It would be really nice if we used something like posters’ real names, honestly. I don’t know everyone’s names well enough to follow all the action as it is, and Ctrl-F doesn’t respond well to “Griff or Gryph or Gryff or whatever it is” commands.
At any rate, Guiri, why the ratification of the peeker vote? Nanook’s vote took place a long time ago in terms of game events. Here it was:
I’m just curious, since we can’t just substitute you into that post and have it remain true, presumably, what your actual reasons are.
Are we going with fishing and game metaphors, peeker? How’s “that dog won’t hunt.”?
and what jimmy quotes was going to be my next circle around to.
coca cola and i have played a LOT of games together. cracked my cherry with him. matter of fact he might have been the first soul that ever voted me (shit, talk about peeing your pants when you see your name all bolded and blue - it was a long time ago folks).
he knows the way i play. the only time i ever get in front is when i know something and have a little up my sleeve. so here, i can go ahead and play a little aggressive, i know i’m town and wtf i get a doc role. so i play a little loose. kind of like sitting down at poker and being triple stacked against the nearest fellow. you can roll a little easier. take a gander at c3. i sure as heck would not have played that way if i didn’t know what i knew. but part of my plan was to get the attention on me and let the smart fuckers take down the bad guys. does it play out. maybe so maybe no. but it gave my team the best chance to win, imho. same here. let’s stir the ant mound and see what pops.
and, jimmy please don’t play dumb. you are past that.
you know that asking me to give any inkling about whether i am solo or multiple is looking for information that only scum will benefit from.
I think everyone was assuming that you were definitely saying you were one of multiple Docs. Knowing that you’re not saying one way or another helps clarify things a bit.
Well, of course scum will lie. That’s a part of the game. And it’s not necessarily all that bad, since Scum lying opens up the possibility of them accidentally being inconsistent in their lies. But the less a liar says, the less the risk of being caught in an inconsistency.
Quoth Jimmy:
A good idea, and while we’re at it, something under players’ control: When folks unvote, could we all try to be specific about whom we’re unvoting? A post like Tom Scud’s 555 makes it a little harder to follow exactly what’s going on.
ok, screw it. because the son of a gun always hangs low and is always right there regardless of alignment. playing slow when i don’t know for sure you are on my team. and since i know i am town.
bill is really a kind of scary player. when he’s on my side i know i have my back up.
but he is also like a testicle that doesn’t fully protude. if it stays inside you it can kind of cannibalize the rest of your body all the while looking real helpful. i mean, seriously look at jessica simpson.
OK, after evaluating Tom Scud’s analysis of Oredigger I don’t find anything that registers as overtly scummy. It’s common (in this game, at least) for players to toss out contradictory thoughts without framing language like “one one hand, on the other hand.” Oredigger pushed hard on Drain Bead’s inconsistencies on the alignment claims, while also smudging those in her bandwagon. No vote to Oredigger, but Tom Scud continues to impress with well-reasoned, pro-town play.
I have to say I don’t like this whole Claim a power role and get a free get out of lynching free card. It makes the odds of hanging a town person even higher. I mean, it is expected that scum would claim a decent, yet hard to verify power role every time time they are up for Lynching.
If we move onto another target every time we get a power claim all it means is that eventually we get to a vanilla, or weak power role we are willing to hang. This is almost certainly going to be a honest town person as any scum we managed to get through luck or good detective work will just claim Doctor, Cop or Role Blocker.
Unfortunately I don’t have a good alternative as losing Doctors et al is without doubt bad for us. I suppose we have to decide whether an risky chance of success is better than a certain fail for us?
Personally I doubt Peekers claim of doctor and his behaviour still feels off to me. I don’t think we should automatically give scum free passes due to a claim that we can’t verify.
No, that’s not correct. Both Alka Seltzer and I queried that statement.
I really don’t like blanket statements like that. I don’t have a problems with players thinking peekercpa was talking about multiple docs. I do have a problem with someone throwing out that everyone was thinking like that, when it can be shown to be false. That sounds like backtracking to me and trying to cover everyone in that statement so you don’t sound so bad.
See, this would all be well and good, except you didn’t just throw ‘a’ out there. You specifically said that you used ‘a’ for a reason. Using ‘a’ specifically designates an unquantified amount, and when compared with ‘the’, it definitely indicates multiples.
Perhaps you don’t recall what you said earlier. it was this:
