Well, you probably won’t give two whits to my opinion before you dash off your latest scribble that completely misrepresents my opinion and puts whole treatises in my mouth…again…but it wasn’t so much that the scum roleblocker was outed, it was that a power role outed himself to the scum roleblocker. If the scum roleblocker was outed, that would be good, because we could lynch them. As for how to avoid revealing power roles–too late. Three have already claimed, and as they say, you can’t close the barn doors after the horses run. (Side note: cucuy, with all due respect, that was not a good move) About all that can be done now is have any remaining power roles lie as low as possible.
**The townspeople win when they kill all the Crimson Thorns.
Crimson Thorns win when they can control the vote.
Secret third party factions, which may or may not exist, would know their own win conditions already and how they may impact or fit into either of the other factions’ win conditions.
**
Well, that answers one question, at least. There are definitely Crimson Thorns in the game.
**
Not supporting the following.**
But, Now that we have two dead Townies, they could have been converted into CT.
Not suppoerting the preceding.
**
Elaborate.**
Yes, that’s certainly possible. Unlikely, but possible.
You’ve insinuated that I was voting you for Out-Of Game reasons. You’ve insinuated that I go back and forth on handshakes, when I have one firm stance. You’ve insinuated that I am the scum roleblocker, when your only ‘evidence’ is something I have reasonably explained, complete with an offer to see the counter-evidence for yourself. That’s just off the top of my head.
You have other questions?
How could you prove that you aren’t?
No, I just said that we should fully understand why you don’t want to handshake.
For the last time, I am not buying some warmed over testimony that is completely out of context (by definition) to this game.
You are the one that mentioned Prostitute, you are the one that mentioned that you specifically had the word " win " in your role.
Can you link me the post where pedescribe says that his PM 'specifically has the word ‘win’ in it"
**There you go. **
Of course I do. Who are the scum? Are the claimants really who they say they are? What’s with the weird death color? Etc.
Well alright. My reason is this: I believe handshaking breaks the spirit of the game, that it is unfair both to the mod and the other players because it involves data that is only accessible due to a necessary quirk of playing on-line. As such, I refuse to do it.
And if you don’t believe that, there’s not much else I can say.
And?
Neither of us have any idea that that role is in the game. We were speculating on various roles appropriate to a western theme–and it seems like every western has a brothel/whorehouse/prostitute’s den. Why is that inherently suspicious?
I see what you’re saying, and under different circumstances I would not have revealed myself. But this game is “Weird”, after all, and I think there may be more than meets the eye as far as Town power roles go.
My power as Wimpy Sheriff is limited to a 75% chance of learning about any investigation. Logic tells me there is someone else out there who has either a 25% chance of investigating OR a full-fledged detective with 100% investigative powers.
Earlier you were claiming to be Vanilla Town. Why would be role blocked?
I clearly understood in LOST why saying “On noes! I was blocked!!!” did town in.
So, to not even begin to hint at that, I restated what you already concluded. **With that frame work, I Was able to ask the question I later in the post you quoted / snipped. **
Well, reading back through the posts hasn’t netted me much, other than vague feelings of possible scum/town.
Town:
CatInASuit
Leaning Town:
Meeko
cucay
Boozahol Squid, P.I.
Zeriel
NAF1138
Neutral:
storyteller
Nanook of the North Shore
USCDiver
MHaye
AllWalker
Leaning Scum:
pedescribe
JoeyP
Oredigger
Absentee:
Roosh
MentalGuy
Another thing I have seen that bugs me is pedescribe being prescient of NAF1138’s role in an early post: #146.
Can we also get more posts from Roosh and MentalGuy as well.
For the moment
vote Oredigger77
something else bugging me, I hope I can put my finger on it. WoW at some point I guess.
Alright, so someone needs to build a case. Here we go.
Joey P
138 - vote for Alka (now Diver). Policy vote - based on editing and skimming
166 - this was the vote on Boozy. This was weird - Squid’s vote for Tom was based on “voting for no reason”. This is elaborated on in his next post.
186 - seems to back off the case against Boozy. This doesn’t last.
315 - makes a strange comment about being against breaking ties in voting. Not suspicious, just head scratchy.
Now, here’s where it get’s interesting - from 315 to 341 Joey antagonises Meeko. This culminates in a vote to sub out Meeko. Revotes for Booze.
348 - antiBooze again
363 - this is a weird post.
391 - subtle poking the finger of suspicion against Meeko
So here’s the pattern - first vote is policy vote, fair enough for early Day 1. Second vote is against BSPI for not justifying his vote - this is despite him justifying the vote, then elaborating 6 minutes later. Still, Joey sticks to his vote.
Then he seems to back of the case against Boozy, but this is temporary. But a while later the antiBooze sentiment becomes antiMeeko. Now, YMMV, but antagonising Meeko seems like a deliberate play - if Meeko is innocent, provoking him into flipping out could draw votes against him; whether he is innocent or not, flipping out hinders Town. This could be a clever antiTown tactic.
Then back to antiBooze. The post I marked as “weird”, 363, is exactly that. Joey seems to finally acknowledge that BSPI had a valid reason for voting, after all that it was already pointed out, but still doesn’t unvote. A little odd, voting for no reason, especially when that was the original reason for suspecting the person being vote for.
