Print

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

[Toaster]

Flabort:

I guess it's the former of the two (merely not helping), until you consider that he's likely lying about being an investigative role, at which point it does become actively anti-town.

But then he's just anti-town for lying, not for the gambit; at least in my book.  You don't think he could be a PGO baiting a kill?

As for why hide those names, I'm sure they want nothing to do with this anymore, and since they could be town I don't want them killed. Yet.

I don't see how naming them puts them in danger.

Darned wifom... Too many possible reasons for this 'gambit', too many different outcomes...

some small snips to protect the identities of the other two

And also to hide Wolf's role. Not really worth mentioning, just surprised you didn't say it there.

Oh, yeah. He claimed Human Reporter. I forgot that I snipped that too, and forgot why.

And if he's telling the truth, you just outed a useful investigative role.


4mask:

notquitethere: Actually, flabort spilling the beans was an unforseen complication.  I had to adapt and improvise on the spot, but the scum in this game are too canny to just jump on an easy target.

They are?  Who are they, then?

The last point is how you voted me.  You voted me in the post that you revealed that I was doing a gambit, BEFORE I could actually respond.  This gives you plausible deniability if I were mislynched, since you were the first one to vote me and voted before I explained the gambit.

How is this a bad vote?  Voting someone you suspect straight off while waiting for a rebuttal to your arguments is textbook play.


How'd you pick those three players to PM?


Scripten:

Mastahcheese:

Scripten, Tiruin, Toastaaaar: Arrr, ye be thinkin' somebody be up to no good, but the cop, who now lay at the bottom o' Davy Jone's Locker, had been sayin' that very same somebody be innocent, 'fore he died.
How does this influence yer views?

Especially depending on my target's experience, it's wholly possible that the cop might have inspected them when they were made to show up as town. As with most circumstances, this is really reliant on my reads on the playstyles of the scummy player and the cop. If the cop is an experienced player and the circumstances point to the target being scummy by way of their playstyle (For example, if they are a newer player or prone to acting scummily in general) then I'm more likely to trust the cop. On the other hand, if the cop is inexperienced, evidence points to the target of his inspect being concealed, or other evidence suggests that the scumminess is more heavily weighted than the innocent result, then I'll be more likely to vote for the player.

I don't get it; what bearing does the cop's experience have on his/her role responses?

[Deus Asmoth]

Scripten:I would have said that revealing the gambit seems to have come from a town-oriented mindset, but the oblique way he hinted at it before revealing what had happened is a bit suspicious to my mind, as though he wanted people to jump to the conclusion that something shady was going on and let that colour their perception of events. 'Protecting the identities' of myself and mastahcheese could be a buddying attempt, particularly since he'd already implied mastahcheese's involvement by addressing the comment about PMs specifically to him:

Mastahcheese I see the PMs are already starting.

He also claimed that his reveal of the gambit originally was accidental in a later PM, which is at odds with him mentioning the PM at all:

Deus, Cheese
OK, now that the hastily made house of cards has been knocked over by accident, what do you want to see happen?

The fact that he decided to reveal the entirety of Mask's gambit when in the post before he'd said that he wasn't doing anything to impede its working worries me as well. As does the fact that if the scumteam didn't know about Mask's reporter claim at the start of the gambit, they sure as hell do now. He even snipped Mask's claimed role in the original quote, only revealing it in a later post (possibly to make it harder to trace back to himself?)

flabort, what changed your mind about revealing the purpose of Mask's plan? Why speak about the PM at all if you didn't mean to knock down the house of cards?

And in answer to this:

Deus, Cheese
OK, now that the hastily made house of cards has been knocked over by accident, what do you want to see happen?

I want to see what Mask's role is, preferably by him getting a result on someone at the start of day 2. The way you decided to go about revealing this gambit just sets off alarm bells for me.

[Toaster]

Deus:

flabort, what changed your mind about revealing the purpose of Mask's plan? Why speak about the PM at all if you didn't mean to knock down the house of cards?

You're not voting anyone; why couldn't this be a vote instead a FoS?

[UXLZ]

UXLZ:  Okay.  So, how well do you like your teammates?

Currently in the process of figuring out just who those team mates actually are. Assuming I don't die before then, I think I'd like to be on the same side as just about anyone here, though. You all seem to be excellent players.

What's the 'okay' there for, out of curiosity?

Addendum: I realised what the okay was there for. My mistake.

[mastahcheese]

Posting before iPod dies (up to page 12 now)

Cheese, was there any reason for the groupings you chose in your initial question?

For the most part, no. I gave Toaster the pirate-y question because I like altering his name (it's a reference to a RTD from  a while back) Then put Tiruin in with it because she seemed the most likely to appreciate the humor. Don't recall the reasons beyond that.
But there's no game-related reasons I grouped people that way, no.

Mastahcheeeeeeese

Another question: who would you least like to face as a scum-team in this game?

