Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheWetSheep]

Tiruin: Looking back, I realized it was just basically during when I was tunneling you during D2. There was just a lot of misconception there. I guess "almost all" was an exaggeration, but that's what it felt like to me.

TolyK: Nothing better to do than poison people? Also, if you poisoned me, why'd you vote me too? What do you mean the hammer vote "really fell off"?

[TolyK]

I really should joke less. 

(not sure where to put this)
Basically, I can do an extra "lynch" for TWS and/or NQT this day, no matter who is lynched this day.

"felt off". as in "not right". as in "fairly scummy".
I poisoned him for that reason, and also for tunneling at Tiruin D1 (which was far from enough reason in the first place, but along with the hammer it's something to take into account).
I voted TWS to see his reaction to that, and hopefully take him by surprise.

Of course, since any possible things to do with the poisoning have escaped out the back door, I'll Unvote for safe measure.
And why I asked whether anybody did anything on me: I wanted to know if any town person redirected me. Why? I don't want folks to die unless they're scummy, and I want to know who to save near day end.

[Griffionday]

Vector:

Sorry for keeping you waiting.  I only recently realized that I said "today" and meant "this game day," whereas it would probably be interpreted as "this RL day."  This has been... an extremely busy week.  Sorry about it.

I understand busy, good luck next week.  Your comment about days now makes sense, so Unvote.

Sheep:

Griff: Why so obsessed with flavour?

Well... I was going to write up every time the flavour had been related to known roles (due to role-flips), but couldn't find as many as I thought there were.  I guess I've been reading to much into it; my reason in retrospect is that the flavour seems less difficult to analyze than the posts by players, so doing it on the side is fairly trivial to keep up. 

There have been interesting reactions to the flavor that seem to indicate that others are seeing their roles show up; Ranger D1.  Tiruins reaction to Florence.  Vector's constant refuting of what happened in the flavor as ridiculous.  (I feel if it were all actually ridiculous she wouldn't feel as much need to comment on Web's portrayal of her.  It just feels a touch off; but not necessarily scummy.)

Although, this is notable:

“Yeah, almost as much as I love drinking poison!” shouts TolyK.

Since he claims to have a role related to poison.

There is also this:

Tiruin picks up the tossed-aside paper and begins to write formally on it. Until he realizes he's not a secretary. Or any mage-related derivative thereof! Deathsword can lead his own life.

Tiruin:

...You know he's friendly, how? Spiderman reference? O_o

Spiderman reference yes.

Beating around the bush with your intentions, or just voting and quoting to imply?

Honest pressure vote to get her to follow through with her read.  She seemed to get my meaning so it worked out.

Why'd you vote Webadict during that time?

Testing a theory about the nature of the game (particularlly the "kill webadict now" refrence in the opening post).  Results are that Webadict is not a vote target, and thus the quote was just a reference to a past game.

Ranger:

Okay so your antidotes are day actions... but you poisoned Sheep because you thought "why not?" ...Anyone else think this just seems wrong?

Well if he's not lying about the safeguard there's no reason for him not to use it.  You'll have to be more specific than "Just seems wrong".

Actually, please be more specific about that: what about it strikes you as odd, and what do you plan to do about it?

People's reasons for voting for ZU

Spoiler: Vector (click to show/hide)

As for why I voted ZombieUrist, that was largely based on my initial vote for Deathsword.  Deathsword was lurky, passive, and any questions he asked were copies of those recently used by other folks.  This was all... pretty definitively bad and made me pretty sure about him.  I didn't want to vote ZU immediately after Deathsword's replace, though, because I was worried that things might be brought on by his personal situation.

Anyway, I guess the second tipping point was process of elimination.  I got the data I needed on many other players, and towards the end of D2 I realized that the person I was voting, NQT, was probably town--obtuse town, but town enough on my points of accusation that I couldn't reasonably consider lynching him.  At that point I had a pretty small pool of folks I felt needed grilling, and in light of my prior opinions (plus a feeling about ZU in particular that he'd been opaque, tunneling, sort of sidelining himself in general and not engaging with the situations at hand), lack of ANY read on the rest of my pool (mostly TolyK and TheWetSheep at the moment, though I want to look closer at Toaster and Tiruin too) and the fact that the day was stretching pretty long, I put a lynch vote on ZU.

