Vi wrote:This makes me VERY uneasy. Which is it, and why?
Maybe I worded that wrong?
"
We Know that scum don't have a fake claim
We have nothing to indicate that scum have a fake claim."
In other words, I was assuming that because there was nothing in the rules about safe claims, that scum didn't have any... then I realized that safe claims could be included in scum role PM's without the town being told about it, but I wouldn't know because I haven't seen a scum role PM. So until there is something to point to the contrary, we have nothing to indicate that scum would have fake claims - thus, role-name fishing is scummy, depending on the context. In related news, if Occam is really dead, in this regard it helps the town that his name/role wasn't revealed, because scum don't get any fake claim information from the nk.
However, this is interesting:
BSG wrote:And based upon the information I have received in my PM, I can tell you that scum don't have a reason to flavor fish names...
Is this because you're scum and you have a safe fake name? In my town PM there is nothing to indicate that scum wouldn't have a reason to fish for names...
Vi wrote:'Mind if I give your kid a much classier two-letter nickname?
Sure! Go for it
Vi wrote:However, that other freeko vote D1 (Page 6) looks like what you tried to pull on Korts just now - big wall about something else, vote someone unrelated, explain shortly afterward. Was that your intention (re: the freeko vote)?
Actually, I found freeko scummy, mostly for the rolefishing I mentioned in my isolation #10. In #11, I explained my vote on the LT wagon and voted freeko for my reasons in #10. In post #12, I further justified why I was voting for freeko. Then look at my post #13 for freeko sort of falling apart and looking even scummier in trying to defend himself against my vote. After that, PK jumped in with the mason claim. So my intentions? I originally voted freeko because of the rolefishing which I found slightly scummy and voteworthy. Sometime between 12 and 13, freeko made me think he was obvscum, and in 13 I definately thought he was scum and wanted him lynched - maybe not instantly, but eventually. Then the mason claim, and you know how it went from there.
Also, sort of off the topic a little, but I still get the feeling that some players might be doubting my explanation for the LT wagon. Instead of trying to explain it again, I'm going to invite you to look at my posts 4 through 10, and see if my questioning of Occam is consistent with my explanation in 11 about the LT wagon.
Vi wrote:4) It comes down to WIFOM. Were you really fishing for reactions, or were you interested in Korts' lynch? Did you expect to get called for your baseless vote, or not? What kind of pressure comes from a baseless
What I am learning is as town, I tend to be more relaxed, arrogant, and cyptic when there are no votes on me, but when I get wagoned, I become a little more stressed, humbled, and straightforward. I see some similarities in how korts has been posting most of the game towards the former, so I thought more votes on korts would give us a post more like the latter. And I think it worked - I could absolutely tell a completely different tone in korts post after the wagon than before. I liked what i heard, so I unvoted.
(aside - I'm now coming to the realization that the former playstyle may be directly causing the wagon which leads to the latter playstyle, as evidenced by all 3 of my ongoing games)
Juls wrote:Do you think Juls was fishing for reactions as well?
I'm assuming this is still directed at me? I did not think Juls was fishing for reactions. in her #27, I found her reasons for voting korts to be slightly vague. It seemed she really wanted to be suspicious of the masons, but instead decided to wagon korts. I think you mentioned something like that in 426, so I didn't speak up about it. Whats odd with that is that she wasn't convinced of the masons (aka Vi), but then followed Vi's lead to vote korts. She also didn't mention my vote at all in that post, which was odd. In 28, she was able to list 2 of her own independant reasons for voting korts, as well as the Vi case. Odd now is that she notes my brevity in voting korts, but korts had to point it out first. This paragraph:
Juls wrote:Well since the wagon appears to have deteriorated, I wanted to try to put a little pressure on Korts for his statements and see how he would react. I knew your scumbuddy merchant would hop on the wagon and an L-2 would be sufficient pressure for Korts to at least explain some of his actions. I did think you had a good catch and I wanted to see what his explanation would be.