Who would be the least likely I'd want to face?
Hmm.

You don't need to repeat the question to cement your townie-ness.

I just felt like reitterating. It makes me feel like I'm getting my words across better. ._.

Deus Asmoth, Mastahcheese: What were your thoughts when 4maskwolf first PM'd you? How about now that Flabort has outed the gambit and 4maskwolf has talked about it in-thread?

I figured it was another dumb 4gambitmask thing. I was right.
It didn't get quoted, but I did reply that I wasn't even planning on responding to it, at first. (later on, I was the one that said "Now you're acting weird")
I also replied with "Your gambits are bad and you should feel bad" but that understandably didn't get quoted.

[Persus13]

Posting from right before class.

Flabort, so you outed a private investigative power role claim on Day 1 to everyone, including the scum? How is that pro-town to tell everyone that. You could have just summarized the gambit if you wanted to.

[Deus Asmoth]

Toaster: It's not a vote because I'm not entirely certain about my suspicions about flabort yet. I want to see how he responds before I decide if I want to upgrade or not.

[Scripten]

Flabort:

I accuse you of trying to get us to kill each other when you inevitably get bussed or bus your own team.

Do you expect 4maskwolf to bus/be bussed on Day 1?

Toaster:

And if he's telling the truth, you just outed a useful investigative role.

This is what really bothers me about this whole situation. What we have is essentially 4maskwolf claiming or fakeclaiming and Flabort then broadcasting this fakeclaim. This sort of content is anti-town from both angles, as it distracts from real scumhunting.

I don't get it; what bearing does the cop's experience have on his/her role responses?

Well, let's say we have an inexperienced cop who gets an innocent on a scummy player. They may be less inclined to continue scumhunting there than an experienced cop who might guess that they were duped by a power. A strong cop player would be more likely to claim their innocent result harder if they realize that it is more likely to be authentic.

Mastahcheese:

I figured it was another dumb 4gambitmask thing. I was right.
It didn't get quoted, but I did reply that I wasn't even planning on responding to it, at first. (later on, I was the one that said "Now you're acting weird")
I also replied with "Your gambits are bad and you should feel bad" but that understandably didn't get quoted.

Do you think that anyone's reaction to the gambit and/or Flabort's reveal is alignment-indicative?

[flabort]

pfp want to get to more stable environment before responding in full.

But it was an accident at first, I didn't realize that those were the only PMs so far, and when 4mask completely blew up over it I decided to see just how far I could push him.

Also, I'm a human vigilante and was planning to poke a hole in his gambit anyways. Revealing it instead of killing him serves my purposes and allows me to target someone else.
Now I've revealed too. 4mask, what do you say to that?

[Scripten]

Also, I'm a human vigilante and was planning to poke a hole in his gambit anyways. Revealing it instead of killing him serves my purposes and allows me to target someone else.
Now I've revealed too. 4mask, what do you say to that?

...why are you claiming?

Can we please stop this claiming/fakeclaiming nonsense?

[ToonyMan]

Stop claiming

[UXLZ]

I...
*breathes deeply*
Will wait for the situation to develop more before posting anything of note.

[4maskwolf]

flabort: What is this bussing nonsense?  The gambit was involving N1 kills.  Me being lynched during the day means exactly jackshit.  Also, how did outing the gambit serve the same purpose as killing me, and why would a townie out another possible townie?  That, and you say that you were going to poke a hole in my gambit.  Why?

Toaster: I have no idea who the scum are.  That was the point of my statement, to indicate that whoever the scum are didn't jump at the bait.  The problem is that he didn't cite what he had just revealed as his reason for suspicion, but rather my snarking at Shakerag.  Then later, when I yelled at him for it, he added the gambit to the list of reasons.  And those three players were chosen from the players who were not-Cheeetar and who I'd played with a lot, because I can only imagine the shitstorm that would have occured had I tried to include Cheeetar in it.

[Toaster]

Scripten:

Well, let's say we have an inexperienced cop who gets an innocent on a scummy player. They may be less inclined to continue scumhunting there than an experienced cop who might guess that they were duped by a power. A strong cop player would be more likely to claim their innocent result harder if they realize that it is more likely to be authentic.

Eh.  I don't agree with your logic, but it's not scummy either.


Flabort:

Also, I'm a human vigilante and was planning to poke a hole in his gambit anyways. Revealing it instead of killing him serves my purposes and allows me to target someone else.
Now I've revealed too. 4mask, what do you say to that?

This makes no damned sense.  Why would you claim?  I can get why you'd want to shoot him at night, but why not just shoot him?  If you think revealing him would get him killed (a questionable notion) then your claim lends absolutely zero credence to your argument... or to anything, really.  This is a claim even more out of left field than his gambit, which you're sitting here attacking him over.

[UXLZ]

why not just shoot him?

Is that a trope reference, or am I just seeing things?