Lego Spy Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Did you read my last post? About why I am concerned? You're avoiding my question.
jluck Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I've been spending the last hour going through the first two days (an easy read at nearly 40 pages). Here's some things that stuck out to me: The march of the Ents is my favorite part of the Two Towers, and the same probably goes for everytree here. Well so far all us treeple have got done is nothing, and I have nothing to add myself, I'm just speaking to show that I'm paying attention. Treesonly I can't find anything about Catarina that says "MAPLE!", but she hasn't done anything really helpful. On a related note, am I the only tree here who noticed how aggressively Lassie Sassafras went after Catarina earlier? Maybe because he isn't very good at this? But quite frankly it does seem silly to me, as may people have said, why not post about your day one suspicions in public? It's actually more helpful that way then to keep them back for a later date, for the reason that, if the guy turns out to be a Maple with a special role and night actions and stuff lynching him on the first day would not only be helpful but a grievous blow to the Maples. In fact getting even a normal Maple on day one would be awesome! So if you have any suspicions on day one, Tell us! Just sending PM's about it to random folks about them makes you look like an evil Maple-y Maplebag McMapleton. Sadly, I have no suspicions, at all, so that whole thing wasn't really very helpful, was it? Hikory Dicork Dock Persimmon, bit of a mouthful. But seriously, I must have missed something, why would such an assumption be bad exactly? Woah mate, this is only day one, the spanish inquisition isn't supposed to start until day two. Arrrghh! Why do I alway forget that there's a rule against editing your posts!? I've already stated them, are you seriously not lying any attention to what I've said? I'm not defending anytree really, It's just that I don't see anything overtly Maple-y in what has been said so far, muddled Oakyness yes, but nothing that screams Maple. I think I've said this before. In day one, Bobby made several references to having no opinion, no suspicions, no reads, really, he had nothing to add except trying to look active. He even said in the first quote "I'm just speaking to show im paying attention". So I figured I'd go through day two, see what there was to see. Ditto. Well aside from that poignant remark I nothing even vaguely useful to add at the moment. Sorry. Thank you for being impatient when I didn't even have a chance to respond due to not being on the internet when you asked the question you are referring to. Well I just didn't have anything else to add at the time, I ought to have kept my mouth shut, but quite frankly I have trouble doing that. As for the prior day, I'm just very bad at being helpful. And who gets to have all these codes? You Mr. Unconfirmed Aggressive-Defensive Accusatory Trying Far Harder Than Anyone Else To Appear Helpful Tree? In public presumably. And the fact that Simon could just be making up nonexistent claims that where never made is a possibility, although an unlikely one. Here's the post, and My blatant missing of it's existence will probably annoy me for the rest of the game. Sorry, I retract my comment. I dislike people who accuse everyone who doesn't agree with them, there was some discussion about this tendency of your's earlier, as well as a rather strange burst of laughter. The former. but if it's already been said then why would Waldorf say; Why would he assume that it had been established if there had been objections raised? Well, Catarina is useless so I am voting for her. Aside from that I'm wary about Simon due to his accusatory nature. These are statements I have hashed and rehashed over and over again today. Aside from that I have no concrete suspicions, and even what I have isn't very solid I'll admit. I know some portions of the quotes are confusing out of the context of the original comments they respond to, so highlighted what really stood out to me. He continually stated he has nothing to be helpful with and generally retracted anything he said almost immediately, like he didn't want to ruffle any feathers. At best it's suspicious, but it really seemed scummy all taken together. His attempts to appear active, while trying to downplay his comments and stay out of the spotlight are sticky, like syrup. So here it is, the culmination in my last hour of work: vote: Bobby Beech (Lord Duvors)
Hinckley Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Unofficial update: Voting Update: Larry Larch (TheLazyChicken) - 8 (Zepher, Hinckley, Tamamono, Bob, jamesn, Goliath, Lego Spy, Calanon) Bobby Beech (Lord Duvors) - 5 (Scaevola, TinyPiesRUs, badboytje88, Scubacarrot, jluck) Peter Cedar (badboytje88) - 1 (TheLazyChicken) There are 24 Hours remaining in Day 3. It takes 10 votes to lynch. Interesting... Berty, Bobby, Jack, Lassie, Sammy?
