Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 77

Author Topic: BYOR5.5 - Day 9: Just Kidding. Game Over.  (Read 133518 times)

Toaster

  • Bay Watcher
  • Appliance
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #405 on: December 28, 2010, 04:56:30 pm »

Zathras:  All I can give you is self-meta on this, which I can't blame you one bit if you don't want to believe.  If I think someone is town, I'd rather ignore them than clearly say so in-thread.  I started considering him town after he claimed his daykill, which is why I've been mostly ignoring him since then.  Yes, my suspicions have fallen on those attacking him, and yes, my attacks end up being an indirect defense.  I'm not going to do it deliberately, but if my actions indirectly defend someone that I think is town, so be it.

As for why I believe it?  I considered the possibility that he's actually a scum with a daykill and the NK is a total phony, but I don't believe that he would have shot off his daykill that soon as scum- daykills are LYLO breakers, and he wasn't under imminent threat of lynch.



I can agree with you on one thing:  I think Pandar should go ahead and claim whatever it is he wants to claim.
Logged
HMR stands for Hazardous Materials Requisition, not Horrible Massive Ruination, though I can understand how one could get confused.
God help us if we have to agree on pizza toppings at some point. There will be no survivors.

Toaster

  • Bay Watcher
  • Appliance
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #406 on: December 28, 2010, 04:57:15 pm »

Oh, and Native: Do you honestly expect a useful answer to that question?
Logged
HMR stands for Hazardous Materials Requisition, not Horrible Massive Ruination, though I can understand how one could get confused.
God help us if we have to agree on pizza toppings at some point. There will be no survivors.

NativeForeigner

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #407 on: December 28, 2010, 05:22:42 pm »

Oh, and Native: Do you honestly expect a useful answer to that question?

Hm, good point, guess I overlooked that. I'll just take it on faith.

This is a haiku
Specifically for you
I hope you like it

Real content when I get home.
Logged
Yeah, you're a dick, NativeForeigner.
Quit being such a dick, you dick.
Maybe if you weren't such a dick you wouldn't be such a dick.

Mysteriousbluepuppet

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #408 on: December 28, 2010, 06:37:28 pm »

Sorry about my activity lately, life has been interfering.

Will post something tonight or tommorow morning once i get my life back
Logged

NativeForeigner

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #409 on: December 28, 2010, 08:15:00 pm »

Native:  The post in question:

Wouldn't you consider that scum suicide? Zathras has been on Joker from the start and was the first to bring up any suspicion towards Joker, that seems like it would be a pretty stupid move if they were a scumteam.

Well, Zathras seems to be a pretty aggressive scumhunter, so you could very well be trying to avoid getting in his sights. The reason you would be next on my list of suspects if Joker should flip scum is because you could have been trying to distance yourself from Jokerman by siding with Zathras.
See, here's the problem. You figure Zathras wouldn't bus his scumbuddy because it'd be suicide, but I might because Zathras is aggressive. Why?

This would be tunneling, not bussing. And I'm not saying you're bussing, just distancing (hypothetically). It wouldn't make sense for anyone to be bussing this early in the game, it could be a fatal mistake to do so.

This post really sticks out to me, and it's hard to say why.  Basically, the difference between scum tunnelling and bussing is the alignment of the target, which your distinction makes it sound like you know it, and of course if you know it, it is because you are scum.

What support for Jokerman are you talking about?

At the time, I was mistakenly thinking that SK was scum-aligned, so that might be causing it to stick out to you.

Your vote towards me that you're only now explaining as well as the indirect support that Zathras has mentioned. You say you buy his roleclaim because it would be a little powerful for a scum to have a daykill as well as the NK, but don't you think a scum with their personal NK as well as scum's NK would be just as, if not more powerful since they don't lose that NK after they use it? And that has happened. You also fail to consider that Jokerman chose to go ahead with his DK once Zathras started to turn up the heat. If he had waited until he was almost guaranteed to be lynched and Zathras happened to flip town, it would have looked poorly. But at the time he did it, he could have kept it a secret that it was he that did it, but since he flipped SK, Jokerman claimed it to appear more town.

Pandar, we're all waiting on your roleclaim.
Logged
Yeah, you're a dick, NativeForeigner.
Quit being such a dick, you dick.
Maybe if you weren't such a dick you wouldn't be such a dick.

Nirur Torir

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #410 on: December 28, 2010, 08:21:41 pm »

Nirur, before I commit to this Haiku, how am I to know it won't turn me cult or something? I'm sure it wouldn't kill me because both Zath and I dying the same night would make you an instant target.
I feel it warrants an answer, even though you already gave a haiku.
It mostly comes down to balance on Web's part: If I was a cult leader able to turn everyone who said a haiku, I'd have the potential to instantly win. If even half the people said one, town would have a difficult time winning, even if I was investigated N2.
If I could only turn X people who said a haiku, I'd have to deal with the high probability of people realizing that I didn't roleblock anyone who didn't say one, and only roleblocked some who did for some reason.
If I could roleblock some and turn others in the same action, Web would deserve to lose his Official Certificate of Balanced GMing unless everyone has crazy-powerful roles.

Ottofar: Do something. Anything.

IronyOwl: Your top three or four scumpicks and why, please.

Argembarger: You've been quiet. What do you think of my roleclaim?
Logged

NativeForeigner

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #411 on: December 28, 2010, 09:17:32 pm »

Nirur, before I commit to this Haiku, how am I to know it won't turn me cult or something? I'm sure it wouldn't kill me because both Zath and I dying the same night would make you an instant target.
I feel it warrants an answer, even though you already gave a haiku.
It mostly comes down to balance on Web's part: If I was a cult leader able to turn everyone who said a haiku, I'd have the potential to instantly win. If even half the people said one, town would have a difficult time winning, even if I was investigated N2.
If I could only turn X people who said a haiku, I'd have to deal with the high probability of people realizing that I didn't roleblock anyone who didn't say one, and only roleblocked some who did for some reason.
If I could roleblock some and turn others in the same action, Web would deserve to lose his Official Certificate of Balanced GMing unless everyone has crazy-powerful roles.

Thank you, that makes me feel better about actually committing to a haiku. Do you have any further questions for me? Or a reason why you're voting me? Or both?
Logged
Yeah, you're a dick, NativeForeigner.
Quit being such a dick, you dick.
Maybe if you weren't such a dick you wouldn't be such a dick.

Archangel

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #412 on: December 28, 2010, 09:27:18 pm »

Oh, and to prove I'm unblockable:
You can't stop me mate.
'Cos I am unblockable
No, you can't stop me.
Logged
There's about 25 of the fuckers and the three sarge killed were at point blank range - it's got to be zombies or a bunch of really dumb terrorists with knives.
My full sig

Nirur Torir

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #413 on: December 28, 2010, 10:05:09 pm »

[...]Do you have any further questions for me? Or a reason why you're voting me? Or both?
Huh, forgot to do that. The haiku's enough for now, since I have a cold and can't think of anything other then token questions, plus I really don't want to comb through posts right now.
Unvote

Jokerman: I wouldn't expect you to have any powers other then a one-shot daykill and a supposedly now-disabled nightkill. If you manage to live tonight, I'd feel notably better if I had you blocked.
Logged

webadict

  • Bay Watcher
  • Former King of the Mafia
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #414 on: December 28, 2010, 10:46:14 pm »

I'll have a vote count up tomorrow morning. Sorry for the delay.
Logged

Mysteriousbluepuppet

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #415 on: December 28, 2010, 11:37:24 pm »

Ok, it will be ly a quickie, since I work tommorow morning. apparently everybody in my department are fucking weakling since they all get some mysterious disease that appear the day they do are to do the morning. Fucking little shits. Ill post a more furbished post after work tommorow

Insight ive got for now

We have yet to hear from Pandar, and his super duper jesus role. This stinks to me as time wasting for time wasting sake, especially since i have not seen him try to explain it in any way.

As i said after the whole revive thing, a necromancy cult is a pretty likely possibility, considering what information we got. In my opinion, the information that Zathras revealed (lack of a deadchat) is a good clue on the subject, since it could give too much information to the necromancer, by proxy. For now it's a shot in the dark, but until Pandar deign come back and explain his work it's the best i got.

Irony, i revise my suspicion of you for the moment being. My case was not as informative as i had tought.
Unvote Irony. Also, i really don't know where that self vote came from.

Toaster, correct me if i missed something, But i did not understand your plan to verify Zathras. It was actually to put his vote on a runner up to see if it would change the lynchee ?I clearly hope i missed something, since it's basically the most shittiest paln i've seen. He said himself that he could split the votes, so if he kept his power he just need to split em. We can't take his word for it in that suituation.  Again, i hope that i missed some part of the plan somewhere.

As of now, Native, Joker and Nirur are the one i need to check the most, and id rather do it tommorow with a clear mind and more time to re-read. Archangel and Ottofar are at leats participating right now, so thats a + for them i guess.

 If you got question or commentary, will gladly answer.

Logged

Jokerman-EXE

  • Bay Watcher
  • JUSTICE!
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #416 on: December 29, 2010, 12:12:50 am »

I'm not unblockable, but this one is handy:

You can't stop me mate.
'Cos I am unblockable
No, you can't stop me.

PFP
Logged
Quote from: Solifuge
Jokerman + Solifuge 4 Ever. // <3 <3 <3
Quote from: Org
Derpa  herp // Derpy derp derp herp derp
Quote from: Toaster
BLARG IM DED

Zathras

  • Bay Watcher
  • Boogie thinks you being confoosed.
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #417 on: December 29, 2010, 01:42:57 am »

Zathras:  All I can give you is self-meta on this, which I can't blame you one bit if you don't want to believe.  If I think someone is town, I'd rather ignore them than clearly say so in-thread.
Yes, I don't believe you. You forget that I also know your scum meta, which is to mostly ignore your scumbuddy, post questions to them on other people, maybe a short timed attack, and misdirection/distraction of those who attack them. Meta-wise, your play this game is 100% compatible with Joker and Pandar being your scumbuddies.


Quote from: Toaster
I considered the possibility that he's actually a scum with a daykill and the NK is a total phony, but I don't believe that he would have shot off his daykill that soon as scum- daykills are LYLO breakers, and he wasn't under imminent threat of lynch.
Ah, but he was, or thought he was, didn't he? And you must have realised that his decision to shoot me was an emotional one, because he was frustrated and wanted to shut me up, it was out of desperation. He wasn't thinking about lylo or strategy, he felt trapped, and wanted to get me off his back and teach me a lesson. This is abundantly clear from his posts immediately before ([1][2]) and after ("fuck you and you and you" and so on). Did you sloppily skim through these too?


Also, compare this:
Quote from: Toaster
I started considering him town after he claimed [...]he wouldn't have shot off his daykill that soon as scum.
and this:
Quote from: Toaster
I think he's town, largely because I buy his roleclaim.
So, you think he's town because you buy his roleclaim, and you buy his roleclaim because you think he's town ("why would a scum do that?" is the textbook example of WIFOM). He claimed because he happened to accidentally hit an SK with his kill, otherwise he wouldn't have claimed. And yet, all you had done up to then (and afterwards) was "scratching your head". How's that itch coming along? Still scratching it, or do you have anything to ask him? Do you still think he's town? (you may want to wait for my next post before you answer that last one)



Quote from: MBP
But i did not understand your plan to verify Zathras. [...] He said himself that he could split the votes, so if he kept his power he just need to split em. We can't take his word for it in that suituation.  Again, i hope that i missed some part of the plan somewhere.
You did: if I vote for multiple people, my name appears next to all of them in a votecount. Duh. This is the main reason I never intended to do that (as I said earlier). But to set your mind at ease, before the end of the day comes, I will unvote, and then vote for whoever the appropriate 2nd or 3rd place works for the plan. No chance to split them then, yes?


