|
Post by Inner Stickler on May 5, 2009 16:32:58 GMT -5
Yes I made a huge error and I apologize IS, and all other townies I made big booboo. Yeah, at least you didn't manage to get almost half the group to vote for your lynching. It really sucks to get slapped in the face with your ineptitude like that.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on May 5, 2009 16:33:31 GMT -5
The explicit fishing came from Pleonast and sinjin. Actually I amend that. The fishing came from Pleonast. sinjin's question was entirely reasonable. zlw just went off on a tangent for no reason at all.
|
|
|
Post by zlw on May 5, 2009 16:38:30 GMT -5
The explicit fishing came from Pleonast and sinjin. Actually I amend that. The fishing came from Pleonast. sinjin's question was entirely reasonable. zlw just went off on a tangent for no reason at all. cuz i is dummie? Okay I made a mistake and will again if not this game then next. Now moving forward I will not make this same mistake again, but something else I'm sure. Other than that, what do we do now?
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on May 5, 2009 16:39:56 GMT -5
Actually, your (Inner Stickler) being an investigator makes perfect sense now. It's typical behavior for an investigator to turtle up (ie, lurk) because they are afraid to say something that will get them lynched. I've never been an investigator, and I hope I never am. Too much stress.
And zlw, don't worry about it. Eagerness shows you are into the game and having fun (I hope), which is the point right? I get pretty serious about the game, but on the balance, the point is to be entertained. And with Sister Coyote (strongman) dead it is unlikely that scum can kill both of you.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on May 5, 2009 16:45:49 GMT -5
I think zlw definitely could have handshook without revealing too much. The M/F question could have been done without much else. And zlw didn't have to reveal he was an INVESTIGATOR. I certainly wasn't concluding that. zlw could have been all kinds of other things. Power role yes, investigator, not necessarily so. In fact, I would not have thought zlw was an investigator since having two is less likely. There was no need for zlw to do any kind of a handshake at all. None of us was going to lynch a claimed investigator (IS) at that point. He didn't have to do anything. The question is: why did he choose to? Yes zlw revealed himself as an investigator too and has been riding the IS investigator claim coat-tails for all it's worth ever since. He has mentioned several times now that he and IS are both confirmed and town. You don't think it's important that we know if zlw and Inner Stickler's pm's explicitly state their respective co-anchors are on the same side as they are? Really?
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on May 5, 2009 16:50:00 GMT -5
And I missed a lot of posts while I was coding and checking facts.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on May 5, 2009 16:52:38 GMT -5
The explicit fishing came from Pleonast and sinjin. Actually I amend that. The fishing came from Pleonast. sinjin's question was entirely reasonable. zlw just went off on a tangent for no reason at all. I'm not sure how you get that I was fishing. Here was my "question". zlw needs to give us a reason for fishing for information from our claimed investigator. I didn't ask for a claim, I was asking for an explanation of questionable behavior. You know, one of the basic Townie approaches to finding scum.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on May 5, 2009 16:53:21 GMT -5
Well, then since we are all happy with the mistakes we've made how about a role pm from you both so we can see how it's implicitly written that you two are on the same side. Feel free to leave out options 1 and 2 whatever they are so the scum don't get too much information.
|
|
|
Post by zlw on May 5, 2009 17:00:57 GMT -5
sinjin you really don't think we should be looking elsewhere right now? Eventually before to long me or IS will end up d.e.a.d. and that should help alleviate some of your.... smudging.
I shouldn't have made a handshake actually but at that point in time it looked likely that those switching off Inner would switch to me actually so it was almost a save myself thing. Stupid? In hindsight it was wish I wasn't around for end of the daY now.
And yes sinjin to make this synergy work we would have to be aligned with same win conditions anything other would make no sense.
On preview
Sinjin, no because that would spill to much sorry Pleo that alone wasn't all you did,
And how exactly could have I answered you without claiming?
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on May 5, 2009 17:01:40 GMT -5
There was no need for zlw to do any kind of a handshake at all. None of us was going to lynch a claimed investigator (IS) at that point. He didn't have to do anything. The question is: why did he choose to? That's probably true, but I myself was considering gunning for Inner Stickler. It was very late in the Day and at some point we have to be willing to lynch a claimed investigator. I was waffling on that point when the zlw handshake made it clearer. So yeah, you're probably right. Town doesn't lynch claimed investigators (even when they should), so zlw didn't have to do anything. That he did is unfortunate, but why are you obsessing about it? Are you concluding that zlw is scum because of it? zlw revealed too much about himself, but that is eagerness, not the mark of scum.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on May 5, 2009 17:08:46 GMT -5
I didn't ask for a claim, I was asking for an explanation of questionable behavior. You know, one of the basic Townie approaches to finding scum. The reason was clear. zlw asked a very specific question... Male or Female? How is that fishing? zlw knew something about the investigator that would confirm it. That should have been obvious. My point is the behavior was not questionable.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on May 5, 2009 17:11:50 GMT -5
You don't think it's important that we know if zlw and Inner Stickler's pm's explicitly state their respective co-anchors are on the same side as they are? Really? read post #31
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on May 5, 2009 17:16:20 GMT -5
zlw, you could have said that based on some color, you expect that an investigator has a definite sex and you wanted to commit Stickler to a specific response.
sinjin, our investigators should not reveal anything more about their roles, unless it affects the accuracy of their results. We're going to judge them both, independently, on the accuracy of those results. We don't need anything more, so them giving more information will help scum more than us.
sach, it's either humorous or disturbing that you were still considering voting for a claimed investigator (a confirmable role) when you so quickly dropped the pressure on the Pollux, who has an unconfirmable role.
