ONCE AGAIN, I do not see the two ideas as being so radically different as to justify your very different attitudes toward them, and you have not explained why you do see them as such. If you want me to remove my vote, the burden of proof would be on you, although I frankly probably wouldn’t be too convinced by any explanation you might come up with at this late date, after days of obfuscating the point.
The two consecutive sentences of mine that you refer to do not contradict each other; the second clarifies the first, explaining that although the first is not absolutely true, it is substantially true.
I have repeatedly said that, given the evidence at hand, accusing you of “driving the train” against ped was overly aggressive and I regret having said it.
I do not recall having said that you didn’t address the issue of your smudging pedescribe. If you can point out where I said that, I will happily retract the statement.
Actually, I wouldn’t call Hawk’s case against NAF strong. It basically boils down to that** NAF** considered voting for either of two people, and chose the one who is still unconfirmed over the one who is known scum. I don’t see Hawk’s long posts above as being scummy, but they are pretty much what Cookies predicted they would be: putting people who voted for macey mostly into the pro-Town pile, those who didn’t into the neutral or pro-scum pile, and those who argued against it into the scum pile, with a few exceptions that seem very subjective.
It does seem like amrussell argued much more forcefully than Cookies did against the macey lynch, so I’m mildly curious why Hawk voted for Cookies. But he did say he would be happy to vote for** amrussell**, so I don’t see it as being suspicious.
I don’t know that any of the above was very helpful…I just felt like writing a post in this game that didn’t mention Pleonast.
The trinity is probably pro-town or scum? Hmm, ok, just a second, timeout, hits the snooze button,looks over shoulder, reads the horoscope and comes back. Nope it’s still there.
Could not that satement be made about anyone? Or are you trying to say that, in your estimation, their alignments are the same?
The case against me is, I was wrong. That’s all it is. But let’s not go overboard here. Apparently, this is what I say when I “argue much more forcefully”:
FYI, when I use phrases like, “For what it’s worth”; “it looks more to me”, “I’m not seeing”, that’s *not *me arguing forcefully. When I do that, you’ll see other phrases: “that’s wrong”; “you’re mistaken”; “I strongly disagree”; “you clowns couldn’t find scum in a Mafia-run tannery”.
I do see that saying anything against the case for **macey **is something scum might do. But it’s also something somebody who was wrong might do. And while I’m impressed by people’s evident respect for my razor-sharp insight into the hearts of man, I have to break it to you that even I may sometimes be wrong.
On a separate note, I’m going to be away for the weekend visiting family - I’ll be back online by Sunday evening UK time. Which is when I’ll put up a vote.
It is being discussed (at least by me) to find out why Pleonast supported a variant. Since he is voted for by lynch-leader Thing Fish, I think is worth keeping them both talking about it.
I’m not saying it’s suspicious, but your last posts were correcting a typo, fluff and discussing the even shorter lived a/b claim: aka noise by your definition.
To be clear: I don’t find your noise itself suspicious, but find it suspicious you find you own kind of posts suspicious. So Should I See you as a Sneaky Suspicious Scummy, or Ponder if you Portray a Paranoid Pro-town Player?
I posted a quick recap of the macey voters, but since we’ll have more information at dawn, I’m waiting for that before complete analysis.
Hawkeyeop, I like how I’m slightly pro-town, but mildly pro-scum :). But what I wanted to ask: if voting for macey is townie and saying it’s suspicious but not voting scummy, where do the people fall on your scale who ignored it completely?
And this is why I take initial slips with a grain of salt (zuma notwithstanding). A lot of times we mean something in our head but our fingers type something very differently. So hawk gets a pass since I definitely know how that plays out. It’s only the follow up that can be productive at times.
Feel free to disagree because I am sure not the Mad Hatter to Alice’s looking glass.
Ok, I’ll shut the fuck up and catch up. Pleas carry on.
Bah, I went again to check Pleonast support of the ‘reveal (last nights) target’ plan and I’m stupid. I also probably convinced Pleonast I’m scum in the process (and he happily let me dig my own grave :smack:).
The crux is that the plan is ‘reveal (last nights) investigation target’ where everyone pretends to be a cop. So my counter examples of risking a doctor or vigilante being outed make no sense. My only excuse is that Chucaramentions a doctor first in relation to the plan, which I guess directed my train of thought.
