Now those are some mighty big shoes to fill.Knight of Cydonia wrote:Stephoscope replaces Queen Elizabeth II, effective immediately.
(Confirm, hi all.)
For the record, I personally am not even going to guess if the drink is good or bad. Who knows? I am more interested in the overall goal of lynching intelligently.Sajin wrote:Well the question is do we think its harmful or beneficial. If we think its beneficial we should give it to someone very pro town looking. If we think its harmful, we give it to someone not looking great.
Because, given his playstyle, I think it will be helpful to know whether he's town or scum, and the drink may facilitate that, or perhaps facilitate other scumhunting opportunities.Naomi_Saotome wrote:Why do you think Lamont should drink it?Stephoscope wrote:I am 100% in favor of someone drinking the drink.
I am against the idea of random.org, since we'll just read into however a given person's "randomization" goes. Let's just pick someone. I pick Lamont.
Random is not going to work. Someone can fake that they "randomized" it, and even if they don't, they'll be suspected of it. I mean, let me know if I'm missing something, but we might as well all agree on doing something instead of agreeing to a process that's easily corrupted.Nyx wrote:Random is the only way to do it. If we decide on drinking it EVERYONE should be put in the random.
If we don't put everyone on random there's a chance people may avoid it with reasons we don't know yet. Or like Lament said in post 278.
I don't think discussion should be about who drinks it but more about if we should actually drink it or not.
I think he just did that as an example. I'm sure there were others in addition to myself who were unaware of that function on here.Lamont_Cranston wrote:That random roll is TOTALLY corrubtible because Hohum gets to choose whether or not he wants to use it. Because you rolled it BEFORE he made the choice.
I am fine with doing it that way. I am also fine with it being put to a vote as to whether we want to do it that way. I'd rather that Hohum not make the decision on his own, but if he wants to do that there's nothing anyone can do about it.Lamont_Cranston wrote:Now, if he comes out and says: "I'm rolling and whoever it comes up as from the list is getting it no matter what" -- that IS random but I'm against it. I think its anti-town to force it on ANYONE and dangerous to the town to volunteer to drink it.
Its just not necessary.
Well, be fair--I advocate that we all vote on whom to force it to. And I'm sure there are more townies than scum that'd be voting...Lamont_Cranston wrote:I like your logic here Sajin, but I would more broadly apply it to ANYONE that advocates forcing of the liquid; "insert recipient name HERE".Sajin wrote:The dice code on this forum is sufficiently random for me. Why is it not for you steph? Your also the one who wanted it to go to lamont because he wanted it....why? How would it help us determine his playstyle on him in particular over someone else?
vote Stephoscope
fos Lamont
FoS Steph
The point is that, more often than not, scumhunting is unsuccessful before anything really happens in the game. On Day One, unless something like this comes up, all there is is talking...and it has been my experience that the player acting scummiest is usually just a townie playing poorly that everyone can justify lynching. I am looking past the arguments of what the drink may or may not do to any one player, and looking at the big picture of more effective scumhunting starting right now.Alabaska J wrote:what is the point of the second sentence in this post?Stephoscope wrote:Conversely, I think not wanting anyone to drink the drink is anti-town. It's usually a townie who gets lynched on day one. Throwing a wrench into things and making the game more interesting should lead to more things to analyze, more discussion, and more chances to find scum...and I think all of that is very much pro-town.
I don't know exactly what you mean by this. I am certainly not a premature lyncher.Alabaska J wrote:are you a lyncher stephoscope? cuz if you are i think this is just preciousStephoscope wrote:I will not vote for anyone until either someone drinks the drink, or we come to a consensus that no one is going to drink the drink.
I still think we should force Lamont to chug it.
Sure, why not. I vote for Lamont. To restate: I believe using it on a player like him is a good idea because it will hopefully make it obvious whether or not he's town aligned, letting us use his enthusiasm for good or letting us get rid of him if he's scum, and make overall scumhunting easier as well.NuevaVida wrote:Ok lets start the voting for the decanter
That is a really interesting speculation.Amished wrote:I've read a game (it was a marathon one) where one of the evil players was forced to use the devil smiley once a week. Lamont is the only one I've seen that has used it so far (once in iso 83, Friday the 15th; and once in iso 170 on Sat the 23rd). It could be a bastard mod thing where you need to use it once every 100 posts, but that's pure speculation and you can do with that knowledge what you will. (I believe the player was nominated for a scummy, best roleclaim or something? if you want to look it up).
The mod is away, and we haven't yet heard from the backup mod.Devestation wrote:I suspect that if the mod hasnt told us yet, he aint gonna tell us until the end of the day/night.
