Mini 572 - Packrats (game over)

[Zindaras]

That's just...wrong.

[Zindaras]

EBWOP: Comment obviously aimed at Capricious.

[Ether]

3 Capricious (Zindaras, Sir Tornado, eldarad)
3 Rotten Snitch (Mizzy, Rotten Snitch, Elmo)
2 Mizzy (hasdgfas, Andycyca)
1 Y (Capricious)
1 Zindaras (Skruffs)

1 Unvote (Y)

11 alive; 6 to lynch.

[Capricious]

That was actually my point entirely. Your metagaming was just as bad as mine, and I cannot understand why you people have spent a page discussing it. I agree with Y in that it bores me.

[Capricious]

I'm confused also by your "The game only identifies vanilla townies."... that strikes me as wrong, because Strappado was not a vanilla townie.

Secondarily, if the scum were allowed to kill n0, then the investigative roles were allowed to target as well.

I'd like to introduce some meta into the game regarding strappado, me, rotten snitch, zindaras, and others. I don't have to but it might be worth stimulating discussion with.

Firstly, I'd like to see some of the meta information but for discussion purposes. I hope we won't try making a case out of pure meta, but I think meta here might be helpful.

Also, I have a thought on N1 actions. It was pointed out by a couple of people that N1 night actions might have happened. We did get a N1 kill, so obviously someone was allowed to do SOMETHING. However, re-reading the background text:

"Once we disposed of them all, another brilliant man--her grandfather, incidentally--

thought to plant wolfsbane all over the village. And the smell has kept the wolves out...for good."

I kind of came into this thinking that scum are werewolves based on the flavor text, but I have to wonder now if I was wrong in that assumption. I see no reason that wolfsbane would suddenly stop working, so if the scum ARE wolves, then how could they get into town to kill?

It kind of makes me remember the movie The Village where the "monsters" were actually people.

Thoughts, please? This is the first game like this (a really detailed theme game) I've played and I have no idea how much to read into the flavor text and I don't want my imagination running off with me.

Now, this I would like to discuss.

[eldarad]

That was actually my point entirely. Your metagaming was just as bad as mine, and I cannot understand why you people have spent a page discussing it. I agree with Y in that it bores me.

Who is this directed at?

Now, this I would like to discuss.

Go on then. Say something about it if you want a discussion.

[hasdgfas]

unvote

Capricious, if you want to discuss it, then discuss it. And you definitely can't meta yourself based on that one game. I'm

this

close to voting you right now. I need to see some excellent contribution in order to keep from voting you.

[Capricious]

unvote

Capricious, if you want to discuss it, then discuss it. And you definitely can't meta yourself based on that one game. I'm

this

close to voting you right now. I need to see some excellent contribution in order to keep from voting you.

Don't threaten, if you want to voice your opinion through a vote, do so. Votes leave us with more evidence and track record later. That post just makes you look scummy because anything I reply with can be struck down by you as not on par with "excellent contribution". Thereby giving you what would appear to be a solid reason to slip a vote to others.

On the werewolves:

I still believe werewolves are scum and will continue to do so until we have reasons to suspect otherwise. The "For good" part of the flavor just sounds melodramatic. However, we might have reason to believe that power roles using wolfsbane are, in fact, ineffective.

[hasdgfas]

Ah, but if I had voted you would be calling me scummy for putting a fourth vote on you for little reason. If you had less than 3 votes on you currently, it would have been a vote, but putting you at L-2 at this point is a bit harsh

[Capricious]

Ah, but if I had voted you would be calling me scummy for putting a fourth vote on you for little reason. If you had less than 3 votes on you currently, it would have been a vote, but putting you at L-2 at this point is a bit harsh

this is false, contrary to popular opinion, I do not believe L-2 and L-1 votes are scummy just because they are L-2 and L-1. The scummiest votes, I believe are the keystone votes, the votes that propel the wagon to a point of no return. This may be even the 2nd or 3rd vote, or it may be a later vote.

[hasdgfas]

this is false, contrary to popular opinion,

I do not believe

L-2 and L-1 votes are scummy just because they are L-2 and L-1. The scummiest votes,

I believe

are the keystone votes, the votes that propel the wagon to a point of no return. This may be even the 2nd or 3rd vote, or it may be a later vote.

The key here is that you believe that. My feeling is that a wagon shouldn't get to L-2 unless someone is really scummy. You simply believing that the 2nd or 3rd vote is scummier doesn't mean that it's correct.

