def Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 There is a very fine line between 'funny' and 'annoying'. Sure, it's fine to make a few jokes to lighten the situation a bit, but when people get sick of it, you stop. It's easy as that. I stopped hours ago. You and a handful of others kept bringing it up It's my fault that you brought it up hours later, I'm very, very sorry.
Eskallon Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 I dont really want to comment on the current situation, to me it seems that neither Mehmet or Patrick are overly suspicious, they are both trying to do something useful (unlike others)by bring discussion to the table. At least now we can analyse something and respond accordingly to how people have reacted on both sides. I however would like to bring something to the table: Baa-haa-haa! All this reminds me of my brother, dontcha know? Takes me back to the fights we had trying to win matron's affection, dontcha know! Ah... splendid man... Died of Spainish Flu, dontcha know? ... Yes, never forgiven them for it... Phaw? Where was I? Yes, the sacrificing! Why not just draw a name out of a hat? Jolly spot of bad luck for the poor blighter, if he turns out to be innocent! If he's a cultist - or a Jerry! - then bully for us! Baa! It might just be me looking into it, but I don't like what my Captain here has said. It seems to me that in the middle of investigating a lead on Patrick he randomly suggested that we do it randomly, now maybe if he had said this earlier before the lengthy conversation started I would look over it. However this suggestion is suspicious to me. Now its not so much the suggestion itself, but the timing, why then, did you simply forget to listen for the past few hours captain as to whats been going on?
fhomess Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 I'd like to ask William Fitzpatrick, our big game hunter, not to be confused with Patrick Fitzwilliam, our outspoken expedition leader, why he's so concerned about the Cultists' goals at this point. You've bought this question up twice, most likely because you didn't get any real response the first time. The goal of the Innocents is clearly outlined, and it is to kill off all Cultists. The goal of any third party explorers is similarly unspecified, but you do not seem concerned about this at all. I believe it is highly likely that the goal of the Cultists involves the systematic killing of Innocents. Whether or not there is more to it than that, may not really help the Innocents at this point since our goal is clearly stated. I confess that I found your question about the Cultists' goal to be unneccesary (although not entirely unhelpful), and a bit out of place in the context of the rest of the conversation. Balls. Yes? What?
Hinckley Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 The goal of the Innocents is clearly outlined, and it is to kill off all Cultists. The goal of any third party explorers is similarly unspecified, but you do not seem concerned about this at all. How is this clear? while the Cultists need to Any Third-Party (neutral) characters will have their own win conditions outlined in their roles.
fhomess Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 How is this clear? I didn't say the goal of the Cultists was clear. I said the goal of the Innocents was clear: the Innocents must kill off all the Cultists I questioned why Mr. Fitzpatrick felt it was so important for us to try to determine more clarity in the Cultists goals at this point of our current situation since we have no evidence from which to determine this, I don't suspect the Cultists will simply come out and tell us, and it doesn't change the goal for us Innocents. Just trying to drum up conversation on something that struck me as slightly out of context with other parts of the conversation, and something that was never really responded to. It may be totally benign.
Hinckley Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 The goal of any third party explorers is similarly unspecified, but you do not seem concerned about this at all. I didn't say the goal of the Cultists was clear. I said the goal of the Innocents was clear: Aha. I thought I had read it clearly. Thanks for pointing that out. In response to your drumming things up, the third-party roles are normally stated that way...when we are in holes in the desert. The oddity Mr. FitzPatrick is referring to, as have others, yet you and Mr. Fitzwilliam seem oddly focused on Mr. Fitzpatrick, is that we have asked for clarification and we are still only threatened with being any'ed. I think it is benign as you have stated as well. I'm not saying Mr. FitzPatrick is innocent, I'm just saying I don't think his asking for clarification over the any threat is reason to believe he is some cultist.
Professor Flitwick Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 It might just be me looking into it, but I don't like what my Captain here has said. It seems to me that in the middle of investigating a lead on Patrick he randomly suggested that we do it randomly, now maybe if he had said this earlier before the lengthy conversation started I would look over it. However this suggestion is suspicious to me. Now its not so much the suggestion itself, but the timing, why then, did you simply forget to listen for the past few hours captain as to whats been going on? Baa-ha-ha! Oh Janus, you make me laugh; you know as well as I do that I can't time travel to suggest something earlier in the day! And why would you want me to comment in an argument in which I had nothing to add? Oh Janus, that pygmy woman with the sharp slice of mango may have grazed your arm, but she didn't damage your funny bone! Baa-ha-ha! I find it a bit barmy that you accuse me of being suspicious, when several other people didn't comment on the debate either! Also, now I've got your attention, I wanted to ask you something. How do you know there are exactly 6 cultists?
CorneliusMurdock Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 I'd like to ask William Fitzpatrick, our big game hunter, not to be confused with Patrick Fitzwilliam, our outspoken expedition leader, why he's so concerned about the Cultists' goals at this point. You've bought this question up twice, most likely because you didn't get any real response the first time. The goal of the Innocents is clearly outlined, and it is to kill off all Cultists. The goal of any third party explorers is similarly unspecified, but you do not seem concerned about this at all. I believe it is highly likely that the goal of the Cultists involves the systematic killing of Innocents. Whether or not there is more to it than that, may not really help the Innocents at this point since our goal is clearly stated. I confess that I found your question about the Cultists' goal to be unneccesary (although not entirely unhelpful), and a bit out of place in the context of the rest of the conversation. Okay. We, the town, do not know for sure what the Cultists aims are. They are not clearly stated in the rules. Yes, we know how we, the town, wins but wouldn't we also lose if the Cultists fulfilled some nefarious secret condition? So isn't it then in our best interest to get our hosts to clarify those conditions or at least discuss the absence of their win condition as a group? I'm sure it being missing is meant to confuse us, the town. I'm also pretty sure the Cultists would already know what their win condition is, so having it out in the open surely wouldn't hurt us. If my question was a bit out of place it's only because the only other thing going on was a pissing match between our cook and party leader. Judges, do we have a winner or are they going to continue to get dangerously dehydrated in this hot sun?
Hinckley Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 If my question was a bit out of place it's only because the only other thing going on was a pissing match between our cook and party leader. Judges, do we have a winner or are they going to continue to get dangerously dehydrated in this hot sun? I think Mr. Fitzwhatever won. I forgot to take my pants down.
fhomess Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Okay. We, the town, do not know for sure what the Cultists aims are. They are not clearly stated in the rules. Yes, we know how we, the town, wins but wouldn't we also lose if the Cultists fulfilled some nefarious secret condition? So isn't it then in our best interest to get our hosts to clarify those conditions or at least discuss the absence of their win condition as a group? I'm sure it being missing is meant to confuse us, the town. I'm also pretty sure the Cultists would already know what their win condition is, so having it out in the open surely wouldn't hurt us.If my question was a bit out of place it's only because the only other thing going on was a pissing match between our cook and party leader. Judges, do we have a winner or are they going to continue to get dangerously dehydrated in this hot sun? Thanks, this all makes sense to me. I have found it a bit strange that despite the fact that we've been mocking the idea of being Any'd and asking for clarification throughout most of the day, Is and Ossie have remained quiet on the matter. I'm not yet sure how knowing that condition will help us prevent it, but perhaps there are things I'm not aware of.
ADHO15 Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 showtopic=64526&st=45&p=1165556&fromsearch=1entry1165556"]How do you know there are exactly 6 cultists[/url]? I do not know you, hairy human, but I would think it rather hypocritical of you to ask such as question. Like others before him, I am sure he is just taking an educated guess at how many enemies currently oppose our not-so-peaceful group. Okay. We, the town, do not know for sure what the Cultists aims are. They are not clearly stated in the rules. Yes, we know how we, the town, wins but wouldn't we also lose if the Cultists fulfilled some nefarious secret condition? So isn't it then in our best interest to get our hosts to clarify those conditions or at least discuss the absence of their win condition as a group? I'm sure it being missing is meant to confuse us, the town. I'm also pretty sure the Cultists would already know what their win condition is, so having it out in the open surely wouldn't hurt us. I agree completely with you here. Although it was probably only a mistake that cropped up during Ossie and Is's explanation of the situation, knowing for certain the objectives of our opposition can only help us prevent it being carried out. I do not think bringing up the subject should cause suspicion to be cast on the spokesman.
Tamamono Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 I stopped hours ago. You and a handful of others kept bringing it up It's my fault that you brought it up hours later, I'm very, very sorry. I only brought it up so that I could explain to Gordon that you are not likely to be scum because of your attitude. Anyways, I accept your apology. Now let's please move on and start trying to find those cultists. It might just be me looking into it, but I don't like what my Captain here has said. It seems to me that in the middle of investigating a lead on Patrick he randomly suggested that we do it randomly, now maybe if he had said this earlier before the lengthy conversation started I would look over it. However this suggestion is suspicious to me. Now its not so much the suggestion itself, but the timing, why then, did you simply forget to listen for the past few hours captain as to whats been going on? Someone not having anything to a conversation add isn't suspicious, especially when the 'conversation' is, like William said, a pissing match between our cook and our party leader. However, I do find the rest of what he's said to be pretty suspicious. Baa-ha-ha! Oh Janus, you make me laugh; you know as well as I do that I can't time travel to suggest something earlier in the day! And why would you want me to comment in an argument in which I had nothing to add? Oh Janus, that pygmy woman with the sharp slice of mango may have grazed your arm, but she didn't damage your funny bone! Baa-ha-ha! I find it a bit barmy that you accuse me of being suspicious, when several other people didn't comment on the debate either! Also, now I've got your attention, I wanted to ask you something. How do you know there are exactly 6 cultists? While it is fine to not have anything to add to a conversation, you shouldn't just spout some useless crap about your brother and the Spanish flu and then suggest that we randomly vote. If we randomly voted, we would almost certainly end up killing one of our own. If we actually analyze behavioral patterns and then base a vote off of those, then we stand a much better chance of nabbing a cultist. Honestly, you and Maelana need to look up random in the dictionary. First you go off spouting nonsense about women with sharp mangos and the Spanish flu, then you suggest that we vote randomly even though most other people were already deep in discussion about who to lynch. And when Hugh confronts you about your behavior, you just spout more of it and then try to shift suspicion off onto him for something that seems relatively harmless to me. One fourth of twenty-four is six, and in a situation like this one would expect for about one fourth of the players members of the group to be scum. Now, I'm not saying that Hugh is innocent, but I am saying that your behavior does not look good at the moment. I've got my eye on you, Mr. Goodenarde. Okay. We, the town, do not know for sure what the Cultists aims are. They are not clearly stated in the rules. Yes, we know how we, the town, wins but wouldn't we also lose if the Cultists fulfilled some nefarious secret condition? So isn't it then in our best interest to get our hosts to clarify those conditions or at least discuss the absence of their win condition as a group? I'm sure it being missing is meant to confuse us, the town. I'm also pretty sure the Cultists would already know what their win condition is, so having it out in the open surely wouldn't hurt us. I agree with William. If the cultists have some other way of winning than just outnumbering us, then it's important for us to know about it so that we can try to prevent it.
Rufus Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 INTERLUDE Everything Happens for a Reason The crowd heatedly discusses the upcoming sacrifice, and whom the Cultists among them might try to 'any', whatever that may mean. Patrick and Mehmet get embroiled in a mass debating session. The people approach Ossie and Is. 'What's going on?' someone yells. 'Don't make us do any thinking for ourselves!' screams another. 'What are the Cultists trying to achieve?' asks a third. Ossie turns to the crowd. 'How should we know? We're not Cultists.' 'We had that Cult of Goat Surprisers up here last month,' shrugs Is. 'As it turned out, all they had to do was surprise a few goats.' Ossie nods. 'Good times. If a little noisy. And smelly.' ----------------------------- You may now vote. You have 48 hours.
Sandy Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Alright, the time has come to be decisive, people. I've followed the heated debates today and it is obvious that this situation makes all of us tense. Nobody would want to be sacrificed, but ultimately one of us has to be or we will never catch the cultists. Since there is no way of knowing anyone's alignment for me today, I will personally vote the first person who gets a vote against them. I guess this is the fairest method for me, since I cannot say who will get that vote. However, if that first vote is against me for some reason, I naturally cannot vote myself. I hope you understand. And of course if something more concrete comes up, I won't hesitate to change my vote.
Hinckley Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 I will personally vote the first person who gets a vote against them. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatt???!!!!?!??!?!!?!?! What kind of strategy is that? You'll vote for the first person who gets a vote no matter the reasoning or what case may be presented by them or others? I fail to follow your logic.
Sandy Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatt???!!!!?!??!?!!?!?! What kind of strategy is that? You'll vote for the first person who gets a vote no matter the reasoning or what case may be presented by them or others? I fail to follow your logic. Please read what I said to the end... Of course I'll change my vote if something more convincing comes up, but as of now I cannot tell who is lying and who is telling the truth, so I chose this method of random voting. By being open about it I hopefully won't get dubious looks.
Brickdoctor Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Please read what I said to the end... Of course I'll change my vote if something more convincing comes up, but as of now I cannot tell who is lying and who is telling the truth, so I chose this method of random voting. By being open about it I hopefully won't get dubious looks. Something - instinct, shall we say - tells me that stating a willingness to change a vote if something more concrete comes up isn't exactly new and isn't really strong justification for what you yourself are admitting is a random vote. It's more of an excuse for what I honestly think is voting like a sheep. (and I'm not saying I've decided you are one, because something -instinct - tells me you aren't one to normally act like that) I thought we had already decided against a random vote.
