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 15:13:02 GMT -5
FWIW, sinjin claimed to have directed her actions towards Kid V. I don't necessarily trust Rugger either. What don't you trust?
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 6, 2008 15:17:43 GMT -5
Your role has a great deal of potential for harm, as we witnessed in the aftermath of the Idle/sinjin debacle. That's completely aside from the fact I don't necessarily trust anyone.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 6, 2008 15:21:53 GMT -5
As far as 'not getting as much flack' on Day One for yelling at Idle... well... what can I say? Idle was acting strangely, and I jumped on him. I thought Sinjin was right to do so as well, even if she turned out PFK. But I sure wasn't going to go sticking my neck out for her on the subject. Squid, if you thought sinjin was right to do what she did, regardless of her alignment, why weren't you prepared to stick your neck out? After all, if you thought her action was supposed to be Town, then defending her Townie action would be right because you, as Town, were doing the same thing. Care to explain, why you didn't say anything further?
|
|
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 15:22:42 GMT -5
I don't think the Idle/sinjin debacle harmed the town.
It was just very odd the way you threw that sentence in there when you weren't even talking about me.
|
|
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 15:24:10 GMT -5
I'm all for lynching peeker, but does anyone have a suggestion on how to get information from Booze? I mean.. if he is an investigator, we might as well have him target someone potentially scummy. And if he isn't, perhaps we can use my ability to learn that? Even if you don't trust me, you will know that what I've said so far is true when/if I die.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Oct 6, 2008 15:26:21 GMT -5
That's a good point Mhaye. I had been leaning slightly towards believing peeker, but that is the nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned. A name investigator AND protector? Don't buy it at all.
vote peeker[/color]
In the interests of full disclosure, I have no intentions of leaving this vote on at the end of the Day. I'm making it now in order to get my thoughts on the record officially and for the purposes of allowing us to trigger the countdown. I will be switching it later for my power.
The whole Boozy thing is kinda weird for me. He hasn't really been pinging me much, but the role claim doesn't work for me. The reason for this is that I sent a PM to story as a follow up to some questions I had that he answered regarding my role(which I have previously mentioned), and commented on the fact that the role is very similar in flavor to his role from Apocolypse. His response, in it's entirety follows.
So boozy claims that he can be a back up any town role. But story explicitly stated to me that my role was put in the game to act as an investigator back up. Two back ups? Maybe, it would depend on the amount of expected NKs and what powers the scum and/or PFK have. But so far we've only seen one NK each Night, and no public indications of any scum powers other than possibly a block. Apocolypse apparently has a power, but it doesn't seem to have done anything. So I'm not really prepared to lynch Boozy, but I will be keeping an eye on him.
|
|
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 15:33:27 GMT -5
First of, I vote peekerpfa.
Second, I think Boozy should use his night action to investigate Santos, who a few people have also been doubting lately. That way, when Boozy dies (which he will, soon - no matter what) we will at least have confirmed Santos, and we can turn the attention on someone else. Any opinions on that?
|
|
|
Post by Mister Blockey on Oct 6, 2008 15:36:09 GMT -5
I'm all for lynching peeker, but does anyone have a suggestion on how to get information from Booze? I mean.. if he is an investigator, we might as well have him target someone potentially scummy. And if he isn't, perhaps we can use my ability to learn that? Even if you don't trust me, you will know that what I've said so far is true when/if I die. I would rather you choose someone independently, or try to verify a non-investigative role. The issue is that if both roles are in fact true, and you're verifying boozy, if you die, no verification, if he dies, verification, but he's dead. In addition, it's not canon, but I could easily see nightcrawler being brainwashed into becoming a horseman, thus the best case scenario where you both survive the night and you get nightcrawler as the role, still doesn't verify anything.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 6, 2008 15:37:51 GMT -5
Just a brief metagame note on storyteller.
He added a backup role to his Blade Runner game, but IMHO it worked really badly. It would not surprise me if he uied this game to rectify the situation.
