Welcome, HackerHuck. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Hopefully then the conversation will resume.starkmoon wrote:HackerHuck replaces Dondero
xvart.
But I didn't record the post numbersDondero: VOTE: hitogoroshi
Dondero: Unvote hitogoroshi
startransmission wrote:Ok, sorry I've been quiet... again. We have a week left, and I'll be much more active.
Oh really?startransmission wrote:My vote sticks. I've been swamped the last couple of days, but in the next few hours I hope to address some things that have come up.
Are you still happy with your vote if it leads to a no-lynch?fhqwhgads wrote:Activity really needs to pick up, and if it doesn't, I'm still happy with my vote as well.
That's a pretty defeatist attitude, or is it a self-fulfilling prophecy? All I can say is if we don't get a lynch I'll be looking at all you people not voting and not contributing; and you all will have a lot of explaining to do.Pyrogen wrote:Alright, we only have, what, 3 days? I don't think we'll get anybody.
I can't really tell what you are saying with your first sentence, but I assume it is saying that you and Annachie are the only ones scumhunting; which I don't necessarily agree with. In fact, I hardly consider what Annachie has been doing the last few days as scumhunting; in fact, you yourself said it in your analysis:Pyrogen wrote:He's cautious and barely scumhunting at all (besides me and Annachie), instead addressing only minor issues. This is my reason for the vote.
What has changed since then? These posts?Pyrogen wrote:annachie - posts lack content, evades accusation
Here, directly in response to you saying his posts lack content, he self proclaims that he has already done his scumhunting, is satisfied with his observations. Additionally, he also notes that he is only reading/avoiding prodding.Annachie wrote:Firstly, what accusations?
Secondly, what content is needed? I think I have two people pegged as mafia scum, have laid out my reasoning, and am yet to see anything to change my mind. So really I'm in reading/avoid prodding mode.
Thirdly, well since the first option of the four possible for the game set-up have two power roles it's an easy enough mistake to make to assume two power roles in my reasoning.
Here he defends you, Pyro, and then talks about illogically judging the replacement based on the time it took to replace Dondero. (note: I fixed the quotes above from the original post, otherwise the quotes remain accurate).Annachie wrote:I bet he did something similar to me, and read the first of the four setup options and kinda read over the latter ones. (Option one has a roleblocker and 2 power roles, option 2 has a roleblocker and no power roles)xvart wrote:I have a question right back to you about this: How does a roleblocker have anything to do with it? There is a guaranteed two mafia in this game, and not necessarily a roleblocker. Annachie never mentioned anything about the mafia role assignment differences. Do you know there is a mafia roleblocker? And if so, how might that be, I wonder?Pyrogen wrote: Why assume two power roles? You know there's a roleblocker, huh, and then noticed you screwed up?
xvart.
I wonder how long it will take to get a replacement in, and how much we should read into it? If Dondero was indeed a mafia, would someone take up the spot given that until recently Don was on 3 votes? Hell, if Don was not actually a scum would a replacement take the spot given the voting?
or that he figgured that he was going to be lynched reguardless and just quit.xvart wrote:Now I think it is safe to assume one of two things:
Dondero was mafia, blew his cover, and just quit;
Dondero simply didn't have the time to continue; or,
Dondero didn't have the desire to continue.
I would propose then that the longer it takes to get a replacement for Don, the more that xvart's first option is the correct one.
But one thing is certain. That replacements first post will be an important one.
fhqwgads: I'm not saying nothing has changed. But not changed enough to change my mind about Dondero.Basically I read the first option and assumed the two power roles in the game for all options. I didn't read it properly.I'm not quite following you here.
Sorry, just noticed this. He. Took the name from a Loreena McKennitt song 14 years ago or so.pyro wrote:Anna ... since (s)he
No scumhunting here, that I perceive.Annachie wrote:Nah, not really.
I stand by my logic on that xvart, even if I did mis-read the game-setup info.
I'm more thinking about the targeted lynch, random lynch, no lynch thing at the moment. With the first night only a few hours away I'm trying to decide how confident people are about their votes and how confident I am about mine.
Or to put it another way, assuming that we get to the required 5 votes, if that lynching would be a targeted or random one.
An assumption that I make/have made is that a random lynching isn't that random as the scum have influenced it.
Then again, being down to 8 at the moment, would we get to the needed 5.
I'm aso thinking about the various comments about giving a replacement a chance to state their own case.
No scumhunting here, that I perceive.Annachie wrote:Actually, would the 21 day count have started when the PM's were sent on the 16th, or when Starkmoon unlocked this thread for us on the 19th? (GMT +10 of course, my local time at the time)
No scumhunting here, that I perceive.Annachie wrote:ROFLAnnachie wrote:Sorry, just noticed this.pyro wrote:Anna ... since (s)heHe. Took the name from a Loreena McKennitt song 14 years ago or so.
You basically accuse me of lieing about misreading a post, then misread a post yourself. Sheesh. (Colour added for emphasis)
Observations about people not posting, which could be considered mildly scumhunting.Annachie wrote:Aye, just ask the wife and 10 kids.
So by now Justme must be in prod mode (12 days?), Startransmission must have had a couple by now (3 posts this month?). Who am I missing?
DarthRandal at 11 days or so?.
Not that I particularly want to get drawn into symbolic logic, but here we go anyway.fhqwhgads wrote:Pyrogen, you said:
Let me repeat that again: The only way there would be two power roles is if there was a roleblocker.Pyrogen wrote:The only way there would be two power roles is if there was a roleblocker.
2 Power roles (if and only if) roleblocker.
Therefore if there is a roleblocker, there MUST be two power roles.
The above statement is wrong. (I'm not leaping to call it a lie though.)
Do you think that being "deliberately difficult" is pro-town behavior?HackerHuck wrote:Pyro - I understand a lot of what he's saying, but I get the feeling that he's being deliberately difficult.
In summary, I think there is an interesting relationship between Pyrogen and Annachie, and would be satisfied lynching either one. If we do not end up lynching either one, I hope that we investigate them further because I suspect at least one of them is mafia.HackerHuck wrote:At this point in the game, each one of you needs to have at least one person you find scummy and another person that you would be willing to lynch to avoid a no-lynch.
I forgot to include Justme in there, and his obvious disappearing act puts him in this category.xvart wrote:I am also not satisfied with startransmission (as quoted above) and despite his first contribution analysis, at this point, would feel justified in his lynch.
RVS = random voting stageHackerHuck wrote:Lastly - it's been a while since I've played here, but I'm surprised that there are a couple of abbreviations that I'm not familiar with. What is RVS and what is ATE?
That was more observation than suspicion:HackerHuck wrote:I don't like Darth's vote on Dondero. If he hasn't posted elsewhere on the site, what makes you think a vote will do anything?
I voted your predecessor for inactivity, but I was conceding the possibility that he had simply (for whatever reason) abandoned the game and/or site altogether.I wrote: You haven't posted anywhere else on the site,but I'm hoping you haven't just abandoned the game.
"He's not scumhunting (except for when he's coming after me and one other person), so I'm gonna vote him."Pyrogen wrote:/vote fhqwhgads
He's cautious and barely scumhunting at all (besides me and Annachie), instead addressing only minor issues. This is my reason for the vote.
You seem to be stopping just short of suggesting a no-lynch again. I think you noticed you were tied for the most votes with a lurker who had just been replaced, and were starting to get nervous.Pyrogen wrote:I don't think we'll get anybody.
That sums up my feelings on Pyro pretty well. I don't think him pushing for a no-lynch was a trap at all. He seems to be trying every scum move in the book, and when called on it he pulls out an explanation that ends up being rather contradictory.HackerHuck wrote:Pyro - I understand a lot of what he's saying, but I get the feeling that he's being deliberately difficult. I think his original trap move of pushing for the no-lynch is pretty bold for a scum, but newbies tend to act unpredictably. I wouldn't be opposed to his lynch, but he's not the top of my list.
Please do. I saw what he was saying (though I disagreed) but it did strike me that he was focused on it a bit much.HackerHuck wrote:Hitogoroshi's defence of the Donderro/JustMe pairing comments seem rather odd to me. I'll need to follow up on this...
How so?HackerHuck wrote:Startransmission makes a pressure vote on Pyrogen that seems incredibly out of character.
Apart from the obvious objections, why mention my IC status in this vote. I find this VERY strange.Pyrogen wrote: I'm going with my gut and voting for the IC.
So, you're calling him out for singling out someone specific and then you do the same? And to top it off, this comes right after complaining that we need to get our act together and vote together? Pot, meet kettle.HackerHuck wrote:Why is being IC worthy of a vote and out of all the people not scumhunting, why him?
In fact, I'm going to Vote: Hitogoroshi for a similar reason.
Humor me. What are these reasons again?Annachie wrote:For reasons given before.
Not a simple answer. I'd still want to keep this vote, but I am willing to change it to prevent a no-lynch. At the moment, my vote finger is itching for Pyrogen. Call it OMGUS if you want, but if you want to vote me, at least make it good. I can't defend against gut feelings.xvart wrote:Are you still happy with your vote if it leads to a no-lynch?
Nicely done. I have to admit, my irks with the statement was more out of principle rather than finding the statement itself scummy.xvart wrote:I took a course in college called symbolic logic, and I loved it; it is nice to have some real life application!
Agreed.xvart wrote:In summary, I think there is an interesting relationship between Pyrogen and Annachie, and would be satisfied lynching either one. If we do not end up lynching either one, I hope that we investigate them further because I suspect at least one of them is mafia.
