|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 18:42:05 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Feb 2, 2009 18:42:05 GMT -5
Otay, makes sense. But then why all of this hammer nonsense on ed. If a complete vote is expected - I would think that scum ed would have three stinking votes, [/color=green]Do some folks have more information about the mechanics of this game.[/color][/b] than others?. Seriously, I am dirty. I am old, and I have a penis (it's checked out to the missus currently). But, sheesh this is bordering gastardly. Having fun, however. The narcs are making me cantankerous as well as euphoric, all at the same time.[/quote] Not gastardly I think, and the rest of us don't have anymore info than you. Ed has only 3 actual votes on him now (yours btw) indicated by the (3) in the table. The other votes are provisional until we all vote for two others. The only goofy thing is the votes on brokentree which are also listed in parens and are thus probably counting votes. Keep taking the drugs, you make more sense now that normally. Hee.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 18:53:09 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 2, 2009 18:53:09 GMT -5
Day One, there's this from Miteymouse, post 371:
Aubby's response, post 380:
Huh.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 19:01:29 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 2, 2009 19:01:29 GMT -5
No, peeker.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 19:07:04 GMT -5
Post by aubby on Feb 2, 2009 19:07:04 GMT -5
Why are posts so odd, KidV? I've played with Ed in other games and he has a tendency to go on and on when he's stringing people along. Toward the end of the day he started acting more like I expected and so moved above Mitey in my votes. I still suspected Zeriel more for outing the Masons before they had planned and I was wrong.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 19:37:32 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 2, 2009 19:37:32 GMT -5
Why are posts so odd, KidV? I've played with Ed in other games and he has a tendency to go on and on when he's stringing people along. Toward the end of the day he started acting more like I expected and so moved above Mitey in my votes. I still suspected Zeriel more for outing the Masons before they had planned and I was wrong. You said you thought he was scum, then you thought he wasn't, except he's a good actor... It doesn't read right. It smells like it might be obfuscation. But I don't know you well enough yet to be confident of that. I just wanted to bring it up, in case other folks have opinions they'd like to share.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 19:39:07 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 2, 2009 19:39:07 GMT -5
I'm not a great pretender. I'm just...um...well....anyone have any ideas on how I can dig myself out of this one? And who the hell authorized that kill of Zeriel? I knew I should have protected him last Night instead of myself. You could start by outing your scum-buddies. Not that we won't lynch you anyway, but if turns out you were telling the truth, I'll be happy to carve "not completely evil" on your tombstone.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 19:41:16 GMT -5
Post by aubby on Feb 2, 2009 19:41:16 GMT -5
It may look like obfuscation to you, KidV, but I think it would be more suspicious if I said I was SURE he was scum.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 19:41:33 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 2, 2009 19:41:33 GMT -5
Voting all three Masons seemed to be the thing, yesterDay. Should we consider a 3rd-place Special Ed vote a potential scumtell?
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 19:47:09 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 2, 2009 19:47:09 GMT -5
It may look like obfuscation to you, KidV, but I think it would be more suspicious if I said I was SURE he was scum. If you said you were sure he was scum, then failed to vote him, that sure as heck would be suspicious. But that isn't the point. It isn't what you said, it's the way you said it. It's ... well, it's weak, is what it is. Not assertive at all. Not like you're being with me right now, in fact. Interesting.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 19:47:51 GMT -5
Post by roxis on Feb 2, 2009 19:47:51 GMT -5
Day One, there's this from Miteymouse, post 371: Aubby's response, post 380: Huh. That's a really good catch, KidV. It seems as though aubby might be trying to dodge blame. Then (when) he comes up SCUM, she can say "well, I had my suspicions, and he's a really good actor". But, like you, I don't really know aubby's playing style. In the only game I played with her, she was offed Night 2. It's possible she was just thinking aloud. You're bound to contradict yourself when you do that - I know I did. Still, it's something to think about, especially since we need to think about another lynch candidate. Ed's clearly going today, but I don't want to go into the next day without a clue who to vote for.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 19:52:34 GMT -5
Post by roxis on Feb 2, 2009 19:52:34 GMT -5
And yes, I do feel as though there are SCUM members among the third place votes for Ed.
