176
Forum Games / Re: Phantom Brave Mafia - signups
« on: March 03, 2008, 03:40:19 PM »
Confirm'd
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
177
Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 4
« on: March 02, 2008, 11:44:58 AM »
Rat Is Always Scum should get him lynched next time, just because!
178
Forum Games / Re: Phantom Brave Mafia - signups
« on: February 27, 2008, 06:36:07 AM »
Knowing nothing about the setting, clearly, the best way to learn is to apply!
179
Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1
« on: February 25, 2008, 12:20:22 PM »
Right! I'll start with this (by Excal): http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9714#msg9714
Okay. Anyone here who hasn't played in a small mafia game before, raise their hands, please!
Do I need to ask people to look around to get the point I'm making, here? Telling us how serious voting is here is good and all... but for whom isn't it redundant? Therefore, what is the point of bringing it up, aside from cautioning people to not vote, think twice about a lynch, etc etc etc. Except we should do this anyway, so this is how you come off as alarmist and strange.
On a more specific point, a 'carelessly left' vote? At the risk of repeating myself, I was going to be around for hours to come and said as much. Discussion was happening, which could (and in fact did) shed further light on where I should vote. This was not a situation where I voted and went to bed, leaving the possibility of a train.
Another note. While the talk of percentages and such may come down to a single line or two, the tone of your arguments adds to it. All those who noticed said line but dismissed it as a single thing to build a case on... it's not, actually. It's a line that is part of a larger argument; in fact, the most prominent one Excal had provided thus far in the game.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9717#msg9717
Of note, Kilga misunderstanding Sopko. It feels a bit like inattention, especially when coupled with posting-lite. Work, food, sleep, what have you. All valid excuses, but still all excuses. I second the call to see more content from Kilga.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9727#msg9727
Meeple here talks of how joke votes don't seem to factor, for people voting seriously and for objective observation. If that's not what he means, please correct me, but this is the impression I have. And yet, in a similar situation with a serious vote on him by Sopko and a joke vote by me, he finds reason to vote me. The only difference, far as I can see, is the order of the serious vote/joke vote. Does that really make all the difference for him? On one occasion, I get voted. On the other, he clears Rat, dismissing his behavior. This is just puzzling.
I see Alex call him out on it in the following post, along with the following:
This seems dangerously close to the 'either x or y must be scum' train of thought. If Excal and Rat don't seem like they both could be town, and have a shady interaction going between them... even if one dies and ends up town, the other could still be scum building on a townie's case and cred. Given he's voting Excal, if this lynch does happen I would be vary if Alex decided to go the next day after Rat based on this. Still. This is only dangerous if Excal flips town, after all, and he has certainly acted suspicious enough up to this point for people to pursue him. Even I suspect him, just not to the degree I suspect Rat.
And yes, I am fully aware of the irony in thinking both are scummy while commenting on Alex going about it. He just seems to take it much farther than I see supported by any facts.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9731#msg9731
QR is saying that I'm parroting Alex, and more over, that Alex had no case to begin with. Therefore, I'm extra bad and get her vote. Since I did put up a post supporting my accusations on Rat and quoting him as Rat requested, does that change your opinion any, QR? As for the rhetorical questions, as you call them, in response to Meeple's post... after reading my response, did you honestly think Meeple had the shred of a case on me? Did you even think that before I responded?
Anyway, if you fail to see it as answers to Meeple or anyone convinced by his attack on me, I don't know what else to say there. If you want questions from me... why are you looking for them in a post that defends myself from an attack?
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9732#msg9732
Now, I don't want to put words into Sopko's mouth, and given that I don't trust him as a shining example of townhood to begin with, I had to consider whether I even wanted to comment on this. But Kilga's words here seem pretty confusing, when taken in proper context. Reread the entire post I linked, and recall the case Sopko had on Meeple. Namely, that Meeple hadn't been around for... what was it, almost 12 hours? And then, just as he decided to call him out on that, Meeple posted again.
For Sopko, that still warranted a vote, and I didn't like it. But Kilga still mentions QR's absence, even though he acknowledges that she is not, in fact, absent. There is no other reason for including the line I quoted but to say 'here is someone (semi-)lurking' which we all know to take as suspicious. So I would like to hear from Kilga why he considers Sopko's actions all that different from his (and scummy, unless 'flat-out incorrect' reasons for voting someone is a sign of town). I would also like to ask Kilga why he excuses making mistakes by saying he was irritated. No, that doesn't make them understandable and give you a pass for them.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9737#msg9737
Meeple, apparently not seeing the contradictions in his words even when pointed out to him. Or so he says, I guess. I'm having trouble arguing seriously against his vote for me, when he even mischaracterizes my reason for voting. Either he's fundamentally misunderstanding the issue, or he's willingly ignoring that which he can't explain away.