Link
I think that almost completely answers my question, thanks.

Spoiler: TheWetSheep (click to show/hide)

Why I voted ZU:
Quoting myself:

Zombie Urist: I really hope you're not a jester. You're acting scummy enough, though. You come out with a vote on Griffionday with absolutely no reasoning behind it, then when asked to present your case you switch it. You've been noncommittal the entire game. What is your reasoning for this? Also, you missed my question:

Zombie Urist: Are you a jester?

I thought this and this was pretty scummy. Also, he pretty consistently put his reads list in order of who had the most votes. He seemed to be putting minimal effort in the game, not putting much detail or thought into any of his answers. In the first post I linked, he voted Griff promising a case on him later. Later, instead of delivering, he changed his vote to Ranger with very brief explanation.

Link
In his vote for Ranger he's not explaining it; he's attempting to pressure vote Ranger to get answers.  Now his lack of explanation for his vote on me was troubling, but why does not having an explanation for why he's pressing Ranger count as scum behavior?

Spoiler: Tiruin (click to show/hide)

Why I voted ZU?
Things. Checking back on D2, he...made quite a mess, TBH - the use of misusing terminology and the process in which he understood things were hard to understand. A tipping point (scumpoints) was here. The only safe note (townie points) was on his blatant "Zrk was voting Tiruin so..."

Because really. For that reason, purely? Then an added note of 'I'll check up on bussing soon.' Really made my view of 'Yeah ur scum  ' to  'Wait what ' Because compared to his first posts regarding me - this was weak; weak in the way that no scum in my best logical belief in that situation would use reasons as superficial as that to get a vote off a person. Then the townie points dropped when I read him voting Griff...for the scumpoints stated above.

I believed he worked through a relationist scumhunting viewpoint given how he promised to look...back, at things.

Link
Could you expand on why ZU voting for me was scummy and not just more poor town play?  At the very least it had originality behind it.

Also you keep linking back to that post, but I don't really understand what your case in it is; especially now that he's flipped town.  Could you explain how a confusion about the definition of non-standard and reacting to commentary on the game constitute twisting your words?

Spoiler: Ranger (click to show/hide)

Nothing.  Hopefully he'll expand on his case Sunday.

Please answer the question as soon as you can do so thoroughly.

[RangerCado]

Griff: I said why 2 posts ago, near the bottom of page 60 for my reasons against ZU. As for Tolyk, his joking tone for poisoning people was rather unnerving and you have to wonder why it was Sheep he poisoned? Him hammering ZU was gonna get him heavily questioned during the day anyway so why didn't he poison someone else?

Tolyk: Why did you poison Sheep specifically? Did you have any other targets in mind? Why should we trust you not to get 3 people killed if you survive another night?

[Griffionday]

Ranger:

As for Tolyk, his joking tone for poisoning people was rather unnerving and you have to wonder why it was Sheep he poisoned? Him hammering ZU was gonna get him heavily questioned during the day anyway so why didn't he poison someone else?

I'm not the person you should be asking these questions to.  Your vote sounds like a pressure vote, so you don't need to garner other people's approval until you're ready to start a lynch case against him.

Griff: I said why 2 posts ago, near the bottom of page 60 for my reasons against ZU.

You're correct, sorry about missing that:

Spoiler: RangerCado (click to show/hide)

My vote on ZU: I voted for him at first as a pressure vote, he then OMGUSed me which seemed odd since i was asking him questions with it. After seeing more of his interactions throughout Day 2, he seemed to be trying to avoid answering questions till called out on it, and said my reasons for voting him were weak and stupid. He never said why they were weak or where my logic was flawed, he just went on that my vote was placed on him with no power behind it. This is why it became a lynch vote for me.

Link
By your pressure vote I'm assuming you are talking about this post right?  You don't actually question ZU until he asks you to do so, specifically pointing out where he had asked you a question you had not responded to.  How was this OMGUSing on his part?

[Vector]

TheWetSheep, thank you for the explanation.  I was frustrated with not being able to get my reasoning out, which is why I voted you, in particular, for the hammer--I think I trust that it wasn't intentional, though.

