Day One

[bufftabby]

Nov 29, 2008 2:04:30 GMT -5 Santo Rugger said:

And just when I think I understand pecker, I might as well just throw it all out the window!

What? It's easy. Just get a Colt 45 and 2 Zig-Zags, 'cause baby, that's all you need.


So, I don't like either of the two leading vote-getters. Well, that's not true. I like them; I don't like the idea of voting for either one right now, however. I'm going to go with a gut vote right now, pending any discernably scummy behavior.

vote Shaggy[/quote]

Maybe I'll be able to quantify my reasons in the morning, but something's pinging me, and it's not because of mole's Day One claim.

[bufftabby]

Crapmonkeys.

vote shaggy[/color]

[Santo Rugger]

Nov 29, 2008 2:18:38 GMT -5 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies said:

My grandmother has been ill, and I've been living out of a suitcase in two different parts of the state, going back and forth to work for the past 9 days.

Sorry to hear it. Hope everything works out for the best!

Y'all have been a much needed escape, and I thank you.

We're here to entertain!

This extended Day 1 is going to be very interesting. I'd like to propose a fauxvote to help kill the time, keep the conversations going, and keep people accountable. Engaged and accountable.

Thoughts?

How is that advantageous to a real vote?

pecker, I don't know if you're noticed, but your explanations have spawned several other players to leave their own explanations. It's becoming a phenomenon. Are you really asking if we want the explanations? As far as nuggets, I can interpret your posts in a few different ways. And I don't know if you or your cats are scum or not, so more explanation would certainly be welcomed.

[Santo Rugger]

Nov 29, 2008 2:39:51 GMT -5 bufftabby said:

Nov 29, 2008 2:04:30 GMT -5 Santo Rugger said:

And just when I think I understand pecker, I might as well just throw it all out the window!

What? It's easy. Just get a Colt 45 and 2 Zig-Zags, 'cause baby, that's all you need.

Roll, roll, roll my joint, pick out the seeds and stems!

And now that you're nice and mellow, can you explain pecker's post to the rest of us? Or at least me?

[shaggy]

Nov 28, 2008 22:05:02 GMT -5 Special Ed said:

Mole claimed vanilla early, and took his deserved shit for it. Shaggy took over and hasn't really said anything about it. That, I'm OK with. What puzzles me is how much he's misposted and had difficulty with the system here. What the result has been is lots of people questioning what he's saying and some people just not understanding him. Frankly, I've been puzzled too. I've never had this much trouble understanding him on FB. Why is he having such trouble getting his point across here?

OK, that said, it's not really much, and he still probably wouldn't be my first choice for a vote. I'll have to re-read before voting. but, egad! We've only got 6 days left before the end of Day 1!

Remember on FB you simply type away, here you are supose to have a little easier time because of the hit the quote button but on the flip side working with the boxes and slashes I just find difficult. Sorry it is confusing i am trying to work with it but i am the most computer illitarite person. My last post was supose to look like this:

Santo Said
"But that's not what you said. You said you trusted him because of it. Not wanting to vote for somebody and trusting them are two distinctly different statements."

ok i see what you are saying, I made a poor choice of words. Sorry for the confussion. I did mean that while he maybe SCUM at this point we can not risk it. That may change as this game develops but for now, we need to sit on it. Besides there are a few others I think are pinging me, such as:

chucara Said
"I'd rather lynch a townie that gives us information about five other players than hope to randomly select a scum member by means of random.org. Sure, we might get lucky, but the odds just aren't that good."

Now i know a few poeple have brought this up, and i do not want to sound like a old broken record but I can not help but ask. How is lynching a fellow town good for the town? I just do not get it, if you suspect someone or you know they are town, then how is it pro-town to lynch them anyways? Also we do not know how many Scum there are, yet you seem pretty sure it is 5? Why is that? also how are you so sure they are town, unless there is a reason you know they are town? As I said I know others have brought this up, but it is the biggest thing to be pinging me right now.

There are a some others such as Totallost who seemed to think Miteymouse was scum for not talking and then is definetly scum for talking now. I know it is not much and I do not want people think it is just cause I am married to her. Even if it was someone else I still would be thinking, this just does not sit right, it just seems odd. It almost seems like your trying to get people suspicous of her. I know it is not much and all, but it is a mild ping.

[bufftabby]

Nov 29, 2008 3:05:07 GMT -5 Santo Rugger said:

Nov 29, 2008 2:39:51 GMT -5 bufftabby said:

What? It's easy. Just get a Colt 45 and 2 Zig-Zags, 'cause baby, that's all you need.

Roll, roll, roll my joint, pick out the seeds and stems!

And now that you're nice and mellow, can you explain pecker's post to the rest of us? Or at least me?

