#Vote: El-Cideon
*doesn't like androids*
##Vote: EvilTom to get the inevitable out of the way.Everytime someone has made this joke, they've turned out to be scum. ##Vote: Kilgamayan
##Vote: EvilTom to get the inevitable out of the way.Everytime someone has made this joke, they've turned out to be scum. ##Vote: Kilgamayan
I plan on watching this soon, so let's avoid spoilers where possible please? Thanks ^^
##Unvote: Excal
Wait, what.
I know that they're just joke votes and all, but three pairs out of eleven votes cast? That is odd, right?
Of the three second voters, Corwin definitely knew that his vote was second, and Kiro at least had a silly character joke to explain why his vote 'had' to go to El Cid (as, kind of sort of, did Corwin). If I'm going to start a line of thought anywhere out of this, it's going to have to be 'scum are less likely to be paying attention' and go with ##Vote: Alex. I'm hardly looking at you for acting spastic as your character at the start of day one, but the second vote out of the blue turns my head.
Off on the wrong foot with Corwin as well for the same act for the opposite reasons.
It'd be nice to see Andrew and Strago show up, but it's hardly time to worry about their absence.
##Vote: EvilTom to get the inevitable out of the way.Everytime someone has made this joke, they've turned out to be scum. ##Vote: Kilgamayan [/quote]
sure, why not, let's see what happens.
sure, why not, let's see what happens.
Iunno. He might be scum.
sure, why not, let's see what happens.
Iunno. He might be scum.
... That's actually a damn fine argument.
I actually meant it in the "Why are you placing another vote on the (more-or-less random) Kilgamayan train when there's already a lot on it?" way.
Wagon on me: Uh, I dunno. Telling everyone that you're casting the third vote solely for the sake of having a third vote kinda defeats the purpose of making that vote at all, since it doesn't give me a whole lot to worth with in terms of a response. >_>
The current thing that jumps out at me the most is Strago's vote for Tom. He considered Xanth based on some earlier game here, but votes Tom for a one liner. He is reaching on both due to meta and I'm not understanding why he chose the Tom vote over the Xanth vote primarily because he analyzes the case on Xanth a lot more.
##Vote Strago
Wagon on me: Uh, I dunno. Telling everyone that you're casting the third vote solely for the sake of having a third vote kinda defeats the purpose of making that vote at all, since it doesn't give me a whole lot to worth with in terms of a response. >_>
I'd say something of grave importance, but since my last post negligably little has changed. I want to hear some Alex, and am feeling a bit curious about Strago sticking to his "straw grasping" guns on EvilTom.
I'd say something of grave importance, but since my last post negligably little has changed. I want to hear some Alex, and am feeling a bit curious about Strago sticking to his "straw grasping" guns on EvilTom. Would like to see those thoughts solidified into a case stronger than the one on Alex. (shouldn't be too hard either, Alex's anti-case is pretty weak even for a Day 1 case, but then again we don't have much to work with)
I dislike Xanth's reasoning voting Alex. It seems... simply flawed. I know people reach at the beginning, but you're going to pin your first real vote on the basis that "Scum pay less attention" when you know that that isn't true?
Xanth: Who would you prefer to see at three votes right now, if not me?
Most other people, if anyone at all. Putting you to three effectively put a poll to everyone saying 'hey guys, what do you think about Kilga so far?', which nets us bugger all information when you had at that point just posted a fairly typical joke vote and nothing more, at a time where it was reasonable to have done that much. Anything else you get from this from seeing how people react to a generic first train would be better served on someone that we could actually talk about more than just 'oh, he made a joke vote'.
I'm not going to be changing the vote any time before Tom actually shows up again and makes some contribution of any worth.Timezones/Australia etc.
As it stands his contribution have been 100% OMGUS and meta-game, so the vote stays until he convinces me otherwise or I see something more worthwhile. So far, nothing strikes me as compelling enough to let Tom off the hook.Whoa, harsh. My OMGUS meta-game jokevote = Guilty until proven innocent. What crime am I being 'let off the hook' for? I made a (slightly irritated) jokevote (I can't see how anyone could mistake it for a serious case) and you jump all over me, despite Corwin placing a second vote on Kilga without any justification that you completely ignore.
No, I'm pretty happy with my vote where it is for now. It's early day one and I'm not pushing for decapitating the teacher on the back of it, yes, but my vote should still be somewhere at this point, and the weird mass of double-voting has been the only thing to worry me. The only thing I want to retract at this point is the use of the word 'spastic', which is bordering on uncivil even when in jest about in-character play.Ah Xanth, with his walls-o-text that say nothing.
I'm more on Kilgamayan's side than Tom's in that little fray, partially for Strago's reservations and also because Tom's joke argument is [unsurprisingly] incorrect. Well, I'm not really on Kilga's side so much as I'm against randomly firing him into the lead so soon.Please explain. Are you on Kilga's side? What is Kilga's side? From what perspective are you against me, or are you simply against me for the sake of having a stance against me? You've provided no justification other than.. more walls of text and referencing Strago (which doesn't say anything either).
Elsewhere, I completely and totally side with using metagaming where possible/sensible. Town should be using every last weapon at its disposal. At least use what you have of it to guide your suspicions if you're not willing to use it to directly justify voting for someone. And no, Tom's joke argument obviously doesn't count as such, given that it's not at all meaningful. I don't particularly like Strago bringing up an old game only to immediately toss the argument out of the window, but that's not for the metagaming, just for bringing up an argument that's completely tossed away in the same breath that it's posited.That.. is a contradiction to what you said earlier! Unless I'm mistaken.
Also, I think it's weird that Excal and Xanth indirectly criticize Bard on his 'shallow commentary-like style', while Hunter Sopko, in my opinion, is more towards that direction so far as compared to him. Any reason for this, or is it based on meta?
As it stands his contribution have been 100% OMGUS and meta-game, so the vote stays until he convinces me otherwise or I see something more worthwhile. So far, nothing strikes me as compelling enough to let Tom off the hook.Whoa, harsh. My OMGUS meta-game jokevote = Guilty until proven innocent. What crime am I being 'let off the hook' for? I made a (slightly irritated) jokevote (I can't see how anyone could mistake it for a serious case) and you jump all over me, despite Corwin placing a second vote on Kilga without any justification that you completely ignore.
Strago, you admit you're grasping at straws to vote for me. This is not a good thing. It looks like you've done your best to reason out Xanth, whilst ignoring everyone else (Corwin).
Making something out of nothing etc. and I ask why.
I don't particularly like Strago bringing up an old game only to immediately toss the argument out of the window, but that's not for the metagaming, just for bringing up an argument that's completely tossed away in the same breath that it's posited.
Would you single out people like Xanth for his endorsement of meta, Strago?
Answering the question for now, I'd say I want more of a spotlight on Alex, Bardiche for his typical shallow commentary style, maybe more on Tom if he doesn't jump out of his first vote as a joke, and El Cid for opting to frame the discussion quite so early.
I need some sleep. The vote stays where it is for now, as I need more time to mull over it, my gut still points somewhat at Tom, and know I'll have plenty of time tomorrow and won't get caught in a rush to decide right before the deadline.Relying on 'gut' is the easiest way for scum to validate a vote. I'd rather we were all accountable for our votes by providing specific reasons.
Also thanks Cid for calling me a not-decent/not-adaptable player. Appreciate the cordial way we're starting this game off. I can tell you're my favorite player for the game.
If you're going to metagame, at least use it well and be able to explain it. "I don't see any Alex in there" is the worst possible form.
- Maintaining his wall of text style, even this early on day 1.
- Pro-metagaming [...] "I don't see any Alex in there" is the worst possible form.
- Very quick to go on the two votes issue, not scummy in itself but questionable given how he's sticking to it.
Ah Xanth, with his walls-o-text that say nothing.
[On Tom versus KilgaPlease explain. Are you on Kilga's side? What is Kilga's side? From what perspective are you against me, or are you simply against me for the sake of having a stance against me? You've provided no justification other than.. more walls of text and referencing Strago (which doesn't say anything either).
Quote(My stuff on metagaming)That.. is a contradiction to what you said earlier! Unless I'm mistaken.
He retains his metagame vote for Alex not because his meta gives him a ScumAlex result, but a NotAlex result. What. Picking at people for stuff they don't do regardless of their alignment is not good unless the action is inherently scummy.
-Sticking with the pairs thing after all this time.
His additional statements about the train on Kilga (how it was purposeless) also sit slightly at odds on me
I need some sleep. The vote stays where it is for now, as I need more time to mull over it, my gut still points somewhat at Tom, and know I'll have plenty of time tomorrow and won't get caught in a rush to decide right before the deadline.Relying on 'gut' is the easiest way for scum to validate a vote. I'd rather we were all accountable for our votes by providing specific reasons.
I'm calling out your reason for leaving your vote on me. I don't really care about the vote itself (I'm in no danger), but it would be negligent to allow this behavour to slide.
"I'm leaving my vote on Tom until he posts/proves he's not scum" based on a jokevote becomes "I'm leaving my vote on Tom based on gut". Yes it's day 1, but really do you have nothing else?
It's far more interesting to look at Corwin's reaction.
and you [Strago] jump all over me, despite Corwin placing a second vote on Kilga without any justification that you completely ignore.
I honestly don't understand why people think that my vote on Alex was weird.
-Sticking with the pairs thing after all this time.
Again, I haven't. First step only, haven't cared since. In fact, I'm not sure I see anything new there, so forgive me for passing the rest of that.
Oh, but I'd rather you didn't blame me for a perceived derailment via metagame discussion.
I still find the voting patterns at the start of this game to be rather odd, but I've moulded this unease on a fallacious principle, which I should have been hit harder for.
This is still the sorest thumb out there, so my vote yet stays (even with the incorrect rationale on top, I stand by the double-voting weirdness as something to start from).
That combined with other issues such as Alex, (which I don't have time to look at right now) lead me to ##Vote: Xanth, he seems most concerning so far.
-I really don't like Tom's attitude so far. So many pointed questions at both myself and Strago of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety on top of the misrepresentation.So you apparently get out of questions by calling them stupid? :(
I'm more on Kilgamayan's side than Tom's in that little fray, partially for Strago's reservations and also because Tom's joke argument is [unsurprisingly] incorrect. Well, I'm not really on Kilga's side so much as I'm against randomly firing him into the lead so soon.
-In Tom versus Kilga, there was no Kilga's side to be on.Xanth: first you said you were on Kilga's side. Then you said Kilga didn't have a side. That was the odd contradiction.
-Only in so far as not shoving someone randomly in front.I don't buy that.
My vote is still on Tom. Actively manipulative over passively poor for sure here.Oh no, surely not manipulation in a game of Mafia, of all things? ::) I don't understand what 'passively poor' is supposed to mean to be honest.
Strago's posts are way too long for Day 1. (Xanth's are too but others already pointed it out to him)
I need some sleep. The vote stays where it is for now, as I need more time to mull over it, my gut still points somewhat at Tom, and know I'll have plenty of time tomorrow and won't get caught in a rush to decide right before the deadline.Relying on 'gut' is the easiest way for scum to validate a vote. I'd rather we were all accountable for our votes by providing specific reasons.
I'm calling out your reason for leaving your vote on me. I don't really care about the vote itself (I'm in no danger), but it would be negligent to allow this behavour to slide.
"I'm leaving my vote on Tom until he posts/proves he's not scum" based on a jokevote becomes "I'm leaving my vote on Tom based on gut". Yes it's day 1, but really do you have nothing else?
Some notes:
1. Other than his most recent post, I wouldn't say Xanth is more guilty than say, Strago or some others of wall of texting.
