Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NativeForeigner]

Native:  Do you think Bayer and Jokerman are scummy for their "utter bullshit" arguments against the Org lynch?

I find Bayer questionable because I don't know his meta, but I've seen Jokerman say the exact same things about Org when he was town. He just never really approves of an Org lynch.

Bayer: Noted. You are currently one vote away from being hammered. Is that causing you to consider to roleclaim or do something else in an attempt to persuade everyone otherwise? Or do you think you can get out of this some other way?

[lordnincompoop]

Can anyone explain the hammer to me? This is the first time I've seen it in play,

[Darvi]

Pandar:    Book, Zrk2, and Darvi are all voting twice.  Zrk2 is listed as having 3   votes despite having only two names beside him.  Are these all correct?

Ah, I get that now. Wow, I should vote more often *joke, for those of you without humor*
 
 

 

  While   I'm not averse to believing that Org is a jester, I still don't believe   Bayer to be entirely innocent either. For all we know the PM never   happened and he's making it all up to cover for his buddying.
 

 
  Well yes, perhaps the PM never happened.
 
  But notice when Org started contributing - when he was no longer the focus of attention and of desired lynch.
 
  Only then did he change his slant. So if you disbelieve me I'm fine with that, I just think it warrants more faith than you're giving it.
 

Point. But his contributions weren't really much (only half a roleclaim, and stating that "Zrk isn't scum").
    Chances for his roles imo are 40% for Jester, 55% for scum engaging in   RiA and 5% other. While you... really, your initial arguments for   defending him were bullcrap. I'd say 75% scum and 25% other.
 
  Nincompoop, since you're here right now, you should be able to answer this:
  -What is your read on Ottofar?
  -Do you think Person is indulging in tunneling Bayer?
 
  (Hammer: So many votes and day is over, victim gets instantly lynched.)
 

[lordnincompoop]

  Nincompoop, since you're here right now, you should be able to answer this:
  -What is your read on Ottofar?

He is lurktastic as always, unfortunately. I'm hoping he'll post something useful soon.

  -Do you think Person is indulging in tunneling Bayer?

Buh?

  (Hammer: So many votes and day is over, victim gets instantly lynched.)

I'd like more than that.

[Darvi]

  -Do you think Person is indulging in tunneling Bayer?

Buh?

People vote him for tunneling Bayer. I want to know your thoughts on that.

  (Hammer: So many votes and day is over, victim gets instantly lynched.)

I'd like more than that.

We have 15 people. When more than half of us have the same target in mind, then day instantly ends. Right now we need 8 votes for a hammer, and 7 people are voting Bayer. So anybody not voting for him can get him instantly lynched by voting for him.

[Zrk2]

Unvote.

Dunno if you've heard this sentiment before, but anti-town =/= scum. Just because they're useless doesn't mean they're scum. Could mean they're an idiot. Could mean they're a jester, as is the case.

It may not always be, but it's a pretty good place to start, as it can also lead to hostile third parties.

Zrk2: Outside of Org, who do you suspect?  How about if Org is town?

Other than Org, my main pick is SirBayer because
1. Org is his scumbuddy and he's trying to save him.
OR
2. Org is townie, and SirBayer is defending him so when he is lynched he looks more townie.

I think that covers your question.

Argembarger, yes I am aware others are in this game, but they don't seem near as scummy as those two.

Votes:
SirBayer - 7 - Book Zrk2 Darvi Mr.Person IronyOwl Book Org
Darvi - 0
Leafsnail - 0
Ottofar - 1 - Argembarger
Argembarger - 1 - lordnincompoop
Zrk2 - 3 - Leafsnail Ottofar
lordnincompoop - 0
Book - 0
Jack A T - 0
Org - 2 -  Zrk2 NativeForeigner
Jokerman-EXE - 0
Toaster - 0
IronyOwl - 1 - Toaster
NativeForeigner - 1 - Darvi
Mr.Person - 3 - SirBayer JokermanEXE Jack_A_T

A reminder, the deadline approaches soon.

SirBayer is at L-1; another vote will hammer him, ending the day.

Book, LurkerTracker post at your convenience, please.

...I get two votes?!

[Zrk2]

Oh, and
3. Org is a jester, and SirBayer is defending him because he's cool like that.

[Darvi]

...I get two votes?!

I should get 5, one for each of my personalities *joke*
 
Pandar: Just being sure here. There are still no rules in effect, right?

[Book]

We have 15 people. When more than half of us have the same target in mind, then day instantly ends. Right now we need 8 votes for a hammer, and 7 people are voting Bayer. So anybody not voting for him can get him instantly lynched by voting for him.

I should point out that this is no longer true, since I unvoted him earlier. Plus my name was listed twice on the votecount, so who knows. However...

SirBayer

So, right after it being (incorrectly) said that one more vote would end the day, you stroll in and cast what could have been the hammer vote. Zrk2: do you think the day should end now with a SirBayer lynch? Why the rush?

[Zrk2]

Actually the only vote I had placed out of the two or three it said I had was on SirBayer, so now we only need one to hammer.

And I think lynching SirBayer now would just end the day sooner, it seems pretty obvious who we're lynching, but mroe time means more discussion, means better odds for town.

