CMP Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I'm drawing this from the simulation, despite previous jokes about clues in the pictures. I could be proven wrong in the coming days, I suppose. It's possible that Pewter's scum, perhaps likely giving past behavior. Can't help but think Cammpell's has been scummier, though - especially the stunted defense he made only a short while ago. Ultimately, it seems to me the choice is between the scummier person, and the person we'll get results out of if he is scum. I'm not entirely sure on either, but I'm leaning towards Campell for now. Could change, depending on what he and/or Pewter says between now and voting time.
Tamamono Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Quite well, how about you? Well, I didn't suspect that you were faking cop, but incase you were worried, I kept it close to my chest, because I have no reason to out the cop, fake or otherwise. If I were scum, you are right, I would've told the rest of the Scum that you were the cop, and would've tried to get you killed. Seeing as you are alive, you can tell that I'm not scum. Also, for those who are curious, I suggested that he investigated Tamamono, and he said: What a coincidence, I told him to investigate you! We should be friends. Nuh-uhh. I'm sure we all know that Ensign Hinckles is one of the biggest targets for metagaming in the situation - nobody would try to kill him on the first night. I'd bet my boots the protector was on him. No, I think it's more likely that he would have been blocked - or even better - misdirected, since being blocked would have raised an eyebrow or two with him. So, that having been said, anyone the three of us suggested to be investigated is not likely to be one of our partners (save for godfather) if we're scum. This'll give us some good reads if you/Cammy flip scum at some point. As for the Scum kill, I think they may have been trying to frame me by killing Peanuts, to cover Palathadric. I am still very suspicious of him, and feel that he is Scum. No facts to back that up, just a gut feling and his gameplay behaviour. Let me tell you from experience, Ensign, that gut feelings rarely turn out well. Also, I feel that the vig kill was more likely Dannylonglegs than Peanuts, since he was under suspicion during the day, and a smart scum team (Not saying that they couldn't be dumb, but let's assume that they're smart! ) would've gone for someone who they thought cthat they couldn't get an easy lynch on. No, thinking about the MO, I'd say the vig would have the more consistent action. I've seen scum teams kill players through mixed means, and this seems to be one of those, so Danny was probably the scum kill. Like I said earlier, it was probably to frame Gordon. There. I've highlighted our two known town roles in green and the ones who voted for Mandel or split the vote (some very late in the day - eyes Tammo - ) in red. Call me an idealist, but I legitimately thought people would follow me - I guess I underestimated how obvious Donna was. In any case, maybe the bandwagon I'll be starting against her today will have more luck. I certainly hope so! Scum rarely lacks the knowledge of foresight to all vote for the same person. If palathdric is Scum, maybe one of them even voted for him, but the rest spread it out to avoid him being lynched? Lynching palathdric would be the best way to find out. Let's not waste this chance to learn from the voting record, let's lynch Ensign Pewter (palathdric) today! While I do agree that it will give us excellent reads if he's scum, I still stand firm in my belief that Pewter is town. No scum in their right mind would troll the game so hard. Honestly. However, if we have nothing/no one better, and Pewter claims vanilla, then I feel that it would be an alright thing to lynch him just because the potential benefits outnumber the potential risks. That is, once again, if he's vanilla. This post seems like you're very quick (desperate?) to clear yourself. You keep stating the obvious to back up your claim to be Town. Fact is, if you were Scum, there's no guarantee that you would have tried to kill Falcon, and it is not impossible that you could be Scum who tried to kill him and failed. Falcon could have been protected, killer could have been blocked, Falcon might be bulletproof... Just because the fact that Falcon is alive doesn't make you seem Scummy doesn't mean that it makes you any more Townie. Mhm. Exactly. Campbell would actually be a great lynch today.