For reference, these people voted him #2: Aubby, KidVermicious, misterblocky, MiteyMouse, molefan, Nanook, peekercpa
And these as #3: brokentree, Hal Briston, Merestil Haye, Mr. Special Ed, roxis, TDPatriots
And, yes, I realize I voted him #3. I also voted him #1 at one point, though ultimately that means nothing.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 19:53:37 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 2, 2009 19:53:37 GMT -5
I don't know my scum buddies. For all I know you're one of them, but you haven't used the secret code word. Because, if I'd seen the secret code word, I could safely transfer my large hammer with it's usefulness to someone else. and no, it's not rutabaga. Of course, I also can't be entirely sure that a Non-scum person doesn't know the code words too. Damn pamphlets. They're really a lousy way to communicate. Ah. And I suppose you'd have us believe next that they didn't know who you are, either? You're not in the bridge-selling business by chance, are you?
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 19:59:47 GMT -5
Post by roxis on Feb 2, 2009 19:59:47 GMT -5
It meant something to me. I thought we had something special That all went out the window when I learned you were a member of the Mafia.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 20:04:58 GMT -5
Post by aubby on Feb 2, 2009 20:04:58 GMT -5
Yes, it was weak yesterday. I didn't have that much to go on. If I'm assertive right now, then it's because I have something to say. Yes, I wobbled. Other than the fact that Ed is Scum, the fact that I knew nothing yesterday is the only thing I am sure on. Is that weak? Sure.
Do I think you are scummy for asking me all this? Not at the moment. I could say you are trying to paint an easy picture of a weak link being not only anti-town, but also scum. But I'm just going assume you are trying to get info.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 20:07:00 GMT -5
Post by aubby on Feb 2, 2009 20:07:00 GMT -5
I don't know my scum buddies. For all I know you're one of them, but you haven't used the secret code word. Because, if I'd seen the secret code word, I could safely transfer my large hammer with it's usefulness to someone else. and no, it's not rutabaga. Of course, I also can't be entirely sure that a Non-scum person doesn't know the code words too. Damn pamphlets. They're really a lousy way to communicate. Ah. And I suppose you'd have us believe next that they didn't know who you are, either? You're not in the bridge-selling business by chance, are you? Oh for the love of peter, you aren't going to start on the algorithmic secret codes again, are you?
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 20:22:01 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 2, 2009 20:22:01 GMT -5
Voting all three Masons seemed to be the thing, yesterDay. Should we consider a 3rd-place Special Ed vote a potential scumtell? No. Ed was so far behind, anything but a first place vote for him could be considered scummy, including those who didn't vote for him at all. (And yes, I'm aware that I'm one of those.) Even if someone had voted him as first place, it would probably be a null tell at best. I think timing is what we want to look for, and aubby looks bad here based on what you pointed out.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 20:32:10 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Feb 2, 2009 20:32:10 GMT -5
Um, Ed have you been taking your meds lately? Or have you been borrowing Peeks'. I have no idea what you're on about in the last two posts you've seemingly addressed to me.
That's my post count title and yours and lots of other folks.
And, aside from a bit of indigestion I'm feeling pretty damn good.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 20:33:13 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 2, 2009 20:33:13 GMT -5
Why are posts so odd, KidV? I've played with Ed in other games and he has a tendency to go on and on when he's stringing people along. Toward the end of the day he started acting more like I expected and so moved above Mitey in my votes. Is that why you moved him into second? Because the only reason you gave was weak. psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=smashing&action=display&thread=729&page=15#39797You posted that and just over an hour later changed your vote: psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=smashing&action=display&thread=729&page=15#39822Now, you say Ed didn't respond, but you gave him only an hour. Hardly a adequate window. Your action drips with convenience voting. This is how I can see you playing it if you're scum: You want to look like you suspect scummy Ed, but you still don't want to risk him getting lynched, so you move him into a safer second position in your borda vote, though still far behind the other two in the overall vote. You really didn't care what Ed's response was, because you planned to move him into second anyway after mitey brought your seemingly odd throwaway vote to light. The question was just a cover.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 20:38:56 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 2, 2009 20:38:56 GMT -5
