|
Post by bufftabby on Oct 6, 2008 21:04:12 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. What you are "explaining" to me is exactly what I was saying. The explanation you pretended that I made doesn't make sense, you're right. Good thing I didn't say it. Sounds pretty explicit to me.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Oct 6, 2008 21:46:08 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. In order for your argument to hold water, you have to be saying that peeker changed his claimed powers on the fly. He said one thing before his full claim that can be spun in multiple ways due to his wonky wording. His full claim clarifies a reasonable interpretation of what he said about his power earlier. If we go by your interpretation, you're saying that a quasi-unforced claim (he had one vote at the time I believe) a Day after he had already received considerable heat (thereby allowing him a full night to concoct a fake claim, and have any scum buddies help him out with it) is different from another statement he said earlier that Day. In other words he changed his power claim with no good reason other than under the interpretation you choose to see as being the accurate one looks bad. After he had a full Night and part of a Day to concoct something better. Or is it he just badly worded his power and another reasonable interpretation of what he said is exactly what was spelled out in his full claim? Which do you see as being the more likely case?
|
|
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 21:46:44 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. Neutral != Bad. I'm pretty sure I've already said this, but Town trades numbers for information. PFK has to be relatively powerful compared to a single member of Town in order to have a shot at winning. We traded a (probably) relatively powerful role of ours for an entire team, if you want to look at it that way. Granted, it would have been nicer to have traded scum or another PFK. However, you said it was harmful, and now are agreeing that it's neutral. How about we agree on that and stop bringing it up? It totally reminds me of the way Idle was antagonizing me in the Gastard game. Even when you're not making a whole post on it, you bring it up in a subtle little sentence. It's not helpful, and it just serves to keep people on edge. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking to be absolved of suspicion, but there's no need for the endless jabs that don't add to the conversation and don't help find scum.
|
|
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 21:48:56 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. Neutral != Bad. I'm pretty sure I've already said this, but Town trades numbers for information. PFK has to be relatively powerful compared to a single member of Town in order to have a shot at winning. We traded a (probably) relatively powerful role of ours for an entire team, if you want to look at it that way. Granted, it would have been nicer to have traded scum or another PFK. Regardless, it netted us a non-Townie lynch, and cost us a player the scum were going to be gunning for anyway. Hell, we don't even know that Idle was protecting himself. For all we know, I just made the best of a bad situation. However, you said it was harmful, and now are agreeing that it's neutral. How about we agree on that and stop bringing it up? It totally reminds me of the way Idle was antagonizing me in the Gastard game. Even when you're not making a whole post on it, you bring it up in a subtle little sentence. It's not helpful, and it just serves to keep people on edge. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking to be absolved of suspicion, but there's no need for the endless jabs that don't add to the conversation and don't help find scum.
|
|
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 21:50:24 GMT -5
I added an extra sentence somewhere in that second post. Sorry, I didn't think it posted the first time.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 6, 2008 22:13:45 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. Well the way I interprted my PM was that if I protected some who was attacked by the Leagacy virus holder that I would learn their game name. Since I protected a player my comfirmation of the successful protection is pretty darn clear.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 6, 2008 22:36:39 GMT -5
And it looks like the train is leaving the station, so to speak. You've got my PM's. And maybe the way I worded the whole one in twenty plus a twenty-five percent chance was poorly phrased. And you are right the chance to protect someone who only has a one in four chance of infection seems kind of lame. Having said that if I were making something up I sure as hell would have made me look more valuable.
And for those continuing to go down the "we have to lynch him eventually" I just can't connect. One of two possibilities. Lazy town or dumb scum means they need to be eliminated from the gene pool sooner rather than later.
Ah well, my job here is over. At least there has been enough discussion to provide remaining town some data points. Onto the next game where potentially the herd won't be so easily manipulated into a town lynch.
Good luck all.
Go town.
