What, specifically, don't you like about it?

I found it quite intriguing.

Also curious - would you say you're someone who appreciates irony?

The day goes on. Eric feels more himself than he ever has in a way, yet, feels different than he ever has. The tea and herbs worked miracles on his stomach and nerves and well-being and he was able to eat a full regular meal partway through the evening with everyone else at the community home. His relief is noticeable and others are glad for him to be feeling better.

Discussion drags on and suddenly Jim stands up in a huff of frustration, before he speaks he takes a breath to make sure he speaks in a calm tone and then says "I gotta take a little break and cool down. I'm going to go for a little walk and use one of the outhouses that are at a distance. I'll be back 30 minutes or so, fill me in on what I miss when I get back, but please continue the meaningful discussion, okay?" They all acknowledge and he walks off.

30 minutes go by like it's a few minutes and the discussion continues and is going well and no one thinks much of Jim's absence. Then, another hour goes by and the group realizes it's getting later into the evening and that Jim hasn't returned. They aren't exactly sure how much time has passed, and so they continue their discussion with an awareness that he should be returning any minute. He doesn't.

"Hold on, everyone." Someone interupts the general flow. "I think it's weird Jim hasn't returned yet, perhaps we should go check on him?"

"That's a good idea." Say several others, and the entire group collectively heads out onto the porch.

"Well, there's a couple outhouses at a distance in different directions, does anyone know if Jim has a preference for either of them?"

There is a pause and no answer.

"Okay then, let's split into groups and quickly go out to them and check. If any group finds him, whistle or holler for us to hear you and we'll meet." They do so. As one group travels along the path towards an outhouse they find Jim who seems to have been on his way back to the community home from the outhouse and suffered a terrible accident. They call to the others and the rest of the villagers join them along the path to see Jim's fate.

He lies in the path with a giant oak tree branch that is at least fifteen feet long and at least a foot and a half in diamater has landed on him and crushed him. He is smashed, his eyes are bugged, his limbs are twisted.


James (Jim) Peterson is dead.

Jim was 34 years old when he died. He was the older of the two well-known Peterson brothers. They were both well-known for at least a few hundred miles in every direction for their axe skills their ability to clear more trees and forest area faster than anyone most in the area had ever heard of. He and his brother were a two-team mega-force of unmatched forest-clearing. They had never found a tree the two of them weren't able to fell (and some trees in the area get to be more than just a few feet in diameter!)

Jim liked to wake before sunrise and watch the light start to creep in through the tree coverage. He liked to make breakfast and have it eaten early with bunch of food ready for Jay whenever he got awake and to it.

Jim enjoyed peaceful mornings. He would usually like to whittle wood and bird-watch off the front porch, or sometimes go fishing in the creek, in which case Jay would notice his gear gone and come find you when he was ready, and often would join him depending on the how pressing the need was to get work done that day.

Jim's passion for cutting trees came at an early age, 7 or 8 years old. One day he and Jay had each taken axes from their father's work shed and went on a walk with them you through the woods. The two found what they thought would make for an excellent spot to overlook part of a valley on a nice incline, if only the trees hadn't been so thick. And so they started to thin them. They spent several hours chopping away the trees until their hands bled from raw hands and popped blisters, which then got infected and kept them from chopping more trees for months.

As soon as he was able to sufficiently grip an axe again he was back out in the woods, clearing the same spot as before, completely unaware of what he had started or were getting into. After over a year, they had cleared only one quarter of the spot they had imagined getting cleared on that first day in the woods with axes. After several years of this behavior from them both it became apparent that clear to Jim that it would become his life's work, and as a young teen he was already considered very skilled.

One day on a trip to the city Jim and his brother saw one of the notices encouraging anyone interested in being part of establishing a new village to come and discuss such a potential and meet others who were interested.

They jumped at the idea, excited to be part of helping to shape out an area in nature somewhere, were old enough that their parents couldn't tell them not to go, and they'd been here since the beginning.

They had not only cleared trees to make fields and farms and meadows and places for homes to be built, but have also thinned some areas to allow for a break in the density of the forest and to accentuate certain geographies of the area in varying spots.

Jim felt very connected to these woods. A lot of people viewed him as a powerful force against the mass of trees that exist, but in his extensive felling he came to realize that it is the trees that have the real power. With all his cutting and clearing, he *knew* that their immensity and power is unmatched and that he was but a small bit in the midst of them all and always would be.

Jim loved Oakwood Village and everyone that is a part of it. He truly wanted to help the community during this trying time. He was a dedicated and loyal normal Villager.

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

...what is happening

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.

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.

It is! How does that matter? How exactly does my lynch viability play into this? Now seems like an appropriate time for that headdesk gif.

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).

For a minute, I thought that you were referring to me with this lovely little quote and my heart leapt and skipped a beat.

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.

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.

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.

a little infidelity before the divorce, eh bler?

it makes things just that much more exciting!

We never actually said "I do" or consummated. It was just a proposal and Long Engagement. (Starring Audrey Tautou)

Don't even need an annulment.

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...

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

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 figure it'd be first the position of those making flimsy (again, as you said) accusations to first solidify them a bit before they're worthy of defending against.

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".


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.