...I can't believe you felt the need to repost that stupid plan. On the same page, no less.
You guys should be really fucking weary of the people attempting to grab power and off people willy-nilly within the first days. Certain baddies are trying to tip the scales to create distractions. I'm a fucking villager. Kill me if you want, but seriously, keep an eye on Werehippy and DUE.
He fails. On his way home he nearly trips over the body of Greeper. The dead man's face is blue and there is a clear red ring around his neck. Fuzzy screams for help, and although a small crowd forms quickly, the Shrine Officials take longer to arrive.
When they do arrive, the Officials make quick work of Greeper’s body and haul it back to the Shrine. They were delayed, they explain, because they found the body of mtvcdm, eyeless and with his guts splayed all over the ground, just behind the Shrine.
Raven kill.
I thought it was pretty obvious.
Indeed. I really should read those narrations instead of just looking at the bold red names :oops:
The snake and the raven are presumably two seperate evil factions, allied.
The owl is the seer, one would presume.
The smith is the guardian.
The monkey is a vigilante who is on our side.
From the sign up thread:
The trickster god is enamoured with humans and loves infuriating his fellow gods, especially the vile plans of the dark twins; he does not care if he rules but works to ensure that humans live.
The fox is a neutral player out for themselves (greedy god, shunned by others), no further details I can fathom.
The west wind can probably seer the dead, can possibly resurrect them, and is likely out for themselves as well:
The quiet god wants to rip the barrier between the living and the dead and flood the world with the souls of the departed so he can spread his influence to the living.
The rising sun I'm unsure of, but based on the night one narration is opposed to the west wind, and probably a good guy.
By my theory there are probably six bad guys and two neutrals out for themselves. Plus I want this post recorded to see how well I read LaOs' mind at the end.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Also, I agree with Aldo and werehippy pinged my sensors as well, so:
werehippy
I seriously second that. !werehippy He only interjects at opportune moments.
edit-I'm not jumping a bandwagon either, I stated my suspicions a few posts above bum.
Request for clarification: if there is a guardian and they used their power to prevent a kill, would the narration reflect that?
I enjoy Narrations that matter. My style is to have the Narrations reflect the actions of the day.
If something happens in the day with respect to Actions, the Narration will reflect that. Sometimes the reflection is subtle, sometimes it is not. Remember, there are two aspects to the Narrations in this game.
LaOs on
0
Options
Toxic ToysAre you really taking my advice?Really?Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
Damn. Now I really have read into the narration.
Toxic Toys on
3DS code: 2938-6074-2306, Nintendo Network ID: ToxicToys, PSN: zutto
Request for clarification: if there is a guardian and they used their power to prevent a kill, would the narration reflect that?
I enjoy Narrations that matter. My style is to have the Narrations reflect the actions of the day.
If something happens in the day with respect to Actions, the Narration will reflect that. Sometimes the reflection is subtle, sometimes it is not. Remember, there are two aspects to the Narrations in this game.
We don't have to read the boring parts, right? Just the bit where people die, etc?
Request for clarification: if there is a guardian and they used their power to prevent a kill, would the narration reflect that?
I enjoy Narrations that matter. My style is to have the Narrations reflect the actions of the day.
If something happens in the day with respect to Actions, the Narration will reflect that. Sometimes the reflection is subtle, sometimes it is not. Remember, there are two aspects to the Narrations in this game.
We don't have to read the boring parts, right? Just the bit where people die, etc?
You are free to read or not read whatever you choose.
We have seen some very interesting events around vote close: people trying to create a tie and people kicking off the next bandwagon without second thought right after. In a previous post I have connected these two events in a coherent argument against Werehippy. I don't see why we should kill FCC instead. What makes you think he is dangerous to the village?
Wait, when did this happen? I didn't even notice someone was building a case against me until I just saw two votes for myself.
