The question was asked because Pants Pings. I wasn’t sure if it was Pants himself, or Pant’s noobnis showing. Was wondering where I was in relation to everyone else.
neta: the statement that i made in giraffe translates over here nicely in this case. when you are at the bottom of the hole it makes sense to stop digging.
but since you already know everything there is to know i am sure you already know that.
and that is fair enough meeko. becuase he has been all over the board. but shit he sure seems to believe what the hell he is saying. i don’t read that as an act at all.
Thanks for helping out, Scuba. I promise not to dress you in women’s clothes. Unless you like the gender bending stuff as much as I do…
At this point I’m going to put a vote down on Chronos. His early theory about power distribution goes against my instincts as a player and in my mind did nothing for Town (how could he possibly be confident about that much less convince anyone else that it is so?) and when viewed with a little paranoia can be seen as baiting either powers or vanillas to out themselves in their responses to him and any ensuing conversation.
Vote Chronos
**Vote Count:
Idlethoughts(1): Suburban Plankton
Peeker(1): Pleonast
ScubaBen*(2): Chronos, ushimi
Chronos(2): Redskeezix, Cometothedarkside
Pleonast(1): Meeko
Ushimi(2): Idle, peeker
SpecialEd’s votes remain on ScubaBen*
Hi all, I read through the entire. fragging. thread now. It only took me just over an hour.
Collected thoughts:
- I have everybody’s sexes down, from the list earlier. So I won’t have to use Spivak pronouns. Happy, Plankton?
-
Cookies, please keep the women’s clothing to yourself, as I am neither a Canadian lumberjack, a woman, or fashionable.
- I think mass claims wouldn’t help until at least Day 3. Day 1 is always too random, and we need enough information from lynches to know what to make of the claims.
- As best I can tell, the main reason for the votes on Ed now on me were for his dust-up with ushimi. Please don’t hold that against me.
-
ushimi in #268 and Idle in #331 both voted for people without giving any reason (in Idle’s case, the stated reason was “just because”). This early, an unreasoned vote is all I’ve got to go on, and I don’t feel like I can vote ushimi without risking OMGUS, as [del]eir[/del] his vote was on Ed. Me. Whichever. So by process of elimination, I’ll jump right in with:
Vote Idle Thoughts
Neither here nor anywhere else have I admitted it was a “bad play”. I have at all times qualified it with language like “questionable”. Merriam-Webster is available online should you need further assistance with the English language.
I never suggested that scum would latch onto anything more than town, nor that town would not make note, simply that it was not unreasonable that scum would jump onto an opportunity and so do with vigor.
The more subtle argument to be made is that Town might not beat the drum of a so-called “bad play”, because what’s done is done, so why draw attention to it? I fear you are not one for the subtle, so this is probably lost on you.
My “scum buddies”? Remember when we were talking about “subtle” before?
In any case, you point out no “futility” in “my” arguments, because you have not actually addressed any arguments I have made.
The other “pillars” of my vote were not and are not personal feelings. I added 2 reasons for the vote in addition to reasons others stated.
In summary, there are a few reasons why you may have dredged up such a weak series of misconceptions and inaccuracies as re-validaton of your vote (For what reason? No one asked you to.); none of which are a competent town mentality.
===
All that being said; while I understand some people might vote for players they haven’t heard from, that’s not something I’m prepared to do:
unvote ScubaBen
I thought it was pretty obvious why I was voting for Ushimi.
It’s for the same reason Peek votes for him in post 333. For being over the top and protesting/insulting as much as he did.
So why call me out on voting for him but not Peek (who, by the way, said in his voting post “I agree with, Idle” (meaning he was voting for the same reason I was))?
Makes no sense.
The above is to Scuba Steve.
I missed that one; thanks for catching it Idle. Peeker cast a “me too” vote for ushimi, which I should and do find suspicious.
In fact, it seems to me Peeker has just a bit more reason for my vote: First, he votes ushimi for the aforementioned posts in ushimi’s fray with Ed, and second Peek sounds like he’s trying to form a little red wagon. (Which is a far cry from a bandwagon.)
