Dannylonglegs Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 *Snip* Oh no!!!!! An evil phallus??? Whatever will we do? Waaah!3 Was I too bombastic? I'll clarify in layman's terms. Everyone knows1 that scum behave sheepishly to avoid suspicion. So, it would be easy for a scum who does not behave sheepishly to take advantage of this common knowledge2 by pointing out scummy3 behavior to lynch a Townie. 1: thinks 2: widespread erroneous conclusion 3: sheepy Thanks for teaching me that function , is there a reason for the 3?
Hinckley Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Was I too bombastic? I'll clarify in layman's terms. Everyone knows1 that scum behave sheepishly to avoid suspicion. So, it would be easy for a scum who does not behave sheepishly to take advantage of this common knowledge2 by pointing out scummy3 behavior to lynch a Townie. 1: thinks 2: widespread erroneous conclusion 3: sheepy Thanks for teaching me that function , is there a reason for the 3? There are evil sheep too??? Throw the furniture! Quick, everyone! Grab some furniture and just wing it at something!!!! Waaah!3
Scubacarrot Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Yes I am, because, he's a sheep. (No offence.) He is very easily pointed out as a sheep. It would be very easy to get him lynched for sheepy behavior, and Townie or not, no one would really care because "He was mucking-up our scumdars." Your logic fails. Was I trying to get him lynched? I don't think so. And look at you, mr. I-know-players-by-playing-a-quarter-of-a-game. Now, I would like to say something edgey like: Thanks for wasting my time, but I think at this point even half-logic like this is better than no discussion at all. Back to something useful: I know it's far fetched and can without a shadow of a doubt be described by what squeemish people call Metagaming, but hear me out. This case is obviously different than the virtual reality training, but there are some paralells to point out, I'm sure. What I propose is that we spill whatever useful info we had in the training session, and see if we can deduce something helpful. I'm partly interested to hear about the number of scum and things like that. I can say I was the town blocker in the virtual reality training.
Inconspicuous Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 G'mornin' everyone. Looks like we have a situation on our hands! Keep calm and carry on. [serious] Why are you PMing me so early in the game? Seems like you're trying to buddy up [metagame] as you were advised to do by an expert last time you got in my trusted circle [/metagame] It's very odd that I would receive a "Yay, we're playing a game together!" message from you before Day One even starts when you have no reason to trust anybody yet. If we had to vote right now, I would vote for you. [/serious] My understanding is that some people like to have private conversations for the heck of it. In the dream I had last night, I was also surprised by the number of chats going on without a reason to trust each other.
Hinckley Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 without a shadow of a doubt So, you think Shadows is Scum too, huh? And this bomb story is just a ruse to keep people from killing him. That's probably right. I agree. Let's lynch Shadows. My understanding is that some people like to have private conversations for the heck of it. In the dream I had last night, I was also surprised by the number of chats going on without a reason to trust each other. Maybe. I will note that you are conspicuously () coming to a soft defense of ... whoever Tammo is playing ... So, teacher, can I only use my Night Action at night? I'm defiantly confused about this.
Dannylonglegs Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Your logic fails. Was I trying to get him lynched? I don't think so. And look at you, mr. I-know-players-by-playing-a-quarter-of-a-game. Now, I would like to say something edgey like: Thanks for wasting my time, but I think at this point even half-logic like this is better than no discussion at all. I don't think my logic fails, and I think I'd prefer the name mr. I-know-players-by-getting-them-killed-by-the-pro-town-killer-night-one-by-doing-exactly-what-you-just-did. (At least I think it was the pro-town killer. It wasn't the Purists) You're very welcome. Back to something useful: I know it's far fetched and can without a shadow of a doubt be described by what squeemish people call Metagaming, but hear me out. This case is obviously different than the virtual reality training, but there are some paralells to point out, I'm sure. What I propose is that we spill whatever useful info we had in the training session, and see if we can deduce something helpful. I'm partly interested to hear about the number of scum and things like that. I can say I was the town blocker in the virtual reality training. You'll get a title like mine playing that game! That's metagaming, and it's against the law! Where's that hansome security guard Pewter? (and I'm sorry about my squeemishness, but I can't hold down my lunch when I see dead bodies, weiners, or team-outings!) There is very little use that can come from such information, and the little that could would not be fair use anyways. I strongly disagree with your decision to ask for such information, and even if you're not scum, it would most likely benefit the scum more than the Townies.
