California Trilogy: City of Angels - Off Stage (Game Over)
-
-
elmosaurian
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
People are scumhunting in the extremely early game, which is a good thing,and you seem to be jumping way ahead to "are you really willing to lynch him just for that?", which just seems odd; obviously no one is going to lynch yet, we can't anyway. So why are you trying to discourage people from scumhunting?
Also, as far as it goes, I think the attacks against Zwet make sense here. They're not especially strong, but they're logical.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
I'm still trying to get a grip on these game mechanics. Everyone should go read the rules though, like, 4 times, or something.
It sounds like...we'll be lynching off stage, and making decisions on stage. I would assume that people off-stage can't lynch people on-stage at the time. It also sounds the people on stage can't see the thread for the people off stage. The endgame section of the rules is really interesting; it seems like in the endgame, it'll come down to 2 scum and 5 innocents, and in the endgame either the town or the scum will have an advantage based on how many "right" or "wrong" choices we've made in the "on stage" phases. I think. I'm really still kind of fuzzy on how it all works, and honestly I'm a bit surprised no one else is discussing this.
If anyone who was in the first two California trilogy games could say how things went there, I'd be interested to hear it.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Yeah, me and Elmo were just talking about that.ShadowLurker wrote:
Lastly, the people On Camera should try to take as close to the 2 week maximum as possible as 3 days is definitely not enough to decide on a lynch, especially for the first couple of days.
The people on-camera aren't going to know what's going on off-camera. I think a real, majority lynch is better for the town then a concordent thing, so people off-camera should do their best to get a real lynch off before the scene ends, and people on-camera should give the rest of us enough time to do so.
Also, it occured to us that we do have one way of communicating with people on camera. Zwet's job can post images on camera; we might want to figure out what they mean now before the scene starts. Like, a tortose might mean "slow down, we need more time", while a rabbit might mean "ok, we're done." Something like that.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Well, when we lynch someone and find out their alignment, that might be a useful thing for the on-camera people to know, since that could help them figure out if they should trust their advocate or not, if they're keeping careful notes about this thread and who they thing might be connected to who. That's be a pretty simple thing to communicate; all you'd need is a picture of their avatar, and then either a picture of an angel for "good guy" or a picture of a demon for "bad guy".Mighty Orbots wrote: We've got 3 other pieces of information that we can pass on through zwetschenwasser and Mighty Orbots. What else do we want to be able to let the on camera people know?-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Talilan wrote:
I agree. The cameraman should probably preserve their pictures for this.elmo (89) wrote:
Well, when we lynch someone and find out their alignment, that might be a useful thing for the on-camera people to know, since that could help them figure out if they should trust their advocate or not, if they're keeping careful notes about this thread and who they thing might be connected to who. That's be a pretty simple thing to communicate; all you'd need is a picture of their avatar, and then either a picture of an angel for "good guy" or a picture of a demon for "bad guy".Mighty Orbots wrote: We've got 3 other pieces of information that we can pass on through zwetschenwasser and Mighty Orbots. What else do we want to be able to let the on camera people know?
Sadly, I was wrong about this, mith corrected my misunderstanding last page. We don't find out the alignments until the end of the day, so it dosn't matter; we won't have that kind of information to send to the on-camera people.
-Yos
(last post was me as well)-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
I do not think we want it to ever come down to a condorcet vote, though; a regular majority is much more informative, and much less, well, random. We should do a "real" majority lynch every day, I think.GoofballsAndBaloons wrote:I agree that Day 1 is the most important day and it is not random at all. It's like the first few moves in chess.
I disagree that we should not use Condorcet. Scum lists are often very revealing, and the Condorcet votes are exactly like a scum list. We can use it to ensnare scumbuddies, once we've caught a live one.
-Yos
Tag fixed. - Mod-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Gaspar wrote:Elmo/Yos: keep in mind, also, that if we get the scums down to 2, they will automatically be put in their "worst possible" endgame setup. There is EVERY incentive to keep Scumhunting as your top priority. Trying to make good decisions On-Camera is a fine and dandy backup plan, but it should NEVER take precedence over trying to kill the scums off.
Honestly, I don't even see why this is up for debate. I haven't seen a single person actually make a case as to why On-Camera decisions would be more important than killing scumbags, yet I've had three people question or disagree with me on this point. I would LOVE to see some counterpoints if you folks have them.
I'm not sure why you're directing this at us; we never said otherwise. Plus, good scumhunting, getting an idea of who to trust and who not to trust, will help with the on-camera decisions anyway.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Also, not sure about the MafiaJin hate, gasper. Is it just because he put himself on camera? You may be right that off-camera is more important then on-camera (honestly, we don't really have enough information to be sure about that), but either way, it's not like there was a consencuss on that when he picked the roles.
In other news, in the on camera thread, curiouskarmadog seems to be giving the town pretty clear information about which is the right and wrong way to go. It'll be interesting to see if the other advocate goes along with that or not, but unless both advocates are scum, I doubt he's lying. Which makes me wonder about all the people who seem to doubt him, unless they're just role-playing; it's hard to tell.
-Yos
P.S. I am going to be away for the weekend, and Elmo already said he'll be gone until Tuesday, so I guess we're going to be V/LA for a few days.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
I would actually hazard a guess that there probably are scum kills, or some kind of kills anyway. The rules seem to imply that it's possible we might get down to 5 pro-town people before round 7, and I'm not sure how that would be possible if there was just one lynch a day and no kills (unless there's, like, 9 scum or something out of 20 people in this game, which seems improbable.)GoofballsAndBaloons wrote:Talillan 119
Your word choice here seems to imply you know that scum don't have night kills. I just reread the rules (again. . .) and I couldn't find anything to suggest this. I don't like using slips anymore ( I used to really like them, but have recently found them to not work well) to find scum, but this one looks better than most.advocate(s) chosen by scum for subsequent scenes. They will still get the useful information whether they be scum or town. They are kind of like a weird version of night-kill choices for the scum.
Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
That wasn't how I read his post, but I'm not interested in defending him at the moment, so I guess we'll wait until he can answer the question for himself.Gaspar wrote:
I'm pretty sure you're misinterpreting the phrase "win condition." Go to your role PM and look at the last line. It says, in bold, "Win Condition:" then lists your role's win condition. Better yet, go look at the very end of this post. It describes, word-for-word, the InnocentMighty Orbots wrote:Gaspar, I think the second point was directed at you: He was saying thatyouwere ignoring one of the potential win conditions. I disagree on this point in the sense that our win condition isn't determined by what happens in any one thread but a combination of the two.win condition. Saijin said that I'm ignoring "a win condition" which means he is apparently dealing with a win condition other than the standard Innocent win conditon.
This is why he needs to explain himself or die.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
DGB, I'm not really clear on your thinking here. Why is it you think scum would want members of their scum team on-camera? I could see scum going either way; scum on camera can't get lynched, but more scum off camera means they get more influince over the lynch. I don't really think the day 1 on camera decision should be at all hard for the town people on camera to get right, considering there are two advocates and all that, so I don't really think getting more or less scum votes on camera are likely to matter.GoofballsAndBaloons wrote:If you don't mind my answering this question that is not addressed to me, I would say that if MafiaJin flips scum, at least one of the three people he took with him is scum, with nearly 100% certainty. Quite possibly exactly one.
Players chosen at random have closer to 1/3 chance of being scum than 2/3 chance of being scum. So there is no reason not to take a buddy along with him, if he were town, chances are pretty good that's what he'd end up with choosing a scum randomly anyway. Why waste that opportunity of bringing a buddy of his choice along, while keeping within the confines of what he would have done by chance? I am sure that opportunity was taken.
If he flips scum, and the players decide to examine which players he brought along with him, the chances of the town hitting scum among the players he brought with him are, again if choosing at random, nearly the same as if the town was choosing among the rest of the players, removing any advantage for the town to start lynching those players. That's because with bringing one buddy, the chances are 1/3, which is quite close to what it is among the remaining players.
Now I don't know if the MafiaJin hydra is a maverick risk taker in general. But that's what he'd need to be to have the guts to take 2/3 buddies along with him. If he's lynched and flips scum, the town will be shooting fish in a barrel. Players with better understanding of the members of this hydra will be able to make a better guess than me.
-DGB
-Yos.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
On a side note, this comment, on camera, is kind of worrying.
Pro-town people can choose to flip and become scum at certain points? Really?curiouskarmadog wrote:If I drive, we will lose one of our numbers. For I will no longer be an innocent. You see, I had a choice. I know Valetine is meant to drive. However, if I convinced you to let me drive, I would get to join the Enemy.
Ugh. We're going to have to keep an eye out for that, especially if someone advocates for a position that turns out to be "wrong".
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
I'm not sure what you mean there.GoofballsAndBaloons wrote:
Both advocates are voting to follow Valentine Wiggin. CKD is probably being truthful about changing alignment. But which alignment? WIFOM here I come.elmosaurian wrote:On a side note, this comment, on camera, is kind of worrying.
Pro-town people can choose to flip and become scum at certain points? Really?curiouskarmadog wrote:If I drive, we will lose one of our numbers. For I will no longer be an innocent. You see, I had a choice. I know Valetine is meant to drive. However, if I convinced you to let me drive, I would get to join the Enemy.
I would guess that both advocates are probably telling the truth about which choice is the "good" choice. Which doesn't necessarily say anything about their alignment; if a scum became an advocate on day 1, it'd probably be in his or her best interest to tell the truth rather then lie, since lying about that on day 1 is a surefire way to get caught and there's still a big chance the town won't listen to you anyway.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
This is my understanding of what's going on.GoofballsAndBaloons wrote:Elmosaurian, I get that they are probably both saying the truth about defending the "good choice." But are they both advocating in favor of the choice that is "good for scum" or "good for town?" Or am I missing something.
There are two choices, a "good" choice (helps the town in endgame) and a "bad" choice (helps the scum in endgame).
It seems that both advocates were given quite clear and unambiguas information from the mod about which choice was which.
Also, at the end of the scene, it appears that the mod will tell us if the choice picked was the "good" one or the "bad" one.
So, if a town person is the advocate, the course of action is simple; just tell the truth, and help town pick the right choice, and you get the town a little closer to winning. *
If a scum person is the advocate, then they have two options. They could tell the truth, or they could lie. If they lie, then there is a high chance you won't be believed (because the other advocate will be telling the truth, if he is town), and no matter if you are belived or not, town will find out you were lying at the end of the scene and will lynch you next chance they get.
If both advocates are scum, they could both lie to the town, in which case the town makes the wrong choice, but at the price of the town then catching 2 scum in the process; a very high cost to the scum, plus the odds of both advocates being scum if randomally chosen seems really small.
So, honestly, I think that even if a scum is the advocate, or even if two scum are both advocates, they would still probably tell the truth on day 1, unless they thought the payoff of getting the town to make the wrong on-camera choice was much bigger then the cost of getting lynched, which I would tend doubt at this stage of the game.