On paper seems exactly like my explanation (minus the part about knowing freeko would jump on the wagon) - but I found it odd because it was after I made my explanation and unvoted. I don't know if this is an honest reason, or a convenient excuse - juls couldn't be called on it without me being called on it as well. Likewise, I can't call Juls on it without looking like a hypocrite. But I felt I didn't need to because you had it covered in 426/445.
--------------------
I do remember LT 66 now that you point it out, but I interpretted it as more of a joke. That being said, looking back at LT's posts, I see they are a bit more horrendus than I originally interpretted them. So, I hope we get a replacement for LT before deadline...
--------------------
Vi wrote:Not quite. I'm sick of the airs of mystery around the sheep and the other sheep and the shepherd and the merchants and the role-given information about safeclaims(?) and the lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) and so forth. It's getting annoying quickly.
At the same time, that sounds like a personal problem I can get over. But I still like complaining, because, well, complaining. Having already claimed just adds a twinge of bitterness to it~
I can understand your frustration. I think you have mostly your merchant partner to claim for the fishing. I also don't like all the "I have role information that tells me
[something]
but I don't want to fully claim so you'll just have to trust me"... but once that cat's out of the bag, you kinda have to force some kind of elaboration. I have been curiously humoring the idea of a massclaim in my head... everything I've learned about mafia tells me they're no good until at least LyLo, and even then, they're limited in utility (each time I've had someone argue for a mass claim at LyLo, that person was scum (and Tarhalindur
)). However, in this particular game, the town knows there are no vanilla rolls... might make it difficult for scum to fabricate a believeable fake claim. On the other hand, with everything and anything as a possibility, scum could claim whatever they want and the chances of a counter are reduced. Also, there may be town roles that sound completely crazy and way out in left field, but are actually town. So I still think it would be better to not mass claim, which includes dropping not so subtle role information around so liberally, but given the way the game is going, I can't help but humor the idea. It seems like we're going to get to mass claim eventually before this is all said and done.
Vi wrote:So what's the tell?
The way she talked about Occam immediately after day began, like she knew for a fact that occam wasn't really dead. I first thought that mafia would know for sure if Occam was really dead or not, but I decided that it would probably be better for the mafia to let the town think that Occam was the target so the town won't get any information from the nk being prevented. (hypothetically, if a doc protected someone, and Occam isn't dead, then the doc probably had a lucky protect and that basically confirms someone). On the other side, if Juls was town, she could have role info herself which could give her information about Occam's fate. I'm not going to speculate into which roles those could be, but its not exactly rocket science to guess...
Since then, Juls has said some things that makes me think that she doesn't know whether Occam is really alive or not, such as a comment similar to "If Occam is really dead...". Then I started thinking that it would be in the mafia's best interest to cloud over the Occam issue moreso than it already is, by making us think he might be alive still, if he really was the NK target. Also, Juls explanation about Occam is that he might be out doing whatever his role allows him to do to confirm the masons. If Juls really knew Occam was still alive doing this, she wouldn't be trying to lynch the masons - she would want Occam to return with his results. I didn't bring this up until now because I didn't want to point out that I thought Juls might be giving off power role tells, but as she's contradicted what originally gave me the feeling, I now have a couple questions:
1)Juls, do you know for sure either way if Occam is alive or dead?
2)Regardless of what you know for sure, if you thought Occam might be out confirming one of the masons today, why did you spend a lot of time trying to lynch one of them?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't believe I'm going to say this right now, but freeko quoted something I find pretty interesting, and overlooked aparently...
Raider wrote:Without quoting It said 2. One of which was killed off in the opening sceene, for those that dont remember it was revealed as a sheep. So yes, there should be one other sheep.
This makes me doubt your claim a little. I doubt that the opening flavor kill has anything to do with your role - if it does, than this is a new level of bastard moddery I haven't seen before... I think more likely that if you know for sure there are 2 sheep, and korts is one, than one of the inactives is probably the other. Do you think that is a more likely scenario than "the second sheep referenced in your role was probably the mod"?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony wrote:Would be alot faster at reading up, if you didn't fill up every page to the rim.
Me + Vi = Wall-building Machine! We can put china to shame