I've stated before that I think that random lynching is the tool of the scum, and this sounds like a call for a random lynch.xvart wrote:In all honesty, I would be happy lynching anyone this first day, ...
fhqwhgads wrote:Humor me. What are these reasons again?
Annachie P39 wrote:Just Me, I'm still suspicious of your concern reguarding voting before the replacement was confirmed. For that matter you never really explained you're concern and then voted despite saying that we should wait a few (real) days yet before voting.
To me it sounds like you're one of the scum and that you knew that the replacement was going to be the other.
Then you voted for the fist person that Dondero (The eventual replacement) pointed a finger at while appearing to be random about it. Trying too hard to appear random in my opinion.
Actually, the "call out" as he put it was in the no-lynch discussion.Dondero wrote:@Annachie – If I’m cahoots with justme then we have to be the most inept pair of scum this site’s ever seen. I merely raise a couple of queries regarding Pyro’s motives for no-lynch, the vote on him drops from one to zero, and then….justme strikes? Yep, we’re the Laurel and Hardy of mafiascum alright!
And all of that in response to your getting called out for posting a lot yet saying not much
Annachie P127 wrote: The catchphrase most associated with Laurel and Hardy is almost always misquoted as "Well, that's another fine mess you've gotten me into."
Given that I think that Just Me managed to out both himself and Dondero I find it funny that Dondero described him and Just Me as Laurel and Hardy.
Anyway. Since then we have Dondero disapeering.Annachie P135 wrote:As I've said before, and will no doubt say again, it was Just Me's first two posts that made me suspicious. His seemingly excessive concern about Don being late to start (due to being a replacement and all that).
Given my belief then the following statements and voting et al, especially Don's Laurel and Hardy one, also seem suspicious.
One thing I have noticed is to pay atention to the first few posts as players seem to be more inclined to express too much information or too much concern.
I'm not the only one to think that Dondero quit because he thought his cover was blown.xvart P161 wrote:Now I think it is safe to assume one of two things:
Dondero was mafia, blew his cover, and just quit;
Dondero simply didn't have the time to continue; or,
Dondero didn't have the desire to continue.
Thanks. That's all I wanted to know.fhqwhgads wrote:Not a simple answer. I'd still want to keep this vote, but I am willing to change it to prevent a no-lynch.xvart wrote:Are you still happy with your vote if it leads to a no-lynch?
lol. I am the same way. I thought as much (about the principle) and felt the same way. Honestly, it had been a while since I had created any truth tables and had to double check them.fhqwhgads wrote:Nicely done. I have to admit, my irks with the statement was more out of principle rather than finding the statement itself scummy.xvart wrote:I took a course in college called symbolic logic, and I loved it; it is nice to have some real life application!
Are we seriously going to go over this again? Wasn't this settled on page two? Tell me the benefits and what extra knowledge you will have by not knowing anyone's alignment tomorrow? We will be in the exact same position other than a night kill, and we will have knowledge about who might want that person dead (but we would have that anyway). AND, we are hardly at a place where it is a random lynch. There is a huge difference between random lynching a town, and incorrectly lynching a town.Annachie wrote:I've stated before that I think that random lynching is the tool of the scum, and this sounds like a call for a random lynch.xvart wrote:In all honesty, I would be happy lynching anyone this first day, ...
Again, wasn't this cleared up already? I'm just as disappointed as anyone about the Dondero replacement at that time, but people replace out for any number of reasons, all the time. Just scan other games and you'll see that this game is not unique because of our replacements.Annachie wrote:I'm not the only one to think that Dondero quit because he thought his cover was blown.xvart P161 wrote:Now I think it is safe to assume one of two things:
Dondero was mafia, blew his cover, and just quit;
Dondero simply didn't have the time to continue; or,
Dondero didn't have the desire to continue.
and now it looks like JustMe has gone as well.
Personally I would like to see the Justme/Dondero situation resolved, which means a lynching of one of them.
In deference to HackerHuck and his willingness to take a replacement spot and taking into account Justme's absence
And now you vote for the only one with no votes, so close to the deadline? You seem dead set on a no lynch.Annachie wrote:Vote Justme
EBWOP: I just reread the quoted statement and I realized I initially misread it; I read "no lynch" and not "random lynch;" so I apologize for that little outburst.xvart wrote:Are we seriously going to go over this again? Wasn't this settled on page two? Tell me the benefits and what extra knowledge you will have by not knowing anyone's alignment tomorrow? We will be in the exact same position other than a night kill, and we will have knowledge about who might want that person dead (but we would have that anyway). AND, we are hardly at a place where it is a random lynch. There is a huge difference between random lynching a town, and incorrectly lynching a town.Annachie wrote:I've stated before that I think that random lynching is the tool of the scum, and this sounds like a call for a random lynch.xvart wrote:In all honesty, I would be happy lynching anyone this first day, ...