Also, a related note on 'lurkers'. While yes, people have lives and sometimes Just Aren't Here, there is a perfectly valid reason to go after people who don't post frequently. They fail to give us accurate reads, and just because their reasons and excuses for absenses are valid doesn't make them any less likely to have drawn scum from Hat. Thus, given a chance between someone looking somewhat dubious who could hang himself all the better, given more rope, and someone who can only say a couple paragraphs once per game day, I know whom I'll pick.
And yet another note:
Meeple, re: QR. After admitting he didn't notice she hadn't been posting in a while. Umm, why? What kind of cred did she have with you prior to her post where she votes for me? If you notice someone has been silent for quite some time, isn't it natural to be suspicious of them? Especially given a total lack of content thus far?
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9742#msg9742
Excal, just a couple simple questions, here. Do you honestly believe that, while Sopko's vote was different from the jokevotes, it was on the same level of seriousness as any of the votes being cast right now? That it had the intent of, and could in fact lead to a train on Meeple?
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9744#msg9744
This post just makes me shudder. Meeple is being Meeple, says he's being Meeple, effectively says doubting this leads to WIFOM. Therefore, he's beyond question. Huh.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9745#msg9745 « Reply #62 on: Today at 05:43:05 AM »
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9748#msg9748 « Reply #64 on: Today at 05:55:08 AM »
Excal, with only ten minutes between posts, and Sopko's being the only post in between them. In the first post, he declares Kilga is talking, and decides to focus on Cid. The next post... he votes Cid.
How do you go from:
to:
in the span of ten minutes, Excal?
And most hilarious of all is this:
So, basically, I'm not allowed to hold a vote on someone for pressure or discussion purposes when I'll be around to later switch it... but it's just fine for you? This seemed to be a large part of your earlier vote on me. It and your curiously-shifting stance on Cid, the alarmism covered earlier and several other small things are what make me change my mind about my own vote.
##Unvote: Rat
##Vote: Excal
Shale's votecount post reminds me an interesting factoid, that Cid happens to be voting for Excal. That just makes me more suspicious of Excal's aforementioned behavior than it is for Alex to call Cid out in a post above the votecount.
Okay. Glancing at the thread, remaining posts and my available time, I'm deciding to pause here. By my count, this brings Excal to 4 votes, and thus to -1 to hammer.
Unless my math fails, Excal is now -1 to HAMMER.
To summarize for those intimidated by longer posts, Excal gets my vote and Kilga&Meeple don't look so hot to me for reasons stated (mainly committing mistakes, brushing off the committing of mistakes and the like). Rat still takes the #2 spot for me, but to be fair I had to stop before I read his response to my previous largish post to him. It is not outside the realm of possible that whatever content he had there (I only skimmed the posts past my stopping point for votes to make sure I wouldn't hammer) would relieve some of my suspicions towards him. Alex... would look bad in the specific situation I described, but there's nothing to go on with him so far, I feel. Cid needs to be around more, QR needs to be around more (I'm talking content quality and not quantity, to avoid getting into the 'lurker!' slapfest over QR's legitimate absenses). It troubles me that I forgot Sopko in the summary before I glanced over the thread again. Definitely someone to look over when I get the chance, as we probably agree more than I'm comfortable with when dealing with unknowns in mafia games.
Quote
To your first point, Cid. Do you honestly think there's any benefit to be had in hiding the exact weight our votes hold? If it is alarmist, then I humbly apologise for playing upon the fears of others without any intention to do so. But, I think that in a small game such as this, it is important that we recall that our votes are more effective than they would be in a larger game. And I wish to minimise the risk that a carelessly left vote will alter things needlessly. Especially since it could easily either be a careless town move, or a clever scum tactic playing upon that ambiguity. And I will say this to all of you who have commented on my use of 20%. Hiding from the power of our votes does not help town. Bringing it up as a reminder is there to promote a sense of responsibility, and not to encourage a dread of doing what must be done. (As an aside to Sopko specifically, if it's five votes to hammer, then I'm not overstating, I clarifying exactly what our vote means)
Okay. Anyone here who hasn't played in a small mafia game before, raise their hands, please!
Do I need to ask people to look around to get the point I'm making, here? Telling us how serious voting is here is good and all... but for whom isn't it redundant? Therefore, what is the point of bringing it up, aside from cautioning people to not vote, think twice about a lynch, etc etc etc. Except we should do this anyway, so this is how you come off as alarmist and strange.
