|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 9, 2008 22:05:56 GMT -5
Hey, KidV were you one of those clowns calling for my lynch because (paraphrase) "he's a miller we have to lynch him eventually". Yes or no is going to suffice. Uh, yes? I definitely agreed with the sentiment. I currently believe we'll be able to confirm your motivations without an alignment reveal, so I don't agree with it now. <Snipped> But you can still get down with a peekertrain - YOUR WORD. Yipes.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Oct 9, 2008 22:10:03 GMT -5
Don't worry, We have a backup... Eh, Anyone a backup backup? Hi. Too bad I never voted for Pleo or Boozy though. *le sigh*
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Oct 9, 2008 22:29:54 GMT -5
Upon re-read with the total inconsistencies and nonsense logic.
Vote KidV
|
|
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 9, 2008 22:47:16 GMT -5
So, KidV you can still get down with a peekertrain today? Yikes. Are you even reading what is going on? Yes, I am reading. And yes, I'm still down with a peekertrain, until/unless we turn up a lynch target that is more likely to be anti-town than you. Are you seriously incapable of understanding what a pile of moist, fragrant, steaming WIFOM you are? You're not confirmed, dude, and until you are I will remain suspicious of the way you claimed. We can be 99% sure he's not killing people. Basically all of Day 2 and 3 were spent arguing about what we should do with peek. If we didn't have the collective balls to do it then, we should STFU about it until further evidence presents itself, IMHO. Vote KidV, at least until he explains why attempting to muddy yet another Day with peek-man's undies is a good idea or at all pro town. <explaination>mud is brown. Peek's undies are brown. Get it?
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 9, 2008 23:20:55 GMT -5
I find myself agreeing with the purple people eater here. The time to lynch Peeker was a while ago if we wanted to do it early.
I'm more worried, frankly, about a legacy virus I CAN'T see. That's gastardy in a way I can imagine Story being.
|
|
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 10, 2008 0:06:49 GMT -5
I'm more worried, frankly, about a legacy virus I CAN'T see. That's gastardy in a way I can imagine Story being. Unless peek totally made up the PM he posted Today, we know that the people who get poked by his feather know they got poked. If I don't see some people admitting to such in the next couple Days, that's when I'll start getting suspicious. Until then, not so much.
|
|
|
Post by Greedy Smurf on Oct 10, 2008 1:33:01 GMT -5
I've just done a reread of all of CatinaSuit's posts in the game, and there's not a lot.
Whether because of work commitments (which he mentioned once) or by design, he wasn't very active, and what was posted wasn't overly content filled. I think we lucked out a bit that the vig/SK nailed him as he was seemingly going for an under the radar play.
Couple of things I picked up, which unfortunately are far from being smoking guns, but something I'll keep in mind.
This was Day 2, after AH stuffed up the win condition around Sinjin/Rogue.
CiaS just playing helpful towny? or some subtle support for fellow scum coping just a little bit of heat. As I said far from a smoking gun - I myself thought AH's "slip" was nothing.
On Day 3
I find the timing here a little interesting. A subtle smudge of Squid, just to try and keep his train going. (IIRC it was Peeker and Squid neck and neck at this point) But then puts an outlier vote on Zeriel.
So what was going on here - CiaS knows Squid isn't scum, and I suspect knows Peeker isn't scum (IMO anyway).
Is the scum maybe getting nervous about their buddy NAF suddenly getting 3 votes? If so why an outlier vote, why not pile on Peeker or Squid to make sure of it.
Perhaps CiaS doesn't want to be recorded as a voter on another townie lynch. He can reasonably safely lay off an outlier to avoid that. Why Zeriel? - the stated reason for CIAS's suspicion was the same behaviour of at least a couple of other players. Maybe lay off a vote for a scum buddy that you know won't go anywhere?
That's all I managed to dig out of CiaS's record - Paranoid ramblings - maybe.
