![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
Since I can't vote for the Mod, I'll
lord_hur wrote:Well, I have the feeling, because of this rule and this food system, which implies that there are several types, that this will be a very complicated game
No pity for us newbies
lord_hur wrote:Also, with 10 plagues (so I assume, 10 nights) and 12 players, the probability of at least one resurrect role is pretty strong.
lord_hur wrote:I was thinking about a poisoner role, who can poison one type of food, maybe with a delay on the death.PyroDwarf wrote:I wonder how our lunch will come into play? Maybe "XXX is dead and there are pancakes everywhere!" I just picked pancakes at random, it isn't mine, who has pancakes for lunch, anyways?
thevampireofdusseldorf wrote:FoS:Mr Stooferfor trying to add more weight to an already suspicion laden person. Not that there is anything wrong with that if the suspicion is merited...
Nothing at all. Anyone can question anyone, as far as I am concerned. I'll answer any questions you have.lord_hur wrote:Please tell me what gives you the *exclusive* right to questioning people ?
I read the opening post. But I saw no warrant for a resurrection role, or a poisoner. Nor for your assumption that we are going to have a different plague every night.lord_hur wrote:Okay, I think the reason Mr Stoofer thinks I know more than him about the setup if that there is extra info in undo's introductory post in the queue thread, including the reference to 10 plagues. So I was thinking maybe he didn't read it.
What question? And when are you going to answer my question?Anyways my second suspect at the moment is Mr Stoofer, whom hasn't posted in a while I do believe. And I think somewhere back in the thread there was a question for him.
Yes and No is not an answer. Either you thought I was making a good point or you did not. You can't have it both ways.thevampireofdusseldorf wrote:I believe you asked this three times....Which I answered eventualyMr Stoofer wrote:I ask you again: tell me - yes or no - was my suspicion merited?thevampireofduselldorf wrote:Yes and No, I viewed the timing of the post its lay out and tone all to decide if I found it suspicious. Suspicion can be merited but the person placing that suspicion can also be suspicious.
What I meant was this: Scum inevitabley know more about the game than the Town. They are thethevampireofdussledorf wrote:Now that post of yours in particular I made some coments on which you seem to have not bothered to deem worth talking about. So I will have to re do this.
Can you please explain what you ment by this comment as both I and lord_hur have interpreted it and perhaps it would be nice to get the view of the author.Mr Stoofer wrote:The following quotes make me think that lord_hur knows more about this setup than the rest of us (or at least: more than me).
.Mafia generally have more information than other players, so whoever picks up on tells/hints easiest is more likely to be mafia
Now that you have discussed your speculations, I think that they are so way off target (e.g. 12 plagues = 12 nights) that I no longer think that they are based on "extra" information. I tend to believe you when you say you were merely guessing. If your guesses turn out to be accurate, however, then you can expect me to be very suspicious. But at present I see it as highly unlikely that your guesses are right.lord_hur wrote:@Mr Stoofer : do you still think I know more than you ? Also, you said something that leads me to think you know more about the setup than me : you only said that scum would know more than the others, but why do you seem to be thinking that eventual town special roles do not know more than vanillas ? Why did you only associate my alleged superior knowledge with scum ?
No it doesn't. Assuming that he was killed by Scum, it just means that the Scum picked him out for a kill. Some Scum try to target experienced players/good scum hunters because they are the most dangerous foes; others target Newbies because they are unlikely to get Doc protection Night 1; while others kill players against whom they have a grudge.lord_hur wrote:@all experienced players : does the fact that kabenon007 died first night give us any hint on his scummyness? (never faced night 0's myself)
thevampireofdussledorf wrote:gibberish
It's not rocket science Guardian. We were in the middle of a discussion about tvod, when out of nowhere you built a very confident case on hasdgfas based on (IMHO) not very much. It just struck me when I read that post that it could be an attempt to divert attention away from the growing tvod wagon (especially since I think tvod is scum). So if tvod turns up as scum, then that is what I will think.Guardian wrote:tvod, I hope you are scum because then my comment would be very interesting indeed.
My point about lord_hur was not pointless.lord_hur wrote:Hmm, SlySly raised this point too; I'd like to see Mr Stoofer's answer about it.thevampireofdusseldorf wrote:So from what I have gathered Mr Stoofer added a rather pointless comment to the anti lord_hur movement and then was overly interested in if his suspicions seemed merited in my eyes.
I can see you don't agree with the point, but it is a recognised scum tell that Mafia tend to know more about what is going on, and tend to be able to work things out, more easily that the Town.SlySly wrote:@Mr. Stoofer
How is it a scum tell that lord_hur appeared to have more information about the setup than others? I totally disagree with your statement about this topic in Post 152. In fact, I get the feeling that your statement is a scum tactic trying to get lord_hur to reveal more about his role to your scumminess.
Let me drum up a hypothetical for you...
Let's say lord_hur's role is Bugs Bunny and Bugs Bunny is a power role of the town that has night actions. Wouldn't lord_hur's role give him more information about the setup of the game than some of the other players in the game without lord_hur being scummy for having such role information?
Would he not know that Bugs Bunny existed where the rest of us didn't?
I'm sorry, I don't find having that kind of info as scummy.
Now of course this not a cast iron rule, no-one suggests that it is. I even said so myself:Mafia generally have more information than other players, so whoever picks up on tells/hints easiest is more likely to be mafia (+10%). There are some notable exceptions. Experience and skill should be taken into consideration.
So by all means disagree with me and JEEP, but what I pointed out was a recognised scum tell.Mr Stoofer (emphasis added) wrote:Generally, giving away extra information is a Scum tell, rather than a Power-Role tell (did you look at the wiki link?). That's because Scum are super keen to appear helpful, while Power-Roles tend to want to stay hidden. That is why I normally ascribe extra knowledge of the setup to scum, when it comes out day 1. But you make a fair point --pro-Town Power-Roles may also be able to work out the setup more easily.
Guardian , are you voting for me for agreeing with you on SlySly, or for "overburdening" (bearing in mind I accepted I was wrong about lord_hur ages and ages ago?)Guardian wrote:Stoofer, I don't insist.
unvote; vote: Mr Stoofer
I actually agree with the overburdening. lord_hur seems honest to me. I'm also really not buying tvod suspicion atm, and no one likes my thoughts on cow..
You realise that I changed my mind about lord_hur, and agreed it was innocent speculation, about 5 pages ago?Guardian wrote:Let me be clear: the overburdening doesn't bother me as much (I am using the term because you used it), it is that it doesn't seem to be a reasonable interpretation that the guy knows or knew more about the setup than anyone else. it seemed like innocent speculation to me.
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.Guardian wrote:stoofer, could you have a shot at answering this again? like, what are the differences in what I should be thinking if I did know vs. if I didn't? Why is it significant my analysis that I knew you took it bacK?Guardian wrote:Like I said, I was not thinking that at the time I posted it, but I do now remember you saying you were wrong; however, how does that change anything?
Well I don't agree I was pushing crap logic. I made a perfectly valid point, pointing out what appeared to me to be a recognised scum tell. Remember, we were on page 1 or 2 and one has to look very hard for scum tells at that stage. And it's not as if I said "OMFG, I've found scum!!!". I just pointed out a known scum tell.Guardian wrote:tvod, I want you to quote and respond to post 203.
Stoofer, that's nice and all, but between scenarios a) push crap logic on a townie and later retract it and b) push crap logic on a townie and keep pushing, the person is pushing crap logic in both cases.
Do you think that you were pushing crap logic? Do you think you fall under a), then? What, in your own words, made you retract it? Feel free to link me to a post where you explained this, if you have.
It's day 1. What else do have to go on but hunches and such-like? What Guardian said is perfectly reasonable. It applies to me too.SlySly wrote:To me, this sounds like another way of saying, "I don't have a good reason so I am going to take a shot in the dark."Guardian wrote: I'm playing by sense of smell at this point.
