Hotel of Heroes mafia

[Suburban_Plankton]

@Red_Skeezix

Along these lines and on preview, Suburban, do we really have to evaluate these claims toDay? I’m just not seeing the point I guess. Unprovoked claims are bad play IMO, but not really a scum indicator to me, since some people just do it.

I’m not really sure what you’re asking me here…can you elaborate a bit?

[Red_Skeezix]

@Suburban_Plankton

I’m not really sure what you’re asking me here…can you elaborate a bit?

Sure:

@Suburban_Plankton

The problem with items 1,2,3, and 5 is that we have no way of evaluating **ushi’s **claim right now, and without knowing whether or not it’s truthful it’s of no use to Town in determining how to vote or how to target.

You say we have no way of evaluating ushi’s claim right now. My question is do we have to evaluate it right now? But on reread I see that you were addressing pleo’s assertion that it has value right now. So consider it withdrawn.

[Suburban_Plankton]

@Red_Skeezix

You say we have no way of evaluating ushi’s claim right now. My question is do we have to evaluate it right now? But on reread I see that you were addressing pleo’s assertion that it has value right now. So consider it withdrawn.

You’ve got it. FWIW I agree that these early unprovoked claims are “bad play”, but in and of themselves they are a null-tell.

[special_ed]

@Suburban_Plankton

You’ve got it. FWIW I agree that these early unprovoked claims are “bad play”, but in and of themselves they are a null-tell.

I agree completely.

[peekercpa]

@Suburban_Plankton

The problem with items 1,2,3, and 5 is that we have no way of evaluating **ushi’s **claim right now, and without knowing whether or not it’s truthful it’s of no use to Town in determining how to vote or how to target.

Item 4 is correct; ushi has now limited himself as far as future claims go, so it has *some *usefulness there; however, a fake Vanilla claim is pretty easy for Scum to maintain, so it still doesn’t tell us much. If **ushi **had claimed a Power, this would carry much more weight.

au contraire. sushi rings about as newb as the grass is green in the spring. he made a whopper post where he basically confirmed that he was niller town. if he pulled that off as scum in his first game then he gets a fucking award.

[peekercpa]

@special_ed

I didn’t state that I always do so. Just pointing out the customs for our new player.

He’s not obligated to follow. I just wanted to be sure he understood how it usually works.
See, now if Idle had done that, I probably wouldn’t have had to explain the customs to him.

i’m not following ed. because idle should know better he gets a skate. but since sushi is new we have to indoctrinate him into the ed way of playing?

fuck sushi look at records and run and hide as quickly as you can.

[special_ed]

@peekercpa

i’m not following ed. because idle should know better he gets a skate. but since sushi is new we have to indoctrinate him into the ed way of playing?

fuck sushi look at records and run and hide as quickly as you can.

Oh! Now I get the disconnect!

I didn’t accuse ushi of being Scum. I consider his move a null tell. I was attempting to point out why his actions weren’t, in my opinion, in the best interests of town. I felt it likely that he didn’t have the experience or knowledge to understand that.

I didn’t bother informing Idle of why I consider his move to be anti-Town because I’m confident that he’s completely aware of my opinion in the matter, and I would just be wasting electrons to send the post to the board.

[peekercpa]

@special_ed

Oh! Now I get the disconnect!

I didn’t accuse ushi of being Scum. I consider his move a null tell. I was attempting to point out why his actions weren’t, in my opinion, in the best interests of town. I felt it likely that he didn’t have the experience or knowledge to understand that.

I didn’t bother informing Idle of why I consider his move to be anti-Town because I’m confident that he’s completely aware of my opinion in the matter, and I would just be wasting electrons to send the post to the board.

fair enough. but newbs, although we can help, need to learn to swim on their own. it just seemed dichotomous that you were questioning and advising sushi as opposed to that fucking bastard idle.

peace.

[Meeko]

Holy Vote Count Batman!
Crap.
Well, I better get caught up.

