Yzalirk Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Catarina, do you even have proof that Alastair was a Maple? We can't prove that so your argument is pretty much useless. I don't know why voting against you makes me instantly scum at all but when you preformed "The Flail" pretty nicely when you had two votes and earlier because you couldn't find evidence, and still can't, that makes you look pretty bad. I think we all have yet to see what evidence you have to show but until then, good job on convincing people over nothing.
Tamamono Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I'm not comfortable with the stumps giving info based on power roles or results. I feel it will help the scum too much. I really want to know how the two stumps feel about this issue? Yes, the info could help us oaks, but I fear it will help the maples more. There seems to be quite a push from some trees for that information. In the past, information is lost when a tree dies, so how is it any different now? We have a chance to prevent what happened last time from happening this time. More roles claimed = less scum can claim. Plus, if an investigative role (watcher, cop, whatever) died with results, they don't have to - they can out them which will help us.
Hinckley Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 There is way too much information to quote here. You are so painfully Scummy. Interesting contradictions from what some trees have said on both days. Which trees? For instance, I did learn that Lauren did not rally the lynch against Alistair (she voted 7th), And what would you call this? 2 votes missing; I'm a big fan of the "we need a lynch on day 1" strategy so ... let's go! I understand your need to pursue the person you feel is more suspicious but let's face it, a no lynch does not advance the situation as much as a lynch would regardless of the outcome. At this point, a vote for Agnes, Berty, Hazel, Catarina or Chester is a lost vote. Just a thought ... I call it asking for two more votes to get Brickelodeon lynched, or a "rally". but you lead the rally against Alistair even though you voted for Larry Larch till almost the end and then switched your vote to Alistair at the 11th vote. Oh, really? Because I'm sure when I voted there still weren't enough votes to lynch Alastair. And I would vote for Larry again. Nothing inconsistent there. I switched my vote after Brickelodeon appealed to Bruce in private. It was Scummy. I stand by my read of Alastair's PM to Bruce. If he was Town, then it was an inexperienced move on his part. Alistair did indeed defend Hazel several times as well as voting for me immediately after I voted for Hazel even though he kept suggesting he might still vote for Hazel. I still believe they are both maples based on yesterdays posts. It's just my opinion. He defended Hazel? I don't remember this, so I will look back. I thought he just agree with Hazel that you were Scummy. It's all fuzzy. The three of you bickered a lot.
Piratedave84 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Good find, I think this confirms the stumps will disappear. If the stumps feel they have info relavent enough to share, they should share at their own discretion. Hazel contacted me today, fairly early In the day, and was asking whether someone had argued with me, was attacking me or if I had any weird contacts. This was odd to me considering that the first 2 questions can easily be answered by reading the day thread. Bear in mind that this was done before the rules were clarified and before the whole "claim or don't claim" argument we are having now. For what it's worth I think the benefits of claiming publicly are outweighed by the possible repercussions and as such I think it's not a good idea.
Hinckley Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I'm not comfortable with the stumps giving info based on power roles or results. I feel it will help the scum too much. I really want to know how the two stumps feel about this issue? Yes, the info could help us oaks, but I fear it will help the maples more. There seems to be quite a push from some trees for that information. In the past, information is lost when a tree dies, so how is it any different now? How does it help the Maples more? What if we lose the stumps altogether? What if the Scum have a rolecop or tracker? Isn't it better that we have the info that they might already have? It's one thing to add to the discussion, but you've rewound it to the beginning. That's so unhelpful and I find it Scummy. We're way past your speculation, respond to the current arguments. For what it's worth I think the benefits of claiming publicly are outweighed by the possible repercussions and as such I think it's not a good idea. Are you reading everything we said about it? What about rolecops or trackers on the Scum side. How do the repercussions outweigh the benefits? Please explain.