It’s still Day 1, so that’s all I’ve got to go with for now.
Unvote Idle Thoughts
Vote peekercpa
Aside to Idle: Scuba Steve is a different poster, here with me in the extreme sports section.
Quoth Cookies:
I can only be responsible for my own thought processes: Whether anyone else agrees with me is up to them. I’m just trying to explain what I’m thinking. Incidentally, the fact that we’ve already had two vanilla claims does serve as a point of evidence (though not, of course, proof) against my hypothesis.
On another note, it’s really annoying when someone I’m voting for subs out. On the one hand, Scuba has the same role that ed did, so to the extent that I was suspicious of ed, I should also be suspicious of Scuba. On the other hand, that means that I’d be voting for someone for something he didn’t do, and from which he can’t really defend himself. And on the gripping hand, I’m now one of the vote leaders, which means I might need to move my vote in self-defense anyway.
Mahaloth, what happens in the event of a tie?
uh, here’s your quote sushi dude. you are the one that characterized your posts as “bad play”. sorry that you have to argue against yourself at this point.
Well… I mean… unless the Scum were given false claims, as Mahaloth has done in all of his previous games.
Or unless the Scum names are those of unequivocally good characters, as has been done before, in which case they can claim truthfully and freely.
Honestly, I’m agnostic on the whole name claim thing. It’s not going to help us, and it’s unlikely to hurt us. I’d do it if there was general consensus but won’t argue for it, because I don’t see the point, really.
On everything else, I really need to read this whole thread tomorrow morning - the game has really taken off and I am, as usual, behind.
hey, i don’t think there has been a game that scuba hasn’t eventually voted for me for one reason or another. so it is to be expected.
…just read the exchange between Ed and ushimitsudoki.
Yikes.
Without reference to the substance of the argument (and hoping that this won’t run afoul of the Moderator directive not to discuss the situation), I am having a hard time envisioning a Scum ushimitsudoki coming out of the gate in the way he did here. I am open to being convinced otherwise, I guess, but for the moment I am strongly disinclined to vote for ushi.
For Ed, either, honestly.
hey, chronos you can always just default vote for me. it’s what this board likes to do. look at scuba’s reasoning.
In his past few games, he’s given Scum fewer false claims than there were people on the Scum team, so someone would still have to make up one. And even if there are enough to go around, they’d still need to decide who has which one. And it would to some extent prevent them from being opportunistic with their claims (like my example of claiming an investigator to get out of a PIS accusation). And there’s a chance, albeit a small one, of two Scum cross-posting with the same claim. Sure, all of that adds up to only a small net upside, but what’s the downside?
This is pure devil’s advocate, mind - I really doubt Mahaloth has allowed the game to break in any direction based on a name claim. But any argument for a name claim cuts in the opposite direction. If names are (even mildly) meaningful in helping to identify Scum, then they may be equally meaningful in helping to identify power roles. If our detective is Batman and our Doctor is <insert heroic doctor character here; I can’t think of one right now>, then a name claim will draw targets on them for the Scum (who will have the small but modest advantage of knowing one way or another whether names are meaningful because they’ll know whether their own are).
Do you not understand the role of the word “questionable” in that sentence?
In the diminishing chance that you are honestly confused here, I am saying that the play in question may be considered “bad” by some and “not bad” by others.
That is the point of the word “questionable”. It modifies the phrase “bad play” that is the situation was questionably a “bad play”, not a questionably bad play which would be using synonymous adjectives. (Generally considered poor practice).
This particular point (that an early opening vanilla town claim is considered bad play by some, but not all players) is one I have mentioned at various lengths in several posts, so even if you were confused by the phrasing here it would be more clear, say here:
Please let me know if this is not perfectly clear and you now realize you are mistaken. Not that I will try a third time to personally explain it to you, but I need to know where to classify you.
===
Also, ushimitsudoki shortens to “ushi”. It has no connection to “sushi”, save all 3 are Japanese words.
It is in the rules on page one.