On a more specific point, a 'carelessly left' vote? At the risk of repeating myself, I was going to be around for hours to come and said as much. Discussion was happening, which could (and in fact did) shed further light on where I should vote. This was not a situation where I voted and went to bed, leaving the possibility of a train.
Another note. While the talk of percentages and such may come down to a single line or two, the tone of your arguments adds to it. All those who noticed said line but dismissed it as a single thing to build a case on... it's not, actually. It's a line that is part of a larger argument; in fact, the most prominent one Excal had provided thus far in the game.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9717#msg9717
Of note, Kilga misunderstanding Sopko. It feels a bit like inattention, especially when coupled with posting-lite. Work, food, sleep, what have you. All valid excuses, but still all excuses. I second the call to see more content from Kilga.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9727#msg9727
Meeple here talks of how joke votes don't seem to factor, for people voting seriously and for objective observation. If that's not what he means, please correct me, but this is the impression I have. And yet, in a similar situation with a serious vote on him by Sopko and a joke vote by me, he finds reason to vote me. The only difference, far as I can see, is the order of the serious vote/joke vote. Does that really make all the difference for him? On one occasion, I get voted. On the other, he clears Rat, dismissing his behavior. This is just puzzling.
I see Alex call him out on it in the following post, along with the following:
Quote
I should clarify, then, and say that I'm not seeing a link that explicitly points towards them being scum together. I am seeing a link of interaction that doesn't look like town+town.
This seems dangerously close to the 'either x or y must be scum' train of thought. If Excal and Rat don't seem like they both could be town, and have a shady interaction going between them... even if one dies and ends up town, the other could still be scum building on a townie's case and cred. Given he's voting Excal, if this lynch does happen I would be vary if Alex decided to go the next day after Rat based on this. Still. This is only dangerous if Excal flips town, after all, and he has certainly acted suspicious enough up to this point for people to pursue him. Even I suspect him, just not to the degree I suspect Rat.
And yes, I am fully aware of the irony in thinking both are scummy while commenting on Alex going about it. He just seems to take it much farther than I see supported by any facts.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9731#msg9731
QR is saying that I'm parroting Alex, and more over, that Alex had no case to begin with. Therefore, I'm extra bad and get her vote. Since I did put up a post supporting my accusations on Rat and quoting him as Rat requested, does that change your opinion any, QR? As for the rhetorical questions, as you call them, in response to Meeple's post... after reading my response, did you honestly think Meeple had the shred of a case on me? Did you even think that before I responded?
Anyway, if you fail to see it as answers to Meeple or anyone convinced by his attack on me, I don't know what else to say there. If you want questions from me... why are you looking for them in a post that defends myself from an attack?
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9732#msg9732
Quote
And QR posts just as I was about to call her out. Oh well. :V
Now, I don't want to put words into Sopko's mouth, and given that I don't trust him as a shining example of townhood to begin with, I had to consider whether I even wanted to comment on this. But Kilga's words here seem pretty confusing, when taken in proper context. Reread the entire post I linked, and recall the case Sopko had on Meeple. Namely, that Meeple hadn't been around for... what was it, almost 12 hours? And then, just as he decided to call him out on that, Meeple posted again.
For Sopko, that still warranted a vote, and I didn't like it. But Kilga still mentions QR's absence, even though he acknowledges that she is not, in fact, absent. There is no other reason for including the line I quoted but to say 'here is someone (semi-)lurking' which we all know to take as suspicious. So I would like to hear from Kilga why he considers Sopko's actions all that different from his (and scummy, unless 'flat-out incorrect' reasons for voting someone is a sign of town). I would also like to ask Kilga why he excuses making mistakes by saying he was irritated. No, that doesn't make them understandable and give you a pass for them.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9737#msg9737
Meeple, apparently not seeing the contradictions in his words even when pointed out to him. Or so he says, I guess. I'm having trouble arguing seriously against his vote for me, when he even mischaracterizes my reason for voting. Either he's fundamentally misunderstanding the issue, or he's willingly ignoring that which he can't explain away.
Also, a related note on 'lurkers'. While yes, people have lives and sometimes Just Aren't Here, there is a perfectly valid reason to go after people who don't post frequently. They fail to give us accurate reads, and just because their reasons and excuses for absenses are valid doesn't make them any less likely to have drawn scum from Hat. Thus, given a chance between someone looking somewhat dubious who could hang himself all the better, given more rope, and someone who can only say a couple paragraphs once per game day, I know whom I'll pick.
And yet another note:
Quote
(no, wasn't suspicious of her, just weighing in on what she said.)
Meeple, re: QR. After admitting he didn't notice she hadn't been posting in a while. Umm, why? What kind of cred did she have with you prior to her post where she votes for me? If you notice someone has been silent for quite some time, isn't it natural to be suspicious of them? Especially given a total lack of content thus far?
