I've always wanted to do that
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
If I'm reading it right (and this is my position by the way) he is saying that we shouldn't bother speculating on tidbits in the opening posts until we actually have some information about those tidbits.lord_hur wrote:We need more info ? On what then, if we must keep roles secret ?PyroDwarf wrote:That discussion seems to be winding down with the agreement that we need more info first.
Do I really come off that mean?lord_hur wrote:@HackerHuck, whose only 2 meaningful posts before his attack on Guardian had been attacks on me for reasons I qualified as quite defective. You just wrote off your first attack, but do you still think the second was justified ?
I don't really agree that stubbornness is a scumtell, but if your point is really that it is vote-worth on day one, then I won't disagree.Mr Stoofer wrote: What I meant was this: there is a big difference between (a) making a point about another player, listening to the guy's defence, thinking about it, and then saying "OK, I don't think my point was a good one"; and (b) making a point about another player and sticking to your guns even when it becomes clear that you are wrong.
Case (b) is well worth a vote (even a lynch on Day 1) while case (a) is much less lynch-worthy. So I wanted to make sure you realised my point about lord_hur falls into case (a).
Use as many pronouns as possible and not be clear at all about what the questions are and whether they are relevant. I don't feel the need to be chasing down a whole bunch of other posts to see what you were getting at. It's like how some people use metagaming. It's a rather easy way to make a poor case, because you are counting on the other people to not be bothered to dig up the same things you researched.SlySly wrote:Not at all.HackerHuck wrote:Usually. Are you implying that I've been avoiding your questions?
Read my posts and see who I have asked questions of and who has avoided answering those question and I think you will see things in a better light.
It is not only my answers that one of the people in question has avoided answering.
So do townies if they feel that the question is either rhetorical or not worth answering. I've done it before, but if someone repeatedly asks the question, I'll probably answer it.SlySly wrote:It gives the impression that you don't want to answer the question(s) to avoid incriminating yourself.Guardian wrote: Why is it suspicious for us to not answer questions?
Also, in the real world, scum avoid answering questions.Guardian wrote: In the real world, people miss questions.
Way to vote with one foot on the way out the door. You're being awfully non-committal for placing a vote.lord_hur wrote:Ah well, anyway there are still a lot of players and he has no vote on him.
Vote HackerHuck
Can't really "quantify" out of nowhere. It just seems that you're coming on the attack very strong for having just replaced in. Given the tone of your initial post, the aggressiveness seems out of place and not genuine. I'm not commenting on the merits of your case, but I think that you're faking your emotional response. That is pretty scummy.springlullaby wrote:Quantify 'come out of nowhere'. Does it mean you don't agree with me? Contrived? What exactly are you implying?HackerHuck wrote:springlullaby's post seems to come out of nowhere and she's giving lord_hur the full court press. It seems a bit contrived to me.
I want a wagon on lord_hur now.
I'll restate this for you. I wasn't criticising the content or the fact that Springlullaby is suspicious of anyone. I called scummy the fact that the case seemed phony to me.Mr Stoofer wrote:@HackerHuck: The whole point of this game is to make cases against other players you find suspicious.
Why do you criticise anyone who makes a strong case against anyone else? Hoe do you propose we end this day (never mind the whole game) if people don't make cases against each other.
Really, this game is soooo slow and boring because so many people either won't make cases or criticise people who do. I'm tempted to join springlullaby's bandwagon on lord_hur because I just can't see this game ever ending any other way...
The implication of my post is that you are scum bussing your scumbuddy lord_hur. I believe you are faking anger/emotion at him being scummy. I'm not disagreeing with what you said, rather how you said it.springlullaby wrote:Hackerhuck, I can see what you are getting at but I'd prefer you criticize the content of my case and that you make clear your opinion on lord_hur.
What's phony in my case apart from the aggressiveness - which I can assure you is genuine?
lord_hur wrote:I also find it interesting that he voted for me and not for her, without an explanation on the choice.
The implication being that a single vote on Springlullaby is not going to do as much as a second vote on Lord_Hur. That happens to be our only wagon at the moment now.HackerHuck wrote: I couldmove this alongwith avote: Lord_hur
I phrased it this way so I wouldn't get the kind of question that SpringLullaby asked me - "If I'm scummy, why didn't you vote for me?" Considering my subject of my post was Springlullaby, I chose to use those words to explain why I picked Lord_hur as my vote. When choosing between two of my likely scums, I will go for the scummier of the two or the one who is likely to be lynched. I think a wagon will help at this point in the day.hasdgfas wrote:The way that you phrase this makes me think that you don't think Lord_hur is scum. Why would you vote for someone that you don't think is scum?HackerHuck wrote:The implication of my post is that you are scum bussing your scumbuddy lord_hur. I believe you are faking anger/emotion at him being scummy. I'm not disagreeing with what you said, rather how you said it.springlullaby wrote:Hackerhuck, I can see what you are getting at but I'd prefer you criticize the content of my case and that you make clear your opinion on lord_hur.