fhomess Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Also the option, if there are three killers, one chose not to make a kill. Let's think about this one by one: 1. Scum killer - only reason not to use the kill would be to convert. 2. Vigilante - seems like a good choice to not make a kill given how little information seemed certain yesterday, but not all vig's are given a choice in whether or not to use their action. 3. Serial killer - I can't think of a reason for an SK not to use their kill I tend to lean towards only two killers given our numbers on the ship, but I realize that's not necessarily true. I don't think Mandel makes a lot of sense from a scum standpoint given his divisiveness yesterday. This is especially true if Campbell is scum, as Mandel was the one to be close in terms of voting. I also think he would've been too high profile for an SK, so I tend to think Mandel was the vig kill. Let's think about this one by one: 1. Scum killer - only reason not to use the kill would be to convert. 2. Vigilante - seems like a good choice to not make a kill given how little information seemed certain yesterday, but not all vig's are given a choice in whether or not to use their action. 3. Serial killer - I can't think of a reason for an SK not to use their kill I tend to lean towards only two killers given our numbers on the ship, but I realize that's not necessarily true. I don't think Mandel makes a lot of sense from a scum standpoint given his divisiveness yesterday. This is especially true if Campbell is scum, as Mandel was the one to be close in terms of voting. I also think he would've been too high profile for an SK, so I tend to think Mandel was the vig kill. Sorry, I meant to say Pewter rather than Campbell. The training session has me all mixed up!
Scouty Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Let's think about this one by one: 1. Scum killer - only reason not to use the kill would be to convert. 2. Vigilante - seems like a good choice to not make a kill given how little information seemed certain yesterday, but not all vig's are given a choice in whether or not to use their action. 3. Serial killer - I can't think of a reason for an SK not to use their kill Like I said, it's another option. Who knows what really happened except those who did it I tend to lean towards only two killers given our numbers on the ship, but I realize that's not necessarily true. I don't think Mandel makes a lot of sense from a scum standpoint given his divisiveness yesterday. This is especially true if Campbell is scum, as Mandel was the one to be close in terms of voting. I also think he would've been too high profile for an SK, so I tend to think Mandel was the vig kill.Sorry, I meant to say Pewter rather than Campbell. The training session has me all mixed up! With the situation we have here, I think that we are up against a classical set up...of life. I could be wrong, but there is no evidence of a second scum team, and so far, possibly, of a serial killer. In the simulation, there was [supposedly] a neutral role cop, so perhaps he replaced the serial killer. No way to know until we get three kills in the night. I agree with your deductions here, for the most part.
Shadows Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I don't know where all this 'two teams' talk started, but it's idiotic to assume something like that so soon. I agree with the idea that this is a much more classical situation involving a few bad apples and one nutcase serial killer. As for what we do today, I don't know yet, I want to review yesterday and see how things progress, but I do think it's important to remember that the whole "omg, he said he's scum in pm" thing turned out to be, for lack of a better word, overplayed. Once the conversation was shown, it was obviously a joke (a lame one, sure) and that makes me wonder why so much was made of it. If the vote hadn't been so split up, it could have gotten someone killed, and a joke is rarely a reason to lynch (though there are times...). The split vote is another point I'd like to look at today, it seems likely that at least one person in there is scum and the split was added insurance to protect them.
Dragonator Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 ...I'm alive? I mean, yes, good to see most of you here today. I'm the head of security, of course I'm alive. Pity about the ensigns, but we must go on. I think the notion that there are two scum teams is a little ludicrous, there is quite clearly a scum killer and a vigilante. Let's not try to complicate things where there is nothing to be complicated about. I almost find it suspicious that certain people keep bringing up this two scum theory on such flimsy "proof", as if they are trying to mislead us all. Vigilantes make mistakes, it's why I always say to stick to the letter of the law and let Security deal with breaches of the peace, rather than taking matters into your own hands. I wish our Admiral thought like that, but no matter. I am against a lynch for Ensign Pewter until a real reason is given. As I see it, the entire case against him is based on an intentional misinterpretation of a joking PM. Which is a rather odd way to cast a vote in my view.
Dakar A Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 This post seems like you're very quick (desperate?) to clear yourself. You keep stating the obvious to back up your claim to be Town. Fact is, if you were Scum, there's no guarantee that you would have tried to kill Falcon, and it is not impossible that you could be Scum who tried to kill him and failed. Falcon could have been protected, killer could have been blocked, Falcon might be bulletproof... Just because the fact that Falcon is alive doesn't make you seem Scummy doesn't mean that it makes you any more Townie. Well, I'm only quick on the defensivve because everyone else was so quick on the offensive against me. I was talking about being scum from a purely hypothetical standpoint, but yes, there are many ways that Falcon could have avoided a kill. I was just using the fact that he's alive (WHich would have had a much lower chance of happening, if I were scum) as part of my defense, since I have been put on the defensive.