Although I didn't really want to say this until a bit later, I poisoned TheWetSheep last night due to that hammer vote (which felt really off).

But you're voting for him.  Why would you vote for someone who you know is going to die?

We already know you're a poisoner, so why did you mention these things now and not sooner, TolyK?

The best part was "I really hope you're a jester..." when he really should've been saying "I really hope you're scum"
Why that, TWS? No time for others to think? Meh.

Zombie Urist: I really hope you're not a jester. You're acting scummy enough, though.

This is the quote you're operating off of, in my understanding.  This is... a really, really lazy misquote.  If you were suspicious because of the hammer, why not mention that you were suspicious because of the hammer?  Instead, you misquote and give information we later discover to be bad...

[TheWetSheep]

Just found something interesting upon reread:

NUMBER 1: I believe that there are atleast 2 roles out there that will investigating during the day. This is more gut feeling that anything else. One could also be that Truth-Finder role i mentioned earlier.

Hmm. He mentioned it again.

RangerCado and Hapah: Do you have any ideas about why Ranger seemingly knew Hapah's ability, or was it simply a lucky guess?

Griff: That seems reasonable now. There are quite a few references, but I don't see the connection with this one you quoted:

Tiruin picks up the tossed-aside paper and begins to write formally on it. Until he realizes he's not a secretary. Or any mage-related derivative thereof! Deathsword can lead his own life.

Spoiler: TheWetSheep (click to show/hide)

Why I voted ZU:
Quoting myself:

Zombie Urist: I really hope you're not a jester. You're acting scummy enough, though. You come out with a vote on Griffionday with absolutely no reasoning behind it, then when asked to present your case you switch it. You've been noncommittal the entire game. What is your reasoning for this? Also, you missed my question:

Zombie Urist: Are you a jester?

I thought this and this was pretty scummy. Also, he pretty consistently put his reads list in order of who had the most votes. He seemed to be putting minimal effort in the game, not putting much detail or thought into any of his answers. In the first post I linked, he voted Griff promising a case on him later. Later, instead of delivering, he changed his vote to Ranger with very brief explanation.

Link
In his vote for Ranger he's not explaining it; he's attempting to pressure vote Ranger to get answers.  Now his lack of explanation for his vote on me was troubling, but why does not having an explanation for why he's pressing Ranger count as scum behavior?

Usually I find voting without much explanation as scummy. The wording of the post containing the vote made it seem like more of a lynch-vote than a pressure vote, too.

[RangerCado]

Griff: To me it felt like OMGUS as it was all too similar to how Zrk was on me during day 1.

Sheep: My reasoning for this was that if i have a day inspect, someone else probably has something similar. For Hapah, it was his truth check ability.

[Hapah]

Hapah: I explained to Tiruin that i thought there was a scum lover and that Vector was in danger of being killed. For all i know both the lovers are scum. I took a gamble and it may have worked out. I say may as we still don't know if there are people with doctor abilities.

Let me put it another way: if you were on the scumteam and deciding who to send out to kill, would you send the lover? It doesn't make any sense to send the guy who's guaranteed to fail if he gets directed to a certain person.

What are your reasons for voting Ranger here? Not having enough time to explain fully? Choosing differently than you would have?

It's just...let me see if I can express it. Ranger held the daycop until D2 (which is fine, not how I would have done it, but water under the bridge). Uses it on NQT, gets town result. Cool. Starts second-guessing the results as soon as they are received, starts trying to extrapolate NQT's abilities with some wild gambit. Okay, I guess? So we go into the night and Ranger has the swap bus-driver ability thing, and decides to try to shield Vector, which is fine (probably a good choice, honestly). But then she points the (anticipated) NK at, you guessed it, NQT. Guy's basically had everything short of a cavity search to prove he's town, and Ranger's still going at it? It feels like there's something going on that I can't put a finger on.

Concerning Ranger calling out a truth-teller D1, I honestly glossed over it. If it was a lucky guess, it seems like a damned good one.

Tolyk: Forgive me if I'm understand wrong, but does your antidote need to be re-applied every day? You mentioned giving it to TWS and NQT today.