But I'll certainly be keeping an eye on both Zeriel & NAF.
|
|
|
Post by Almost Human on Oct 10, 2008 4:04:17 GMT -5
Apparently I got blocked again while involved in self flagellation. Knew it grew hair on your palms, didn't realize their was a coloring aspect. On rereading Santo's role pm it reads as though whoever he targets turns purple regardless of whether or not they take a Night action: (bolding mine) Though I think we should be looking elsewhere toDay I don't think this confirms Peeker as town. All we really know is that he didn't feather anyone else and isn't dead. I was all for believing Peek on Day 1 and 2 but surely somone should have been infected by now? I'm assuming there's someone else handing out the virus or Peek's role would be pretty pointless. Unless they're laying low till he's dead I suppose. But then why is he still alive? Bah - too much WiFoM to think about and I'm supposed to be at work and actually working rather than reading this.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Oct 10, 2008 6:56:21 GMT -5
Apparently I got blocked again while involved in self flagellation. Knew it grew hair on your palms, didn't realize their was a coloring aspect. On rereading Santo's role pm it reads as though whoever he targets turns purple regardless of whether or not they take a Night action: (bolding mine) Though I think we should be looking elsewhere toDay I don't think this confirms Peeker as town. All we really know is that he didn't feather anyone else and isn't dead. I was all for believing Peek on Day 1 and 2 but surely somone should have been infected by now? I'm assuming there's someone else handing out the virus or Peek's role would be pretty pointless. Unless they're laying low till he's dead I suppose. But then why is he still alive? Bah - too much WiFoM to think about and I'm supposed to be at work and actually working rather than reading this. I don't think anyone here believes peeker is in anyway confirmed. However, due to the usefulness of his claimed power, the fact that he doesn't seem to be killing anyone, and that his power can be confirmed by those who both survive the legacy virus (thereby indicating that the legacy virus is indeed out there) or get poked by a feather (thereby confirming that there is indeed a feather out there) combined with the fact that he's out in the open and visible to Town, doesn't make him much of a threat. It's pretty much where Rysto and I have been coming from since Day 2 when we both decided that lynching him was not the best action. I still feel that way. However, I mentioned on the Mason board a while back something similar to what Rugger just posted: each Day that we hear nothing about the legacy virus or anyone coming out and saying they got poked by a feather makes peeker more and more suspicious. But for now, unless someone has anything new to offer to the whole peeker business, can we put it on the back burner? It's really a distraction and at this point it feels like Town's just spinning their wheels over it. I'd rather hear people's ideas on how CIAS died. We only had one nightkill each the first two Days. Then suddenly we get two on the third night? It's possible that an SK and/or scum were blocked in some form the first two nights. (After all, we scum in Gastard Mafia had the worst choice in targets between those with temporarily immunity and those being protected by Docs, etc. Even though we were all traitors, we still needed everyone dead, yet we only managed to whack about half our targets.) It's also possible that a vig decided to take out CIAS, but either that vig is shooting randomly (which is, to put it plainly, stupid), was privy to some information most of the rest of us weren't, or has keen insight into CIAS playing style and saw things that the rest of us missed. But most likely, in a game that seems to have absolutely no vanilla of any type (masons have additional powers, all scum likely have additional powers), some weird confluence of events resulted in a nice outcome for the town.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Oct 10, 2008 7:39:53 GMT -5
Don't worry, We have a backup... Eh, Anyone a backup backup? Hi. Too bad I never voted for Pleo or Boozy though. *le sigh* Why didn't you vote for Booz? Were you convinced all the high voters were scum? Your claims and actions are strange. I'm going to have to look closer at this.
|
|
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 10, 2008 8:24:00 GMT -5
Like I said yesterday, the most person that pings me the most right now is NAF. Problem is I don't really have anything specific to hold it to. This early in the day however, I'll
vote NAF
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 10, 2008 9:44:22 GMT -5
And FCOD, just fuckin' with ya, man. ;D That's ok. Don't worry about it.So...I have say I too am really suspicious of NAF for nothing except a gut feeling. I'll have to see what I can dig up on him. --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Oct 10, 2008 10:02:42 GMT -5
We can be 99% sure he's not killing people. Basically all of Day 2 and 3 were spent arguing about what we should do with peek. If we didn't have the collective balls to do it then, we should STFU about it until further evidence presents itself, IMHO. Vote KidV, at least until he explains why attempting to muddy yet another Day with peek-man's undies is a good idea or at all pro town. <explaination>mud is brown. Peek's undies are brown. Get it? Santo, you're not paying attention. In D4.44, I said, in response to speculation by Greedysmurf: Since then, I've done nothing but answer direct questions by Peek. I object to the claim that I'm the one dragging this out. Regarding your first point, I agree we know that he hasn't killed yet. We don't know he's not a mad bomber, and we don't know he's not spreading the virus himself, and we won't know until somebody we trust pops up to say that he's cured them. Thats all. I said before, I don't trust him, I'm keeping a hairy eyeball on him, and I'll place my vote on him if it looks to do any good. Until then, I plan to look elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 10, 2008 11:16:09 GMT -5
I'm not sure how I feel about the peekman. There's a lot of WIFOM between the potential for a stealthy legacy virus and the potential for no legacy virus.