So this means, I would be very surprised if this game did not include a couple of backups with improved conditions for being activated. However, if that was the case I would expect them to be limited in specific ways and certainly less powered than the originals.
|
|
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 15:40:08 GMT -5
I would rather you choose someone independently, or try to verify a non-investigative role. The issue is that if both roles are in fact true, and you're verifying boozy, if you die, no verification, if he dies, verification, but he's dead. In addition, it's not canon, but I could easily see nightcrawler being brainwashed into becoming a horseman, thus the best case scenario where you both survive the night and you get nightcrawler as the role, still doesn't verify anything. I agree now that I think about it.. But what about the idea above? It takes me out of the equation completely.. But then again, he might as well just target someone independently and give up the name and alignment tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Oct 6, 2008 15:40:09 GMT -5
My parsing of that, mhaye, is that he would only learn the role name if the player was targetted for the virus that very Night. I mean, he seems to state that pretty explicitly.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Oct 6, 2008 15:42:26 GMT -5
Frankly, this peeker lynch train stinks on ice. peeker has not claimed to be an investigator. His PM states that should his target also be targeted by whoever is targeting people with the Legacy Virus in the same Night, he will learn the Name of whoever is infecting people with the Legacy Virus and that person will learn peeker's Name.
My vote will come in before the end of today, and I'm pretty certain that it's going to come down on somebody on this lynch wagon.
|
|
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 15:59:00 GMT -5
Upon re-reading peekers previous posts, his PM does indicate a weak investigative ability. I'm just really uncertain. There is no doubt in my mind that Booze stinks a lot more than Peeker. With his claim, it's almost as if he's given up beforehand. But then again, with peekers claimed ability, it's not a huge loss if he turns out to be telling the truth, and we might gain some information by letting Booze live (whether he's telling the truth or not - like I said.. he's going to die in 1-3 days anyway.. by town if he's lying, and by scum if he's not)
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Oct 6, 2008 16:51:54 GMT -5
My parsing of that, mhaye, is that he would only learn the role name if the player was targetted for the virus that very Night. I mean, he seems to state that pretty explicitly. The way I parsed it was that he gets the role name of the person targeting with the virus, not the person being targeted. In other words, Iceman walks into the target's room to infect him with the legacy virus. Peeker notices Iceman coming in and identifies that Iceman is indeed the (or a, who knows how many people can wield the virus) person employing the virus. The target is rendered immune, Iceman the character is exposed. However, who Iceman is as a player is not known. Peeker, can you clarify any of this and keep your usage of possessive pronouns to a minimum.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Oct 6, 2008 16:53:09 GMT -5
NETA: In other words, peeker's power functions similar to Chucara's, but only in one specific action, rather than any action.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Oct 6, 2008 16:54:43 GMT -5
Heh, heh. (FYI, Chucky, he hates when people do that. The gastard mods actually set it up as a filter last game just to screw with him.)
|
|
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 16:57:54 GMT -5
Heh, heh. (FYI, Chucky, he hates when people do that. The gastard mods actually set it up as a filter last game just to screw with him.) I thought he was doing it on purpose because he read the last game.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Oct 6, 2008 17:00:21 GMT -5
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. You're right. But it also says those mutants who survive have none-too-pleasant side-effects. So his power in the role as shown is useful for more than just the 25% who might die.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Oct 6, 2008 17:10:17 GMT -5
Frankly, this peeker lynch train stinks on ice. peeker has not claimed to be an investigator. His PM states that should his target also be targeted by whoever is targeting people with the Legacy Virus in the same Night, he will learn the Name of whoever is infecting people with the Legacy Virus and that person will learn peeker's Name. Ack. See, I should have read the whole thread before posting. Obviously peeker won't need to address my clarification question, since the role PM specifically says what I mentioned in my post. And I didn't even bother to double-check the whole thing even after searching for the 25% thing after AH mentioned that it was in his claim. So, yeah. Unless I've missed something, nothing peeker has said conflicts with any other information we have. So those of you voting for him for that reason are voting for him for the wrong reason.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Oct 6, 2008 17:32:25 GMT -5
So it would seem. Teach me to listen to others.
unvote peeker[/color]
I've stated my feelings on the boozy train. I'm just not feeling it right now, I think it's too soon for that move. CIAS's info doesn't really change anything on that point for me.