*one complicating factor here is the whole "oppurtunity to change alignments" thing here CKD is talking about. It's possible that a pro-town person might decide that even though it'll get him lynched, he'd rather lie in order to try and change alignments, for whatever reason. Not that likely, not a very logical move, but possible, and we need to watch out for that. However, since both advocates are in agreement here, I'm pretty sure that's not happening.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Also note that all that only applies to the day 1 scene. In future scenes, where the scum pick the advocate and where there is only 1, and where there are multiple choices (and it sounds like the scum also get to pick what the outcome of each choice is, if I'm reading the rules correctly), it gets more complicated, and rather WIFOM-tastic.
Also, for that reason, not only do the advocates have information, so do any scum on camera. So that's something to look out for; we need to keep an eye out for any on-camera people who seem to know more then they should, because they're probably scum.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
And, on that note, Talian's on camera stuff looks pretty scummy to me. He really seems to be trying to confuse what should be a simple decision, with posts like this:
That post dosn't really make any sense to me at all; I'm pretty sure if Panzer drives he's not going to turn scum, that's probably just part of the cost to the town of picking the wrong decision. Plus it sounds like he's trying to make it sound like we're going to "eventually need to lynch CKD" which dosn't make any sense at all; if he's telling the truth, which I suspect he is, then he dosn't turn scum if he dosn't drive.Talilan wrote:follows John Locke onto the bus to have a quiet word
The decision, Mr Locke, is whether to have you drive knowing that either you are lying now or you will defect to the enemy, then dispose of you at the next opportunity.
Or do we let the unknown quantity drive, the one whoknowsbut has not told us what will happen if she drives. The one who may have had the same offer as you, and may defect, but we will not know of it.
You act the martyr but wouldn't the truly noble action be to drive, knowing that wewillhave to kill you?
WWWSD? What would Will Smith do?
It's possible that Tallion just dosn't know what's going on, or that he's just trying to gather information or something, but it really just sounds to me like random BS thown around by a scum to try to muddy the issue and trick the town.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Yeah, I agree with you about Hewitt; he's basically trying to make the same arguemnt Talilan is, which oddly is to apparenlty believe CKD but still say "but if we make the other choice, the consequences might be even worse!". And that just dosn't make any sense, and is the exact opposite of what both advocates are telling them.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
I believe you don't know what "active lurking" is if you think I've been doing it. I know we can't lynch Talilan today, but I'm still pretty sure I've all ready caught a scum. Anyway, especally considering we've both been V/LA for basically the entire day, I think we've made a hell of a lot of contributions so far.Mighty Orbots wrote: elmosaurian has spent the entire game doing game mechanics discussion and commenting on the on-camera thread. I believe this is called active lurking.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Why must you look so scummy while zorblog looks so town?
Your whole % thing is crap, and I think you know that. More content is better, posting a lot of posts on game mechaincs is a pro-town act, especally in a game where the game mechanics are so completly useless.
I confirmed 5 days ago. For 2 of those days, I was V/LA, and Elmo has been V/LA for longer then that. In the 3 days I was here, just going by your lists, I count 5 posts discussing people's alignments. Considering that a significant portion of that was pregame anyway, and I think I've contributed a hell of a lot, more then many people who have been here the whole time.
Also, your discription of my post seems delibratly designed to misrepresent me. In post #2, you make a big point of how I "don't explain my vote on cowfrog", and yet you completyl ignore that the entire poitn of my post # 3 was to explain why cowfrog was being scummy there, and just inaccuratly discribe it as "fensesitting on zwet". Did you completly miss the point there, or was that a delibrate misrepresentation?
Argh. So frustrating to be accused of being a "active lurker" considering how much damn time I've been spending on this game.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
No. Troll looks town to me because his game mechanics analysis, his discussion of codes, and his analysis of the on-camera stuff all looks really pro-town and useful to me. You look scummy because you're attacking me for doing game mechanics analysis, discussion of codes, and analysis of on-camera stuff, all of which I believe are pro-town things to do.Mighty Orbots wrote:
I'd assume that's because I want to vote you but Troll wants to vote someone else.elmosaurian wrote:Why must you look so scummy while zorblog looks so town?
Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Yeah, I should vote for someone here.
KY Krew seems scummy/useless here. He's a hydra, as far as I know neither one has been V/LA, and they haven't done anything all game. His only revelent post was to call Mighty Orbots scum for...questioning Glork's comment that he's "100% confirmed", and saying a post of mine was "forced" for some vauge reason. And that's it. One, confirm post, two useless posts, and the one post that has content looks odd and scummy to me.
On my other suspicions...I've got kind of a bad gut feeling about Gasper right now. I can't really explain it, but he seems off, feels more like scum-Glork then town-Glork. I don't really like the way he's scumhunting, and I'm unconvinced about and unsatisfied with his attack and focus on MafiaJin. Talking to Elmo now and he also has a bad feeling about Glork.
Zwet and Bagel Eating Cowfrog are slightly scummier then par, and I think Thok and Zorblog are slightly townier then par.
PPE: Actually, I was going to put Thok under [everyone else], but Elmo's not as confident about Thok as I am, so I'll move him back up to the main pack.
-Yos
Vote:KY Krew, Gasper, Zwet, Bagel Eating Cowfrog, [everyone else], Mighty Orbots, No Lynch, elmosaurian.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Yeah, well, that last game we played together I had a gut feeling you were scum there as well, and didn't follow up on it as much as I should have. We all know how that turned out, heh. My suspicions on you aren't really meta based; it's more about how yourGaspar wrote: I find Yos's use of meta more amusing than anything else, considering I haven't looked at a mafia game in, what... over five months?
Anyway, as I said in my post, I'm really made uncomfortable by how much you're focusing so much on MafiaJin, just because he put himself in the scene, especally considering that he did that so early before we had really worked out exactally what all of that meant in thread. Using that as a reason for suspicion isn't irrational, but it seem really, really weak to me, and far less relevent then stuff that has happened since day 1 started to me.