jimmynick Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I had a thought, so I went through the first two days (an easy read at nearly 40 pages). Here's some things that stuck out to me: Or at least a different list to the players you think you may trust...you don't need to send a list to everyone unless you want to, but at least send codes to a handful of people that could help out once you die. That's right: in the past two days, Berry Cherry made a comment about either of today's lynch candidates (Bobby in one corner and Larry in the other) exactly once. To provide some friendly advice. While he was all over Alastair and Catarina, not a peep about our other two favourite whipping-boys Bobby and Larry. He spent most of his remaining time promoting the idea of codes, which so far have only resulted in Daveing 9 claimed vanillas. And, now, Berry has come in with a pile of things from Days One and Two that he finds interesting, and surprise! they're all things that Bobby said. Where were you when Bobby said those things? On a scumboard? Did you have to come in and completely neglect the arguments against Larry because you needed to balance the votes to save his scummy hide bark? Scummy, scummy you, Berry Cherry.
Hinckley Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Honestly, I think Waldorf just made the strongest case we've heard.
jimmynick Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 You know, I think I am unhappy enough about Berry to: Unvote: Larry Larch (TheLazyChicken) Vote: Berry Cherry (jluck)
Hinckley Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 You know, I think I am unhappy enough about Berry to: Unvote: Larry Larch (TheLazyChicken) Vote: Berry Cherry (jluck) We could still lynch Larry if Berry is protecting him from being lynched. Again, noticed the conspicuous lack of bandwagon and some of the weak reasoning.
jimmynick Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I went looking at more interesting things. If I had "scumbuddies", I probably would. Also, nice meta-gaming by the way. Wait, where is the metagaming? Oh, that's what you mean. It's still fishing, but fishing with justification. I like how when I quote Simon, it quotes as "megablocks". "Yeah, well, I want to know who's got what roles because I'm a scummo, but at least I've got justification." True, but it would give us a place to start. If that happens, tell a player you trust to be an Oak and then that person will work to figure out the true claim. If they don't, well then call them out. And give information to someone who isn't confirmed? Sure, call them out if you like, but if you choose poorly (probably like a 1 in 4 chance at least at this point) then the scum have a roadmap to PRs. But isn't the point of sending codes to confirmed townies keeping roles secret?
MagPiesRUs Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 It certainly is suspicious how slowly it's taken for a Larry bandwagon to get started. I get the feeling the maples know that Bobby is an easy lynch, and are waiting to see if the votes on him gain enough traction. Peter's vote has struck me as particularly odd. He has no opinion on Larry or Bobby, but Bobby a "friendly poke" anyway, pushing the votes against him to 3 (with Larry at 6)? You know, I think I am unhappy enough about Berry to: Unvote: Larry Larch (TheLazyChicken) Vote: Berry Cherry (jluck) I'm not opposed to voting for Barry. I know Catarina found it odd that Barry was going after her for behaviour she always shows, but I'm not familiar enough with their history to have found it unusual. Doesn't your argument rely on Larry being scum anyway though?
jimmynick Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Doesn't your argument rely on Larry being scum anyway though? Berry could also be doing a CYA in case of lynching townie Larry.
Hinckley Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 And give information to someone who isn't confirmed? Sure, call them out if you like, but if you choose poorly (probably like a 1 in 4 chance at least at this point) then the scum have a roadmap to PRs. But isn't the point of sending codes to confirmed townies keeping roles secret? I would say confirmed, but the stumps seem to think I'm a common denominator for them, whatever that means. If I tell them who to trust that would give the three stooges another chance to distract us all with more fishing. The stumps know full well what I've claimed. They'll make their own decisions. Hopefully without Dave-ing us any further. Berry could also be doing a CYA in case of lynching townie Larry. What's a CYA?
jimmynick Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 My point is the way he voted for Bobby and not Larry; Larry being scum is mostly an accessory. CYA=Cover Your megablocks You know what I meant, swearing filter.
jimmynick Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Really? You look more like a persimmon tree to me.