I'm going to vote, for now, for the person I think is scummiest. I don't have anything really specific I can point to for this vote, but he's been pinging me hard. The blocked deal with Santo was just the latest in a series of little things that make me suspicious.
vote FCOD[/color]
Vote subject to change based on role needs at a later time
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Oct 6, 2008 17:36:35 GMT -5
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. All right, after looking into this whole business further, there's something odd going on here, and I'm not sure what, and who's responsible (although, peekercpa isn't really helping us out by being confused about his own role, more of that in a bit), but I'm going to set some things straight. First of all, peeker's claim is here: psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=wait&action=display&thread=465&page=4#32006Now in this post, he mentions the one in four "infection" thing: psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=wait&action=display&thread=465&page=10#32242He also mentions it here: psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=wait&action=display&thread=457&page=13#31783That clearly disagrees with his claim. (See, I did miss something.) So if you want to vote for him for being contradictory, this should be the reason why. Not from your own misinterpretation of his (admittedly unclear) explanation of his power. I've played with peeker as scum, as I mentioned before. It was originally why his soft claims pinged me. But since he did a full claim, the pinging has gone down to essentially nothing. Peeker the scum was much more on the offensive than this peeker is. This peeker has been on the defensive the whole time. Maybe it's just an adjustment in style, but I'm inclined to believe him. The only thing that quirks my eyebrow is his confusion as to the 25% thing. I believe its him misreading a detail in his role (which seems to be fairly common error people make) rather than a scum tell. (Similar to how I feel about AH mistake.) YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Oct 6, 2008 17:48:44 GMT -5
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. All right, after looking into this whole business further, there's something odd going on here, and I'm not sure what, and who's responsible (although, peekercpa isn't really helping us out by being confused about his own role, more of that in a bit), but I'm going to set some things straight. First of all, peeker's claim is here: psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=wait&action=display&thread=465&page=4#32006Now in this post, he mentions the one in four "infection" thing: psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=wait&action=display&thread=465&page=10#32242He also mentions it here: psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=wait&action=display&thread=457&page=13#31783That clearly disagrees with his claim. (See, I did miss something.) So if you want to vote for him for being contradictory, this should be the reason why. Not from your own misinterpretation of his (admittedly unclear) explanation of his power. Wait, it was me you were talking to when you said it wasn't a good reason to vote for peeker? You misunderstood me if you think that's the case. Sorry, the 25% thing is just a reason why I feel peeker isn't really a dangerous lynch. I think peeker is a good lynch because we gain a lot of info from his lynch, we get rid of a shiny distraction, and he claimed Miller. You have to lynch a Miller claiment eventually. Now seems to be the time when it will do the least damage if he is telling the truth and we get the most information from it. Waiting seems bad because the longer we wait the more damage it does and the more time we waste debating lynching him. We did this in Simpletown. I am not certain he is scum, but I am certain that his death will solve some mysteries and remove some roadblocks from the town.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Oct 6, 2008 18:07:22 GMT -5
Wait, it was me you were talking to when you said it wasn't a good reason to vote for peeker? You misunderstood me if you think that's the case. Sorry, the 25% thing is just a reason why I feel peeker isn't really a dangerous lynch. I think peeker is a good lynch because we gain a lot of info from his lynch, we get rid of a shiny distraction, and he claimed Miller. You have to lynch a Miller claiment eventually. Now seems to be the time when it will do the least damage if he is telling the truth and we get the most information from it. Waiting seems bad because the longer we wait the more damage it does and the more time we waste debating lynching him. We did this in Simpletown. I am not certain he is scum, but I am certain that his death will solve some mysteries and remove some roadblocks from the town. No, no. I just quoted your post because you were one of those bringing up the 25% thing. I wanted to sort out exactly what the deal was with it. I understand why you are voting for him. My original points concerned those who were voting for him based on confusion over his claim. The 25% thing was a completely different point I was just addressing, and said that if people wanted to use anything against him as a reason for a vote, they should use the fact that he seems to be confused as to the fact that the legacy virus apparently has a 100% infection rate but only a 25% mortality rate. But I will reiterate that the 75% surviving with unpleasant effects part does concern me when it comes to how eager we seem to be to lynch peeker. Until someone comes out with "I'm infected, I lived, and this is what it did." or someone dies and it is revealed that they did indeed die of the Legacy Virus, I don't think it's a wise move. I mean, let's say we wait a few Days and no one comes out as being infected. Then the chances peeker is lying go up dramatically. But what if we lynch peeker toDay, and we turn around and find survivors of the legacy virus start popping up from the woodwork and they are crippled in some fashion. We will have no cure.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Oct 6, 2008 18:10:16 GMT -5
