Shoot. No offense intended. Your response is fully received. Would you care to stack rank the value, in your opinion, of the reltative value of town power roles?
If not, I understand. Kind of thought you’d be looking for dentures and doing knee massages, don’t you know.
So far story has been repeating over and over
However, it should be noted his original accusation was
and later
So his original accusation is not dependent on the sense of lack of sense of my argument, it purely based on his belief that I am trying to smudge sache. Story has started his argument with a belief I am scum, and then said that the validity of my arguments is not relavent.
Lets look at the glaring contradiction. Please note he made 3 quotes. However in my original post his quote one was followed by his quote three, and his quote two was at the end. By rearranging the order of selected quotes he has tried to mix up what I was saying.
In addition to his editing the order he chose to chop out a fair bit of what was said
Lets look at quote one
I said
I cannot see any reason to distrust what some one might say about their role prior to the reset, no one has any real reason to lie about what they were in the past. If a current scum is lying about their prior role they do run the risk of screwing up, so I would geuss they would not.
Story quoted the bolded part, and elected to draw the following conclusion
So… you can’t see a reason someone would lie about what they were in the past (Quote 1).
Explictily ignoring the second sentence.
This was followed by this
At the same time, I agree with you and cannot see any reason to pay the slightest bit of attention to what someone said their role was prior to the reset.
Sach calls this quote 3 even though to follows directly from quote one and says
As I was responding to cookies comment that there is little value in using the information quote one and three are not contradictory they are about entirley seperate issues. Quote one disagrees with cookies who suggets scum might lie about prior role. Quote 3 agrees with cookies that there is little point following the prior role shenanigans.
After Storys presumption I clarified that I thought there was no point due prior role having no bearing on current role. He has ignored that in later posts.
The only reason they appear contradictory is because story chopped them around, did include cookies post that I was refering to and the added in his own presumption that was incorrect and which I later clarified to him.
Now his quote 2 was actually a seperate paragraph which said
Sache said he is trying to flush out the quirks and catch people in a lie. Could that not equally work in scum favour, if a town is lying to cover up a known town quirk, once they have been shown to be lying they will find themsleves in a vat of molten metal rather sharpish
So I see not much upside for sachs charge on the prior role windmills, and a non zero downside, which does make me wonder why he is pushing it.
Story concluded this said
However quote one is about scum, qoute 3, as you can see is a question asking if the strategy sach was following does not carry a risk for a town who may be lying to cover up their role. We all agree a townie lying is generally a bad idea (my ref to vats of molten metal), but not unheard of. This quote is mearly positing a what if and then based on a potential downside for minimal upside as detailed in the quotes 1 and 3 asks why sache is pushing it so hard.
So once again, story has manipulated two seperate issues and tried to say they are contradictory.
Finally (are we there yet dad?)
Mischaracterised his case.
I said
So what I do and do not say is irrelevent.** For you to think some one is scum all they need to do is raise an eyebrow (not even a vote ) in sachertorte direction.**
To which Story responded
I did not mischaracterise anything, I simply stated exactly what happend, I questioned sachs push, you called me scum because…
In summary
He has no contradictions, the 3 quotes are addressing different issues
He has no mischaracterisation, I just called him on what he wrote.
He does have
Chopping the order and content of quotes,
Adding his own presumption to make up a contradiction
His own stated reason, he thinks I am trying to smudge sach wheather my reasons holds up or not does not matter. So he starts with scum, then says any reasoning is not important.
Just to add because it’s the reasoning behind the vote that always matters most, and storys reasoning is beyond contrived I will be voting for story at number 1. I just need some time to follow up on the rest of this thread before posting a 2 and 3.
night all.
But that is how it works NBC (got the network right). You deserve it.
story is driving again with assists.
Lord help the town. Unless some of our newer players start contibuting then the town is phuqued. Ah well, it is only a game.
OK. After finally catching up, I have some reason to make my first vote:
**1. Almost Human
2. NBC (Naturally Blonde Chap)
3. CatInASuit
**
Well I geuss story could just be shaking the tree and seeing what falls out, which could be a pro town move as well. There was precious little to be going on at the time and maybe my post seamed like an easy target to stir things up and get some discussion going.
/oog If my long post seamed a little ranting it should not be taken as thus, I really am in good humour with all of this oog/
At the risk of being overly defensive, the throwing smudges around is one line that said,
So I see not much upside for sachs charge on the prior role windmills, and a non zero downside, which does make me wonder why he is pushing it.