Oh, I'm always nice and mellow--'cept for when I'm running around in a circle, screaming about reptiles. You know how it goes.

His cat and dog have clearly been trained in detective work, possibly by Magnum PI. Whether or not they have big push-broom mustaches is unknown at this point, but they do feel strongly about putting mafiates underground, and driving fast '80s cars with their facial hair flowing in the wind.

I was going to use tadpoles, but I had trouble getting them to stick to the board as I spun it around. Tadpoles, tadpoles is the winner! Spin!



I still don't really have any cogent way of explaining my suspicions of shaggy (I thought the sobriety of morning might help me explain myself), but I'm still willing to go with my gut on Day One. I'll happily change my vote if I see someone with scummy qualities I can actually articulate, but I don't mind taking my chances with my gut vote either.

[peekercpa]

In reponse to santo. Ok here is the explanation. Last game I enlisted the missus to help out. She correctly fingered PO. She was not available last night (plus I'd like to save that lifeline for a little later). Therefore I enlisted the aid of our visiting yipper and the one cat that actually tolerates me in helping with my analysis.

paddington (the dog) expressed suspicions of TL and mostly confirmed my feelings about the other players. His argument was not enough to sway my current vote but does indicate that further investigation needs to be focused on total.

Jet on the other hand was just being a cat and really had no meaningful feedback other than to scratch the crap out of me. Pursuing his own cat agenda one supposes.

I did mention that he is the one that actually likes me.

And for thw whole explanation thing. Imagine a Christie novel written by the hammer to head approach.

[Agatha]. They found the body with a knife in the back. The knife was covered in ***'s fingerprints. When confronted *** confessed. The jury convicted *** and was sentenced to life in prison (unless of course you are in Texas in which case that bad boy is going to sleep forever).[/Agatha]

[Total Ullz]

Nov 29, 2008 9:33:54 GMT -5 shaggy said:

There are a some others such as Totallost who seemed to think Miteymouse was scum for not talking and then is definetly scum for talking now. I know it is not much and I do not want people think it is just cause I am married to her. Even if it was someone else I still would be thinking, this just does not sit right, it just seems odd. It almost seems like your trying to get people suspicous of her. I know it is not much and all, but it is a mild ping.

That is not true! I never called her "scum"! I voted for a reasom - I felt she was a lurker. She was around but never expressed an opinion.
When she did express an opinion (twice) I unvoted her.

Then I asked a rhetorical question:

If a lurker is more scummy for posting when called (and in this case voted for) for being a lurker
OR
If a lurker could be seen a more scummy for not changing posting style (because everyone might think "scum would never do that...)

I don't like you saying I called MiteyM scum - because I didn't!
It was a lurk-vote and I find it very strange that you didn't get that I have been talking about lurker in almost every post I have made (and that I getting voted for my lurker-crusade and the way I been focused on the one theory).

[shaggy]

Nov 29, 2008 10:14:41 GMT -5 Total Ullz said:

That is not true! I never called her "scum"! I voted for a reasom - I felt she was a lurker. She was around but never expressed an opinion.
When she did express an opinion (twice) I unvoted her.

Then I asked a rhetorical question:

If a lurker is more scummy for posting when called (and in this case voted for) for being a lurker
OR
If a lurker could be seen a more scummy for not changing posting style (because everyone might think "scum would never do that...)

I don't like you saying I called MiteyM scum - because I didn't!
It was a lurk-vote and I find it very strange that you didn't get that I have been talking about lurker in almost every post I have made (and that I getting voted for my lurker-crusade and the way I been focused on the one theory).

Oh I get that you are all about the lurking, after all how could i miss that huge post referancing how many posts each person has posted.
I am just making the point that whether it is accusing or suspecting, it seems odd that you suspect when she was not as talkative. Then when she gets talkative, it is like, well maybe that is scummie behaviour for talking now because I called her on the lurking. suspect or accuse, it just seems to me like a lose, lose situation, for whom ever is in that situation. I just prefer to seek out people for there actions then there lack of actions. This is cause I realize people are busy with jobs, family, ect. As I have meantioned in my past posts I have a hard time deciding on suspicioun for lurking as i do for what there actions are when they are here. As I have also said before would the best SCUM tatic not be to not lurk but to be vocal with thoeries and anything they can to divert attention from themselves and therefore gain town credit?

[shaggy]

Now i do have to say Totallost , that as much as we are not to bring other games into this, the last game I suspected you, you were infact town, so despite my suspiciouns, I have reservations against acting on any of them, atleast for the time being. FOS or anything else.
Since clearly I was way off then, and it is just as likely I maybe here too. So for now my biggest suspicioun is on Chucara. This is for what I see as a anti-town statement, for thinking it is good sometimes to knowingly lynch your own.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

When is Dusk again? We may have less time than I thought, in which case a practice vote may not work. But the basic premise is to impose some structure onto long Days. Many of us have seen some very long lapses in game activity in past games.