I'm not unblockable, but this one is handy:
You can't stop me mate.
'Cos I am unblockable
No, you can't stop me.
PFP
Not good enough, I'm afraid. It mustn't  be in a quote. Try again without the quote tags. I'm glad you've publicly stated your intention to do so, though.

Also, people:
Horrible poets!
Miserable failures all
as haiku makers.



Still to come from me: detailed responses to Jokerman, and a lurkertracker. Sorry, been busy.
Logged
My soul has been freed by the King of the Mafia.

Zathras

  • Bay Watcher
  • Boogie thinks you being confoosed.
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #418 on: December 29, 2010, 05:18:57 am »


Jokerman, Please see below the conversation with the context restored for better readability, and answer the follow up questions.

1. Do you or do you not admit to contradicting yourself several times D1? "mmmmaybe a third party", "I'd bet on a third party", "the odds of an anti-town role are extremely low", so are there or aren't there?; "I never said anything about ignoring lurkers." and "I'm not even defending lurking!", yes you did, and yes you were.
1. I do.
Very well. Let the record state that you admit to lying here:[1][2] ("I didn't say/defend it!"), and that you did defend lurking, which you yourself call "detrimental to town."

Follow up question: Why would a town-aligned player defend a behaviour that is detrimental to town?


2. You said your intention was to Vig-kill the lurkers. Leaving aside that you couldn't have NK'd them all, do you think killing the lurkers without knowing if they are town or scum is good for town? Don't you think you'd end up NK-ing townies that way? Wouldn't you want to at least ask them a couple of questions to better guess their alignment? Or is lurking a justifiable death sentence for town in your mind? Isn't challenging the lurkers to participate better for town than night killing them? That kind of indiscriminate bloodlust screams scum to me.
2. I didn't say anything about indiscriminately killing them all; I'm not an Exterminator. I also never said that I wouldn't target anyone else - I didn't mean to imply that I would only kill lurkers, simply that it was a prerogative that I have/had.
You said "if [lurking] got to be too much trouble this game I would just take them out myself"[1], and "lurkers would find themselves dead and the actual hunting would have more room to happen. That was my plan, anyway." [2]. I say you explicitly stated that your defense for defending lurkers was that you were planning to kill them, and didn't give a second thought as to what alignment the lurkers may have been. I didn't say you said "only", but how many nights do you think you'd have to try anyway? Your plan, as stated by you was "to get other town to hunt active people" so you could get the lurkers yourself. You weren't even proposing to ask them a single question or probe them a bit before shooting. No, your plan was "to take them out yourself", alignment be damned.

So I ask you again, as you didn't actually answer the question: Don't you think you'd end up NK-ing townies that way? Isn't challenging the lurkers to participate better for town than night killing them? But you not only didn't challenge them, but insisted that challenging was the wrong thing to do (unless you were completely convinced all the active players were town, that is).

Rhetorical for those following: isn't this an extremely anti-town position to take for someone with a night kill? I say this is the thinking process and profile of a scum with an interest in thinning the herd by going for those no one is paying attention to.

Alternatively, you can skip the question above if your answer to this follow up is "yes": Were you lying when you stated that your plan was "to get town to hunt active people", "to take them out yourself", and that "lurkers would find themselves dead"?