Lady K Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Catarina, do you even have proof that Alastair was a Maple? We can't prove that so your argument is pretty much useless. I don't know why voting against you makes me instantly scum at all but when you preformed "The Flail" pretty nicely when you had two votes and earlier because you couldn't find evidence, and still can't, that makes you look pretty bad. I think we all have yet to see what evidence you have to show but until then, good job on convincing people over nothing. Hey, I stated my opinion, so deal with it! We have a chance to prevent what happened last time from happening this time. More roles claimed = less scum can claim. Plus, if an investigative role (watcher, cop, whatever) died with results, they don't have to - they can out them which will help us. I know, which is why I stated it would be helpful to us oaks. But at the same time, what if the maples don't know if they took out any power roles? Or what if they need to see what the stumps know (if anything)? We could be playing right into their hands.
Piratedave84 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 We have a chance to prevent what happened last time from happening this time. More roles claimed = less scum can claim. Plus, if an investigative role (watcher, cop, whatever) died with results, they don't have to - they can out them which will help us. I would bet you that a PR getting killed would not get his/her result the next day like it would be if they had actually died.
Hinckley Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Or what if they need to see what the stumps know (if anything)? Can you explain this question? I don't understand it.
Piratedave84 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Are you reading everything we said about it? What about rolecops or trackers on the Scum side. How do the repercussions outweigh the benefits? Please explain. Yes, we're discussing hypotheticals here so if the scum don't have a rolecop then a stump's claim is a huge help whereas if they have a rolecop its a non-issue but I would prefer to be cautious and not give that piece of info that they may or may not be able to obtain themselves.
Lady K Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Hazel contacted me today, fairly early In the day, and was asking whether someone had argued with me, was attacking me or if I had any weird contacts. This was odd to me considering that the first 2 questions can easily be answered by reading the day thread. Bear in mind that this was done before the rules were clarified and before the whole "claim or don't claim" argument we are having now. For what it's worth I think the benefits of claiming publicly are outweighed by the possible repercussions and as such I think it's not a good idea. Thank you for answering. How does it help the Maples more? What if we lose the stumps altogether? What if the Scum have a rolecop or tracker? Isn't it better that we have the info that they might already have? It's one thing to add to the discussion, but you've rewound it to the beginning. That's so unhelpful and I find it Scummy. We're way past your speculation, respond to the current arguments. Are you reading everything we said about it? What about rolecops or trackers on the Scum side. How do the repercussions outweigh the benefits? Please explain. I just answered above how I feel it might benefit the maples more. I'm not speculating, I'm a very concerned oak citizen in this forest. I care about the fate of all my fellow oaks. And I thought this was the current discussion (I don't really see an argument over this topic). And you haven't addressed my question: If we have lost this information in previous forests (games) how have things changed now? Why is it so imperative that we gain this information?
Tamamono Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I would bet you that a PR getting killed would not get his/her result the next day like it would be if they had actually died. What if we get to Day 5 and the cop dies without having told anyone his past results? It's best to let them die with him, isn't it. We don't want to help those nasty Maples by enlightening ourselves.
Hinckley Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 And you haven't addressed my question: If we have lost this information in previous forests (games) how have things changed now? Why is it so imperative that we gain this information? This question is kind of nonsense. I hardly understand it. There are more ways than stumps to reveal such things.
jluck Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Thank you for answering. I just answered above how I feel it might benefit the maples more. I'm not speculating, I'm a very concerned oak citizen in this forest. I care about the fate of all my fellow oaks. And I thought this was the current discussion (I don't really see an argument over this topic). And you haven't addressed my question: If we have lost this information in previous forests (games) how have things changed now? Why is it so imperative that we gain this information? It's true we didn't have that info in past games, but now it's available to us so the situation has changed. A comparison might be to say "why do we need the Internet? We never had it when I was a kid." The fact that it wasn't there before doesn't negate it's usefulness now. All I'm saying is this is a new game and we should approach it as such. At this point I say we let each stump decide for themselves and move on to a new topic. We've talked this one into the ground.