I've been working the last couple days and I was busy last night, so I'd hop in the thread, catch up, and throw off what any comment that seemed relevant. So far, unless I'm forgetting something, the only position I've taken is fuzzy getting off the bandwagon yesterday is the most suspicious thing I've seen so far.
I'm not at all sure he's a baddy, but as far as I can tell he's more likely than trying to wade through the noise from all the vote switching at the last minute or taking a pot shot into the crowd at random.
edit: Wait, what the hell? I'm guilty because I tried to cause a tie? I'm the one who was arguing AGAINST all the switching to make a tie, and I went to fuzzy when he was still leading by two to shore up the vote count there.
I'm a little suspicious of Stew_Stick, but not enough to vote for him. It seems like the best way to "prove" to everyone that you're a good guy is to claim you're part of a now-defunct mason pair. But nobody else came out to denounce him, so who knows?
I'm not convinced that tie shenanigans were caused by the bad guys. Not on the first day, anyway.
Hmm, decisions. Day 2 is never much better than Day 1.
See, now we're going to have to kill Fuzzy tomorrow if he survives the vote today. This sudden burst of effort to save him would be retarded but not unprecedented from the baddies. Special focus after that on the "lets get a tie" votes if nothing better turns up after that.
(Teh-Spectre says) "And werehippy is up to shennaningans (paraphrased)--"---->Refer to post 582 for the exchange.
Well, it seems like it's sort of come down to a runoff between werehippy and durax. Reading the thread over, and then basing my decision on who seems to have acted shadier, I've come to this conclusion:
See, now we're going to have to kill Fuzzy tomorrow if he survives the vote today. This sudden burst of effort to save him would be retarded but not unprecedented from the baddies. Special focus after that on the "lets get a tie" votes if nothing better turns up after that.
Fuzzy, I understand you have to at least try and save yourself but that's pretty weak reasoning.
Yes, I do think it's suspicious that you managed to get a burst activity and, despite several tries by people (myself included), had a sudden swing change the vote for the entire day (though not definitive by any stretch). No, it isn't suddenly suspicious when other people see a hole in the logic that apparently has me trying to cause a tie (which I didn't) and then somehow being the most suspicious of all the people on that list (and I notice the names of the people who originally started the push to maximus when you were leading didn't even make it on the list of suspects).
You accused me of evil because i possess the magical ability to count. Really? That don't make much sense to me.
Jason Todd on
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
Hey guys, sorry I haven't been around today, I was sleeping. Friend of mine needed help with her project, so I ended up pulling an all-nighter with her.
...no not that kind of all-nighter.
Anyway, what's the dealio here? I have like half an hour. From what I've read by skimming over the thread it seems like people are paying a lot of attention to Day 1 behavior that probably doesn't mean anything.
Okay, so here's my case. Red Bird is a baddie or bad vig, is new and does not know how to mask himself well, so he goes with the obvious (not to him) "Lol if I say everything opposite of evil, they will never suspect me."
He is in cahoots with Werehippy, who continuously attempts to tip the scales by posting infrequently, but having each post contain strong suggestions. This is of course, entirely speculatory, but how often do people stick up for each other on day 2 without there being some sort of networking going on? If they are good, then oust themselves, if not then, uh, RED ALERT.
Anyway, what's the dealio here? I have like half an hour. From what I've read by skimming over the thread it seems like people are paying a lot of attention to Day 1 behavior that probably doesn't mean anything.
ayup. edit: While FCC frantically attempts to protect his own ass (but note that I didn't vote for him, because I think he's just normal "please don't vote me off, I'm innocent" paranoid right now).
Okay, so here's my case. Red Bird is a baddie or bad vig, is new and does not know how to mask himself well, so he goes with the obvious (not to him) "Lol if I say everything opposite of evil, they will never suspect me."
He is in cahoots with Werehippy, who continuously attempts to tip the scales by posting infrequently, but having each post contain strong suggestions. This is of course, entirely speculatory, but how often do people stick up for each other on day 2 without there being some sort of networking going on? If they are good, then oust themselves, if not then, uh, RED ALERT.