On a side note, I am pleased to see that Elmo was wrong about you; he was sure you were going to OMGUS us right away for that, hehe.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
I mentioned this earlier; dahill's early overreaction to DGB's suspicions of zwet seemed strange to me. The way he moved his vote to Zwet later after defending him against DBG's origional attacks seems odd, as well, and I'm not completly clear why he did it. None of that is a huge deal, but it's enough to put them just above "background scumminess levels" in my mind, so I put them just above the "everyone else" group.Gaspar wrote:EBWOP: Also, I completely disagree with your listing of Shanba/Dahill/Hascow. I find them distinctly protown, based on what I've seen from dahill and what I know I saw in him when I played scum with him in the past.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Also, I really don't understand why KY krew is getting at in their last post; if you could explain what you mean a little more clearly, explain why you think Mighty Orbots is scum and perhaps talk about his play in general this game and what you think about it, it might help me get a better read on you guys.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
UmGaspar wrote:
Funny you should say that, considering I haven't mentioned MafiaJin in over two pages.(elmo)Yos wrote:Anyway, as I said in my post, I'm really made uncomfortable by how much you're focusing so much on MafiaJin, just because he put himself in the scene, especally considering that he did that so early before we had really worked out exactally what all of that meant in thread. Using that as a reason for suspicion isn't irrational, but it seem really, really weak to me, and far less relevent then stuff that has happened since day 1 started to me.
This was only two posts before my vote, glork. What do you mean you "hadn't mentioned mafiajin in 2 pages?"Gaspar wrote:I'm not nearly as sure about Krew, Jin, or Talilan as I am about MafiaJin being scum, but I'd be willing to throw down a Day One lynch on any of the four, really.
Even when you talked about your suspicions on other people, you still seemed to be focusing on mafiajin in a way that seemed strange to me; the way you worded that post, I wonder if you were setting up for something like this tommorow: "Well, I was wrong about X being scum, but that's ok because I was more sure about mafiajin the whole time, vote:mafiajin".
Actually, my vote for inhim was partly based on lack of contribution. I'll always go after lurkers, but I'm also going to go after people who I find scummy for other reasons.But hey. If you want to ignore others' lack of contribution in favor of accusing me of focusing too much on MafiaJin, that's cool.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
This, though, I agree with. Plus, Talilan also seems to be ignoring the fact that making the wrong choice on thread now will not only turn someone scum, it also would do something that will hurt town in endgame. At least, that's my reading of the rules; I really don't think the alignment of one player is the only thing riding on this decision.Gaspar wrote: I also didn't like Talilan's suggestion of "well we could have Locke drive, then just kill Locke." While the argument of "we will lynch known scum" is technically true, it is far better to keep a town than to turn him into a scumbag and kill him. In that discussion (especially this post), Talilan posits that both Valentine and Locke have been given equal choices... which is stupid, because we are explicitly told that one choice is Good, while the other choices is Bad. The outcomes of the decision must necessarily be different, yet Talilan posits them as being the same.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
All the rules say is that "the advocate will have some information that will be helpful in making the decision." It wouldn't surprise me if all the information Velentine has is "X is the right choice", that would make perfect sense. I don't think the advocates would generally know everything.MrJellyLee wrote: Therefore, I am very skeptical about Valentine for not giving any information, and I have to wonder (i) if there is some gag order in play, or (ii) if Valentine would rather avoid being shown to be a liar by not saying anything. There is no point in being anAdvocatewithout any information, and I think Valentine has information that is not being shared.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Mechanics based posts are pro-town in a situation where the mechanics are this confusing.MrJellyLee wrote: 6. Overall, I dislike elmosaurian’s focus on mechanics and attempted justification for thinking mechanics-based posts are protown.
I mean, the rules for the on-camera thread apparently completely confused YOU, PJ, and I know how closely you read the rules. They confused me, too. I doubt anyone fully understood them on the first readthrough, or the second, or the third. If we hadn't taken the time to figure out game mechanics, we'd totally be up the creek without a paddle here.
Anyway, while I did discuss mechanics for a while, I certainly have been scumhunting lately.
Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Uh...the only way the consequence could possibly be bad is if they're both lying scum. That seems so unlikely to me at this point, I'm not really sure why you're even considering it.MrJellyLee wrote: That said, I actually do think now that the Town should choose to follow Valentine. If the consequence of that is very clearlybad, then I think it is safe to assume that at least John Locke is probably lying scum, and that there is a good chance that Valentine was scum squeezed into a situation where the best thing to do was to say pretty much nothing that could catch her in a lie. I think if the consequence of following Valentine is bad, a rebuttal would be along the lines of "Yes that was bad, but clearly notasbad as John Locke switching alignments."-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
...what?KY Krew wrote:OK, so I've botched things up pretty royally.
When I was agreeing with Valentine Wiggin driving, I was using some extra information. In my attempts to be more productive, I've been reviewing all my information, and have found, to my chagrin, I was mixing up my information.
You may recall an earlier post where I stated ckd will have to be lynched. That was from my initial read with this extra information fresh in my brain. My initial plan was to jump in and correct everything after I'd given my share of scumhunting, which I also noted in that post.
Somehow, in the shuffle of me feeling pressure to post every day, this information got shuffled as well.
I HAVE to get onstage in time to relay this information and help the town On Camera vote correctly.
That dosn't really make any sense at all.
We don't have that much time left before deadline...I really wonder if this was a scum-KY's attempt to just dodge the lynch bullet for a day.
In any case, he sent Talilan back to us. Talilan was one of my main suspects, and I guess he still is, but if KY is scum, I doubt he'd send us a scum buddy of his to lynch.