So it at worst it would be smudge not smudges.
NBC -
The things are not mutually exclusive, and honestly, you’re relying on a very strangely narrow reading of what I said. “I think you’re trying to push suspicion on sach whether or not your reasons make sense” doesn’t mean that I don’t care about the validity of your arguments or that they’re not relevant. That’s just not a reasonable interpretation of what I said. The fact that your arguments don’t hold together, don’t work together, suggests that you hold whatever opinion is convenient for you at the moment - that you’re not trying to develop a coherent argument where the pieces fit together, but rather starting with a conclusion and throwing shit against the wall, even shit that doesn’t mesh with the other shit you’ve thrown (and how’s that for a disgusting metaphor?), to support that conclusion any way you can.
The fact that your argument is inconsistent is the whole point.
Now, regarding the inconsistencies themselves, I am struggling - honestly - to parse your response. I just don’t understand what you’re saying in most places. But I’ll see if I can address the points one by one:
Really? That’s what you’re hanging your hat on here? “Yes, I said things that contradicted one another, but I said them in a different order, so they weren’t contradictory?”
In addition to his editing the order he chose to chop out a fair bit of what was said
The second sentence was elided because it supports the first. You said you don’t think someone would lie about their past role. You said “no one” has any real reason to lie. The second sentence, which I removed, gave a reason supporting this belief (that scum wouldn’t lie because they could screw up).
I’m sorry, man, and maybe there’s some kind of communication barrier here, but I simply can not see your quoted statements as anything but utterly contradictory. “They won’t lie about the roles, but we shouldn’t pay attention to what they say?” That makes no sense, then or now, and your efforts at clarifying it have not done so, at least not for me.
This just makes NO SENSE. Your first sentence was “I cannot see any reason to distrust what some one might say about their role prior to the reset, no one has any real reason to lie about what they were in the past.” No one. That means NO ONE, not “Scum.” You weren’t discussing two separate issues. If your first sentence was meant to apply strictly to current scum, then your choice of the words “no one” and “some one” was terribly misleading.
My quotes elided because the quote function doesn’t import them and it’s very late at night.
This part makes me mad. People, other than you, have “raised an eyebrow” at sachertorte. I have not accused them of being scum. I have accused you, because your reasoning was faulty and internally inconsistent. Your stubborn insistence that my case against you is specifically related to you calling out sachertorte is the scummiest part of this whole thing, and I won’t let it stand unchallenged. I called you scum because your reasoning seemed opportunistic, not because you raised an eyebrow at sach. Say the opposite until Judgment Day, but you’ll still be mischaracterizing my argument.
My vote stands.
Too bad you didn’t indicate that the quotes were addressing different issues when you, you know, wrote them.
Liar.
So what? Abbreviating quotes for clarity has been standard practice in these games for as long as I’ve been posting, and the reorder didn’t change the meaning of your post one iota. If you’re going to make up a scum tell, at least make up one that makes sense.
As I said above, I did not do this. Your own language contains a contradiction; your post hoc “clarifications” don’t change that one bit.
I don’t know what this means. So I’ll reiterate one more time:
I think your argument against sachertorte was internally inconsistent. I think you wanted to throw some crap against the wall and see if any of it stuck, and because you weren’t terribly concerned about whether or not your argument was sound (as scum, you KNOW whether sach is scum or not, so developing a coherent argument isn’t necessary for you), you made arguments that didn’t make sense together. None of this has jack all to do with sachertorte in particular, who could be scummier than Chipper Jones for all I know. And if he IS, or if he’s NOT, it doesn’t matter in the least, because either way, your argument against him was sloppy and (I believe) scummy.
To DB: Sorry it couldn’t work out. I’ll contact the subs. No harm done.
To everyone: I just realized I screwed up in my description of the assassain T-1000. So as a special I-screwed-up present, I give you complete (benign, I could post all the original PMs and their recipients without it breaking the game) info about it.
The original (intended, apparently he didn’t get it) recipient was indeed Rysto.
The PM goes:
Note a few things. One: there is no mention of the scum site anywhere. Two: The blank is filled in with the other scum names. Three: Each day, T-1000 targets someone, and the power lasts from dusk to dusk. This is different than what I said earlier. Ignore my previous ruling, as it was made out of ignorance.
Vote count coming!
Vote Count!