3. D1 is over. What will your policy on lurkers be for D2? If you don't follow through with it, should we consider you scummy?
3. I think that as the days progress, lurking becomes more and more of an issue, because doing so means you give off far less of a signature on the game, and information from lynches and kills has less effect on how you appear. In that vein, I feel that beyond D1 lurking should be something that's looked at.
OK. Follow up: Who is lurking now, and what are you doing about it? (yes, I know who is lurking, I'm asking you if you do). The day will be over in 24 hours. What have you done D2 about it, other than "people need to start playing the game here"? Or do you merely "feel it should be looked at", but plan to do nothing yourself? Sure, why would scum interfere with the lurkers, yes?


4. Do you concede that I could have no knowledge of your alignment, given that I wasn't in the scum team? If you do, weren't then you lying when you said "on D1 there's only one faction that knows something the others don't. [referring to me being that faction]"?
4. I suppose that's true. However, my statement is not false, and at the time I had no way of knowing that you weren't what I suspected you to be - can you admit to that? It was enough reason (I thought) for me to take matters into my own hands.
Yes, your statement is false. You said "on D1 there's only one faction that knows something the others don't. [referring to me being that faction]", and at the time you said it you knew exactly what faction I was then; you even posted "well, there's that roleflip, so fuck you and you and you", so you saw the roleflip, and knew that I wasn't of the faction you said I was.

Since you "suppose that's true", let the record show that you lied here [1]. This is particularly important, because this is the paragraph where you justify your action:

In the post where you admit lying you were answering the question "What specifically made you feel confident enough to kill him?", and your answer was "[...]on D1 there's only one faction that knows something the others don't." You didn't, and don't, have an answer for "What specifically made you feel confident enough to kill him?" and had to lie to get away from the question.

Let me restate it more simply: "What specifically made you feel confident enough to kill him?" Nothing but pure, unadulterated, emotional rage at being outed, and a necessity to shut your attacker up. You had no reason, no evidence, no confidence behind your attack, and had I flipped town you would never have claimed. You cowardly shut up the voice attacking you, and hid, only coming out when you saw it was safe. When asked why you did it, you could only lie to seem grandiose. There was nothing else you could say.

To hammer the point home, let me answer your question:
Quote from: Jokerman
at the time I had no way of knowing that you weren't what I suspected you to be - can you admit to that?
Of course I can. At the time, you had no way of knowing if I was town or SK or cult or jester (you did know I wasn't in your scum team, but in the hypothetical you aren't scum, you couldn't know I wasn't there either). You had no evidence, and you still shot with the only purpose to silence your attacker, and damn the consequences. What's his alignment? I don't know! I don't care! Just get rid of him! This is exactly the tought process your question betrays, and it's not a townie one.

Follow up: You admit you had no way of knowing I wasn't town, so what specifically made you feel confident enough to kill me? Had I flipped town, would you have claimed?



5. You went from "you don't feel like scum" to "For one thing, Zathras is scum" in one post, 24hours. Then posted once more trying to defend yourself and failed, so you followed it up with a daykill. Is this correct? Please confirm. If it is correct, how is it not a) a blatant OMGUS; and b) an action explicitly taken to shut up your attacker?
5. I'm not denying that it was an OMGUS - it totally was. But that's not the important part of it at all. If I felt you were scum, doing scummy things and trying to shunt attention off yourself and onto Town, then I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone with an ability like mine to take action.
Let the record show that you admit lying yet again: you said "So changing my mind is automatically an OMGUS? Whether your vote was on me or not, I would still find you suspicious." [1], but now you admit "it totally was".

And as said above, it was not just an OMGUS vote, but an OMGUS daykill, done while you admit you had no way of knowing if you'd hit a townie, and with the only and express purpose of saving your own ass. That kind of self preservation is only seen in scum. Town tries not to die, but will hang rather than risk using a potentially game-winning ability to kill another townie. This is the important part of it, yes. This is what marks you as undeniable scum. A townie with a daykill wouldn't use it D1 without being sure he wouldn't hit a townie, and you admit you spent it on a "gut feeling".