Or worse, the potential that the legacy virus somehow forbids people from talking about being infected, or something--but that's awful close to recruitment.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Oct 10, 2008 11:16:43 GMT -5
Why didn't you vote for Booz? Were you convinced all the high voters were scum? Your claims and actions are strange. I'm going to have to look closer at this. Because we lynched him the Day he became the investigator, meaning he had not actually done any investigations. I had been planning on voting for him that Day, but once it became obvious he was the lynch, it was a waste of a vote. He had no information that he could share at that point.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Oct 10, 2008 11:25:22 GMT -5
And FCOD, just fuckin' with ya, man. ;D That's ok. Don't worry about it.So...I have say I too am really suspicious of NAF for nothing except a gut feeling. I'll have to see what I can dig up on him. --FCOD Says the man who voted to lynch the claimed investigator because his power "wasn't important to the town". I seem scummy to everyone always. I don't know what it is about my posting style, but it never fails. See the recruitment game on the SDMB. As it is, I think that CIAS's one off for zeriel is strange. I also think that KidV wanting to lynch peeker again is strange. That opportunity passed us by yesterDay, we are going to have to live with the WIFOM for a while I guess. I am going to focus my attention on the two of them toDay.
|
|
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 10, 2008 11:28:44 GMT -5
...I said before, I don't trust him, I'm keeping a hairy eyeball on him, and I'll place my vote on him if it looks to do any good. Until then, I plan to look elsewhere. There you go again, with the same caveat at the end... I don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 10, 2008 12:54:39 GMT -5
Says the man who voted to lynch the claimed investigator because his power "wasn't important to the town". I seem scummy to everyone always. I don't know what it is about my posting style, but it never fails. See the recruitment game on the SDMB. What? I never said that. I said his claimed power wasn't AS important to the town AS peeker's claimed power. BIIIIG difference, but thanks for trying. You've just pushed my suspicion meter towards you enough to Vote NAF1138[/color]. --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Oct 10, 2008 13:18:14 GMT -5
Says the man who voted to lynch the claimed investigator because his power "wasn't important to the town". I seem scummy to everyone always. I don't know what it is about my posting style, but it never fails. See the recruitment game on the SDMB. What? I never said that. I said his claimed power wasn't AS important to the town AS peeker's claimed power. BIIIIG difference, but thanks for trying. You've just pushed my suspicion meter towards you enough to Vote NAF1138[/color]. --FCOD[/quote] This is what I get for being flip. I won't be able to post this weekend, I don't think. Should I just claim now and save you all the trouble?
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Oct 10, 2008 13:19:19 GMT -5
Also, it would be nice if someone would build a case against me for a change rather than just pointing at me and saying that I am scum for some ineffable reason.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Oct 10, 2008 13:22:35 GMT -5
Lastly, while I am at it, how else am I supposed to understand this post FCoD?
He claimed cop.
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Oct 10, 2008 13:39:27 GMT -5
Whew. A lot has gone down here while I've been out having a big time in the big city. I'm not sure what else to think right now, but I do know that I always think NAF is scum. He's been pinging my scumdar this go 'round too, but I don't like these votes against him that don't really seem to have a case behind them. This isn't Day 1 or Day 2, when gut feelings may be all we have against someone. We need a case against someone, even if it's not a great one.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 10, 2008 14:39:41 GMT -5
Lastly, while I am at it, how else am I supposed to understand this post FCoD? He claimed cop. Maybe you should put it in the context of the post I made before that one, in which I explained how I'd rather lose Boozy than peeker. You know, Santo made an effort to point out how I was repeating myself in that post you just quoted because it pinged him. Did you miss both my first post and his post? --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 10, 2008 14:40:51 GMT -5
Upon rereading a few posts by NAF, here's what's pinging me (as best as I can describe)
- The peeker opinion seems weird to me. Granted, I thought it made sense at the time (due to my inexperience). I'll leave it to others to decide whether "We'll have to lynch a miller anyway" is a true statement or not (not a direct quote from NAF) - NAF's posts seem very anonymous to me. Fluffy, it you will. - The CiaS incident.
This isn't really proof of anything, as there could be millions of reasons for all of the above. I've placed my vote on NAF for two reasons: - I reflects who I would lynch NOW, if I had to lynch someone. - I think it's time we put pressure on people who haven't been in the spotlight much. (CiaS hadn't taken any fire)
I still don't trust peeker, but I really don't think we should go there again and waste even more time. If we really wanted him dead, we should have lynched him already.
