|
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 6, 2008 13:21:24 GMT -5
So then, you think peeker might not be lying but Boozy still had extra information about peekers role? After all you said: That logic doesn't follow at all. His gaff only makes sense as a scum slip if they are both scum and peeker needs to be lynched eventually anyway since he is a claimed Miller. You're right. See, this is what I get for posting while I'm trying to work at the same time. If Boozy did slip up, that means that peeker is lying about his role and he posted a false Night Two PM. I don't know if I can buy all of that, so I guess Boozy may not have actually slipped up. Unvote Boozy. I don't know what to think. I am going to go re-read toDay and try to figure out what is going on. --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Oct 6, 2008 13:22:14 GMT -5
Boozahol: By all means, reveal them. Emma didn't die until today. I don't get to investigate until tonight. That's why it's not a great roleclaim: it screams scum wanting to have an extra Night in order to use Super-Power-Scum-Killathon-Recruit-Everyone Blaster, you know? If I am alive tomorrow morning, however, I'll be happy to share whatever I get back, if anything from my investigations.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 6, 2008 13:23:31 GMT -5
No, I don't think so. Put that together with his jones for a Boozahol lynch and... FOS on you FCoD. dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnn Great. Now you post this while I'm composing my last post. You really can't see the similarity between:and ? Come on! --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Almost Human on Oct 6, 2008 13:28:29 GMT -5
Squid why do you think Peeker's a roleblocker?
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 6, 2008 13:28:59 GMT -5
Well, FCOD, considering that I don't really believe peek in the first place, and that this "our target will not know that this attack has a beneficial effect, and your action will appear to any interested party to be a (failed) attack on the player in question" part seems quite made up to me? No.
Also, he posted that PM -after- you were blocked. I smell some collusion here.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Oct 6, 2008 13:30:11 GMT -5
Emma didn't die until today. I don't get to investigate until tonight. That's why it's not a great roleclaim: it screams scum wanting to have an extra Night in order to use Super-Power-Scum-Killathon-Recruit-Everyone Blaster, you know? If I am alive tomorrow morning, however, I'll be happy to share whatever I get back, if anything from my investigations. I know.. I was trying to get you to slip. You passed that so far
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 6, 2008 13:32:14 GMT -5
Day Three, Page Twelve, vote count:
peekercpa (3) - KidVermicious, Boozahol Squid PI, NAF Boozahol Squid PI (2) - Hoopy Frood, bufftabby Almost Human (1) - Santo Rugger Rysto (1) - peekercpa diggitcamara (1) - Chucara
Day ends in approximately 22 and a half hours, at 1:00PM EST on Tuesday, October 7.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 6, 2008 13:33:41 GMT -5
Well, FCOD, considering that I don't really believe peek in the first place, and that this "our target will not know that this attack has a beneficial effect, and your action will appear to any interested party to be a (failed) attack on the player in question" part seems quite made up to me? No. I didn't think any part of his PM seemed made up. Plus, it fit so perfectly with the PM that I received that I believed him. Also, he posted that PM -after- you were blocked. I smell some collusion here. What does that have to do with anything? Here's the series of events: 1) I get attacked on Night One. I think, shit I was attacked, but the attacker failed for some reason. 2) Peeker posts his PM with a power that seems to match what happened to me. Now the PM I received makes sense! 3) Profit! 4) You post your PM, which along with the fact that peeker says he was blocked himself for the time when you got the same PM I did means that either peeker is lying about getting blocked on Night Two or he isn't the person that blocked us. It seems to me like you're really reaching to incriminate me at this point. --FCOD
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Oct 6, 2008 13:38:35 GMT -5
Personally, I'm a bit conflicted about lynching Booze..
+ An investigative role is always a good thing - But he will most likely get killed if he is telling the truth - His claim doesn't seem to match Nightcrawler.. Why would he be able to steal powers? (I don't know much about the Marvel universe, so excuse me if this is wrong) + We can confirm his role and lynch tomorrow(?)