Hinckley Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Please read what I said to the end... Of course I'll change my vote if something more convincing comes up, but as of now I cannot tell who is lying and who is telling the truth, so I chose this method of random voting. By being open about it I hopefully won't get dubious looks. OK then.
Sandy Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Something - instinct, shall we say - tells me that stating a willingness to change a vote if something more concrete comes up isn't exactly new and isn't really strong justification for what you yourself are admitting is a random vote. It's more of an excuse for what I honestly think is voting like a sheep. (and I'm not saying I've decided you are one, because something -instinct - tells me you aren't one to normally act like that) I thought we had already decided against a random vote. But I am voting randomly. I can't just pull a name out of the hat without looking suspicious, can I? If that makes me a sheep, then so be it. But I remind you, this is my strategy for this first day alone. I hope we will be more knowledged come tomorrow (if tomorrow comes for me).
Brickdoctor Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 But I am voting randomly. I can't just pull a name out of the hat without looking suspicious, can I? If that makes me a sheep, then so be it. But I remind you, this is my strategy for this first day alone. I hope we will be more knowledged come tomorrow (if tomorrow comes for me). Why vote randomly? Just because you don't know who's lying? You must have some sort of opinion. Even voting for someone because of the way they're roleplaying acting is better than a random vote.
Hinckley Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 But I am voting randomly. I can't just pull a name out of the hat without looking suspicious, can I? If that makes me a sheep, then so be it. But I remind you, this is my strategy for this first day alone. I hope we will be more knowledged come tomorrow (if tomorrow comes for me). Dangerous though. It could cause a bandwagon for no reason. Seeing two votes in place may encourage others to vote for that person just because. It's certainly dangerous considering that the most votes gets a lynch. One of us could be lynched by your actions with just two votes.
Tamamono Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Well, it appears that voting has finally started. Since almost everyone else is planning on voting today, I suppose there's no point of me abstaining, but I'm not ready to cast a vote quite yet. Alright, the time has come to be decisive, people. I've followed the heated debates today and it is obvious that this situation makes all of us tense. Nobody would want to be sacrificed, but ultimately one of us has to be or we will never catch the cultists. Since there is no way of knowing anyone's alignment for me today, I will personally vote the first person who gets a vote against them. I guess this is the fairest method for me, since I cannot say who will get that vote. However, if that first vote is against me for some reason, I naturally cannot vote myself. I hope you understand. And of course if something more concrete comes up, I won't hesitate to change my vote. Wait, what? What kind of logic is that? So even if someone casts a vote against who isn't suspicious at all, you'll still vote for them? That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Of course there's no way of actually knowing someone's alignment at this stage in the situation, but we can at least try to analyze behavioral patterns and make an educated guess after that. Please read what I said to the end... Of course I'll change my vote if something more convincing comes up, but as of now I cannot tell who is lying and who is telling the truth, so I chose this method of random voting. By being open about it I hopefully won't get dubious looks. Like Mustafa said, the promise of being open to different vote possibilities doesn't change much. If you want to vote, then you should vote for who you think is suspicious, not just follow the crowd (or, as the case may be, one person). But I am voting randomly. I can't just pull a name out of the hat without looking suspicious, can I? If that makes me a sheep, then so be it. But I remind you, this is my strategy for this first day alone. I hope we will be more knowledged come tomorrow (if tomorrow comes for me). The only reason to vote randomly is to avoid actually having to think. If we want to escape thinking for ourselves, then we just shouldn't vote at all.
fhomess Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Alright, the time has come to be decisive, people. I've followed the heated debates today and it is obvious that this situation makes all of us tense. Nobody would want to be sacrificed, but ultimately one of us has to be or we will never catch the cultists. Since there is no way of knowing anyone's alignment for me today, I will personally vote the first person who gets a vote against them. I guess this is the fairest method for me, since I cannot say who will get that vote. However, if that first vote is against me for some reason, I naturally cannot vote myself. I hope you understand. And of course if something more concrete comes up, I won't hesitate to change my vote. Ok, then. I Vote: Toulouse LePlot (WhiteFang)
Hinckley Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Ok, then. I Vote: Toulouse LePlot (WhiteFang) Why????????
Tamamono Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Ok, then. I Vote: Toulouse LePlot (WhiteFang) Wait, what!? Now you're following Jennifer's lead?
Recommended Posts