Mini 904 - Narnia: LWW Mafia (Game Over)

Sibelius · Post Post #4 (isolation #0) » Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:33 am

/confirm. Let's do this!

Sibelius · Post Post #33 (isolation #1) » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:49 pm

Vote: Riceballtail

, because riceballs sound amazing right now and I should go make some.

Sibelius · Post Post #48 (isolation #2) » Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:16 pm

wolframnhart wrote:
Starbuck wrote:
Unvote: kikuchiyo

I'm not comfortable with her having 4 votes already.

Vote: J.R.

I'm not comfortable with you seeing that and putting her at L-3.
L-3 isn't all that bad, had his vote put her at L-1 so quick I could see your point, and even then had someone hammered right after we could have a list of suspects to go from, so right now it seems like you are trying to be
to
townie by unvoting someone at L-3.
FoS Starbuck

Nice WIFOM you've got there.

Papa Zito wrote:
dybeck wrote:
Heilograph wrote:Dammit .... Oh well what ever
What was this comment about, anyway?
"Crap, I got found out this early. Screw this game."

It's not hard to see what Heilograph meant if you go back to page 1 and pay full attention. Great misinterpretation on your part, though.

unvote

Sibelius · Post Post #49 (isolation #3) » Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:17 pm

wolframnhart wrote:
Starbuck wrote:
Unvote: kikuchiyo

I'm not comfortable with her having 4 votes already.

Vote: J.R.

I'm not comfortable with you seeing that and putting her at L-3.
L-3 isn't all that bad, had his vote put her at L-1 so quick I could see your point, and even then had someone hammered right after we could have a list of suspects to go from, so right now it seems like you are trying to be
to
townie by unvoting someone at L-3.
FoS Starbuck

Nice WIFOM you've got there.

Papa Zito wrote:
dybeck wrote:
Heilograph wrote:Dammit .... Oh well what ever
What was this comment about, anyway?
"Crap, I got found out this early. Screw this game."

It's not hard to see what Heilograph meant if you go back to page 1 and pay full attention. Great misinterpretation on your part, though.

unvote

Sibelius · Post Post #50 (isolation #4) » Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:19 pm

Grrrrrrr double post.

Sibelius · Post Post #68 (isolation #5) » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:25 pm

I don't buy the case against Starbuck. Though I agree that L-3 on page 2 wasn't significant, I think Starbuck's action is being blown out of proportion.

MadCrawdad, post 65: I don't care for your arguing of semantics. Like everything else against Starbuck, this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

PapaZito: Your last post is the clearest example of your reading too much into things. The way you were on Heilograph earlier and the way you're going after Starbuck doesn't sit well with me.

bv310, Riceballtail, manho: We don't have much game material yet, but I noticed most or all of your posts are non-committal restatements of other people's thoughts. Make your own observations of what's been going on and please post them for us in your own words.

Vote: PapaZito

Sibelius · Post Post #86 (isolation #6) » Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:35 am

bv310 wrote:
MadCrawdad wrote:
Sibelius wrote:
bv310 wrote:Honestly, the people posting frequently so far have been relatively good with their styles, and although I did find Starbuck suspicious before, I find the quick L-3 move less odd now.
When did you find Starbuck suspicious? Initially you agreed with her.

Regarding the quick L-3 move, what would you say changed your mind?
I didn't like that she called it scummy to have an L-3, but I didn't like having anyone at L-3 this early, especially in RVS. It just seemed that there was too much opportunity for it to go bad, but Starbuck whiteknight-ing the cause seemed like an attempt to build town cred without having to do anything all that pro-town.

Um, I didn't say that.

Sibelius · Post Post #87 (isolation #7) » Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:37 am

Never mind, I see how that happened.

Sibelius · Post Post #188 (isolation #8) » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:52 pm

Sorry for disappearing, everyone. The semester just started for me, and I have not had time to do anything besides school, work, and sleep.

I will take a deeper look at what's new in the morning, but just from skimming, I've got a couple things I noticed.

Massclaim: I'm not for it. I fail to see how a Day 1 massclaim will benefit anyone other than the scum since that would let them know who they might want to kill off first and then after that. Frankly, I'm a little suspicious of Dybeck for suggesting it.

Papa Zito wrote:
Starbuck wrote:So you are saying that I drummed up fear in the guy who can't even come up with his own opinions?
You asked for an example and I gave you one. The number of players who bought it isn't relevant, what's relevant is the attempt was made.

Starbuck wrote:I NEVER said that I was "saving us from danger". I never said that I believe kiku to be town. I just said that I didn't like quicklynches. I wanted to see what Wolf's response would be to my question.
Presumably you bought the subject up because you thought we were in danger of a quicklynch.

You specifically said you were "attempting to halt" it. Those are your words. Attempting to halt it would be saving us from danger.

The way you keep arguing this tells me you've been caught.

I don't buy it. This seems to be the main premise of the case against Starbuck. I agree that Starbuck's action was slightly odd, but I don't think it warrants the amount of scrutiny that it's getting, especially since the point that keeps getting thrown around is how using the words "attempting to halt" indicates someone trying to be a white knight. All I'm seeing in this is a gigantic Too Townie argument. If you're going to stay on this line of thought, at least show us something more significant against Starbuck than what's been discussed already.

Sibelius · Post Post #203 (isolation #9) » Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:43 am

Heilograph, that was an interesting move on your part. Jumping onto a bandwagon and putting Starbuck at L-1...it seems kind of opportunistic. Why did you decide to change your vote?

Sibelius · Post Post #205 (isolation #10) » Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:44 am

I should clarify--I'm not suspicious because Heilograph jumped onto the wagon, I'm suspicious because of how he did it.

Sibelius · Post Post #215 (isolation #11) » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:24 pm

wolframnhart wrote:Also as far as the characters go, that is trying to out guess the mod and who he feels he wants in the game.

QFT.

bv310 wrote:As for the voting, I haven't voted because I was waiting for a real case to be made.

Way to make it clear for all of us that you're not going to scumhunt. Alright, here's something for you.

Papa Zito: Maybe he just naturally has a snarky playstyle, but the snark and his pursuing of the (flimsy) case against Starbuck make him scummy to me. I think he's the vote for the day, but everyone's too busy being persuaded against Starbuck to think.

You: Lurking in plain sight as far as I can tell, and this last post of yours. It's rather non-committal, and as I said above, you're basically admitting to waiting for a viable case against someone to pop up so you can jump in. That's pretty scummy.

bv310 wrote:As it is, the case against Starbuck is pretty good, but I think there's a good chance that she's actually just a very lazy townie.

A case that rests on a less-than-significant action and a choice of words that might be questionable is a good case?