Then 391 is another antiMeeko jab, though much more subtle. So what we have here is a player who, at best, is overly fixated on two players for no visible reason. At worst, Scum trying to drum up a theoretically possible bandwagon on Townies.
** Vote Joey P **
So looking at Oredigger77, missing out fluff and chat.
Day 1:
#112 with the comments on mass claims, lurking and random votes.
#128 votes alka seltzer(usc diver) based on the previous edit of post reasoning be it’s a place to put a vote on Day 1
#132 Considers voting for editing as fair game
#143: Starts off topic of potential roles in game
#204: Flip flops on Tom Scud (cucay). Does not think there is anything behinds TS’s comment, it’s not outside the box, but can see where TS drew his conclusion. Is willing to accept his explanation at face value but that he should be watched further. The more I read this, the more it reads like a statement covering all bases.
#234: Doesn’t think editing a tag makes AS scum, so once he finds a case that shows someone else to be scum he will change vote. So in other words, you will wait for someone to make a case later on and then switch your vote but you are happy leaving it on someone for a reason which has nothing to do with being town/scum
#263: Comment on JoeyP that he looks like scum trying to hide. Was planning to move vote but can’t justify it. So he looks scummy, but you continue to vote for someone else based on them editing a post?
#266: Is not a fan of vote early, vote often and wants to defend his vote with something substantial. Says he read JoeyPs posts but saw nothing there. Makes sense in a way, but it doesn’t say much about his vote on AS
#267: A response to JoeyP saying that constantly joining a case and bailing off looks bad. He also adds in a comment about Day 1. Strange thing is that, at this point, JoeyP has done what Oredigger77 says he would do, but hasn’t, ie. voting for someone more scummy than AS.
#276: Defends his reasoning about not voting JoeyP. Wanted to support his vote but found nothing. It would be a fair point, if his existing vote wasn’t on AS.
#352: Uses CIAS’ reasoning to go back over NAF1138’s posts, construct a case and votes for him. The next couple of posts are him trying to vote NAF and then remembering to unvote AS/vote NAF. Had you forgotten that you had voted for AS earlier on? BTW I don’t disagree with the case, seeing as I made it up front.
**Day 2[:/B]
#513: votes NAF1138 again based on NAF1138 not really putting up any defence.
#525: response to NAF1138 about his case.
#592: unvotes NAF1138, because he has claimed.
#593: Comments on all the claiming and the PMs.
Hmm: Not much to go on for Day 2, but then we are only beginning to get started.
Scummy? Well, there is enough for me to vote on. Looking over it, it covers a lot of bases, is non-committal and uses someone else as justification for voting.
Of the three I think are scummy, **Oredigger77 **is at the top.
I wrote a post last night and it is not showing up. I may have hit preview insteadof submit. I went straight to bed afterwards. Anyway, it was just apologizing for not being around, stating that I would have a more substantial post this evening, and saying that if I can not keep up any better next week, then I will ask for a sub.
Is it too Metagame to look at the Color of the game, and infer what is or is not in this game?
I mean, it’s not like there is going to be an alien in this game. Is there?
[With my luck, watch be get alien abducted tonight, in game.]
Either way, we have a few people bringing up the aspect of guns, and roles associated therein.
**But, would we expect higher gun ownership in the Weird Wild West? **
A question follows, that I perhaps, should have asked way back in Glyph.
**What is closed v. open setup ? **
I don’t know why I have to keep explaining this* Booze DID NOT JUSTIFY HIS VOTE UNTIL ASKED. I don’t see why it makes a difference if it was 6 minutes or 2 Days, he had to be asked to do it. As I’ve said before, I’ve seen that as a scum move.
I tend to get myself all tangled up with Meeko. I try not to, but I just get sucked in everytime. You’ll take note, please, that I haven’t done it in a while. I’ve promised myself that going forward I’ll answer his well phrased and coherent questions only, and the ones that just don’t make sense or really don’t apply to the current game (IMO) I won’t respond to. It hinders the game, I agree, and I stopped doing it a while back. I also found myself agreeing with others, in that this is his play style and it’s not fair to ask him to be removed from the game because it doesn’t mesh with mine.
No, you mis-understood, it was easy to. It took me a while to understand what I was responding to, and then when you quoted me, the nested quotes got all screwy. What happened was (ready, follow me)
346 Story asked why I voted Booze saying that Booze justified his post two posts later.
348 I said that he didn’t justify his post two posts later, two posts later Ed defended him, totally different.
349 AS came in and said explained that Story meant two posts after his vote for TS, not two posts after my vote for Booze
363 I apologized for misunderstanding what was said in 346, not for misunderstanding Booze’s vote.
Easy mistake, what with all the nested quotes and what not. But that’s why my vote stayed. In my mind, nothing had changed. It was a misunderstanding not of what was happening, just as to which post someone was talking about.
I’ve gotten past that. I just get into the moment, and don’t really realize it until I step back. I’m better now, I’m in a program.
*I’ve since learned that “Good to Know” is synonymous with accusing someone of PIS. I really didn’t know that. If I had, that wouldn’t have used the reasoning that I did to vote for Booze. I can’t really say if I would have voted Booze for accusing Tom of PIS, but I woudn’t have voted him for voting with out a reason.