[Pepe Le Pew]Le sigh[/Pepe Le Pew]
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 6, 2008 22:41:28 GMT -5
And in the interest of full disclosure because I believe that to be in town's best interest. I wrote this last night and never got a response. Seriously, go kick some scum ass you townies.
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Oct 6, 2008 22:49:20 GMT -5
Aw, peeker, you're a good man. I promise I'll piss on your grave when you're dead!
|
|
|
Post by diggitcamara on Oct 6, 2008 22:54:37 GMT -5
Am I the only one who sees this entire days discussion being taken up with stuff being thrown at Peeker and Peeker throwing stuff back. I'm increasingly getting the feeling of this being a big townie brouhaha and the scum are sitting back laughing their asses off. I would have to agree with you on that. However, there's a secondary problem: the townie(?) who's making a big production out of himself is hampering discussion of anything but him... So, at this point, even if it's a mis-lynch we might be better off lynching 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 23:01:14 GMT -5
Aw, peeker, you're a good man. I promise I'll piss on your grave when you're dead! *lays on peeks grave*
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 6, 2008 23:34:32 GMT -5
And THAT is scummy behavior of an entirely different color. Yellow, to be exact.
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Oct 6, 2008 23:55:57 GMT -5
Watersports in the graveyard? Spooky.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Gir! on Oct 6, 2008 23:56:33 GMT -5
12 Hour Warning! This Day will end in 12 hours (well, technically, 12 hours and 4 minutes, live with the inexactitude! ). 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 MHaye (1) - Rysto
|
|
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 7, 2008 0:01:52 GMT -5
And THAT is scummy behavior of an entirely different color. Yellow, to be exact. I believe that'd be yellow, actually. So, am I going too far with my dichotomy here that if peek turns up roleblocker scum, we lynch Boozaholic? It would also, in my mind, clear FCOD of being scum. Of course, one could argue that we made up those PMs ourselves, but I'm sure she would disagree with that assertion. UATU, (or the cute mod), will we learn of a scum's power upon their lynching, if any?I'm assuming most, if not all, the scum have powers, it being a non-vanilla game and all, for those getting ready to ask how I know the scum have powers.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Oct 7, 2008 1:37:59 GMT -5
God, I feel like such a loser. I've been reading and rereading the daily progression of this Day and I've just not been able to come up with anything worthwhile to say. Call me the mute bastard I guess.
Lynching peeker "for information" is lazy at best, annoying in the middle, and stupid at worst. Day One, unless there's some major breakthrough or a huge scumtell that jumps out, is usually a lynch for information. And that's okay because it's Day One. But it's DAY THREE. We should be trying to lynch scum, not settling on lynching for information. Especially when the person we're lynching for information could be insanely valuable to the town. And I get it, some people are voting to lynch peeker because they think he's scum. But settling on lynching for information? Laaaaaame.
I'm not particularly suspicious of Boozy because his behavior struck me as a lazy townie. His role claim doesn't really fit Nightcrawler, but then again not every mutant has a readily-adaptable-for-a-Mafia-game power. I also still think peeker is a bad idea for a lynch, and I still think "we have to lynch him anyway at some point" is a weak argument. But I won't rehash that since I went that route yesterDay.
My idea on Chucara from yesterDay fizzled out so quickly with his roleclaim I didn't have time to be disappointed nobody wanted to discuss it.
I have to go with my gut and I don't want to end the Day not voting for anyone like I did on Day One.
Vote NAF1138
He's been pinging me something fierce. He seems way too gung-ho about killing peeker and de-emphasizing the importance of the Legacy Virus and peeker. Think about it. IF peeker can actually protect from the Legacy Virus, but the tradeoff is he's a Miller, how dangerous is the Legacy Virus then? It's a big enough game mechanism that the person who can protect from it not only investigates as scum, but his Night Actions would look like failed attacks to any observers.
Then again maybe Peeker's scum and his entire role has been one big fib. I don't think so, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Blockey on Oct 7, 2008 1:48:32 GMT -5
you know what, I hate to me too, however I gotta say I'm more and more worried about the peeker vote, and darn it Atarus oil is right, NAF pings me to all hell
I really can't explain it either other than this feels like I'm back in apocalypse
Unvote Peekercpa
Vote NAF
|
|
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 7, 2008 3:16:58 GMT -5
Gah, this confuses and infuriates me!
unvote peekercpa
I completely agree that NAF pings something, but it is way too vague for an acutal vote. FCOD pings me too, and so does Santa's Rug.
I'll roll with the vote NAF thing for now. If nothing else, then to put pressure on someone we haven't heard from yet. My main suspect is still Boozeahol though, so I might change to him before deadline.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 7, 2008 3:52:36 GMT -5
I re-read to check a couple of things in here because they didn't seem right
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, FCoD blocked by something sharp, sinjin used power on Kid V. Night 2: peekercpa blocked, Santo Rugger blocked by something sharp, Apocolypse visted Nanook.
There were not three blockers on Night 2, only two of them if the above claims are true. One of them is likely to be the same from Night 1 to 2 and another one which may or may not have occured on Night 1 but no-one has as yet mentioned anything about it.
Sorry FCoD, I got the Night of your block wrong.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 7, 2008 4:31:02 GMT -5
well looking at the claims, I don't like Squids, there still seems something wrong about it. It just doesn't mention how restricted the backup is, just that it is restricted . And all of a sudden NAF1138 has three votes as well, that was quick. Myself vote ZerielOn Day 1, he was happy to lynch peekercpa for being a Miller. Then on Day 3, he says he cannot see what is wrong with peekercpa's claim as Miller and that it is a good strategy for his actions. Also when he voted for peekercpa on Day 1 there was not that much chance of him being lynched above molefan. There just seems to be something wrong with his position on peekercpa that keeps changing and it pings me more than the current crop of roleclaims.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Oct 7, 2008 6:37:11 GMT -5
I re-read to check a couple of things in here because they didn't seem right 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, FCoD blocked by something sharp, sinjin used power on Kid V. Night 2: peekercpa blocked, Santo Rugger blocked by something sharp, Apocolypse visted Nanook. There were not three blockers on Night 2, only two of them if the above claims are true. One of them is likely to be the same from Night 1 to 2 and another one which may or may not have occured on Night 1 but no-one has as yet mentioned anything about it. I have a theory on that. I believe there are two blockers in this game; one of whom is town; one of whom is scum. The scum blocked Idle on night 1 so they could get a kill of him. The scum blocked peeker on night 2 so that he couldn't use his power, and whacked a strong player who was unlikely to be protected. Although peeker's claimed role is a danger to them, he generates so much white noise in any game he's in, his existence alone benefits scum just because of the distractionary element he provides. And given that he's claimed miller, and has come under heat since Day 1, there's no real reason for scum to whack him since town seems determined to lynch him anyway. Now it's unlikely scum have two role-blockers, since that gives scum an amazing amount of power. Even if they are only 1/5 of the total players, two scum role-blockers working in tandem seems to me an extremely powerful combo to the point of breaking a game. So I believe that FCOD and Rugger were hit by an eager town blocker. Granted, if peeker turns up scum, my theory falls apart.
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 7, 2008 7:22:31 GMT -5
Gee, CiAS, you can't see how someone can hold both "have to lynch the miller eventually, he's nigh-impossible to confirm" and "if you're miller and have a potentially strongly pro-town power it's probably best to claim that BEFORE you get investigated"?
Meh, I continue to play like I always do--half the time I get accused of defending people it's because I'm commenting on misquotes or shoddy reasoning. There's been a lot of especially the former relating to peeker.