Duvors Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Catarina, do you even have proof that Alastair was a Maple? We can't prove that so your argument is pretty much useless. I don't know why voting against you makes me instantly scum at all but when you preformed "The Flail" pretty nicely when you had two votes and earlier because you couldn't find evidence, and still can't, that makes you look pretty bad. I think we all have yet to see what evidence you have to show but until then, good job on convincing people over nothing. Ditto.Well aside from that poignant remark I nothing even vaguely useful to add at the moment. Sorry.
MagPiesRUs Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 After looking at their posts from yesterday, neither one did very much of anything. Lauren rallied a lynch of Alastair. I think that is literally his only contribution outside of telling Buck to vote. And Buck made like 4 posts. If the vig did kill, I would assume they killed Buck and the Scum killed Lauren...for rallying people to lynch Alastair...who was Scum...then they janitored him. I see no other reason to kill Lauren. Unless the vig or a serial killer killed Lauren and the Scum were blocked or their target protected. I'm doing that speculate about every possibility of kill thing. Lauren would even make more sense as a neutral kill because he wasn't likely to be watched or protected. And maybe Buck was killed by a vigilante who prefers to weed out the low posters. Or there's a serial killer taking out low posters. Or Buck or Lauren said something to Scum in private that made them the kill target. Or something to the vig in private that made them think they were Scum I always yell at people for doing this... And what would you call this? 2 votes missing; I'm a big fan of the "we need a lynch on day 1" strategy so ... let's go! I understand your need to pursue the person you feel is more suspicious but let's face it, a no lynch does not advance the situation as much as a lynch would regardless of the outcome. At this point, a vote for Agnes, Berty, Hazel, Catarina or Chester is a lost vote. Just a thought ... I call it asking for two more votes to get Brickelodeon lynched, or a "rally". I highly doubt the scum would have targeted Lauren for that.
Lady K Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 What if we get to Day 5 and the cop dies without having told anyone his past results? It's best to let them die with him, isn't it. We don't want to help those nasty Maples by enlightening ourselves. It's up to the cop to decide who to trust with the info. If one of the stumps was the cop, I don't think it's right or a very oaky thing to do to push him for information. This question is kind of nonsense. I hardly understand it. There are more ways than stumps to reveal such things. It's not nonsense and you know it! Of course you understand what I'm asking, you just don't want to answer it. It's true we didn't have that info in past games, but now it's available to us so the situation has changed. A comparison might be to say "why do we need the Internet? We never had it when I was a kid." The fact that it wasn't there before doesn't negate it's usefulness now. All I'm saying is this is a new game and we should approach it as such. At this point I say we let each stump decide for themselves and move on to a new topic. We've talked this one into the ground. This is too important an issue for the three of you to just decide right now for the rest of us. Some oaks aren't even awake yet, some haven't given their opinion, and one of the tree stumps hasn't even spoken up yet. I will restate nothing has changed from past games where we don't have this info, except for three trees who really really want this info bad. Why?
Hinckley Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I highly doubt the scum would have targeted Lauren for that. Look who knows so much about what the Scum would do! Tell us, Adelaide, then who did they target and why, Miss Maple? It's not nonsense and you know it! Of course you understand what I'm asking, you just don't want to answer it. I did answer it, regardless of its nonsensical nature, Scummy McBristlePants. It's up to the cop to decide who to trust with the info. If one of the stumps was the cop, I don't think it's right or a very oaky thing to do to push him for information. This is too important an issue for the three of you to just decide right now for the rest of us. Some oaks aren't even awake yet, some haven't given their opinion, and one of the tree stumps hasn't even spoken up yet. I will restate nothing has changed from past games where we don't have this info, except for three trees who really really want this info bad. Why? You are really Scummy. Three of who?
