Posted October 26, 2015
CarrionCrow
.
Registered: May 2011
From United States
JMich
A Horrible Human Person. If you need me, chat.
Registered: Apr 2011
From Greece
Posted October 26, 2015
Something smells fishy, as we've already discussed previously. 2 roleblockers is unlikely, but possible, but now we have 3 possible ones, assuming everyone is telling the truth.
I still don't like drealmer7's RP posting, especially since it seems to be spreading. The ability sounds weird, and possibly bogus, and the staggered reveals (I can investigate someone that took part in a crisis. I can learn something. I can find out if they tried to sabotage it or not) doesn't really help. It is possible that it is a town role, so he does have the benefit of doubt for now.
As for agentcarr16, I will need to reread his posts. His claim of being blocked sounds false, mostly due to the amount of blockers that requires. Unless HijacK is lying though, which would mean there are 2 blockers (more likely than 3)
I certainly dislike how he justifies not using his power. Too many assumptions, without reason to think them on night 1.
My guess would be that at least one of them is lying. I guess it would be relatively easy to verify their claims, so I'll wait for next day before going after either of them.
Not sure. Both claimed a bit easily, and neither has a night action that could be verified. I hope I'll manage to do a proper re-read this week, but not sure if I'll manage it.
drealmer7: Yeah, that's what I suggested and asked about people's views on way back before and you jumped on my case and pretty much put your foot down that a no-lynch scenario was had NOTHING GOOD AT ALL that could come of it (and then you voted contradictory to that stance.) You do notice that I called the no lynch a bad situation, right? It's like saying that the benefit of losing the flight from east to west coast is that you can do a road trip.
So, intentionally going for no lynch (as in voting for it) is a very bad idea. Being indifferent to getting a lynch (not voting anyone) is not quite the same. Now, for voting someone just to get a lynch or not getting a lynch, it is not as clear cut. Not caring about who gets lynched is quite scummy (or serial killer-y), so it is a different can of worms altogether.
So, to summarize. Try to get a lynch. Vote for whoever you find scummier. Try to convince others as to why your target is the best one. Do change your target if there is a chance to lynch one of your other suspects. Ask yourself if lynching one you don't think as scum is worth it or not. Small distinctions, and no clear guide.
I still don't like drealmer7's RP posting, especially since it seems to be spreading. The ability sounds weird, and possibly bogus, and the staggered reveals (I can investigate someone that took part in a crisis. I can learn something. I can find out if they tried to sabotage it or not) doesn't really help. It is possible that it is a town role, so he does have the benefit of doubt for now.
As for agentcarr16, I will need to reread his posts. His claim of being blocked sounds false, mostly due to the amount of blockers that requires. Unless HijacK is lying though, which would mean there are 2 blockers (more likely than 3)
I certainly dislike how he justifies not using his power. Too many assumptions, without reason to think them on night 1.
My guess would be that at least one of them is lying. I guess it would be relatively easy to verify their claims, so I'll wait for next day before going after either of them.
Not sure. Both claimed a bit easily, and neither has a night action that could be verified. I hope I'll manage to do a proper re-read this week, but not sure if I'll manage it.
So, intentionally going for no lynch (as in voting for it) is a very bad idea. Being indifferent to getting a lynch (not voting anyone) is not quite the same. Now, for voting someone just to get a lynch or not getting a lynch, it is not as clear cut. Not caring about who gets lynched is quite scummy (or serial killer-y), so it is a different can of worms altogether.
So, to summarize. Try to get a lynch. Vote for whoever you find scummier. Try to convince others as to why your target is the best one. Do change your target if there is a chance to lynch one of your other suspects. Ask yourself if lynching one you don't think as scum is worth it or not. Small distinctions, and no clear guide.
HijacK
Bona fide badass
Registered: Apr 2012
From Romania
Posted October 26, 2015
Pls. I'm the best strategist there is. Just because you got a skewed ass view due to Chuck Norris reasons it doesn't mean that's a valid argument. I'm the MVP.
