I’m a him :).
Now I might be misreading Chucara’s post, but how exactly am I misrepresenting it?
This part I didn’t quote, it just outlines the idea to reveal your target for next Night. Note that you’re giving away your target, not nothing!
Here he says that it’s is (kinda) flawed and gives an example why (power role outed -> anyone who says to target that player could be a doctor). I snipped the example.
I read ‘that idea’ to mean the ‘reveal target’ plan, not the example mentioned, because in the second part of sentence part he wants to ‘try it’ (the plan, not the example).
If you think ‘that idea’ refers to the example, it makes no sense: Unless someone finds a flaw in the example (meaning the plan is good), I want to try the plan (which I said is flawed).
Anyway, won’t be snipping mid quote anymore to avoid confusion, but I don’t think I misrepresented the post.
I once received a role Pm just saying: “In my game you are vanilla town”.
Comparede to that I went like this in the last game I played on this board:
No one said anything. I so get the Pede-reaction. Story can write like (almost) no one else - this is “pretty interesting”
I just have to say I disagree - I read the answer from Pede as a bit of a smart-ass asking someone to think things through before calling other scummy. I don’t think all the votes for Pedeat the moment is well thought through. We might risk a power role to claim, we might risk to lynch and vanilla town - yes maybe we found scum (but I really don’t see scum making that kind of slip, smart-ass remark and now baffled defence).
This is a good idea. I have played on Facebook and this is my 3. game on this board.
This is by far the most scummy I have seen yet. “Seems like we have two candidates so far” really makes me think we got a scum-slip. I don’t like the way you seem to only think you will place your vote on someone already getting voted for. Far to often (I know) town also think this way and you have done nothing so far else to ping me. But this is so anti-town that I will (for now) place a vote on Thing Fish.
Well, in my scenario where a scum/PFK might make that “slip”, it’s not really a slip, but a calculated gambit to cloak oneself with an aura of power role-ness without actually having to claim a power role.
Interesting. I was thinking along these lines as well. Only, I wasn’t sure if it was a Scum tell or a Townie saying ‘let’s get some votes out there.’ Too often, I’ve seen Scum swoop in toward the end of a Day and cause a bit of chaos to get someone lynched. If we have a close vote with many people not voting, Scum have that much more influence. Though, it might be telling in later Days, I do hate to see a lynch happen without a lot of input from some players.
As for the pleo/peed ‘debacle,’ :smack: I’m really not seeing a lot to indicate pro-scum behavior. If I had to vote now, it would be toward fish, but more than likely just to apply some pressure and see the response.
So, let’s do that… vote thing fish
As for games, I’ve played in about 6 or 7, all but one of them was on FB
I didn’t chime in on your “slip” because I thought there could be two interpretations. But now, not only are you showing the “fishing trip” possibility as a more and more viable option, you’re trying to back-pedal!
At first, my vote was based on a weak link. Which, being Day 1, is the strongest one I was expecting to get. But now? It seems like you’re trying to convince me my vote is right.
Total and special, I don’t know what the hell you are thinking. At the time I logged on, feeling that it was late enough in the Day that it was important to get some kind of vote on record, there were exactly two people who had votes on them. How does observing that fact constitute a scum slip?
And I did not say, nor is it true, that I had some principle compelling me to vote for someone who already had votes on them. However, although I did mention a certain level of suspicion on a third party,** Chucara**. It so happens that I thought both “candidates” were in fact worthy of reasonable Day One-type suspicion, and I said so, then cast my vote for the one I thought scummiest. What part of that seems scummy to you?
I. Was. Not. Fishing. How many times do I have to say that before it gets through your skull? I haven’t been asking anyone else to claim, and I’ve already explained why I said what I said in the first place–because I used … to indicate that i left some thoughts out. How does that “make it a more viable option”?
No-one has even made any indication of a role because of my behavior. That’s because it wasn’t role related. At least, it wasn’t until you all got all worked up about it. :rolleyes:
This is the part I think is scummy. You start by saying:
We are at hign noon - time to vote (I agree with you on that)
We “seem to have two candidates so far” - this just ping me big time. We are ALL candidates at this and (unless proven power role) all times. You say you have played before - this can’t be a surprise to you…??
You then comparePede and Pleo saying:
a) You agree Pede’s behavior is odd but
b) But howeve you see Pleo as “slightly scummier”
And the 3b is what pinged me: You should not look at it as Pede versus Pleo. We are at Day 1 - it is IMO much to early to look at two players getting voted for and thinking you need to decide between those two “candidates”.
