Mencot Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 What obvious reasons are those? This is the first time you've even mentioned Catarina as a suspect. Now you have no doubt (for now) that she's the best vote candidate? Hey hallo, the obvious reasons to be like the others. It feels bad to be left out.
StickFig Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 So nobody's concerned about Maggie's absence? Anyone? Am I ever going to be able to catch up to what is happening in this thread. No, you are screwed. Some of us have time to watch the thread and see when people stop in, some of us only have time to stop and see there's too much to read at the moment. At some point, that excuse is not going to be enough anymore. Well, I suppose you'll have to lynch me after you get done with Maggie; some of us have trouble keeping up with more than 100 posts per 24 hours. In other news, through some behind-the-scenes claims, I can confidently say that Bruce is verified to be an Oak. That's good, huh? I'm sure this will get mixed reviews... William? Good. I expect your full trust when we lynch a Maple today. I told a few people last night that Bruce Spruce was at the top of my Maple list... now I suppose I'll have to wait and see, at least one night. And Catarina starts up like clockwork! Yep, and this was good enough to get my vote, except that Chester happened.... Aw, what the heck. Vote: Alastair Pear (Brickelodeon) This was the 6th vote against Alastair. Below is the 8th vote against Catarina. Without a doubt, my vote for now is going to Catarina, the asterisk using Groot that lives in low-light, for obvious reasons. Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) So I suppose you just wait until a tree has five or six votes against them, and then pounce on that bandwagon for obvious reasons, because aw, what the heck. Vote: Chester Chestnut (Lego Spy) Correction: His was the 6th vote both times. I'll go ahead and vote Chester Chesnut (Lego Spy) Also, Nash Ash, you said you were going to vote, not sure if this is good enough (formatting rules and all that).
Zepher Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Sorry, like I said the sun must be scrambling my brains! I love it, but it doesn't always treat me well. I screwed up voting yesterday too. Vote: Chester Chestnut (Lego Spy)
Piratedave84 Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Well, I suppose you'll have to lynch me after you get done with Maggie; some of us have trouble keeping up with more than 100 posts per 24 hours. Some of us should have not signed up if we didn't have time to play the game ...
Walter Kovacs Posted February 4, 2015 Author Posted February 4, 2015 Voting Update: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) - 8 (jamesn, Hinckley, JackJonespaw, jluck, Scaevola, Lego Spy, Bob, Lord Duvors) Chester Chestnut - 2 (StickFig, Zepher) Nash Ash (Zepher) - 1 (TinyPiesRUs) There are 32 1/2 Hours left in Day 2. With 22 Players, it takes 12 votes to lynch.
Hinckley Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I told a few people last night that Bruce Spruce was at the top of my Maple list... now I suppose I'll have to wait and see, at least one night. (Bold added for emphasis) That's ominous...
mostlytechnic Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Would you rather I not play at all and sit by quietly doing nothing? Read what I wrote. I asked Berty why he *mothered* Hazel and gave advice telling her to stop talking about the vigilante because it was making her (Hazel) look worse and she was slipping into a hole she (Hazel) dug herself. Doesn't this strike anyone else as defending/supporting someone who has not been cleared as an oak? It sounds like he is telling her to shut up before she makes it worse. I agree that the defending seems weird, but at the same time I have to wonder, if they were both scum, why say anything in public? That's what the scumboard is for, to keep each other in line in private. In other news, through some behind-the-scenes claims, I can confidently say that Bruce is verified to be an Oak. That's good, huh? I'm sure this will get mixed reviews... William? Like others have said over and over, why on earth should we trust this? And more importantly, if it's true, I'm VERY worried about the judgement of our investigator! It'd be one thing for them to claim to Bruce after an investigation, but why claim and reveal results to you? (now, I personally am pretty confident that you're an oak - but that doesn't mean I'd come claiming anything to you yet!) My thinking is that if someone gives a set of codes to someone they trust before they die, they can pass on stump information to the person they trusted. Since the stumps can communicate with each other privately, they can pool their knowledge and pass it all on through code through the day threads without maples understanding. I think there's some potential here... but as all the later discussion showed, this is way too vague. Care to explain in detail how it'd work and then let everyone pick their own code words/numbers and who to share their list with? Cause right now my puny little tree brain is struggling. I think its because they are experienced and know how to root out scum most of the times. But that also means they are good enough to be a formidable scum opponent too! So why claim to them on day 2?!?! I have a new title. Just curious, did you pick that role in your example because it's so close to an actual mafia role? http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=The_Flying_Pumpkin_That_Shoots_Laser_Beams_Out_Of_Its_Ass Am I ever going to be able to catch up to what is happening in this thread. At some point, that excuse is not going to be enough anymore. Well, eventually enough trees will be cut down that the firehose of posts will slow and we'll both be able to catch up and not need to make excuses anymore because we'll be caught up.