Basically, Boozahol stinks right now.. But there's something fishy about peeker still. And we can never verify his role.. But I have no idea how valuable his role is if he is actually telling the truth. Then again, he does downplay his abilities, which seems like something a townie would do in order to avoid getting killed..
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 6, 2008 13:39:41 GMT -5
Personally, I'm a bit conflicted about lynching Booze.. + An investigative role is always a good thing - But he will most likely get killed if he is telling the truth - His claim doesn't seem to match Nightcrawler.. Why would he be able to steal powers? (I don't know much about the Marvel universe, so excuse me if this is wrong) + We can confirm his role and lynch tomorrow(?) Basically, Boozahol stinks right now.. But there's something fishy about peeker still. And we can never verify his role.. But I have no idea how valuable his role is if he is actually telling the truth. Then again, he does downplay his abilities, which seems like something a townie would do in order to avoid getting killed.. I also thought the claim didn't seem to match what I know about Nightcrawler (which is only from seeing X2). It seems more like a power Mystique would have. --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Oct 6, 2008 13:40:03 GMT -5
I know I'm not supposed to think abouts these things too deeply, but that is weird power to give Nightcrawler, and that pm doesn't really seem to flow smoothly. Peek coming up town doesnt' mean Booz isn't, so I'm not sure we should necessarily lynch him first. It could be one of those bad reasoning, right results type thing. I still think there are other legitmate reasons to lynch Peek though. I'm waiting on his response to my questions.
In the meantime, I'll point out that NAF is giving me a similar vibe that I got from Rysto in the Apocalypse game (he was a serial killer of sorts there). He is being generically helpful in trying to gather townie information. This lets him appear as pro-town but avoid expressing controversial opinions. He did put a well reasoned vote on Peek though, so maybe not.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 6, 2008 13:41:36 GMT -5
What does that have to do with anything? Here's the series of events: 1) I get attacked on Night One. I think, shit I was attacked, but the attacker failed for some reason. 2) Peeker posts his PM with a power that seems to match what happened to me. Now the PM I received makes sense! 3) Profit! 4) You post your PM, which along with the fact that peeker says he was blocked himself for the time when you got the same PM I did means that either peeker is lying about getting blocked on Night Two or he isn't the person that blocked us. Or:1)You get blocked on Night 1, and receive a PM stating such. 2)You, peeker, and your three scum buddies concoct a fake PM using the bit of knowledge you've gained about how another player's blocking power works. 3)Profit 4)I get blocked and post my PM, effectively incriminating you for purposefully editing your post while saying you're doing it to protect a Night action you say you don't care if you have.[/quote] Well, like I said, something just feels off to me. I'm just trying to figure out what it is.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 6, 2008 13:46:10 GMT -5
Or:1)You get blocked on Night 1, and receive a PM stating such. 2)You, peeker, and your three scum buddies concoct a fake PM using the bit of knowledge you've gained about how another player's blocking power works. 3)Profit 4)I get blocked and post my PM, effectively incriminating you for purposefully editing your post while saying you're doing it to protect a Night action you say you don't care if you have. What? I left of the last sentence because I didn't want to reveal the fact that I have a night power. I didn't say my power was useless, I said I didn't care about it THAT NIGHT. That doesn't mean I won't care about it a different night. So here's my question to you: how do you know there are five scum in the game? --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Oct 6, 2008 13:48:56 GMT -5
So here's my question to you: how do you know there are five scum in the game? Very good question. Man I was screaming from the sidelines when Story got away with a similar slip.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 6, 2008 13:57:51 GMT -5
What? I left of the last sentence because I didn't want to reveal the fact that I have a night power. I didn't say my power was useless, I said I didn't care about it THAT NIGHT. That doesn't mean I won't care about it a different night. So here's my question to you: how do you know there are five scum in the game? --FCOD Ehh. But to answer your question, the four horsemen plus the Apocalypse, right? I thought that was already established?