Wait, it was me you were talking to when you said it wasn't a good reason to vote for peeker? You misunderstood me if you think that's the case. Sorry, the 25% thing is just a reason why I feel peeker isn't really a dangerous lynch. I think peeker is a good lynch because we gain a lot of info from his lynch, we get rid of a shiny distraction, and he claimed Miller. You have to lynch a Miller claiment eventually. Now seems to be the time when it will do the least damage if he is telling the truth and we get the most information from it. Waiting seems bad because the longer we wait the more damage it does and the more time we waste debating lynching him. We did this in Simpletown. I am not certain he is scum, but I am certain that his death will solve some mysteries and remove some roadblocks from the town. No, no. I just quoted your post because you were one of those bringing up the 25% thing. I wanted to sort out exactly what the deal was with it. I understand why you are voting for him. My original points concerned those who were voting for him based on confusion over his claim. The 25% thing was a completely different point I was just addressing, and said that if people wanted to use anything against him as a reason for a vote, they should use the fact that he seems to be confused as to the fact that the legacy virus apparently has a 100% infection rate but only a 25% mortality rate. But I will reiterate that the 75% surviving with unpleasant effects part does concern me when it comes to how eager we seem to be to lynch peeker. Until someone comes out with "I'm infected, I lived, and this is what it did." or someone dies and it is revealed that they did indeed die of the Legacy Virus, I don't think it's a wise move. I mean, let's say we wait a few Days and no one comes out as being infected. Then the chances peeker is lying go up dramatically. But what if we lynch peeker toDay, and we turn around and find survivors of the legacy virus start popping up from the woodwork and they are crippled in some fashion. We will have no cure. Fair point, which is why I wanted to start talking about what people knew of the virus in general, but no one (well, not many at least) else was really on board with me.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 6, 2008 18:16:31 GMT -5
If I had to choose between lynching Boozy or peeker, I think I'd lynch Boozy. The only reason is that if they're telling the truth I'd rather lose Boozy's role than peeker's role.
--FCOD
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Gir! on Oct 6, 2008 18:26:10 GMT -5
Lucky Page 13 Vote Count:
Almost Human (1) - Santo Rugger peekercpa (7) - KidV, Boozy, NAF, misterblockey, hawkeye, Almost Human, Chucara Rysto (1) - peeker Boozahol Squid (3) - Hoopy Frood, bufftabby, zeriel FlyingCowOfDoom (1) - Nanook
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 6, 2008 19:17:14 GMT -5
I don't think the Idle/sinjin debacle harmed the town. You mean, aside from the dead doc? I mean, it's good that we caught sinjin's particularly harmful pfk, but still, at best I think that turned out neutral.
|
|
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 20:02:02 GMT -5
My parsing of that, mhaye, is that he would only learn the role name if the player was targetted for the virus that very Night. I mean, he seems to state that pretty explicitly. I don't understand this interpretation. Let's pretend for a moment that Peeker targets me one Night. Why would he learn my rolename only if I am targeted buy someone else that same Night? because that's what your interpretation would suggest. It doesn't fly. If you read the claimed PM, there's another possible construction; that he learns the role name of the other player who targeted me that night. That would make sense - but he didn't say that, or anything that could be reasonably interpreted as that. Go back and read 2.78 again. The more I think about it, the more this feels like an inconsistency, caused by a fake claim. If I still think like that after a good night's sleep I'll vote Peeker.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Oct 6, 2008 20:34:20 GMT -5
2.78:
Frankly, MHaye, this doesn't hold up at all. You're really reaching here.
Vote MHaye
|
|
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 20:46:05 GMT -5
Frankly, MHaye, this doesn't hold up at all. You're really reaching here. Vote MHaye(Bleached) What doesn't hold up? There is no suggestion there that the word "their" in 2.78 doesn't refer back to the person who he attacked. If he meant the attacker, he should have said so. It's not until he published his claimed role PM that there was any reason to suppose that he was referring to the attacker, rather than the target, and I didn't put the two together until this reread.
|
|