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9742#msg9742
Excal, just a couple simple questions, here. Do you honestly believe that, while Sopko's vote was different from the jokevotes, it was on the same level of seriousness as any of the votes being cast right now? That it had the intent of, and could in fact lead to a train on Meeple?
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9744#msg9744
This post just makes me shudder. Meeple is being Meeple, says he's being Meeple, effectively says doubting this leads to WIFOM. Therefore, he's beyond question. Huh.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9745#msg9745 « Reply #62 on: Today at 05:43:05 AM »
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9748#msg9748 « Reply #64 on: Today at 05:55:08 AM »
Excal, with only ten minutes between posts, and Sopko's being the only post in between them. In the first post, he declares Kilga is talking, and decides to focus on Cid. The next post... he votes Cid.
How do you go from:
Quote
This silence is unbecoming of someone who would help town, so please speak and share your thoughts. There's so much being said, and almost certainly a few interesting tidbits that aren't being said, but should be. And I'd hate to see you slip into that second category.
to:
Quote
That said, given that we're at about 13 hours remaining, I am beginning to get more suspicious of El Cid, who has only made one post with any real content, and even then the content was slim.
in the span of ten minutes, Excal?
And most hilarious of all is this:
Quote
So... For the time being, and since I will be around when the deadline hits...
So, basically, I'm not allowed to hold a vote on someone for pressure or discussion purposes when I'll be around to later switch it... but it's just fine for you? This seemed to be a large part of your earlier vote on me. It and your curiously-shifting stance on Cid, the alarmism covered earlier and several other small things are what make me change my mind about my own vote.
##Unvote: Rat
##Vote: Excal
Shale's votecount post reminds me an interesting factoid, that Cid happens to be voting for Excal. That just makes me more suspicious of Excal's aforementioned behavior than it is for Alex to call Cid out in a post above the votecount.
Okay. Glancing at the thread, remaining posts and my available time, I'm deciding to pause here. By my count, this brings Excal to 4 votes, and thus to -1 to hammer.
Unless my math fails, Excal is now -1 to HAMMER.
To summarize for those intimidated by longer posts, Excal gets my vote and Kilga&Meeple don't look so hot to me for reasons stated (mainly committing mistakes, brushing off the committing of mistakes and the like). Rat still takes the #2 spot for me, but to be fair I had to stop before I read his response to my previous largish post to him. It is not outside the realm of possible that whatever content he had there (I only skimmed the posts past my stopping point for votes to make sure I wouldn't hammer) would relieve some of my suspicions towards him. Alex... would look bad in the specific situation I described, but there's nothing to go on with him so far, I feel. Cid needs to be around more, QR needs to be around more (I'm talking content quality and not quantity, to avoid getting into the 'lurker!' slapfest over QR's legitimate absenses). It troubles me that I forgot Sopko in the summary before I glanced over the thread again. Definitely someone to look over when I get the chance, as we probably agree more than I'm comfortable with when dealing with unknowns in mafia games.
180
Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1
« on: February 25, 2008, 07:15:30 AM »Quote
Can someone try to point out exactly how I'm pulling this discussion-stifling thing? It seems like Alex said one thing that's pretty damn unfair to say and everyone else is nodding along with it.
Sure thing, allow me.
How about:
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9673#msg9673
Quote
Beyond that- and I was mainly echoing Excal before, I realise- I find it strange that when I look at both yourself and Sopko, neither of you are actually saying anything much.
I pretty much used the same quote in the post I mentioned 'stifling', but if the word really troubles you, I can find a suitable synonym. You are basically jumping at two people trying to get things started, and quite hypocritically at that. My main attack on you was that for all your talk, what have you brought to the table that's new? You go on attacking both myself and Sopko for finding our reasons for the Meeple votes in question flimsy for different reasons, repeatedly attacking our lack of participation.
Again, from the same post:
Quote
Neither of you have really brought much new to the table since; to be fair, there hasn't been much time, and a lot of people have yet to weigh in. Still, it's odd that the two who seemed most keen to get discussion started have said the least, at least until they're actually questioned.
Obligatory disclaimers about fairness cast aside, hypocrisy doesn't really look good to me. Your entire input up to that point was questioning the two people who tried to get discussion going, voting for one of them and calling the other into suspicion. You are echoing Excal, who keeps on going gravely about the dire consequences of our votes in percentages and other scary things. So yes, let's apply your own standards to yourself.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9662#msg9662
Quote
Alex: I'm hardly stifling serious discussion. I do have a view on the transition from 'jokevote' to 'serious' that indicates it doesn't usually just happen spontaneously because someone suggests it, but it's not like I told Cor "No! We Cannot Do That!" and did nothing to create discussion myself.