Complete Votes:
CatInASuit: 1. Santo Rugger, 2. storyteller, 3. peeker
Storyteller: 1. NBC, 2. NAF, 3. peeker
Cookies: 1. peeker, 2. Santo Rugger, 3. Cookies
Diggit Camera: 1. Almost Human, 2. NBC, 3. CatInASuit
Incomplete Votes:
Blaster Master: 1. peeker
NOTE: INCOMPLETE VOTES DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS DUSK TALLIES
Extra Effects:
Sarah Connor is currently intimidtating anyone voting for CatInASuit.
Totals:
Peeker: (8) (BlaM 1st, Cookies 1st, Storyteller 3rd, CatInASuit 3rd)
Santo Rugger: (5) (CatInASuit 1st, Cookies 2nd)
NBC: (5) (Storyteller 1st, Diggit Camera 2nd)
Almost Human: (3) (Diggit Camera 1st)
Storyteller: (3) (CatInASuit 2nd, Storyteller 3rd)
NAF: (2) (Storyteller 2nd)
Cookies: (1) (Cookies 3rd)
CatInASuit: (-2) (Sarah Connor Special Effect, Diggit Camera 3rd)
Sure:
Pretty obvious:
13. Paranoid Doc (blocks and protects)
12. Doc (typical doc)
Vig can take out Assassin, John can give us good info:
15. The T-800–Vig, except without suicide.
16. John Conner–Every night, he asks someone a question. They answer. And everyone hears it via tape recorder the next day.
Only powerful when used skillfully:
8. Politican (can buy someone else’s vote, would direct his vote by PM filtered through us)
9. Bus Driver (switches two people at night and who targets them)
Self confirmable, plus can kind of protect.
Roleblocker can hurt town, too, though, while commuter is valuable mostly to themselves.
11. Commuter (can hide (be untargetable) at night, can’t use power two nights in a row)
10. Roleblocker (typical roleblocker)
This group is pretty worthless, although the first two are self confirmable:
14. Suicidal Vig
7. Sarah Conner
11-7: Vanilla
Let me try to understand this correctly.
Are you saying that because, after a random distribution of roles, NAF1138 and Rysto had a quirky scum role, they are more likely to be scum after another random distribution of the roles 
How??
I cannot see how you can assign more probability to the roles they have based on two random shuffles. The other problem is that based on your argument, if we lynch one of them and they turn out to be town, you could argue to lynch the other based on this argument. This makes me nervous.
Please explain further.
IMHO, I think the issue is that it looked you were using the fact something that occured out of game, ie. Rysto not receiving a PM, to place a vote on him in game. To me, it is metagamey and looks like it could be used as an excuse later on.
However, you are right, it is only Day 1 and finding 3 people to vote for, especially with any klind of reasoning, is going to be difficult.
Ok, let’s put it this way. I agree that the Sarah Connor role will become anti-town in the future.
However, trying to propose a Town player to be lynched on Day 1 is very wrong. If you are town, why would give the scum an easy first Day by lynching another Town player. If you are scum, you are asking the town to lynch a claimable and confirmable role. If you lynch Sarah Connor on Day 1, you also halve the chances of the scum hitting a protected character and being return killed at Night. Your opinions on Vigilantes would indicate that you would approve of this.
This is not just a bad idea, it’s wrong. Never mind giving the player a chance to play the role their way. You are asking the town to give up a role, which at this moment in time is pro-town.
As for throwing it out and complaining that you are being voted for it being a bad idea. :dubious:
Day 1 role claim is a bad idea, lynching a town role is a scummy idea.
Sorry folks, not ‘lurking’, just trying to get my head fully around the different lines of reasoning going on over the last 2 1/2 pages.
At the same time, trying to get a feel for my thoughts regarding this whole Sarah Conner thing.
Well, now I feel better about the “lynch Rysto” thing - it is kind of sucky. I mean, the board was crap for everyone.
On the other hand, now that we know he did indeed have the role we thought he might, I’m feeling the lynch is more logical. I’m voting him because of that “I didn’t get my PM” thing, which I admit is capricious and kind of crappy, but there you go, and NBC and peekercpa for the inconsistencies others have pointed out.
**
When have I consistently labelled you as scum?
You don’t get to conflate “revealing scum quirks” with “revealing town quirks.” I specifically asked for scum quirks. You also don’t get to claim non-zero downside without outlining what those downsides are. If you can fathom some method by which revealing scum quirks exposes Town powerroles I’d love to hear it, because you know what? There is NO downside. Information is good. Information about the scum is ALWAYS good. Scum have that information 100%, if we can get that same information for free Town moves forward and scum gains nothing.