Want to discourage lurking?
Want to discourage fluffing?

Then let's self-impose a micro-schedule within Idle's. The easiest way would be a halfway point "check in" vote.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Total Lost: I meant to respond to something you said earlier, about the discussion of mushrooms not being applicable to the game.

I've played with some of these folks where rules/conditions were exploited and bent for clandestine purposes. It involved flying marine life as a communication channel.

Nothing is too out of bounds for certain side quests in games.

[Idle Thoughts]

Thursday is when Day ends.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Ok. We could do an especially significant vote-count on Monday. We'll use Idle's vote count, but everyone must check in and make any changes they are inclined to make, with justification by Monday. Use the same deadline time of day as Dusk.

[Santo Rugger]

Nov 29, 2008 12:07:41 GMT -5 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies said:

Then let's self-impose a micro-schedule within Idle's. The easiest way would be a halfway point "check in" vote.

First, that's not what you said. Why wouldn't we be able to do that with real votes? Second, although we've never really gotten self imposed arbitrary end times to work, I'm all about trying again. Good luck with that, but I've done my part. Have you?

[Total Ullz]

Nov 29, 2008 12:29:52 GMT -5 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies said:

We could do an especially significant vote-count on Monday. We'll use Idle's vote count, but everyone must check in and make any changes they are inclined to make, with justification by Monday. Use the same deadline time of day as Dusk.

I like this - right now I have no idea where to place a vote but I'll make one on Monday (Danish time - since we must be ahead of most other players time zone that should be alright)

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

We can talk semantics if you like, Rugger, but I haven't contradicted myself anywhere. I'm not always able to do the "vote early and often" thing. Monday is a long time from now, and Thursday is even farther. Why are you so bristly?

[Santo Rugger]

I didn't say you contradicted yourself? You said we should faux vote to help kill the time. Last I checked, faux means fake. That's not semantics, that's definition. I asked why we shouldn't be able to do it with real votes. You then said we should institute an arbitrary deadline, which is not the same as fake voting.

I'm not saying you're being scummy, I'm saying you're not being clear. I'm not being bristly, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. If you don't want to vote early, why are you suggesting it?

[bufftabby]

Rugger is not the only one confused by your faux-voting/self-imposed deadline plan, cookies. I don't understand what the point would be.

[peekercpa]

Nov 29, 2008 12:29:52 GMT -5 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies said:

Ok. We could do an especially significant vote-count on Monday. We'll use Idle's vote count, but everyone must check in and make any changes they are inclined to make, with justification by Monday. Use the same deadline time of day as Dusk.

Cool we now have a self appointed Nurse Ratchett vote monitor. When kidv shows up we'll have our post content monitor available. This should be pleasurable.

Crap, do I get Teddy Grahams before nap time? And I really want apple juice in my sippy. Pretty please.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

The "faux" part is where we all pretend that Monday is Dusk instead of Thursday. The end. Apologies if that was confusing.

The bristlyness comment come from "Well I've done my part. Have you?" indicating that those of us who do not already have votes on the table as having not "done our parts".

As for being a self-imposed vote monitor, it is just a proposal.

[peekercpa]

Nov 29, 2008 18:29:31 GMT -5 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies said:

The "faux" part is where we all pretend that Monday is Dusk instead of Thursday. The end. Apologies if that was confusing.

The bristlyness comment come from "Well I've done my part. Have you?" indicating that those of us who do not already have votes on the table as having not "done our parts".

As for being a self-imposed vote monitor, it is just a proposal.

Cool. cookies wants to be the vote monitor. I agree that we elect her

Can we not always have Mexican food on Wednesdays and fish on Fridays? Also, we want more shower time after P.E.

Woot the fucking woot.

Now we are getting somewhere.

[special]

Why don't we just play a faux game within the game, and Cookies can be Mod. Total can tell us all what to post. Santo will be scum with the power of the anal intruder. And peeker will be...um...peeker

Or, we can just vote for real. Shaggy and total have been pinging my scumdar. But, mostly I'm just confused. If I had to vote now, it would be for total She seems to be trying to distract the most. But there's really nothing I can be certain of.

[storyteller0910]

Whew! Three families, two turkeys, 50 home-made cream puffs, an outstanding cream-of-celery soup, a tree-lighting ceremony, a surprise pregnancy instigated by my ne'er-do-well brother-in-law, and at least ten narrowly averted family crises later, I'm back. I haven't really been reading since Wednesday afternoon, so I'm going to need to catch up.