Not to throw anyone under the bus, but AGAIN I had long days at work yesterday and today, and was busy last night so I didn't post much and when I did I tried to actually be useful (though I am proud of my shenanigan's quote tree) and I haven't stood up for anyone. I just think the case against me is pretty stupid.
And just because people don't agree with you trying to push me in front of the vote isn't necessarily them sticking up for me as much as disagreeing with you or aldo. We probably need to look at the late night activity yesterday, but there are better places to start than the guy who tried to hold the line against the change in targets, to the point where I'm now putting myself on the line standing by it.
werehippy on
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
Fuzzy, I understand you have to at least try and save yourself but that's pretty weak reasoning.
Yes, I do think it's suspicious that you managed to get a burst activity and, despite several tries by people (myself included), had a sudden swing change the vote for the entire day (though not definitive by any stretch). No, it isn't suddenly suspicious when other people see a hole in the logic that apparently has me trying to cause a tie (which I didn't) and then somehow being the most suspicious of all the people on that list (and I notice the names of the people who originally started the push to maximus when you were leading didn't even make it on the list of suspects).
The bolded portion is an argument that I have made several times in past games. And pretty much every time I make it, the person turns out innocent.
I dunno, it might be the kind of thing that makes sense in theory, but doesn't work out empirically.
Not to throw anyone under the bus, but AGAIN I had long days at work yesterday and today, and was busy last night so I didn't post much and when I did I tried to actually be useful (though I am proud of my shenanigan's quote tree) and I haven't stood up for anyone. I just think the case against me is pretty stupid.
And just because people don't agree with you trying to push me in front of the vote isn't necessarily them sticking up for me as much as disagreeing with you or aldo.
People meaning Redbird, and only Redbird at this point.
Fuzzy, I understand you have to at least try and save yourself but that's pretty weak reasoning.
Yes, I do think it's suspicious that you managed to get a burst activity and, despite several tries by people (myself included), had a sudden swing change the vote for the entire day (though not definitive by any stretch). No, it isn't suddenly suspicious when other people see a hole in the logic that apparently has me trying to cause a tie (which I didn't) and then somehow being the most suspicious of all the people on that list (and I notice the names of the people who originally started the push to maximus when you were leading didn't even make it on the list of suspects).
The bolded portion is an argument that I have made several times in past games. And pretty much every time I make it, the person turns out innocent.
I dunno, it might be the kind of thing that makes sense in theory, but doesn't work out empirically.
I'm perfectly happy to change my vote from fuzzy, because it's predicated on the baddies either being stupid or ballsy as hell, IF someone has a better idea. I just voted before I crashed last night with the best course I could see, and I haven't seen aything better other than this half backed thing on me predicated on no one actually looking at whne I cast my vote on day 1.
By my counting (not always reliable) Durax has 7, Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud has 9, werehippy has 3, but I may not be right.
I'm voting TheSpectre and Werehippy, cos I've re-read stuff and think I'm right. I may just be reading too much into something, but that's what I think, for what its worth.
Night, night.
LewieP's Mummy on
For all the top UK Gaming Bargains, check out SavyGamer
I'll toss a vote onto !Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud for now.
Stew_Stick on
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
Honestly, I'm not buying the arguments against any of the front-runners today. The one against FCC was silly from the beginning, and the one against durax and werehippy, originally put forth by Aldo, is based on them trying to tie the vote last night, when in fact the opposite is true. Given that I don't have time to form an actual argument against someone, I'm going to vote Aldo for apparently supplying us with misinformation.
Hi I'm Vee! on
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
- Last night a number of players tried to create a tie, even though the host noted that a tie would not be good for the village, for as far as I could notice the following people are guilty of this: Hilger, Werehippy, Satan., Medopine and Durax. Naturally not all of them can be bad guys, but I would not be surprised if one or more of them just tried to create confusion.
-Last night was day one, the day where we kill someone on little to no information, we picked on FCC and Maximus for no proper reason, just because one of the two of them was not a bad guy does not mean the other was. FCC did not make a bigger effort than one would expect to dodge a baseless bandwagon so I do not get the people going "hmm, he is not dead, how suspicious!" If someone thinks otherwise I urge him to properly quote some posts incriminating FCC.
I base my vote on these variables: who tried to create a tie? and who jumps on the FCC bandwagon?
That reduces my list to Werehippy and Durax. Considering Durax already has more than null votes I will hereby !vote to kill Durax[color].
The OP say that ties are not in the best interest of the village, I acted to preserve the best interest of the village. If that is worth scorn, I can accept it (we don't know what the tied vote would have accomplished).
Voting for FCC for information doesn't seem dumb to me as I think there was a definite reaction to him being band wagoned, and if we learn his alignment that points to the likely alignment of those who tried to save him.
If there are better leads I am certainly willing to listen.
We have seen some very interesting events around vote close: people trying to create a tie and people kicking off the next bandwagon without second thought right after. In a previous post I have connected these two events in a coherent argument against Werehippy. I don't see why we should kill FCC instead. What makes you think he is dangerous to the village?
Wait, when did this happen? I didn't even notice someone was building a case against me until I just saw two votes for myself.
I've been working the last couple days and I was busy last night, so I'd hop in the thread, catch up, and throw off what any comment that seemed relevant. So far, unless I'm forgetting something, the only position I've taken is fuzzy getting off the bandwagon yesterday is the most suspicious thing I've seen so far.
I'm not at all sure he's a baddy, but as far as I can tell he's more likely than trying to wade through the noise from all the vote switching at the last minute or taking a pot shot into the crowd at random.
edit: Wait, what the hell? I'm guilty because I tried to cause a tie? I'm the one who was arguing AGAINST all the switching to make a tie, and I went to fuzzy when he was still leading by two to shore up the vote count there.
I think the one against Durax is for tying the vote. The one against Werehippy is for being insidious. The one against Redbird is for continuously defending Werehippy without declaration of a good alliance.
Posts
The snake and the raven are presumably two seperate evil factions, allied.
The owl is the seer, one would presume.
The smith is the guardian.
The monkey is a vigilante who is on our side.
From the sign up thread:
The fox is a neutral player out for themselves (greedy god, shunned by others), no further details I can fathom.
The west wind can probably seer the dead, can possibly resurrect them, and is likely out for themselves as well:
The rising sun I'm unsure of, but based on the night one narration is opposed to the west wind, and probably a good guy.
By my theory there are probably six bad guys and two neutrals out for themselves. Plus I want this post recorded to see how well I read LaOs' mind at the end.
werehippy
edit-I'm not jumping a bandwagon either, I stated my suspicions a few posts above bum.
I enjoy Narrations that matter. My style is to have the Narrations reflect the actions of the day.
If something happens in the day with respect to Actions, the Narration will reflect that. Sometimes the reflection is subtle, sometimes it is not. Remember, there are two aspects to the Narrations in this game.
Yeah, I know, I just reread it again too.
We don't have to read the boring parts, right? Just the bit where people die, etc?
You are free to read or not read whatever you choose.
Are you feeling lucky?
[Edit]
No quote, no proof.
Wait, when did this happen? I didn't even notice someone was building a case against me until I just saw two votes for myself.
I've been working the last couple days and I was busy last night, so I'd hop in the thread, catch up, and throw off what any comment that seemed relevant. So far, unless I'm forgetting something, the only position I've taken is fuzzy getting off the bandwagon yesterday is the most suspicious thing I've seen so far.
I'm not at all sure he's a baddy, but as far as I can tell he's more likely than trying to wade through the noise from all the vote switching at the last minute or taking a pot shot into the crowd at random.
edit: Wait, what the hell? I'm guilty because I tried to cause a tie? I'm the one who was arguing AGAINST all the switching to make a tie, and I went to fuzzy when he was still leading by two to shore up the vote count there.
could one of his voters (enlightenedebum, aldo, fcc) please elaborate?
and werehippy if you're evil could you just fess up so i dont look like im defending you
I'm a little suspicious of Stew_Stick, but not enough to vote for him. It seems like the best way to "prove" to everyone that you're a good guy is to claim you're part of a now-defunct mason pair. But nobody else came out to denounce him, so who knows?
I'm not convinced that tie shenanigans were caused by the bad guys. Not on the first day, anyway.
Hmm, decisions. Day 2 is never much better than Day 1.
(Teh-Spectre says) "And werehippy is up to shennaningans (paraphrased)--"---->Refer to post 582 for the exchange.
Oh look, you're doing the same thing you were doing four pages ago, defending werehippy again.
Edit 2- See post #582 for clarity.
!Frosteey
!durax
I wasn't defending him. I was pointing out a flaw in a vote count. I'm keeping track of votes, and inaccurate vote counts don't help us win.
Heres the rest of it.
Yes, I do think it's suspicious that you managed to get a burst activity and, despite several tries by people (myself included), had a sudden swing change the vote for the entire day (though not definitive by any stretch). No, it isn't suddenly suspicious when other people see a hole in the logic that apparently has me trying to cause a tie (which I didn't) and then somehow being the most suspicious of all the people on that list (and I notice the names of the people who originally started the push to maximus when you were leading didn't even make it on the list of suspects).
You accused me of evil because i possess the magical ability to count. Really? That don't make much sense to me.
...no not that kind of all-nighter.
Anyway, what's the dealio here? I have like half an hour. From what I've read by skimming over the thread it seems like people are paying a lot of attention to Day 1 behavior that probably doesn't mean anything.
He is in cahoots with Werehippy, who continuously attempts to tip the scales by posting infrequently, but having each post contain strong suggestions. This is of course, entirely speculatory, but how often do people stick up for each other on day 2 without there being some sort of networking going on? If they are good, then oust themselves, if not then, uh, RED ALERT.
ayup. edit: While FCC frantically attempts to protect his own ass (but note that I didn't vote for him, because I think he's just normal "please don't vote me off, I'm innocent" paranoid right now).
Not to throw anyone under the bus, but AGAIN I had long days at work yesterday and today, and was busy last night so I didn't post much and when I did I tried to actually be useful (though I am proud of my shenanigan's quote tree) and I haven't stood up for anyone. I just think the case against me is pretty stupid.
And just because people don't agree with you trying to push me in front of the vote isn't necessarily them sticking up for me as much as disagreeing with you or aldo. We probably need to look at the late night activity yesterday, but there are better places to start than the guy who tried to hold the line against the change in targets, to the point where I'm now putting myself on the line standing by it.
The bolded portion is an argument that I have made several times in past games. And pretty much every time I make it, the person turns out innocent.
I dunno, it might be the kind of thing that makes sense in theory, but doesn't work out empirically.
what i did do is correct someone on their math. when did that become evidence of malice?
edit: and i later asked for more evidence. i wanted to be convinced by someone!
I'm perfectly happy to change my vote from fuzzy, because it's predicated on the baddies either being stupid or ballsy as hell, IF someone has a better idea. I just voted before I crashed last night with the best course I could see, and I haven't seen aything better other than this half backed thing on me predicated on no one actually looking at whne I cast my vote on day 1.
La0s, can we get a link to each narration from one of the first two posts?
I can find last nights easily enough, but it'll get tricky as we add more.
By my counting (not always reliable) Durax has 7, Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud has 9, werehippy has 3, but I may not be right.
I'm voting TheSpectre and Werehippy, cos I've re-read stuff and think I'm right. I may just be reading too much into something, but that's what I think, for what its worth.
Night, night.
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."