Hinckley Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Looking back this seems like a CYA: Can someone please come forward and say: "Gotcha! The Catarina lynch idea was just a way to catch all the sheep and the bandwagoning scum! Wahaha!..." No? Okay then. I think the reasons where Catarina is being persecuted for are silly. So she has a problem with strong light in darkness. This is a thing that people do. Asterisks are a common thing to emphasize something on the internet. Don't get me wrong, I think Catarina is completely unhelpful in every way, but is that a good enough reason to lynch? Actually, it is. Hm. I still want to vote for Maggie though, because I want him to talk way more. Vote: Maggie Magnolia (Calanon) You're just trying to justify your lynch of Catarina yesterday. I said it yesterday and I will say it again, it was a BS lynch. I can't believe that lead to a lynch, sodding asterisks in the dark. (nice bruce springstone coverband name) I will bet there were a LOT of scum that jumped on that bandwagon (or purposefully avoided, which means it doesn't help us ). I'm sure there IS a pattern, I just have a hard time figuring it out. Although, I thought Maggie voting right after Nash twice in a row is interesting, it's not like their position in the forest is next to each other, so there is no geographical reason for that to be the case. So, according to William, he can see the justification for the lynch of Catarina but votes for Maggie anyway just to get him to talk and then comes up, all-knowing, today about how dumb the lynch was. Seems like he was covering his megablocks. Blue and bold added for emphasis. Underline added for extra emphasis on the fact that he did not conclude it was a "BS lynch". Scummy.
badboytje88 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 That looks suspiciously like an excuse for bandwagoning. Uhm no it doesn't. A friendly poke? Are you suspicious of him or not? Plenty has been pointed out about his behavior for you to form an opinion. I believe we are past the point of poking. We don't find Maples by voting for people to get them just to get them to talk. Look at his posts, analyze his behavior, discuss how you feel about his alignment. Well I want him to speak up because there have been enough people questioning his motives yet he remains silent which makes me question wether or not he os taking this serious. So no I am not convinced he is maple. But he isn't doing a good job at making us believe he is oak.
fhomess Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I really thought the smoking gun on Catarina was when she finally seemed to indicate that she knew how lynches would end up and unfortunately, there isn't any smoking gun among the candidates today that seem to me as strong as that. It's all behavior. I think the case is slightly stronger for Larry so I'll add my vote to the leader and switch to the other if need be: Vote: Larry Larch (TheLazyChicken) I also think some more discussion around our Miller claim is appropriate. I don't trust it one bit. I went to the effort to try to understand how things came about and it all struck me as odd. Today, I hear that Berty went fishing for the identity of the Bomb claim: Yes, I asked you who had claimed bomb. I can see why that pings you, but at the time I wanted to be in contact with another (hopefully) town role, so that I could talk to someone without worrying too much if they were scum or not. But then again, bomb is a fairly convenient role to claim. This aspect was new to me and it doesn't sit with the miller claim. Berty had already decided that Simon was worth trusting enough to share his miller role with. The miller is not an active role and therefore has no need to know who the bomb is. The only reason a miller could care about a bomb is to share it with someone else. There isn't any sort of grand scheming that the miller needs to do that requires someone safe to talk to "without worry too much if they were scum or not". It's been pointed out before, but the way the miller claim went down is the least townie way to respond. It should either be claimed immediately or not until a false claim by scum is made in an effort to get out of investigation. You told me that Simon suggested you publicly claim at that point, but he didn't mention that when I asked him about it. Simon, is he lying about this? Lastly... there have been a lot of rather forceful claims of "Maple!" by certain individuals to others that aren't resulting in votes. I find that to be one of the more interesting themes of today so far.
badboytje88 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 And with a vote for Larry in between them. Are you trying to keep the two suspicious players even in votes? I am trying to get someone to speak up.
Hinckley Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Well I want him to speak up because there have been enough people questioning his motives yet he remains silent which makes me question wether or not he os taking this serious. So no I am not convinced he is maple. But he isn't doing a good job at making us believe he is oak. So, you are trying to determine if he's taking the game seriously? I also think some more discussion around our Miller claim is appropriate. I don't trust it one bit. I went to the effort to try to understand how things came about and it all struck me as odd. Today, I hear that Berty went fishing for the identity of the Bomb claim: This aspect was new to me and it doesn't sit with the miller claim. Berty had already decided that Simon was worth trusting enough to share his miller role with. The miller is not an active role and therefore has no need to know who the bomb is. The only reason a miller could care about a bomb is to share it with someone else. There isn't any sort of grand scheming that the miller needs to do that requires someone safe to talk to "without worry too much if they were scum or not". It's been pointed out before, but the way the miller claim went down is the least townie way to respond. It should either be claimed immediately or not until a false claim by scum is made in an effort to get out of investigation. You told me that Simon suggested you publicly claim at that point, but he didn't mention that when I asked him about it. Simon, is he lying about this? Let me be clear...again...Berty came to me and wanted to claim his role. I said he shouldn't claim to anyone who isn't verified and he said something like you have to take a leap of faith in Mafia sometimes. So then he said Miller. I haven't been in a game with a Miller in a long time. I know it's a smart claim for a Scum to make. And a proactive Scum team has a better chance of surviving scrutiny than a reactive one. Either way, I had just had a conversation with Jack Pine about how he didn't expect there to be a Miller since there had been no claim. Then I asked why a Miller would claim and he told me that's how the Miller should be played. I also told Berty he might be at risk of being killed by the vig since some people were suspicious of him and there was a vote or two. He said he was more worried about the investigator...because he's the Miller. He said he thought I might be in touch with the investigator and might be able to tell them not to waste a night on him since he knew he would come up Maple anyway. So, I told him to claim because I didn't know the investigator on Day One and wouldn't have shared it with him anyway and had just learned from Jack that that is what a Miller is supposedly supposed to do. Berty said he was a noob and wasn't sure how to play it. Then, he said he wanted to know the bomb so he could talk to another Townie about the game. To be honest, I'm dubious of the Miller claim, the bomb claim and what William claimed. They're all good roles for Scum to pretend to have and all three went claiming them to people early in the game. I am trying to get homework done and it's past my bedtime, but I'll try to find the time of these claims before I head to sleep.
badboytje88 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Unvote: Bobby Beech (Lord Duvors) As I said before it was a just a poke. I do not know what to think of you just yet but I do know I wan't to stop this from getting turned into a big bandwagon against you.
Hinckley Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Unvote: Bobby Beech (Lord Duvors) As I said before it was a just a poke. I do not know what to think of you just yet but I do know I wan't to stop this from getting turned into a big bandwagon against you.
MagPiesRUs Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Unvote: Bobby Beech (Lord Duvors) As I said before it was a just a poke. I do not know what to think of you just yet but I do know I wan't to stop this from getting turned into a big bandwagon against you. What do you think of the case against Larry?
badboytje88 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Well there have been some connections between both of them. If I had to choose which one looks more scummy to me at this point I'd have to go with Larry. Also I have to admit that the case against him is the stronger one. Though Bobby might be on the scum as well. It is striking how Larry defended someone on day 1. Someone he didn't know. Or maybe they met before. Somewhere on a writeboard titled scum.
Hinckley Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Well there have been some connections between both of them. If I had to choose which one looks more scummy to me at this point I'd have to go with Larry. Also I have to admit that the case against him is the stronger one. Though Bobby might be on the scum as well. It is striking how Larry defended someone on day 1. Someone he didn't know. Or maybe they met before. Somewhere on a writeboard titled scum. It's striking that you're not voting for the person you find to be "more scummy".
Scubacarrot Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 So, according to William, he can see the justification for the lynch of Catarina but votes for Maggie anyway just to get him to talk and then comes up, all-knowing, today about how dumb the lynch was. Seems like he was covering his megablocks. Blue and bold added for emphasis. Underline added for extra emphasis on the fact that he did not conclude it was a "BS lynch". Scummy. BS because of your reasons, justified because of Catarina not being very helpful at all. Also I like saying I told you so. My megablocks doesn't need covering. Justified enough that it wasn't worthy of me trying to take a stand against it. That sounds very arrogant. I like it.
Recommended Posts