This is an earlier post. Yes, you protest Alex's characterization. And the proof you bring is... what, exactly? That you used a vote on Sopko, whom you considered mildly scummy. Which is what Sopko did to Meeple. Except you disagreed it actually created discussion then.
Quote
I never called him out on starting discussion. It's his reason that raised my eyebrow.
"I never did this openly. I found some flimsy reason to attach to this, instead, which makes it all okay."
In any case. You yourself note that there are still many people yet to weigh in. And yet, the two you choose to go after are those that are actually posting and trying to get things going. If that and the rest don't give the impression of trying to clamp down on discussion by punishing anyone daring to step out of line and go past the joke stage, what exactly would? "I want to joke around more, so I'm voting for the people who try to go past it." <-- this?
Okay. This is a response to my latest post to date: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9699#msg9699
You never address me calling you out on where you got the idea that my actions somehow stemmed from a desire to avoid looking bad. You started with that accusation in a previous post, but this one curiously omits it as it finds other things suddenly more pressing. As matter of fact, I can't see how visibly placing myself in the center of attention and then sticking to my idea is somehow deliberate avoidance of looking bad, when waiting until someone is scummy enough to warrant a real vote is quite unpopular around the players here.
Quote
What I've brought to the table? Let's see, I attacked Soppy for flimsy reasoning, responded to your attempt to start discussion with actual questions rather than simply going 'yeah, discussion would be nice!', was forced to defend my position and did so, and both elaborated on the position Excal took, which I agreed with, and pointed out that for people trying to push the whole 'let's discuss things!' angle have *not really furthered this themselves*
The stifling thing snipped due to me covering it above. And honestly, why must you bring it up all the time, sometimes several times in a post? You just seem to protest a bit too much.
Okay. So your stated contribution to discussion is attacking the people who tried to start it, defending yourself, agreeing with another player and going on about how you are this awesome person that contributes while the others pretty much don't. And I even managed to type this with a straight face. Up until your recent post voting for Meeple, I can't see anything remotely unique in your posts. Unlike Alex, I should be around for the deadline, so I'm not moving my vote yet. There is ample time to do this.
A brief comment on said post of Rat's: while I agreed that Sopko's reasons didn't look so hot, I disagreed with voting based on it and said as much. I don't see how that contradicts any of my views, since I don't fault you for having valid suspicions, but for what you did with them.
And this post ended up being all about Rat. I'll cover the rest in another.
181
Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1
« on: February 24, 2008, 04:49:19 PM »
I... cannot find the words to respond to our cook. The mouth opens, but nothing comes out but blessed silence. Have I successfully debated myself into a standstill, trying to formulate a response?
"Person A defended me! Person B used me as a convenient prop earlier, and is now attacking Person A! Clearly, I must vote Person B!"
If there was more in the reasoning for that vote, I'm afraid this humble maid managed to miss it. All I saw, as it happens, were just misrepresentations of my actions and the situation, followed by some sort of OMGUS/gut feel unholy hybrid. Our dear Colonel is an easy target? Jokevotes must be instantly removed as soon as a hint of seriousness appears, even if they cause no trains and the voter has no better targets at that time? I only voted seriously after being told it was scummy to do the former? Being occupied with a jokevote reason that holds no relevance for most of the paragraph dealing with me? What, what, what, what.
And I don't even want to get into bringing old game grudges into consideration, as someone who shall remain unnamed seemed to do, just barely avoiding a vote based on them.
"Person A defended me! Person B used me as a convenient prop earlier, and is now attacking Person A! Clearly, I must vote Person B!"
If there was more in the reasoning for that vote, I'm afraid this humble maid managed to miss it. All I saw, as it happens, were just misrepresentations of my actions and the situation, followed by some sort of OMGUS/gut feel unholy hybrid. Our dear Colonel is an easy target? Jokevotes must be instantly removed as soon as a hint of seriousness appears, even if they cause no trains and the voter has no better targets at that time? I only voted seriously after being told it was scummy to do the former? Being occupied with a jokevote reason that holds no relevance for most of the paragraph dealing with me? What, what, what, what.
And I don't even want to get into bringing old game grudges into consideration, as someone who shall remain unnamed seemed to do, just barely avoiding a vote based on them.
182
Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1
« on: February 24, 2008, 01:12:53 PM »
Then I misunderstood the quip about the -2 to hammer, I see. Still, I cannot help but still see you trying to frame the vote in terms of intimidating numbers (such as '20%') rather than what it is, a second vote nowhere near to starting a train, as equally worrisome as you might see your own concerns about me.