Chucara’s original intend was to be able to hide investigators breadcrumbs in plain sight, while Pleonasts variant of the plan is purely to make a false cop claim less damaging.
I don’t see an obvious flaw in Pleonasts version, so he’s officially of my suspicion list.
I still see a flaw in this plan, though maybe it’s more of an issue than a flaw, because it can cut both ways.
I’m assuming that the plan goes as follows:
Everyone reveals who they investigated or would have investigated if they had some investigative powers. Only investigative targets, not vigilante or protective targets.
When the time comes to reveal, that person better have results for the people they investigated. (let’s hope no insane cops)
Now, the issues that seem to come to my mind (quickly, I haven’t really thought it through. I just wanted to get my ideas out there while they were fresh):
Scum might try to kill off people who ‘may have’ investigated Scum
We may have investigative powers which don’t reveal alignment. (e.g, tracker, watcher, or role detective)
We may end up lynching people who seemed to have investigated lousy targets (e.g, confirmed townies)
Scum will use this information when trying to influence lynches and decide on NKs.
This will create a lot of noise each Day, will we still have the ability and desire to stay on track with actual useful information, or will we become dependent on a Savior investigator.
Our Investigator(s) may well die without revealing the results of their investigations.
OK, with all that said, I’m not sure it’s a completely worthless idea.
And, didn’t I say something about allowing the doctor to lie way back when this conversation started (OK, I checked, way back in Post 10 of this thread, though I wasn’t very clear)? I decided not to pursue it since it seemed like this tactic would result in a lot of noise for a little substance.
Hal and Nanook with one post each. Blam with none. I know it’s the Holidays but sheesh.
Le Sigh
And I am so not getting the claiming whatchamadoolyhig. It just seems that those with extra knowledge will get more information than us townies. I understand that,in theory, it protects a Detecs invests but it sure seems to establish way too many data points that are exploitable by non town.
FCS, we don’t even know that we have a Detec. Story plays this game his own way and I would not put it past him that this is non standard. Not Gastard but maybe different. Seriously, look at the movies that this is based on. The only one that I really have any non drug induced memory of is Army of Darkness and that was all sorts of random.
Off to the golf course where, in theory, every hole presents the opportunity of a birdie but, in practicallity, every hole leaves the wreckage of a wounded hacker.
I’ve paused in my reread at post 213 (Millit’s defence post) because that was the last made before Nightfall.
In post 200 I said I’d had three “pings” from Night 0, two of which had by-and-large been sorted. That left only one issue to be sorted, and that was Thing Fish’s post in N0.169.
I don’t like the idea. Selecting a small group of players at random and deciding to vote for one of them is pointless. You might as well just vote at random and have done with it. Going about it the other way (picking out a group of people for some criterion – say, lurker-dom – and voting for one of those at least gives a declared reason for voting. Selecting the players to watch at random gives no information, and saying “X is the scummiest of those I’ve been watching” doesn’t mean much. There’s a significant chance (depending on the number of scum) that none of your group are scum.
This plays into the furore over his post that seemed to suggest there were only two candidates to consider; those with votes on. It provides an explanation of why he might think like that.
Overall, I think it’s just a Bad Idea, and people have picked up on his application of the idea.
I might have said nothing, but I have an aversion to leaving suggestions that I might be on to something hanging; “magic bags” have drawn attacks from the scum before. Silencing someone who drops a hint that they know a secret is a gain for the bad guys, whether or not the player really does know something. It sows confusion and noise (any speculation on what the dead player might have found is pretty much all noise).
Before the crash, I’d been considering voting TF, but that reread would have ruled him out. I think that I’d have fallen back on Macey, mainly because of his reaction to the accusation of fishing.
I was invited out last night, and am off to blow stuff up in an hour or so.
[oog]
Man, I wish I’d have thought of taking Wizard levels for my warmage. I might have been able to get into Ultimate Magus.
[/oog]
You seem very confident that you’ll live through the Night. Why?
And I’ll keep my vote on Thing Fish for now. That doesn’t mean I don’t look elsewhere to place a vote… but for now I find him to most scummy. I might be stuck with the “only two candidates”-argument. But I still read it that way and it seems like I’m not the only one.