Tamamono Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 It's up to the cop to decide who to trust with the info. If one of the stumps was the cop, I don't think it's right or a very oaky thing to do to push him for information. "If the cops didn't want to tell anyone what their results are, it's their own damn fault!!"
Fugazi Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 If a stump has information that would give us a Maple or save an Oak (say, investigation result that they haven't shared before their death), I think that sharing this particular information with everyone outweighs the risks of revealing a role. On the other hand, most night results would not be useful enough to be worth giving away info to scum. What I'm saying is that the value of information should be weighted on an individual basis and the stumps decide if they share or not.
jluck Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 It's up to the cop to decide who to trust with the info. If one of the stumps was the cop, I don't think it's right or a very oaky thing to do to push him for information. It's not nonsense and you know it! Of course you understand what I'm asking, you just don't want to answer it. This is too important an issue for the three of you to just decide right now for the rest of us. Some oaks aren't even awake yet, some haven't given their opinion, and one of the tree stumps hasn't even spoken up yet. I will restate nothing has changed from past games where we don't have this info, except for three trees who really really want this info bad. Why? Pardón?? I've been the leading advocate for withholding the info at the stump's discretion. But you're naive to believe this game isn't different from games past. We don't know the allegiance of the lynch. That's different. To counteract that, the host has allowed dead players to continue on. That different. This game is different and I bet you the scum are using those differences to their advantage. We need to figure out how to use these differences to our advantage as well.
Tamamono Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 If a stump has information that would give us a Maple or save an Oak (say, investigation result that they haven't shared before their death), I think that sharing this particular information with everyone outweighs the risks of revealing a role. On the other hand, most night results would not be useful enough to be worth giving away info to scum. What I'm saying is that the value of information should be weighted on an individual basis and the stumps decide if they share or not. Even clearing an Oak who isn't under suspicion is worth it.
Fugazi Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Even clearing an Oak who isn't under suspicion is worth it. That will make that Oak a target, and perhaps reveal the investigator prematurely. I don't know, it's a difficult call and one for the stumps to make.
Bob Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 If a stump has information that would give us a Maple or save an Oak (say, investigation result that they haven't shared before their death), I think that sharing this particular information with everyone outweighs the risks of revealing a role. On the other hand, most night results would not be useful enough to be worth giving away info to scum. What I'm saying is that the value of information should be weighted on an individual basis and the stumps decide if they share or not. I'd have to agree with this line of reasoning right here. The investigator is a really powerful role and if the investigator is cut down, they should reveal all their results to us if they have not already revealed them in private. I'd perhaps add the vigilante as an important role that should be revealed as well in case the Maples kill our vigilante. If there is a scum rolecop, and they successfully identify and kill the vigilante, then they could claim to be the new vigilante in an attempt to fool a town watcher. Additionally, I'd like to recommend that all stumps tell us who you were speaking with prior to being chopped down. Lauren has already done so, but I don't believe Buck has.
Hinckley Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 If a stump has information that would give us a Maple or save an Oak (say, investigation result that they haven't shared before their death), I think that sharing this particular information with everyone outweighs the risks of revealing a role. On the other hand, most night results would not be useful enough to be worth giving away info to scum. What I'm saying is that the value of information should be weighted on an individual basis and the stumps decide if they share or not. I may not trust you, but this is a good analysis of the situation.
MagPiesRUs Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Look who knows so much about what the Scum would do! Tell us, Adelaide, then who did they target and why, Miss Maple? There's absolutely no way the scum would kill Lauren for "rallying" the town. The vote against Alistair would have gone through regardless of what Lauren had said, and it wouldn't have won her any kudos today, even if we did know Alistair's allegiance and if Alistair's allegiance was scum. It sounds like a very convoluted explanation invented to push your theory that Alistair is scum. Myself, I don't know who the scum killed. The most plausible theory is that they killed Lauren because she was unlikely to be targeted by town though. I'm not sure why you think a serial killer would be the only one who'd want to do this.
Recommended Posts