Print

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

[2.71828.....]

I think as soon as D2, we'll have a good idea (at least I will) of whether we need to rid the game of the power I enable instead of protecting it.

So you are saying that your role is
a) an enabling role that is worth protecting
b) it is probably not best for you to discuss the details of your role
c) certain players know the same things that you know but it is best if all of you keep quiet about it

and on top of that your secret information leads you to suspect Walrus

[chairs]

Hi!

So I think that you guys should vote for Walrus.  As a tree stump, I don't have that capability.

So the reaally awesome part of being a tree stump is that scum can't kill me, which means I'm basically a half-IC (since I'm dead I don't count against their wincon, but since I'm dead they can't kill me to shut me up).  I guess they can go back to N1 to "fix" that, but then they're wasting a kill on somebody who's already dead!  It's glorious 

[2.71828.....]

Hi!

So I think that you guys should vote for Walrus.  As a tree stump, I don't have that capability.

So the reaally awesome part of being a tree stump is that scum can't kill me, which means I'm basically a half-IC (since I'm dead I don't count against their wincon, but since I'm dead they can't kill me to shut me up).  I guess they can go back to N1 to "fix" that, but then they're wasting a kill on somebody who's already dead!  It's glorious 

tree stump.....chairs.....there is a joke there

[2.71828.....]

On a serious note, why should we vote Walrus?

[xeiron]

Vote: chairs
I will let it stand through a vote count.
I read the answer to Fausts question so that voting chairs won't count, but it do not hurt to double check.
If we cannot lynch Chairs, he is probably not scum. That's good news.

[chairs]

Hi!

So I think that you guys should vote for Walrus.  As a tree stump, I don't have that capability.

So the reaally awesome part of being a tree stump is that scum can't kill me, which means I'm basically a half-IC (since I'm dead I don't count against their wincon, but since I'm dead they can't kill me to shut me up).  I guess they can go back to N1 to "fix" that, but then they're wasting a kill on somebody who's already dead!  It's glorious 

tree stump.....chairs.....there is a joke there

As the Something Awful forums would put it, :iiawwii:

PPE:

On a serious note, why should we vote Walrus?

I think Sudgy's plan worked.

Vote: chairs
I will let it stand through a vote count.
I read the answer to Fausts question so that voting chairs won't count, but it do not hurt to double check.
If we cannot lynch Chairs, he is probably not scum. That's good news.

Good suggestion, though it's already mod-confirmed and this isn't Bastard.

[Voltaire]

Vote Count 2.2

jotheonah (2): nkirbit, yuma
Walrus (1): ashersky

Not voting (8): EFHW, faust, Jimmmmm, jotheonah, pingpongsam, Walrus, xeiron, 2.71828.....

With 11 alive, it takes 6 to lynch.

D2 ends on Monday, January 6 at noon forum time

[2.71828.....]

On a serious note, why should we vote Walrus?

I think Sudgy's plan worked.

Do you have any special information that would lead you to believe that, or is it more of a gut feeling?

[ashersky]

I think as soon as D2, we'll have a good idea (at least I will) of whether we need to rid the game of the power I enable instead of protecting it.

So you are saying that your role is
a) an enabling role that is worth protecting
b) it is probably not best for you to discuss the details of your role
c) certain players know the same things that you know but it is best if all of you keep quiet about it

a) yes
b) possibly
c) not exactly, but good try

[xeiron]

Yuma for trying to avoid a lynch at all.

why is this scummy?

It is scummy, because in a situation where we are close to deadline, and blitzvoting to reach a lynch, and one of the feasable lynch canditates is scum (Archetype), other scum members would try to avoid having their teammate lynched. Either by pushing another wagon, or by just trying to avoid any lynch as you did.

[2.71828.....]

Yuma for trying to avoid a lynch at all.

why is this scummy?

It is scummy, because in a situation where we are close to deadline, and blitzvoting to reach a lynch, and one of the feasable lynch canditates is scum (Archetype), other scum members would try to avoid having their teammate lynched. Either by pushing another wagon, or by just trying to avoid any lynch as you did.

Or scum could hammer their partner when they don't see a way out of it

[ashersky]

I think as soon as D2, we'll have a good idea (at least I will) of whether we need to rid the game of the power I enable instead of protecting it.