Because I wanted to confront him about his ability. You see, it's a rare occurrence that someone is like: yup, I roleblocked X during the night. Oh, it turns out he was an investigative role. ----> Not suspicious at all /endsarcasm.
But then I slept on it and I reasoned I should just watch JMich. His actions didn't seem anti-town, but maybe he's just a master faker.
Nobody asked you to swallow.... Just sayin'.
What about me?
See, this is what I find funny. I make the right call not to fuck up with potential investigative roles and people call me scummy. JMich does it, because oh, based on day 1 analysis drealmer was scummy, drealmer turns out to be some kind of weird cop (whether scum or town still to be decided though most having him towards town), and nobody criticizes this action. Sure. Doesn't look wrong at all. /endsarcasm
Individually, I don't have serious reasons to find JMich scum yet, outside of the usual scum role. And for all I know there is a second roleblock that has not been caused by me, so I am curious. The possibility of another blocker or JOAT is what gives me a stop for now. I don't want JMich today. This and I have a plan of how to check adalia's claim.
Drealmer is bleh. No idea. His actions are in between towny and scummy. Makes decent points, but too much fence sitting. And latches onto the smallest of things. And he reminds me of bler a little. Give him some flavor and RP and he'll go in places that you wouldn't thought possible. I'm curious to hear his findings though, unless of course he happens to be roleblocked. Again!
Biased. Makes terrible points. Looks scummy. Debating whether vote-worthy.
Possibly. I've seen weirder shit. For all I know nobody took in consideration the possibility of a JOAT in the game. Whether I believe both of them at the moment is debatable.
Hard to say. Both, one, none? It all depends. I lack information here.
What about you, Vitek?
Because I wanted to confront him about his ability. You see, it's a rare occurrence that someone is like: yup, I roleblocked X during the night. Oh, it turns out he was an investigative role. ----> Not suspicious at all /endsarcasm.
But then I slept on it and I reasoned I should just watch JMich. His actions didn't seem anti-town, but maybe he's just a master faker.
Nobody asked you to swallow.... Just sayin'.
What about me?
See, this is what I find funny. I make the right call not to fuck up with potential investigative roles and people call me scummy. JMich does it, because oh, based on day 1 analysis drealmer was scummy, drealmer turns out to be some kind of weird cop (whether scum or town still to be decided though most having him towards town), and nobody criticizes this action. Sure. Doesn't look wrong at all. /endsarcasm
Individually, I don't have serious reasons to find JMich scum yet, outside of the usual scum role. And for all I know there is a second roleblock that has not been caused by me, so I am curious. The possibility of another blocker or JOAT is what gives me a stop for now. I don't want JMich today. This and I have a plan of how to check adalia's claim.
Drealmer is bleh. No idea. His actions are in between towny and scummy. Makes decent points, but too much fence sitting. And latches onto the smallest of things. And he reminds me of bler a little. Give him some flavor and RP and he'll go in places that you wouldn't thought possible. I'm curious to hear his findings though, unless of course he happens to be roleblocked. Again!
Biased. Makes terrible points. Looks scummy. Debating whether vote-worthy.
Possibly. I've seen weirder shit. For all I know nobody took in consideration the possibility of a JOAT in the game. Whether I believe both of them at the moment is debatable.
Hard to say. Both, one, none? It all depends. I lack information here.
What about you, Vitek?
JMich
A Horrible Human Person. If you need me, chat.
Registered: Apr 2011
From Greece
Krypsyn
The Anti-Hippie
Registered: Oct 2008
From United States
yogsloth
GRAAAAAAH!!!!!
Registered: Dec 2013
From United States
Krypsyn
The Anti-Hippie
Registered: Oct 2008
From United States
Posted October 26, 2015
Unvote: flubbucket
Vote: yogsloth
Reasons are still for sissies.
Vote: yogsloth
Reasons are still for sissies.
flubbucket
"Intoning"
Registered: Dec 2012
From Micronesia
Posted October 26, 2015
Well there is the default reason.