Hinckley Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Also the option, if there are three killers, one chose not to make a kill. You mean both Pewter and Campbell? Sorta confused on exactly what you mean here. I mean, maybe a watcher, investigator, something or other targeted palathdric. I'm drawing this from the simulation, despite previous jokes about clues in the pictures. I could be proven wrong in the coming days, I suppose. Maybe we shouldn't rely heavily on the simulation. It's possible that Pewter's scum, perhaps likely giving past behavior. Can't help but think Cammpell's has been scummier, though - especially the stunted defense he made only a short while ago. Ultimately, it seems to me the choice is between the scummier person, and the person we'll get results out of if he is scum. I'm not entirely sure on either, but I'm leaning towards Campell for now. Could change, depending on what he and/or Pewter says between now and voting time. God damn, can we use both names until we're all sure of who we're talking about. I'm so freaking lost. I'm tired of keeping two windows open to play matchy-matchy with the names. OK, Campbell is Dakar and Pewter is palathdric. OK, you think we should lynch palathdric. See, kids, how trolling the game doesn't help anything? Considering we couldn't get a lynch yesterday, I'm interested to see if the people who wouldn't vote for him or spread votes further just wouldn't because they couldn't give up one of their own Scum-mates on Day one. It should have been easy to get rid of the guy who was being a jackass and, supposedly, joking about being Scum and killing people. If we don't get rid of him, we'll always wonder. Focus, people. Let me tell you from experience, Ensign, that gut feelings rarely turn out well. And people who site their gut as a reason for doing things should be heavily scrutinized. No, thinking about the MO, I'd say the vig would have the more consistent action. I've seen scum teams kill players through mixed means, and this seems to be one of those, so Danny was probably the scum kill. Like I said earlier, it was probably to frame Gordon. That was a waste. We'd never assume that dick would be stupid enough to make such an obvious kill. While I do agree that it will give us excellent reads if he's scum, I still stand firm in my belief that Pewter is town. No scum in their right mind would troll the game so hard. Honestly. WIFOM. However, if we have nothing/no one better, and Pewter claims vanilla, then I feel that it would be an alright thing to lynch him just because the potential benefits outnumber the potential risks. That is, once again, if he's vanilla.So, all he has to do is claim a role and he's off the hook? Then, he should probably claim a role when he shows up, huh?
Brickdoctor Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Well, I'm only quick on the defensivve because everyone else was so quick on the offensive against me. I was talking about being scum from a purely hypothetical standpoint, but yes, there are many ways that Falcon could have avoided a kill. I was just using the fact that he's alive (WHich would have had a much lower chance of happening, if I were scum) as part of my defense, since I have been put on the defensive. "everyone else"? One person had stated suspicion of you Today before you made the statement. No one was "quick on the offensive". Someone noticed that your accuser from Yesterday was killed, and pointed that out. That's no reason for you to be quick to defend yourself, as you yourself admit, by stating the obvious.Why do you defend yourself by saying that you were "talking about being scum from a purely hypothetical standpoint"? That's kind of an obvious assumption for us to make. If you weren't, you'd be admitting that you were Scum.
Hinckley Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I don't know where all this 'two teams' talk started, but it's idiotic to assume something like that so soon. I agree with the idea that this is a much more classical situation involving a few bad apples and one nutcase serial killer. As for what we do today, I don't know yet, I want to review yesterday and see how things progress, but I do think it's important to remember that the whole "omg, he said he's scum in pm" thing turned out to be, for lack of a better word, overplayed. Once the conversation was shown, it was obviously a joke (a lame one, sure) and that makes me wonder why so much was made of it. If the vote hadn't been so split up, it could have gotten someone killed, and a joke is rarely a reason to lynch (though there are times...). The split vote is another point I'd like to look at today, it seems likely that at least one person in there is scum and the split was added insurance to protect them. But for that split to mean anything, we'd have to know if palathdric was Scum or not. If it was split to save someone, it was palathdric who would've benefitted. ...I'm alive? Now I know you are Scum. I think the notion that there are two scum teams is a little ludicrous, there is quite clearly a scum killer and a vigilante. Let's not try to complicate things where there is nothing to be complicated about. I almost find it suspicious that certain people keep bringing up this two scum theory on such flimsy "proof", as if they are trying to mislead us all. Vigilantes make mistakes, it's why I always say to stick to the letter of the law and let Security deal with breaches of the peace, rather than taking matters into your own hands. I wish our Admiral thought like that, but no matter. We can easily trace it back to me saying something like "What strange choices for targets. Are there two Scum teams? I was simply demonstrating that I wouldn't think Town would kill either one of those people. Any mention of 2 teams since has been panic and an odd fixation on it like it was ever brought up legitimately. I am against a lynch for Ensign Pewter until a real reason is given. As I see it, the entire case against him is based on an intentional misinterpretation of a joking PM. Which is a rather odd way to cast a vote in my view. WIFOM. Not to mention, we have the split vote from yesterday. Plus, in addition to the private conversations with Toby Rockford(darkdragon) he also sent a weird "threatening" PM to someone accusing them of being Scum because of their hair. It's just weird behavior for Day One, and while it may be considered "obviously joking" do we really need it around? Isn't there enough hinging on his loyalty for us to want to be sure? Is he providing some service to the Town that it's worth sparing him for? I think it would make a very good lynch as it could tell us a lot about yesterday's voting pattern.