2. I'm glad that the whole Cid/Bard thing was dropped. That coulda been a huge distraction had that blown up.
I like Tom's calling out of Strago here. It's kind of a subtle distinction to make, but I'm interested in Strago's rebuttal.
4. Judging by Andy's post, he's staying cognizant of the topic and is pretty on the ball.
So for now, to keep things going, I'm going to put things back in the safe realm of discussion. Still leaning to Xanth, depending on how discussion goes.
##Unvote:Xanth
-I really don't like Tom's attitude so far. So many pointed questions at both myself and Strago of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety on top of the misrepresentation.So you apparently get out of questions by calling them stupid? :(
I'm more on Kilgamayan's side than Tom's in that little fray, partially for Strago's reservations and also because Tom's joke argument is [unsurprisingly] incorrect. Well, I'm not really on Kilga's side so much as I'm against randomly firing him into the lead so soon.
-In Tom versus Kilga, there was no Kilga's side to be on.Xanth: first you said you were on Kilga's side. Then you said Kilga didn't have a side. That was the odd contradiction.
-Only in so far as not shoving someone randomly in front.I don't buy that.
Xanth - I'm not the only one who's mentioned your WOT non-concise posting style, so lashing out at me and crying misrepresentation isn't going to cut it. Why is it you gave Alex a civil response but I got OMGUS :(
QuoteMy vote is still on Tom. Actively manipulative over passively poor for sure here.Oh no, surely not manipulation in a game of Mafia, of all things? ::) I don't understand what 'passively poor' is supposed to mean to be honest.
I'm also uncertain why exactly Soppy felt it necessary to unvote Xanth if he still felt him to be suspicious. Xanth was minus one to lynch, yes, but does this really make a huge difference? Surprise hammer doesn't happen on day one [...]
Oh no, surely not manipulation in a game of Mafia, of all things?
I'm not even sure what you're voting for me now other than that and mentioning metagaming at all.
EDIT: NinjaXanth! That's a valid point, and I'd accept it if Sopko himself had said it.
I like Tom's calling out of Strago here. It's kind of a subtle distinction to make, but I'm interested in Strago's rebuttal.
Obviously I'm a little biased towards, you know, myself, but where is the "subtle distinction" in Tom's post (the one I quoted above)? Soppy's an outsider looking in, here, offering next-to-none of his own input, certainly not taking a firm stance he couldn't maneuver out of.
After glancing at Xanth's posts, something bothers me.
First, Xanth says that metagaming is just another thing town can and that town should use all the weapons at its disposal. He even uses it to place a vote on Alex, from what I understood.
Then, later on, Xanth decides on Tom for the lynch. Here, however, I see Xanth suddenly ignore anything metagaming-related with regards to Tom. After all, is Tom actually acting differently from usual? 'hideous misrepresentation' or not, I'm not sure I like how you both take in the players's history and discard it whenever it seems to suit the case.
If I had misundestood something, please explain this apparent discrepancy to me. There is still time to the deadline, and I haven't actually placed a vote along with this post, after all.
Xanth: I don't see Alex as having been distinctly unhelpful when you voted for him, and the fact that you retain this vote after he makes what is arguably the most helpful action all day (the fourth vote on me) makes your case seem even weaker.
Given that all I can see for your reasons for making - and, more importantly, sticking to (up until just recently) - the Alex vote are that he was being unhelpful (which I disagree with entirely) and because you didn't see any of Alex in his actions (which I frown upon on a fundamental level), I'd love a better explanation, since you say you're unsure why people don't get why you voted for him.
I'm still not seeing how Bardiche is doing his journalistic waffling thing (I believe Xanth brought this up since my last post but I know Alex has commented on it in the past as well and I think other people that I can't remember have also made mention of it). I am seeing several instances of "I like this" or "I don't like this", though. Can someone point out the predominantly waffling nature of his posts?
I'm not even sure what you're voting for me now other than that and mentioning metagaming at all.
Xanth, the reason they're on you isn't because you only mentioned metagaming, it's because you didn't seem to grasp how inherantly flawed an argument based on metagaming is. If it's to be used at all, it's to be used in conjuction with more solid evidence and not the basis of an argument. Bringing up meta on Day 1 is usually kind of pointless because you're mostly grasping at straws anyway. If you want to talk about the meta of the game in regards to whatever the game is based on, thats slightly better but also still dangerous to make assumptions about since setups can be planned around this.
I like Tom's calling out of Strago here. It's kind of a subtle distinction to make, but I'm interested in Strago's rebuttal.
Obviously I'm a little biased towards, you know, myself, but where is the "subtle distinction" in Tom's post (the one I quoted above)? Soppy's an outsider looking in, here, offering next-to-none of his own input, certainly not taking a firm stance he couldn't maneuver out of.
He's calling you on a minor difference in your reasoning for your vote the end of your argumentation. You put forth more than enough to lay a vote on him, why did you need to pussyfoot around voting for him by saying it's your gut? Because of the amount of time left? Because it would be easier to pull your vote off later? It's day one, if you're going to accuse me of taking "politically expediant" stances, then I'll put it right back at you.
I am somewhat disturbed by a tendency I'm seeing here to answer in the name of another player. Such as Sopko for Alex (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42076#msg42076) or Xanth for Sopko a few posts back. There's this strange feeling that it's happened beyond that, but I won't be combing our thread based on a hunch day 1.
Good point on Affinity, Sopko. I think it's due to Affinity simply being less visible due to being new here and all. At least, that's how it is for me. In other news, I should be around for half an hour more or so, I'll vote before going to bed.
If you think Soppy's more likely scum, vote him.
Xanth: first you said you were on Kilga's side. Then you said Kilga didn't have a side. That was the odd contradiction.
Big inconsistency right here, people. Check the end of Tom's post here for where he claims I've contradicted myself. You'll note that not only does the quotation in question have nothing to do with Kilga, the post where I say that 'Kilga had no side', but this second quote he's now using to justify this contradition comes after the post where he claims there's a contradition. In fact, it was in the same post where I respond to that claim. Try again.
Cid... comes off as mildly confrontational. I can't really put the feeling I get from his posts into words adequately. Can't help but wonder if anyone else thinks that.
Kiro: my vote was never going to make me look better, regardless of the result. It was mechanically useless (as I think I must have said?), but pins me to another stance. I was apparently wrong not to doubt Sopko more, but I didn't want my opinion to sink into just 'there's no helping it, it's him or me'. I'm aware that him flipping scum is likely to reflect badly on me for not pushing harder.
I'll vote to save my own skin if I have to, but I'd rather the attention was on Tom (can't answer before deadline, I know). I can't say I'd be against lynching Sopko, but would still put him behind Affinity for the obvious and probably also Bardiche for the aforementioned style. I'd prefer he talked about more, but I've felt that Sopko's been fairly incisive in his points on me.
and when I woke up boom, case on him already was made. I guess you can vote me for my sleeping schedule if you like,That is also my excuse, except in reference to Xanth. El Cid said it before I could. Let's not play the hypocrisy game.
just don't mention how it happened if you know how
-His stated reason for unvoting Xanth is obviously bunk because he's scum and lying is his job, so what does this leave us with? Scenario A) Sopko wanted to avoid being seen helping to kill a townie (if Xanth is town). I find this unlikely; Sopko had not invested a great deal of text in the case against Xanth (his vote on Xanth, way back on page one, had only a sentence to justify it; I believe it was just a placeholder vote that Soppy could use to make himself look active while waiting for a good train to hop on) and probably wouldn't have gained much townie cred from backing off.
Exhibit B: STILL going after Xanth today for even odder reasons! "Oh yeah scum totally bussed their godfather to save Xanth." What? I don't think so.
I had all of my suspicions of Xanth from before the Soppy train, but now there's real evidence - a scumbuddy tried to save him (and got burnt). Scum wouldn't go that far just to frame a towny whom they could otherwise mislynch easily.
Unfortunately, this game apparently decided to start while I was still at home, and get into full swing the day I was flying back home. A flight which was then delayed. And then the issues of getting home from the airport after midnight. And such.
So. There's the reasoning I've been quiet. Make of it what you will. I perfer to blame Carth, really.
In brief review of the topic, since I want to sleep.
-Somebody has to make the second vote eventually. Generally speaking, I find scum want to avoid doing it, since it tends to draw attention.
-Tom's statement is off-handed enough for me to take it as just that. (To be slightly fair for a second, his statement does have some merit. While I can't remember the record, Tom IS an easy target and is up there in Day 1 lynchees generally)
-Bardiche missing the point of the Kilga train is odd, since it was basically said in the votes. Votes to see what happens. For day 1 to really start, something needs to happen.
-Corwin's logic flies with me.
-Soppy's statement is interesting about Alex.
-Xanth's post... I'm inclined to agree with Alex, and add a spice of missing the measure of the Kilga vote.
-Oh sure, NOW there are some big posts.
-Argh. It is now just flowing over me. Can't get anymore out of this.
Non-Stream of Consciousness: Xanth is, currently, the only poster who stands out to me, primarily for the reasons Alex stated. His additional statements about the train on Kilga (how it was purposeless) also sit slightly at odds on me, as they tend to say something about people. For example, who're the ones who jump on, who're the ones that draw the line, how do they draw the line, etc. There is a lot of information to be had from those sorts of trains.
##Vote: Xanth
Primarily looking for a response to Alex, but I wouldn't mind some chatter on why you feel that a general lynchtrain doesn't work/isn't useful.
Where, uh, does it not? I don't see what else he could be saying there, since Xanth was on Sopko pretty hard towards the end of the day and Sopko didn't propose a third case.
Far as myself, I did say I was starting to look at Sopko, and when I woke up boom, case on him already was made. I guess you can vote me for my sleeping schedule if you like, or say that it is somehow scummier for me to be on the Sopko vote at the end than, yknow, NOT be on it, but that strikes me as a pretty bad WIFOM argument and not something I can defend against anyhow.
-His stated reason for unvoting Xanth is obviously bunk because he's scum and lying is his job, so what does this leave us with? Scenario A) Sopko wanted to avoid being seen helping to kill a townie (if Xanth is town). I find this unlikely; Sopko had not invested a great deal of text in the case against Xanth (his vote on Xanth, way back on page one, had only a sentence to justify it; I believe it was just a placeholder vote that Soppy could use to make himself look active while waiting for a good train to hop on) and probably wouldn't have gained much townie cred from backing off. Scenario B) Sopko, apparently not a suspect himself at that time, decided to take a risk in order to save a scumbuddy and direct attention towards someone else. The latter part of that plan, of course, got waylaid by the case against Soppy himself.
-His stated reason for unvoting Xanth is obviously bunk because he's scum and lying is his job, so what does this leave us with? Scenario A) Sopko wanted to avoid being seen helping to kill a townie (if Xanth is town). I find this unlikely; Sopko had not invested a great deal of text in the case against Xanth (his vote on Xanth, way back on page one, had only a sentence to justify it; I believe it was just a placeholder vote that Soppy could use to make himself look active while waiting for a good train to hop on) and probably wouldn't have gained much townie cred from backing off. Scenario B) Sopko, apparently not a suspect himself at that time, decided to take a risk in order to save a scumbuddy and direct attention towards someone else. The latter part of that plan, of course, got waylaid by the case against Soppy himself.
What if you're insane, or just make the claim if it turns out Tom is Town. So, while I am interested in this dichotomy, I think that it should not be our priority at present.
I think finding out what happened last night should be a priority, however. Namely, is our guardian angel a roleblocker, or one of the defensive roles? That answer is decisive, I feel.