Hopefully I haven't been Daykilled in the interim; BlaM isn't in this game, so my chances are good.

[peekercpa]

ed

I think it's KidV that is the magistrate on acceptable posts, Fucking Spanish inquisition and all that, don't you know.

And I ain't changing my vote until I get me some Cheerios, at the least.

[Chucara]

If I had to vote right now (well.. soon anyway). I'd cast my vote on one of the players who hasn't done anything "dangerous" yet. That is.. a lot of people have come up with accusations of various kinds, but I think it would be a logical step for any scum member to lay low by letting us squabble amongst outselves.

For my day one vote, I'll re-read the day (if I can find the time) and cast my vote on someone who appears to be avoiding any form of confrontation. Sure, there might be a scummy person hiding amongst those who are aggressive, but I think the majority of scum are hiding in the least active half. In my head, that means better odds of lynching scum. And I'm not thinking number of posts here - I'm thinking risks.

[Chucara]

Nov 29, 2008 9:33:54 GMT -5 shaggy said:

chucara Said
"I'd rather lynch a townie that gives us information about five other players than hope to randomly select a scum member by means of random.org. Sure, we might get lucky, but the odds just aren't that good."

Now i know a few poeple have brought this up, and i do not want to sound like a old broken record but I can not help but ask. How is lynching a fellow town good for the town? I just do not get it, if you suspect someone or you know they are town, then how is it pro-town to lynch them anyways? Also we do not know how many Scum there are, yet you seem pretty sure it is 5? Why is that? also how are you so sure they are town, unless there is a reason you know they are town? As I said I know others have brought this up, but it is the biggest thing to be pinging me right now.

Like I said in my "correction" post, I wasn't clear in my head - or my posts - when I typed that. However, you're taking things a little out of context here. I never said lynching town is good.. I said that voting based on suspicions is better than using random.org, as we're risking lynching town no matter what and option A would at least provide information if we did, where option B would leave us with nothing.

Also, 5 was not a reference to the number of scum.. I tried to explain it in my previous post.. It was just a random number of how many people we might gain information on by voting based on suspicions.. It might as well have been 2 or 8. Again, I'm sorry that I didn't make sense.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

If you want play a game within a game, by all means go ahead, but you'll have to find another Mod.

My suggestion was for extended Day periods only.

[Zeriel]

Nov 29, 2008 9:33:54 GMT -5 shaggy said:

chucara Said
"I'd rather lynch a townie that gives us information about five other players than hope to randomly select a scum member by means of random.org. Sure, we might get lucky, but the odds just aren't that good."

Now i know a few poeple have brought this up, and i do not want to sound like a old broken record but I can not help but ask. How is lynching a fellow town good for the town? I just do not get it, if you suspect someone or you know they are town, then how is it pro-town to lynch them anyways? Also we do not know how many Scum there are, yet you seem pretty sure it is 5? Why is that? also how are you so sure they are town, unless there is a reason you know they are town? As I said I know others have brought this up, but it is the biggest thing to be pinging me right now.

Frankly, this is more suspicious to me than chucara's perfectly clearly phrased comment. This is one hell of a smudge that doesn't follow at all from what chucara actually posted.

If you don't understand why almost all of the time a day lynch of a vanilla is better than a no-lynch, then I don't know how I can explain it any more--a no-lynch gives you not much info, a lynch of anyone adds data to the voting patterns. Voting patterns, and posting patterns, are how town catches scum--power roles help but they're no substitute for solid analysis.

[Santo Rugger]

Nov 29, 2008 18:29:31 GMT -5 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies said:

The bristlyness comment come from "Well I've done my part. Have you?" indicating that those of us who do not already have votes on the table as having not "done our parts".

Please note the "" after the comment. In many cultures, the "", "", "", ";D", and "" are often times used to signify a joke. Heck, even the "" and "", as well as others can be used as a pinch. As is usual with my snarkyness, though, I did have a point. I wasn't referring to others, only to you. It's kind of like at work. If I'm going to give a document to somebody to review and sign, I damn well better have my signature on it showing that I've already approved it. If you're going to propose that everybody should be voting early, you really should have a vote on the table already, in order to give some credence to the idea.

Don't get me wrong, I think by this time everybody should have enough information to have their initial vote in. We can always change it later. And I agree that there should be some mechanism to make that happen. Unfortunately, past experience has shown that we've never gotten that to work. I'm concerned about this for two reasons. The first is that you're not putting your money where your mouth is. The second is that you know it's a good idea, but you also know it's not going to work. It seems to me like an easy way to sound pro-town without actually accomplishing anything pro-town.