What's phony in my case apart from the aggressiveness - which I can assure you is genuine?
I could move this along with avote: Lord_hur
I'm not buying this one right now. Mr Stoofer is making the case that Guardian was scum, so I don't see how this is a smoking gun on Musher. He only seems to be using Mr Stoofer's argument against him.Mr Stoofer wrote:OMFG how have we not lynched Musher yet? Do you guys not understand the fact that he gave himself away, by accusing me of being scumfor defending Guardian. That means thathe knew that Guardian was scum. And the only way he could have known that was if he was Guardian's scum buddy.
FFS guys, can we get this game going please?
Quote please.lord_hur wrote:Actually, that's another thing I have against you, thanks for reminding me : you voted for Guardian while at the same time saying you didn't know if he were town or scum.
How is this non-commital?lord_hur wrote:But here, I was talking about day 2 :
- your only attack this day (springlullaby bussing me) is pretty weak and hard to give credit to in my opinion - though I might be biased, so if someone else could comment on this...
- your Musher333 vote was only following Mr Stoofer with no additional argument -> weak vote
- you basically voted me just because someone else was voting me (and someone you're apparently suspecting of being scum, at that), while implying that you voted just to get the game going -> weak vote
I think that saying I won't unvote even if he convinces me that a miller is not bad for the town just proves that I believe he's scum and I'm not just voting him to get rid of a miller.lord_hur wrote:These are the two post you did after your actual vote :HackerHuck wrote:Quote please.lord_hur wrote:Actually, that's another thing I have against you, thanks for reminding me : you voted for Guardian while at the same time saying you didn't know if he were town or scum.
In this one, you're only considering Guardian being town.HackerHuck wrote:I'm not sure if I need to repeat any of the things that everyone else has said about you Guardian. It should be obvious to you why Millers are bad news to the town. It's a crappy claim because the only way to prove it is by lynching you. Scum would never kill a miller, which means that the town has to do it at some point. The only good news is that cops won't bother wasting an investigation on you, but you pretty much blew that by crumbing cop to begin with.
Like the others, I think you forgot that I was already voting you, so my vote was more of a confirmation than anything else - hence the context.
If you're town, then I guess you did us a favor by claiming miller so we can kill you sooner rather than later, but that's small comfort.
In this one, Guardian was right (in my opinion) to believe you voted him for being a miller. We don't know what's in your head, but that's actually the way it appeared to me too. And you nail the "vote for townie" further by saying you won't unvote, even if he proves you you're wrong.HackerHuck wrote:Jesters are pretty darn rare and I sure would hope that self-voting invalidates their win condition.
Guardian,I don't like how you keep trying to portray my vote on you as one that is based on your supposed millership. I had voted you prior to that and your claim has only cemented my vote.My comments were all related to how millers are bad news for the town. If you can tell me one good thing the miller does for the town, then I will admit I'm wrong (but I still won't pull my vote).
I've seen scum claim miller as often as I've seen town do it.It's not going to get you off the hook in my eyes.
I don't like how TVOD reacted by pushing the jester angle, but I'm not sure if it should be chalked up to newbishness.
Were you not really paying attention closely? He never claimed fish - that was Stoofer. Musher's claim was pork. He also didn't claim the townie win condition exactly like it was posted. I don't see how physician and/or fish/pork are in any way good claims. Do you think that the scum don't have a food in their role PMs? And if you recall, Physician didn't come out right away but after his initial claim of doctor.strife220 wrote:To restate the case for not lynching Musher
He's definitely not played the last 10 pages exceptionally well. However:
He has claimed Doc. A good scum-claim no doubt, because lynching a claimed doc on D2 is a Bad Idea.
He has given good flavor (albeit in pieces), such as 'Physician' and 'Eats Fish.' Both of these bits of flavor fit in very well with the game, and the fact that they aren't countered almost proves he's town.
He played out the last 3 pages as if he had no idea that scum knew about townies having food. Supposedly he forgot that the townie PM was in the first post. Yet he was still able to state the townie win condition (eliminate menaces to the integrity of egypt). Either he was clever scum playing aloof, or he actually has that role PM. I'm VERY inclined to believe that Musher-scum would not be clever enough to do something like this (no offense musher), and thus I'm considering him to be essentially confirmed doc.