Cop (Sane, Insane)
Read Xanth's callout post on him day 1, it's 100% right and his "Xanth, Xanth, Xanth" pressure today reinforces the case.This is roughly the third time you've said "Xanth is 100% right about EvilTom being scum".
El Cid, I'm very curious about that statement. Sopko made no mention of anyone else, nor did he sound displeased with the Xanth train at all. In fact, after he started going down in flames, he tried to defend Xanth, but did not attack anyone else. What exactly gave you that impression? Who was Sopko trying to get lynched, and how?
QuoteXanth: first you said you were on Kilga's side. Then you said Kilga didn't have a side. That was the odd contradiction.
Big inconsistency right here, people. Check the end of Tom's post here for where he claims I've contradicted myself. You'll note that not only does the quotation in question have nothing to do with Kilga, the post where I say that 'Kilga had no side', but this second quote he's now using to justify this contradition comes after the post where he claims there's a contradition. In fact, it was in the same post where I respond to that claim. Try again.
Calling it a 'big inconsistency' is rather dubious due to the fact that I genuinely believed that you made a contradiction there and I would have made that point if I was around. Also, note the contrast between how Tom said what he wanted to say and how Xanth did.
Xanth: first you said you were on Kilga's side. Then you said Kilga didn't have a side. That was the odd contradiction.
Please explain. Are you on Kilga's side? What is Kilga's side? From what perspective are you against me, or are you simply against me for the sake of having a stance against me? You've provided no justification other than.. more walls of text and referencing Strago (which doesn't say anything either).
I'm more on Kilgamayan's side than Tom's in that little fray, partially for Strago's reservations and also because Tom's joke argument is [unsurprisingly] incorrect. Well, I'm not really on Kilga's side so much as I'm against randomly firing him into the lead so soon.
And a bright new day is upon us~That's... a very long cup of tea. Over 4 hours.
I'm still catching up, and only on my first cup of tea so far. It might take a bit before I catch up fully, but that's why you learn to delegate, isn't it?
In the meantime, a brief response to Cid. I'm sorry that I can't point out to specifics about a feeling I can't even phrase right. I wonder why a mechanical student would be so concerned over it, though.
I was apparently wrong not to doubt Sopko more, but I didn't want my opinion to sink into just 'there's no helping it, it's him or me'.
I'm forced to ask "Why?" in response to the sentence I've underlined. Self-preservation in such situations is a wholly understandable motivation for a townie. We generally don't automatically suspect someone for being ready "to vote for someone not me" (since the only thing a townie knows for sure is that he is in fact a townie), so I'm forced to question your claim that this is why you didn't vote for Sopko. And I'll echo Kiro's comment that "pinning yourself to a stance you didn't have before is relatively pointless." You didn't express enthusiasm or significant support for his lynching until we'd nearly nailed the coffin shut.
I'll vote to save my own skin if I have to, but I'd rather the attention was on Tom (can't answer before deadline, I know). I can't say I'd be against lynching Sopko, but would still put him behind Affinity for the obvious and probably also Bardiche for the aforementioned style. I'd prefer he talked about more, but I've felt that Sopko's been fairly incisive in his points on me.
Again, I wish to direct attention to the underlined sentence. What about Affinity made him such an obvious choice at the time? Affinity is one of the least active posters in this game, but he was on a par with Sopko at that time and did not have a notably lower level of contribution to discussion (remember, all Sopko had when people started poking at him was a couple one-liners; it's not hard to beat that). This comment of yours is even more puzzling given that there was no noteworthy case on Affinity making the rounds at the time (the only vote he'd received was a jokevote from Bard). I just scanned through the entire topic, and you yourself had never once mentioned him before touting him as an "obvious" alternative to Sopko. So what made him such a clear candidate all of a sudden?
You [Alex] can't just say "Person X's statements are 100% truth". Xanth could be wrong, or scum.
Also, more irony in attacking Alex for backing my argument 100% when you have just pointed at El Cid's in the same manner. Same for insisting Alex answer to El Cid when you haven't touched my stuff.I said I agree with El Cid. I've never said "El Cid is 100% correct so hurry up and lynch Xanth". There is a big difference. Alex is doing the latter.
Not when my statements are, you know, true. 'I think A means B' could be wrong, but 'A has done B' is true when, you know, A has done B. If you're going to argue against my points then please actually argue against my points. Don't just pretend it's conjecture.Alex never references your points. He vaguely points at your posts and says "See, Xanth is right, lynch EvilTom". He doesn't reference your points, their merits or any justifications. I'm not arguing your points when I complain about Alex's bullshit.
If I am insane (or paranoid) I would much rather discover that fact as soon as possible.
I'm not sure exactly what questions you've asked me that I'm supposed to answer. If you're direct about your concerns, I'll be happy to address them.
a) the 'obvious' alternative to Sopko was Tom, not Affinity.
b) the 'obvious' reason on Affinity was that he'd been completely absent since page 2 and all but entirely forgotten.
c) you've misquoted 'obvious' from my quote to mean a) rather than b).
I'll vote to save my own skin if I have to, but I'd rather the attention was on Tom (can't answer before deadline, I know). I can't say I'd be against lynching Sopko, but would still put him behind Affinity for the obvious and probably also Bardiche for the aforementioned style. I'd prefer he talked about more, but I've felt that Sopko's been fairly incisive in his points on me.
f) not to get too far into WIFOM or anything, but precisely given that there was no strong backing on Affinity makes it an odd choice for a deflection, unless you think it really was that desperate.
I can't say I'd be against lynching Sopko, but would still put him behind Affinity for the obvious reasons and probably also Bardiche for the aforementioned style.
I can't say I'd be against lynching Sopko, but would still put him behind Affinity for the obvious lynch candidate and probably also Bardiche for the aforementioned style.
Ack sorry. Little busy today.
I'm down with Sopko though.
Big FoS at Kilga for his latest post though. Townies who are hunting scum in good faith should never ever hold back on voting for fear of looking scummy. If you think Soppy's more likely scum, vote him. Reluctance to do so is noted.
There was a vote here but I see Xanth ninja'd me for the -1 I think? Willing to hammer, any last comments though?
And what about whether or not you were hit, Alex? You seem pretty reluctant to give away information.
Read Xanth's callout post on him day 1, it's 100% right and his "Xanth, Xanth, Xanth" pressure today reinforces the case.This is roughly the third time you've said "Xanth is 100% right about EvilTom being scum".
Exaclty how is this evidence? Or even influential? It's rubbish, and you keep doing it.
You can't just say "Person X's statements are 100% truth". Xanth could be wrong, or scum.
This is extremely dodgy behaviour. Your list of dodgyness grows and grows.
There is also the fact that the lynch train turned around from Xanth to the freakin' scum godfather in late day 1, which by itself is reasonably solid evidence that Xanth is probably town and pushing his lynch today is really weird. Especially from one of the two people to be on Xanth and not Soppy day 1 (though admittedly timezones can account for that).
If we lynch Alex today, I'll either be confirmed town, or confirmed scum. If you lynch me, when I flip town you'll have to lynch him tomorrow, because that's the only way to find out whether or not he's lying.
Anyway I'm pretty sure Alex is scum rather than insane, if you look at all the evidence listed above.
##Unvote;
##Vote: Alex
It's clear that lynching Alex is the only way forward now.
Bottom line? It's day two, we've already hit one scum, and lost no townies. We can afford to take the time to test Alex's cop claim, especially since the player he's designated as scum has other good reasons to be a candidate. It's certainly a much better option than lynching the guy making the cop claim. If he is genuinely a cop, scum will want to kill him anyway, so why waste our lynch on him?
El Cid: I think you're reading that sentence wrong, which suddenly clears my confusion. It should be read as below (reasons added, not emphasised):I can't say I'd be against lynching Sopko, but would still put him behind Affinity for the obvious reasons and probably also Bardiche for the aforementioned style.
Not as (same again):I can't say I'd be against lynching Sopko, but would still put him behind Affinity for the obvious lynch candidate and probably also Bardiche for the aforementioned style.
Help at all? I thought that was clear given the Bardiche part that follows it. Replace the two 'for's with 'because of' if you still don't see it. I'll readily forgive the misunderstanding here, but I won't hear for this being a retcon claim.
Also, more irony in attacking Alex for backing my argument 100% when you have just pointed at El Cid's in the same manner. Same for insisting Alex answer to El Cid when you haven't touched my stuff.I said I agree with El Cid. I've never said "El Cid is 100% correct so hurry up and lynch Xanth". There is a big difference. Alex is doing the latter.
In the meantime, a brief response to Cid. I'm sorry that I can't point out to specifics about a feeling I can't even phrase right. I wonder why a mechanical student would be so concerned over it, though.
I think you're misreading something, because there really is a big inconsistency there for precisely the reason I outlined there. Want a timeline to make it clearer?
1: Xanth post here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42048#msg42048).
2: Xanth post here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42095#msg42095).
3: Tom post here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42109#msg42109), in which he claims a contradiction in 2. Note that the quoted section is on metagaming.
4: Xanth post here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42185#msg42185), in which I respond to 3.
5: Tom post here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42197#msg42197), in which he quotes a combination of 1 and 4 as a contradiction about Kilga. Not only has the contradiction changed content, there's a time warp in which post 3 apparently predicted post 4.
Even if you try and somehow worm the initial claim into somehow referring to the initial Tom versus Kilga thing, there is absolutely no way it ties in with:Xanth: first you said you were on Kilga's side. Then you said Kilga didn't have a side. That was the odd contradiction.
From post 5, because that inherently relies on post 4, which didn't exist at the time of post 3.
Day two fakeclaim is not a good gambit for scum, so I think it's likely he's telling the truth.
But this presupposes that scum always make the right play, and that since you, in this scenario, would have been making a mistake, you are not likely to be scum. This is flawed logic. Scum are just as capable of miscalculation and errors as town.
and why go to that sort of trouble to set up a fakeclaim in a game where there's a perfectly good chance of a real cop shooting you down?
If we lynch EvilTom and he flips Scum, we will likely not lynch Alex. He will probably be either killed by Scum or Roleblocked, what have you─Tom brings up a good point about the roleblock, though.
If we lynch EvilTom and he flips Town, we will need to lynch Alex to be sure of his alignment. This is very risky, and I can't imagine why scum would take this gambit since it almost certainly nails him down.
- He's been consistently chasing after what he believes to be scummy attitude. His arguments may be flawed (and I hate metagame, so that biases me some), but it was Day 1 and arguments are hard to come by without discussion.
- Xanth's put in a lot of effort into everything. It seems to me a bit odd for scum to act so prominently and obnoxiously. Mind you, in AnonySciFiMafia he was a lot less present, so I don't see why he'd pin himself on the foreground as prominently as he's done.
- He's been consistently chasing after what he believes to be scummy attitude. His arguments may be flawed (and I hate metagame, so that biases me some), but it was Day 1 and arguments are hard to come by without discussion.
- Xanth's put in a lot of effort into everything. It seems to me a bit odd for scum to act so prominently and obnoxiously. Mind you, in AnonySciFiMafia he was a lot less present, so I don't see why he'd pin himself on the foreground as prominently as he's done.
I feel it necessary to point out that point #2 is employing the metagaming that you decry in point #1.
Also, some of your speculations regarding Sopko make it sound as though he was bussed--you use the term "sacrifice" at least once. I'm sure I've said this before, but I'll reiterate it: I don't think scum voluntarily sacrificed Soppy because I highly doubt they saw his lynch coming. He had no votes on him when the Xanth train was in full swing, after all. Reading yesterday's events as though scum threw Soppy to the wolves to achieve some specific goal can only lead to bad places.
