Well, one of us is misreading Chuckie, then. Here’s the original post again, just for reference:
I parse this as follows: “Right, bad (idea1). What about (idea2)? Might not not work because of (problem1) - of course, we could get around that with (workaround1). What do you guys think?”
This is a long way from how you presented it, and I have a sneaking feeling that your snip was engineered to point out two apparently conflicting points in his post without the connecting tissue that got Chuc from A to B.
Of course, Chuc could come in and tell me to go pound sand, in which case I don’t have a leg to stand on. But if I’m reading him right, then you aren’t, and the way you presented your suspicion of him looks, well, suspicious.
In reverse order - I’m not yet convinced it’s a bad strategy, I just let it go because I didn’t want it to become a distraction. This is the first chance I’ve had to take a second to post to the thread, and if you’re scum, of course you think I FOS’d you for a bad reason.
Rapier42: Like I said, I did feel that vital parts of the explanation were missing from Natlaw’s quote. But then again, I can’t blame Natlaw for not understanding what I write sometimes. I have a bad tendency to not click the “preview” button and therefore not reread my posts. Much of this comes from me posting thoughts, not processed ideas. This is the second time I got myself in trouble for it, but as I also thinks it sparks discussion, I’m not sure I want to stop doing it. (Unless there is already a healthy discussion going)
I’m not sure I’m understanding the “bad idea” = scummy part. I understand the votes on me right now. Before they were cast, I hadn’t really posted anything unsafe. So I suppose they could be interpreted as lynch-the-lurker votes, which I did myself in the Super Mario game offboard.
OFFICIAL VOTE COUNT, DAY END TIME, AND CHOWDER POST - TUESDAY AM
macey (7) - brewha, hawkeyeop, hockey monkey, special ed, dotchan, JSexton pedescribe Thing Fish (4) - total lost, peekercpa, Pleonast, Chucara Chucara (2) - NAF1138, Diggitcamara Pleonast (1) - Thing Fish peekercpa (1) - Natlaw CometotheDarkSideWeHaveCookies (1) - bufftabby Blaster Master (1) - CometotheDarkSideWeHaveCookies Rapier42 (1) - amrussell
Dusk will happen promptly at 1:00PM Eastern Standard time, or exactly four hours and three minutes from now by my clock. As a reminder, any Day actions, or changes to Day actions already submitted, are absolutely due by 12:45PM EST - use 'em or lose 'em, folks.
Firstly, the discussion wasn’t about a mass roleclaim it was about whether or not to mass claim Alpha or Beta status. Two very different scenarios.
But mostly this post just seems to disagree with everything but not too strongly. Could just be a new player not wanting to make waves or could be scum wanting to be seen to take part without comitting themselves.
Then this. The first paragraph I frankly don’t understand so I’m not going to even try to go there. The second paragraph still implies that what was discussed is still a mass roleclaim while at the same time agreeing that it isn’t then going onto say she’d be happy to claim “my group” if the majority want to. Though she doesn’t “see it’s usefulness”, she “feels it’s tricky” but it’s “basically harmless”.
Well which is it?
The first two posts just gave me mini twinges but this one really pinged me:
Firstly you say pede’s slip didn’t “seem remotely slippy” and it wasn’t an “important thing to say”. Sorry but it was a pretty obvious slip and it was important. As it turned out pede’s now claimed mason which was unfortunate (meaning it’s unfortunate one of our masons is already out) but the slip could just as easily have been made by a scum who had a different pm to the vanilla one.
Also people have been voting for Thing Fish for citing only two voting candidates. Millit does it too though less obviously:
“However, I reserve the right to do a 180 on either or both of you later toDay with enough damning evidence”
And I just get the feeling that when you were posting that you already ‘knew’ that pede was town.
Ok, I dig all this, but just for future reference, did I understand that post correctly, or am I off base? It makes a difference in how I look at Natlaw (and amrussel, now).
In other news, I’m going to jump on the Macey bandwagon. The questioning of Ped does look like fishing, his defence of “but he could be lying” makes no sense at all, and I understand he’s an experienced player on Facebook.
Regarding the votes on Macey. He could be scum certainly but I’ve played with him before and I don’t think he is. Having said that he always acts scummy to me so I’ve no problems with the votes on him and as cookies (I think) pointed out, if we end up lynching town on the first Day which is generally more likely than not, at least we’re lynching one who’s acting anti town.
Pleo/jsexton (I always want to add “blessed be he” there as that was the first game I ever read) seems to me like two good players with very different approaches to the game. Doesn’t tell me a damn thing about their allignments but I don’t see anything odd in their disagreements.
So anyway my vote’s pretty worthless I know but I’m not particularly suspicious of any of the current candidates with votes on them currently so meh.
And while I was voting, it seems I’ve been voted for!