[Suburban_Plankton]

@peekercpa

au contraire. sushi rings about as newb as the grass is green in the spring. he made a whopper post where he basically confirmed that he was niller town. if he pulled that off as scum in his first game then he gets a fucking award.

Well, I definitely get a “newbie vibe” from ushi, but I’m not ready to mark him down as Vanilla town in Sharpie just yet…I’m leaving that in pencil for the moment.

[Asympotically_fat]

Okay I think right now I will join the bandwagon, there’s a few people who’s reasoning is suspect to me.

I’m still suspecting that town are named for good guys, so that the town players each have a good guy name. When someone argues that this is not the case and let’s assume they are town there are three possibilties:

1. they have a good guy name. I have been told by various players that on previous occasions that names have been given which reflect alignment and names have been given which delibrately obscure alignment. However whilst there are still arguments to be made against the idea I would not expect them to be opposed to the idea absolutely as what I said would strike a chord with their own name.

2. they have a bad guy name. In this case the arguments are easily adverted by revealing they are town, but have a bad guy character. No-one has yet made a convincing argument as to why revealing whether your character is a good guyor a bad guy is detrimental to town. I myself said I would not propose to lynch anyone on the basis of this information and I meant it. Several players (including myself) did reveal this information about our characters, none of us were chastised for this.

3. their name does not easily fall in to either catergory. I think this is perfectly possible in heroes and villian-style canons there are often character who do not fall easily in to either side. It is conceivable, even likely that this game features one or even several of those characters. One player revealed his character to be more of a neutral. Nearly all of what I said in 2) applies here.

There were several players who argued against my assumptions, too many for them all to feasibly be scum. However a few of their arguments jarred with them coming from either postions 1), 2) or 3) in which case I must suspect they are scum.

Two worth mentioning are peekercpa and special ed. That said in my observations of the last game I found peekercpa to be a bit jarring in general (sorry!) and I suspected him of being scum, of course it was later revealed he was infact a mason, so to a certain extent his style seems to be confrontational. This however has not comletely allayed my suspicions of him, but I certainly have it in the back of my mind.

special ed some would say also seems to have a repuation fairly abrasive style (this is from what has been said in this thread), but compare him to the last thread where he was an international investigator he seems to be quite disruptive.

Red Skeezix’s vote for Chronos seems a little suspect to me, it seems too persnickety to me. However I do not think I would lynch him on the basis of that, however it does add more suspicion against special ed whom Chronos has voted for.

vote: special ed

In truth I decided a long time ago to vote for someone who argued against the connection between names and alignment as if facing being lynched they will presumably have to claim, including their name at some point.

[special_ed]

@These are my own pants

Okay I think right now I will join the bandwagon, there’s a few people who’s reasoning is suspect to me.

I’m still suspecting that town are named for good guys, so that the town players each have a good guy name. When someone argues that this is not the case and let’s assume they are town there are three possibilties:

1. they have a good guy name. I have been told by various players that on previous occasions that names have been given which reflect alignment and names have been given which delibrately obscure alignment. However whilst there are still arguments to be made against the idea I would not expect them to be opposed to the idea absolutely as what I said would strike a chord with their own name.

2. they have a bad guy name. In this case the arguments are easily adverted by revealing they are town, but have a bad guy character. No-one has yet made a convincing argument as to why revealing whether your character is a good guyor a bad guy is detrimental to town. I myself said I would not propose to lynch anyone on the basis of this information and I meant it. Several players (including myself) did reveal this information about our characters, none of us were chastised for this.

3. their name does not easily fall in to either catergory. I think this is perfectly possible in heroes and villian-style canons there are often character who do not fall easily in to either side. It is conceivable, even likely that this game features one or even several of those characters. One player revealed his character to be more of a neutral. Nearly all of what I said in 2) applies here.

There were several players who argued against my assumptions, too many for them all to feasibly be scum. However a few of their arguments jarred with them coming from either postions 1), 2) or 3) in which case I must suspect they are scum.