I didn't vote for you previously because:
a) It would have been L-2
b) I didn't have a good, solid reason to get you to that point

I think that an L-2 vote should have good reasoning behind it, just because of how close it gets someone to a lynch.

[Y]

On the werewolves:

I still believe werewolves are scum and will continue to do so until we have reasons to suspect otherwise. The "For good" part of the flavor just sounds melodramatic. However, we might have reason to believe that power roles using wolfsbane are, in fact, ineffective.

After emphasizing that the wolfsbane kept the werewolves out for good, you say you don't believe this is the case. Do you have a role PM saying they are here again? Their names, maybe?
Furthermore, you say there are werewolves, but that power-roles with wolfsbane won't be effective?
I think you forgot the "Pro-town investigation roles, please don't target me" part.

[Capricious]

On the werewolves:

I still believe werewolves are scum and will continue to do so until we have reasons to suspect otherwise. The "For good" part of the flavor just sounds melodramatic. However, we might have reason to believe that power roles using wolfsbane are, in fact, ineffective.

After emphasizing that the wolfsbane kept the werewolves out for good, you say you don't believe this is the case. Do you have a role PM saying they are here again? Their names, maybe?
Furthermore, you say there are werewolves, but that power-roles with wolfsbane won't be effective?
I think you forgot the "Pro-town investigation roles, please don't target me" part.

Right, I emphasized that the wolfsbane kept out the wolves for good, the "for good" part is melodramatic, sarcastic, and probably false.

Why would investigative roles use wolfsbane?

Good with vote on Y

[Y]

Why would investigative roles use wolfsbane?

You brought it up. You tell me...

When I said "Investigative roles" I was insinuating you're scum, if you missed it.

[Capricious]

I did not bring it up, I considered that docs or vigs or whatever else may use wolfsbane. You twisted this into investigative roles, which doesn't make sense. Wolfsbane is used to harm or fend off werewolves.

[Y]

I didn't say they use it. I said that you should've asked not to be investigated.

[Capricious]

Really, and when did this happen?

[Y]

Here:

I think you forgot the "Pro-town investigation roles, please don't target me" part.

I said it referring to you, after quoting your post and analyzing it.

[Mizzy]

Firstly,

FoS: Capricious

for what I feel is attempting to direct attention on to my post, and therefor me, in what I think might have been trying to get everyone off his back. Saying he wants to discuss X without actually saying anything about X at that time bothers me. Plus, this whole Y <--> Capri conversation looks like Capri is trying to smokescreen a good bit.

Capricious:

You're convinced that the scum are, in fact, werewolves. Okay, but

why

are you so convinced?

[Y]

FoS Mizzy

for not making much sense (Except the last question).

[Mizzy]

FoS Mizzy

for not making much sense (Except the last question).

Could you phrase the accusation in the form of a question, please?

[Y]

Sure, why not... Why do you think any one would even think about suspecting you due to Capricious' post, when he didn't even mention your name, nor the fact that some one posted something similar to his post already?

[Mizzy]

Sure, why not... Why do you think any one would even think about suspecting you due to Capricious' post, when he didn't even mention your name, nor the fact that some one posted something similar to his post already?

It's happened to me before that I post some sort of question or logic or possibility or what-have-you and someone who's been in the limelight in a not-so-good way has used that post of mine to divert attention off of themselves and onto me.

I suppose I wouldn't be so bothered about his "Let's discuss this" if he had actually discussed it soon after without prompting. It came off to me as insincere.

[Andycyca]

Sure, why not... Why do you think any one would even think about suspecting you due to Capricious' post, when he didn't even mention your name, nor the fact that some one posted something similar to his post already?

It's happened to me before that I post some sort of question or logic or possibility or what-have-you and someone who's been in the limelight in a not-so-good way has used that post of mine to divert attention off of themselves and onto me.

I suppose I wouldn't be so bothered about his "Let's discuss this" if he had actually discussed it soon after without prompting. It came off to me as
insincere.

Like when?

Seriously, I don't see where Capri connects you, and the divergence of opinions between Capri and Y looks like distancing as much as the Capri/Cow pair.

[hasdgfas]

Seriously, I don't see where Capri connects you, and the divergence of opinions between Capri and Y looks like distancing as much as the Capri/Cow pair.

Since disagreeing/arguing always is distancing