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 6, 2008 14:03:43 GMT -5
The opening color seems to strongly hint at there being five scum--Apocalypse and the Four Horsemen. That doesn't feel so much like a "scum tell" as it does a "inclination to trust in color and non-gastardness".
I'm leaning towards Squid on the grounds of "that doesn't match Nightcrawler at all" thing--I'd say it sounds more like what Rogue should have been, or Mystique--and I'm doubly suspicious because Squid pre-emptively worries about his sanity as an investigator, which to me sounds like "here's my excuse for fingering a townie--clearly I'm insane".
vote Boozahol Squid PI. I don't necessarily trust Rugger either.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Chucara on Oct 6, 2008 14:09:43 GMT -5
I really think we need to hear from the people who aren't participating.. There are quite a few flying under the radar right now.
unvote diggitcamara
Like I said earlier, I'm not sure whether Booze or Peeker is the best target right now.. What would the harm be in letting Booze live on more day if we can confirm him tomorrow? And might we actually learn something from lynching peeker?
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Oct 6, 2008 14:13:07 GMT -5
I really think we need to hear from the people who aren't participating.. There are quite a few flying under the radar right now. unvote diggitcamaraLike I said earlier, I'm not sure whether Booze or Peeker is the best target right now.. What would the harm be in letting Booze live on more day if we can confirm him tomorrow? And might we actually learn something from lynching peeker? How would giving Booze a day confirm him? If he is scum he will know who is the rest of the scum are, which doesn't make pretending to be a detective too difficult. Besides unless we are willing to kill anyone he investigates immediately, it will be days before we can even tell if he is being truthful.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Oct 6, 2008 14:22:34 GMT -5
I really think we need to hear from the people who aren't participating.. There are quite a few flying under the radar right now. unvote diggitcamaraLike I said earlier, I'm not sure whether Booze or Peeker is the best target right now.. What would the harm be in letting Booze live on more day if we can confirm him tomorrow? And might we actually learn something from lynching peeker? How would giving Booze a day confirm him? If he is scum he will know who is the rest of the scum are, which doesn't make pretending to be a detective too difficult. Besides unless we are willing to kill anyone he investigates immediately, it will be days before we can even tell if he is being truthful. If Peeker isn't a scum roleblocker a lot of the case against Boozy falls apart. I personally think that Peekers lynch is the better one as well. 1. He's a miller so he has to be lynched eventually anyway 2. we gain information like crazy based on vote patterns and conversation 3. it answers a lot of questions not the least of which is, did boozy potentially know he was a roleblocker instead of what he claimed (I don't even know how to catagorize his actual claim. Weak doc against specific small percentage anti town mechanism?)
|
|
|
Post by Mister Blockey on Oct 6, 2008 14:24:36 GMT -5
Hmmm... dangit I'm not really comfortable with lynching any of our targets right now.
Peeker and Boozy both seem simultaneously suspicious and plausible, and both of them I'd rather not die if they're telling the truth.
The worst part is that if we lynch one of them, whether they're telling the truth or lying, I really don't see it verifying or casting doubt on the others alignment.
*wishes for a vote target he feels better about*
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 6, 2008 14:30:50 GMT -5
Ok, so I am way behind on this game.
So details, details, details.
Current claims
peekercpa - Archangel - miller & legacy virus blocker chucara - Kitty Pryde - Watcher Boozahol Squid - NightCrawler - backup Santo Rugger - Persuasion - Redirector Nanook - Threnodyne - Zombie Maker
Known Night Actions:
Night 1: Idle Thoughts Dead, molefan Raised Night 2: Pleonast Dead
Claimed Night Actions: Night 1: peekercpa inoculated someone, Santo Rugger directed sinjin onto Idle Thoughts, Toad visited peekercpa Night 2: peekercpa blocked, Santo Rugger blocked, FCoD blocked, Apocolypse visted Nanook.