Lego Spy Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Yep, and this was good enough to get my vote, except that Chester happened.... This was the 6th vote against Alastair. Below is the 8th vote against Catarina. So I suppose you just wait until a tree has five or six votes against them, and then pounce on that bandwagon for obvious reasons, because aw, what the heck. Three things wrong here. One: I was offline during all the Catarina business, so I couldn't have voted prior to the fifth vote even if I wanted to. Two: no I wasn't thinking "aw, what the heck" because I had read the previous three pages. Three: no lynch today, folks! Cause you know, if your vote is after the fifth one, you're officially being a scummy bandwagoner. Oh wait! No, that's just me. Sue and Bobby not included. Correction: His was the 6th vote both times. Oh crap, if I do it again tomorrow... Illuminati Confirmed!
Hinckley Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Just curious, did you pick that role in your example because it's so close to an actual mafia role? http://wiki.mafiascu..._Out_Of_Its_Ass Yes.
MagPiesRUs Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I think there's some potential here... but as all the later discussion showed, this is way too vague. Care to explain in detail how it'd work and then let everyone pick their own code words/numbers and who to share their list with? Cause right now my puny little tree brain is struggling. 1) Pick someone you trust to be an oak 2) PM them with a code (eg. "Hi there, I'm about to be lynched or murdered or something. Here's a stump-code: investigator=9, vig=7.29, blocker=86, vanilla=6/8/98/104, etc...") 3) Die 4) Talk to other stumps in private, find out all of their roles 5) reveal the stump roles in public (eg. Hi there, I was just killed and now I'm a stump. Bernice Bush is a 6.7, Steven Soil is a 0, I'm a -9, etc...") 6) Person you gave your code to deciphers this message 7) Town block has some information. 8) Town wins game. Three things wrong here. One: I was offline during all the Catarina business, so I couldn't have voted prior to the fifth vote even if I wanted to. Two: no I wasn't thinking "aw, what the heck" because I had read the previous three pages. Three: no lynch today, folks! Cause you know, if your vote is after the fifth one, you're officially being a scummy bandwagoner. Oh wait! No, that's just me. Sue and Bobby not included. Why are you voting for Catarina? You said it was for obvious reasons, but I'd like to hear what these reasons are.
jluck Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 1) Pick someone you trust to be an oak 2) PM them with a code (eg. "Hi there, I'm about to be lynched or murdered or something. Here's a stump-code: investigator=9, vig=7.29, blocker=86, vanilla=6/8/98/104, etc...") 3) Die 4) Talk to other stumps in private, find out all of their roles 5) reveal the stump roles in public (eg. Hi there, I was just killed and now I'm a stump. Bernice Bush is a 6.7, Steven Soil is a 0, I'm a -9, etc...") 6) Person you gave your code to deciphers this message 7) Town block has some information. 8) Town wins game. No one has addressed my concern with this master plan. If the stumps are removed after one day, I assume they will not be allowed to communicate to anyone still actively involved in the game. This would include stumps. If this is true, the whole plan collapses...right??? The only think left at that point would be the stumps could use a code to reveal their own role.
MagPiesRUs Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Still worth a try though. If stumps disappear after one day, so be it. Trees who died on the same night will still be able to confer with each other. I'm not sure why anyone would be opposed to doing this. There's nothing to lose.
Lady K Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 No one has addressed my concern with this master plan. If the stumps are removed after one day, I assume they will not be allowed to communicate to anyone still actively involved in the game. This would include stumps. If this is true, the whole plan collapses...right??? The only think left at that point would be the stumps could use a code to reveal their own role. I don't see how it would totally collapse. If all the stump could reveal is their own personal role or information he/she had then that would still help the oak block. It's still a big risk because said stump would have to trust someone.