Other people that strike me as more scummy than others: - Zeriel: Seems quiet as well, and is also involved in the CiaS one-off vote.
A few others seemed scummy to me earlier, but as I can't remember why, I'll have to reread. (FCoD is the only one who springs to mind right now, but there were a few more)
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Oct 10, 2008 15:06:08 GMT -5
Lastly, while I am at it, how else am I supposed to understand this post FCoD? He claimed cop. Maybe you should put it in the context of the post I made before that one, in which I explained how I'd rather lose Boozy than peeker. You know, Santo made an effort to point out how I was repeating myself in that post you just quoted because it pinged him. Did you miss both my first post and his post? --FCOD Sorry, the context didn't really change my interpretation of the quote. To Chucara: -I am sorry that you found my posts to be fluffy. I was trying to open up discussion about things that would get us on track to finding scum. Discussion is better than accusation in the early game. I think that my leading the charge against peeker makes this a tenuous claim at best though. -You do need to lynch the Miller eventually. I fucked up by not saying this on Day 1. Lynching claimed Millers is just what you do, it's proper play. It should be as automatic as standing on a hard 18 in blackjack. It might not always seem like the best play, but you do it anyway, especially if the dealer is showing, say,a six. Peeker's behavior was that six, his miller claim was our hard 18. You lynch. We should have done it sooner, but it had to be done. You can't let non verifiable roles go to endgame. The fact that you don't know that, Chucara, is reasonable. The fact that more seasoned players aren't on board is flipping inexcusable. What's next, are we going to lynch a claimed cop without testing the claim? Oh, right. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Oct 10, 2008 15:21:54 GMT -5
NAF,
Why don't you want to lynch Peek today then? If we need to lynch him, shouldn't we do it sooner rather than later, even if it is as already later then it should be?
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 10, 2008 15:22:30 GMT -5
Well, if you don't see the difference between "X not important to the town" and "X is less important than Y" than I can't help you. --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Oct 10, 2008 15:24:50 GMT -5
The player list currently as stands with claims and confirms (confirmed town in blue, confirmed scum in red, confirmed 3rd party in orange):
Alive ------ 1. Zeriel 2. KidVermicious 3. NAF 4. Hoopy Frood - No claimed name -Mason/Special 5. mhaye 6. Almost Human (replaces Roosh) 7. Pollux Oil 8. chucara - Shadowcat - Watcher 9. bufftabby 10. Darth Sensitive 11. peekercpa - Archangel - Miller/Legacy Virus blocker and curer 12. misterblockey - No claimed name - Mason/Special 13. diggitcamara 14. Nanook - Thernodyne - Necromancer 15. Greedy Smurf 16. hawkeyeop 17. Santo Rugger - Persuasion - Redirector 18. FlyingDeadCowofGOB, Esq.
Dead ------
19. Boozahol Squid, PI - Nightcrawler - Backup (Investigator) 20. Pleonast - Emma Frost - Investigator 21. molefan1981 - Arcade - Inventor 22. Idle Thoughts - Dr. Cecilia Reyes - Protective 23. Rysto - Colossus - Mason/Sacrificial Partially Bulletproof Bodyguard 24. CatinaSuit - Sebastian Shaw - Strongman (Death) 25. sinjin - Rogue - Power Drainer
Claimed actions: *
*I'll add these later. I gotta go right now. Someone else can fill it in if they want. I think we should start keeping a running update of this. All actions from all parties should be included, and in color as well.
|
|
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 10, 2008 15:53:26 GMT -5
NAF's latest answer satisfies me for now atleast. It was nothing personal, but I pretty much just voted to get an explanation. I got one. unvote NAFOn a related note, the updated vote count will be up either at the wiki, or at www.chucara.dk/mafia/index.phpVotes for Day 3 are added, as are colors for confirmed players. Please correct any mistakes, as peeker was present on the official vote count on day 2.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Oct 10, 2008 15:55:17 GMT -5
NAF,Why don't you want to lynch Peek today then? If we need to lynch him, shouldn't we do it sooner rather than later, even if it is as already later then it should be? Numbers. We no longer have the player advantage where we can make a mistake. Even though we caught CIAS we lost 2 townies last Night. Take a look at the player list, there is a lot of blue. The risk is now bigger and with the catching of a scum last night, the reward smaller. Right now is no longer a good time.
|
|