[TolyK]

PPE: Oh God Wall Of Text

Tolyk: Why did you poison Sheep specifically? Did you have any other targets in mind? Why should we trust you not to get 3 people killed if you survive another night?

I already answered this, last post, didn't I? Quickly, though, hammer vote + misc. details.
I was going to pick between Tiruin, TWS, Ranger and Griff, but the last posts had me pick TWS over everyone else.

Although I didn't really want to say this until a bit later, I poisoned TheWetSheep last night due to that hammer vote (which felt really off).

But you're voting for him.  Why would you vote for someone who you know is going to die?

We already know you're a poisoner, so why did you mention these things now and not sooner, TolyK?

I already said, I was trying to gauge his reaction to votes.

The best part was "I really hope you're a jester..." when he really should've been saying "I really hope you're scum"
Why that, TWS? No time for others to think? Meh.

Zombie Urist: I really hope you're not a jester. You're acting scummy enough, though.

This is the quote you're operating off of, in my understanding.  This is... a really, really lazy misquote.  If you were suspicious because of the hammer, why not mention that you were suspicious because of the hammer?  Instead, you misquote and give information we later discover to be bad...

Yes, he said similar stuff before that, as well.
And that was a quick post. And people talked about the hammer right before that.
What information do we discover to be bad?

After all, you yourself said:

If he wasn't scummy enough to lynch, why were four other people voting him?

. . . After all, you seem to really enjoy bandwagoning.

Tolyk: Forgive me if I'm understand wrong, but does your antidote need to be re-applied every day? You mentioned giving it to TWS and NQT today.

Yes, I thought that I mentioned that and/or it would be "obvious" from my wording.
Some older things:

Anyway, he's what I understand of an arsonist since I've never played one:
> Marks targets at night. (Prime)
> Has the choice to set em flame at day - killing them.
> All from BM-linked, flash Mafia. (Extended roles link, I cannot access due to Comodo hailing the link-site as dangerous :/...But that's what my memory can recall about them) so I tried Xylbot's list.

Arsonist (sk; common; 4+ players): You can prime a player at night by dousing them in gasoline. During the day, you may set a fire which kills all primed players. Actions: prime (day)ignite

Out of all things, he statistically guesses a scum arsonist.

So its me thinking TolyK = arsonist or something along that line (because I've never, ever heard of a friendly poisoner. WHo poisons people and threatens them with blackmail anyway!? 'I'm scumhunting NQT because I can kill him. Your life is in my hands' - and all. His reasoning is short and choppy, making me ask him again - and now amend the question below.)

Well, this makes sense, from a logical point of view.

Because I thought about it...and TolyK rings third-party in my eyes. Regarding that poisoning, and more on confirming NQT but the thinking stands -- Why would NQT have a lovers anti-kill, if he was scum/third-party. Why indeed was his powers tailored to the specifications of comm-channels, and him loving Ford? He was confirmed town (or as confirmed as that reasoning can be in my eyes) already.

Hint hint: He was weakly-confirmed the second day, while I poisoned him the first night.

The only benefit to this is him being a vigilante OR that poison thing being a one-shot. Checking the  above (answer to my question) and any wording whereelse, I detect nothing on it being a one-shot, or any subtle implication of it being such. He did answer him being a vigilante-type. What makes me doubt this is that we've already had an SK: UI. Of which his status as Grand Wizard pokes at me hoping we aren't dealing with a blasted cult than anything, and KKK standing for a rebellion group rather than...err, your western acronym of KKK but I'd not want to delve deeper into game mechanics considering that we've no roleflips at all.

Nothing really to say to this, it works, I guess.

TolyK, in addition to the questions asked to you today, why exactly did you want to confirm NQT out of everyone else? Did you poison someone else N1? If so, why aren't you doing the same thing you did to NQT there?

1) He did the strange lovers thing D1, so I wanted to be fairly sure he's town and is going in our interests.
2) I would, if I weren't being asked lotsa questions.

Why are you curious about whether or not someone actioned you last night or not - and query on your poisoner ability: One shot? What is that action you've to claim to day that you're disputing it with yourself because its...silly? You keep on promising more posts yet you're late to deliver them -- you've even waiting D2 just only for NQT for a period of time there. What in the world.

I think I answered this, it's because I wanted to see if anyone redirected me, so that I knew who to save.

His blatant misuse and overuse of the doesn't help at all. Irks me along the side of 'haha, I'm lighthearted and stuff' like its...used as a passing wave to justify his posts. Argh I dunno. just look at how he uses the Its used in a comical way -- I can't find the word for it! Its like a cover up.

And I'm the one who abuses smileys around here...

Sorry, just me.

It might be good for me to put up an FAQ a la NQT...
Claim/FAQ
Night - Poison - Poisons target, dies at end of next day.
Day (multiple per phase) - Antidote - Extends person's life by a night and a day.
- One More Ability

Q: Can't scum just kill you and, with you, two (or even 3, if lovers) more people?
A: Nope, I made sure before the end of N1.

Q: Do you plan on actually killing people?
A: NQT - no. TWS - depending on how scummy I and other people think he is.

Q: Will you poison next night?
A: I don't know yet, probably not, unless someone does something really silly today.

Q: Are you out of your mind?
A: Maybe, but I don't think so.

[Toaster]

I owe this game a post, but trying to scrabble together the time to build up my case on Sheep is proving difficult.

[Tiruin]

I owe this game a post, but I'm busy philosophizing theology.

^PFP

TolyK:
So N1 - NQT; N2 - TWS; you can multi-antidote...Day action. Interesting.

So that means your vote on TWS is mostly pressure as you hold the keys to his demise, huh.

Tell me. Is your antidote a PM-the-Mod type which activates it upon PM, or do you PM him once, and then it takes effect. Does it take effect at day end or upon PM (pre-day end)?

Because you're being vague and dismissive of one point. Griffy's question here, bud.
You reek of third-party/scum handwaving things just because you've the keys to people's lives. Like an opposite of a devil's advocate wherein you're arguing using a viable method on something unconventional, but like a conartist does.

Not good.

I really should joke less. 

And you should try answering for once with a straight post. FOR ONCE. Unlike in D1 - your attitude has become lax and carefree. Care to explain that?

Because your joking mood does not help.

And why I asked whether anybody did anything on me: I wanted to know if any town person redirected me. Why? I don't want folks to die unless they're scummy, and I want to know who to save near day end.

At least here, this explains that you've got two distinct actions and that you should name and choose your antidote-receiver.

However. Funny thing?

Q: Can't scum just kill you and, with you, two (or even 3, if lovers) more people?
A: Nope, I made sure before the end of N1.

Oh so now we've another day action which does something funny, huh. Or something working in tandem with you poisoning NQT. Because 'before end'.

[Tiruin]

EBWOP:

Q: Will you poison next night?
A: I don't know yet, probably not, unless someone does something really silly today.

Q: Are you out of your mind?
A: Maybe, but I don't think so.

Probably? Just like you did TWS because of boredom?

The second line -- joke ain't helping, bro. Answer it straight. And by that I mean answer straight, not that specific question I'm addressing so that you won't squiggle out of this.

[Tiruin]

Why did I poison someone else this day? Nothing better to do.
Can't scum kill me and get a triple kill? No, I've got a safeguard against that.

Query: was this answered before on if TolyK dies? Searched using the search engine, nothing came up on 'If TolyK dies, then his targets also die for lack of antidote'.

[Vector]

The best part was "I really hope you're a jester..." when he really should've been saying "I really hope you're scum"
Why that, TWS? No time for others to think? Meh.

Zombie Urist: I really hope you're not a jester. You're acting scummy enough, though.

This is the quote you're operating off of, in my understanding.  This is... a really, really lazy misquote.  If you were suspicious because of the hammer, why not mention that you were suspicious because of the hammer?  Instead, you misquote and give information we later discover to be bad...

Yes, he said similar stuff before that, as well.
And that was a quick post. And people talked about the hammer right before that.
What information do we discover to be bad?

After all, you yourself said:

If he wasn't scummy enough to lynch, why were four other people voting him?

. . . After all, you seem to really enjoy bandwagoning.

Horseshit.  You misquoted TheWetSheep as the reason for your vote and then quote me saying something unrelated?  This "argument" is so full of holes I could drive an SUV through it >:I