Posted September 17, 2016
bler144
μαϊμού
bler144 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2013
From United States
bler144
μαϊμού
bler144 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2013
From United States
drealmer7
finding balance
drealmer7 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2010
From United States
bler144
μαϊμού
bler144 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2013
From United States
Posted September 17, 2016
drealmer7: We are about a week away from it being a month since Julie was killed, and I think Samhain Night will fall on that very night, AND I think the Full Moon could come even sooner than that, or it could fall on Samhain Night, I'm not sure, and, well, I've just got a really bad feeling in my gut, and it's starting to spread.
Side note @everybody, this is the second flavor update in a row where Drealmer has suggested we're moving toward sundown/evening. Babark is here. I know it's the weekend, and I'm procrastinating on shit I actually should do, but...
Well, the implications of that are not at all confusing. TLDR Sushi was vanilla town and looks mod-killed (last post 3 days).
Hypotheses: Agent and Doc got subs because they asked. Sushi/Fox didn't because they didn't, esp. Fox. Not alignment indicative, probably, and at the least RW/Babark don't look like w/w.
Still unexplained: One flipped and one didn't. Multiple poss. for that.
However, I'm a bit skeptical that Fox was strictly town, unless this is an all-town game as someone (wyrm?) joking suggested, or a 3-faction game. Mod-killing two town on D1 would shift the odds/balance pretty significantly in a standard scenario or even 3-faction setup, though. While it's WIFOM, mod tries harder to find a sub before killing second town of the day, right? That's a deep town hole, and vast if we end up lynching town today.
Want to ponder this. Kinda a throw my hands in the air moment - makes my gut want to stick on yogs just when I thought I was shifting to RW. Can explain why if anyone cares, but for now going to go read regulatory shit and let someone else worry about the game. ;)
ttfn
Stanari
brrrrrrrrr
Stanari Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2016
From United States
Posted September 17, 2016
...what is happening
Stanari
brrrrrrrrr
Stanari Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2016
From United States
Posted September 17, 2016
babark: People here have a habit of obsessively overreading text to mean fantastical things, which is a bit bothersome to me, because I don't super-carefully choose my wording, and it's a bit annoying to carry a conversation where the slightest wrong inflection or phrasing could turn people into a frothing lynch mob.
Not the worst habit, and my first reaction is to say this is tonally off but I'm not sure how. I struggle with this post a lot, but I think it's fair to say the "size of the scumteam" attack is a bit flimsy.
babark: And to put my money where my mouth is, out of my suspects, the one with the most viable wagon already present is...
vote Stanari
Still keeping an eye on RWarehall, and possibly trenton and bookwyrm, though.
I'd much rather you actually, like, scumhunt instead of just picking the easiest counterwagon? You've not even indicated the faintest of reasons for thinking I'm scum. vote Stanari
Still keeping an eye on RWarehall, and possibly trenton and bookwyrm, though.
babark: So you're attempting to put me on the defensive, as if my being scum is a foregone conclusion, and it was my job to PROVE I was innocent.
It is! What's even MORE wonderful is that this is further proof of the machinations behind the accusation: How I mentioned before that people can't even decide among themselves WHAT is suspicious about it.
How does that matter? As I said initially, I chose Stanari out of all the people who were on my wagon, Stanari was the most viable to be lynched
How exactly does my lynch viability play into this? (heck, he even basically said "I'm good at following rules" before voting for me).
Now seems like an appropriate time for that headdesk gif. bler144: Stan's vote on Babark is meh (@Babark, Stan's a she, fwiw), but definitely not alignment indicative. For town or scum it's a fair self-preservation vote, and honestly, if she's scum I think she does it a bit sooner or tries harder to justify it. IDK. But on the surface it's 100% a rational play for her to make sooner or later.
I voted him several pages earlier, ghhh >___> The text for Fox being modkilled is different, and also includes the word modkilled. Plus here it has an actual flip with flavor (which might suggest shenanigans with Fox, yes).
Nachomamma8
killed yogsloth
Nachomamma8 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Aug 2016
From United States
Nachomamma8
killed yogsloth
Nachomamma8 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Aug 2016
From United States
Posted September 17, 2016
Sushi's death seems pretty weird; my initial reaction to it was that it was maybe scum/neutral/town kill instead of modkill but weirdly enough the "horrendous natural accident" seems more modkill-y than it seems kill-y.
trentonlf
Easily amused
trentonlf Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Apr 2014
From United States
Posted September 17, 2016
Sorry for my absence today but the wife wanted some new jeans. So we had to drive 60 miles for a scavenger hunt...
I call it a scavenger hunt since she had to go to 6 different stores and try on 20 different pairs of jeans to find a pair she liked. She got a nice pair, but man I think this is the most she's ever hunted for any article of clothing before, fun times LOL.
Not sure what happened that Sushi was mod killed, but the fact there was a flip is good for us.
I see babark did finally catch up.
So you are only looking at people who voted you because anyone who did must be scum, and your initial vote is to go with the wagon that is more viable from that group. RW then states he wants more from you, and I agree, and you do a total OMGUS vote and switch to RW. How in all this are you expecting my to give you the benefit of the doubt and remove my vote? I'm good with where my vote is.
I call it a scavenger hunt since she had to go to 6 different stores and try on 20 different pairs of jeans to find a pair she liked. She got a nice pair, but man I think this is the most she's ever hunted for any article of clothing before, fun times LOL.
Not sure what happened that Sushi was mod killed, but the fact there was a flip is good for us.
I see babark did finally catch up.
So you are only looking at people who voted you because anyone who did must be scum, and your initial vote is to go with the wagon that is more viable from that group. RW then states he wants more from you, and I agree, and you do a total OMGUS vote and switch to RW. How in all this are you expecting my to give you the benefit of the doubt and remove my vote? I'm good with where my vote is.
bler144
μαϊμού
bler144 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2013
From United States
Posted September 17, 2016
Lunch break from reading
lol. I read that first thing this morning while eating breakfast and I had no idea what you meant by "good at following rules." Didn't remember the earlier vote.
Based on my own logic I should probably re-read you then, since you clearly want me to put you in the more suspicious camp. ;)
Or I could, y'know, just be lazy and put it off since I don't really think that one detail is going to swing my view on you from #7ish (wrote 8, but adjusted for dead-Sushi) to "excited about voting Stan!." If your wagon actually goes somewhere I will look at it though, since I'd have to decide whether to actively vote or defend you. And you're still in the "ehhh, don't really feel it."
The bigger reason I don't want to re-read anybody atm is that this regulatory shit is pretty dry. It is what I do, but I rarely read 60 pages of straight regulation in one pass. At this point in my career it's usually 2-3 subsections at a time. Read a 100 page release last month, but only about 10% of it was actual regulation, most was context and explanation for said regulation which made it much easier to digest and write an analysis of.
So re-reading you today would, on the one hand, be a break from that, but it would still be more reading when I still have like 48 pages of actual work/prep to go before Monday's interview that ideally I'd like to get through most of today.
So to the extent I am here today it will probably be mostly shitposting or low-hanging fruit.
You know, even compared to my usual.
But I'm up for a good time. Bang Nacho. You know, if you're uuuuup for it. #Notsubtleentendre
Oh, and while I'm at it should probably unmarry brasas and unkill Ix.
lol. I read that first thing this morning while eating breakfast and I had no idea what you meant by "good at following rules." Didn't remember the earlier vote.
Based on my own logic I should probably re-read you then, since you clearly want me to put you in the more suspicious camp. ;)
Or I could, y'know, just be lazy and put it off since I don't really think that one detail is going to swing my view on you from #7ish (wrote 8, but adjusted for dead-Sushi) to "excited about voting Stan!." If your wagon actually goes somewhere I will look at it though, since I'd have to decide whether to actively vote or defend you. And you're still in the "ehhh, don't really feel it."
The bigger reason I don't want to re-read anybody atm is that this regulatory shit is pretty dry. It is what I do, but I rarely read 60 pages of straight regulation in one pass. At this point in my career it's usually 2-3 subsections at a time. Read a 100 page release last month, but only about 10% of it was actual regulation, most was context and explanation for said regulation which made it much easier to digest and write an analysis of.
So re-reading you today would, on the one hand, be a break from that, but it would still be more reading when I still have like 48 pages of actual work/prep to go before Monday's interview that ideally I'd like to get through most of today.
So to the extent I am here today it will probably be mostly shitposting or low-hanging fruit.
You know, even compared to my usual.
Nachomamma8: For a minute, I thought that you were referring to me with this lovely little quote and my heart leapt and skipped a beat.
You might be good marriage material. At this point I'm probably not, however. I think I just need to be me, Marie - proud and single! - at least for a day or two. But I'm up for a good time. Bang Nacho. You know, if you're uuuuup for it. #Notsubtleentendre
Oh, and while I'm at it should probably unmarry brasas and unkill Ix.
drealmer7
finding balance
drealmer7 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2010
From United States
Posted September 17, 2016
a little infidelity before the divorce, eh bler?
it makes things just that much more exciting!
it makes things just that much more exciting!
bler144
μαϊμού
bler144 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2013
From United States
RWarehall
Ja'loja!
RWarehall Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Jan 2012
From United States
Posted September 17, 2016
bler144: @RW, I'd asked you a question in 824 that I was actually hoping you'd answer. So I guess I did need you to reply.
I answered your question in 839. I proposed we wait for Babark to catch up and see what he has to say. He finally came out. Then I started asking my questions and pressing a bit. I didn't like that statement from Docbear for many reasons. It was providing shade on the whole Ixam debate. There is a hint of implied knowledge possibly. Ironically, I wasn't involved in that debate at all. I could have just sat here, said nothing. And look what it's got me, a bunch of people declaring I'm rising up their scum lists because of it for pretty insubstantial reasons kinda like last game where it seems the best way to be suspicious in a GoG game is to press and ask questions, which I believe every town player should be doing. Ironically, the same reason you gathered a vote from somebody, Bler...for doing too much.
You want my ulterior motive here? Why I'm pressing Docbear/Babark? It's the same reason why you press anyone. I want clarity. The statement itself doesn't say necessarily "I am scum", but the statement is rather convoluted. Depending on how you read it, Doc was either defending Ixam because the wagon was "too convenient" or throwing him under the bus saying scum could be bussing scum. And the with so many players in the game scum could be bussing their own comment, it seemed very off to me. At the very least, I was hoping to find out of this meant Docbear was planning to join that wagon or not.
So I pressed with an early vote to provide emphasis so that Docbear had to respond and explain her position. I put Docbear to L-7... I really wanted to know how she stood on Ixam. I wanted her to clarify if she had flavor information about the wolves that would provide more clarity on the game.
Instead I get her running away. Frankly, I don't see that as a town move at all. To be fair to Babark, he would have to give me quite a bit for me to remove my vote. What he did give me is vastly underwhelming.
Look, many players have been talking about how you don't get much information by lynching lurkers as a reason not to vote them. I personally disagree. But you may have to work to make the lynch worthwhile. Press them, get their opinions of other players before they get the noose. Make them take a stand. That way, even if we are wrong, you have their scum reads. And if we are right, we have some information to analyze on who might or might not be their scum buddies.
There is a reason I left these GoG games and only reluctantly volunteered to sub when I was asked about the game for the 3rd time (I guess it does work just like those cop shows where if you ask 3 times the perp confesses). But the reason I don't like these games is the games drag on. Players play standoffish (lurk in plain sight) and players have a terrible habit of lynching the handful of people who are trying to make something happen on Day 1 and giving all the lurkers a free pass (whether they post a lot or not - Yogs this game is an example of posting a lot with little content).
I think most people here have their analysis backwards. Every time people try to scum hunt, you suspect them and talk about lynching them as if putting themselves on the line and establishing a position isn't enough, that the typical scum player is trying so hard to "make a name for themselves". Let me tell you, if you really look, the typical modus operandi for a GoG game on Day 1.... don't vote on the lynch target, don't push, place your vote (if you make one) on someone who isn't going to be lynched and let town lynch town so day 2 you can go after those who mis-voted.
Do you really think if we lynch Babark and he flips town this is the position I would want to be in as scum? (And I know, WIFOM, but seriously) Or maybe you think I'm bussing a scum buddy day 1 because that's what scum should do day 1 in a closed set-up with no idea how many investigative roles are against them?
You want my "plan"? How about we start pressing those who have been skating by without taking any kind of position. If we were allowed to bet, I'd bet you you'll find most of the scum right there. But by making them go on record, we get more w/w determinations. Information is power and in a big game like this, if you make people take sides early and often, it should become pretty clear who the scum are by day 3, 4 or 5.
Or we could lynch all the people who have something to say and take positions...and have a day 3,4 and 5 full of lurkers whose contributions amount to joining easy and convenient wagons without providing anything new to the discussion...
bler144
μαϊμού
bler144 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2013
From United States
Posted September 17, 2016
Thanks, will re-read that later. But I'd forgotten I'd asked you a question at the bottom - I'm aware you'd commented on strategy and even think I posted somewhere that I saw the logic in that.
When I said question you didn't answer, it was the other question at the top about Ix's claim.
Thanks
When I said question you didn't answer, it was the other question at the top about Ix's claim.
Thanks
babark
Pirate Mullah
babark Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2010
From Pakistan
Posted September 17, 2016
Stanari: I struggle with this post a lot, but I think it's fair to say the "size of the scumteam" attack is a bit flimsy.
I'd much rather you actually, like, scumhunt instead of just picking the easiest counterwagon? You've not even indicated the faintest of reasons for thinking I'm scum.
No? I thought I made it quite obvious. There are a number of people on my wagon, for, as you admit yourself, "flimsy" reasons. Like I said, you can't all be ignorant or that bad judges of character, so there's likely a concerted effort in my direction. You were simply the furtherest along already towards a lynch. I'd much rather you actually, like, scumhunt instead of just picking the easiest counterwagon? You've not even indicated the faintest of reasons for thinking I'm scum.
babark: So you're attempting to put me on the defensive, as if my being scum is a foregone conclusion, and it was my job to PROVE I was innocent.
Stanari: It is! You don't think it matters that several people came up with different reasons why docbear's post was such a scummy revelation? Adding to that the fact that the same people (in this case RWarehall) can't even consistently stick with one reason they were so surprised by the revelation?
That stinks incredibly to me of "Hey, this person seems to be in trouble, so let me lay on them in whatever way possible" followed a dozen pages later with "Okay, everyone's still laying on this person, but my initial reason was a bit ridiculous, so I'll pretend my issue was something completely different, hopefully less ridiculous".
trentonlf: So you are only looking at people who voted you because anyone who did must be scum, and your initial vote is to go with the wagon that is more viable from that group. RW then states he wants more from you, and I agree, and you do a total OMGUS vote and switch to RW. How in all this are you expecting my to give you the benefit of the doubt and remove my vote? I'm good with where my vote is.
See above as to my switch to RWarehall. I find it especially hilarious now that RW is backtracking and totally being "Oh, I wasn't suspecting docbear/babark, I was just pushing to have them clarify!"
I'm again, curious, why the ridiculous claim? RW has basically admitted that nothing I say would change his opinion of what docbear said, so I don't see the point of even addressing it. I mean, what would be a suitable response, even for someone else? "You're overreading into it"? "It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means"? "Read it at face value"? Perhaps if there was a consistent reason why people think it is suspicious (and why that reason keeps hopping about like crazy insteading of staying constant, at least with the same person), I'd be able to address it better.
I guess my initial statement about people obsessively overreading texts is only partly true. If it was fully true, I wouldn't be constantly getting questions about why I voted for specific people when I explained in those posts why I voted for them.