Anything missed?
|
|
|
Post by Almost Human on Oct 6, 2008 14:35:46 GMT -5
How would giving Booze a day confirm him? If he is scum he will know who is the rest of the scum are, which doesn't make pretending to be a detective too difficult. Besides unless we are willing to kill anyone he investigates immediately, it will be days before we can even tell if he is being truthful. If Peeker isn't a scum roleblocker a lot of the case against Boozy falls apart. I personally think that Peekers lynch is the better one as well. 1. He's a miller so he has to be lynched eventually anyway 2. we gain information like crazy based on vote patterns and conversation 3. it answers a lot of questions not the least of which is, did boozy potentially know he was a roleblocker instead of what he claimed (I don't even know how to catagorize his actual claim. Weak doc against specific small percentage anti town mechanism?) If Peek's lynched and does turn out to have some roleblocking power I agree that'd make Squid look more suspicious. But if we lynch him and he's exactly what he claimed to be then we've not only lost someone who can immunise us from the legacy virus but it also doesn't explain why Squid thought he was a roleblocker in the first place. I'd like to hear why Squid thought he was a roleblocker - that bit just doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Almost Human on Oct 6, 2008 14:37:49 GMT -5
Ok, so I am way behind on this game. So details, details, details. Current claims peekercpa - Archangel - miller & legacy virus blocker chucara - Kitty Pryde - Watcher Boozahol Squid - NightCrawler - backup Santo Rugger - Persuasion - Redirector Nanook - Threnodyne - Zombie Maker Known Night Actions: Night 1: Idle Thoughts Dead, molefan Raised Night 2: Pleonast Dead Claimed Night Actions: Night 1: peekercpa inoculated someone, Santo Rugger directed sinjin onto Idle Thoughts, Toad visited peekercpa Night 2: peekercpa blocked, Santo Rugger blocked, FCoD blocked, Apocolypse visted Nanook. Anything missed? Three people blocked? That seems - extreme.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Blockey on Oct 6, 2008 14:41:31 GMT -5
I think FCOD is supposed to have been blocked night 1
looking at that though, I feel we'll get more info from a peeker lynch now.
Also my vote should even it out a bit between him and squiddy
Vote Peekercpa
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Oct 6, 2008 14:44:31 GMT -5
If Peeker isn't a scum roleblocker a lot of the case against Boozy falls apart. I personally think that Peekers lynch is the better one as well. 1. He's a miller so he has to be lynched eventually anyway 2. we gain information like crazy based on vote patterns and conversation 3. it answers a lot of questions not the least of which is, did boozy potentially know he was a roleblocker instead of what he claimed (I don't even know how to catagorize his actual claim. Weak doc against specific small percentage anti town mechanism?) If Peek's lynched and does turn out to have some roleblocking power I agree that'd make Squid look more suspicious. But if we lynch him and he's exactly what he claimed to be then we've not only lost someone who can immunise us from the legacy virus but it also doesn't explain why Squid thought he was a roleblocker in the first place. I'd like to hear why Squid thought he was a roleblocker - that bit just doesn't make sense to me. But according to Peeker, the legacy virus is totally unimportant. It only has a 25% chance of infecting anyone anyway. As far as I can tell no one else has any information about the legacy virus and at this point I am not really all that convinced it is even in the game. Also, if peeker is a miller and boozy got his claim wrong it's because he got his claim wrong, no more no less. You know who get's that kinda shit wrong? Town. It's a weak town tell and not a strong one, but it is a bit of information about boozy we didn't have. If Peeker does turn up scum, it's a huge scum tell and we have caught a second scum with a very high accuracy rate.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Oct 6, 2008 14:56:44 GMT -5
How would giving Booze a day confirm him? If he is scum he will know who is the rest of the scum are, which doesn't make pretending to be a detective too difficult. Besides unless we are willing to kill anyone he investigates immediately, it will be days before we can even tell if he is being truthful. If Peeker isn't a scum roleblocker a lot of the case against Boozy falls apart. I personally think that Peekers lynch is the better one as well. 1. He's a miller so he has to be lynched eventually anyway 2. we gain information like crazy based on vote patterns and conversation 3. it answers a lot of questions not the least of which is, did boozy potentially know he was a roleblocker instead of what he claimed (I don't even know how to catagorize his actual claim. Weak doc against specific small percentage anti town mechanism?) I don't disagree with your reasoning for voting Peek. I'm just saying if you don't believe Booz's claim, and I find is highly suspicious, it doesn't really matter why we were suspicious of Booz in the first place. There is a chance that Booz didn't actually make a slip, but he is scum anyway. That said, vote peekercpaAs our best low risk/high reward candidate.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Oct 6, 2008 14:57:48 GMT -5
Sweet merciful crap. I guess this is what I get for not checking first thing in morning.