Your stated reason of voting for Tom is believing in Alex's claim, pretty much since it would be a bad move as scum, and scum Alex would surely be playing better (paraphrased, etc). If I use your own latter words to challenge that, what would be your response?
Let's not forget the potential for, you know, further results from Alex at some point. I know he could get roleblocked or capped by scum, but it's also possible that neither happens and we get another reading from Alex that helps us figure out what's going on. It seems really obvious when I say it, but I actually think that this is a possibility many people are pessimistically overlooking.
This is the main reason I don't want to lynch Alex regardless of Tom's flip.
QuoteThis is the main reason I don't want to lynch Alex regardless of Tom's flip.
That sentiment from Kilga bothers me . The overly-ecstatic comments from earlier in the day, when people were suggesting that being so far ahead, it's okay to relax a bit, also bother me.
QuoteThis is the main reason I don't want to lynch Alex regardless of Tom's flip.
That sentiment from Kilga bothers me . The overly-ecstatic comments from earlier in the day, when people were suggesting that being so far ahead, it's okay to relax a bit, also bother me.
I don't think a significant number of people are suggesting that we go right out and lynch Alex tomorrow if Tom flips town today, if that's what's bothering you, Kilga.
Also, and my head is filled with enough mucus right now that maybe I'm just a big thickie, but still: we've seen that there was a Godfather in the game. Doesn't that necessitate a Cop to counter it, at least in a fairly average role setup the likes of which we... seem to have, given Carthrat's description of the semi-openness?
QuoteThis is the main reason I don't want to lynch Alex regardless of Tom's flip.
That sentiment from Kilga bothers me . The overly-ecstatic comments from earlier in the day, when people were suggesting that being so far ahead, it's okay to relax a bit, also bother me.
It is a rather odd thing to say as a blanket statement. I don't think a significant number of people are suggesting that we go right out and lynch Alex tomorrow if Tom flips town today, if that's what's bothering you, Kilga.
(b) Tom is town, and we choose whether to believe Alex the next day or not. Either we'll confirm his alignment as a cop, or we'll get our second scum.
If we lynch EvilTom and he flips Town, we will need to lynch Alex to be sure of his alignment.
Speaking of, I'd actually like to vote for Bard at this point for both this sentiment and an apparent relapse into useless journalism mode (here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42479#msg42479), here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42536#msg42536) and here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42541#msg42541), for example), but I recognize that Alex/Tom needs to take priority.
I'm not going into in-depth responses to Day 1, partly because I think it's irrelevant (and distracting) at this juncture to dig up old arguments. I will, however, go over them briefly.
This is not to say I completely agree with his cases, but I get a town vibe from him. Don't really see the anti-Xanth arguments.
I'm certainly not going to hold his walls of texts against him.
I get the impression from Day 1 that it's a misunderstanding about him, but given Day 2 his posts can be somewhat interpreted as scum... I'm just not seeing it much
I doubt scum'd do that, so I'm inclined to attribute a town vibe to Corwin and Strago. Kilga's ignoring of Sopko strikes me as a little odd.
El Cid straddling up the case against Sopko with a vote. I don't like the "I'm going to see..." attitude there, though. Strikes me as though El Cid doesn't care about the result. Did it with Kilga (see where this goes), then late Day 1 goes the same way with Sopko (let's see who follows). If it's a scum gambit to get town cred, it is a massive one; WIFOM there though, but I'm inclined to think of El Cid as notScum.
I'd be more wary of him if he hadn't jumped on Tom as quick as he did. Whether his case is strong or not? I'm tempted to say it's not that solid, but it beats the Xanth case by a margin.
His one-track approach is pretty... It makes me wonder. I'm not sure yet what I dislike about it other than that if we lynch him we have jack shit to work with, excusez my French.
... I note at this juncture that I find Excal a bit odd in discarding Alex's copclaim and accusation of EvilTom as "not important" and taking priority with finding out why the nightkill didn't occur. More on him later.
Reading over EvilTom's defense of himself, something clicks to me that may seem bizarre to you folk. Namely this:
If we lynch Alex and he flips Cop, we will likely lynch EvilTom.
If we lynch Alex and he flips Scum, we will likely not lynch EvilTom.
If we lynch EvilTom and he flips Scum, we will likely not lynch Alex. He will probably be either killed by Scum or Roleblocked, what have you─Tom brings up a good point about the roleblock, though. It might happen─I would buy arguments that Scum expected a Doc guarding Alex if EvilTom flips scum but... that's so WIFOMy.
If we lynch EvilTom and he flips Town, we will need to lynch Alex to be sure of his alignment. This is very risky, and I can't imagine why scum would take this gambit since it almost certainly nails him down.
I think Alex is seriously convinced he's nailed scum, and I think EvilTom's seriously convinced he's notScum, since he presents indeed a scenario in which case Alex will die if he dies.
That said, I favor an EvilTom lynch over an Alex lynch. However, I don't really have anything to hold against EvilTom beside the Cop Claim against him, so consider that a "Rather Tom than Alex, but if possible? Neither of them".
Clearly that's not a possibility since the sentiments would linger for the next day if this continues and... bah. The risk Alex is taking seems too great for me to say, "He must be diverting/gambling, lynch him".
I trust Alex's Cop Claim and think it pertinent to lynch EvilTom: either we confirm Alex's sanity or lynch Scum. If Alex is Scum, I see no reason why he would divert from the then pertinent Xanth case:
1) Xanth is Scum. If Alex diverts, what does this gain them? It's a massivehueg risk that I don't think Scum is likely to entertain. It's too risky, unless Xanth is Scum with a SUPER OMG ROLE... but then it must be a role that doesn't even allow them to kill someone at Night. No matter how you flip it, I doubt two Scum would throw themselves away to save Xanth.
2) Xanth is Town. Why the hell would Scum divert attention from Town? I can't find any satisfying answer to this.
So yeah, I'm pretty sold on Alex = Town.
Requesting votecount and remaining time left for the day.
Yeah, being a sloth is a vice but eh.
Also, Bard, in regards to why I was more interested in my side thing. It's because I really was hoping for a role blocker, irrationally so I suppose. Regardless, had that been the case, it would have meant, like I said earlier, that we'd have nailed scum 100%. Sadly, the actual resolution is utterly inconclusive (or does have answers, but not ones which benefit Town to be talked about and so I'm dropping this thing like a radioactive potato) so yeah. I get to stand here and look silly.
You may also have noticed that although I said I was going to think about it as I was leaving, I had also shown signs of musing it over before I left. Most importantly in the aspect of admitting that whatever else had happened, I had been wrong in my earlier paranoia and that the Alex scenario I had earlier mentioned no longer fit as I had put it.
- First post I clearly said I was at school and didn't have the time for drawn out thoughts.
- Second post I am clarifying my position on Day 1 things.QuoteI'm not going into in-depth responses to Day 1, partly because I think it's irrelevant (and distracting) at this juncture to dig up old arguments. I will, however, go over them briefly.QuoteThis is not to say I completely agree with his cases, but I get a town vibe from him. Don't really see the anti-Xanth arguments.
I'm certainly not going to hold his walls of texts against him.QuoteI get the impression from Day 1 that it's a misunderstanding about him, but given Day 2 his posts can be somewhat interpreted as scum... I'm just not seeing it muchQuoteI doubt scum'd do that, so I'm inclined to attribute a town vibe to Corwin and Strago. Kilga's ignoring of Sopko strikes me as a little odd.QuoteEl Cid straddling up the case against Sopko with a vote. I don't like the "I'm going to see..." attitude there, though. Strikes me as though El Cid doesn't care about the result. Did it with Kilga (see where this goes), then late Day 1 goes the same way with Sopko (let's see who follows). If it's a scum gambit to get town cred, it is a massive one; WIFOM there though, but I'm inclined to think of El Cid as notScum.
- Third post. Breaking down what I think of the Alex case and, indeed, observations of what I think has happened - at this juncture it is possible for you to correct me where you believe I am misinterpreting the other.QuoteI'd be more wary of him if he hadn't jumped on Tom as quick as he did. Whether his case is strong or not? I'm tempted to say it's not that solid, but it beats the Xanth case by a margin.QuoteHis one-track approach is pretty... It makes me wonder. I'm not sure yet what I dislike about it other than that if we lynch him we have jack shit to work with, excusez my French.
... I note at this juncture that I find Excal a bit odd in discarding Alex's copclaim and accusation of EvilTom as "not important" and taking priority with finding out why the nightkill didn't occur. More on him later.
Reading over EvilTom's defense of himself, something clicks to me that may seem bizarre to you folk. Namely this:
If we lynch Alex and he flips Cop, we will likely lynch EvilTom.
If we lynch Alex and he flips Scum, we will likely not lynch EvilTom.
If we lynch EvilTom and he flips Scum, we will likely not lynch Alex. He will probably be either killed by Scum or Roleblocked, what have you─Tom brings up a good point about the roleblock, though. It might happen─I would buy arguments that Scum expected a Doc guarding Alex if EvilTom flips scum but... that's so WIFOMy.
If we lynch EvilTom and he flips Town, we will need to lynch Alex to be sure of his alignment. This is very risky, and I can't imagine why scum would take this gambit since it almost certainly nails him down.
QuoteThat said, I favor an EvilTom lynch over an Alex lynch. However, I don't really have anything to hold against EvilTom beside the Cop Claim against him, so consider that a "Rather Tom than Alex, but if possible? Neither of them".
Clearly that's not a possibility since the sentiments would linger for the next day if this continues and... bah. The risk Alex is taking seems too great for me to say, "He must be diverting/gambling, lynch him".
I trust Alex's Cop Claim and think it pertinent to lynch EvilTom: either we confirm Alex's sanity or lynch Scum. If Alex is Scum, I see no reason why he would divert from the then pertinent Xanth case:
1) Xanth is Scum. If Alex diverts, what does this gain them? It's a massivehueg risk that I don't think Scum is likely to entertain. It's too risky, unless Xanth is Scum with a SUPER OMG ROLE... but then it must be a role that doesn't even allow them to kill someone at Night. No matter how you flip it, I doubt two Scum would throw themselves away to save Xanth.
2) Xanth is Town. Why the hell would Scum divert attention from Town? I can't find any satisfying answer to this.
So yeah, I'm pretty sold on Alex = Town.
I discard your accusation on the prime basis that I have drawn conclusions from what I've written. If it was reporter-isque in meaning I would not have given you my interpretation of what has occured/is occuring and draw a conclusion from it.
A wise man once said, "Even scum can have RL excuses". The fact of the matter is that the first post I linked to is nothing but a recap, which is not at all useful for anything and fits the reporter style to a T.
I get a sense of wishy-washy-ness in here. Even when you lay down any stances that you do, they are usually presented in an unsure-of-yourself tone that could give you the opportunity to change your mind quickly and easily.
Not to mention your point on me is completely wrong and your thought process on Cid is hard to follow given you start with disliking his attitude and end up "inclined to think [he's] notScum".
More wishy-washy-ness. What is his one-track approach? etc.
This is a Bunch-O'-Duh™ (minus the last idea because it's very very wrong) and not an actual opinion.
Getting better on presenting opinions, but it's worth noting that you say you would rather not lynch Alex or Tom if such is an option (and, accordingly, throw down a vote for Excal later), but still "think it pertinent to lynch Tom". If it's pertinent to lynch Tom, why not vote for him then?