What's with the sudden NAF rush? I suppose Pollux's reasoning is sound but I REALLY don't like the timing.
|
|
|
Post by Greedy Smurf on Oct 7, 2008 7:49:32 GMT -5
Less than 12 hours and I still don;t know who to vote for. Peeker is the vote leader, but despite his high noise ratio, I'm not getting a real scummy feel from him. Boozahol I could get behind, but I am reasonably loath to lynch him on the off chance that he is (now) our backup investigator. (Am I right in thinking that you did say you opted to take up that role right?) NAF garnered three votes very quickly, which I thought was bit.... odd. [metagame] I might be pulling a Roosh here, but I find myself trusting NAF for no other real reason that I can see than we were masons together in Batman - (now here's the Roosh part ) that now makes me double take about why I'm doing that?? I don't know what NAF is in this game stop trusting him dammit![end metagame] Its important to at least be on record with a vote, so I will Vote BoozaholDespite what I just said, out of the leading vote getters, Boozahol is the one I feel is the most scummy. Which I'm going to have to fall back on that as the basis for my vote.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Oct 7, 2008 7:59:02 GMT -5
What's with the sudden NAF rush? I suppose Pollux's reasoning is sound but I REALLY don't like the timing. I have nothing against one off votes when a person doesn't like any of the top candidates. The quick follow-ups were odd though. It looked like a blatent attempt to get NAF to role-claim. I say that as someone who does find NAF to be a bit scummy. So I'm putting a small check on the scum side of the ledger for Chucara and Hoopy.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 7, 2008 7:59:55 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Boozy. He's among the more suspicious players on my list and his claimed power is not that critical to the town if I'm wrong.
Vote Boozahol Squid, P.I.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 7, 2008 8:00:31 GMT -5
Gee, CiAS, you can't see how someone can hold both "have to lynch the miller eventually, he's nigh-impossible to confirm" and "if you're miller and have a potentially strongly pro-town power it's probably best to claim that BEFORE you get investigated"? No, I think its the difference between let's lynch the Miller up front, assuming he is a Miller, followed a couple of Days later by actually he's doing fine, we can lynch him at some point in the future, no rush. The problem is when you went and voted for him there was little chance of him being lynched, this time, it seems you are arguing for him not to be lynched yet, when it is close.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Oct 7, 2008 8:10:26 GMT -5
What's with the sudden NAF rush? I suppose Pollux's reasoning is sound but I REALLY don't like the timing. I have nothing against one off votes when a person doesn't like any of the top candidates. The quick follow-ups were odd though. It looked like a blatent attempt to get NAF to role-claim. I say that as someone who does find NAF to be a bit scummy. So I'm putting a small check on the scum side of the ledger for Chucara and Hoopy. Ummm...someone's clearly not paying attention here. I am not voting for NAF. In fact, I'm the one that started what has now become a bandwagon against Boozy. (And if my calculations are correct, it's now tied in votes with peeker.) Blockey is the one voting for NAF with Chucara and Pollux. If you're going to have me pinging you, at least have it be for the right reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Oct 7, 2008 8:17:24 GMT -5
NAF garnered three votes very quickly, which I thought was bit.... odd. [metagame] I might be pulling a Roosh here, but I find myself trusting NAF for no other real reason that I can see than we were masons together in Batman - (now here's the Roosh part ) that now makes me double take about why I'm doing that?? I don't know what NAF is in this game stop trusting him dammit![end metagame] Yeah, but NAF was also using you guys in that game for his own nefarious ends. He was trying to steal the win from town if he could pull it off.
|
|
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 7, 2008 8:23:03 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Boozy. He's among the more suspicious players on my list and his claimed power is not that critical to the town if I'm wrong. [colorblue]Vote Boozahol Squid, P.I.[/color][/b] --FCOD[/quote]Yaknow, FCOD, this is the second time you've said this. You're really worrying me this game.
|
|
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 7, 2008 8:24:08 GMT -5
To elaborate, it almost feels like you're saying, "I know Boozahol is going to turn up town, but I'm giving my excuse in advance."
|
|