Again, a perfectly reasonable thing for Guardian to say; I don't even understand what SlySly's complaint is about it.SlySly wrote:It seems to me that you are saying that you know you don't have a good reason for your action and you have the sense that your action is going to draw a negative response from the town.Guardian wrote: I feel like this is going to come back and bite me in the but later, and people are gonna be like "well if you were really town why weren't you trying so hard to be really townie and good and stuff?" and I don't have a good answer for that.
Well, imo, if you are going to do something that will cast you in a negative light to the town, you better have a good reason and be able to answer when called on for it. If you don't do the reasonless act of negativity in the first place, the town would not have been forced to confront you for it.
I don't have a problem with the above; although it misses the point that Guardian thinks hasdgfas is scum on instinct. SlySly's argumentSlySly wrote:You have posted more than 20 times since you last mentioned, hasdgfas. Are you talking about the extremely flimsy case you presented in post 92?Guardian wrote: Nevertheless,
unvote; vote: hasdgfas
I just have a strong intuition he's scum, I still like my case I proposed (and if you don't you can just eat it), and I don't particularly want to lynch my previous top suspects.
That case basically said hasdgfas was scum because he used pronouns in the random stage and answered a question that was addressed for someone else and that he supposedly lead tVoD.
Well, the first 2 parts of your 'case' are a joke, at best. The 3rd part of your 'case' is an opinion that I don't share. I don't see how hasdgfas was leading at tVoD at all. Maybe I missed a post, though I doubt it. If you are not pro-town enough to quote it, you could be pro-town enough to point out the exact post number you are referring to, when making claims about others questionable play, so it is easy for the town to understand what you are talking about.
You have popped in and placed a vote on a person that I believe to have contributed many pro-town posts throughout the game, using a very old case against him, that you have not mentioned in a long time, while knowing that you are going to be V\LA for some time.
I think this is way over the top. "VERY scummy action"!?! "you go and pull this"?!? I just don't see what is so scummy about what Guardian has said.SlySly wrote:
This to me is a VERY scummy action. You had almost cleared yourself of any suspicion in my mind and then you go and pull this. Mr. Stoofer's consistent scumminess is the only thing keeping my vote off of you.
FoS:Guardian
It is very difficult to lynch Scum on Day 1. The best you can do is to do the best you can. But in the vast majority of games the Town ends up lynching Town on Day 1. That's just the way it is. I don't want to spend forever on Day 1 hoping that something concrete will turn up -- because it just won't. [And that sort of game is sooooo boring.] You have to try to read between the lines of the other player's posts and get a feeling for who might be genuine and honest (Town) and who is not being honest (Scum).thevampireofdussledorf wrote:The line of well all we got day one is hunches is BS to me. You can work hard to try and get good reads and find information to come to a reasoned opinion abut who might be scum. But both Gaurdian and Mr Stoofer seem to be very flippant about who they lynch and for what reason. I can only see this as irresponsible and not very pro town at all.
Here is a question for you: list every question I have failed to answer.SlySly wrote:You have repeatedly 'obviously missed' questions from multiple players. It is not our duty to keep repeating questions for you to avoid. It shouldn't take 3 reminders to get you to answer something.Mr. Stoofer wrote: I always try to answer questions, so if there is one I haven't answered I have obviously missed it so you need to repeat it.
If you really wanted an answer to a question you would repeat it, because it vastly increases the likelihood of getting an answer. If on the other hand you are simply trying to smear other players, then I could see why you would not do that... Your response makes me think you are in the latter category.It is not our duty to keep repeating questions for you to avoid.
I am sure you will agree that lord_hur has hardly been pro-Stoofer in this game, so I think it fair to let him be the judge of your list.lord_hur wrote:Answers I'd like answered by Mr Stoofer : 275
Uninteresting/rethorical questions : 114, 279, 241
Questions that have been answered (in my eyes), and as such, I don't care about an answer to them : 153, 197, 232, 160
That leaves the matter of the presumed extra info Mr Stoofer has (110, 165, 172, 184). As I said earlier, I am unsure if I should press the subject, because more info can be bad for town, and anyway Mr Stoofer said he would talk about it only if Guardian told him to (which the latter did not).
In fact both you and and he missed my answer:thevampireofdusseldorf [275] wrote:Also where did hasfgad stand on your list when you voted for him and where does he stand now?
"He" in this post referred to hasdgfas -- sorry if that was not clear from the context.Mr Stoofer [276] wrote:I hate the fact that he was posting in other games and did not post in this game; and he is on my radar. But I don't think he is in the same league as, in particular, you, tvod.
I can see how the second paragraph can be interpreted as meaning that lord_hur agreed with everything in the first paragraph. That is not what I meant -- sorry.lord_hur wrote:Mr Stoofer is trying to twist my words in this post : nowhere did I say or imply anything about SlySly's scumminess in this post,
Mr Stoofer wrote:First, I made clear that I couldn't/wouldn't answer questions from tvod because I was finding him incomprehensible.
Mr Stoofer wrote:Second, many of your questions were not questions at all but rhetorical flourishes (e.g. 241 and your own 160).
Mr Stoofer wrote:Thirdly, on the Guardian questions (e.g. 172, 184), I have made my position absolutely clear.
Then Guardian's next post is this:Guardian [5] wrote:vote: SlySly
When lord_hur pointed out in [54] that the game had only just started, Guardian responded by saying [55] "It seems longer".Guardian [52] wrote:I find it interesting that no one has mentioned me or SlySly, and also that SlySly hasn't posted at all in the game.
mod:prod?
Guardian [92] wrote:SlySly is also probably scum.
This struck me as very odd when I read it the first time. What was the "or something". And anyway, how could he have a hunch about a player who had not even posted, even at that stage? So I went back did a "View All Posts by Guardian". It was fascinating. It struck me that the only explanation for the "or something", and for his post [92], must be that Guardian was a cop with a guilty result on SlySly. What other explanation could there be?Guardian [103] wrote:and yeah, slysly is a hunch. or something.
I was trying to do two things with that post: First, I wanted to try to take the heat off Guardian because I thought he was being so blatant that the Scum would be able to spot that he was a Cop. Second, I wanted to signal to Guardian that I had picked up on the deliberate tells he was dropping. That also explains why I refused to explain post 105 unless Guardian insisted: I didn't want to out him unless he wanted to be outed.Mr Stoofer [105] wrote:Also, I want to put the following point on the record:
If we do not lynch thevampireofdussledorf today, we should lynch SlySly.
A Jester wins if he is lynched Day 2, and loses if he is nightkilled or endgamed.tvod wrote:I had the question of do they win if they are lynched day two and how do they lose?
This is the problem with Jesters. First, you can never trust them. 99% of players who claim Jester are Scum. Imagine this: if the game gets down to you, Guardian and one other player, are you going to trust Guardian enough to vote the other guy? Secondly, Jesters hurt the Town because they will not help the Town to lynch Scum. On the contrary, they have to make sure that they do not appear to be a threat to the Scum; because if they help the Town to lynch Scum then the Scum will kill them at night and then they will lose. Instead, they have to try to hurt the Town so much (e.g. by attacking pro-Town players) that the Town lynches them.tvod wrote:Also is it of any value to keep them around as they appear to be of no use to the town or scum, and is the only value of keeping a suspected Jester around to stop them achieving their win condition?
Yes, that certainly is a strategy that has been used before. As I say, 99% of Jester claims come from Scum.tvod wrote:And lastly is it a possible stratergy of mafia to try and have people believ you to be a jester so that you are not lynched?
Perhaps I should have said "often" rather than "normally". An example is Thespival Mafia -- see the Jester's win condition in this post.thevampireofdusseldorf wrote:Where does the jester losing if lynched day one come from?