Talilan, I hope to hear your opinion soon.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
So, I guess you're just not going to respond to the reasons I suspect you then? And instead just accuse me of being scum just because I'm...attacking someone you claim to suspect? And that somehow makes you think I must be his buddy? And of course it has nothing to do with the fact I've been attacking you, right?
Yeah, I think I was right the first time, Talilan is scum. Shouldn't have let myself get all WIFOMy about it.
Vote:Talilan, Gasper, Begel, Zwet, [everyone], Goofballs, Mighty Orbots, No Lynch, Elmosaurian.
-Yos
Tags removed. Only votes at the end of the post are counted. - Mod-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
The only reason you gave for suspecting me was a vauge claim that my attack on Gasper was "distancing" for vauge reasons, and that's just an incredibly weak and scummy reason to vote someone. It's especally bad since you're apparently rating me and Gasper at the same level of scumminess, which dosn't make any sense at all; if your only reason for suspecting me is based on you thinking I'm linked with him, then it would be absurd for you to want to lynch me for that before him.Talilan wrote:Who are you attacking whom I suspect? Gaspar? Yes, that's busing(/distancing, whichever lingo you prefer), as I already explained.
Neah, I'm pretty sure that the only reason you're accusing me and Gasper of being scum together is that we were both attacking you.
...all of them?What reasons you suspect me have I failed to respond to?
Have you read this thread?
It started here:
Then here:elmosaurian wrote:And, on that note, Talian's on camera stuff looks pretty scummy to me. He really seems to be trying to confuse what should be a simple decision, with posts like this:
That post dosn't really make any sense to me at all; I'm pretty sure if Panzer drives he's not going to turn scum, that's probably just part of the cost to the town of picking the wrong decision. Plus it sounds like he's trying to make it sound like we're going to "eventually need to lynch CKD" which dosn't make any sense at all; if he's telling the truth, which I suspect he is, then he dosn't turn scum if he dosn't drive.Talilan wrote:follows John Locke onto the bus to have a quiet word
The decision, Mr Locke, is whether to have you drive knowing that either you are lying now or you will defect to the enemy, then dispose of you at the next opportunity.
Or do we let the unknown quantity drive, the one whoknowsbut has not told us what will happen if she drives. The one who may have had the same offer as you, and may defect, but we will not know of it.
You act the martyr but wouldn't the truly noble action be to drive, knowing that wewillhave to kill you?
WWWSD? What would Will Smith do?
It's possible that Tallion just dosn't know what's going on, or that he's just trying to gather information or something, but it really just sounds to me like random BS thown around by a scum to try to muddy the issue and trick the town.
-Yos
And hereelmosaurian wrote:
Well, that does seem to be obvious from the rules, but in the other thread Talilan and Hewitt seem to either not understand that, or else seem to be delibartly trying to confuse the issue.zwetschenwasser wrote:I thought they already established that there's one good and one bad choice.
Yos
elmosaurian wrote:
This, though, I agree with. Plus, Talilan also seems to be ignoring the fact that making the wrong choice on thread now will not only turn someone scum, it also would do something that will hurt town in endgame. At least, that's my reading of the rules; I really don't think the alignment of one player is the only thing riding on this decision.Gaspar wrote: I also didn't like Talilan's suggestion of "well we could have Locke drive, then just kill Locke." While the argument of "we will lynch known scum" is technically true, it is far better to keep a town than to turn him into a scumbag and kill him. In that discussion (especially this post), Talilan posits that both Valentine and Locke have been given equal choices... which is stupid, because we are explicitly told that one choice is Good, while the other choices is Bad. The outcomes of the decision must necessarily be different, yet Talilan posits them as being the same.
-Yos
I don't know; why was your OMGUS vote of me so unashamedly swift?Why was the OMGUS so unashamedly swift?-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
I never said you did. As I said, it seemed like you were doing your best to confuse the issue, when it seemed fairly steightfoward.Talilan wrote: - We never announced any intention of going through with a vote for Locke to drive.
That's not really a defense here.- We had no access to the off-camera thread to see e.g. Thok's opinion that mith would never directly lie to players.
All the information that you needed was in the rules, which was in your thread. There were only two paragraphs located under the "on camera" thing, in the rules that were in your thread, and it very clearly states in there that some choices are good and that some are bad; you kept saying stuff to try to make everyone else think that both choices were bad, and you should have known better.
It also makes the same thing clear in the "endgame" section of the rule, where it makes clear that the kind of endgame we get is based on how many "good" and "bad" choices the town makes.
Plus, we had already started to discuss this in thread while you were here, before the scene started.
? So, you are trying to claim that you "asking for a spot poll" somehow proves you town, to the degree that anyone who doubts you must be scum?- We asked for a spot poll of those outside the thread on whether we should trust Locke, which defers our decision to other people. It really is astonishing that you can still pretend to find us scummy after actions such as this. But you're welcome to try and explain how this fits in with your Talilan-as-scum theory.
Nope. If an advocate lies, then we know he's scum. Someone who's not an advocate, though; well, it does look scummy when they argue the wrong way, obviously (that's why you look scummy here), but it gives you a little more wiggle room (like you're trying to use here.) This is such an absurd WIFOM argument, it's basically "I wouldn't do something scummy if I was scum because then I'd look scummy"- There was the additional point made in the thread from memory which seemed generally agreed with that the advocates would be stupid to lie as scum, because afterwards it would be transparent and they would get lynched. If so it seems equally bad if not worse play as scum, to, if one is not an advocate oneself, single-handedly argue against both what the advocates advocate
(nods) Yeah, you're scum, lol.And you are welcome to explain why you weren't attempting to distance from Gaspar in post 305.