I think we learn more about Boozy from a scum result on Peeker than we learn about Peeker from a scum result on Boozy. Thats my quick take, anyway.
Any chance of a vote count?[/color] We're coming down to the wire here, and I'm worried that we're not thinking this through. Off to reread.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Oct 6, 2008 15:03:37 GMT -5
I don't disagree with your reasoning for voting Peek. I'm just saying if you don't believe Booz's claim, and I find is highly suspicious, it doesn't really matter why we were suspicious of Booz in the first place. There is a chance that Booz didn't actually make a slip, but he is scum anyway. That said, Totally true. I can agree with you on that. I would say, as I said above, that it puts a small mark in the town collumn for him in my opinion if it was just a mistake and peeker isn't scum, but it's a small mark. I don't really like his role claim either now that I have taken a second look at it. I don't know why Nightcrawler would have that ability.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 6, 2008 15:04:53 GMT -5
I've got a question I've been meaning to ask peekercpa for a little while. Now seems as good a time as any. Peeker: in post D2.78 you state something quite interesting. You say : This seems to me to imply (from the bolded bit) that when you protect someone, you learn their rolename. For example, if you had protected me, you would not have been told that you had successfully feathered MHaye, but that you had successfully feathered *******1. Now, that means (if I'm reading it right) that you claim to have known, since Day 2, the rolename of one player other than yourself. And you already know the player's screen name; so you claimed, effectively, to be a name detective as well as inoculating someone against the Legacy virus. If you're telling the truth, of course. I need to reread about 200 posts from Today before placing a vote. 1Sorry, I'm not ready to nameclaim just yet.
|
|
|
Post by Almost Human on Oct 6, 2008 15:12:11 GMT -5
If Peek's lynched and does turn out to have some roleblocking power I agree that'd make Squid look more suspicious. But if we lynch him and he's exactly what he claimed to be then we've not only lost someone who can immunise us from the legacy virus but it also doesn't explain why Squid thought he was a roleblocker in the first place. I'd like to hear why Squid thought he was a roleblocker - that bit just doesn't make sense to me. But according to Peeker, the legacy virus is totally unimportant. It only has a 25% chance of infecting anyone anyway. As far as I can tell no one else has any information about the legacy virus and at this point I am not really all that convinced it is even in the game. Also, if peeker is a miller and boozy got his claim wrong it's because he got his claim wrong, no more no less. You know who get's that kinda shit wrong? Town. It's a weak town tell and not a strong one, but it is a bit of information about boozy we didn't have. If Peeker does turn up scum, it's a huge scum tell and we have caught a second scum with a very high accuracy rate. OK, just had to go back and check Peek's role pm as I could've sworn the 25% bit just came up in general conversation rather than in the pm itself but it's there. In that case I'm not so worried about voting for him as the virus isn't as much of a threat as I'd originally though. Vote Peekercpa
|
|