swils Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Well, any claim he makes should be fairly easy to prove/disprove. Although, it would mean keeping him around for at least another night, plus any risks that entails should he have a hostile role.. At the same time, the initial case/reasoning against him wasn't really that strong. I'm only suspicious of him now because the vote got split before he could be lynched, though I would like to hear him out today before hopping on the early lynch express.
Dakar A Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 "everyone else"? One person had stated suspicion of you Today before you made the statement. No one was "quick on the offensive". Someone noticed that your accuser from Yesterday was killed, and pointed that out. That's no reason for you to be quick to defend yourself, as you yourself admit, by stating the obvious. Why do you defend yourself by saying that you were "talking about being scum from a purely hypothetical standpoint"? That's kind of an obvious assumption for us to make. If you weren't, you'd be admitting that you were Scum. This(To a degree): Shithole. Mandel and his stupid voting. The raygun, I'm assuming, belongs to the vigliante like in the simulation. Other than a painfully obvious attempt to make his accusers seem like bad guys, I can't think of a much better reason to kill Campbell. Maybe they're just messing with our heads. This (Also to a degree, but I'm sure it seems harsher to me than you): I have him down in my notes for "dividing the votes further at the end of the day." Maybe that has something to do with it. Although, the vote was for Ensign Jack Campbell, who is the person I found the most suspicious. Perhaps the Scum wanted to silence Peanuts for something he was right about: I agreed with this, but didn't change my vote since I was planning a sting. I agree with the dearly departed Peanuts and would be happy to vote for Ensign Jack Campbell (Dakar A) when the time comes. No worries. I'm glad you're not upset. I wanted to make sure it came out immediately as I knew the real investigator could pop up at any time. Also, if I tried to keep the ruse going it could backfire on me, if the Scum have a role cop, and they would turn the focus to my lie if they somehow found out. I had to come out and admit it first. It would've gotten harder and harder to get away with the ruse. There's absolutely no reason for the Scum to go after me now. And our protector can focus on better targets as well. What if Scouty or Tammo was a protector and wasted their Action on me? And then we lost the real investigator. Besides, I learned a lot about the two of you and feel my suspicions against Dakar A were well founded, so it wasn't a complete loss. I do wish the two of you were anonymous in the play, but I wrote it very fast... It's just as valuable to keep the people I trust anonymous as it is those with Night Actions. Anyway, I wrote the play as a possible post for someone to put up if I had died. When the day went up, I hastily posted it without thinking of removing the names. So, hi there Ensign Jack Campbell. How's it going? Annnnndddddddd, this: I agree. We cannot assume who is who in the pictures, so we cannot say who the killer was on just that basis. With that said, it sounds more logical that it was the vig that killed Mandel, because I can't see the scum or even a sk killing him. I hope the vig doesn't keep randomly killing people and end up hurting town more than helping it . I agree with Falcon that Robbin's, someone who did not raise any suspicions, killing is suspicious and may be be connected with his voting of Ensign Campbell. Maybe Campbell is really a townie and the Purists have made a devilish plan to throw us off, or maybe Campbell is Purist and we should really lynch him today. I'm leaning towards the later, though, I wouldn't be %100 certain he is scum. This talk of a second scum team is as useful as a no lynch is. I'm not gonna concern myself with it unless we see somebody come up as neither Loyal, Purist, or neutral. While it may not be an entire Town's worth of accusations, it's quite a lot in the first few pages of discussion. I defend myself by saying that I was "talking about being scum from a purely hypothetical standpoint" because you were bringing up all of the different situations that may have caused Falcon to not be killed, that I hadn't though of, due to it being a simple defense.
Brickdoctor Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 This(To a degree): This (Also to a degree, but I'm sure it seems harsher to me than you): Annnnndddddddd, this: Fine, I'll count the first one, even if he didn't really say he suspected you. The third was made after you made the statement that I responded to.
CMP Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 This(To a degree): Whoa, whoa. You're messing with the quotes, you swapped Mandel's name out for yours.
Brickdoctor Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Whoa, whoa. You're messing with the quotes, you swapped Mandel's name out for yours. Oh, wow, I didn't even notice that. No wonder I didn't count that post the first time around.
Scouty Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Can't think of a good reason why a Loyalist would tamper with a quote like that . It doesn't even make sense to have his name in there.
CMP Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 It doesn't even make sense to have his name in there. He's using it to make it seem like I suspected him early on, which he's using to defend himself with.
Brickdoctor Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 It doesn't even make sense to have his name in there. I was thinking that it was some sort of mixed up comment about Robbin's having been killed being a good reason to lynch Campbell.
Scouty Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 He's using it to make it seem like I suspected him early on, which he's using to defend himself with. Well, yeah, I understand that part . I was thinking that it was some sort of mixed up comment about Robbin's having been killed being a good reason to lynch Campbell. Yeah, I suppose that's one way to look at it.
Hinckley Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I was thinking that it was some sort of mixed up comment about Robbin's having been killed being a good reason to lynch Campbell. No. He literally replaced his name in the quote. Why would someone do that? Ensign Campbell (Dakar A), You blatantly re-wrote the wording of what you quoted when we still have the original post to reference. The arrow in your quote leads back to Pie's original statement. I don't even understand what that would accomplish... Some reason to seem like an obvious lynch choice because palathdric is more valuable? Let's just start with that. Why did you change the quote, Campbell?
Brickdoctor Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 No. He literally replaced his name in the quote. Why would someone do that? Yeah, I know that. I was just saying that it made some sense, because that's what I thought when he first quoted it. I had remembered that that statement was made before his, so I didn't go back and check the exact wording.
Hinckley Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Shithole. Mandel and his stupid voting. The raygun, I'm assuming, belongs to the vigliante like in the simulation. Other than a painfully obvious attempt to make his accusers seem like bad guys, I can't think of a much better reason to kill Mandel. Maybe they're just messing with our heads. Shithole. Mandel and his stupid voting. The raygun, I'm assuming, belongs to the vigliante like in the simulation. Other than a painfully obvious attempt to make his accusers seem like bad guys, I can't think of a much better reason to kill Campbell. Maybe they're just messing with our heads. _______________________________ Yeah, I know that. OK, but it's really weird, right?
Brickdoctor Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 OK, but it's really weird, right? Of course. The only reasons I can think of for his doing it are if he and Pewter are both Scum, and Pewter has some more important, non-inheritable role or if he, for one reason or another, got really desperate and hoped we wouldn't notice. (he could be the Jester, but that doesn't exactly help us in our reasoning since it basically justifies any Scum-tell)
Scouty Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Of course. The only reasons I can think of for his doing it are if he and Pewter are both Scum, and Pewter has some more important, non-inheritable role or if he, for one reason or another, got really desperate and hoped we wouldn't notice. (he could be the Jester, but that doesn't exactly help us in our reasoning since it basically justifies any Scum-tell) If either of those are so, then I guess that would make Pewter (palathadric) a better lynchee, right? This is very bizarre. It also bothers me that Pewter hasn't spoken since before his accusation, so it makes it impossible to gauge a reaction from him.
Hinckley Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 The only reasons I can think of for his doing it are if he and Pewter are both Scum, and Pewter has some more important, non-inheritable role or if he, for one reason or another, got really desperate and hoped we wouldn't notice. (he could be the Jester, but that doesn't exactly help us in our reasoning since it basically justifies any Scum-tell) Those are the two things I thought of as well. Surely, Pie would know what he said. Palathdric must be the Godfather or something important. Do we get two lynches since we squandered yesterday? We'll have to kill one and hopefully block the other one.
Recommended Posts