So you are saying that your role is
a) an enabling role that is worth protecting
b) it is probably not best for you to discuss the details of your role
c) certain players know the same things that you know but it is best if all of you keep quiet about it

and on top of that your secret information leads you to suspect Walrus

No, my information doesn't actually say anything about Walrus at all.

sudgy was a weak doctor.  sudgy's statement says he targeted Walrus.  sudgy died.

Occam's Razor says Walrus is scum.  WIFOM says well, scum could have just killed sudgy.  That's a good idea and all, and is supported by the fact that no one else died.  What I'm saying is that I can account for no one else dying, so that point in favor of the WIFOM argument is null.

If you'd like, scum could have killed sudgy AND Walrus can be scum at the same time.  Since Walrus was one of the three named, they didn't want to risk it so they shot sudgy to ensure there was only the one kill to allow for the WIFOM argument.

[nkirbit]

Yuma for trying to avoid a lynch at all.

why is this scummy?

It is scummy, because in a situation where we are close to deadline, and blitzvoting to reach a lynch, and one of the feasable lynch canditates is scum (Archetype), other scum members would try to avoid having their teammate lynched. Either by pushing another wagon, or by just trying to avoid any lynch as you did.

I kind of disagree with you here a bit, Xeiron.  I think the path of least resistance for Yuma, were he Archetype's teammate, would have been to push the Walrus wagon.  He had been absent through no fault of his own, so he wouldn't draw any suspicion pushing that wagon at that point, I don't think.  A town mislynch is also better than a no-lynch, were he Archetype's partner.  Pushing a no-lynch turns more attention to himself while pushing for a worse outcome, so I just don't see it as a scummy action.

Of course, if Walrus turns out to be Archetype's partner, then yeah, Yuma's pretty scummy by association.  But I don't think that's the case.

[nkirbit]

I think as soon as D2, we'll have a good idea (at least I will) of whether we need to rid the game of the power I enable instead of protecting it.

So you are saying that your role is
a) an enabling role that is worth protecting
b) it is probably not best for you to discuss the details of your role
c) certain players know the same things that you know but it is best if all of you keep quiet about it

and on top of that your secret information leads you to suspect Walrus

No, my information doesn't actually say anything about Walrus at all.

sudgy was a weak doctor.  sudgy's statement says he targeted Walrus.  sudgy died.

Occam's Razor says Walrus is scum.  WIFOM says well, scum could have just killed sudgy.  That's a good idea and all, and is supported by the fact that no one else died.  What I'm saying is that I can account for no one else dying, so that point in favor of the WIFOM argument is null.

If you'd like, scum could have killed sudgy AND Walrus can be scum at the same time.  Since Walrus was one of the three named, they didn't want to risk it so they shot sudgy to ensure there was only the one kill to allow for the WIFOM argument.

Can you account for Sudgy not dying through a normal NK?

[yuma]

Yuma for trying to avoid a lynch at all.

why is this scummy?

It is scummy, because in a situation where we are close to deadline, and blitzvoting to reach a lynch, and one of the feasable lynch canditates is scum (Archetype), other scum members would try to avoid having their teammate lynched. Either by pushing another wagon, or by just trying to avoid any lynch as you did.

Ok. But how does that make me scum? Wouldn't have the better option at this juncture be to vote for Walrus if I was arch's mate?

This was the vote count when I first posted the no-lynch idea:

Archetype (4): Jimmmmm, Walrus, Faust, Nkirbit
xeiron (3): sudgy, 2.7..., jotheonah
Galzria (1): chairs
Walrus (4): ashersky, pingpongsam, Xeiron, Archetype

It would have been supremely easy and no one would have blamed me for voting for walrus at this point coming in as a sub. I even said that I had been suspicious of walrus in the speccy thread (but that this had waned of late). If I were scum partners with Arch all I would have had to say was "I have been suspicious of walrus all game watching, vote walrus" and then press for it.

So again I ask, how is the narrative of me suggesting a no-lynch a scummy one?

[ashersky]

Can you account for Sudgy not dying through a normal NK?

No, I cannot definitely rule that out.  Can you confirm he was?

[nkirbit]

Can you account for Sudgy not dying through a normal NK?

No, I cannot definitely rule that out.  Can you confirm he was?

Well, if you can't definitely rule it out, I just don't think we should go there.

Do you think it's feasible for Archetype and Walrus to be partners?  I just don't... I don't think we had our two largest day1 wagons on scum, and I don't think Walrus would have claimed and thrown suspicion on Arch the way he did if they were partners.