Nothing against DiggitCamara here, but I’d like to point out that while a -3 on CatInASuit seems like a big deal (and it would be under normal voting circumstances) the +3 or -3 with pedescribes’s voting system equates to one vote in a normal voting game. If you push it, you could argue that -3 is even less than one vote since each person assigns 6 points to people (but not the same person).
Not a big deal. I just think we shouldn’t overestimate the significance of the -3/+3 thing.
Again with the accusation that I’m pushing something with a downside where there is none. There is no downside to discussing what pre-reset scum know about scum quirks.
IF pedescribe assigned the roles post-reset 100% randomly, then you are correct, there is no correlation between having a scum role pre-reset and post-reset. However, we do not know that pedescribe assigned roles randomly after the reset. Maybe he did; maybe he didn’t.
The thesis is IF there is a scum role with a secret, we know that that role is still scum because none of our pre-reset scum have claimed a secret quirk. This is not random, and increases the chance that previous scum are current scum. Again, we don’t know that there is or is not a scum quirk, we can only fathom some probability of either case.
That is why this is all a discussion about probability. To argue that a dead Townie NAF means Rysto is scum would be a terrible abuse of probability and would make me cry.
Snipped
Um who’s said I’ve been all over the place? I’ve just gone back over everything and I can’t see it.
And I’ve ‘thrown suspicion’ at one player, Sach, which I’ve said was relatively mild hence the lack of a vote. And at this point I’m a lot less suspicious of him than I am of you.
My post about Sach was interpreted as though I were casting suspicions towards NAF - I’ve since said that wasn’t my intention so no, I haven’t “thrown more than one suspicion to the most vocal players”
I don’t have a problem with NAF being suspicious of me. He said that, to him, the way I posted felt scummy
Ironically in my post about Sach I was pretty much doing the same thing as him as I see it “pointing it out and breaking down my thought process” which might be partly why I’m cool with his post. And I’m not claiming newbie player as I’m only new to this board but I’ve definitely eased up on the style and amount of my posting while I’ve been getting settled which may be why I pinged him but that’s just supposition.
I do, however have a problem with your suspicions of me which as far as I can see are completely unfounded.
Your reasons for voting me are:
1 People have said I’m all over the place - FALSE
2 I’ve been throwing suspicion at the more vocal players - FALSE or at least mistaken
Do you have any other basis for your suspicion because right now it just looks like you’ve been skimming?
Let’s review what’s been said about me, shall we?
storyteller’s argument was that “I didn’t receive a PM” would be exactly what he’d expect scum trying to cover up a quirk to say. First of all, how am I to answer this? I mean, if we’re going to examine specific statements I ask ourselves “Do I think that scum might say that in this situation”, well, we Townies are in for a short, ignoble defeat. This just gets a raised eyebrow from me right now while I see if I can dig up story’s previously stated opinions on motivations. I do acknowledge that story has backed off on this argument, but it was on the grounds of “No, scum might just claim that there was no quirk at all”.
sachertorte’s argument is that one way for ped to keep scum quirks hidden would be to assign players who had a scum quirk pre-reset to scum roles post-reset. As non-vanilla scum are more likely to have quirks than vanilla scum, the argument puts the most suspicion on NAF and I.
I have a couple problems with this post. First, I don’t understand why the focus is on me in sach’s last paragraph. NAF is completely an afterthought, but sach has not provided any reasons why I’m any more likely to be scum than NAF. I am having trouble coming up with a town motivation for this omission, but there’s an obvious scum motivation: if a scummy sachertorte wants to drum up support for a bandwagon based on the whole quirk thing, it’s more likely to succeed if people vote for one person instead of splitting the vote across two people. With a Borda vote a split might not seem to be a concern but personally I wouldn’t expect people to devote 2 of their votes to the quirk thing.
The other issue I have is how sach says that he’s on board with story’s argument when really he’s not: he’s presenting a completely different argument that happens to target the same person. It looks like a snuggle to me. And now that I’m thinking about it, I’m also quite concerned that sachertorte, who is always preaching “motivations, not actions”, has said that he’s on board with story instead of criticizing the argument on the same grounds that I just did.
Let’s ask shall we.
pedescribe, were the roles randomly assigned before and after the reset?