While it is quite likely I would not be around when this bulk of argumentation is likely to happen, such was not the case for the time of my previous posts. I should be available for the next six hours at least, barring having to clean up someone's mess and thus unable to contribute meaningfully in that time. I certainly saw no reason to jump around with my vote, as I had plenty of time yet to decide on its final destination.
Looking good or bad really has nothing to do with it. Making certain I place my vote where I want it to be is. As long as our butler was talking, that allowed me to weigh his case vs that of our Mrs. White before deciding at last. Additionally, the Colonel's hypocritical remarks cause me to consider him as well, in turn. While, by his own admission, his recent contribution consists of echoing our dear butler, he then turns to accuse me of not bringing much to the table as of late.
In fact, the more I think about this, the more curious I get. Dear Colonel, what have you done, aside from trying to stifle that spark of serious discussion and arguing with Miss Scarlet over this. Afterwards, you have attacked both myself and Mrs. White for flimsy reasoning, which looks all the more puzzling as our stated reasons for our votes were, in fact, quite opposite to one another. Mrs. White is genuinely suspicious of our cook, for reasons I myself agree are disturbingly spurious. However, I merely used that vote as a tool to try and get us to this stage, before I can decide on a serious one. And yet, you attack both of us equally? It seems as if you are searching for a, as the military calls it, I hear, soft target.
##Unvote: Meeple
##Vote: Rat
Am I convinced of your guilt quite strongly? Not as of yet. However, I do find your actions to be the most suspicious so far.
While it is quite likely I would not be around when this bulk of argumentation is likely to happen, such was not the case for the time of my previous posts. I should be available for the next six hours at least, barring having to clean up someone's mess and thus unable to contribute meaningfully in that time. I certainly saw no reason to jump around with my vote, as I had plenty of time yet to decide on its final destination.
Looking good or bad really has nothing to do with it. Making certain I place my vote where I want it to be is. As long as our butler was talking, that allowed me to weigh his case vs that of our Mrs. White before deciding at last. Additionally, the Colonel's hypocritical remarks cause me to consider him as well, in turn. While, by his own admission, his recent contribution consists of echoing our dear butler, he then turns to accuse me of not bringing much to the table as of late.
In fact, the more I think about this, the more curious I get. Dear Colonel, what have you done, aside from trying to stifle that spark of serious discussion and arguing with Miss Scarlet over this. Afterwards, you have attacked both myself and Mrs. White for flimsy reasoning, which looks all the more puzzling as our stated reasons for our votes were, in fact, quite opposite to one another. Mrs. White is genuinely suspicious of our cook, for reasons I myself agree are disturbingly spurious. However, I merely used that vote as a tool to try and get us to this stage, before I can decide on a serious one. And yet, you attack both of us equally? It seems as if you are searching for a, as the military calls it, I hear, soft target.
##Unvote: Meeple
##Vote: Rat
Am I convinced of your guilt quite strongly? Not as of yet. However, I do find your actions to be the most suspicious so far.
183
Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1
« on: February 24, 2008, 11:32:13 AM »
Portraying a second vote in terms of -2 to hammer is quite the mischaracterization, I'm afraid. It also looks quite nasty, even though three people would actually be needed to the majority. The only way to avoid this... why, it is not to vote in any meaningful fashion!
And how duplitious it is to both name my reason for not moving my vote, and yet condemn me for it! My vote is just fine where it is, until and unless I either find someone suspicious enough to truly warrant it, or things escalate to a train I do not agree with. What other possible reasons could there be for withdrawing a vote?
While it is true that I find Mrs. White the most suspicious, so far, it is not quite at the level of wanting to vote for her. And certainly not when my vote would have been the third, thus placing her within hammer reach. Now that you have deigned to unvote her, I will reconsider my stance, a decision complicated by not being entirely convinced with your reasons for striking at this poor, defenseless maid.
Quote
Only four people have made serious posts so far, and three of those votes I can understand even if I don't find them persuasive enough for a vote.
And how duplitious it is to both name my reason for not moving my vote, and yet condemn me for it! My vote is just fine where it is, until and unless I either find someone suspicious enough to truly warrant it, or things escalate to a train I do not agree with. What other possible reasons could there be for withdrawing a vote?
While it is true that I find Mrs. White the most suspicious, so far, it is not quite at the level of wanting to vote for her. And certainly not when my vote would have been the third, thus placing her within hammer reach. Now that you have deigned to unvote her, I will reconsider my stance, a decision complicated by not being entirely convinced with your reasons for striking at this poor, defenseless maid.
