NETA it appears we will be playing theirs/ours in a mixed marriage sort of game here
I got so far behind on the game it isn’t even funny. Yikes.
That said, I’m inclined to agree with NAF that something feels not quite right about Ed’s play, particularly the response to Jan.
So I’m going to plunk my vote down on Special Ed.
Is this really true? I thought the meme was that Peeker is always a Mason. In order for you to have caught Peeker 4 times based on this tell Peeker would have had to have been scum 4 times. I’m not saying that’s not true, but it is inconsistent with my recollection.
I do remember Peeker getting mislynched quite a few times for being difficult.
I do remember Peeker being a Mason several times.
I think I remember Peeker getting nailed for being coherent, but that was like once right?
He hasn’t played in that many games has he?
storyteller pulled this a while back (I think he was Town, but I don’t remember for sure). It irritated me then and it irritates me now. What kind of stupid bet is that? If you are Town then you know you are town and it is a sucker bet. If you are Scum, you know you are scum and it isn’t a bet at all, but a ploy. It isn’t as though any of us are going to put any credence in the bet whether Peeker is Town or Scum. Gah!
Can someone else verify this? I have a vague recollection of Peeker calling people idiots often, but I don’t have a recollection of whether or not it skews more to when he is scum or not. My expectation is that Peeker calls people idiots whenever he is about to get lynched regardless of alignment, but I don’t know for sure, and I’m too lazy to look up game after game to check.
For my part, the one time I was lynched I called the Town a bunch of idiots. I was correct. 
Well this makes even less sense.
If NAF is Town, then he is betting that Peeker is bluffing a bet simply for effect.
If NAF is Scum, then he knows whether or not Peeker is Scum or not. If Peeker is Scum then the entire exchange is staged. If Peeker is Town then a scummy NAF is taking a bet he knows he will lose.
Huh. Interesting.
Part of me wants to say that if Peeker is Town this makes NAF Town – but I’m waffling.
The problem I have is that who would take such a bet? I look at the situation and I’m like, “this is dumb, Peeker knows what he is.” But Scum looking at the situation might think, “take the bet, lose on purpose, then look like a Townie who made a very public mistake.” It is actually quite brilliant for scum to take a Townie Peeker’s bet and lose on purpose. Even losing the bet ends up a winner as no matter what he is forced to post the underlying fact would be “I got Peeker lynched.”
The only way Peeker “wins” is if both are Town.
Gah.
Did you not read my post responding to DanceCat’s vote for NAF’s Bad Idea?
If you didn’t, please go back and read it. Just assume all rhetorical questions posed to DanceCat are to TexCat instead.
Replace “NAF” with “MykBot” too.
And thus the real cultural problem. What you say here could be absolutely true. What you say here could also be a scum making stuff up to explain a scummy move. If “I did it for effect” is a valid excuse then how are we going to find scum? “Oh that scummy thing I did, I just did it for effect and to generate discussion. See! We’re discussing it! Mission Accomplished.”
You don’t see a problem here?
I want to cry.
For my records we now have
DanceCat
TexCat and
Blaster Master
who have happily voted for a Bad Idea. Of these, Blaster Master should know the best that Bad Ideas are not a scum tell.
Have I missed anyone else? I think there were some MykBot votes too, but were those for the “soft clearing” not the the Bad Idea. (I’ll check when I come across a vote count).
** I checked, it was TexCat :smack: **
I’ll also state here that I’m quite content with my vote on TimeLady. I’m surprised no one else other than Suburban finds her Scummy.
Yeahbutno, that’s not true. He’s a leading vote contender precisely because of this. Have you read the thread, or did you just read far enough to get to the crazy-posting krayz? You seem to have completely missed the rather prominent existence (right or wrong) of the case on peeker, which makes me think you were searching the thread, looking for the least refutable case you could find.
vote mahaloth
Yeahwhut? This is the most Day One participation I’ve managed to have in some time. I’m sorry this disappoints you.
:snipped:
What’s not true? He isn’t being his usual distracting self? I think he is. And I have read the thread.
Well, I was emphasizing more that it was a tying vote, not the third vote.
Can another player from ‘over there’ verify this? And would only ONE of the investigators randomly be gifted with a result? (because I can’t imagine there is only ONE in this game)
There’s been considerable discussion on the subject. The way you stated your feelings on peeker seemed devoid of context. Perhaps “not true” was not strictly a correct statement, but nevertheless, your assessment struck me as that of someone who hadn’t noted the previous discussion. Since the general view has been that peeker is posting differently than he usually does when he’s Town, if you’d paid attention to the arguments, I’d expect the tone of your statement to be more of a refutation than the simple declaration you offered.