Let me be clear: no lynch is anti-town. Period.
So, you're calling him out for singling out someone specific and then you do the same? And to top it off, this comes right after complaining that we need to get our act together and vote together? Pot, meet kettle.[/quote]HackerHuck wrote:Why is being IC worthy of a vote and out of all the people not scumhunting, why him?
In fact, I'm going to Vote: Hitogoroshi for a similar reason.
In all honesty, I would be happy lynching anyone this first day,
As I have said, I'd prefer the Dondero/Justme situation resolved. For most of the time Pyro has had just one or two votes. (And one of them was by Justme)Is there a particular reason you don't want Pyrogen lynched (since he is leading)? What are your justifications for believing that Pyrogen is town. Can you agree that he has acted scummy?
Ok, fair enough. But I don't see how my essentially ignoring my random vote constitutes me not being on top of my vote and where it's going.HackerHuck wrote:Startransmission - I was referring to your analysis posts - the last of which is here. At the time you say that fqads is likely town, you were still voting him from your initial random vote.
Yeah, well things were slowing down and after rereading (after my original analysis) I wanted to move my vote from the random stage and place it somewhere where it could do some good. Pyro was the obvious choice, I find him more than counter productive, and he went form active to not active. As you say, he seemed deliberately difficult.HackerHuck wrote:By out of character, I mean that your vote surprised me. You hadn't really made an effort to accuse anyone of being scummy - look at how you discussed everyone in your analysis. The worst comment you had was that Pyro was hard to read. No real suspicion of anyone and then when the game slows down while waiting on a replacement, you decide to vote.
Has made. The vote for a no-lynch, the self vote and and the constant contradictions (all apparently for the sake of conversation) are the scummy things that pop in mind. He was challenged on every point, and eventually just shuts up, which bothers me almost as much as the actions themselves.HackerHuck wrote:What are all the scum moves that pyro is making?
My bad, I should have said voting no lynchAnnachie wrote:Hmm, if voting No-Lynch is always anti-town, then why is it even in the game?
I agree with this. Depending on what happens overnight I would be happy to pursue this; however, depending on how Pyrogen flips, we might have an obvious next target.Annachie wrote:As I have said, I'd prefer the Dondero/Justme situation resolved. For most of the time Pyro has had just one or two votes. (And one of them was by Justme)
I believe that's L-1. Time to claim Pyrogen?Annachie wrote:unvote justme, vote Pyrogen
I think he meant that the vote should go to someone not posting content, and I've probably posted the least out of anyone here thus far. Again, as I said, I completely understand HackerHuck's rationale for voting for me.fgads wrote:
I like HackerHuck's post. I don't agree with everything, but he's definitely doing good work shaking Dondero's stigma. Until this:So, you're calling him out for singling out someone specific and then you do the same? And to top it off, this comes right after complaining that we need to get our act together and vote together? Pot, meet kettle.HackerHuck wrote:Why is being IC worthy of a vote and out of all the people not scumhunting, why him?
In fact, I'm going to Vote: Hitogoroshi for a similar reason.
xvart wrote:In summary, I think there is an interesting relationship between Pyrogen and Annachie, and would be satisfied lynching either one. If we do not end up lynching either one, I hope that we investigate them further because I suspect at least one of them is mafia.
*Hito. And that's not active lurking. Active lurking is posting a lot but avoiding content. An example of being in active lurking mode:Pyrogen wrote: Hiro seems to be actively lurking, as evidenced by his post 34 minutes after being called out.
Reading/avoiding prodding mode is the definition of active lurking. I was not posting - passive lurking - though I was reading the topic - hence the quick response. I wasn't posting because it's quick and easy to read but it takes time to write up a post. I'm not at all defending it's a bad thing to lurk, but as I personally believe that active lurking is more scummy than passive lurking - and, as such, why I don't post babble if I can't take the time to post real content - so I want to clear that up.Anna wrote:Secondly, what content is needed? I think I have two people pegged as mafia scum, have laid out my reasoning, and am yet to see anything to change my mind. So really I'm in reading/avoid prodding mode.
You can't post after you've reached the required lynch number? Or once the mod shuts the day down?Pyrogen wrote:Since I may lose the ability to post at any time
So no claim?Pyrogen wrote:Meh. If I die, its no great loss. I think I've helped town pretty well, by providing material for the future.
When mod shuts down the day.xvart wrote:You can't post after you've reached the required lynch number? Or once the mod shuts the day down?Pyrogen wrote:Since I may lose the ability to post at any time
Umm... sure... I think this is what I'm suppose to do.xvart wrote:So no claim?Pyrogen wrote:Meh. If I die, its no great loss. I think I've helped town pretty well, by providing material for the future.
xvart.