Reporter-style doesn't necessarily mean you don't provide any opinions at all, it means that you don't provide any/many solid opinions. You seem unsure of yourself at times (maybe this is an inherent tone thing and you're just naturally unsure of yourself in this game or something, but it's not a good thing to be doing in this game) and then start contradicting your own opinions when you finally do start putting some feeling behind them.
I explicitly called him "notScum" - I don't want to panic monger, but Rat promised no 3rd Party at less than 14. That makes me think that 14 and higher yields a 3rd party, and complete apathy to yes or no nailing scum could indicate a third party.
The rules state that there will be no third party roles with less than 13 people, not 14. Thirteen is exactly what we had at the start, so it is actually possible. (Where does the number 14 keep coming from? Is there something I overlooked in the opening post?)
-Somebody has to make the second vote eventually. Generally speaking, I find scum want to avoid doing it, since it tends to draw attention.
I do find it vaguely amusing that in a post that contains a vote against someone for what generally amounts to metagaming, Andy does some of his own with the Scum never vote second line, which frankly seems far more dangerous than noticing general traits of people like Xanth attempted.
Darn right I'm one track on Tom, I have a scum result on him.
There is really not much else I can say to all this though.
First and foremost, for the people who are interested in me, what exactly are you interested in? I can't do much to address your interest in me if I don't know where it is stemming from. :p
I'm not certain what the specific benefit was in waiting for Tom's town/scum list
Alright, I guess I have to comment on this copclaim. Tom looks worse for the arbitary vote on Corwin as opposed to Alex,You know I placed a vote on Alex right? Corwin was lurking hardcore, I completely justified my vote. Everyone was doing the DL thing of believing every cop claim 100%, so continuing to go after Alex was useless. I pinged Corwin to make sure that lurkers weren't getting a free ride. I explained this. It was not arbitrary. You concern me.
if he sounds so convinced that Alex and Xanth are scum, then why vote for Corwin? There are only two scum left, after all (most probably), and this act is extremely, extremely ungeniune, especially since he didn't point this out himself.Because it's bad play to railroad one (or two) people. That's obvious. If you see something suspicious, you shouldn't ignore it in favour of railroading one person!
But he does make the good logical argument that based on logic alone, lynching Alex is the better option, and he gains points for that. Tom doesn't explain what Alex has to gain, though, and I myself don't see it.It's pretty obvious what ScumAlex gains, he's no longer taking heat (he was coming under heavy fire), and he never has to commit to anything (claim roleblock/the NK target).
Overall, I'm more towards lynching Tom than Alex (rather predictably), but even if Tom flips scum, I'm not willing to write him off as townie just yet.
Halfway agreed. If Tom does flip Town -- which, hey, I still don't think he will, but it's not like I haven't been wrong a million times in these games -- there will definitely be some questions about Alex. That doesn't mean we should immediately lynch him without asking those questions and getting some answers, though.Worst case scenario is you lynch me, I flip town, he says "oops I'm insane", then you lynch him and he also flips town. That's 2 dead town.
Also, and my head is filled with enough mucus right now that maybe I'm just a big thickie, but still: we've seen that there was a Godfather in the game. Doesn't that necessitate a Cop to counter it, at least in a fairly average role setup the likes of which we... seem to have, given Carthrat's description of the semi-openness?My Anonyscifi mafia had a godfather, a miller, and no cop. There was another game recently that had a similar setup. There might not be a cop.
A wise man once said, "Even scum can have RL excuses". The fact of the matter is that the first post I linked to is nothing but a recap, which is not at all useful for anything and fits the reporter style to a T.
The "wise man" argument is really invalid because, guess what? So does Town. Being at school isn't an inherently scummy attitude.
And no, I really didn't say much on it. I can't and won't really excuse it. Surprisingly I don't really find it something lynch-worthy myself─would it have been fine if I hadn't posted at all? I often wonder whether I should or shouldn't communicate, and if the answer to the previous question is "Yes", then that seals that deal for me.
I can't be sure of anything in a game where manipulation and deceit reign highly. The only person I can trust is myself, so I'm quite sorry if I cannot be certain of "HE'S SCUM" or "HE'S TOWN". Even if I did solidly place my stances in such a manner I could still change them quickly and easily - after all, the game is deceit and trickery.
Solid ideas don't mean jack shit if something suddenly changes and you find yourself second-guessing yourself.
I explicitly called him "notScum" - I don't want to panic monger, but Rat promised no 3rd Party at less than 14. That makes me think that 14 and higher yields a 3rd party, and complete apathy to yes or no nailing scum could indicate a third party.
His immediate assault on DreadThomas with disregard for other cases. Everyone's arguing about Xanth and Alex goes, "I think Xanth's completely Town, come lynch Tom!" That's... one-track to me.
Yep. I state the obvious. I do this. Guilty as charged. It is indeed not an actual opinion, but I'm not even going to contest that - if you want to lynch me for that, I'm not even going to bother defending because that's such a trivial thing to me that I disregard it as being worth a dime.
Because I hadn't counted the votes, primarily, and because I also wanted to spend some time on Excal who I also suspect of scumminess. And yes, it is important to lynch Tom to clear up the matter lest it chases us for the rest of the game, or until Scum offs either of them, or someone clears Alex or whatever.
Alex is either a cop as he claims, or is going to crash and burn horribly as scum no later than tomorrow. Tom's flip would do nothing to change this for me, and I don't think this should be pivotal for other people.If my flip will have no effect on Alex, then.. why lynch me >.>
Everyone was doing the DL thing of believing every cop claim 100%, so continuing to go after Alex was useless.
Of course the DL always blindly believe every cop claim, and scum will exploit that to the bitter end.
You do realize this sort of thing does not help you at all, right?Duh, I'm at L-1 with a scum verdict. I'm not doing all this to survive, I'm doing this so that after my flip you guys will have something to work with, other than feeling stupid.
Even if Alex is an insane cop, I still think we should lynch him anyway.
I think you're misreading something, because there really is a big inconsistency there for precisely the reason I outlined there. Want a timeline to make it clearer?
1: Xanth post here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42048#msg42048).
2: Xanth post here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42095#msg42095).
3: Tom post here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42109#msg42109), in which he claims a contradiction in 2. Note that the quoted section is on metagaming.
4: Xanth post here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42185#msg42185), in which I respond to 3.
5: Tom post here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42197#msg42197), in which he quotes a combination of 1 and 4 as a contradiction about Kilga. Not only has the contradiction changed content, there's a time warp in which post 3 apparently predicted post 4.
Even if you try and somehow worm the initial claim into somehow referring to the initial Tom versus Kilga thing, there is absolutely no way it ties in with:Xanth: first you said you were on Kilga's side. Then you said Kilga didn't have a side. That was the odd contradiction.
From post 5, because that inherently relies on post 4, which didn't exist at the time of post 3.
...which is a huge strike against him.
##Vote: EvilTom
(This should be L-2.)
You better have a really good explanation for the above, because I'm not at all ready to vote Alex.
I'm more on Kilgamayan's side than Tom's in that little fray, partially for Strago's reservations and also because Tom's joke argument is [unsurprisingly] incorrect.
And no, Tom's joke argument obviously doesn't count as such, given that it's not at all meaningful.So, it's a fray but it's not meaningful? That was the contradiction I was talking about.
From post 5, because that inherently relies on post 4, which didn't exist at the time of post 3.I was referring to the first contradiction which happened between posts 1 and 2, not the one in post 4. Now I think I finally see what you've been confused about.
It's like using the phrase 'wall of text' gives you a free pass to vote for me.I'll be perfectly honest, since I'm about to die. I didn't actually think up the WOT thing myself, I threw it in there because I'd seen Alex do the same only a couple of posts before:
Xanth on the other hand, in descending order of possibly scummy stuff:Alex said that, I thought "oh yeah why not, I'll throw in WOT as an afterthought in my post", then suddenly Xanth unvotes Alex, and starts wailing on me for saying he's WOTing. That's where I got horribly confused, and made a possible Xanth/Alex link.
- Maintaining his wall of text style, even this early on day 1. I loved it when we were scumbuddies together and he did that. Side'sve switched. It's not a good style.
...So yeah, that was the whole Xanth/Alex thing from day 1.
You do get ##Unvote: Alex for that, though, seeing as you've started to actually play.
...
##Vote: EvilTom
For hideous misrepresentation to justify his vote. It's like using the phrase 'wall of text' gives you a free pass to vote for me.
The only way to verify it is if you die, or you provide a useful result. Neither of those will happen if you're scum.QuoteEven if Alex is an insane cop, I still think we should lynch him anyway.
Even if I am an insane cop, as soon as that fact is verified, hey what do you know I still give reliable results. Just saying.
Also pointing out that (I see Kilga ninja'd this) Tom isn't claiming, isn't considering insane cop like everyone else, etc.I'm not claiming 'cos I'm not done yet.
So you're just giving up?Does it look like I'm giving up or going? I'm posting heaps, geez.
:|
Do you mind at least claiming before you go?
Bard: I don't think anyone's seriously holding Tom's jokevote against him by this point. Misrepresentation, though? Yes, that's still valid. And I find the cop claim against him highly persuasive. I went over this in my most recent post; let me know if anything's unclear.The day 1 stuff was just stupid day 1 stuff. Before the Alex copclaim, Xanth was the only one still on me for it today.
Also pointing out that (I see Kilga ninja'd this) Tom isn't claiming, isn't considering insane cop like everyone else, etc.Actually, thinking about that, it seems you're insinuating that somebody should just hammer me.
Does it look like I'm giving up or going?
I'm not doing all this to survive
-Tom did not in fact suggest that Sopko was bussed and Alex stating that Tom did suggest this looks wonky.QFT.
-Mentioning paranoid cop as a possibility. Others have pointed out why this is odd: this sanity is not included in the role list provided by the mod. And you are obviously aware of said list because you referred to it on day one to point out why there could be no Lovers in this game. Memory slip or some sort of ploy? I'm not sure.
Bottom line? It's day two, we've already hit one scum, and lost no townies. We can afford to take the time to test Alex's cop claim, especially since the player he's designated as scum has other good reasons to be a candidate.And I thought you were so logical and towny :( We can never afford to fuck up.
If this picks up, I'll have a question for our erstwhile cop later in the day. I'll wait and see how things develop first, though.???
Dude. I'm trying to help as much as I can. I'm at L-1 with a scumclaim over my head, don't make this more painful for me than it already is >_> at least don't harass me when I try and provide some thoughtsDoes it look like I'm giving up or going?
Well, yes.I'm not doing all this to survive
You do realize this sort of thing does not help you at all, right?Duh, I'm at L-1 with a scum verdict. I'm not doing all this to survive, I'm doing this so that after my flip you guys will have something to work with, other than feeling stupid.
Also, and my head is filled with enough mucus right now that maybe I'm just a big thickie, but still: we've seen that there was a Godfather in the game. Doesn't that necessitate a Cop to counter it, at least in a fairly average role setup the likes of which we... seem to have, given Carthrat's description of the semi-openness?My Anonyscifi mafia had a godfather, a miller, and no cop. There was another game recently that had a similar setup. There might not be a cop.
Even if Alex is an insane cop, I still think we should lynch him anyway.
Obviously I have a vested interest, but I've given you an objective reason why.
More to follow!
Halfway agreed. If Tom does flip Town -- which, hey, I still don't think he will, but it's not like I haven't been wrong a million times in these games -- there will definitely be some questions about Alex. That doesn't mean we should immediately lynch him without asking those questions and getting some answers, though.Worst case scenario is you lynch me, I flip town, he says "oops I'm insane", then you lynch him and he also flips town. That's 2 dead town.
Best case scenario, you lynch me, I flip town, then you lynch him and he flips scum - 1 dead town and 1 dead scum - but this will not happen because he will worm his way out of it tomorrow.