It may look like obfuscation to you, KidV, but I think it would be more suspicious if I said I was SURE he was scum. Of course it would. But leaving him off and voting the other two masons? There were two schools of thought among the populace yesterday. Either we voted all 3 masons, or we voted for the one we thought was the scummy. You were one of the few who voted for two masons and not the third. And you never really justified why. After all, you can't really expect us to think that the justifications you gave here: psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=smashing&action=display&thread=729&page=13#39723...are remotely solid.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 20:53:09 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Feb 2, 2009 20:53:09 GMT -5
So after rereading the last day and evening I have a few thing's I have noticed. Sinjin My problem with this is, first yes you said that it sucks, but no sorry to see you go or anything....Would a town not be sorry one of there own is mis-lynched? You were going to vote me for only voting one of them, yet you your self were only going to vote one of them. This seems odd, kinda conterdictory. You aparently your self did not want to consider the other 2 could be scum? yet it is ok for you but not me aparently. Sinjin Here is my problem with this post...SHE IS DEAD, why are you so aggressively stating again reason's she should be lynched? She was town, and was dead, yet you seem to keep going with bolstering why it is good, when clearly it was not! She was town!!! and not only town but a tracker, investigative role type town. Not only that but this post almost comes across as if you still want to believe she was scum. And once again, beg's the question it seems you still are not considering eigther of the 2 that were left as scum? Cause most of that post you seem to have left out, which was that I thought zerial was the scum. Yet the only part you address is the part where I say why I had no suspicion on mitey , which i was correct on. But you seem to still after her death want to keep beating her, kinda like keep beating the dead horse with a pitch fork. Sinjin My problem with this is, you seem by this post and the last to not even care at all that it was a mislynch...Yes we have a scum today but we still lost 3 town to get here. And your entire feeling bad is "well that sucks." Would not a fellow town person be a little more upset? ? Feel a little bad, that the town mislynched? Now the bigger thing I find intersting is kat only voted for one and that was mitey why are you so over the top agressive for me sinjin , for only voting for one person of the 3 mason's but not to kat who only found mitey suspicious? At that time we still had ed and zerial , whom could be scum, yet no one went on her for only voting one? Why is that? same with rysto and hoopy , why vote me for only voting one, but not kat ? It seems like you all wanted mitey lynched and therefore cause kat voted her it is ok, but because I did not, and also started the clock accidently to almost lynch the one that you did not want to be lynched first of the 2 non-scum mason's. it was bad for me. I said yesterday and will again now, I think of the 2, the scum had to get her lynched first, cause she can track the one and discover your scum. That is why it is not ok for me! But for kat it was ok for her to only vote mitey . Care to explain why else there was no recorse for her, only voting one? but for me there was? ? Why did you 3 go after me so hard, yet not her? I am not ready to vote yet, but will for now: FOS sinjin FOS hoopy FOS rysto
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 20:56:04 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 2, 2009 20:56:04 GMT -5
From what I gather from a quick google search, it's a corruption of the phrase "Tiers Don't Exist". I don't quite understand what the original phrase is supposed to refer to, nor why people bastardized it, but there you go.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 21:03:47 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 2, 2009 21:03:47 GMT -5
You were one of the few who voted for two masons and not the third. Actually, I looked back. You were the only one who ever voted for only two of the three masons after the masons came out. And you voted for the two townies. And did so for bad reasons. And haven't really put forth any strong reason since. I unfortunately don't have time to a full reread of yesterDay as I planned to and as I said I would yesterday, but I have no issues doing this: 2. vote aubby[/color] Also, I would like more people other than Roxis to chime in on the question I asked yesterday here: psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=smashing&action=display&thread=729&page=17#39908Clearly we had a townie who was given the impression that scum designate the killer. I figured otherwise based on the (then erroneous) game color. Roxis came to the same conclusion. Now from my perspective, I see two townies (me and mitey) who came to opposite conclusions with seemingly the same information out there. (Though, she did know she was a tracker, and so might have assumed that scum designate, but that's a bit of a leap in logic for her if she did. It's not unreasonable to expect a designated killer, but to appear to be sure of it like she was, when the color could be interpreted otherwise.)