As for fishing, we didn't know that zlw had special knowledge about Stickler. And asking probing questions to an investigator about specifics of their role is questionable. An investigative role is inherently confirmable--no Town player needs additional information about the role.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on May 5, 2009 17:20:00 GMT -5
Is this even true? I know it gets stated repeatedly as true, but is it actually true?
I also disagree with Pleonast's characterizing what zlw did as fishing. Fishing is more vague and seeks out powers. zlw asked if Inner Stickler was male or female. Jesus, Inner Stickler had claimed investigator... what is there to fish for?!!! Seriously, you think scum were like "OMG! let's find out everything we can about Inner Stickler; Go fishing!" instead of "OMG! we totally need to kill Inner Stickler!"
What am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on May 5, 2009 17:32:40 GMT -5
I absolutely defend the view that unvoting a Mason claim is easier than unvoting a late investigator claim. An investigator claim should be weighed against the possibility of a false claim, especially close to the end of the Day. That's what I was doing. Would I have actually pushed for Inner Stickler's lynch? I don't know. Probably not since I'd have wimped out knowing everyone else would lynch me for daring to suggest such a thing. But I was mulling over the possibility of Inner Sticker false claiming. zlw's postings gave me firmer evidence that lynching Inner Sticker wasn't the right choice.
Comparing my reaction to Pollux is not fair. Pollux claimed last night. It's night and day... literally!
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on May 5, 2009 17:37:53 GMT -5
You don't think it's important that we know if zlw and Inner Stickler's pm's explicitly state their respective co-anchors are on the same side as they are? Really? read post #31 read post #35
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on May 5, 2009 17:39:08 GMT -5
Ok, don't call it "fishing", call it "asking for information about a role".
Townies don't need any additional information about an investigator. Thus, asking an investigator for additional information is anti-Town at best and pro-scum at worst. A player who does something anti-Town or pro-scum needs to be called on it. Yeah, it seems stupid that a scum would do something like that, but it happens. And if we don't call players on it, it'll happen more often, because the risks will be lower.
In this case, before zlw claimed, we had no way of knowing what the significance of Stickler's sex was. It's naive to think it was harmless, especially when Stickler's claimed role is confirmable.
You keep saying it, but it isn't so. Pollux's claim is not a Mason claim. A Mason claim is confirmable, his is not. And no matter when an investigator claim is made, it is confirmable.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on May 5, 2009 17:46:37 GMT -5
Ok, don't call it "fishing", call it "asking for information about a role". Townies don't need any additional information about an investigator. Thus, asking an investigator for additional information is anti-Town at best and pro-scum at worst. A player who does something anti-Town or pro-scum needs to be called on it. Yeah, it seems stupid that a scum would do something like that, but it happens. And if we don't call players on it, it'll happen more often, because the risks will be lower. In this case, before zlw claimed, we had no way of knowing what the significance of Stickler's sex was. It's naive to think it was harmless, especially when Stickler's claimed role is confirmable. You keep saying it, but it isn't so. Pollux's claim is not a Mason claim. A Mason claim is confirmable, his is not. And no matter when an investigator claim is made, it is confirmable. And I ask you Pleo how are the two investigator's claims confirmable aside from them turning up dead? And even if one of them ends up dead and town that definitely doesn't confirm that the other is town. I am trying to get information that will let me actually believe that we have a masonry of investigators. In my brain it is way more likely that we have a scum investigator and a town investigator than two town investigators that can confirm each other. Hmmm can we put two and two together, two anchors = two investigators. You don't think a scum group could come up with that scenario?
|
|
|
Post by zlw on May 5, 2009 17:55:45 GMT -5
sinjin you are going with town possibly having NO investigators then is that correct? Or Inner Stickler or me is scum and we don't know that about one another? Seriously I don't think that could work at all with the way my PM is.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on May 5, 2009 18:06:24 GMT -5
sinjin you are going with town possibly having NO investigators then is that correct? Or Inner Stickler or me is scum and we don't know that about one another? Seriously I don't think that could work at all with the way my PM is. Based on what I've read I suspect one of you is scum.
|
|
|
Post by zlw on May 5, 2009 18:13:07 GMT -5
From PM
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on May 5, 2009 18:20:19 GMT -5
Really zlw that doesn't prove anything. I hate to be skeptical, but, yeah.
|
|
|
Post by zlw on May 5, 2009 18:24:27 GMT -5
Fine be skeptical but can we actually look past me and Inner Stickler for a while?
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on May 5, 2009 18:29:38 GMT -5
Sure zlw. On a different note, care to explain why you unvoted SisterC and voted Inner Stickler when he basically said the same thing you did?
|
|
|
Post by zlw on May 5, 2009 18:45:16 GMT -5
Sure, I was operating under SC's claim possibly being real and without anything else to go on my vote would remain on her anyway since her messenger thing was off anyway. But *waves hand* I wasn't convinced she was scum and was on the look out for someone without a claim to throw a vote on. Inner Sticklers post struck me as odd this line actually
*
and so I threw a vote on him. My fault for being led down the path of not lynching claimed players.
*Which I still find odd even now.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on May 5, 2009 18:56:29 GMT -5
Sure, I was operating under SC's claim possibly being real and without anything else to go on my vote would remain on her anyway since her messenger thing was off anyway. But *waves hand* I wasn't convinced she was scum and was on the look out for someone without a claim to throw a vote on. Inner Sticklers post struck me as odd this line actually * and so I threw a vote on him. My fault for being led down the path of not lynching claimed players. *Which I still find odd even now. Wow, what a coincidence that's just what MHaye said later. You still find it odd that IS might have speculated that SisterCoyote changed her alignment in her role pm?
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on May 5, 2009 19:03:38 GMT -5
Ok, enough said. By now everyone knows that I strongly suspect that zlw is scum. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by zlw on May 5, 2009 19:27:08 GMT -5
That's fine you can suspect that's cool. I know I won't fret on it. If it makes you feel any better I think your arguing for me being scum makes me less likely that you're scum. So I have that nugget to cling to right now.
Now on to NAF1138 from newest to oldest
complained about my magic bag
voted paul
explained how Sister C was a claimed power role
unvoted Paul and voted Inner Stickler
head underwater
Pleo discussion table it until toMorrow
vote paul for his reaction to SCs vote
rough day be back later with more post
tells pleo to watch the movie
"scum would never do it" post
needed to read night 0
Sarcastic thanks for Pleo claim
answers SC on what scum would and would not do following my vote on SC
Hi everyone
Okay not a lot to go on other than the attacking Paul and defending SC in a roundabout way. Can't call him scummy for it, but something to look at further I think.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on May 5, 2009 19:49:15 GMT -5
Most excellent. I get to out a Mason and nail a scum w/ my last flurry of posts. I can drink to that! Still got it Though yeah, Sorry, AH, but :shrug: it happens- you do what you do. Glad to know that line of thinking wasn't unfounded though. And VERY nice work on the SisterC post, reading that REALLY made me think about her- so there's a kudos for you on that one. That said- I didn't like SC's claim. I would have lynched her for information anyways, though the whole claiming "investigator" without a name or a role was kinda suspicious to me, but it wouldn't have MADE me change my vote from an odd role to a guy trying to claim an investigative role, that woulda been silly. Though at least now we've got some names and all with the roles and so that's no biggie for me. I have some more of my Moddy thoughts on the investigators, but they have no possible townie goodness potential so I'm going to keep my mouth shut on trying to wonder about their mechanisms. That said, yeah, always a good Q to ask- Are the Anchors' dirty? Always good to know- same question to ask any mason claim. That said- my thoughts on Night Talking: I actually loathe it. I know it's helping to give us more time to talk, but it squicks me out. Always has, always will. Because I view it as an easy easy place for scum manipulations on who to factor into killing. So with that- I'm not really going to be hypothesizing/suspicifying during the Night. I will glady answer any questions posed to me (best to bold my name if you want an answer from me- as I do look at those posts more), and I will give general comments, but I REALLY am not a fan of Night Talking. I gave my thoughts at the end of the Day and I'd rather those speak for me if I go into the Night rather than muddle it up with more thoughts at Night or to worry about something trying to misinterpret my words (:cough:) when/if I'm gone. (Ie: Kill someone during the Night, and then have the scum act like that's a justification/reasoning for to justify a death- because that's what I did when I was scum). But I still don't trust Pleo or his claim to be Night-Proof. I still feel his current behavior in treating the Investigative Roles hasn't helped me allay my thoughts on him any. The man wants a lynching and shows up as scum to investigators and he's NightKill Resistant, hmmm? Do you still want to be lynched, Pleo?
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on May 5, 2009 20:06:03 GMT -5
Ok, enough said. By now everyone knows that I strongly suspect that zlw is scum. Time will tell. Thanks for that sinjin. I hope you weren't annoyed by my look at post 31 comment. It wasn't meant as a jab or anything, I just wasn't sure if you saw it or not. As for zlw and Inner Stickler: I appreciate the note that one could be a scum investigator and one a town investigator. That dichotomy had not occurred to me. The problem with this is of course, which is which. While you suspect zlw is scum, if I am to believe the scum/town dichotomy, I would lean towards Inner Stickler as the scum one. zlw has been exceedingly eager. While I suppose it is possible for scum to be eager to ride on the coattails of a town investigator's role claim, I don't see zlw's behavior in that light. Meh. We'll sort it out eventually. But the theoretical dichotomy does make me worry about the Groupies. In other words, the idea of multiple town/scum pairings seems like an appealing game design. In other other words, Pleonast may be right.
|
|