184
Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1
« on: February 24, 2008, 10:13:25 AM »
I believe what the Colonel is referring to is:
« Reply #18 on: Today at 07:28:48 AM » by Meeplelard
« Reply #19 on: Today at 08:07:14 AM » by Hunter Sopko
And this is indeed less than an hour's difference. However, the distance is great enough that I would not presume to call our cook a ninja. His post was quite likely seen by our Mrs. White before her vote on him, which seems to create a certain discrepancy in her characterization of him flying under the radar.
« Reply #18 on: Today at 07:28:48 AM » by Meeplelard
« Reply #19 on: Today at 08:07:14 AM » by Hunter Sopko
And this is indeed less than an hour's difference. However, the distance is great enough that I would not presume to call our cook a ninja. His post was quite likely seen by our Mrs. White before her vote on him, which seems to create a certain discrepancy in her characterization of him flying under the radar.
185
Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1
« on: February 24, 2008, 08:43:43 AM »
Semantics, my dear Colonel. Clearly, there is progress where there had been none before. As for the vote of our very own black widow? The reasoning is spurious, as it tries to cloak itself in legitimacy it clearly lacks.
186
Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1
« on: February 24, 2008, 08:16:48 AM »
And yet, the transition really was instanteneous this time, was it not, Colonel?
As for why the cook, specifically... there is no real reason other than the stated one.
As for why the cook, specifically... there is no real reason other than the stated one.
187
Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1
« on: February 24, 2008, 07:30:39 AM »Quote
Every wish?
Oui, Professor. Are you in need of my services?
##Vote: Meeple for surely spoiling the ending. Also, why not use this chance to start a more serious debate, as our cook is pushed ahead of others?
188
Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1
« on: February 23, 2008, 05:56:42 PM »
Ah-hah! A fellow employee of the late Master Boddy, I see! My, my. Don't you recognize me? I am the humble maid, as it so happens, here to cater to every wish and desire our guests might possibly have.
189
Forum Games / Re: Small game signups: Clue Mafia
« on: February 23, 2008, 08:17:03 AM »
Last to confirm, I suppose?
190
Forum Games / Re: Classical Composer Mafia: Early signups
« on: February 22, 2008, 04:10:13 PM »
And on that note, SK please! I'll make my own brand of music!
191
Forum Games / Re: Classical Composer Mafia: Early signups
« on: February 22, 2008, 10:02:57 AM »
Excal needs to be quoted for truth.
193
Forum Games / Re: Within a Deep Mafia Forest - Game Topic (Day 3)
« on: February 21, 2008, 11:23:51 AM »
Andew. Scum. 100%. Come on! He was slipping from day 1!
194
Forum Games / Re: Within a Deep Mafia Forest - Game Topic (Day 3)
« on: February 21, 2008, 07:05:55 AM »
Yes, that much is obvious.
Otter (2): Yakumo, Nitori
Yakumo (2): Otter, Andrew
Andrew (2): Corwin, Dhyer
1)
Otter = scum => Yakumo/Nitori = inconclusive
Otter = town => Yakumo=Nitori=scum
2)
Yakumo = scum => Otter/Andrew = inconclusive
Yakumo = town => Otter=Andrew=scum
3)
Andrew = scum => Corwin/Dhyer = inconclusive
Andrew = town => Corwin=Dhyer=scum=unpossible!!!!11one => Andrew is scum
Here it is for the lazy people who can't be bothered to draw their own logical conclusions. Or even post. Despite being mentored.
Otter (2): Yakumo, Nitori
Yakumo (2): Otter, Andrew
Andrew (2): Corwin, Dhyer
1)
Otter = scum => Yakumo/Nitori = inconclusive
Otter = town => Yakumo=Nitori=scum
2)
Yakumo = scum => Otter/Andrew = inconclusive
Yakumo = town => Otter=Andrew=scum
3)
Andrew = scum => Corwin/Dhyer = inconclusive
Andrew = town => Corwin=Dhyer=scum=unpossible!!!!11one => Andrew is scum
Here it is for the lazy people who can't be bothered to draw their own logical conclusions. Or even post. Despite being mentored.
195
Forum Games / Re: Within a Deep Mafia Forest - Game Topic (Day 3)
« on: February 21, 2008, 06:58:57 AM »
Yes, let's just let it end. Unless you guys think I'm a lying loser this is pretty much word of god that Andrew = scum. On top of all the other evidence.
196
Forum Games / Re: Within a Deep Mafia Forest - Game Topic (Day 3)
« on: February 21, 2008, 06:18:38 AM »
Don't have much time, only skimmed the recent posts, and this jumped at me:
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=375.msg9203#msg9203
Andrew:
Andrew, once more:
Okay! I'm voting Andrew, and he doesn't list me amongst his suspected scum. He also refrained from seriously attacking me today. Is this an unintended admission of guilt?
