It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
amok: then I honestly do not know. I am only telling what I have been given - that I am outside of town, and that my only concern is to avenge my master (which I see is by solving the clues of his murder)

Throwing something out there then, what if the one or more of the murderers are in fact town? and that the scum is not or not all of the killers?
avatar
CSPVG: Do you have any powers to help in the search for your master's killers? I only ask because, as it stands, you sound like little more than a townie with a different outward appearance. While I could perhaps accept the insanity of a St. Bernard being a player's identity( this is a Joe game, after all), I do find it odd that you seem to have no extra abilities, because( and correct me if I'm wrong) most neutrals do.

Furthermore, your comments seem to be getting more ludicrous. While townies being evil may be an interesting idea, I think it doesn't make a whole lot of sense within the context of this game. Your going to have to do some serious explaining, as I'm on the verge of voting for you.
I'm a dog, I am good at tracking things, especially clues :)

I think I will leave it at that.
avatar
amok: I'm a dog, I am good at tracking things, especially clues :)

I think I will leave it at that.
I thought something along those lines may have been the case. I must say, even though I asked you directly about that one, that you're quite free with information. This really does seem odd to me, as no one asked you to claim. What prompted you to want to share information this openly?
avatar
amok: I'm a dog, I am good at tracking things, especially clues :)

I think I will leave it at that.
avatar
CSPVG: I thought something along those lines may have been the case. I must say, even though I asked you directly about that one, that you're quite free with information. This really does seem odd to me, as no one asked you to claim. What prompted you to want to share information this openly?
I want to get the clues out in the open. I have been questioned why, and that such and thinking may be scummy, and it is best not to share this information.

With a deadline looming, I just wanted now to be clear on why I want the clues, what my intentions are on getting them. I may or may not survive now, but frankly - as long as whatever I do now helps on catching the killers later than I win.And I do think that the best way of doing so is solving the clues. I just thought that being open about this will only help, and when I started to say A I just as well should go ahead and say B... if that makes any sense.
The deadline isn't exactly looming at this point...
avatar
SirPrimalform: The deadline isn't exactly looming at this point...
no, but it was not in the last game when it was first announced either, and look what happened then.

There have been days with only 1 or two posts, and the discussion on whether clues should be revealed or not stagnated. I can easily see the same thing happening in the last game happening here also. I want to speed it up a bit to be sure something will happen.
To clarify - I want the clues!

I do not really care so much about the likes/dislikes, but I do want the clues. So far, there has been nothing in the clues that can be used to identify anyone, nor what anyone is capable of. I can see no reason to withhold the clues, as in 9 days they can no longer be shared, no matter what happens.

This means that with the slowness of the forum we have 9 days to reach an agreement on this, possibly all of us to reveal the clues and then discuss them. This is not much time in forum time. Off course, if people do not want the share clues then this is all moot.
avatar
Red_Baron: Well, I agree - the reason is horrible. However a reason is better than no reason. Meaning that if I was to for instance suggest you as the target I would have no indication that your info would be worth anything, you could just be vanilla or you could be scum, however I have no clue either way. But both amok and Zchinque already made claims to being something other than just default vanilla, thus they by that admission already should give us more information. So thats my reason, as scum hunting on day one, unlikely to succeed.
Not at all. Horrible reasoning is no better than reasoning. Mayby worse because people usually don't dare to attempt lynch with no reasoning.


avatar
Telika: 3 pairs of ski tracks.

amok = 4 legs.
Dog with 4 skiis? Now I am sorry I asked. :-)
(It would be probably 1 pair of tracks anyway even if it was 4-legged skier. ;-))

avatar
nmillar: Somebody (Jesskitten?) claimed neutral in a previous game, and turned out to be mafia (and won the game). I think an observer (Zchinque?) pointed out afterwards that anyone claiming to be neutral under a bit of pressure should be lynched.
And 100 other times people claimed neutral and were neutral.

avatar
amok: Throwing something out there then, what if the one or more of the murderers are in fact town? and that the scum is not or not all of the killers?
WHAT?
avatar
amok: Throwing something out there then, what if the one or more of the murderers are in fact town? and that the scum is not or not all of the killers?
avatar
Vitek: WHAT?
That was just me thinking out loud. Ignore, I do not believe this is the case.
Eh, the previous post was not finished at all.
Somehow I posted it by pressing Enter instead of breaking line.

avatar
SirPrimalform: The deadline isn't exactly looming at this point...
Why you had no objections when Telika said the same thing yesterday?

@Red_Baron; Mostly what Zchinque said.
What I see there is defense of not scum hunting as good thing because instead you want to lynch someone just because they are there.
And by saying they should be lynched for making "claims to being something other than just default vanilla, thus they by that admission already should give us more information", you mean they should be voted because they could be power roles?
Yeah, that sounds really pro-town.

@amok; So why do you mention it at all? It is nonsense. If town is killer then he/she just is not town.
avatar
Vitek: @amok; So why do you mention it at all? It is nonsense. If town is killer then he/she just is not town.
Because I was wondering about my position. Realised after I posted that it was a rather silly thing to say.
avatar
amok: no, but it was not in the last game when it was first announced either, and look what happened then.

There have been days with only 1 or two posts, and the discussion on whether clues should be revealed or not stagnated. I can easily see the same thing happening in the last game happening here also. I want to speed it up a bit to be sure something will happen.
True, but in the last game the day ended when half of the players were asleep (mostly Americans but also me).

avatar
Vitek: Why you had no objections when Telika said the same thing yesterday?
I didn't even notice he'd said it until you responded to it. It's not like I replied to his post but ignored that bit.
avatar
Vitek: @Red_Baron; Mostly what Zchinque said.
What I see there is defense of not scum hunting as good thing because instead you want to lynch someone just because they are there.
And by saying they should be lynched for making "claims to being something other than just default vanilla, thus they by that admission already should give us more information", you mean they should be voted because they could be power roles?
Yeah, that sounds really pro-town.
Well it has created some brilliant discussion and turned amok on fire :P But more importantly I assume in every game from the get go that everyone is town. When they then claim to be something different I put them down as less likely to be town. So yea, they could be power-roles, however power-roles don't usually instantly reveal themselves. Thus I am thinking Zchinque has a reason for the way he act and suggested in regards to hammering. As we can't trust his words (as none can be trusted on day one other than mod) then lynching is the safest bet. As no targets easily presents themselves as scum on day one, lynching those that do stand out is a good bet.

Why? Well as already explained we have a better chance of getting something out of it. If what amok says is true he is neutral, following that logic Zchinque is likely also a neutral (given his difference from the other). As such it makes perfect sense to lynch on or the other.

On day one its not to our advantage to focus solely on scum hunting, as we have precious little to go on. Instead finding the best target be it the one that we believe we might learn the most from, or find most scummy however unlikely to be true given our record, or something else. I simply suggest going with those most likely to reveal information of a new nature.

And the argument that they have already given that info does not work. We can't trust it, we need a lynch scene to confirm it. All we know as that they have readily set themselves up to be different. thus they have some sort of agenda for doing so and that leads me to say that we should lynch those who does it. Because a town vanilla would have no reason to set up an agenda, a town power-role would have little need to stand out so early. That pretty much leaves few reasons to do what those two have done. (mod requirement, scum, neutral). So yea - I am willing to vote for both - but as amok is already digging himself into a pit, I figure Zchinque requires the vote for now.
avatar
Red_Baron: If what amok says is true he is neutral, following that logic Zchinque is likely also a neutral (given his difference from the other). As such it makes perfect sense to lynch on or the other.
Wait, what? How does amok saying the truth lead to any kind of conclusion for Zchinque? And on the other hand, amok lying also doesn't lead to any conclusion about Zchinque.
avatar
JMich: Wait, what? How does amok saying the truth lead to any kind of conclusion for Zchinque? And on the other hand, amok lying also doesn't lead to any conclusion about Zchinque.
Well they are the two who claimed to be the ones not mentioned in the intro. It's a pretty big stretch to say that it's likely that Zchinque is neutral based on that, but then I guess there is the whole "Let me hammer" thing which made me think that Zchinque was neutral.
OK, I was willing to buy the "I'm a townie dog" thing, but this line came off as exceptionally desperate:
avatar
amok: Throwing something out there then, what if the one or more of the murderers are in fact town? and that the scum is not or not all of the killers?
The only reason I'm not voting for you at this point is that I'm not sure how many votes you already have.
Unvote SPF

Votecount?