California Trilogy: City of Angels - Off Stage (Game Over)

[VP Baltar]

What is your read on Pooky there Sotty?

[Thesp]

Wow at Pooky's record. Nice chart - how did those who didn't vote indicate they were leaning? (I can look more for it later, but if you're on it...)

[Mighty Orbots]

Talilan -

That's really bad reasoning, Ms. Fisher. You're saying he's a Decepticon for advocating the correct choice - when he gave ample, logical reasoning for doing so? We also gave that reasoning when we were on break, are we scum too?

This seems like a really bad excuse to lead us astray. My good guy read of you has been shot to hell. Ugh.

You never did respond to this.

DGB needs to die.

Did you come to this conclusion based on the chart, or something else?

Still reading through, this is making my head hurt.

[Mr. Grey]

Mod Note:

Players are once again reminded to read the game rules. One would think that given the numerous edits made players would be aware of things that are against the rules, but apparently not.

[curiouskarmadog]

Orbots, for the record, your thoughts on DGB?...gaspar?...starkiss?

[Mighty Orbots]

Orbots, for the record, your thoughts on DGB?...gaspar?...starkiss?

- If I were to go just based on actions in game, I'd say DGB is scum. My problem is that I've never seen scum be so blatant. I've never played with DGB before, have any of you? Anyone know if the way she's playing here is normal?
- I think Gaspar is town
- My current working theory is that Talilan and Starkiss are scum together:

Yesterday Ms. Fisher made an unexpected cameo which pushed several to make the wrong choice. To me the move was strikingly similar to the one made by a different Ms. Fisher a few days ago. The difference was that the ploy worked this time. Also I'm pretty convinced that the appearance was deliberate because of the content in the message.

Also yesterday, Mr. Lewis was the first to vote for the wrong choice, even before being given the green light. Then he completely disappeared into the background. I think the disappearance was intentional to avoid the barrage of questions he received after making his choice.

Now today we see them both advocating for the same choice yet again, right off the bat, even though there's no outside information for us and no reason to back one choice versus the other at this point. I'm having a hard time believing this is all coincidence.

I not sure what it means that Starkiss managed to veer back to the correct choice.

[curiouskarmadog]

oh I have played a lot with DGB....and her many alts.

what is funny about DGB is I love with with her when she is DGB, but when she plays one of her many alts....she acts completely different and drives me completely insane.

DGB in this game is like a DGB alt imo..

actions speak louder than words with a DGB alt.

[curiouskarmadog]

DGB, how do you think you are doing so far in this game?

[Mighty Orbots]

Sorry, meant to say Talilan veered, not Starkiss.

---

Fortunately I had sotty's table in cache. Bold is bad, underline is good:

Player: Scene one, Scene two, Scene three, Scene four

Gaspar: X, X, Did not vote, Voted push
Talian:

Follow Wiggin KY Krew stunt vote

,

Picked door 1

, X,

Voted not to push

Pooky: X, Did not vote, Voted crone, Voted push
Orbots: X,

Picked door 1

, X, Voted push
Thok: X,

Picked door1

, Did not vote,

Voted not to push

Starkiss:

Follow Wiggin

, X, Voted crone, Voted push
Sottyrulez: Did not vote, X, X,

Voted not to push

GaB: X, X, Voted crone, Did not vote
Panzer/Zu Faul:

Follow Wiggin

, X, X, Voted push
Hewitt: Did not vote, X, Voted Crone, X
VP:

Follow Wiggin

, X, Voted crone, X
CKD:

Follow Wiggin

, Did not vote,

Voted Mother good choice?

, X
Mafiajin: Did not vote,

Picked door 1

, X, X
SL: X, Did not vote, Did not vote, X
Thesp: Did not vote, X, X, X

Tags removed. Use bold only for voting. - Mod

[Gaspar]

well, I think we need to use the stuntman ability today...

but if it isnt asigned it isnt assigned.

well, fuck I didnt really consider that in my picking who stays and who goes. I really dont have an urge to lynch any of you.....

at this point, I would prefer a GnB, Gaspar, Might Orbits, or starkiss lynch.....in that order.

I'm confused, partially may be a rules/mechanics thing.

But why did you put everyone you think is scummy onstage? You said you thought all the above are scum and they won't lynch each other so you put them onstage? That doesn't make too much sense to me.

Shouldn't you keep the people around for a lynch that you (and more importantly the players in the game as a whole) think are scum? Otherwise you can't lynch them. They are not available. I could understand you not wanting to put all scummy players offstage since you want townish players to drive the lynch, but putting all scummy players offstage seems idiotic.

Also, were you wanting to have the off-stage players decide who they wanted to lynch from the on-stage players and then stunting that person back offstage for the lynch? If so, that strikes me as ridiculously scummy since you're discussing and mostly deciding the lynch while the person isn't even there and can't defend themself. It seems like it's much easier to get a mislynch on a person who can't even defend themself, and easier to manipulate townies into thinking a person is scum. I dislike this so much.

~elvis

[VP Baltar]

He assumed there was going to be a stuntman, Gaspar. Which was a reasonable assumption to make even though it didn't happen until too late. There was nothing scummy about it really, imo.

[Mighty Orbots]

actions speak louder than words with a DGB alt.

? It can't be that simple. Examples?

[Gaspar]

Well it does seem like you guys used the stuntman on other days so it would be normal to assume there would be one. I don't even understand what happened with that...?

But that still doesn't explain why ckd, or the rest of you, would think it would be a good idea to decide the lynch while the person isn't there. They can't discuss with you or answer your questions. It's the equivalent of having a legal trial where only the prosecution gets to present. How can you judge that kind of thing? It seems unfair and tilted to help scum.
~elvis

[VP Baltar]

But that still doesn't explain why ckd, or the rest of you, would think it would be a good idea to decide the lynch while the person isn't there. They can't discuss with you or answer your questions. It's the equivalent of having a legal trial where only the prosecution gets to present. How can you judge that kind of thing?

So you feel that MJ had no opportunity to answer for himself?

[sottyrulez]

Well it does seem like you guys used the stuntman on other days so it would be normal to assume there would be one. I don't even understand what happened with that...?

But that still doesn't explain why ckd, or the rest of you, would think it would be a good idea to decide the lynch while the person isn't there. They can't discuss with you or answer your questions. It's the equivalent of having a legal trial where only the prosecution gets to present. How can you judge that kind of thing? It seems unfair and tilted to help scum.
~elvis

Obviously the mindset we've been going at this with is faulty, and our dependence on the stuntman has been exposed the moment we didn't get one for the last scene.

Obviously we need to go about this with a different, and more alert mindset.

[Gaspar]

No, that's not what I said. I'm still reading the day and unless mafiajinn stopped posting then I'm sure he had the opportunity to defend himself since he was offstage with you guys. (I mean mafiajinn is an easy target but that's a whole other topic).

I'm talking about how you guys wanted to decide which player from onstage you wanted to lynch and then planned to stunt them offstage to lynch them. That would be deciding the lynch when the person isn't there to defend themself.

Or am I misunderstanding?
~elvis

[Gaspar]

Well it does seem like you guys used the stuntman on other days so it would be normal to assume there would be one. I don't even understand what happened with that...?

But that still doesn't explain why ckd, or the rest of you, would think it would be a good idea to decide the lynch while the person isn't there. They can't discuss with you or answer your questions. It's the equivalent of having a legal trial where only the prosecution gets to present. How can you judge that kind of thing? It seems unfair and tilted to help scum.
~elvis

Obviously the mindset we've been going at this with is faulty, and our dependence on the stuntman has been exposed the moment we didn't get one for the last scene.

Obviously we need to go about this with a different, and more alert mindset.

So was this the agreed-up strategy? To decide among the off-stage players who to lynch from the onstage players and then stunt that person in to string them up?

That seems horrible but if everyone agreed on that, I guess that's sort of okay. Although I would like to know who came up with that horrible idea, and who championed it the most -- as I would say they're scum.

[sottyrulez]

I believe I understand what you are trying to say Elvis.

Your issue is with the idea of stunting someone off with little time to defend themself from what would seem to be a predetermined lynch before they even arrived there, correct?

[VP Baltar]

I'm talking about how you guys wanted to decide which player from onstage you wanted to lynch and then planned to stunt them offstage to lynch them. That would be deciding the lynch when the person isn't there to defend themself.

Or am I misunderstanding?

Well, I think the general concensus early on was that the people everyone could generally agree on as the scummiest were all on stage and a lynching one of the off stage persons would have been sub-optimal.

I think you are reaching a bit to say that whoever may have been stunted off stage wouldn't have a chance to defend themselves because you have no idea what would have happened.

However, you should also note that we can only use the stuntman once per scene, so essentially the people off stage have to predecide who they think is scummiest without that person being there beforehand. I don't see any way to work around that.

@Sotty-well, I don't think it's a dependence upon the stuntman that was exposed because it shouldn't have happened that way at all. The AP should have been far more attentive in the scene and actually done his or her job.

[Mighty Orbots]

Dammit mith. Italics is bad, underline is good:

Player: Scene one, Scene two, Scene three, Scene four

Gaspar: X, X, Did not vote,

Voted push

Talian:

Follow Wiggin KY Krew stunt vote

,

Picked door 1

, X,

Voted not to push

Pooky: X, Did not vote,

Voted crone

,

Voted push

Orbots: X,

Picked door 1

, X,

Voted push

Thok: X,

Picked door1

, Did not vote,

Voted not to push

Starkiss:

Follow Wiggin

, X,

Voted crone

,

Voted push

Sottyrulez: Did not vote, X, X,

Voted not to push

GaB: X, X,

Voted crone

, Did not vote
Panzer/Zu Faul:

Follow Wiggin

, X, X,

Voted push

Hewitt: Did not vote, X,

Voted Crone

, X
VP:

Follow Wiggin

, X,

Voted crone

, X
CKD:

Follow Wiggin

, Did not vote,

Voted Mother good choice?

, X
Mafiajin: Did not vote,

Picked door 1

, X, X
SL: X, Did not vote, Did not vote, X
Thesp: Did not vote, X, X, X

[sottyrulez]

I'm not sure we ever actually agreed upon it so much as that we've just quietly found ourselves cultured into that mindset.

And you're right, it is a dangerous way to play

[Mighty Orbots]

Sotty:

DGB needs to die.

Did you come to this conclusion based on the chart, or something else?

Still reading through, this is making my head hurt.

Plz respond.

[sottyrulez]

Orbots, I would recommend re-reading scene 4.

[sottyrulez]

So, what do we as a town hope to get out of the stuntman role?

This is something I haven't really thought of until now, but I think is worth discussing.

[Gaspar]

I'm talking about how you guys wanted to decide which player from onstage you wanted to lynch and then planned to stunt them offstage to lynch them. That would be deciding the lynch when the person isn't there to defend themself.

Or am I misunderstanding?

Well, I think the general concensus early on was that the people everyone could generally agree on as the scummiest were all on stage and a lynching one of the off stage persons would have been sub-optimal.

But ckd did that on purpose. He put people he said he thought were scum onstage. It wasn't some random predicament you found yourselves in. And I disagree that there were no good lynch targets offstage last scene. Hewitt for example was excellent and I don't really understand why you went for mafiajinn who was clearly an easy target.

I think you are reaching a bit to say that whoever may have been stunted off stage wouldn't have a chance to defend themselves because you have no idea what would have happened.

You would have all agreed who you thought was scummiest to stunt them offstage for the express purpose of lynching them. I can't believe that you would actually changed your mind in favor of lynching one of the others who you already agreed were "suboptimal."

However, you should also note that we can only use the stuntman once per scene, so essentially the people off stage have to predecide who they think is scummiest without that person being there beforehand. I don't see any way to work around that.

How about we discuss between scenes who EVERYONE thinks is scummy and then we keep around 2 people that we think are scum (or whatever ratio is good for the number alive, so as not to let scum run the lynch)? Then we can still stunt in someone if we don't like any of the choices.

Also I fail to see how it is a good strategy to put all the "scummy" people in one place when we have to lynch right AND make good decisions.