I'd like to see an example of this. Actually, more than one example since that's what I supposedly do more of...springlullaby wrote:I prefer Hackerhuck lynch, his contribution is on the minimum side and I typically don't like his votes, he does more commenting on the game while agreeing with one wagon or another, then coming up with case of his own.
So if we're wrong about a random townie, we've erroneously lynched one and there will be a second townie death during the night. Really, the only difference is that we will either see Musher die tonight or we will see someone else die tonight. I'm still not sure how that makes it a bad idea to lynch Musher if you think he's scum.SeraphicMirth wrote:Yes, but if we don't lynch Musher, we put the scum in a good position for us because they either have to kill Musher, which saves anyone else from being killed that night, or they have to kill someone else and we get a possible save from the doc still. If we lynch Musher and we're wrong, then we've erroneously lynched one with a second town death during the night.HackerHuck wrote:Lastly, you really need to consider the effectiveness of him as a doctor. If he survives today without being lynched, he's basically the same as someone who claimed townie. The scum are going to kill him tonight, so we won't get any benefit from his role.
That said, of course I will oppose my own lynch, but I won't oppose a lynch of Musher (my first suspect), Lord_hur, or Springlullaby.The Moderator wrote:2. Should a deadline be placed, a majority is no longer required to lynch a person. At the end of the deadline, the person with most votes will be lynched. If there is a tie, nobody will be lynched
strife220 wrote:As I've already said, I don't want a Musher-lynch or a no-lynch. When I did my full readthrough on replacing, HackerHuck did not ping my scum-dar. Upon re-reading him, I still didn't see anything that made me think he was likely scum.
When I did my full readthrough on replacing, you did come up nearer the top of my 'potential scum' list. And relative to HackerHuck and Musher, I think you're a good choice. When I have some more time, if SL doesn't hammer Musher, I'll present a full case.
How is it I'm now scummy enough to vote for in your eyes?strife220 wrote:As I've already said, I don't want a Musher-lynch or a no-lynch. When I did my full readthrough on replacing,lord_hur wrote:Surprising. May I know why ?strife220 wrote:I'd take a Hur lynch over a HackerHuck lynch no problem.HackerHuck did not ping my scum-dar. Upon re-reading him, I still didn't see anything that made me think he was likely scum.
When I did my full readthrough on replacing, you did come up nearer the top of my 'potential scum' list. And relative to HackerHuck and Musher, I think you're a good choice. When I have some more time, if SL doesn't hammer Musher, I'll present a full case.
These are two separate thoughts. Basically in a no-reveal game, we won't know whether the lovers or masons are scum, so we can't really confirm the other one when the other turns up dead. On the other topic, I was suspicious of SpringLullaby primarily due to her interactions with Lord_Hur. Since I believe him to be town, that lessens my suspicions on Springlullaby.strife220 wrote:I don't understand what you mean here. I'm also unsure why it lessens your suspicion of SpringLullaby?HackerHuck wrote: A no-reveal game is the perfect opportunity for scum to claim masonry and get away with it. Unless we see a contradictory statement from the singing librarian, I would strongly oppose a lynch of lord_hur now.
strife220 wrote:I was voting you because I strongly opposed a Musher lynch, and you were the only person with any sort of wagon on you. I felt Hur would have been a better lynch, hence why I switched to him when I saw the opportunity to lynch someone other than you or Musher. However in light of the claim I'm starting to regret my stance. It seems highly unlikely that Hur and SLibrarian would both be scum pulling a huge gambit here. I guess it doesn't matter if Librarian checks in or not, they're either lovers or gambling scum-buddies, and I don't see the latter as likely.HackerHuck wrote:How is it I'm now scummy enough to vote for in your eyes?
Just about any other claim and I would have kept my vote. However, I see no reason why not to believe it. Which unfortunately means, I have toUnvote, Vote: Musher, as Hur and SLibrarian have become my least favorite lynch candidates due to the claim.
I think you should explain why you think Singing Librarian would die if Lord_Hur was lynched.strife220 wrote:Another question for you Hur. Why would revealing your role harm town in anyway? If you thought you were going to be lynched, SLibrarian was going to die as well. How would that help scum?
What you aren't seeing is that we've already seen a number of things stacked against the town, so I really don't think it's a stretch to believe there could only be two scum.Mr Stoofer wrote:Seriously? The Town started the game with a pair of masons and a doc, and we don't know what other roles. Do you really think that the Scum would have only 2 players against a town with several power roles? I don't see this as feasible.lord_hur wrote:The setup looks clear now on the scum side : extraordinary powers (ending a day ? OMFG). With this kind of stuff, it is impossible that they are more than 2.