sorry hoop, let me go find it and will address it.
well i thought i was clear but apparantly not.
the way your reasoning read, to me, was that you weren’t voting for plank because he was a claimed power role, right?
and at that point it was pretty apparant that plank was going to swing.
and this is where my metagame kicks in, and maybe that’s not fair or correct. i’ve played with you and you are dangerous. because a dumb scum hops on that bandwagon (why not, no to little risk). a smart scum hedges and goes elsewhere. that’s what it smelled like to me. now could you be just a townie going the way he feels, sure.
and your post at 1106 just rings bad to me. you find burb the most scummy but you won’t move your vote. and you even decry that voting him would buy you no cred. why in the world are you looking for cred in voting for the person you find the most likely to be scum?
neta: feels like reverse psychology to me.
kind of like a check raise in poker.
Town motivation rarely includes the need for acquiring townie cred.
Scum motivation frequently does.
If you are town and believe that the statements I was making came from a townie, you wouldn’t have bothered questioning me.
Since you did question me, one can naturally draw the conclusion that if you are town (or even 3rd party for that matter) you don’t know what my angle was, and were considering the possibility that I’m scum.
If I were scum looking for townie cred, voting Suburban wouldn’t have earned me any. Not voting Suburban wasn’t going to earn me any either.
Your whole position seems to arise from you implicating me as hedging my bets, but there’s no motivation to hedge here regardless of my alignment, because it’s not going to buy me anything. As I’ve said, my actions regarding Plankton are a null tell, and the actions are within themselves consistent with the position I openly expressed multiple times.
and hoopy thank you for putting into words they point i was trying to make. but you do it more eloquently.
yes, it felt like you were trying to “hedge your bets”.
and that is why i have a problem with it. because i can see your point that it should be considered a semi null tell. but i also know that scum like to be in that place because it gives them wiggle room.
i mean at 1013 you even use hedging bets as a reason to vote chippy.
i mean it feels like you are saying it is all right for you not to vote for the person you find the most scummy but then turn around and use that same logic to vote for someone who is doing the same durn thing.
Upon sleeping on it, I think I agree with this. It’s not just the timing of the vote that I find particularly suspicious, but looking back at the WoW, how he starts off saying ed is probably a Townie who made a mistake, and then switches gears once SP looks like he’s taking off…combine that with the lack of actual analysis and case-making in most of his posts and I’m comfortable voting for him.
vote Chipacabra
Quoth peeker:
I’m not seeing the connection between that and this. That was entirely due to a Scum screwing up, and catching Scum when they make mistakes is an integral part of this game. If a Scum screws up and only one person catches it, there’s absolutely no reason for that person not to share all of the information they got from it. Here, though (it’s implied), it’s the moderator who made the mistake, and in such a case, the moderator can and should do whatever is needed to mitigate the mistake as much as possible (such as swearing a player to secrecy). But yeah, my main point was that, if ed was sworn to secrecy, why was he allowed to say that he distrusted Glorfindel?
One more point on that, incidentally: Even if ed did, somehow, end up with the information that Glorfindel should not be trusted, and even if, for some reason, he were allowed to share that information, why did he? Now that he’s said it, there’s no real chance that anyone is going to false-claim Glorfindel. If they were previously planning to do so, they’ll just switch to some other obscure LotR character instead. On the other hand, if ed had kept his mouth shut, there’d be a chance that someone would try it, and he’d be able to pull a gotcha on them.
On the topic of Hoopy’s vote yesterDay, one should vote for someone one wants to see lynched. Hoopy has already explained why, even though he didn’t trust Plankton, he didn’t want to see him lynched. I can hardly blame him for that, since I followed similar reasoning myself (it’s just that, in the end, the scale tilted slightly the other way for me). So, since he didn’t want to see Hoopy lynched, he didn’t vote for him. No, his vote didn’t end up making a difference, but at that point, no matter how he voted, it wouldn’t have made a difference unless several other people switched. And, of course, there was always the possibility that people would switch.
The difference here is subtle, but there are a few points:
-
Ed stood a good chance of being lynched. Chip actually put him what I thought at the time was tied for the lead with his vote, but now have been informed actually put him in the lead. I’ve seen it happen with inexperienced scum all too often that they try to cover for the fact that they are saving a scumbuddy by saying: “Well the person I’m voting for might be town…” My vote wasn’t going to lynch Chip. I thought Chip was scummier than Ed. (I still don’t really view Ed as all that scummy.) And I said I wasn’t going to vote a claimed power role.
-
Chip’s “if Ed is scum, suburban is too” makes no sense. And he never explained it.
-
Chip’s “if Ed is town, that doesn’t absolve suburban” is completely pointless in meaning. It’s like saying “gee, this ice is cold”.
-
We know suburban was scum. We know Chip went for Ed and voted him at key points when the lynch could still have gone either way.
There’s a lot of scum motivation for Chip in these points. Sure he could have been town voting Ed over a claimed role, and at inopportune moments for his vote record, but that doesn’t explain his need for points 2 and 3. They make no sense for a townie.
Oh, since it’s picking up steam, I should also comment on Chipacabra. I can see the case against him, and it’s better than most Day 1 or 2 cases in most games, but I think that the case against ed is stronger. Astral Rejection and Wanderers I don’t see so much, but I should probably go back and re-read those cases.
As an aside, I find it really annoying when people say “vote so-and-so, for the same reasons as yesterDay”, or “vote so-and-so, for the reasons outlined by such-and-such”, without reiterating what those reasons are (or at least linking to the previous case). It makes it a lot harder for the rest of us to tell if a case is justified. It also, I think, makes it easier for Townies to get lazy: I know that sometimes when I go to renew a case, when I go back and review the evidence, it doesn’t seem as strong any more, or it was good enough for Day 1, but doesn’t meet the higher standards of later Days.
Sigh, another flood of weekend posts.
I’ll continue my vote from YesterDay.
vote MHaye
for acronymic evidence of outside posting.
Not only is peeker spewing tons of short fluffy posts, he’s not putting any thought into them either. I think he’s scum intentionally trying to muddy the game.
vote peekercpa
for showing scummy intent with his postings.
I know it won’t count because of the mod’s old-fashioned voting system, but I want to make clear that my vote for peeker is as strong as for MHaye.
I totally disagree. Alignment investigator is easy for scum to fake. Except for third parties, they already know the alignments of everyone.
And third parties are not a major threat. What’s the mis-identified third party going to do, say you mis-identified me as town? Not likely. We’ll lynch the third party first. Even if the fake investigator can’t come up with a good excuse for getting the third-party wrong, an accepted claim and a third-party lynching has bought them a ton of time.
Yep, noise and histrionics. He’s trying to drive out the actual game discussion.
I typically don’t post during fluff-only Nights, because it’s a waste of my time. I’m not sure why you’re asking me to PM you, since that’s not allowed.
Pleo
By the very nature of the game your vote for peeker is not as strong, because it doesn’t count. It may as well be an FOS. Why claim otherwise?
chronos the only point i was trying to make is that sometimes information is gained not through game play but by other mechanisms. sometimes these are totally innocent and to punish the recpient would be as punative as letting them go with the information. sometimes they are part of the game mechanism. that’s merely the point i was trying to make. so IF ed got some information that he wasn’t supposed to based on game mechanics to punish him for that information would seem to be unfair.
<snipped, bleached and what not>
do you read the thread or not? sure i post some fluff, it’s who i am. but have you followed along on any of the discussions. sure i got pissed and did something i should not have done. you really think that makes me scum? but i have also engaged in some vigorous discussion with folks. maybe not to your liking, however (apparantly).
and third parties are not a threat? do you seriously believe that? fuck depending on their wincon they are either an extra member of the town or an extra member of scum? holy jeebus do you not see how they can matter? especially if they are a killer. fuck they can tilt the game either way depending on which side they play for. and if they are just killing willy nilly then that matters as well.
i will refrain from the huge aaarrrrgggghhh at this point.
Quoth Pleonast:
You misunderstand. He’s asking if you had any Night actions of note, or PMs to or from the moderator. Since you claimed a power role, and all.
Quoth peeker:
Given the context, he’s saying that a third party isn’t a threat to a Scum’s false claim of alignment detective, since a third party is unlikely to counterclaim, and even if e does, it still buys the false-claimer a lot of time. Third parties can, of course, be a threat to other players in general, but that wasn’t the context he was talking about.
<snipped>
peeker: durn you are looking good. want to get something to drink and we can talk about your family. durn that’s interesting that your niece is taking up piano. holy crud you smell nice. and your nephew is playing soccer. how is he doing? well that is just grand. want to get something to eat. i know this great steak place that does fish as well. cool, let’s go. so when did you decide to get that new haircut because it really looks good on you? really, that is fascinating. hey, there is this new piano bar that plays really good jaz and is kind of relaxing. wonderful, let’s hit it. shoot it’s getting late want to go back to my place and get a cup of coffee. sure, let’s hit it.
pleo: wanna fuck?
and i am sure that i will catch grief for this as well but …
pleo is one of the finest folks that i have met on the internet. but sometimes i wonder if he and ed and chronos are just yanking my chain.
Oh, in that case, nice fishing attempt, Meeko, but I’m not biting.
Yep, another example of peeker producing heat but not light.
I think the fact that we are more or less in agreement about you is significant.
ok, what in the world do you want pleo?
i mean, fuck. i can’t be any clearer with my intentions and observations and conclusions. i know that you have figured it out, i think (?). i kind of have an inkling that chronos has figured it out as well.
but i will not make it easy for scum.
and if you have a problem with that then tough shit.
i’d like to revisit the name claim thing.