Person X: "I think person Y is scummy"
Person Z: "YOU ARE DISTANCING FROM PERSON Y! NOW PROVE THAT YOU'RE NOT!"
I mean, seriously, wtf?
Tag fixed. - Mod-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
I'm pretty sure I was the only person attacking Glork for that at the time. Baiscally, I was the first one to point out that his play looks off. If you agree with me, then you sure as hell shouldn't be voting me for saying that, unless you're scum and don't really care.Talilan wrote:Yos' vague pre-emptive asserion that Glork's play was off (when it was obvious at least to us coming back in the thread),
That's really, really silly.his failure to finish a crucial line in Post 315 which looks like he was trying to think of a valid reason to post rather than giving an honest response
I was jumping up and down when writing that post, and then I didn't preview it before I submitted it, so there was an editing error, a half-sentence that either shouldn't have been there or was left unfinished by mistake. I can't believe you're seriously trying to use such an obvious editing error as proof that "I was distancing from Glork"..
I've been explaining all day why I suspected you. I wanted to give you a chance to explain yourself before I voted you, as I made clear in my earlier post. You failed to do so, so I voted you. I don't like not voting for someone when the day could suddenly end at any moment, so I wasn't planning on waiting long.and the fact Yos was in this game when I posted 415 but failed to respond to it having simply laid down a scummy vote for us with no reasoning
...wait...I'm scummy for...posting in other games?; posted in other games; then came back and posted in other games but still didn't respond to us are all scummy.
Are you scum, or are you stupid?-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
This is why you are scum.Talilan wrote:
I concur with you in that it doesn't seem bad play to just take ckd at his word, allow him to drive the bus then lynch him. At least we guarantee the lynch of scum- because either he's become scum or he already was scum and was lying.
No town would ever be ok with taking a pro-town person and then turning them into scum just so we could lynch them. Plus, you are completely ignoring the fact that not ONLY does making the wrong choice apparently turn CKD into scum, it ALSO apparently hurts the town in endgame in some other way as well.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Uh, when did he say that?Talilan wrote: Pretty sure I have never articulated this to ortolan, but when I made the suggestion to Locke that he drive and we lynch him as a matyr - it was as much about getting a reaction/read on him as anything, because I didn't quite trust his matyr act (he was saying that choosing not to lead would get him killed by scum, but that he had to do it anyway).
Anyway, Talilan, when there is a strong, logical reason to suspect you, given by multiple people, and your reaction is "THE ARGUMENT AGAINST ME IS SO OBVIOUSLY BAD THAT ONLY SCUM WOULD MAKE IT", then it dosn't make you look any better.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
PJ: I doubt that is the *only* consequence of making the wrong choice.MrJellyLee wrote:PJ Posting.
Quick post: Gaspar, do you believe the Advocates were truly chosen at random? If so, what would you say if a [Something Else] received John Locke's offer to turn scum?
This is one of the things that makes me think there is a strong chance that John Locke is lying. For the record, though, I have already asked Mr. Grey if "random" meanstrulyrandom, and he refused to give me an answer. But I don't see how a Something Else "turning" into a Non-Innocent is really abadthing if it is alsoannounced to the Town; all that would really do is tell us somebody who was already scum to begin with.
Put another way: I think that if there is an On Screen that is only bad on the contingency that the offer is made to a Townsperson, then that does not seem to be something that Mr. Grey can callobjectively "bad".
For one thing, the rules pretty clearly state that making the wrong choice hurts the town in endgame; and one could argue that having a pro-town person turn scum now dosn't actually (numerically) change the endgame situation, since the endgame will be 5 town 2 scum no matter what. It's obviously bad for other reasons, but I don't think it fufuls the requirements for the "bad outcome".
No, I think there is some other negative effect of making the wrong choice; something that changes the endgame in a way that makes it worse for town (which could be any number of things). It also sounds like, if they're telling the truth, that neither advocate was actually told what this effect is, only what the right and wrong choices were.
If 25% of the people in the game are town, then the odds of both advocate being scum are only 1/16, if they're chosen at random. mith could easily have set it up so if only one was town, he would have the 'option' to turn scum by getting the town to make the wrong choice; probably with a contingency for what would happen if they were both scum. Frankly, it makes sense to me; since the odds of both advocates being scum on day 1 are so small, and since any advocate who lies will get caught, there would normally be very little drama about the day 1 choice; giving a pro-town advocate the option to convince the town to make the wrong choice and turn scum actually makes it a lot more interesting. Plus, it's not really something I see a scum faking.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Um...none of that actually said that him not driving kills him. It's a little hard to tell because of all the flowery language, but I thought he was just assuming the scum will NK him now.Talilan wrote:
Yikes, were you actually reading the other thread at all?Yos wrote: Uh, when did he say that?ckd wrote:I was given a choice. I do not take it lightly. For this choice, dooms me I am sure. I am sure this choice will make the guilty angry and the innocent stronger. My time with you will probably be short, but know that what I do, I believe is right and just.ckd wrote:probably will be my doom.
If a petal dies, does the flower not live on?ckd wrote:If I drive, we will lose one of our numbers. For I will no longer be an innocent. You see, I had a choice. I know Valetine is meant to drive. However, if I convinced you to let me drive, I would get to join the Enemy.
I am chosing a harder road...to stay innocent. Not the biggest sacrfice I have ever made, but a hard one to be sure.
I assume They know this. I also think I will pay for it.
If I drive, the sun will indeed grow hotter, if I dont, most likely I will just fall off the flower.ckd wrote:As you see, the easier road, would have been to except the offer and try to coerce you to let me drive….to lead…or to not say anything at all and let the pieces fall as they may.