[lordnincompoop]

  -Do you think Person is indulging in tunneling Bayer?

Buh?

People vote him for tunneling Bayer. I want to know your thoughts on that.

Here is the subject of my confusion.

[Darvi]

  -Do you think Person is indulging in tunneling Bayer?

Buh?

People vote him for tunneling Bayer. I want to know your thoughts on that.

Here is the subject of my confusion.

Ya, I don't get it really either. Which is why I asked for an opinion from somebody who wasn't involved.

[Leafsnail]

I think the jester thing would make sense as a role, actually.  Normally being a jester is a ridiculously easy role, so Pandar adding in "You must tell one person that you're a jester every day" would be a good balancing factor.  I don't think it'd be a good thing to falseclaim since Org, if there's a town killing role, Org will die tonight, and if Bayer were lying, he'd get lynched too.  In other words, he'd be risking half of the scumteam for... what?

Imo, we should leave Org alone to see if he dies tonight (since there's very little chance of him being town).

Is this your own opinion? </confused>

Huh?  I'm trying to work out Darvi's motivation since it seems inconsistent with what he's claimed it to be more recently.

In your opinion, is there a line between trying to prevent an Org-lynch and buddying Org? If so, where is it and when was it crossed?

My point there was actually that accusing scum of buddying other scum is a nonsense accusation, since buddying = being nice to a townie to get them on your side.  There's defending, but that's got a different name and a different set of tells.

As for the line... I'm kindof weary of "buddying" accusations when it's someone who's about to be lynched that's supposedly being buddied.  Buddying as I've seen it is usually more subtle and against players who aren't pretty likely to die that die.

Other than Org, my main pick is SirBayer because
1. Org is his scumbuddy and he's trying to save him.
OR
2. Org is townie, and SirBayer is defending him so when he is lynched he looks more townie.

...Other than the bizarre logic, you seem to have only voted him after he was taken off L-1.  Perhaps you don't want to be seen casting the hammer vote, eh?

@leafsnail: does the wine taste good? I voted org because he wasn't contributing (which is a scumtell, no matter how you put it) and to make him actually do something.
You have no basis for claiming that it was a policy vote.

It wasn't an accusation so much as a request for a clarification, but if you're gonna be like that I'll rephrase it.

You vote him telling him to stop being stupid.  In other words, you vote him based on his idiocy - this would be a policy vote (not necessarily a bad thing blah blah blah).  If you thought he was scum, you wouldn't tell him to stop (someone can't stop being scum...), you'd bring forwards an accusation.

You later claim that you're voting him because you think he's scum.  I don't see how you could've had that intent looking at your initial vote, and what you've done since seems to be an attempt at retroactively changing what you did, since presumably you don't want to be seen voting based on policy.

[IronyOwl]

IronyOwl, if Org did not have a track record for Orglike behavior, how would your thoughts on this game be altered?

I'd have considered Jester a LOT more readily.

But notice when Org started contributing - when he was no longer the focus of attention and of desired lynch.

Only then did he change his slant. So if you disbelieve me I'm fine with that, I just think it warrants more faith than you're giving it.

This is kind of interesting, but "contributing" in this case means "two coherent sentences." It's more than he was giving earlier, but it's hardly a massive jump.

I'm also curious exactly what the reasoning for a jester would be in this situation. Attention is on him, so he herps and derps as much as possible, then starts contributing when everyone ignores him?

I'll unvote SirBayer for now, but I'd like to hear your reasoning.

Other than Org, my main pick is SirBayer because
1. Org is his scumbuddy and he's trying to save him.
OR
2. Org is townie, and SirBayer is defending him so when he is lynched he looks more townie.

Zrk2, why did you try to hammer him just for that? Why isn't Jokerman on that list for also defending Org?

Actually the only vote I had placed out of the two or three it said I had was on SirBayer, so now we only need one to hammer.

And I think lynching SirBayer now would just end the day sooner, it seems pretty obvious who we're lynching, but mroe time means more discussion, means better odds for town.

Ah, so now you're advertising for someone else to finish the job, while saying it's inevitable but spouting a townlike catchphrase completely at odds with what you're actually doing.

Interesting.

[Darvi]

You vote him telling him to stop being stupid.  In other words, you vote him based on his idiocy - this would be a policy vote (not necessarily a bad thing blah blah blah).  If you thought he was scum, you wouldn't tell him to stop (someone can't stop being scum...), you'd bring forwards an accusation.

Then there must have been a misunderstanding, as I thought a policy lynch would be lynching Org for being Org, and not for a player being stupid. Because, ya know, being stupid and unhelpful is totally acceptable, right? At that point, it was merely a pressure vote to make him stop. Well, maybe not entirely. But mostly.

You later claim that you're voting him because you think he's scum.  I don't see how you could've had that intent looking at your initial vote, and what you've done since seems to be an attempt at retroactively changing what you did, since presumably you don't want to be seen voting based on policy.

Yes, later being the keyword here. Because he kept doing it.
At that point I was sure that he was either scum indulging in RiA, or a jester (and due to the lack of suspects at the moment, a 3rd party lynch was more favorable than a potential mislynch). Don't pretend nothing happened in between.