I’ll allow that it’s possible. Because I can’t imagine a Mafiascum game where death has no reveal (Hurrdurrburg currently running on the Geeb) or where Scum cannot talk among themselves (a few years back on the Puzzle Pirates forum).
It would suck royally to have but one investigator in a game this large.
@Drain Bead: Got you. I’ll amend my question:
Ooh, you’re FOSing me for the “tying vote is Scummy” vote? Why don’t you vote (or at least FOS) Mahaloth for casting the tie-breaking vote? :dubious:
@sach: I’m going to flip back to your and Subbie’s votes on TimeLady.
I think we ALL need to be on the lookout for voting based on cultural differences that look like tells.
Because I think votes leading to ties close to the end of Day are Scummier than tiebreaking votes.
What do you think of my point about Masons and whether or not they’re precluded by the ruleset as spelled out in the OP?
The votes on TimeLady
Sach in #211: “I don’t like this at all. Why are you so concerned about looking Townie? Vote when you want to, but this type of calculation makes me want you dead.”
He refers to TL: "Early voting tends to be done more by townies, at least in my experience, since scum don’t want to outright put their necks on the line and drive a mislynch, and would rather wait until (it invariably happens) a townie goes after a townie and they can put a somewhat more innocuous vote on them. It may be that you have a completely different dynamic on this board, so if there is just tell me and I’ll retract this, but I can only use what I’ve experienced. "
Sach, why do you dislike that type of calculation so much that you find TL scummy?
Suburban Plankton in #352:
“for breaking the ‘culture barrier’ and voting along with Zeriel (whose vote was half-joking to begin with), for her stated reason (“obvious vote is obvious”) and for later justifying her vote by pointing out how “early voting tends to be done more by townies””
Plank, that’s an incredibly weak reason, about as bad as hers. I expect better of you; that weak vote is out of character for you. So much so that’s it’s a Good Enough reason for me to move my vote.
unvote Krayz
vote Suburban Plankton
Aside: I noticed I’m starting to shift to gender-positive pronouns as I figure them out. I hope this makes my posts more readable as the game goes on.
ABWOP as I didn’t preview, @ Drain Bead.
I agree masons are highly unlikely, given the game setup. But until we generally accept that there are no masons, we have to allow the possibility. It would be stupid to discount any reasonable crazy possibility, and I’m a Fool not stupid.
Woah you guys are not understanding what I was saying about targeting yourself at all.
In the first game I targeted myself on night 0, on the assumption that having the ability to kill or really harm myself was probably impossible because it wouldn’t activate until night 1 if it was that dangerous. This was a true assumption in the first game. I got no result.
So on night 1 I targeted someone else. I got no result. This meant that I didn’t know what my power was, but that it almost certainly didn’t kill or seriously harm the other player.
So on night 2 I targeted myself again to try to get a result, so that I could learn what my ability was. I still got no result.
I finished the game having no damn clue what I was doing to people when I targeted them.
So I guess I need to be more specific here. You CAN decide to take the gamble of targeting yourself tonight (“on the table”) if you haven’t already done that night 0, but you SHOULD probably make your own decision about that, and the BETTER decision is to target someone else so you don’t harm yourself.
Then, some players will have info on what they do, but most will not. On night TWO, if you’re still alive, you can target yourself again if your night 1 target didn’t die or something, and you’ll hopefully be able to ascertain your night action.
In the first game there were a lot of people who never knew what their action was. I expect that to repeat here.
But chiefly, I didn’t provide a bad idea, I provided the best thought process about the night actions in the entire thread.
already said my fakepeek was dancecat donuts
Like, if you failed to reflect on the possibility that targeting yourself might be dangerous, after I explicitly suggested the same, that’s on you.
liessssssssss
And frankly it’s a little suspicious to interpret my post through the lens of a series of the least charitable possible interpretation of what I said about the night actions.
I know you don’t know me or have any reason TO trust me, but it seems like you read that post in a context of “he just said we should all kill ourselves, so I’m going to bend it exactly that way,” which you should recognize is completely ridiculous.
a man after my own heart <3
So basically the result of all that is that TexCat seems to be playing well and lilflower is not.