As I have said before, I chose a different…harder road.
(shrug) If there are 2 options, one good and one bad, and scum have a strong inherent advantage from getting the town to pick the bad option, then when I see someone who seems to be trying to manipulate the town into taking what pretty clearly seems to be the bad options for reasons that make no sense to me and seem just factually wrong, it makes me think they're more likely to be scum.
The only people who have given reasons are you and Gaspar. If your case is so strong and logical, why is no-one else buying what you're selling? (I cannot for the life of me figure out what reasoning you've given that hasn't been explained more than adequately).Yos wrote:Anyway, Talilan, when there is a strong, logical reason to suspect you, given by multiple people, and your reaction is "THE ARGUMENT AGAINST ME IS SO OBVIOUSLY BAD THAT ONLY SCUM WOULD MAKE IT", then it dosn't make you look any better.
Tal
I think that's pretty obvious, and whatever your alignment is, I'm not sure why you would have trouble understanding why that makes you look more suspicious.
It's even worse when it sounds like you're ok with CKD turning scum so long as we lynch him afterwords; that just seems really scummy to me.
Now, you did later change your mind in thread and start pushing toward the other (I'm assuming "good") option instead, but by that point, it was arguably pretty clear that the town was going that way no matter what you said.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
The odds of both advocates being scum is tiny. Like I said, if 1/4 of the people in the game are scum (about normal), and both advocates were chosen at random, then there's only a 1 in 16 chance they're both scum.Talilan wrote: If both advocates are lying or one or both has misleading information, then we have the worst possible outcome. We still don't know if ckd is scum or town. We still don't know if Panzerjager is scum or town.
The odds that both advocates are scum and lying is even lower, since if they were both scum they still might want to give the town the correct advice anyway in order to avoid being caught lying.
We apparently can't quote the mod rules, but go back and read through the rules for endgame again; it clearly says that the more "bad" choices are made, the harder the endgame will be on innocents. Since endgame is going to be 5 town 2 scum no matter what, I would assume he's not just talking about turning a town into scum on day 1; he's probably talking about some kind of rule or setup change that tilts that 7 player endgame setup towards one side or the other.
Source for this?elmo (450) wrote: Plus, you are completely ignoring the fact that not ONLY does making the wrong choice apparently turn CKD into scum, it ALSO apparently hurts the town in endgame in some other way as well.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Valentine did claim to have tell us what she was told:MrJellyLee wrote:PJ Posting.
I keep noticing that practically nobody takes up my discussions about (i)whyI think John Locke might very well be lying, and (ii)whyValentine is being so vague.
Currently, I am going to be On Screen tomorrow so I won't be around to shout about this tomorrow. I would be monstrously unhappy if nobody at least talked about this tomorrow because nobody bothers to think about it.
Valentine's latest post was the following:
Seriously.Valentine, On Screen 140 wrote:I understand how you feel and why you feel that way, but I think the one thing you fail to take into account is thatI could have not, and did not, received as much information as Locke. This whyI have chosen to stay quietbecauseI believe in what I was toldand I believe that Locke is telling the truth.If he isn't, than it was truly brilliant play to get what he wanted, but that doesn't help the rest of us andI KNOW that the only person put in jeopardy when I drive is myself.
1. Valentine 'believes what [she] was told,' but 'did not receive as much information as Locke'. However, Valentine still hasn't bothered totell uswhat she was told. This unequivocally asserts that Valentine was toldsomething.
It's possible that he knows more then that, but I also think it's entirely possible that that's all the information he got from the mod.Panzer wrote:My recommendation would be that I should drive, for I was meant to lead. I didn't receive any information about "Locke" or what would happen if he would drive. I was concerned because he so willingly want me to drive.
Hmm...that's true.3. Valentine "believes that John Locke is telling the truth" but also concedes that his play is "brilliant" if he is lying to 'get what he wants' (i.e. Valentine to drive). By the way, this directly shoots down elmosaurian's theory that Valentine was simply told "John Locke's choice is the [bad] choice," or something to that effect. In fact, Valentine continually leaves open the possibility thatherchoice is, in fact, the [bad] choice by saying "I KNOW that the only person put in jeopardy when I drive is myself."
I'm not sure how much of that is roleplaying or whatever; there's a possible bonus for good roleplaying, so that makes it hard to tell. But it could be he knows something else; it sounds like he's implying that he's at risk of being killed if he drives; which is interesting, since CKD might have been saying that there's a risk of him dying if he dosn't drive, or something.
I fail to see the distinction. A pro-town action is an action that helps the town, and technical discussions help the town a great deal here, I think.elmosaurian, technical discussion are onlynecessaryto a certain extent; they are not inherently pro-town.
Well, that would be valid, if I had not given opinions on players. That's just not true though.Focusing on discussion of mechanics is just a way to contribute without actually giving opinions on the players.
Well, you need to re-calibrate your "sincere ring" then, lol. I posted like 27 times in 3 days, wasted way too much of my last few summer vacation days on this thread, and to be called a lurker (or an "active lurker") after that pissed me off.Your complaint about being called an active lurker while spending "so much time on this damned game" also did not feel genuine to me; it did not have the 'ring' of being sincere.
Everything that I was originality going to say there ended up in the next paragraph instead.Also, I agree with Talilan on at least one point: finish your sentence about Gaspar.