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 21:04:16 GMT -5
Post by roxis on Feb 2, 2009 21:04:16 GMT -5
My problem with this is, you seem by this post and the last to not even care at all that it was a mislynch...Yes we have a scum today but we still lost 3 town to get here. And your entire feeling bad is "well that sucks." Would not a fellow town person be a little more upset? ? Feel a little bad, that the town mislynched? Two town. Sachertorte was a third-party.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 21:05:51 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 2, 2009 21:05:51 GMT -5
NETA: And to finish that thought at the end of my post:
...otherwise, seems a bit odd to me.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 21:06:19 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Feb 2, 2009 21:06:19 GMT -5
It may look like obfuscation to you, KidV, but I think it would be more suspicious if I said I was SURE he was scum. Of course it would. But leaving him off and voting the other two masons? There were two schools of thought among the populace yesterday. Either we voted all 3 masons, or we voted for the one we thought was the scummy. You were one of the few who voted for two masons and not the third. And you never really justified why. After all, you can't really expect us to think that the justifications you gave here: psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=smashing&action=display&thread=729&page=13#39723...are remotely solid. So, hoop if I understand you, voting across the Mason board (from most to least scummy - like me) is poor. One vote on the scummiest is somewhat better, but only voting two is the worst. Yeeps, pede this borda thing is getting kind of convoluted.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 21:28:22 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 2, 2009 21:28:22 GMT -5
So after rereading the last day and evening I have a few thing's I have noticed. Sinjin My problem with this is, first yes you said that it sucks, but no sorry to see you go or anything....Would a town not be sorry one of there own is mis-lynched? Sympathy (or lack thereof) for a town death of any type is a null-tell. I really can't believe I even had to type that. [keanu reeves] Woah! [/bad actor] So she was voting you for it, and you were voting zeriel for it, and now you want to show how she's bad for doing it even though you did it and voted someone else for doing it? Why do I feel like I'm looking into one of those double mirror setups where it stretches on into infinity. We totally need a "trippy" smiley. You're twisting her words here. She's explaining why she both voted for Mitey and why she found it odd that you were so sure Mitey wasn't scum when you never even gave a reason why you felt this way. I don't recall any of the other one mason only voters saying they thought the other prime candidate was definitely not scum. What made you so sure? And here you're just making shit up. I voted you because not only did you seem so cocksure that Mitey wasn't scum, but you seemed to think she could find a killer. Which was unlikely for a couple reasons which are still valid, and impossible for a reason I gave that turned out was invalid, but I didn't even find it out until the end of the Day. I did not vote you for only voting for one mason, and I never said I did. But now I'll add your incessant smudging (and your smudges are largely not even for accurate reasons) as a reason to vote for you. In fact, you just displaced aubby. unvote 2. aubby[/color] vote 2. shaggy vote 3. aubby
[/color]
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 21:32:01 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Feb 2, 2009 21:32:01 GMT -5
Shaggy: First off I'm not a touchy feely sort of chick. I have never, ever given {{{huggies}}} to anyone. "That sucks" is about the width and breadth of my emotions. If that really bothers you and makes you think I'm scum, well...that sucks.
And for the last time, I wasn't going to vote you because you only voted for one of the masons. I was going to vote you because you didn't even seem to consider for a moment that Mitey might actually be scum. You want me to be blunt, well here it is: Either you knew more about Mitey's alignment yesterday than the rest of us did or you can't play in a game with Mitey in an unbiased way.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 21:37:29 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 2, 2009 21:37:29 GMT -5
So, hoop if I understand you, voting across the Mason board (from most to least scummy - like me) is poor. One vote on the scummiest is somewhat better, but only voting two is the worst. No, you don't understand me. I never said voting across the mason board was poor. I don't even think I made a comment on my opinions of which I thought was better. Though, obviously from my voting record of yesterDay, it should be apparent which I think would have been. But that still doesn't mean I think the other method was poor, I just think it gives us potentially less information in the long term. And voting for two isn't the worst. It just doesn't make sense without a good reason. Really, actions are in of themselves null tells. It's not what you do that counts as much as why you did it. There are perfectly valid reasons to use unconventional strategies, but the thing is, you better have a good reason, otherwise the other players will find one for you, and you're probably not going to like it. And aubby's reasons as given, to put it plainly, suck. Her explanation of why she did in the first place was weak, and her subsequent defenses haven't really changed that. There are good scummy reasons for it, though, and I listed them.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 21:54:34 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Feb 2, 2009 21:54:34 GMT -5
Based on my last post and no more pussy footing around:
Vote Shaggy 2.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 22:05:24 GMT -5
Post by Rysto on Feb 2, 2009 22:05:24 GMT -5
I did not vote you because you only voted for one Mason. I myself only voted for one Mason. I argued vigourously against voting for more than one Mason. Were you not paying any attention at all during your re-read? Seems like a strange thing to do to somebody you're suspicious of.
I voted for you because of a critical inconsistency between your case against Zeriel and your own votes.
|
|