Alternatively, lynch Alex, and you have either 1 dead scum, or 1 dead insane cop and 1 confirmed town, or 1 dead cop and 1 confirmed scum.
This situation is much better.
Of course the DL always blindly believe every cop claim, and scum will exploit that to the bitter end.
Dude. I'm trying to help as much as I can. I'm at L-1 with a scumclaim over my head, don't make this more painful for me than it already is >_> at least don't harass me when I try and provide some thoughtsDoes it look like I'm giving up or going?
Well, yes.I'm not doing all this to survive
I think Bard is pretty towny.
I thought El Cid was super-town, but I've had to demote him a bit.
Xanth and Strago are all over the place. You know my thoughts on Alex. He could be legit, but he's definately not sane, and he's been acting scummy so I pegged him as fakeclaiming.
Corwin.. I don't know if he's being good and logical, or if he's scum siding with me to reap the benefits when I flip town. Perplexing.
Andrew seems ok. Moderately town.
Kiro is confusing, neutral.
Excal neutral.
Xanth himself.. I can't tell anymore, see what he does after my flip I guess.
Hmm.
Grow a brain.
El Cid, Alex, Strago and Xanth are all 'completely convinced I'm scum', which is disheartening.
Cid, I'm not sure you've thought this plan all the way through
If you see something suspicious, you shouldn't ignore it in favour of railroading one person!
continuing to go after Alex was useless.
It's pretty obvious what ScumAlex gains, he's no longer taking heat (he was coming under heavy fire), and he never has to commit to anything (claim roleblock/the NK target).
So you're saying if I flip scum, you'd consider that Alex was scumbussing me? That's very unlikely.
I really doubt we are going to get anywhere else here without a flip. So. Are we ready for a hammer?
For a theoretical scumAlex to even consider being able to fake claim into today, he needs to have stopped an actual cop from scanning him last night following his claim. This requires either killing the cop and bluff like crazy, which hasn't happened, or to roleblock the cop. But if the cop was roleblocked then El Cid can't have been, so we're looking at a hitman/roleblocker duo for this to make any sense. But if that's the case, how did they find the cop in the first place? There's no room for shoving an additional rolecop clause on top of one of the two given the semi-open nature of the set up. The only possibility would be if they somehow guessed who the cop was on day one, which seems like a ridiculous gambit when the cop could still come into the open to challenge Alex anyway.
So no, I don't think scumAlex could reasonably have stopped an actual cop from scanning him, thus if no one confronts him immediately today I'm counting him as 99% cleared town insane cop.
You suggest the existence of a Hitman, yet for this coincidence to occur and for Miyu to die the second night, it would need to be a Hitman with several uses, or scum had inexplicably used someone else during the first night to kill. While not impossible, I have to wonder why you would ignore such and decide that Miss Sugiura is quite innocent of any wrong-doings.
Unless, of course, he's lying scum. But I find it really hard to believe that we don't have a cop, now that we've had flips from both a Godfather and a Miller.
Hitman (May ignore protections of any kind if sent on the kill. May have limited uses.)
You're wandering into both False Dichotomy and Appeal to Emotion territory here. My answer is that you should NOT not post at all, but you should also not post posts that are opinionless summaries doubling as placeholders.
In this instance, yes, I believe it would have been better to not post at all if the only other alterrnative was to post what you did. (Again, false dichotomy, but that can be ignored for the purposes of this hypothetical situation.) If you absolutely must post to maintain a presence in the thread while you work your way toward time where you can actually focus, stuff like this (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42445#msg42445) is better (in my opinion: there are others that would disagree, most notably those who prefer no excuse for absence is made at all) because you don't look like you're trying to look like you're contributing without actually doing so. If that makes sense.
You could but it would be a hell of a lot harder to do so without looking really bad. It is better to solidly commit to an opinion not because you genuinely think what you're saying is true, but because it allows others to get a better read on you and form their own opinions accordingly. If you're flip-flopping all over the place you're going to stick out like a sore thumb (because if you're town you have no reason to do this).[/quuote]
The above in its entiriety is nothing more than playstyle differences/argumentation differences and I cannot respond to that in any way that doesn't boil down to, "That's the way I play, kay?"QuoteYou miss the point again. Your assessment of Cid started off as a negative one and ended as a positive one, and I have a very hard time seeing the bridge connecting those two sentiments in the rest of that paragraph. It's like you forgot what your opinion of Cid was halfway through. (Either that or you were somehow leaning TP on Cid, and I find it very hard to believe that anyone could make that call on Day 1.)
I suspected TP on Cid from then since he showed apathy towards the results. And hey, I find it equally hard for anyone to make a call on scumminess from game-start, so. I didn't feel Cid was particularly scummy that he should be lynched, but I also didn't feel he was being particularly Town. Leaves two options: write him off as "neutral read" or "Third Party", and I suspected the latter.QuoteNot what I was asking. "His one-track approach is pretty..."...what? Townish? Scummy? Clever? Crazy? Gassy? Use an adjective instead of an ellipsis. "It makes me wonder" and "I'm not sure what makes me dislike it" are not terribly helpful. Sure, you say you dislike it, but you say it in such a fashion that's easily brushed off as nothing later at your convenience.
His one-track approach is pretty I cannot bring it under words so I am making use of implied dislike for the one-track approach. If I have only gut to rely on I can't make it any clearer than I have. I don't rely solely on logic in this game─if I did I'd have little to rely on for myself.QuoteThen why not simply go back, count the votes and vote for Tom when you see it's safe? Or, if you're not sure, vote for no one? (I was even nice enough to point out in the post before yours that Tom was at L-2! :V) Do you not realize why "We need to lynch Tom! *Excal vote*" looks bad?
Like I said, I wanted to show where my suspicions were as well. I broke down earlier that I felt both Alex and Tom were Town, and so I can't find problem with actually pointing at where my suspicions do lie.
---->QuoteIf possible, I would like others to assess what I have laid out against him - useless journalism (which I admit is less prevalent than I initially thought when I first posted attacking him but still more prevalent than when Xanth was picking at him on Day 1 for it)
I'm going to admit to that only one of my posts was nothing but journalism. The two other posts you highlighted I have refuted. Will you hold that one post where I felt I was informing people of how far I've caught up/was being a useless reporter so strongly as a lynch argument? If you will, well, be my guest. I can't do anything about that.Quotevoting for Excal while claiming Tom needs to be lynched
See above.Quotesuggesting the "if x flips town we need to lynch y" line of following.QuoteIf we lynch EvilTom and he flips Town, we will need to lynch Alex to be sure of his alignment.
I'll admit to later on saying, "Tom presents a case where Alex can only die",QuoteI think Alex is seriously convinced he's nailed scum, and I think EvilTom's seriously convinced he's notScum, since he presents indeed a scenario in which case Alex will die if he dies.
Which was inspired by:QuoteIf I'm lynched and flip town, he'll just shrug and say "oh I'm insane" and then be 'roleblocked' for the rest of the game ("I think this is an important goal, since it is very likely scum have a roleblocker given we have a cop..... I consider this important enough to outweigh the obvious drawbacks of my early claim"). He's already set it up for himself. [4]
I failed to consider the possibility of Alex just continuing the investigations and providing proper results then since he knew his sanity. That is the err I can admit to.
---->
Current day. Really want to hear Alex first of his investigative results.
Excal going away is... really damn inconvenient to me, since I suspect him of scumminess and then he's going away!
Alright, here we go.
##VOTE: Excal
There is no looming Cop claim right now, so I want to pick up where I left off.QuoteQuoteQuote from: Excal on December 04, 2008, 08:11:27 PM
Also, Bard, in regards to why I was more interested in my side thing. It's because I really was hoping for a role blocker, irrationally so I suppose. Regardless, had that been the case, it would have meant, like I said earlier, that we'd have nailed scum 100%. Sadly, the actual resolution is utterly inconclusive (or does have answers, but not ones which benefit Town to be talked about and so I'm dropping this thing like a radioactive potato) so yeah. I get to stand here and look silly.
You may also have noticed that although I said I was going to think about it as I was leaving, I had also shown signs of musing it over before I left. Most importantly in the aspect of admitting that whatever else had happened, I had been wrong in my earlier paranoia and that the Alex scenario I had earlier mentioned no longer fit as I had put it.
Your hope for a roleblocker is... irrational indeed, that you prioritize possibility in favor of what's been concretely put in our faces.
I must've missed those signs. You've been rather reserved insofar as commenting on the relevant matters go, though. I note your Day 1 activity was there, but little of it actually seemed keen on scumhunting. The only real vote you placed was on Sopko after things went awry for him. Your continued behaviour in that regard Day 2 makes it even look worse.
I won't hold your lack of a vote Day 2 against you─that'd be unfair given my own vote record, and I am already straining the reaches of courtesy by holding it against you Day 1 when I was hardly present for the first Day. I justify it to myself only as your activity being there despite no vote.
But despite that, I still hold your lack of... lack of actual scumhunting against you.
Excal's been lurking altogether and has been lackluster in actual scumhunts. When the entire Tom Case became an actuality and the soup du jour as Strago put it, Excal waved it off as paling in comparison, supposedly "showing signs of mulling it over" when I saw no such signs.
Also:QuoteMy first thought is that the Roleblocker theory seems slightly more plausible to me due to the fact that if the scum assumed doctor instead of bulletproof, as seemed to be the sentiment in the thread, then with Alex's revelation that it would be more likely that El Cid would not be under Doctor protection due to wanting to keep the Cop alive
the fact that if scum assumed doctor instead of bulletproof. This may be going into WIFOM, but the fact that something happened to that Night Kill, be it Roleblock (either side) or Hitman (scum), doesn't really indicate the Scum assumed anything. I do not know why you purport that they must've assumed Bulletproof.
You're wandering into both False Dichotomy and Appeal to Emotion territory here. My answer is that you should NOT not post at all, but you should also not post posts that are opinionless summaries doubling as placeholders.
In this instance, yes, I believe it would have been better to not post at all if the only other alterrnative was to post what you did. (Again, false dichotomy, but that can be ignored for the purposes of this hypothetical situation.) If you absolutely must post to maintain a presence in the thread while you work your way toward time where you can actually focus, stuff like this (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42445#msg42445) is better (in my opinion: there are others that would disagree, most notably those who prefer no excuse for absence is made at all) because you don't look like you're trying to look like you're contributing without actually doing so. If that makes sense.
You could but it would be a hell of a lot harder to do so without looking really bad. It is better to solidly commit to an opinion not because you genuinely think what you're saying is true, but because it allows others to get a better read on you and form their own opinions accordingly. If you're flip-flopping all over the place you're going to stick out like a sore thumb (because if you're town you have no reason to do this).
You miss the point again. Your assessment of Cid started off as a negative one and ended as a positive one, and I have a very hard time seeing the bridge connecting those two sentiments in the rest of that paragraph. It's like you forgot what your opinion of Cid was halfway through. (Either that or you were somehow leaning TP on Cid, and I find it very hard to believe that anyone could make that call on Day 1.)
Not what I was asking. "His one-track approach is pretty..."...what? Townish? Scummy? Clever? Crazy? Gassy? Use an adjective instead of an ellipsis. "It makes me wonder" and "I'm not sure what makes me dislike it" are not terribly helpful. Sure, you say you dislike it, but you say it in such a fashion that's easily brushed off as nothing later at your convenience.
Then why not simply go back, count the votes and vote for Tom when you see it's safe? Or, if you're not sure, vote for no one? (I was even nice enough to point out in the post before yours that Tom was at L-2! :V) Do you not realize why "We need to lynch Tom! *Excal vote*" looks bad?
If possible, I would like others to assess what I have laid out against him - useless journalism (which I admit is less prevalent than I initially thought when I first posted attacking him but still more prevalent than when Xanth was picking at him on Day 1 for it)
voting for Excal while claiming Tom needs to be lynched
suggesting the "if x flips town we need to lynch y" line of following.
If we lynch EvilTom and he flips Town, we will need to lynch Alex to be sure of his alignment.
I think Alex is seriously convinced he's nailed scum, and I think EvilTom's seriously convinced he's notScum, since he presents indeed a scenario in which case Alex will die if he dies.
If I'm lynched and flip town, he'll just shrug and say "oh I'm insane" and then be 'roleblocked' for the rest of the game ("I think this is an important goal, since it is very likely scum have a roleblocker given we have a cop..... I consider this important enough to outweigh the obvious drawbacks of my early claim"). He's already set it up for himself. [4]
QuoteQuote from: Excal on December 04, 2008, 08:11:27 PM
Also, Bard, in regards to why I was more interested in my side thing. It's because I really was hoping for a role blocker, irrationally so I suppose. Regardless, had that been the case, it would have meant, like I said earlier, that we'd have nailed scum 100%. Sadly, the actual resolution is utterly inconclusive (or does have answers, but not ones which benefit Town to be talked about and so I'm dropping this thing like a radioactive potato) so yeah. I get to stand here and look silly.
You may also have noticed that although I said I was going to think about it as I was leaving, I had also shown signs of musing it over before I left. Most importantly in the aspect of admitting that whatever else had happened, I had been wrong in my earlier paranoia and that the Alex scenario I had earlier mentioned no longer fit as I had put it.
Your hope for a roleblocker is... irrational indeed, that you prioritize possibility in favor of what's been concretely put in our faces.
I must've missed those signs. You've been rather reserved insofar as commenting on the relevant matters go, though. I note your Day 1 activity was there, but little of it actually seemed keen on scumhunting. The only real vote you placed was on Sopko after things went awry for him. Your continued behaviour in that regard Day 2 makes it even look worse.
I won't hold your lack of a vote Day 2 against you─that'd be unfair given my own vote record, and I am already straining the reaches of courtesy by holding it against you Day 1 when I was hardly present for the first Day. I justify it to myself only as your activity being there despite no vote.
But despite that, I still hold your lack of... lack of actual scumhunting against you.
My first thought is that the Roleblocker theory seems slightly more plausible to me due to the fact that if the scum assumed doctor instead of bulletproof, as seemed to be the sentiment in the thread, then with Alex's revelation that it would be more likely that El Cid would not be under Doctor protection due to wanting to keep the Cop alive
Xanth, you know what I find to be the huge gaping flaw in your theory is? It assumes that the remaining scum have between them Rolecop, Roleblocker, and Docbuster. One to know who the cop is, one to negate the cop, and then the other to actually kill El Cid. I'd say that that also assumes they got lucky and found the cop night 1, but we're already looking at a minimum of three scum roles here, for what surely cannot be more than two scum.
As far as I was concerned I was reflecting the stuff I had caught up with so people'd know. Was I contributing at that time? No, I wasn't. But I also do not feel that what I did is in any way grounds to lynch someone, or otherwise an anti-Town sentiment.
There is no attempt in the post we're arguing about to have any contribution to the thread at all. Here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42479#msg42479), I refer to what I write as "thoughts" indeed. They are my initial impressions of the issues I caught while skimming and are a clear indication that I was catching up to the thread and that real contribution could be expected in the near future.
QuoteYou could but it would be a hell of a lot harder to do so without looking really bad. It is better to solidly commit to an opinion not because you genuinely think what you're saying is true, but because it allows others to get a better read on you and form their own opinions accordingly. If you're flip-flopping all over the place you're going to stick out like a sore thumb (because if you're town you have no reason to do this).
The above in its entiriety is nothing more than playstyle differences/argumentation differences and I cannot respond to that in any way that doesn't boil down to, "That's the way I play, kay?"
QuoteYou miss the point again. Your assessment of Cid started off as a negative one and ended as a positive one, and I have a very hard time seeing the bridge connecting those two sentiments in the rest of that paragraph. It's like you forgot what your opinion of Cid was halfway through. (Either that or you were somehow leaning TP on Cid, and I find it very hard to believe that anyone could make that call on Day 1.)
I suspected TP on Cid from then since he showed apathy towards the results. And hey, I find it equally hard for anyone to make a call on scumminess from game-start, so. I didn't feel Cid was particularly scummy that he should be lynched, but I also didn't feel he was being particularly Town. Leaves two options: write him off as "neutral read" or "Third Party", and I suspected the latter.
QuoteNot what I was asking. "His one-track approach is pretty..."...what? Townish? Scummy? Clever? Crazy? Gassy? Use an adjective instead of an ellipsis. "It makes me wonder" and "I'm not sure what makes me dislike it" are not terribly helpful. Sure, you say you dislike it, but you say it in such a fashion that's easily brushed off as nothing later at your convenience.
His one-track approach is pretty I cannot bring it under words so I am making use of implied dislike for the one-track approach. If I have only gut to rely on I can't make it any clearer than I have. I don't rely solely on logic in this game─if I did I'd have little to rely on for myself.
Relying on 'gut' is the easiest way for scum to validate a vote. I'd rather we were all accountable for our votes by providing specific reasons.
QuoteThen why not simply go back, count the votes and vote for Tom when you see it's safe? Or, if you're not sure, vote for no one? (I was even nice enough to point out in the post before yours that Tom was at L-2! :V) Do you not realize why "We need to lynch Tom! *Excal vote*" looks bad?
Like I said, I wanted to show where my suspicions were as well. I broke down earlier that I felt both Alex and Tom were Town, and so I can't find problem with actually pointing at where my suspicions do lie.
Quotesuggesting the "if x flips town we need to lynch y" line of following.QuoteIf we lynch EvilTom and he flips Town, we will need to lynch Alex to be sure of his alignment.
Oh, this changes things then! You thought Tom was town while saying his lynch was a good idea! That makes understanding this a lot easier.
QuoteThen why not simply go back, count the votes and vote for Tom when you see it's safe? Or, if you're not sure, vote for no one? (I was even nice enough to point out in the post before yours that Tom was at L-2! :V) Do you not realize why "We need to lynch Tom! *Excal vote*" looks bad?
Like I said, I wanted to show where my suspicions were as well. I broke down earlier that I felt both Alex and Tom were Town, and so I can't find problem with actually pointing at where my suspicions do lie.
Oh, this changes things then! You thought Tom was town while saying his lynch was a good idea! That makes understanding this a lot easier.
##Vote: BardicheQuotesuggesting the "if x flips town we need to lynch y" line of following.QuoteIf we lynch EvilTom and he flips Town, we will need to lynch Alex to be sure of his alignment.
...And? Why is that part relevant at all? Surely you could not possibly be implying that there were people out there that thought it was possible to be sure of someone's alignment without their death.
Strago: Since you keep on repeating Xanth's sentiments, this question is for you as well. What exactly could this hypothetical second cop tell us now if he doesn't have proof of his sanity or a read on Alex?
As an aside, I don't understand how Cid was planning to prove Alex was an insane cop with his own role. Investigating Cid himself would have pulled an Innocent result from the Miller which subsequently would indicate Cid to be Scum. It'd be a crazy ass WIFOM considering several of us believed Cid to be all but confirmed Town since he also was the only one who claimed being shot at, but Town would supposedly have followed through to lynch Cid to reveal him as a Bulletproof Miller. I actually don't get what would have definitively been shown.
Actually I'm dumb, they have a roleblocker, if they had a hitman they would have used it and been able to kill Cid night 1.
Excal going away is... really damn inconvenient to me, since I suspect him of scumminess and then he's going away!
Alright, here we go.
##VOTE: Excal
There is no looming Cop claim right now, so I want to pick up where I left off.QuoteQuoteQuote from: Excal on December 04, 2008, 08:11:27 PM
Also, Bard, in regards to why I was more interested in my side thing. It's because I really was hoping for a role blocker, irrationally so I suppose. Regardless, had that been the case, it would have meant, like I said earlier, that we'd have nailed scum 100%. Sadly, the actual resolution is utterly inconclusive (or does have answers, but not ones which benefit Town to be talked about and so I'm dropping this thing like a radioactive potato) so yeah. I get to stand here and look silly.
You may also have noticed that although I said I was going to think about it as I was leaving, I had also shown signs of musing it over before I left. Most importantly in the aspect of admitting that whatever else had happened, I had been wrong in my earlier paranoia and that the Alex scenario I had earlier mentioned no longer fit as I had put it.
Your hope for a roleblocker is... irrational indeed, that you prioritize possibility in favor of what's been concretely put in our faces.
I must've missed those signs. You've been rather reserved insofar as commenting on the relevant matters go, though. I note your Day 1 activity was there, but little of it actually seemed keen on scumhunting. The only real vote you placed was on Sopko after things went awry for him. Your continued behaviour in that regard Day 2 makes it even look worse.
I won't hold your lack of a vote Day 2 against you─that'd be unfair given my own vote record, and I am already straining the reaches of courtesy by holding it against you Day 1 when I was hardly present for the first Day. I justify it to myself only as your activity being there despite no vote.
But despite that, I still hold your lack of... lack of actual scumhunting against you.
Excal's been lurking altogether and has been lackluster in actual scumhunts. When the entire Tom Case became an actuality and the soup du jour as Strago put it, Excal waved it off as paling in comparison, supposedly "showing signs of mulling it over" when I saw no such signs.
Also:QuoteMy first thought is that the Roleblocker theory seems slightly more plausible to me due to the fact that if the scum assumed doctor instead of bulletproof, as seemed to be the sentiment in the thread, then with Alex's revelation that it would be more likely that El Cid would not be under Doctor protection due to wanting to keep the Cop alive
the fact that if scum assumed doctor instead of bulletproof. This may be going into WIFOM, but the fact that something happened to that Night Kill, be it Roleblock (either side) or Hitman (scum), doesn't really indicate the Scum assumed anything. I do not know why you purport that they must've assumed Bulletproof.
---->
ADDENDUM:
I realize Kiro and Affinity have been lurking hardcore. Speak up you two.
I disagree on this because if he's a Cop, he can and should first rely on his investigative result.
Affinity here seems to be saying, in his second paragraph, "I think Alex is genuinely a cop. But he's playing badly and not looking for scum the way he should be, so let's lynch him."
QuoteNot what I was asking. "His one-track approach is pretty..."...what? Townish? Scummy? Clever? Crazy? Gassy? Use an adjective instead of an ellipsis. "It makes me wonder" and "I'm not sure what makes me dislike it" are not terribly helpful. Sure, you say you dislike it, but you say it in such a fashion that's easily brushed off as nothing later at your convenience.
His one-track approach is pretty I cannot bring it under words so I am making use of implied dislike for the one-track approach. If I have only gut to rely on I can't make it any clearer than I have. I don't rely solely on logic in this game─if I did I'd have little to rely on for myself.
Thirteen, then. Doesn't invalidate my comment, just shows a little inattentivity/scattermindedness on my behalf.
QuoteI get a sense of wishy-washy-ness in here. Even when you lay down any stances that you do, they are usually presented in an unsure-of-yourself tone that could give you the opportunity to change your mind quickly and easily.
Not to mention your point on me is completely wrong and your thought process on Cid is hard to follow given you start with disliking his attitude and end up "inclined to think [he's] notScum".
I can't be sure of anything in a game where manipulation and deceit reign highly. The only person I can trust is myself, so I'm quite sorry if I cannot be certain of "HE'S SCUM" or "HE'S TOWN". Even if I did solidly place my stances in such a manner I could still change them quickly and easily - after all, the game is deceit and trickery. Solid ideas don't mean jack shit if something suddenly changes and you find yourself second-guessing yourself. To me, the matter is entirely moot and I fail to see the problem. I am only dead-certain of people if I can be sure of myself that nothing they say changes my mind.
now with more moot points on the Alex 'cop or scum' table now
some points need to be hammered repeatedly to convince him
So in the end, Bardiche still stands out. His views are pretty inconclusive if not hard to understand in his posts and I disagree with his Excal vote reasoning and the case in general. He reiterated that case twice before, but I think it's wrong.
In particular, there's that part I bolded, where Bardiche seems to pretty deliberately re-write the history of Soppy's lynch, since Excal jumped on that train significantly before it was popular and when another person supporting the Xanth lynch would not, it seems to me, have been seen as all that weird or scummy.
Scum would be forced to bus in that instance and they would do it to save face.
I'd have to give the copclaim greater weight though. It's something that isn't up to misinterpretation, given it's a mod reported Guilty result. Alex has committed himself and Town has to follow through. Looks like we're all waiting for the procedural last words from Tom.
On my reread, I did take note of Andrew a little more. Andrew did vote Xanth to L-1 a little unexpectedly. Sopko also endorsed one of his posts once, and while that's completely on Sopko, it's a possible scum link to consider. His Day 2 stuff looks better. Andrew's first case on Day 2 about Alex/Xanth/myself isn't a bad one though. Checking Alex for his timing of the vote continued that case down the line after me, but pretty much everything retracted after the copclaim. I don't think the issue regarding the Tom hammer is a big deal because anyone on or not on the wagon is kind of moot due to the reliance of the copclaim. So suspicion was kinda there, but hasn't noticeably increased with his Day 2 actions.
I'd have to give the copclaim greater weight though. It's something that isn't up to misinterpretation, given it's a mod reported Guilty result.
While I'm thinking about it, can I at least get people to agree that 'townAlex => townXanth', and hence 'scumXanth => scumAlex'? The point I'm making here being here that if you still think I could be scum that Alex must be my partner, so other possibilities should not be entertained. (The converse, 'townXanth => townAlex' and 'scumAlex => scumXanth' obviously do not necessarily hold and I'm not trying to claim they do, so if I do get killed at night, it's not like that would definitely clear Alex)
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42855#msg42855
Sacrificing vanilla town to vet a cop's sanity if you trust the cop's player is not actually a scummy move.
Alex's fourth vote on you was very useful (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42203#msg42203) while El Cid's third vote on you was pointless (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42053#msg42053)?
The softly softly approach to Tom on day two doesn't do anything for me either. Went from a weird uncertainty (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42431#msg42431) on Tom when Xanth was still the prime target to sudden clarity (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42544#msg42544) on a singular point late on when it was clear that it wasn't going anywhere else.
After then picking up the case on Bardiche, has suddenly completely ignored his previous collaring of Xanth, even before Alex's scan claim on me. I'm not sure what I did yesterday to suddenly convince him, given that I spent practically all of yesterday attacking someone who's flipped town and defending myself (the day ending before I got back to talk about other people), which I boggle over more than just one-tracking on Bardiche.
While I'm thinking about it, can I at least get people to agree that 'townAlex => townXanth', and hence 'scumXanth => scumAlex'? The point I'm making here being here that if you still think I could be scum that Alex must be my partner, so other possibilities should not be entertained. (The converse, 'townXanth => townAlex' and 'scumAlex => scumXanth' obviously do not necessarily hold and I'm not trying to claim they do, so if I do get killed at night, it's not like that would definitely clear Alex)
The point I'm making here being here that if you still think I could be scum that Alex must be my partner, so other possibilities should not be entertained.. This is PATENTLY false, because there is still another realistic possibility floating around (re: the framer argument) and seems to be designed to railroad town into a certain way of thinking. More to the point, it doesn't sit well with me at all that the combinations that Xanth say MUST be the truth are rather beneficial to a scum Xanth (he either gets a clear via town Alex or gets Alex lynched as scum).
So Bardiche has the wrong initial reason for voting Excal, on a Day 3 no less. THAT's the main reason why I'm voting Bardiche. I also think Bardiche is just not finding good points against Excal which cements my suspicion of him. Add that in the back and forth between Bardiche and Kilga, I'm not finding Bardiche very convincing about his views on other players. He's basing his arguments more on personal interpretation saying something like, Excal didn't respond to me because he had to go. So?
@Andrew:
Just wondering, but why would you consider Kiro as passive/lacking? He does give his own share of good opinions too, I feel, at least as much as you do, especially on the Excal/Bard case, and that comment seems rather interesting. Myself, and Bardiche, I can more or less understand to some extent. It would be nice if you could describe 'lacking' for all three cases, though.
One thing I would like to point out is that I don't quite understand the scum Framer role (am quite new to this), except that he can target a person (say Xanth) and frame him as scum. How does this refute the Alex is town => Xanth is town logic? And even if so, how would another investigation help in your determining of Alex's alignment? It seems rather contradictory; I doubt him investigating Xanth was very obvious, after all.
QuoteSo Bardiche has the wrong initial reason for voting Excal, on a Day 3 no less. THAT's the main reason why I'm voting Bardiche. I also think Bardiche is just not finding good points against Excal which cements my suspicion of him. Add that in the back and forth between Bardiche and Kilga, I'm not finding Bardiche very convincing about his views on other players. He's basing his arguments more on personal interpretation saying something like, Excal didn't respond to me because he had to go. So?
This is still, "I disagree with the case you've made so I'm voting you" to me and I can't really formulate any defense to that! Do you have any reasons that go beyond, "I don't like his case against Excal" or "Hey, Bard's a bit miffed because Excal posted about an hour after the vote against him and didn't even post acknowledgement to it!"
Argued hard for lynching me on previous days
pointing this out just to make sure we get it, alongside Bard's final callout
Was first to call out Sopko, and it didn't have much effect - Soppy's play was a weaksauce attempt to tie himself to me, scumbuddies had to know this and would likely call him on it, but early, so it wouldn't have much effect, before it snowballed into a serious case.
But if Affinity is, who isn't he fine with?
there's an intent to want to off Alex on Day 3 and not give him a chance to pull out more investigations even though we had good leeway at the time
Affinity was also pretty keen to jump on the ceremonial hammer of Tom, purposely trying to beat out Andrew for it.
I also don't get your reasoning for voting me above. I may have issues, but you're not addressing them yourself even if I happen to be the next "easiest" case for a lynch.
QuoteBut if Affinity is, who isn't he fine with?
AndrewRouge for his response, and Kiro and Corwin for their lack of votes. This isn't really new, however.
- Is alright with Kiro content-wise. I'm certainly not! But if Affinity is, who isn't he fine with?
It is made very clear Alex is talking about whose content Affinity is satisfied with, given Kiro gets a pass from Affinity.
But I doubt that thinking that everyone's content is fine is inherently scummy.
Don't direct the doctor.
Scum must kill and their target is informed of the attack if they survive, as per the rules, so there's no reason to doubt Kilga is clear.
Scum have not been playing well all game. Sopko barely contested his demise, Bard was pretty obvious, and they haven't even made an effort to stop me even though they know for a fact leaving me alive and unmolested leads straight to their inevitable loss. It is clear that unless Xanth is actually scum, either he or myself should have been last night's kill target, but as Xanth has pointed out it is now impossible for him to be scum. I can say this with impunity now because it really does not matter if scum realize it or not, it's a bit too late for them.
I will admit that a bit of metagaming here is creeping into my analysis as I have a really hard time seeing Corwin, Excal and Strago play scum this way. (No! Bad Alex! No meta!) But as Xanth pointed out it probably does not matter at this point anyhow.
Don't direct the doctor.
Scum must kill and their target is informed of the attack if they survive, as per the rules, so there's no reason to doubt Kilga is clear.
(unless people are theorising two doctors).
I point out that it can be turned around, then you say my turnaround is useless because "it can go either way.
Soppy's play was a weaksauce attempt to tie himself to me, scumbuddies had to know this and would likely call him on it, but early, so it wouldn't have much effect, before it snowballed into a serious case.
That doesn't make arguing for my lynch any less scummy, since I am in fact town and scum would want me dead most of all.
Strago didn't blatantly call out the NK as supposedly pointing to me as scum.
If I'm not wrong, the last time Kiro voted was for me, at the beginning of day 2. That's something to be concerned about. I'm alright with him content-wise, though.
##Vote: Kiro
Strago: If we end up approaching LYLO (based on our assumptions of a 3-person scum team) without hitting scum, I believe we should lynch Alex. However, I also happen to think we should not, under any circumstances, lynch Alex before we're at that point. So yes, I'm intending to ignore Bardiche's last words, and just about any words from the point it was clear to him he was going down.
Before I die, what's the glayven-HOYVEN?
Well, this is curious. How do you differentiate the 'intent to want to off' Alex with the 'intent to simply root out scum as quickly as possible'? As for good leeway, I simply did not want him (if he was scum) to produce investigations until LyLo, where he magically pulls out scum from his hat, and I severely questioned that. Also, see the theory I had about what El-Cideon's plan was here (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42896#msg42896). His death opposed to Alex's was unsettling.
This, I can't explain, other than the 'novelty' aspect of wanting to hammer for once and that I was pretty much disillusioned with Tom to the point of lynch. I acknoledge that I could have waited though, but whether or not he would have responded satisfactorily with all his sins chalked up, I'm doubtful.The problem with this point is that Andrew called for the hammer and you just went in and did it for him. Declaring hammers sometimes feels a little unnecessary since in that case Tom had probably said everything he was going to say. You sticking your neck out to "steal" the hammer while being your choice, was wholly unnecessary. The hammer should not be such a possessive thing, but people will still see it as such and you marked yourself weirdly for doing so.
My vote was more towards a prod, seeing that you did not answer this point for very very long though it has been hanging in the air via Andrew. The reasoning is the same as his which I didn't see the need to parrot, and calling my vote unreasonable is rather silly for that matter. Vote on you stays.Vote to prod is noted, but I see your vote to Alex again definitely feels like a vote to lynch. Unfortunately, you have to back off from that and come back to me again. Your indecisiveness is an awkward defense and I think it would have reflected better on you if you presented a stronger case on me, even if you have to parrot a little.
Uhhh... yeah. I don't think there's even any debate on who's getting lynched today. Tomorrow, sure, but not today. So even Kiro's role claim will give us not much.
Sparklies or Slashies
12. Yuuki Nao, Vanilla Town, you fucking bastards :( (Affinity)
I had two uses. I was inactive for hte entire first day (REAL STORY), so wasn't really available. But we'd... more or less agreed not to use the Hitman power from the first night to conserve some for priority targets.
First night we attacked El Cid because El Cid scared 'em.
Second night, we dealt with El Cid, thinking Alex was in a crummy enough position to get lynched. (after all, why NOT kill a Cop?)
Third night I was already gone, but we'd decided to keep Alex alive because:
1) I sort of hoped you'd all take my words to heart. At least a bit. Clearly I fail at theatrics.
2) A Cop remaining alive STILL? Maybe someone'd call it to question. Apparently not!
So. We miscalculated the Town's behaviour mostly and thought they'd call doubt to Alex's copness if he didn't die at any point during the Night phases. Instead, we hit Bulletproofs.