Meeko,
What the hell are you trying to say here?
**Stanislaus **is not a “lurking player”, and had already posted several times Today before you did.
And who is trying to prove that *you *know who wrote the Barn message?
Glad to know I’m not the only one who parsed it this way. But actually, if there is an Alpha/Godfather wolf, and a no-frills Town Investigator (which is what I’d expect in this game) were to investigate the Alpha, they’d get a Town response. Ergo, for any result of ‘wolf’ the Investigator would be able to infer that their target was not the Alpha. One action, one night. One statement with a result plus an inference based on that result.
I suppose that it’s possible that someone has an Investigative power that explicitly can not be fooled by an Alpha Wolf. In that case, the message content makes sense…but the wording is still “off”.
In that case, I would have said “*and *not the Alpha” rather than “*but *not the Alpha”. Also, since it seems that **Pleonast **signed his message on Night 1, I’d think that subsequent posters would follow that precedent.
Ok, this is correct.
The logic, at least.
Suburban, take a standard alignment cop role PM in a game where there’s a godfather, there will usually be an instruction such as “You will learn that player’s alignment however the godfather will appear as town to you”, right?
So if an investigative role is aware that there’s an alpha wolf and has received a result of wolf from Stanislaus, s/he can tell us both pieces of information based on a single result, right?
At least you didn’t reconcile it into some crazy idea about a Third Party investigator like that other schmuck.
My notes on
** babale **
long post referencing a stalker and some misunderstanding about the barn mechanic
a catching up post where they say
- but also voted ** chucara and pizza ** in the same post *
attempts to explain votes
vote for ** chucara ** was mainly gut and didn’t like the way chuc voted also unvotes ** pizza ** here.
unvotes ** chucara ** mainly due to ** chucara’s ** unvote of ** babale **
** although I did paraphrase the pieces of the posts I was chewing on- the link is there for you to look at the full post
Add to this the D1 pressure (IIRC babale was in the top 4 vote recievers) and my little theorie about the barn comments
** Vote babale **
They haven’t really posted this Day- perhaps this will spark some conversation
As remarked, it’s getting to the time to claim. I’m a bit reluctant to do so, because I think the smear on the Barn is partly intended as a fishing expedition, but I do recognise that I would be thinking hard about voting for me under these circumstances, so…
I didn’t get to track anyone Night One. However, someone did in fact pay me a visit.
On Night Two, I followed Babale’s tracks - with no result. I consider this a null tell, given my PM and the fact that there are multiple Scum.
My suspicion is that the Scum have some sort of Role Detective, who investigated me on Night One. They then put the message on the Barn in order to push me into a claim (and maybe get me killed). If so, congrats on phase one.
Something of a backhanded compliment there!
-
Meeko, don’t be stupid. Of course an investigator would have town motivation to use the barn to reveal a scum.
-
I can’t believe we would consider anything but lynching Stan. We will look like idiots if we let an exposed scum off.
-
Even if you have doubts, don’t you all think it is at least pretty likely the message is legit?
My notes on
** ryjae **
Skimming is a scum tell but I skim a lot so I don’t really believe that
Yah! Weirdo poster I am I got tingly because I caught an obvious skim but then upon reflection I recall doing the same thing before. So I went on to elaborate one of the things I have seen many innocent usually vanilla townies hang from the rafters for… skimming.
Only because when town comes out on Day 1 talking they end up with votes allowing the scum to lurk. That is why Day 1 unless we have more to go on than some hunch we should vote for lurkers. I made a post or two and garnered votes, how does that encourage town to talk? Just use me as an example I was collecting votes like shit attracts flies I shutup and no new votes since. So my vote will go on the he/she who lurks the most Day 1, with my vote being placed sometime today.
flips a bugger at cookies- votes a lurker-
adds this part
** bolding mine ** how often do Scum NK one of their own???
post 468 not sure how to parse this one- you had best just read it
votes pizza and adds
some self anylsis?
and adds
underlining mine adding to the discussion is a waste? – hmm
Followed by
a contradiction
One night fluff post only
As yet no sign of the proposed helpful D2 posts
But…Ryjae is dead now?
Science fail
they are in the other game too- I had the wrong notes ( atleast I posted them in the right game )
Um Who said my vote on him is SOLELY on the barn message. There are other cases on him that I agreed with, and thought about voting him yesterDay, but the barn message if true is icing on the cake. That’s a big assumption there Charlie…
Hypothetically, would we be just as dumb to let you off if it was your name on the barn?
Did you read my post that I linked to when I last answered this question for you?
Yes, it would have been equally dumb to let me go. I would have fought my lynch, but understood it.
Yes. I disagree with your analysis.
I think it’s exactly as likely that the message is legit as it is likely that Stansilaus’s claim above is legit: that is, it’s a crapshoot either way.
I understand the logic in getting early votes in on his wagon, though. If he flips town, well, there was a barn message! Can’t blame a guy for trying to catch scum!
I also understand that anybody who isn’t voting right away is putting themselves at risk if he ends up actually flipping scum. “What’s this? You waited until late to vote for him? Then clearly you knew he was scum and were hoping to avoid voting until the last minute to save him!”
I’m just not convinced that we need to automatically trust an anonymous message. If the writer had added some way, any way, to trace the message back to themselves after death the way Pleonast did, I’d feel way better about its truth, but the message was written in such a way as to keep the writer anonymous both before and after death.
It niggles at me.
ETA: Does anyone have any comments about Stan’s claim? I don’t play enough to know whether that seems like a legit role claim. The writing seems storytellerish, from the little I’ve seen. I also see some grammatical consistencies between his post and the sample PM on post 108, but nothing that couldn’t be intentionally copied.
It is just a sniggle
but it’s been pointed out before
The poster on the barn used “ ** but ** not the Alpha”
For a Town investigator that got a Wolf result they should/ would have thought it obvious that ** Stan ** was Not the Alpha- hence the result (since the Alpha by nature would investigate Town )
It smells like a red herring to me.
*
And / but like I said before if we don’t lynch ** Stan ** odds are many investigators will tie themselves up and leave Scum alone for one Night - it could be a gamble
The room is spinning now
Posting to remind myself how far I’ve read up to.
If Stanislaus is mafia, he’s not going anywhere. We can lynch him at will. No one will forget he’s been “scanned” as mafia.
If he’s not mafia, lynching him now wastes an entire discussion phase and kills a townie.
Anyone can post fake results. If you hadn’t gone and lynched me I was going to show that none of the fake results came from me by posting an early message on the barn that could only have come from me, and I would have then publicly interpreted that message for you so you’d know none of the fake messages came from me, a vanilla townie.
But I’m dead now.
I vote that you semi-ignore the results and keep Stanislaus in contention for the lynch, but otherwise discuss as normal and everyone in the game should also be voting for at least one other candidate.
Everyone voting for Stan makes it easier for scum to hide their scummy voting record and creates no risk and no comparison. I can’t help without comparisons of different players to analyze.