Hinckley Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I don't see how it would totally collapse. If all the stump could reveal is their own personal role or information he/she had then that would still help the oak block. It's still a big risk because said stump would have to trust someone. There are more votes for you now. Do you have anything to say?
jimmynick Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 My attitude towards Catarina is rapidly becoming negative, this tree has only been unhelpful, uncooperative, far too ready to jump to conclusions, seems determined to direct attention away from herself, and just plain annoying. After rereading much of what this tree has said I feel there are sufficient grounds for me to; Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) The same could be said about you.
Lady K Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 So with eight votes against me, I'll defend myself. Lets take a look at the reasons given for these votes. The first three came in with the fun of the low light comments. Which were true by the way, I do suffer from frequent migraines. Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) Yeah, I'm going with that too. Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) Fine. Let's lynch the obvious asterisk-maple. Unvote: Sammy (the Scummiest Scum) Sycamore (Fugazi) and vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1). May you burn in hell, you Scum-Oak-Syrup-Sucking-Maple-Tyrant! Or burn in a campfire or wood stove, incinerator, wherever! Very low light! I love you. It's the best Mafia moment since "gut instincts". Now Bruce unvotes due to the funny comment I made to Simon (this should have keyed everyone on the light hearted situation) This is so awesome it deserves an unvote. Unvote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) Here is what Agnes had to say to all that. Jumping on a perceived bandwagon. Catarina, you've put a up pretty weak fight, not to mention your continued blame on topics that we've long passed. Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) Quick word of advice, you might want to defend yourself, see if you can't get some of us to unvote you, instead of just complaining. But, if not, please continue on this hilarious low-light thing. It's absolutely fantastic. Barry comes in next, convinced his case is solid (please all go back and look, I know its a lot of pages but you will see others continuing to post fluff and useless stuff after me) He has no true case against me, usually he gives more solid reasons for lynching someone, why he is trying so hard with no real evidence? Ok, so maybe laughing at you might be a little far. Still, this has been my lynch since day 1 and I'll be darned if I don't see it through. vote: Catarina dogwood (adventurer1) Not because she types in low light, but because she's only been suspicious of those who suspect her and because she just seems really scummy...like sticky with maple scummy. I respond to Agnes. Please, show me where I am complaining? Defend myself against what? Agnes responds to me. Complaining. About Simon (mainly) laughing about the low-light thing. And defend yourself from what? Are you kidding? You have now...4 votes against you, and not once since have you attempted to defend yourself. It's like you've given up already. Now Clem joins the bandwagon, using only the reasons Barry gave earlier (again with no solid proof) Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) Alright adventurer it's time you got your due. You kept fluffing on Day 1 long after the time for such talk was over. Furthermore, your suspicions were governed by who suspected you, which is highly indicative of a dogmatic tendency to secure your self-image: an exceedingly mapley tendency. And that one comment about the typewriter... Also Mr. Beech, I'm still waiting for a response My response to Agnes. I'm glad Simon had a good laugh. I never complained about that, strange how you see it that way and jump immediately on what you perceive as a bandwagon against me. Noted. Again, defend myself against what? Do you really think I'll be lynched for low lighting my screen? You need to read the thread better. Agnes responds to me. Yes, I'm absolutely positive that the only possible reason you would be lynched is because of your low-lighting. :sarcasm_hmpf: :sarcasm_hmpf: :sarcasm_hmpf: :sarcasm_hmpf: :sarcasm_hmpf: :sarcasm_hmpf: :sarcasm_hmpf: :sarcasm_hmpf: :sarcasm_hmpf: :sarcasm_hmpf: :sarcasm_hmpf: :sarcasm_hmpf: :sarcasm_hmpf: :sarcasm_hmpf: And I literally said it in my last post - are you not going to defend yourself against these allegations? Am I going crazy here? You have 5 votes against you at this moment, are you not going to attempt to dissuade those voters? My response to Agnes. It takes 12 for a lynch. If need be I will defend myself if the time comes for that. Voting just opened, there is still plenty of time for votes to change. Why should I panic as you suggest? Contrary to what Hazel may have misled you to believe, I didn't flail with two votes and I won't flail with five or more votes either. I know I am an Oak. Now we have Chester joining the bandwagon, reasons ?? None given. Sorry I haven't been saying anything. This is mainly because I wasn't on a device powerful enough to post things properly, and because I wanted to see how things played out. And they certainly have. Without a doubt, my vote for now is going to Catarina, the asterisk using Groot that lives in low-light, for obvious reasons. Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) Do you know what the rule about editing is for? I didn't realize Berty had only played one game before now, so I wasn't clear on the fact that he's a noob. Here we have Sue, which I expected because it happens every time in every forest.... Using Simon's reasons with the reasons Barry keeps making up, but adding no reasons of her own. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: Like Simon said, are you typing on a typewriter? Are you in a log cabin and faxing your posts in somehow? It just seems like an excuse for not checking your posts in case you slip up in them. Only, it's not a very good excuse. This combined with generally fluffy posts and your behavior yesterday and today in which you launch into extreme defense mode whenever someone comes at you makes me extremely suspicious of you. Vote: Catarina Dogwood (Adventurer1) You've played like this before and I've passed it off, but I'm not going to ignore it this time. Yes, and that's worked out perfectly every time, hasn't it? And now we have Bobby adding his name to the bandwagon. His reasons are a combination of Hazel's (I am annoying to Hazel), and the rest he made up ( I don't see post quoted to support his claims). And Bobby, I highly doubt with all your participation you have given so far that you actually went back and reread much of my posts from Day 1 and Day 2. Sorry, I was forced to take a break due to circumstances beyond my control. You are highly accusative of everyone, something I dislike a lot. It smacks of a tree that is desperately trying to appear helpful while simultaneously sowing the seeds of suspicion everywhere. My attitude towards Catarina is rapidly becoming negative, this tree has only been unhelpful, uncooperative, far too ready to jump to conclusions, seems determined to direct attention away from herself, and just plain annoying. After rereading much of what this tree has said I feel there are sufficient grounds for me to; Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) I am an Oak. As I stated on Day 1 in that stupid argument with Hazel, I am prepared to do what necessary for my fellow Oaks to continue in the sun. Don't take this as me not wanting to live, because I do.
Fugazi Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Right... I'm willing to let my suspicions of Simon and Bruce (they're kind of tied together by the investigation result now) rest for a moment while they have a chance to prove that they are who they say they are. Not that I advise trees to carry on claiming to them like if they couldn't fake the whole picture. Please consider that Maples may have tools you can't predict and they may know enough already to set up elaborate gambits. That said, I don't find the evidence against Catarina very compelling. However, the use of *asterisks* could be considered a revealing slip, and makes her a tempting lynch. If she could prove that it's indeed a writing habit she uses at least occasionally, and if she could better explain how it looked better in low light (it doesn't bold characters or otherwise help readability on EB), I might let it slide and look for a scummier tree. Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1)
jimmynick Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Catarina, the reasons why (I, at least) voted for you are: You're more concerned with not getting lynched than with finding scum (as evidenced by suspecting only the people who suspect you); Having the brightness down is a reasonable response to having migraines or external light conditions, but is a poor excuse for using *asterisks* which are *known* to make words *bold* on writeboards, such as a *scumboard* you very possibly (probably) are commenting on; Would you please address the content of the case, rather than the time sequence of the votes? I agree with you, though, that Agnes's and Chester's votes for you are very weak and sheepy.
Lady K Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Right... I'm willing to let my suspicions of Simon and Bruce (they're kind of tied together by the investigation result now) rest for a moment while they have a chance to prove that they are who they say they are. Not that I advise trees to carry on claiming to them like if they couldn't fake the whole picture. Please consider that Maples may have tools you can't predict and they may know enough already to set up elaborate gambits. That said, I don't find the evidence against Catarina very compelling. However, the use of *asterisks* could be considered a revealing slip, and makes her a tempting lynch. If she could prove that it's indeed a writing habit she uses at least occasionally, and if she could better explain how it looked better in low light (it doesn't bold characters or otherwise help readability on EB), I might let it slide and look for a scummier tree. Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) Please see the post below. Here is another truth. I am not as tech savvy as I used to be. I didn't know that was how you bold on a write board, till you just now mentioned it. Also, I can confirm that Catarina never once typed in bold when I last shared a writeboard with her. Catarina, the reasons why (I, at least) voted for you are: You're more concerned with not getting lynched than with finding scum (as evidenced by suspecting only the people who suspect you); Having the brightness down is a reasonable response to having migraines or external light conditions, but is a poor excuse for using *asterisks* which are *known* to make words *bold* on writeboards, such as a *scumboard* you very possibly (probably) are commenting on; Would you please address the content of the case, rather than the time sequence of the votes? I agree with you, though, that Agnes's and Chester's votes for you are very weak and sheepy. If I get nailed every time I voice a suspicion of someone, how am I to play at all? I did voice an initial list of suspect on Day 1, that did include those who have not shown suspicion against me. And I did not immediately turn around and voice suspicion of Barry; notice he used my poke at you and Bruce on Day 1 as his whole case against me voicing suspicion of only those who suspect me. Yet have I really called you or Bruce out since then? No. Why? Because I think you are both Oak.
Fugazi Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Please see the post below. Here is another truth. I am not as tech savvy as I used to be. I didn't know that was how you bold on a write board, till you just now mentioned it. But... I still don't see the connection between asterisks and low light. Your explanation of them makes your use of asterisks even more fishy.
Lady K Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 But... I still don't see the connection between asterisks and low light. Your explanation of them makes your use of asterisks even more fishy. There is nothing I can say for you to believe me. So be it. It's your choice and your opinion. I already explained this many time over. I am an Oak. Catarina, the reasons why (I, at least) voted for you are: You're more concerned with not getting lynched than with finding scum (as evidenced by suspecting only the people who suspect you); Having the brightness down is a reasonable response to having migraines or external light conditions, but is a poor excuse for using *asterisks* which are *known* to make words *bold* on writeboards, such as a *scumboard* you very possibly (probably) are commenting on; Would you please address the content of the case, rather than the time sequence of the votes? I agree with you, though, that Agnes's and Chester's votes for you are very weak and sheepy. I went back to Day 1. On page 9, post 223, I mention that I am trying to choose between, Alister Pear, Hazel Hazelnut, Berty Birch, and Bobby Beech for my vote. At that time none of these four had voiced any suspicion against me. On page 12, post 285 I finally vote for Hazel. Then near the end I switch to Alister Pear for the number 12 vote for the lynch. On Day 1 the only two votes I cast were for my first two maple choices. So please explain how this is casting suspicion only on those that suspect me first.
Hinckley Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Having the brightness down is a reasonable response to having migraines or external light conditions, But the word "migraine" didn't come out of her mouth until I mentioned it. The original reason was it hurts her eyes.
mostlytechnic Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 1) Pick someone you trust to be an oak 2) PM them with a code (eg. "Hi there, I'm about to be lynched or murdered or something. Here's a stump-code: investigator=9, vig=7.29, blocker=86, vanilla=6/8/98/104, etc...") 3) Die 4) Talk to other stumps in private, find out all of their roles 5) reveal the stump roles in public (eg. Hi there, I was just killed and now I'm a stump. Bernice Bush is a 6.7, Steven Soil is a 0, I'm a -9, etc...") 6) Person you gave your code to deciphers this message 7) Town block has some information. 8) Town wins game. Thanks for this. I think it's a decent plan. Even if stumps don't stick around (we'll see tomorrow if they do or not), it could be useful. One improvement I might make - sending a code list to SEVERAL different people, using a different code for each person. Then, hopefully when you need to use it, you'll have someone you can trust. Heck, send a code set to every player since you don't know who will die when and who will turn up oak/maple yet. And another tactic - use it to claim roles to the stumps (who are KNOWN OAKS). In fact, maybe we should require all players to do this. Then the stumps would have a full list of all the roles everyone is claiming and see if there's any duplicates or other reason to suspect lies. Not that I advise trees to carry on claiming to them like if they couldn't fake the whole picture. Please consider that Maples may have tools you can't predict and they may know enough already to set up elaborate gambits. This times a million billion. Since we have the stumps, you have to assume they've got something equally powerful to balance it. Maybe it's a many-shot janitor, like has been suggested. Or maybe it's something we can't even think of that's a new addition to the forest, like the stumps are. But there's gotta be something so don't trust anyone too quickly!!!
Calanon Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 At some point, that excuse is not going to be enough anymore. Yes, when the game has progressed a bit it's gonna be much easier to contribute, rather than waking up to 7 pages more worth of posts.
Hinckley Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Please consider that Maples may have tools you can't predict and they may know enough already to set up elaborate gambits. This is, of course, still being considered. Nobody is verified...until they are verified. The reason why I can say no more about why I consider Bruce verified at this point is it could take away my ability to verify others. Yes, when the game has progressed a bit it's gonna be much easier to contribute, rather than waking up to 7 pages more worth of posts. Aaaaaaw, is reading things hard?
Recommended Posts