http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11604#msg11604Interesting. I must give this post 4 stars for originality. No, not for stating the obvious about find/replace, Alex's grammar or what have you. For mentioning that it is quite possible scum was around to defend Alex. Had it been a third party commenting, I would have eyed it with suspicion. However, with Shale including himself, I'm disinclined to dismiss this outright. I do, of course, reject quite firmly Shale's insistence that he is town. Part of this comes from his line here: "I know I'm town"
Yes. Well. Don't we tend to look at such things as suspicious? Also, he seems to be preparing the ground for his own defense. If we lynch Sopko based on this reason, then it can be seen as disproving the case, and thus we'll be likely to leave Shale alone.
And yet, not quite enough for a vote, thus far.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11607#msg11607One star! You fail!
idk about voting rite now tho
##vote: el cideon
Reconcile this for me, if you can. But you can't, can you? Because the failure is so immense! Also, grammar, punctuation, drawing on the forum and netspeak. The offenses against you are many and considerable!
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11615#msg11615Crude language aside (3 stars it is):
Might we do more than vote?
Smodge's flavor text might not be crap
There might be merit in this, as evidenced by Alex's flip. A confirmed, conditional inventor tells us that this is entirely within the realm of possible. And yet… does it tell us anything about smodge's alignment? I think not.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11618#msg11618Something that hasn't come up since the flip and should: Alex's call for mass roleclaim was made in good faith. I remind people again that every role-heavy game where town massclaimed was won by town. Anybody care to re-examine the idea now that we know it wasn't a scum trick?
It was made by a townie. If a frustrated one, then perhaps not even truly in good faith, but to get what he considered a horrible game over with. Also, the role-heavy games were… yes, role-heavy. I suggest that had more to do with winning those games. What proof of it do we have here? Therefore, we're going for a shot in the dark, where the best possible outcome is playing mechanically with all our cards on the table. That makes mafia boring and unfun. The worst outcome, of course, is that we don't have that many roles and scum win handily.
Yes, I think this post warrants two stars, Shale.
Follow up to your second paragraph: yes, a dayvig revealing themselves would work best (but I doubt we have one, given no one actually claimed this yet). A nightvig… I think not. I cannot see how a consensus could be reached on finding a target for a vig night kill, while keeping said kill successful. If there is indeed more than a couple of roles in play, this would likely backfire.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11629#msg11629I hope it can work like that.
It did, clearly. And yet… why are you so eager, going so out of the way to help poor, misunderstood Cid? That you seem to be the only one who actually tries to make an effort here, spanning several posts, makes me frown. I suppose it means nothing until one of you flips, but you're certainly playing well off one-another. Whether that is intentional or not remains to be seen. 3 stars of indecision.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11638#msg11638Yakko: The fact that Alex was telling the truth about his power should be a point on the "role madness" side too. Doubly so if the thinking about Tom's puppy sales is accurate.
One star! One! Tom, you say? Tom is not the one selling puppies. Far too often do people make such mistakes due to not paying enough attention, and far too often they are scum. Coupled with the earlier argument, and the picture becomes quite puzzling. You claim earlier that those supporting Alex's drive for mass-roleclaim by defending him should be examined once more. You helpfully suggest the OTHER person who did this, but you had been guilty of that yourself. And THEN, you decide to go and sell Alex's mass-roleclaim case once more! The above quote is but one example of you doing so. If people do end up looking at Alex's fellow travelers, I certainly hope you don't get a free pass, there.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11649#msg11649However, calling for a mass restriction claim is, I would argue, a better cover for scum - this way, they have something on paper (metaphorically) that they can refer to, and set down guidelines and rules to follow.
Must I explain why this fails, getting a single star of shame? If scum are lying, they have a general idea of what they're trying to emulate. In the case you're suggesting, they haven't written it down before to consult later, but would certainly consult it if forced to type it out in the thread. This logic defies explanation and makes me wince in pain. I would argue that having to follow rules they cannot later change (such as 'oh wait tomorrow I will speak in Japanese, babelfish lulz') is far more dangerous for scum, and thus we should go ahead with the restriction claim.
It's better to look for inconsistencies (like Shale did with Alex's post) in their posts, looking for missed restrictions, and see why they weren't modkilled, without literally calling on them and giving them an open "season" to get things out in the open.
Can we really guess at everyone's restriction so far? Take Andrew's case, for example. How can you tell what is inconsistent to it? Let's not speculate. Let's have him tell us, as we share this information and commit to it from day 1 onwards.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11682#msg116822 stars. An apparent desire to be helpful, and yet, once again I find a poster confusing two people in the game. The attention span is either really low amongst townies this game, or we're hitting upon scum. Certainly worth a further look later on, as the game progresses.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11689#msg116893 stars, due to the amusement of seeing my name as a tag. I think that's a first. Oh yes, there is also content relevant to what I've said above about Shale and Excal. While I won't take issues with the consistency of your arguments, that is actually dodging the issue. I, for one, am looking at you for the arguments made, not for flip-flopping on them.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11693#msg116931 star for failing to get my gender right. I also don't like your vote on Sopko. It seems that you and Shale spend more time in latest posts on each other than on Sopko, and yet both of you end up voting for him. Disturbing.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11697#msg116972 stars on Cid, for putting a _pressure vote_ on someone he finds suspicious. When it is the fourth vote, and would've been the fifth if not for tag hijinks. That's some extraordinary pressure.
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11717#msg11717I'm not even going to bother with that whiny self-appreciation fest, and just focus on OK's words about Lady Door. On this reread of the thread, I'm having trouble spotting any restriction at all, and I can't say I see much content there, either. In that case, I'd rather be rid of the more silent crowd and let those I suspect like Shale and Excal to post more and more. If they're scum, they'll trip eventually. If LD's scum, she won't trip if she doesn't post much of anything.
##Vote: LDAnd while we're on the topic of low posting... this would've be out there sooner, but I'm unexpectedly struggling with my restriction more than I expected. We're talking quantity and the actual theme, too, on top of the lesser annoyances. I envy those throwing one-liners for presence purposes.