All you gotta do is pledge not to use the devil sign. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.Lamont_Cranston wrote:Steph until you give me a reason why I should do such a silly think you can put your vote wherever you want. That's a silly reason to vote anyone and I won't be held responsible for it.
I was really just kidding about the box. I didn't expect it to be a "real" item, just figured it was worth a try.The Replacement wrote:I got sucked into reading and finished my first read of the game.
The Mod never posted the box having disappeared or any indication that you successfully picked it up. Did you get a PM that says you have the box in your possession? Also several times thoughout the game you mention withholding your vote until X happens. Why did you feel you needed to hold your vote?Stephoscope wrote:For the record, the small paper box I picked up doesn't seem to be doing anything.
I answered you a mere five minutes later.Lamont_Cranston wrote:Sorry but it was you who didn't answer.Stephoscope wrote:As for withholding my vote...we have plenty of time, why vote until we have all the information (i.e. what the drink did and who was affected by it)? Although I think eventually I gave in once Lamont wouldn't answer the question about the devil smiley.
Yes I did. There is no pro-town reason for you not to promise to avoid the devil sign, as I can't imagine a pro-town role having to post the devil sign. So, your refusal to make that promise leads me to assume you are scum who has to use the sign as part of his role.Lamont_Cranston wrote: Nope sorry you didn't.
I was trying to make a joke. I'm sorry if it failed miserably.The Replacement wrote:Why did you think it was okay to lead people on that you had the box?Stephoscope wrote:I was really just kidding about the box. I didn't expect it to be a "real" item, just figured it was worth a try.
While you make some good points here about voting and why scum would be reluctant to do it, I have already placed my vote and explained exactly why...so don't accuse me of wanting to sit back and wait for a wagon, because that's not what I did.The Replacement wrote:Voting is one of the best ways to hold people accountable for their suspcions. If you aren't going to vote at all during the entire beginning of the day we can't be sure of your suspicions and it's a good way for a scum player to sit back and wait until there's a wagon vote that they like and put their vote there or make a vote based on the general opinions of the town, making you appear less accountable overall for your vote when you do put it somewhere and making it so other players can build a case so that you do need to.Stephoscope wrote:As for withholding my vote...we have plenty of time, why vote until we have all the information (i.e. what the drink did and who was affected by it)? Although I think eventually I gave in once Lamont wouldn't answer the question about the devil smiley.
Vote: Stephoscope
Whether or not it was "my own reason" doesn't affect whether it's the right vote. I'm more concerned with getting the right lynch then I am with looking all pro-town, and I made sure to credit Amished for the catch.The Replacement wrote:It's exactly what you did. There were already five votes on Lamont_Craston when yours finally came around to land on him and the reason you gave wasn't even your own reason, you took what someone else found and used that as the basis for your vote.Stephoscope wrote:While you make some good points here about voting and why scum would be reluctant to do it, I have already placed my vote and explained exactly why...so don't accuse me of wanting to sit back and wait for a wagon, because that's not what I did.
Well, whether or not you agreed with my thinking (and you do make some good points), you might try being suspicious of people who withheld their votes or were wishy-washy about themThe Replacement wrote:Voting and lynching are the primary functions of the town. Delaying that function is bad because it can lead to a rushed and less than optimal decisions as deadlines approach.Stephoscope wrote:I just wanted to make sure we figured out what was going on with the drink before we complicated things with voting...and I wanted to make sure our eventual lynch would be an informed one, with the knowledge of what (if anything) the drink had done.
If you were town, I can't imagine why you would refuse to promise not to use the devil sign.Lamont_Cranston wrote:WTH are you talking about!? Wat kind of crazy bullsh*t argument is this?? I have to promise not to hit a key so you won't vote me!?Stephoscope wrote:Yes I did. There is no pro-town reason for you not to promise to avoid the devil sign, as I can't imagine a pro-town role having to post the devil sign. So, your refusal to make that promise leads me to assume you are scum who has to use the sign as part of his role.Lamont_Cranston wrote: Nope sorry you didn't.
Is this kiddie mafia!??
KMA.
Huh? I'm trying to scumhunt. If you explicitly make your promise, I'll remove my vote and look elsewhere. I'll have absolutely no reason to bring that argument up again if you promise not to use the devil sign and then abide by that promise.Lamont_Cranston wrote:Well lets say you are right and everyone is enthralled with your wonderful argument...