Follow up: Let's go back to your statement: "If I felt you were scum, doing scummy things." Could you be less vague? Please, even if it's long after the fact, provide actual evidence that the person attacking you was "doing scummy things" enough to justify you daykilling them for the good of town, as opposed to for the good of your own ass. But we know you can't, therefore the daykill was an act of pure self preservation, and therefore scum, and not of a role with the town's victory in mind.



One more bit of my previous post to which you didn't respond (my fault, I didn't put it in the "direct questions" section). I hereby repeat it here, and ask you to respond to the direct challenges posted therein:

This one is quite telling:
Didn't say you're scum. Said you're scummy. Zathras' assaults scummed you up quite a bit, and having the possibility for other anti-town roles, your name is not cleared. I'm not making any sort of new claims here, and I'll give hard evidence when I have it. Like I said, I'm choosing not to pursue you yet.
Basically what you're saying is that a highly anti-town role painted me to be scum, and that combined with the fact that there's a possibility of more anti-town roles, is enough to mark me as scummy in your eyes, despite the evidence to the contrary? Boy, that makes sense.
Boy, your argument makes no sense, and your sarcasm is on you. That "highly anti-town" role of which you speak was a third party, so there's not only the possibility, but the certainty of more anti-town roles: the scum team. And you end it up with "despite evidence to the contrary"? what, pray tell, evidence to the contrary? Produce that evidence, or you are lying again, scum.

And of course, my previous SK alignment does not invalidate my arguments at all. Had I been part of the scum team, and known you were town, sure, but I wasn't, and didn't have any knowledge of your alignment beyond your actions, so my arguments are to be judged on their own merit. You don't get to dismiss them just because you got lucky. That's what a member of the scum team would try to get away with, though.


He was challenged on this, and tried to wiggle thusly:

In a game with 13 players, you can bet on three scum, leaving ten. We've already identified one third-party, leave nine. If you account for a survivor, that's eight, which is just about perfect for town. So actually, the odds of an anti-town role are extremely low, as that would unbalance the game terribly. So now what?
This is called evidence.
Bullshit. The question is whether you are part of the scum team, for which you say there's "evidence to the contrary". Your "evidence" cites that there are likely three, but does nothing to say you aren't one of them. I say you are. Incidentally, I also think there's decent chance for further anti-town roles like jester or cult that you are conveniently ignoring once again like you did earlier in the game.
Produce the evidence that you claim exists that you are not scum, or you are lying yet again.

But we all know there is no such evidence.



Summary

Jokerman did indeed lie about:
a) stating that he had evidence my previous role was scum;
b) stating that he had knowledge he didn't have, to make himself look better in the eyes of town;
c) stating I had knowledge I didn't have;
d) that he felt confident his daykill target would hit scum;
e) denying saying what he had indeed said.

Jokerman did admit to:
a) using his daykill without any evidence at all on his target's alignment, based only on self preservation, emotion, and gut feel; this is utterly scummy.
b) doing this only to shut up his attacker ("OMGUS? - it totally was!"); scummy.
c) defending a practice he considers detrimental to town; scummy.
d) intending to kill lurkers without regard to their alignment (though he may backtrack on this and admit to lying instead); super-scummy.
e) multiple contradictions; scummy.
f) placing an OMGUS vote, and then denying it was OMGUS, then admitting under pressure he had no basis for it; super-scummy.



Jokerman-EXE, you are a liar, a coward, and a scum.

How many lies does it take? Lynch all liars. How many scummy acts does it take? Lynch the scum.
Logged
My soul has been freed by the King of the Mafia.

Zathras

  • Bay Watcher
  • Boogie thinks you being confoosed.
    • View Profile
Re: BYOR5.5 - Day 2: Old Friends Discuss New Times
« Reply #419 on: December 29, 2010, 05:23:14 am »

Mod: Extension request, and votecount, please.
Logged
My soul has been freed by the King of the Mafia.
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 77