Hinckley Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Back to something useful: I know it's far fetched and can without a shadow of a doubt be described by what squeemish people call Metagaming, but hear me out. This case is obviously different than the virtual reality training, but there are some paralells to point out, I'm sure. What I propose is that we spill whatever useful info we had in the training session, and see if we can deduce something helpful. I'm partly interested to hear about the number of scum and things like that. I can say I was the town blocker in the virtual reality training. I agree with Timothy Mandel. This would benefit the Scum more than the Town to know what power roles they're up against. I wonder if a former Scummy would come out and tell us all the powers the Scum had though. That would benefit us more. However, although the Admiral has stated that he planned to keep the mechanics the same, he may be a little tricksy and actually changed them up. So, we can't really rely on what other people tell us they did in the virtual reality training course you all took. I tested out . The Scum could easily say "I was the head mason!" Then another Scummy sends you a private message and says "Hey, I'm the head mason and I'd like to convert you into the monkhood. Oh poop and pee, I was blocked. We'll try again tomorrow. Let's work together in the mean time though, tell me everything you know." Let's not attempt this.
Scubacarrot Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 So, you think Shadows is Scum too, huh? And this bomb story is just a ruse to keep people from killing him. That's probably right. I agree. Let's lynch Shadows. Well, I don't know about that, but I sure do know he is EXPLODIN'! Mwahaha, I'm so funny... I'll be honest, I'm not sure what that means. I don't think my logic fails, and I think I'd prefer the name mr. I-know-players-by-getting-them-killed-by-the-pro-town-killer-night-one-by-doing-exactly-what-you-just-did. (At least I think it was the pro-town killer. It wasn't the Purists) You're very welcome. You'll get a title like mine playing that game! That's metagaming, and it's against the law! Where's that hansome security guard Pewter? (and I'm sorry about my squeemishness, but I can't hold down my lunch when I see dead bodies, weiners, or team-outings!) There is very little use that can come from such information, and the little that could would not be fair use anyways. I strongly disagree with your decision to ask for such information, and even if you're not scum, it would most likely benefit the scum more than the Townies. Your logic relied on me trying to get him killed, which was false. Ergo, your logic fails. And I very disagree with your last statement, I feel to see how information about the previous scum team, with things like roles and numbers, helps scum in this game. And let me ask a genuine question here: Why do you feel worried about "fair use". I can tell you right now, the scum are going to kill based on metagaming tonight, just saying. I agree with Timothy Mandel. This would benefit the Scum more than the Town to know what power roles they're up against. I wonder if a former Scummy would come out and tell us all the powers the Scum had though. That would benefit us more. However, although the Admiral has stated that he planned to keep the mechanics the same, he may be a little tricksy and actually changed them up. So, we can't really rely on what other people tell us they did in the virtual reality training course you all took. I tested out . The Scum could easily say "I was the head mason!" Then another Scummy sends you a private message and says "Hey, I'm the head mason and I'd like to convert you into the monkhood. Oh poop and pee, I was blocked. We'll try again tomorrow. Let's work together in the mean time though, tell me everything you know." Let's not attempt this. I was obviously talking more about the info about the previous scum game (numbers?! Our numbers haven't changed, logic suggests their haven't either?) And yes, I do hope and believe the roles have changed up, Admiral mentioned something like that, I think. If you would fall for a claim like that, it sounds like a personal problem, to be honest.
fhomess Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 I don't think my logic fails, and I think I'd prefer the name mr. I-know-players-by-getting-them-killed-by-the-pro-town-killer-night-one-by-doing-exactly-what-you-just-did. (At least I think it was the pro-town killer. It wasn't the Purists) You're very welcome. So what you're suggesting instead of Commander Gordon putting a little pressure on someone who's not adding anything to the conversation is that we instead all continue to play nicely and throw furniture at the doors and walls? Perhaps we can throw them at Ensign Falcon instead. He needs a ride in the Waaahmbulance. I understand your point, that small hints like that are ways to try to convince any pro-loyalist killer to target someone, but if that's the case, at what point is it ok to actually start accusing someone of being scummy? We don't have much to go on this early. If we're going to start rooting out the evil among us, we need to put some pressure on people and see how they respond. We can't go around thinking that every accuser is scum because only scum would want to plant bad thoughts about others in the mind of townies. Commander Gordon isn't yet acting any differently than I would expect him to.