I’m a waffler, and I tend to write like I think. That’s what makes me bad at these games! (But I still like to play…) I see we’ve been giving resumes of our previous Mafia experience, and mine is short: Mafia 3 and Recruitment. I won with town in both games, but they was >6 months ago and >1 year ago, and I’m sure most of you don’t know my posting style. I have trouble committing to anything early on, I admit it.
(Out Of Game Hat On: I’m already tired of seeing “that’s just his style” as an excuse around here, because it puts players like me at a disadvantage. Maybe that’s a suspicious thing for me to say, as being able to spot changes in style is Pro-Town, but it makes it less fun for players like me, who only play once in a blue moon and haven’t made it to the inside circle where everyone knows my posting style and general demeanor. I’ll deal, though, because there’s no way around it. Hat Off.)
For what it’s worth, I can address the middle comments: I still don’t see how an Alpha/Beta claim (Yeah, I called it a mass roleclaim. That was inaccurate and I said so myself.) will help us. Pedescribe hasn’t said whether Masons have Alpha/Beta status, and even if he does, we don’t know about the rest of the power roles.
If they and other power roles don’t have Alpha/Beta status, they are going to be put into jeopardy by being forced to make something up. If they distribute themselves evenly by chance, there’s not a problem, I guess. If not, we’ve given some power roles less of a place to hide.
If they and other power roles do have Alpha/Beta status, then what? Assuming they are distributed equally (Disclaimer: who knows? It would make sense though.) We’ve got two pools of possible power roles for the scum to pick from, and two pools for us to pick scum from. The point is that the scum aren’t going to slip up here. They will divide themselves as evenly as possible.
Overall, it’s a potential loss and a potential gain. I suppose I was trying to say that it’s a risk that is, at best, a zero net positive or negative. We give away as much information as we receive. And at worst, it puts the power roles in a “tricky” situation.
As far as the last comment, I did not, in any way, suggest that there were only two candidates! I came out in support of both of them pretty strongly, and I was just making a comment that it might not last. And I’m certainly not the only one who defended pedescribe on the basis of the “slip” being really flimsy. I really thought it was nothing. It turns out it was something–a power role slip, as a few people theorized…and thus we’ve unearthed a Mason.
"Actually, I have a request. Day was to end at 1:00 so I’d have time to end it; I’m leaving in fifteen minutes to go to dinner in NYC with my brother and sister, and won’t be home until pretty late tonight. If service is restored before then, and one of you fine folks is there to see it, please post an apology on my behalf and an indication that I will end the Day as soon as I am able.
It’s about the Alpha/Beta thing. He is one of the few people that was pushing for Alpha/Beta reveals. I don’t know what they have to do with the game as of now, but I know that they wouldn’t be in the game if they didn’t mean something. (Something could be story throwing us a red herring, but that is still something.)
He isn’t the only person to do that, but there is a certain undefinable quality to his posts as well that I am not liking. It’s just a little more fast and loose than he was when he was such a good townie in Marvel, and I know that is metagaming but sue me.
As I have said before I can’t unknow what I know about players, but I am not hanging my argument on that either. It’s just one more factor that makes him more suspicious in my eyes than others. It was close to a coin toss as to who I was going to vote for, Chucara just edged out the other candidates. Macey was the closest 2nd place but as time is going on I am less ok with that lynch. It’s reminding me of Buff’s lynch in the current offboard game.
And here I was going to delete the annoyed part about how I’m being Discriminated Against OMG! Nevermind, I should just play more Mafia. But now that it’s probably Night, can someone please tell me who or what the hell a Gastard is?
A Gastard is a Bastard said with a post restriction of either not being able to use the letter B, or a restriction to switch the letters B and G…I can’t recall.
But a “Bastard Mod” is a moderator who designs a game and rules just to fuck with you.
The origin of “Gastard” mods came in the Arkham Asylum game played on Idle’s offboard site.
Drainbead had drawn one of the scum (Batman and his allies were trying to thwart a baddie uprising in the madhouse). All the scum had cover roles. Drain Bead settled on the villain known as The Ventriloquist.
Ventriloquists have to substitute “g” for “b.” So DrainBead took that on as a post restriction.
See our Wiki page for that and many other injokes and information. Like, for example, the number of games I’ve played here.
In this case? Yes. I don’t think there’s any point to pursuing it.
Maybe the source of our disagreement is that you’re much more focused on the semantics of language than I am. I don’t see a strong distinction between “avoiding questions” and “reluctant to answer questions”. Yes, there’s a slightly different nuance to one, but in my opinion, they are basically the same thing for the purposes of the discussing mafia. You obviously view it differently.
Argh. If you doubt macey is scum, why vote for him? To teach him a lesson? That sort of vote loses games, and is a common tactic for scum to take to vote for town without taking responsibility for it.