I will promise not to use it if:
1) You promise to bring that stupid argument up again
2) Provide some real analysis on someone towards actually catching SCUM today
9.9
Did you want to promise you won't use the devil sign any more?Lamont_Cranston wrote:LOL. Fine if that makes you feel justified then you can know that:
1) You advocated a total crap, baseless and childish reason for my lynch
2) Refused to back away from it when given a legitimate opportunity to do so
Based on the above, I cannot be held responsible for your actions.
You are in no position to try and negotiate right now. I'm not going to set myself up to be accused that my "analysis" is not "serious" by someone who I don't trust.Lamont_Cranston wrote:So,Stephoscope wrote:Did you want to promise you won't use the devil sign any more?Lamont_Cranston wrote:LOL. Fine if that makes you feel justified then you can know that:
1) You advocated a total crap, baseless and childish reason for my lynch
2) Refused to back away from it when given a legitimate opportunity to do so
Based on the above, I cannot be held responsible for your actions.
Because if not, let it be noted that you're avoiding the very simple thing I asked of you, whilst trying very hard to demean my character (I'm "baseless" and "childish" for demanding you prove you're not sworn to the devil horns? ok!)if you want me to promise not to use that stupid smiley, did you want to promise:
1) Not to bring up that dumb argument ever again
2) Provide some serious analysis to actually find scum today
hmmmm?
Because otherwise ur just trying to come up with a cheap excuse for a lynch vote.
Whatever. Even the player who supposedly thinks I'm scummy has no problem with my argument. It's fine, my vote will stand.Lamont_Cranston wrote:Dewd, you don't understand. YOU have a crap argument. You either come across with mutual promises are you suffer with your crap argument.Stephoscope wrote:You are in no position to try and negotiate right now. I'm not going to set myself up to be accused that my "analysis" is not "serious" by someone who I don't trust.Lamont_Cranston wrote:So,Stephoscope wrote:Did you want to promise you won't use the devil sign any more?Lamont_Cranston wrote:LOL. Fine if that makes you feel justified then you can know that:
1) You advocated a total crap, baseless and childish reason for my lynch
2) Refused to back away from it when given a legitimate opportunity to do so
Based on the above, I cannot be held responsible for your actions.
Because if not, let it be noted that you're avoiding the very simple thing I asked of you, whilst trying very hard to demean my character (I'm "baseless" and "childish" for demanding you prove you're not sworn to the devil horns? ok!)if you want me to promise not to use that stupid smiley, did you want to promise:
1) Not to bring up that dumb argument ever again
2) Provide some serious analysis to actually find scum today
hmmmm?
Because otherwise ur just trying to come up with a cheap excuse for a lynch vote.
What's absurd is that he won't say "OK, I see how the devil sign might be suspicious given that scum has been forced to use it before...I won't use it any longer."Xtoxm wrote:I just checked Nueva. He's not lurking as hard as you imply. And his isolation 9 looks pro-town to me.
Steph - Your argumentiscrap. I fail to see how you believe something so absurd enough to bring it up.
No one's whining. If you won't promise not to use it, you get my vote. It's as simple as that, and I'm not interested in negotiating, nor listening to your contrived analysis of my gameplay.Lamont_Cranston wrote:Quit whining. If you're so obsessed over some stupid smiley idea then just promise not to bring up the stupid crap anymore and start doing some real game analysis. Whining doesn't help anything.
Are you really posting from Bizarro World, or are you just pretending to?Lamont_Cranston wrote:I'm resistant to a crapologic argument which has no merit. She is unwilling to make the least concession that would allow me to accept her argument, therefore she must suffer the results. I tried to help her, she just wouldn't listen.
No, it's not "weird". The easy thing to do would be for Lamont to promise not to use it any more. I thought there was just an off chance the devil sign meant anything, but he first ignored my remarks twice, and now he seemingly feels he is in a position to negotiate. He is not. I will not make an agreement about "real scumhunting", which we all know is arbitrary, and have him try and disparage my efforts so that he can go and use his devil sign again. It's him who's being unreasonable here, not me.Setael wrote:Finished the thread. I think Lamont is town. None of the arguments against him hold any weight imo, especially the devil sign thing. It's weird that Stephoscope won't just agree to drop it and start scum hunting, in which case Lamont said he wouldn't use it anymore.
Setael wrote:I think they're scum buddies due to stephoscope's attack of lamont's reaction to the drink and totally ignoring devestation's much more blatant desire to not drink it.
*snip*
Really suspicious that Steph never confronted devestation, considering her reaction to lamont's statement about not wanting to drink it.
In fact, she totally ignores him the entire game. The only time she says anything about or to him is this: