|
Day Two
Mar 25, 2011 11:09:47 GMT -8
Post by Pleonast on Mar 25, 2011 11:09:47 GMT -8
Natlaw was killed.
Day Two begins.
|
|
|
Day Two
Mar 25, 2011 13:02:37 GMT -8
Post by mutineer4 on Mar 25, 2011 13:02:37 GMT -8
Should I (or anyone else for that matter) accuse Idle of being ring-leader or would that be a fool-hardy plan? I don't know enough about how people normally act, but he seems to be heavily interested in reminding us of his Loyalty much like how he kept stating his claim was meaningful despite multiple townies agreeing with me that it's not. I don't want to make such a bold accusation if most people will blow it over as Idle acting normally. I would just make it as a possible scenario under which Idle would still be scum, but I'm really worried doing such a thing will cause too much attention to fall on me.
|
|
|
Day Two
Mar 25, 2011 13:28:31 GMT -8
Post by mutineer2 on Mar 25, 2011 13:28:31 GMT -8
It does sound pretty risky, but even if we get a lynch on him, you'll be next on the block, since he will be cleared when he dies (since the number of votes per person will stay the same).
|
|
|
Day Two
Mar 25, 2011 15:42:50 GMT -8
Post by mutineer1 on Mar 25, 2011 15:42:50 GMT -8
you can imply that he might be the ring leader, but if you vote on that basis you will be called out for thoughtless voting, and the fact that even if he is the ringleader there's still 3 other scum out there who would be easy to catch.
|
|
|
Day Two
Mar 25, 2011 16:37:26 GMT -8
Post by mutineer3 on Mar 25, 2011 16:37:26 GMT -8
I thought it was good to keep reminding people that he's not entirely confirmed yet, and could be the ringleader.
|
|
|
Day Two
Mar 25, 2011 16:46:26 GMT -8
Post by mutineer4 on Mar 25, 2011 16:46:26 GMT -8
I noticed Normal Phase almost but not quite imply a suspicion of Idle being the ring-leader right after I posted. I feel it bad strategy to follow up Tex's suggestion with more suspicion, so I'm going to go with something a bit different.
|
|
|
Day Two
Mar 27, 2011 18:09:05 GMT -8
Post by mutineer4 on Mar 27, 2011 18:09:05 GMT -8
I am very close to posting the following on the main thread, but I feel dirty doing so. Nevertheless, I feel I should share it.
---
Let me present this short closet drama. You may recognize the basic plot, but some names and details have been changed.
~~~~~~~Mutiny on the SS Detestable~~~~~~~~~
...
~Page 5~
glowacks: vote Hal Briston, Drain Bead; their usernames are two words and the second starts with a B. That's bad!
1: That made no sense. vote glowacks 2: I agree, that's a terrible reason. Vote glowacks
g: Yeah I guess that was wrong, I don't care, my vote isn't changing.
3: Seriously? At least you had a reason before, now that you're aware the reason is invalid unvote or come up with something else. vote glowacks.
g: Ok, now that I'm in the vote lead, I'm claiming "Loyal deck swabber". It's a hidden role that gives me the night action of swabbing one of the decks of the ship. Yes, we're on a spaceship, shush, the decks need to be swabbed anyway! What exactly this does I can't tell you, it's important to keep secret.
4: Uh, you could be a scum deck swabber. vote glowacks 1: Yeah, you already claimed Loyal by just existing, your claimed role doesn't say anything about your loyalty.
g: Damnit, why are you all voting for me? I claimed a town power role!
2: No, you claimed a power role that doesn't imply anything about your loyalty.
g: Come on! Doesn't it bother any of you one bit that I might be a town deck swabber?
3: No, but it does bother me that you think it means something. 5: In fact, if you're scum the deck swabber power is probably much more useful than if you're town, so we'd do well to be rid of you! vote glowacks.
::glowacks is saved at the last minute as Zeus is lowered down by a crane and orders a psychological profile::
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Discussion questions:
1) Compare the votes for glowacks. Do the reasons behind the votes get stronger or weaker?
2) If #5's argument is wrong, does it invalidate the reasons behind the other 4 votes?
3) Match the following reasons to the reasons people give for voting for glowacks:
A: glowacks votes for people just for their username. B: glowacks refused to unvote people voted on for their username even after acknowledging that their username is a null-tell. C: glowacks claims deck swabber D: glowacks argues that claiming deck swabber means he shouldn't be voted for.
Hint: the vote from 4 does not necessarily use C. Why not?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
Day Two
Mar 27, 2011 20:06:33 GMT -8
Post by mutineer2 on Mar 27, 2011 20:06:33 GMT -8
I don't know how useful it would be, but I would love to see the response to it.
|
|
|
Day Two
Mar 28, 2011 17:02:09 GMT -8
Post by mutineer4 on Mar 28, 2011 17:02:09 GMT -8
Ah, actually voting for each other now.
I definitely am concerned that only peeker, Tex, and Crackrat were commenting on the engineer when peeker has a very good reason to, and that Tex and Crackrat were giving comments on the situation with Idle while no one else was, and that they've said little else recently. If those votes catch any traction Tex can probably talk about being nearby in the officer slots - I'm guessing that's the actual reason you said "good to see you" or whatever, but it came across ominously.
And I'm done with Idle. He's either willfully misrepresenting his arguments or he's clueless as to how they're being observed. He's actually right about a lot of things semantically, but he seemed to be clearly implying the arguments I claimed.
|
|
|
Day Two
Mar 29, 2011 17:22:52 GMT -8
Post by mutineer4 on Mar 29, 2011 17:22:52 GMT -8
6.5 hours in the afternoon with no main thread posts from anyone. Is this game dead? I'd feel really bad if the town just lays down and stops trying.
|
|