:eek: Wow. All I had to do for the last two years was, um, ask somebody? :smack:
Fascinating.
The game seems to be getting off to a slow start; we haven’t really heard much from a lot of players(post count), including myself.
I certainly hope we can come up with something better to lynch for than not voting for Leader on Day One.
At this point, however, I’m not seeing anything I want to hang a vote on, especially with almost five full days before we gather ‘round the ol’ hangin’ tree. I am wondering about the motivation of the people who are pushing One and Only to claim at this time, but suspect it is most likely overzealous Towniness. I’m not seeing at all what peeker is seeing in Tom’s posts.
Would one of you scum please do something scummy? Thanks!
So now my original post (below) not only suggested that there was no third party and suggested too strongly that there WAS a third party (at the same time), it was also a meaningless post which didn’t say anything. Glad you’re covering all the bases there peeks.
Let’s go to the tape, shall we?
Emphasis added. Honestly, if peeker had poked at me for posting a bunch of noncontroversial stuff in an effort to look pro-town, when I could just as easily have been scum, it would have been a reasonable case. I’m much more comfortable noodling with theory and process, and much less comfortable making barely-substantiated accusations. On the other hand, I use capital letters.
But, you know, as his second fall-back position, lame.
So my post implied there was no third party.
I explain that peeker misread my post. He now sees that one half-sentence (which was in the original post) as suggesting too strongly that there ARE third parties.
Seriously, WTF?
In other news, I’ve looked at the other cases extant and don’t see a lot there; Alkie’s point about not necessarily immediately lynching the Miller (if there is one) seems reasonable to me; any automatic lynch, necessary or no, seems somewhat anti-town as it gives very little information, while a vig kill (if there is a vig) could actually do something more useful for Town than the usual night 1 shot-in-the-dark.
Jpei looks more noobish than scummy to me.
And it really depends on what OAOW has in his magic bag. If it’s something lame, then he might be better off drawing scum’s night-kill to him with a (forced) partial claim.
So vote peeker for giving logically contradictory reasons for lynching me.
This lie-detector thing seems like it’s adding unnecessary noise. If it works by only being able to detect actual lies related to alignment, it’ll only be helpful if we all participate in stating our alignment. Ontherwise the scum can hide in the non-zero amount of townies who claim nothing. And seeing as we don’t even know if we have a lie detector, and if we do, his or her talents will eventually only be used to check actual role claims, this seems very premature.
I’m a bit concerned with Chronos and what appears to be two attempts at role-fishing. He’s an experienced player and should know better.
Eh, my thinking was that it couldn’t hurt, and might help. If we do happen to have a lie detector, then I have no desire to learn who it is. At least, not yet, not until you (if you exist) have worthwhile information to share. And even if not everyone claims, at worst the hypothetical lie-detector would at least be able to build up a few confirmed Town.
Your attack on Tom just doesn’t add up, peeker. It’s all well and good to say “onward,” but you kept it up doggedly enough, and I can’t imagine why. There’s a difference between subtlety and outright absence of reason.
Your reasoning for the suspicion has very obviously changed, but your intensity has not. I can’t imagine a good reason for you to do that, no matter who you’re playing for, honestly; it seems as dumb a maneuver for scum to pull as it does for town, but as a first day vote goes, that’ll do.
well, i am not sure i would characterize it as an attack.
let’s call it questioning someone on inconsistencies. if in this group that is frowned upon, meh. it’s been a while since i have played on this board so some of the nuances of this particular site apparently have eluded me.
oh, and my reasons for suspicion have not changed one bit from post one. so please don’t use made up crap or imagined vapors to justify your vote (or at least be honest about it). if confronting folks when they say diametrically opposed statements is anti town and frowned upon here then you guys/gals need to get rid of me durn quick. i just don’t play both sides very well and i will universally call people on wanting to have it both ways.
Peeker, I read Tom’s original post as, as he said, a ‘baseline’ from which to work, ie one that doesn’t take absolutely every possibility into account (which is impossible to do in a wholly closed game like this one). I don’t see any inconsistency in his posts. I know you are a confrontational player and that is fine, but your reaction to the fact that people aren’t being convinced by your line of argument is a little petulant. Why the ‘you guys need to get rid of me’ thing? That seems kinda defensive.
I agree (with Drain Bead) that, again, wondering about what specific roles are in the game (Lie Detector, Miller) is possibly unproductive on Day One. But I get no sense from Chronos that he is role-fishing per se. I’ve never been able to get a good read on Chronos, though (watching previous games) so his comments are raising my scrutiny a bit.
Questioning someone for inconsistency is exactly what I’m doing right now, actually. And I don’t really care one way or the other about whether your reasons have changed, but your statements sure have. If this is the best you can do at articulating your suspicions, I’ll take my chances since you aren’t helping my team much anyway.
Here’s what you said.
“So no third parties in your world, apparently.” was the first sentence you chose to make your point, which you are now claiming was:
that Tom was implying (you said inferring but I don’t think you meant that) that there are third parties.
Which you then followed up by saying that:
so now we find out that, wait a minute, your first post was correctly stated – you were saying Tom was claiming there were NO third parties, which suggests that Tom knows there are third parties, and is a third party. Even though you just said, in your second post, that he was “inferring” that there were third parties, in his own words. So then you sum up:
So, final answer is, the first post was sarcastic. Since your first post said “no third parties in your world,” what you were really trying to get across sarcastically was that Tom, what, exactly? What were you even trying to communicate with your “smart assy” post? Where was the “inconsistency” that you were highlighting in your first post, when you said “So no third parties in your world, apparently”? It doesn’t add up. It’s a house of cards.
One can read Tom’s initial post (which, incidentally, was made in post 131, before the Day even officially started, which means that you had plenty of time to think about why it might bother you) and see exactly what he was trying to say – these are the numbers we can expect, roughly, if this is a perfectly straightforward game, which it probably won’t be. Can’t say the same about your posts, and that’s fatal in this game.
Alka Seltzer (1): Boozy Squid
jpei (3): Normal Phase, OaOW, Fruedian
Tom Scud(1): peeker
One and Only(1): Chronos
Peeker(1): Tom Scud, Jimmy Chitwood
Chronos(1): Drain Bead
Alka Seltzer (1): Boozy Squid
jpei (3): Normal Phase, OaOW, Fruedian
Tom Scud(1): peeker
One and Only(1): Chronos
Peeker(2): Tom Scud, Jimmy Chitwood
Chronos(1): Drain Bead
