I haven’t had that much trouble understanding him big picture-wise either, but I don’t see why it follows that it’s unreasonable to say that since very many people think he’s being inscrutable, he should understand that there’s a danger there, and we should move on from the point.
I also think it’s a bit of a stretch to say he’s done only one thing that was in any way confusing or required more work than it ought to have, and I think a little unfair to read the requests for clarity as if they were necessarily affected (and again, this from somebody who was saying, at the time, that he had already claimed). I’d suggest that maybe you’re underestimating the confusion because you’re rereading instead of following it along in real time, so you already know how it turns out in the end. Maybe?
I voted when I did because in the mean time, peeker had cast what looked to me like an unjustified vote. What he was doing before that was bad, but I’m of the firm belief that actions speak louder than words, so I wasn’t willing to vote him before that point. I’m not sure offhand how much time passed between peeker’s vote and mine, but that delay (however long it was) was just the time it took me to get back to the thread and get caught up.
NAF, I agree that we want to gain information from a lynch, and if you can come up with a lynch that can give us more information, I’m all ears. But gaining information isn’t the be-all, end-all of lynches. If absolutely everyone agrees that one particular person is Scummiest (an investigation from a now-dead detective, for instance), then there’s no information at all to be gained from that lynch, but everyone would agree that it’s the way to go. OK, that’s the extreme case, but let’s step it back a bit: Let’s say there’s someone that a lot of folks but not everyone thinks is the Scummiest. The lynch is relatively uncontroversial because of the scumminess, so there’s less information gained, but the lack of information is precisely because that person is Scummy. The only way around that is for people to not vote for who they think is Scummiest-- Is that a good idea?
Nope; not at all. The problem from an objective standpoint, though, is that your vote was because Tex mischaracterized your posts. If that’s the case, then more players than not are similarly mischaracterizing your posts.
I’m beginning to see more where story was coming from, though, in that it’s very hard to fault you for that when I can see the mischaracterization as well. All in all, it makes for a little bit of a charlie-foxtrot, because people get annoyed and frustrated, and I can understand why they’re annoyed and frustrated.
And then if, out of frustration, they make a vote that is also a bit unsound factually, I’m not sure that that is a great indicator of their alignment so much as an indicator of their frustration. Which is why personally, for the sake of my own quality of life, I wish people would stop getting bent out of shape across the board, and that you would stop enjoying their bentness quite so much.
and you know you have created more traffic by not being arsed enough to watch a freaking you tube clip. tell me what the title was? what were the lyrics? how in the heck could you keep this up if you could answer the above?
so yeh, head in the sand, i don’t like the way you play, i’ll be arsed if i am expected to participate in any way that i can not self define, and darn it anyone that doesn’t play my way is anti town and since they are anti town they must be scum based on my self definition so off to hades with them.
this type of closed minded attitude doesn’t seem to be real accomodating to game possibilities.
The difference is you are comparing a lynch of peek on Day 1 to a lynch of a confirmed or near confirmed scum later in the game. They aren’t the same thing. I know you feel that anti-town=pro-scum and you and I can debate that in future posts (I am short on time at the moment) but that might be the crux of our difference of opinion right now. Peeks might be a bit anti-town right now, he absolutely spent some time pushing buttons for his own amusement toDay which wasn’t really the best choice for a townie, but I don’t see there being enough of a percentage in it for me to think he is scum toDay.
If there were no other options on the table, I would maybe be ok with letting the peeker lynch play out for a while and see what happened, but the fact is other stuff HAS happened toDay. I really think that my vote for KellyC has serious merit as a Day 1 lynch, more so since Kelly hasn’t gotten any attention for it even after I pointed it out. The conversation about OAOW happened also and I am fairly sure that there were some other conversations going on around the name claim, and now new conversations are cropping up and there is still time left on the Day. So, I don’t see how forcing peek’s behavior to be the Day 1 showpiece is any more pro-town than peek’s own posting. It’s a minor posting quirk that is being blown up into something larger. Anti-town? Yes. Horrifically anti-town? No. Not in my eyes.
Ok, I need to do the re read before I get more involved in this Day and I need to take care of some real life stuff before I do that. Later on we can discuss the difference between anti town and pro scum.
I feel like the primary thing I’ve missed over the last 18 hours or so is more arguing between peeker, Meeko, and everyone else.
:sigh:
I have no idea if peeker or Meeko are scum or town, but I think peeker and Meeko do add value to the game. Actually, I think peeker is one of the better regular players. Now, I used to let him get on my nerves and last game, I even voted for him for his ridiculous early vote, but he brings value to.
Meeko should just post more conciely and with more in depth content. Having said that, he does do better.
Having said that, I don’t find either pinging me on Day One at this point. As well, I would not be too surprised to find out a scum is egging either on.
Now, let me look at the vote situation and see what people are thinking and what I think of it.
the fact that they can not, or potentially in this case choose not, to realize it is a different issue.
hey, i don’t have a problem with someone voting me because i am me. but at least be honest about it. “i vote for peek because i don’t like him”. but don’t try to manufacture reality to justify that position. i mean that’s a lynch liar position. and last i checked that was still kind of a no no.
The reason I didn’t bother to watch the YouTube video was because watching YouTube videos does nothing for playing the game. Suppose I had watched it? What would have I known that I didn’t know before? Absolutely nothing. And since I knew I would learn nothing from watching it, I wouldn’t have bothered.
Peeker provided it after about waffling and posting nonsensically. It’s never clear what he says, and it would be a lot easier on all of us, including him, if he stopped posting random crap and acting like we’re morons for not getting it.
Maha? How can I be more coherent or deep that I have been for this game? I have REALLY REALLY longs posts so far.
To quote Yogi Berra, I have “deep depth”.
I’ve spent too much time on Peeker. In this, and in all games I’ve played with him. Something would have to have a neon sign over it, for me to change votes currently.
You prefaced the video as a response to Zeriel’s vote on you.
When I watched the video, I thought it was a defense of your vote on storyteller.
Had you said, “Here’s my claim” and then posted the video, you would have actually been communicating. As it was, it came across as a random video.
Especially since your next post to the thread was a risque picture of some woman I don’t know. Was that supposed to b e another role claim?
There was no context for it. No, that’s not entirely true. There was a context to it, but it wasn’t about your role, it was about your vote for storyteller. That’s where you failed. I can’t read your mind and I doubt other people can as well.
do your typed words mean more than pictures or videos?
holy crud, most games i play in have a video component to them these days.
if you can’t play the game or spend enough time on the game that seems to be more you directed than i directed. ok, i made a different choice on how to announce my name. hey, chronos doesn’t want to watch a fucking two minute video. matter of fact after 10 seconds it would have been apparant. but he is too important to pull that level of effort. i guess that confirms him as town and me as scum. apparantly town don’t get a movie viewer with their version of windows.
the fact that people want to hold on to that as a reason to vote me is like weak.
I think the whole Peeker thing is blown way out of proportion. I don’t find him exceedingly clear but I can normally muddle him out. That said I can’t access YouTube from my computer so the link did me no good. I would appreciate it if we kept the links to a minimum or at least only linked to things that I can access if they’re game relevant. For the record wiki is OK.
I think Story brings up a good point, not necessarily about Chronos, in that I need to reread the whole Peeker kerfuffle and try to figure out who’s driving it since I think that will be out best lynch candidate for Day 1.
I’ve got my office packed up and while I’ll be around for a little while I should be on the road driving home here pretty quickly. I won’t have access tomorrow so I won’t be back until Thursday morning.
I’m still talking about it because I still think there’s a valid datapoint in there.
Peeker ‘claimed’ second. Then he clarified 12th, after a few other ‘evil’ names appeared. That potentially could be the actions of a Scum who wasn’t quite sure it was safe to claim a bad name.
I’m also still talking about it because I’m still somewhat hopeful peeker will see the light and attempt to make his posts clearer for those who aren’t willing to ‘guess’ what he meant. I’m hoping he won’t try to make his posts ambiguous.