Hinckley Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 If you would fall for a claim like that, it sounds like a personal problem, to be honest. Why are you such a dick?
Dannylonglegs Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Your logic relied on me trying to get him killed, which was false. Ergo, your logic fails. Maybe, but your statement was non-commital in that you were merely "noting" it. Merely noting it is a great way to start something (a Lynch) and not take any credit for it once it results in the death of a Townie. And I very disagree with your last statement, I feel to see how information about the previous scum team, with things like roles and numbers, helps scum in this game. And let me ask a genuine question here: Why do you feel worried about "fair use". I can tell you right now, the scum are going to kill based on metagaming tonight, just saying. We did last game too, just saying. I have it on good account that such a move is highly beneficial in advancing their cause. And, no, metagaming is not useful in this situation, because the number of scum may have changed, the number or presence of other factions may have changed, the quantity, effect, and name of any PRs may have changed. And it may not have. Such information, as Falcon pointed out, is easily manipulated to benefit the scum, so calling for such action would certainly aid them more than us. Also, it serves to distract the Town from looking for scum. (I meant to say it last post, but, I had narrowed the blocker down to either you or Darkdragon. I'm glad to hear I was right.)
Hinckley Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 So what you're suggesting instead of Commander Gordon putting a little pressure on someone who's not adding anything to the conversation is that we instead all continue to play nicely and throw furniture at the doors and walls? Perhaps we can throw them at Ensign Falcon instead. He needs a ride in the Waaahmbulance. Finally, someone to throw furniture with. I understand your point, that small hints like that are ways to try to convince any pro-loyalist killer to target someone, but if that's the case, at what point is it ok to actually start accusing someone of being scummy? We don't have much to go on this early. If we're going to start rooting out the evil among us, we need to put some pressure on people and see how they respond. We can't go around thinking that every accuser is scum because only scum would want to plant bad thoughts about others in the mind of townies. Commander Gordon isn't yet acting any differently than I would expect him to. I agree. In my experience, the bickering noobs are rarely Scum. The Scum is happy that they've decided to bicker giving them the opportunity to glide under the radar on Day One. But, the two who seem to be accusing each other (and I hardly understand their accusations as they seem to be flimsy ego trips) are probably both working for the Town. Let's take a look at someone who needs rooting out, like Science Officer Lieutenant Michael McAndrews. Perhaps he'd like to explain why he felt he should start private communication even though it was not even Day One yet. Why did he feel it was already time to trust someone or did he want me to start trusting him from the beginning?
Scubacarrot Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Why are you such a dick? Because I am higher in the chain of command than you. Am a jerk.
Dannylonglegs Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 So what you're suggesting instead of Commander Gordon putting a little pressure on someone who's not adding anything to the conversation is that we instead all continue to play nicely and throw furniture at the doors and walls? Perhaps we can throw them at Ensign Falcon instead. He needs a ride in the Waaahmbulance. Oh, most certainly not. You are mistaken. I'm suggesting that because Commander Gordon was pointing out a very easy target, he was trying to initiate some popular suspion towards him, which would lead to a bandwagon, which would lead to a dead Townie and a wasted day lynch. I understand your point, that small hints like that are ways to try to convince any pro-loyalist killer to target someone, but if that's the case, at what point is it ok to actually start accusing someone of being scummy? We don't have much to go on this early. If we're going to start rooting out the evil among us, we need to put some pressure on people and see how they respond. We can't go around thinking that every accuser is scum because only scum would want to plant bad thoughts about others in the mind of townies. Commander Gordon isn't yet acting any differently than I would expect him to. Wrong again, I was referencing to day one of the simulation during which me and my scum buddies split the vote between two very sheepy and confusing townies, and the second who did not get Lynched (who bore a striking resemblance to Francis) got killed that night by a misslead Townie. I don't think that this is Gordons intent. I concur that pressure is necessary, but this strikes me as pressure intentionally misplaced. I don't think that this is Gordons intent. Sorry, that's worded poorly, I mean, I don't think hinting the Vig to target Francis was his intent.
Hinckley Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Because I am higher in the chain of command than you. Am a jerk. Oh ... that's ... ... cool. I guess... Jerks are so much fun to play with. Sorry, that's worded poorly, I mean, I don't think hinting the Vig to target Francis was his intent. Can you word your accusation in one sentence, just for a summary? And use character name and screen name? I am still confused about the names. Who did who try to direct suspicion towards for doing something the same as they did to someone during the simulation? What?
KotZ Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 If I may add, I'm worried that us focusing on the simulation may pose a problem. If we're all focused on that, we're taking attention away from our daily investigations we have to conduct. The sim was just that, a sim. I don't think any of us can really relate a video game to our current life and situation. An online forum, maybe, but a simulation, no. The thin is, we need to focus on what has been said today, and in the private conversation that was mentioned earlier. Does a private communication before we even finish resting from the simulation mean that said person is a purist? Not necessarily, but it is something to look into. Can we please be enlightened more on this matter?
Dannylonglegs Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Can you word your accusation in one sentence, just for a summary? And use character name and screen name? I am still confused about the names. Who did who try to direct suspicion towards for doing something the same as they did to someone during the simulation? What? OK. I am suspicious of Second Officer Lieutenant Commander Andrew Gordon (Scubacarrot) for "noting" Lieutenant Richard Francis, chief astrobiology officer (AwesomeStar)'s sheepy behavior, because during the simulation, (Awesomestar) then Lieutenant Joshua Wright, med-bay nurse, was behaving very sheepishly and confusingly, so the scum (myself included, then Brian Pewter) split the vote between (Awesomestar) then Lieutenant Joshua Wright, med-bay nurse, and (KingoftheZempk), then Ensign Peter Robbins, janitorial staff. During Night one, the Vigillante killed (Awesomestar) then Lieutenant Joshua Wright, med-bay nurse because of the suspicion we raised against him and his behavior under pressure. I suggest that Lieutenant Richard Francis, chief astrobiology officer (AwesomeStar) would make a good target for a day lynch by the scum who are looking to find someone who will crack under pressure and confuse the town.
Hinckley Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 If I may add, I'm worried that us focusing on the simulation may pose a problem. If we're all focused on that, we're taking attention away from our daily investigations we have to conduct. The sim was just that, a sim. I don't think any of us can really relate a video game to our current life and situation. An online forum, maybe, but a simulation, no. The thin is, we need to focus on what has been said today, and in the private conversation that was mentioned earlier. Does a private communication before we even finish resting from the simulation mean that said person is a purist? Not necessarily, but it is something to look into. Can we please be enlightened more on this matter? Is there anything more I can tell you about it? Or are we waiting for Michael McAndrews (Tammo) to answer? OK. I am suspicious of Second Officer Lieutenant Commander Andrew Gordon (Scubacarrot) for "noting" Lieutenant Richard Francis, chief astrobiology officer (AwesomeStar)'s sheepy behavior, because during the simulation, (Awesomestar) then Lieutenant Joshua Wright, med-bay nurse, was behaving very sheepishly and confusingly, so the scum (myself included, then Brian Pewter) split the vote between (Awesomestar) then Lieutenant Joshua Wright, med-bay nurse, and (KingoftheZempk), then Ensign Peter Robbins, janitorial staff. During Night one, the Vigillante killed (Awesomestar) then Lieutenant Joshua Wright, med-bay nurse because of the suspicion we raised against him and his behavior under pressure. I suggest that Lieutenant Richard Francis, chief astrobiology officer (AwesomeStar) would make a good target for a day lynch by the scum who are looking to find someone who will crack under pressure and confuse the town. Aha. Thank you.
KotZ Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Is there anything more I can tell you about it? Or are we waiting for Michael McAndrews (Tammo) to answer? I think your side is covered. McAndrews has some explaining to do.