The guy's a dick.
Giggle....weener joke.
JMich: Bull. Your jailer play proves it. The best strategist play would be using the power on a correct player. And the "best strategist there is" would be able to choose the correct player. Agreed.
That's why he's got my Vote.
The guy's a dick.
Giggle....weener joke.
That's why he's got my Vote.
HijacK
Bona fide badass
Registered: Apr 2012
From Romania
Posted October 26, 2015
@all: I recall a certain possibility for JOAT's to have 1 shot roleblocks. Nobody find it likely one such JOAT may exist among us?
Krypsyn
The Anti-Hippie
Registered: Oct 2008
From United States
Posted October 26, 2015
I think you quoted the wrong vote there. Although, yogsloth has been quite nice this game ... maybe too nice?!! *dun Dun DUN* (I used this reason Day 1, so it doesn't count!)
also:
Unvote: yogsloth
Vote: drealmer7
Raisins are for muffins.
also:
Unvote: yogsloth
Vote: drealmer7
Raisins are for muffins.
Bookwyrm627
ADD Jumping Bean
Registered: Nov 2013
From United States
Posted October 26, 2015
Pre-post note: Yes, some people may have already talked about these things. I'm going to type up my responses while catching up on the thread, and I may decide not to remove my response just because someone else already said something similar. Don't like it? Then "Sucks to Your Assmar." (TM)
drealmer7: Nah, I like how you are playing, I was just quite perturbed by your claims of not having followed well enough to make any contributions when you joined; not sure I really believe it, you know? Also fishy that you were wanting the next crisis to occur, but of course that can be explained away by the curiousity from a gameplay standpoint. As I stated previously, I didn't anticipate actually being tapped to join the game (especially with Adalia ahead of me in the replacement queue), so I didn't concern myself with actively trying to solve the game. doubly so since I wouldn't have any mechanism of investigating anything; from the outside it would be more like watching a movie or reading a book.
And yes, I do rather enjoy investigating the mechanical ideas of these games. You can count me among the apparently small number of players that are curious about the possible failure effects, though I don't want to actually incur them if they will harm town. If they'll harm only scum, then lets fail the crap out of some crises!
JMich: 2 blocked claims, 2 role blocker claims, 1 missing role blocker. Speculation on the affiliation of the blockers and the blocked ones. Extrapolation from result of those, should any of them be lynched.
Not as good a day 2 as we could have had, not as bad one either.drealmer7: Oh, so there are advantages to a no-lynch. Got it. With a lynch, we'd have had all the things JMich indicated unless we lynched JMich, Hijack, or someone else that turned up some sort of blocking role (in which case the night results can be adjusted accordingly, such as "confirmed" instead of "claimed"). We'd also have another confirmed player, even if they are dead. We might even have killed a scum (no lynch = no chance of that).
CarrionCrow: Something that's bugged me from the start, and I feel a bit badly for having to latch this onto Bookworm since they're a replacement, but it's still annoying me.
Way back in post 210, I made a silly comment to Crewdroog. Still screwing around, no expectation of getting any info based on it.
On post 220, she responds in a way that makes me think of a deer in headlights every time I read it. No characteristic silliness on her part, no pleasant smartass retorts, just a total verbal lockup. That's been bugging me ever since she did it.
Additional - typo'd, had to fix it. Penalize at will, it'll drive me up a wall if I leave it as it was. I don't know where she might have kept any sharp objects she may or may not have had. I do not keep any I may or may not have under a bunny ear hat...probably. I don't think her reaction means anything more than your question did. Though if we want to look into this, did you answer her return question? I haven't checked, so I don't actually know the answer to this question of mine.
JMich: Yes. A couple of options.
1) agentcarr16 is telling the truth about being blocked. That means that we either have a 3rd role capable of blocking that did the blocking, or that HijacK did indeed block agentcarr
2) agentcarr16 is lying. So no idea about a roleblocker existing or not. You've abandoned the redirector/bus driver option?
CarrionCrow: Like I said...perfectly sensible. They're playing the same character, but give it a pass just because. Apparently I'm more convincing as town thus far. If nothing else, I talk more than she did; it means more chances for me to make a(n actual) scum slip and lynch me for better reasons. Were there particular comments from Crewdroog that bothered you, Crow? I know she revealed a little PM based info (I made sure to reread what she posted early, so I know what she's already put out there), but not much. If it isn't particular posts that concern someone, then why wouldn't their view change as they see how I act? That would be sort of like if she had continued, but become more convincing as a town player.
Drealmer: Underlining in the quote is mine. One general rule my extended family tries to observe when playing any game: be wary of being a hard-ass about rules, because it could very well come back to haunt you.
More generally: Personally, I'm going to trust Quad to sort it out to the best of his ability, and I'll try to roll with whatever he chooses. Thus far, everything I've seen indicates he's trying to keep things on an even keel for us.
JMich: Bull. Your jailer play proves it. The best strategist play would be using the power on a correct player. And the "best strategist there is" would be able to choose the correct player. 
yogsloth: Oh, like role-blocking drealmer? The difference is that JMich isn't claiming to be the best strategist there is.
On the flip side, Hijack could actually be the best strategist there is, and everyone else is just worse than he is (and no, I don't think this is true). That would be...unfortunate...for the rest of us, but theoretically possible.
And yes, I do rather enjoy investigating the mechanical ideas of these games. You can count me among the apparently small number of players that are curious about the possible failure effects, though I don't want to actually incur them if they will harm town. If they'll harm only scum, then lets fail the crap out of some crises!
Not as good a day 2 as we could have had, not as bad one either.
Way back in post 210, I made a silly comment to Crewdroog. Still screwing around, no expectation of getting any info based on it.
On post 220, she responds in a way that makes me think of a deer in headlights every time I read it. No characteristic silliness on her part, no pleasant smartass retorts, just a total verbal lockup. That's been bugging me ever since she did it.
Additional - typo'd, had to fix it. Penalize at will, it'll drive me up a wall if I leave it as it was.
1) agentcarr16 is telling the truth about being blocked. That means that we either have a 3rd role capable of blocking that did the blocking, or that HijacK did indeed block agentcarr
2) agentcarr16 is lying. So no idea about a roleblocker existing or not.
Drealmer: Underlining in the quote is mine. One general rule my extended family tries to observe when playing any game: be wary of being a hard-ass about rules, because it could very well come back to haunt you.
More generally: Personally, I'm going to trust Quad to sort it out to the best of his ability, and I'll try to roll with whatever he chooses. Thus far, everything I've seen indicates he's trying to keep things on an even keel for us.
On the flip side, Hijack could actually be the best strategist there is, and everyone else is just worse than he is (and no, I don't think this is true). That would be...unfortunate...for the rest of us, but theoretically possible.
HijacK
Bona fide badass
Registered: Apr 2012
From Romania
Krypsyn
The Anti-Hippie
Registered: Oct 2008
From United States
HijacK
Bona fide badass
Registered: Apr 2012
From Romania
Posted October 26, 2015
Ixamyakxim
Boxer Dogs Rule
Registered: Feb 2014
From United States
Posted October 26, 2015
Ain't happenin' Krypy. I voted for myself and it isn't working!
If we aren't going to lynch me before the crisis event can we at least lynch Bookwrym? Not only does he have his claim all ready to go and a desire for the event to occur, the real gem was suggesting it might be a GOOD thing to fail one! No, really, if we fail one (Quad said in the OP that consequences could be as severe as a townie death) it could actually be bad for scum! He said that.
If we aren't going to lynch me before the crisis event can we at least lynch Bookwrym? Not only does he have his claim all ready to go and a desire for the event to occur, the real gem was suggesting it might be a GOOD thing to fail one! No, really, if we fail one (Quad said in the OP that consequences could be as severe as a townie death) it could actually be bad for scum! He said that.