Two worth mentioning are peekercpa and special ed. That said in my observations of the last game I found peekercpa to be a bit jarring in general (sorry!) and I suspected him of being scum, of course it was later revealed he was infact a mason, so to a certain extent his style seems to be confrontational. This however has not comletely allayed my suspicions of him, but I certainly have it in the back of my mind.

special ed some would say also seems to have a repuation fairly abrasive style (this is from what has been said in this thread), but compare him to the last thread where he was an international investigator he seems to be quite disruptive.

Red Skeezix’s vote for Chronos seems a little suspect to me, it seems too persnickety to me. However I do not think I would lynch him on the basis of that, however it does add more suspicion against special ed whom Chronos has voted for.

vote: special ed

In truth I decided a long time ago to vote for someone who argued against the connection between names and alignment as if facing being lynched they will presumably have to claim, including their name at some point.

Just to clarify, is this a vote for:

1. Lynch the Loud, since you already decided to vote for someone who expressed opinions rather than those who remained quiet?

or

2. Lynch someone who thinks I had a bad idea, since you’d already decided to vote for someone who disagreed with you?

[Chronos]

Sheesh, ed, why don’t you just ask him if he’s stopped beating his wife?

[Asympotically_fat]

I just realized I made an error in my post special ed was scum in the last game, I still stand by my vote for the moment.

[special_ed]

@Chronos

Sheesh, ed, why don’t you just ask him if he’s stopped beating his wife?

he’s obviously not married; he owns pants.

[special_ed]

@These are my own pants

I just realized I made an error in my post special ed was scum in the last game, I still stand by my vote for the moment.

yeah, because I’m disruptive.

You mean, I post a lot, right?

[peekercpa]

ok, pants here we go. while i totally appreciate you single minded focus on name claims and their helpfulness to town i really will continue to disagree. i mean i appreciate your passion and focus but honestly it is becoming tiresome to me. “i really think this. ok, i’ll let it go. but how 'bout this. this will be the last thing i say about this. but did you ever consider blah blah blah”. for fuck’s sake you sound like my second wife.

[Asympotically_fat]

@special_ed

Just to clarify, is this a vote for:

1. Lynch the Loud, since you already decided to vote for someone who expressed opinions rather than those who remained quiet?

or

2. Lynch someone who thinks I had a bad idea, since you’d already decided to vote for someone who disagreed with you?

On Day one clearly my suspicions cannot be hard and fast, so yes there will be a certain element of vote for people who idea’s don’t tally with mine because to a some extent I’m assuming that most are in a simlair postion to me, if there ideas don’t tally with mine that’s a little suspicious to me.

However I would not characterize it as merely voting for someone who disagrees with me. I laid out 3 possibilties and what I would expect I person to do in each of those events and as I said it’s more important that I did not find the arguments to be entirely logical or the level of the argument to be what I would expect if coming from one of those postions.

As you can see the whole naming issue featured strongly in my reasoning.

[Asympotically_fat]

@peekercpa

ok, pants here we go. while i totally appreciate you single minded focus on name claims and their helpfulness to town i really will continue to disagree. i mean i appreciate your passion and focus but honestly it is becoming tiresome to me. “i really think this. ok, i’ll let it go. but how 'bout this. this will be the last thing i say about this. but did you ever consider blah blah blah”. for fuck’s sake you sound like my second wife.

If someone questions my posts I feel compelled to explain them as hiding the reasoning in them does not help town (as I say not that that proves anything).

[special_ed]

@These are my own pants

On Day one clearly my suspicions cannot be hard and fast, so yes there will be a certain element of vote for people who idea’s don’t tally with mine because to a some extent I’m assuming that most are in a simlair postion to me, if there ideas don’t tally with mine that’s a little suspicious to me.

However I would not characterize it as merely voting for someone who disagrees with me. I laid out 3 possibilties and what I would expect I person to do in each of those events and as I said it’s more important that I did not find the arguments to be entirely logical or the level of the argument to be what I would expect if coming from one of those postions.

As you can see the whole naming issue featured strongly in my reasoning.

I didn’t understand this. I’m sorry.