Whatever. If scum are going for a bussing strategy today, let's go for that and net us a scum in the form of Andrew and some breathing space. If scum are trying to divert the lynch from themselves for a decisive win, all they would need is a vote outside the three people with votes on them to scumhammer, and Andrew seems to be aiming for just that.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=375.msg9214#msg9214
Well, why not? If it's some kind of elaborate trick and not bussing to build up credibility or some improbable 'all three scum aren't around together' situation, we've had ample time to get to the bottom of this, and haven't. I'd go with Occam's razor, here, and say Andrew keeps on looking scummier the more he talks.
To OK: There is also the unfortunate possibility of hitting town on one of Nitori and Dhyer, and a scumhammer forming to seal the game and lose it for us.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=375.msg9203#msg9203
Andrew:
Quote
The one general assumption you can make at this point is that there is no townie voting townie at this point.
Andrew, once more:
Quote
The worst looking people to me, at the moment, are Nitori, Yakumo and Dhyer.
Okay! I'm voting Andrew, and he doesn't list me amongst his suspected scum. He also refrained from seriously attacking me today. Is this an unintended admission of guilt?
Whatever. If scum are going for a bussing strategy today, let's go for that and net us a scum in the form of Andrew and some breathing space. If scum are trying to divert the lynch from themselves for a decisive win, all they would need is a vote outside the three people with votes on them to scumhammer, and Andrew seems to be aiming for just that.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=375.msg9214#msg9214
Quote
Don't vote on one of us three just because that's all.
Well, why not? If it's some kind of elaborate trick and not bussing to build up credibility or some improbable 'all three scum aren't around together' situation, we've had ample time to get to the bottom of this, and haven't. I'd go with Occam's razor, here, and say Andrew keeps on looking scummier the more he talks.
To OK: There is also the unfortunate possibility of hitting town on one of Nitori and Dhyer, and a scumhammer forming to seal the game and lose it for us.
197
Forum Games / Re: Within a Deep Mafia Forest - Game Topic (Day 3)
« on: February 20, 2008, 08:55:45 PM »
Well, guys. Seems like we'll see if Andrew was scum and we survive to the next day, or the game ends here. I'm convinced he looks the scummiest, or I wouldn't have voted for him.
I think there are too many permutations to consider, from a scum sacrifice strategy to some of the Andrew/Otter/Yakumo group being scum, to the improbable 'scum is just lurking and wants to win the game lamely' option. Let's hope for the best, and that we've picked the scummiest person to us, and that our lynch (with Andrew's flip) would provide us any clues for tomorrow. I do have more thoughts, but they should be deferred for then, once I've seen said flip to help me narrow them down considerably. Or I could be here all night going on and on about if/then/else nested clauses. Man, that was so geeky.
I'd ask that we wait until Nitori weighs in with his thoughts before we hammer Andrew, since true lurkers suck and we should get all the info we can.
I think there are too many permutations to consider, from a scum sacrifice strategy to some of the Andrew/Otter/Yakumo group being scum, to the improbable 'scum is just lurking and wants to win the game lamely' option. Let's hope for the best, and that we've picked the scummiest person to us, and that our lynch (with Andrew's flip) would provide us any clues for tomorrow. I do have more thoughts, but they should be deferred for then, once I've seen said flip to help me narrow them down considerably. Or I could be here all night going on and on about if/then/else nested clauses. Man, that was so geeky.
I'd ask that we wait until Nitori weighs in with his thoughts before we hammer Andrew, since true lurkers suck and we should get all the info we can.
198
Forum Games / Re: Within a Deep Mafia Forest - Game Topic (Day 3)
« on: February 20, 2008, 09:48:58 AM »
Well, then. 'Maybe there should be' is a pretty strong hint, and I'd still like to go with Andrew for reasons stated ad nauseum. Here goes, then.
##Vote: Andrew
##Vote: Andrew
199
Forum Games / Re: Within a Deep Mafia Forest - Game Topic (Day 3)
« on: February 19, 2008, 07:38:50 PM »
It is extremely annoying to keep on checking back for page 1 and Alex's modposts to make sure we have seven people remaining, because for the life of me I can only remember three posting lately. Yes, yes, mentee/no time to post/whatever. How about, at the very least, saying who is your prime suspect? You know who you guys are. Since it's lylo, just don't use the voting pattern to avoid hilarious hijinks. Just say it clearly enough without Alex counting it.
200
Forum Games / Re: Within a Deep Mafia Forest - Game Topic (Day 3)
« on: February 19, 2008, 03:34:43 PM »
I won't bother arguing at this point, we can always do this post-game. I will wait on Otter to post before voting, however. I've waited this long, a few more hours is nothing.