If you did think you found Pleo scummy - then why not just state a case against him? Why did you need to make it a choice between then two?
Cookies, you have mananged to put into words what has been needling me ever since I requested an explanation from **Jsexton **for his very quick non-random vote. It just didn’t sit very well with me at all. It seems very opportunistic. I’ve been debating whether or not to vote for him because I didn’t think I could clearly state why. Now I can. Or rather, you did.
-I am not scum, nor did I “slip”.
-Nanook sorta popped in and left, but he does that all the time.
-Diggit has an incorrect idea stuck in his head, but that doesn’t make him scum
-Thing Fish tried to cleave the field down to two. Scummy, but after what happened to Capn Pitt* I’m (probably unreasonably) wary.
-Jsexton…is acting odd. I wish he’d post again since I can’t figure him out.
-I am not getting AH’s logic at all. But that doesn’t make her scummy. It makes her suspicious, since scum are forced to use specious logic sooner or later, but it’s not enough for me yet.
Right now, I’m most suspicious of Thing Fish, so I’ll
Vote Thing Fish
*Cap’nPitt was a newbie in Recruitment. 3/4 of the way through day one, he said something implying there were only two real candidates. Everyone voted for him, and he was town. He didn’t play again.
Hockey Monkey, Cookies seems to making a lot of guarded statements in the last two paragraphs. To get it clear:
-assuming Pleonast is not scum, he made himself vulnerable by voting for pedescribe
-a scum knows Pleonast is not scum, so voting him is a safe vote.
I note that JSexton called out Pleonast right away in Night Zero, but didn’t vote.
Later that Night, I placed my vote on Pleonast for another reason.
JSexton then places his vote when Day One starts without explicit reason, but he did disagree with him the Night before. On the other hand Pleonast is even more vulnerable target with my vote on him.
What do you and Cookies think of that?
Rereading JSexton’s posts, he does tell us he’s ‘gnawing on Pleo’s leg’. Is that part the scummy vibe you get from him?
And we will get back to our regulary scheduled programming in a momemt, but every zing has to have a badda bing.
What you upset about, Hoopy? Just because the last time you went down on your girlfriend and tasted me does not mean Jack. Knew I shouldn’t have barebacked her, however.
And regarding the towel, if you used it to wash your face, well then…
Let us continue.
Any further discussion down this road needs to go somewhere else other than this thread. And it’s just between the hoopster and me.
The Holidays are hectic (yeah yeah, I know it’s a crap excuse), but I have been reading along despite my lack of posting.
Right now, my biggest suspicion is with Pedescribe. And it’s not so much about his “slip”, which could or could not mean he has a power role. It’s because he has denied saying it. He has said that the “looks cool” was about the color and not about his PM - I’m not buying it.
Hockey Monkey has also caused a blip on my radar. Cookies’ vote on JSexton is understandable. Her reasoning is a little thin, but I don’t blame her for having suspicion toward him and voting for him to put some pressure on for him to explain himself. Unless I’m reading it wrong, Cookies voted for JSexton because she has a feeling that he is acting funny. OK, so that’s understandable.
But, for HockeyMonkey to just quote Cookies and add a “me too” and a vote seems a bit suspicious. I’ll hold off on a vote until later in the dAy - I’ve got a few people (Hockey, JSexton, Pleo, and Pede) to look at closer.
I maintain that suggesting ideas is never anti-Town. We need to encourage Townies to be creative, to think of ways of increase our information. Voting for players because of their ideas is ultimately counterproductive, because we will end up with only quiet players afraid to share.
On the other hand, I agree anti-Town actions must be punished. But please distinguish talk from action. Suggesting an idea is not an action–it’s increasing the information pool we’re working from.
Well, yes, but all actions have risks. Recognizing that an action has negative consequences is not enough to make it a bad idea. We must also consider the benefits. And ways that the drawbacks and benefits can be reduced.
I think I stated earlier why I commented on the slip (whatever his alignment, it’s something the whole Town should know, so that we can better react to it). As to why I voted–it was to apply pressure and to get the attention of other players. And then I withdrew my vote, once I read his explanation. It seemed reasonable. Yeah, he could be a Deadite who talks smooth, but I think it’s not enough to lynch him now.
And now that he’s claimed mason, the best tactic is too let him live until there’s a counterclaim.
