subtly setting up your argument for Tomorrow when sinjin shows up as scum (because you already know she is going to).
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 14:27:33 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Sept 29, 2008 14:27:33 GMT -5
If no one is willing to claim this, I will view anyone who later meets those conditions to be extremely suspect... Reasonable? Not really. sinjin is going to come up as anti-town. What's to stop some other anti-town element from simply claiming their PM is different now. Also, what's to stop anti-town elements from changing their PMs when they do claim. Something like this, if it even is an actual slip (which I'm doubting), is only going to work once. I brought up the point because I didn't want it to be able to be used in the future, because I don't think it's a valid method of scum/PFK confirmation. Your response was to try to find a way to possibly be able to use it as such in the future. Odd. My request makes it very easy for anyone to give evidence that sinjin's "slip" is not really a slip. If no one states they also have "Power" and one power, that's fairly strong evidence that she did indeed slip. And there's nothing to stop non-Townies from changing their PM claim. But if no one provides any evidence that her slip isn't one and someone else makes the same mistake, I will find it suspicious. Because someone else making the same mistake that has been examined so closely is an even stronger slip. That's why anyone who does have both "Power" and only one power had better say so sooner rather than later. My default opinion of anyone is "I don't trust their alignment". A null tell does not change that. How is "there would be no info on your alignment" not equivalent a "null tell"? That's precisely what I mean when I say "null tell". Do you use it differently? Why are you being so defensive about this? I'm being very transparent about my reasoning on you. I find you potentially less suspicious then many other players, and yet you're still nitpicking at me.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 14:31:34 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Sept 29, 2008 14:31:34 GMT -5
The question then becomes, do we end the Day ASAP or try and find a second candidate to start talking about? In the past we have always tried to allow Days to run for as long as possible, but the problem with this is we are generally incapable of actually discussing anything once the lynch candidate has been decided upon. In that case it is probably in the towns best interest to end the game quickly so as to keep momentum going. The biggest harm to the town is the towns own apathy, and games that draw on too long end up with apathetic townies. I say we let the day roll until the post count starts to drop, or we are confident in that we have learned as much as we can. I don't really have any strong suspicions right now that aren't addressed. If any people have anything to contribute, now would be a great time. Please just throw in anything odd you've noticed, so we have something to discuss.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 14:43:47 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 29, 2008 14:43:47 GMT -5
How is "there would be no info on your alignment" not equivalent a "null tell"? That's precisely what I mean when I say "null tell". Do you use it differently? I just said this, but what you did was basically say, "it's a null tell, but I don't trust him". That's different than simply saying something is a null tell.I'm not being "so defensive". I just feel like you're trying to set up false dichotomies you can come back and point to later (i.e. when/if sinjin is mafia scum, i.e. trying to set up a way to "catch" people that in 99.99% likelyhood would never work (especially after you announced that you'd be suspicious of anybody that didn't change it)), and it's not sitting right with me at all.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 15:11:27 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Sept 29, 2008 15:11:27 GMT -5
I just said this, but what you did was basically say, "it's a null tell, but I don't trust him". That's different than simply saying something is a null tell. I guess we disagree then, because they are the same to me. Not trusting is the default; saying it doesn't change anything. It simply reinforces. It's simple conditional logic, there's nothing false about it. (Assuming no one else has their role PM say "Power" and have only one power) someone else making the same slip, despite sinjin already making it, virtually guarantees they are lying about their role PM. Because she has already made the slip. Yes, that event happening is unlikely, but that doesn't effect the meaning of the slip once it's made. Do you really believe that if someone else makes the mistake we should ignore it as a null tell because another scum already made that same mistake? Especially when it is simple for anyone to make a low risk claim ToDay that they also have "Power" and only one power? I feel like I'm stating the obvious. But you're accusing me of setting up logical traps? I think we're having a failure to communicate.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 29, 2008 15:22:23 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 29, 2008 15:22:23 GMT -5
I didn't say we should ignore anything, I said I don't think it's going to work. We've had scum make some pretty dumb moves in the past (*whistles innocently*), but if this works I'll give you control of my signature for the rest of the calender year. You can make it say "Santo licks Pleo's balls," or anything you'd like.
|
|