CMP Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 We need to do something about those mutant roses that grow out of all the corpses on this ship. I just poured a little gasoline on it in the simulation, clears up right away. I am suspicious of Second Officer Lieutenant Commander Andrew Gordon (Scubacarrot) for "noting" Lieutenant Richard Francis, chief astrobiology officer (AwesomeStar)'s sheepy behavior, because during the simulation, (Awesomestar) then Lieutenant Joshua Wright, med-bay nurse, was behaving very sheepishly and confusingly, so the scum (myself included, then Brian Pewter) split the vote between (Awesomestar) then Lieutenant Joshua Wright, med-bay nurse, and (KingoftheZempk), then Ensign Peter Robbins, janitorial staff. During Night one, the Vigillante killed (Awesomestar) then Lieutenant Joshua Wright, med-bay nurse because of the suspicion we raised against him and his behavior under pressure. I suggest that Lieutenant Richard Francis, chief astrobiology officer (AwesomeStar) would make a good target for a day lynch by the scum who are looking to find someone who will crack under pressure and confuse the town. Hey, I am not sheepish, even if I am an awesome star. A fair suspicion, on any case, especially because it was McAndrews who first said 'cut out the crap', and, well, I would've said the same, screwing around all day doesn't help much. It's not exactly mimicing someone, you're just voicing the same opinion as some other people, which is a big part of twisted simulations like this; namely. See, I'm agreeing with you right now, Mandel, but it doesn't mean I'm mimicing you. A fair suspicion, in any case, especially because it was McAndrews who first said 'cut out the crap', and, well, I would've said the same, screwing around all day doesn't help much. It's not exactly mimicking someone, you're just voicing the same opinion as some other people, which is a big part of twisted simulations like this; namely. See, I'm agreeing with you right now, Mandel, but it doesn't mean I'm mimicking you. This is what I get for chatting without my morning coffee.
Scubacarrot Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 For the record, the one they call "Tammo", McAndrews, had contacted me before this thing started as well. I did not see a particular useful thing about that, but I don't think there is a particular harm to it either. This is what I get for chatting without my morning coffee. Aha, my terrible spelling is wearing off on you, my work here is done!
Tamamono Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 [serious] Why are you PMing me so early in the game? Seems like you're trying to buddy up [metagame] as you were advised to do by an expert last time you got in my trusted circle [/metagame] It's very odd that I would receive a "Yay, we're playing a game together!" message from you before Day One even starts when you have no reason to trust anybody yet. If we had to vote right now, I would vote for you. [/serious] Let me answer your question with a question, Ensign. Why shouldn't I PM early in the game? Really, I'd like to know. If I PM too much, will be ears fall off? In my opinion, the only reason I wouldn't want to PM would be if I had something to hide. I've got nothing to hide, so I see no risk in PMing. How about you, Ensign? Have you got something to hide? The benefits of PMing greatly outnumber the 'risks' (if there are any). PMing people allows me to see what their opinions are, see who they suspect, gauge their reactions when I give my opinions, etc. Very often scum are more likely to bus their partners in-thread than in PM, so I find it very useful to keep track of people's scumreads/townreads. Trust has nothing to do with PMing in my opinion - As for the particular PM I sent you, I genuinely am happy to be playing with you again, as you're one of my favorite players. And don't think you're the only one who's received a PM like that either - many of the players I'm used to playing with have also received similar messages from me, as I plan to keep in touch with them as well. So, in short, I PM liberally because it's my primary scumhunting tool. I hope that answers your question. Let's take a look at someone who needs rooting out, like Science Officer Lieutenant Michael McAndrews. Perhaps he'd like to explain why he felt he should start private communication even though it was not even Day One yet. Why did he feel it was already time to trust someone or did he want me to start trusting him from the beginning? Once again, it has nothing to do with trust, Ensign. If I only PM'd the people I trusted, I'd never send a single PM in the entire game.
Hinckley Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Let me answer your question with a question, Ensign. Why shouldn't I PM early in the game? Really, I'd like to know. If I PM too much, will be ears fall off? In my opinion, the only reason I wouldn't want to PM would be if I had something to hide. I've got nothing to hide, so I see no risk in PMing. How about you, Ensign? Have you got something to hide? The benefits of PMing greatly outnumber the 'risks' (if there are any). PMing people allows me to see what their opinions are, see who they suspect, gauge their reactions when I give my opinions, etc. Very often scum are more likely to bus their partners in-thread than in PM, so I find it very useful to keep track of people's scumreads/townreads. Trust has nothing to do with PMing in my opinion - As for the particular PM I sent you, I genuinely am happy to be playing with you again, as you're one of my favorite players. And don't think you're the only one who's received a PM like that either - many of the players I'm used to playing with have also received similar messages from me, as I plan to keep in touch with them as well. So, in short, I PM liberally because it's my primary scumhunting tool. I hope that answers your question. Once again, it has nothing to do with trust, Ensign. If I only PM'd the people I trusted, I'd never send a single PM in the entire game. OK.
KotZ Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Alright, I understand your logic McAndrews. But Players? I thought this was real life.
Recommended Posts