Given that I don't think Walrus is mafia, I just don't think it makes sense to try and lynch him today.  Yeah, he could be a third party, but I'd rather try and lynch someone who could be either mafia or a potential third party than lynch Walrus.  Heck, I don't even know if a third party exists, so if I have evidence that someone isn't mafia, I'm content to not lynch them at this point in the game.

[xeiron]

Yuma for trying to avoid a lynch at all.

why is this scummy?

It is scummy, because in a situation where we are close to deadline, and blitzvoting to reach a lynch, and one of the feasable lynch canditates is scum (Archetype), other scum members would try to avoid having their teammate lynched. Either by pushing another wagon, or by just trying to avoid any lynch as you did.

Ok. But how does that make me scum? Wouldn't have the better option at this juncture be to vote for Walrus if I was arch's mate?

This was the vote count when I first posted the no-lynch idea:

Archetype (4): Jimmmmm, Walrus, Faust, Nkirbit
xeiron (3): sudgy, 2.7..., jotheonah
Galzria (1): chairs
Walrus (4): ashersky, pingpongsam, Xeiron, Archetype

It would have been supremely easy and no one would have blamed me for voting for walrus at this point coming in as a sub. I even said that I had been suspicious of walrus in the speccy thread (but that this had waned of late). If I were scum partners with Arch all I would have had to say was "I have been suspicious of walrus all game watching, vote walrus" and then press for it.

So again I ask, how is the narrative of me suggesting a no-lynch a scummy one?

Roughly speaking there where four alternatives yesterday.
1. Vote Archetype
2. Vote Walrus
3. Vote Xeiron
4. Support no-lynch.

I can certainly see town going for any of them. Scum would probably choose something else that 1. At least before a Archetype lynch was unavoidable.
Now, we are in a situation where over half of the non-IC-players voted Archetype.
That leaves the rest as scummier by elimination.
It is not so much the no-lynch thing thats make you scummy, but rather not joining the Archetype wagon.

[yuma]

It is not so much the no-lynch thing thats make you scummy, but rather not joining the Archetype wagon.

Then you should have said that from the beginning. I have no problem being seen as somewhat scummier than others for not voting archetype compared to those who did, especially those who voted early and at key moments, but to single me out for saying "no-lynch" and focusing on that is another story...

[ashersky]

Heck, I don't even know if a third party exists, so if I have evidence that someone isn't mafia, I'm content to not lynch them at this point in the game.

Can you please share the evidence you have that walrus isn't mafia?

[jotheonah]

I have a lot of catching up to do. Please stop voting for me for a second. I have things to share.

[jotheonah]

Yuma for trying to avoid a lynch at all.

why is this scummy?

It is scummy, because in a situation where we are close to deadline, and blitzvoting to reach a lynch, and one of the feasable lynch canditates is scum (Archetype), other scum members would try to avoid having their teammate lynched. Either by pushing another wagon, or by just trying to avoid any lynch as you did.

Ok. But how does that make me scum? Wouldn't have the better option at this juncture be to vote for Walrus if I was arch's mate?

This was the vote count when I first posted the no-lynch idea:

Archetype (4): Jimmmmm, Walrus, Faust, Nkirbit
xeiron (3): sudgy, 2.7..., jotheonah
Galzria (1): chairs
Walrus (4): ashersky, pingpongsam, Xeiron, Archetype

It would have been supremely easy and no one would have blamed me for voting for walrus at this point coming in as a sub. I even said that I had been suspicious of walrus in the speccy thread (but that this had waned of late). If I were scum partners with Arch all I would have had to say was "I have been suspicious of walrus all game watching, vote walrus" and then press for it.

So again I ask, how is the narrative of me suggesting a no-lynch a scummy one?

Because Walrus and Archetype were BOTH your partners! You had no other choice. THat's rich!

[jotheonah]

Ok, I have no useful information. I thought I did, but then I re-read and it turns out I didn't. I think Walrus is our best guess at present.

[yuma]

Because Walrus and Archetype were BOTH your partners! You had no other choice. THat's rich!

Ok. If that is your narrative why didn't I vote for xeiron and make him a fully viable lynch candidate making all of them at 4 votes?

your reasoning doesn't make sense.

i am staying with my joth vote

[jotheonah]

You saw how the town was acting and figured no lynch was a better bet. Remember, to accomplish a no lynch all you ha to do was stall us out.

You didn't have much time to look through the day's posts and build a case on xeiron. So you went with a case that saved your partner and didn't require time for research.