Mini 549 (Tarhalindur Mostly Mountainous) - Game Over

Jester · Post Post #75 (ISO) » Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:37 am

Blackberry wrote:Mountainous Mafia -- if I am correct, only has townies and mafia as roles.

Huh, I finally thought to check the wiki, and you're right. I thought that the "only mafia and townies" variant was just called vanilla.

Also, I asked about your over-sized, colored text because I was in a mafia game on another forum where colored text was mafia coded instructions. The mafia got together before the game began and agreed in advance that a color X reply to a given player meant "harass this player" and a color Y reply to a given player meant "I think this player has a power-role."

You've used several different colors and styles, including at least one post with no color or style. So I was and am curious.

Blackberry · Post Post #76 (ISO) » Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:16 am

JESTER -- Ooo, interesting. It sounds somewhat clever, but beyond that I think it'd be an idiotic strategy. Attempting to communicate IN-GAME is completely stupid.

I'm going to compare styles of people's past games (Rosso and Earwig), as I've examined Strawberry and have a small theory but I must look into it more.

Earwig · Post Post #77 (ISO) » Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:55 am

Weren't you in Strawberry, Blackberry? Check all of the games I've been in (there haven't been that many) My play style is the same.

Blackberry · Post Post #78 (ISO) » Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:59 am

Earwig wrote:Weren't you in Strawberry, Blackberry? Check all of the games I've been in (there haven't been that many) My play style is the same.

I was replaced, LOL.

Blackberry · Post Post #79 (ISO) » Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:29 am

My theory on Earwig does not work, as a result his role is inconclusive.

lol

thenextepisode · Post Post #80 (ISO) » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:42 pm

what was your theory, blackberry?

Blackberry · Post Post #81 (ISO) » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:48 pm

thenextepisode wrote:what was your theory, blackberry?

That is none of your business, scum.

thenextepisode · Post Post #82 (ISO) » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:30 pm

oookay then i guess i dont want to know the theory

Tarhalindur · Post Post #83 (ISO) » Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:25 pm

Blackberry wrote:Errrrr, then again, this is "MOSTLY Mountainous Mafia" ... O_o So I dunno what that means.

That's for me to know, and for you to find out!

-Tar

Sixth Vote Count

Blackberry (1) - Dean Harper
Earwig (3) - thenextepisode, Tamuz, Blackberry
ryan (2) -Nyktorion, Rosso Carne
Tamuz (1) - Johoohno
thenextepisode (1) - SlySly

Not Voting (4): Ectomancer, ryan, Earwig, Jester

FoS Count:

Ectomancer (2) - Earwig, thenextepisode
Earwig (2) - Ectomancer, Nyktorion

Current Deadline:

~12:00 AM, February 14, 2008

First Mod Deadline Review:

~12:00 AM, January 23, 2008

Tamuz · Post Post #84 (ISO) » Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:25 pm

I'm happy.

Earwig · Post Post #85 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:02 am

why are you happy?

Ectomancer · Post Post #86 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:15 am

Ectomancer wrote:Blackberry, the behavior they are talking about is one I've heard described as "lurking in plain sight". It is scummy behavior to me.

I still argue there is no such thing as "looking active," you are either active or not action. Posting content or not posting content. Being active and posting content are two unrelated concepts that do not intertwine.
This is just semantics. I believe you know what they are talking about. Why split hairs with an argument over "active" and "content"? What do you think about Jester's comments concerning Rosso's posts 26, 28, and 33?

ryan · Post Post #87 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:42 am

Blackberry wrote:My theory on Earwig does not work, as a result his role is inconclusive. lol

I'm interested in said theory, care to share?

SlySly · Post Post #88 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:48 am

Ectomancer wrote:
Ectomancer wrote:Blackberry, the behavior they are talking about is one I've heard described as "lurking in plain sight". It is scummy behavior to me.

I still argue there is no such thing as "looking active," you are either active or not action. Posting content or not posting content. Being active and posting content are two unrelated concepts that do not intertwine.
This is just semantics. I believe you know what they are talking about. Why split hairs with an argument over "active" and "content"? What do you think about Jester's comments concerning Rosso's posts 26, 28, and 33?

Are you quoting yourself to cause confusion?

Ectomancer · Post Post #89 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:32 am

SlySly wrote:
Ectomancer wrote:
Ectomancer wrote:Blackberry, the behavior they are talking about is one I've heard described as "lurking in plain sight". It is scummy behavior to me.

I still argue there is no such thing as "looking active," you are either active or not action. Posting content or not posting content. Being active and posting content are two unrelated concepts that do not intertwine.
This is just semantics. I believe you know what they are talking about. Why split hairs with an argument over "active" and "content"? What do you think about Jester's comments concerning Rosso's posts 26, 28, and 33?
Are you quoting yourself to cause confusion?

I'm quoting it because I don't believe my Blackberry has responded to that last line.

Nyktorion · Post Post #90 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:14 am

Blackberry wrote:I still argue there is no such thing as "looking active," you are either active or not action. Posting content or not posting content. Being active and posting content are two unrelated concepts that do not intertwine.

As Ecto already pointed out, we should not waste too much effort just arguing about the semantics of certain words. But to put it into your definition, I mean somebody who is active, but does not post content when I call someone "looking active".

Blackberry wrote:JESTER -- Ooo, interesting. It sounds somewhat clever, but beyond that I think it'd be an idiotic strategy. Attempting to communicate IN-GAME is completely stupid.

I don't think that we should assume that scum would never attempt in-game communication. Of course, colors and font sizes are not a really subtle way of doing this, but taking the "stupidity" of the strategy as a reason to convince us that it is not used is still very WIFOMish. FOr my part, I'll keep my eyes open for connections between your colors and events during this day.

Blackberry · Post Post #91 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:22 am

ryan wrote:
Blackberry wrote:My theory on Earwig does not work, as a result his role is inconclusive. lol
I'm interested in said theory, care to share?

No.

ryan · Post Post #92 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:28 am

Than why the heck bring it up in the first place?

Tarhalindur · Post Post #93 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:48 am

Since I'm on site at the moment, I might as well do this now instead of wait until tonight.

Participation has been good to exemplary up to this point. As such, even with eight hours to go, you clearly PASS the First Mod Deadline Review. The new deadline is February 21, 2008 at approximately 12:00 A.M. (GMT -6). -Tar

Seventh Vote Count

Blackberry (1) - Dean Harper
Earwig (3) - thenextepisode, Tamuz, Blackberry
ryan (2) -Nyktorion, Rosso Carne
Tamuz (1) - Johoohno
thenextepisode (1) - SlySly

Not Voting (4): Ectomancer, ryan, Earwig, Jester

FoS Count:

Ectomancer (2) - Earwig, thenextepisode
Earwig (2) - Ectomancer, Nyktorion

Current Deadline:

~12:00 AM, February 21, 2008 (GMT -6)

Second Mod Deadline Review:

~12:00 AM, January 30, 2008 (GMT -6)

Tamuz · Post Post #94 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:47 am

Does anyone feel that the FoS count is significant?

Earwig, I'm happy because you are scum and my vote is on you. berry is suspect though.

Might I recommend reading Rule 6a again? - Tar

Blackberry · Post Post #95 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:38 pm

ryan wrote:Than why the heck bring it up in the first place?

No, scum, No.

Ectomancer · Post Post #96 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:14 pm

Tamuz wrote:Does anyone feel that the FoS count is significant?

Earwig, I'm happy because you are scum and my vote is on you. berry is suspect though.

Might I recommend reading Rule 6a again? - Tar

Ordinarily I think not really, but I've never had it tracked in the vote count before. It might be interesting to see, but I don't know how significant it will really become.

BlackBerry, it is odd that you would mention a theory, but not want expound upon it, even if it turned out to be false. Is there still some portion of the theory you are hoping to be born out that revealing would render invalid? Otherwise I'm not quite following your reasoning.

Rosso Carne · Post Post #97 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:17 pm

its his own theory, and although i think it might be helpful, its just metagaming. and metagaming does not win games.

Ectomancer · Post Post #98 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:24 pm

Rosso Carne wrote:its his own theory, and although i think it might be helpful, its just metagaming. and metagaming does not win games.

Well hello! You must have forgotten to login as BlackBerry

Blackberry · Post Post #99 (ISO) » Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:20 pm

Ectomancer wrote:
Tamuz wrote:Does anyone feel that the FoS count is significant?

Earwig, I'm happy because you are scum and my vote is on you. berry is suspect though.

Might I recommend reading Rule 6a again? - Tar
Ordinarily I think not really, but I've never had it tracked in the vote count before. It might be interesting to see, but I don't know how significant it will really become.

BlackBerry, it is odd that you would mention a theory, but not want expound upon it, even if it turned out to be false. Is there still some portion of the theory you are hoping to be born out that revealing would render invalid? Otherwise I'm not quite following your reasoning.

I have hope that one day my theory will have signifigance in something. But I do not wish to reveal my theory as I do not wish people to adapt to it or analyze it before me.

Satisfied?