It was going to be something like "my suspicious of you aren't really meta based; it's more about how your attacks on mafiajin seem really weak and less relevent then stuff that has happened since day 1 started...", ect, or something. I ended up breaking that off and putting that into a separate paragraph instead, and then didn't go back and delete the original sentence like I should have.Elmosaurian wrote: Yeah, well, that last game we played together I had a gut feeling you were scum there as well, and didn't follow up on it as much as I should have. We all know how that turned out, heh. My suspicions on you aren't really meta based; it's more about how your
Anyway, as I said in my post, I'm really made uncomfortable by how much you're focusing so much on MafiaJin, just because he put himself in the scene, especally considering that he did that so early before we had really worked out exactally what all of that meant in thread. Using that as a reason for suspicion isn't irrational, but it seem really, really weak to me, and far less relevent then stuff that has happened since day 1 started to me.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
I basically started off the day assuming that if both advocates say the same thing on day 1, we can assume they're telling the truth and that that choices is the correct choice. If something has more then a 90% chance of being true in a mafia game, I generally will just assume it's true.MrJellyLee wrote:PJ Posting.
elmosaurian, I don'tcarethat the odds of both Advocates being scum are theoretically "tiny." That's like me listing two people I think are scum, and being rebutted with "but the odds ofbothof them being scum are tiny."
And, anyway, if they're both lying, then we lynch them both; probably a good trade for the town anyway.
I'm pretty sure CKD is town and telling the truth; he's making sense to me, and it's not the kind of lie I would expect a scum to tell, especially for no obvious gain. I'm not convinced of Panzer's alignment; no real read on him at the moment. I'm pretty sure that the option they're both pointing to is the correct one, though.I don't care about statistics. I care about whether I think somebody is scummy, and I think both John Locke and Valentine fit that bill. Period.
Eh...I'm not really sure of that, since I can't really think of any action that's pro-town but not "townish", at least in the general sense and to some degree. Some things more so then others, of course.However, there clearly needs to be a new definition in mafia.
We have, in some rank:
Scummy
Anti-Town
Neutral/Null
Pro-Town
[Townish?]
I think mechanics discussion is necessary and generally ‘helps’ the town, but I do not think it makes a person who discusses mechanics any morelikelyto be town. So I suppose I would agree in a sense that it is neutral to “pro-town” in that it is necessary (as I said before) and needs to be done in order to avoid confusion at a critical moment.
I'm still not sure why there needs to be a distinction; if an action is pro-town (IE: it's an action that helps the town and increases the town's chances of winning; the opposite of anti-town), then I don't think it can be scummy, because it's something a pro-town player should be doing.I never claimed you did not eventually get to scum-hunting; I just very much did not like your implication that because you were discussing mechanics that you (and others who may have been acting similarly) were likely to be town. I guess you might have meant to only mean “pro-town” in the “necessary” sense and not in the “townish” sense, but that is certainly not how I read your post, and reading your post again it still seems like you meant “Townish.”
I guess it's theoretically possible for a pro-town action to also be a scumtell, but that would only happen with a really screwed up meta and consistent bad play on the part of pro-town players-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Townish but not pro-town, I can see. But pro-town but not (at least slightly) townish, I can't.Bagel Eating Cowfrog wrote:
Certain types of emotional response are townish but not pro-town, I would argue.
Eh...I'm not really sure of that, since I can't really think of any action that's pro-town but not "townish", at least in the general sense and to some degree. Some things more so then others, of course.
But this is slightly tangential.
- Shanba-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
Well, they're both claiming that the "correct" choice is that Panzer drive. Panzer is "supposed to lead". I assume that means they're both claiming role information that says panzer driving is the "good" choice.MrJellyLee wrote:PJ Posting.
Well, then this adds a new layer. John Locke's choice, even if it does flip his alignment, might still be the "good" choice in that it helps the town in endgame.elmosaurian, Post 480 wrote:We apparently can't quote the mod rules, but go back and read through the rules for endgame again; it clearly says that the more "bad" choices are made, the harder the endgame will be on innocents. Since endgame is going to be 5 town 2 scum no matter what, I would assume he's not just talking about turning a town into scum on day 1; he's probably talking about some kind of rule or setup change that tilts that 7 player endgame setup towards one side or the other.
From my point of view, it's basically like 2 people both claiming at the same time that they both have role information that says person X is scum; they COULD be lying, but it's pretty damn unlikely.
As for your theory...umm. I guess it's possible that he was given the choice "either stay pro-town and hurt the town, or turn scum and help the town", but I doubt it. That would be kind of an icky choice; I'm not sure how you could "play to your win condition" in a situation like that. Neah; what he's claiming, that he could either help the town make the right choice and stay pro-town, or get the town to make the wrong choice and turn scum, makes more sense to me then the alternative you're suggesting.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
On a side note, I wonder if scum can daytalk.
If they can, then there is a risk that the scum on camera could suddenly decide to end the day at a time when the voting in this thread helps their interests.
Considering we have little time left, and considering that the on camera thread is only 2 vcotes away from a lynch, I'd really rather we do a "real" lynch very soon, since there's less chance of scum manipulation there.-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
No, the scum know. They actually have full knowledge of what all the choices mean. It's in the on-camera rules.Gaspar wrote:How do the scums know which decision is correct? Did I miss something in the rules that state that the scums have knowledge of Good/Bad decisions? I thought only the advocates (regardless of alignment) were given information on the decisions.
Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
If you had said "I think there's a good chance that both advocates are lying scum" that wouldn't have been as scummy. But that's not what I attacked you for. What I attacked you for was the way you seemed to believe everything CKD was saying,Talilan wrote: Ok that is all true but for God's sake what is at issue is whether Gaspar/elmo's attacks on us were ever justified. It is not a matter of whether the scenario that both advocates are lying scum is likely, it is whether Gaspar/elmo were justified in attacking us for even countenancing the possibility in the first place.but wanted to make him drive anyway. That, I can't think of any possible town motivation for.
-Yos-
-
elmosaurian Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 158
- Joined: August 17, 2009
-