Long Con wrote:I came back from work to find a post that I had started and never posted before I left. So I'll give it now.
Scotty wrote:What do you think of Serge?
I feel like he's Civ. Unless he's known for playing in a wacky way as his usual meta (which I'm not familiar with), I think his "vote with any leading bandwagon" statement isn't one a baddie would likely make. Also, he kept going with the dragon thing, whereas if he and I were bad and it was a BTSC faux pas, he'd be more likely to want to sweep it under the rug.
That's my thoughts on Serge, I see that he has a few votes now anyway.
I thought he was trying to make a joke of it, actually.
sig wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
sig wrote:I don't think Serge would be a good lynch choice today, I think we should lynch Zebra for her purposeful misconstruction of the events regarding my vote and her attempt to bandwagon me based on not just weak but, also faulty and obvious incorrect logic.
Zebra tends to read into things in a much more byzantine way than most ever could. I think this is fairly normal behavior for her. Plus I am not seeing much of a bandwagoning effort on her part.
Why do you think Serge is a poor choice, your thoughts on Zebra aside?
Okay then.
I'm wary of a Serge lynch since it appears he might be lynched just for being a low poster, yes it's day 1, but having that attitude in such a small game is very very dangerous. I dislike MPs vote on Serge for that reason, we really don't have much room for error this game and just going after low posters won't help much.
But none of the votes on him are on him for being a low poster, except MPs before Serge came in last night and posted. The people who are voting for him seem to be voting for him for things that he has said.
What do you think of what he has said?
Skip softly, my moonbeams, for I have heard tell
That the stairs up to heaven lead straight down to hell
An hour to go with ten votes missing. Don't make me regret giving you guys 48 hour days by not taking advantage of them.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
Good point on the low poster thing, S~V~S. I may have to put my vote on sig for not paying enough attention to get that right. That's a baddie indicator to me.
About an hour left to vote! Right now, my aim is at sig... but I'm here till the deadline, so I'll hold off on the hard vote until I see more opinions coming in.
Trying to hold off on voting for a bit longer. Leaning towards Wilgy to try and get him to answer my question or for Serge for his lack of answering why he's prodding SVS the way he did. Especially if he hasn't played with her much.
I could see my vote going to Wilgy- he has mostly joke posts and his serious, on-topic ones are about the gamblers fallacy thing. I don’t see how someones opinion on that would be an indicator of civ/bad leanings so its looking like fluff disguised as content.
I could see a sig vote- I think he’s over reacting to zebra voting for him, it also kinda bothers me that he wouldn’t at least wait to see if he had to vote the same way after the whole early end time mistake. The plus side is that he doesn’t seem to be pushing for a Wilgy wagon and I kinda like a Wilgy vote myself.
The LC/Serge dragon thing- It's possible they do have BTSC and decided to see who they could rile up for a reaction. There is just as much civ bts this game as there is mafia though. I don’t think prodding someone or fishing for reactions is something only mafia do. They deserve to have an eye kept on them for sure but I don't plan on voting for either of them today.
Ok, time to inject some colour into our proceedings.
Sir Richet - by all means a very fine chap, among the finest
Madam S. van S. - a fair bit of a green hu, not to say that I have decisively witness a civilian play from her, but merely to acknowledge a few things I appreciate, for reasons that I have previously stated and do not, at this point, have something to add to. Her call for an active play, her line of inquiring I would both call agreeable.
Sir Sig - I believe the Host's call for a "revote", as he stated, can be open to interpretation, but I would not rush to judge Sir Sig's action of an actual revote to be in poor taste. In fact, had the interval for voting not been screwy, wouldn't Sir Sig's vote have been permanent, before the 24-hour out of 48 mark? I find his lobby for lynching Madam to be the slight result of vexation, not sure I would follow him int that path anyway, at least for the day, nor am I sure why he wouldn't follow others in a Serge lynch, for his explanation (low poster) quite differs from others' impressions, including my own (odd stances). Sir Scott - his momentary pressure on Sir Con's way with words leaves me no strong impression, plus it has indeed seemed to have cooled off. His Serge seems entirely inspired by meta, hmm. Madam Sorsha - spot on neutral, for statements and remarks that do not tell me much of anything. Indeed I would characterize her play so far as constantly on the catch up and with mild points made on selective issues. EDIT: written before reading her new contributions. Sir Faraday - hardly much of a contribution; he took swift interest in judging Sir Serge (for reasons I would partially judge Sir Serge myself) and did not much else, yet I reserve judgement whether it was warranted suspicion or the move of an opportunist Madam Zebra - nothing serious except for a few lines of inquiry on Sir Con's odds views and the serious reproach of Sir Sig being disingenuous in his vote and in his knowledge of how the day phase would have behaved. I have expressed enough on the latter in my read on Sir Sig itself, whilst right here I cannot say for sure if Sir Sig's actions simply startled the lady into crying foul play or if it's a more dubious attempt to cling on to a candidate for the Day being. Dr. Wilgy - no idea what his thesis (on gambler's fallacies endorsements being a trait of civilianship) can lead to, nor what impression his play so far should give me. Not very focused on the main issues, is it, though? Sir Bird - only notable statements I could catch is him agreeing with Sir Con's reasoning for not voting Sorsha (might I ask him, in this case, why he found Sir Con's gambler's fallacy to be agreeable and so influenceable for his own intentions?) and inquiring Wilgy and Serge on suspicious manners. I find his search for answers acceptable, but that bit about Sir Con makes me think the two of them have both been the rare kind to mention, so far, who they would not vote for, rather than who they would. I'd certainly want to hear more from Sir Bird regarding the latter. Time right now is too precious for process of elimination walkthroughs. Sir Sock - I still believe his action to vote for Sir Serge might have been the product of both confusion (created by the erroneous time posts) and self-defense. Gut tells me a player such as him would fret more to produce a minimum of consistency and reasoning in his actions, under such circumstances, should he have attained the rank of captaincy. Alas, his inactivity, otherwise, does not leave me with much else to interpret.
Sir Gleam - Afraid I've not read any statements from this gentleman that wouldn't rank as trivialities I'd hear from the baker's wife, every day in which I go make my purchases there. Commenting on how often he played or not with other fellows? Inquiring a proxy (Sir Sig) on a certain player (Sir Wilgy)? Hmm. I sure hope the gent did not forget that the last time he wrote in small doses and tried to keep appearances he was not an upstanding civilian, no sir, I sure did not forget. Not implying that something should be interpreted out of this, right this moment, nevertheless I would like to prompt the gentleman, indeed, to trying to bring more substantial contributions. slightly concerned Sir Epig - I have already mentioned how I perceived his off-topic literary moment to have been, but I remain concerned by him doing an effort to ascertain how focused and inspired the civilians must be, if they do not wish to lose this game quickly (according to the numbers), only to proceed not only with a "low poster" lynch policy - surely this tactic hasn't become less of a lottery than it is usually is, has it? - but with voting Sir Sock, who happened to actually offer a humble apology for his absence. Myes, I cannot say that I find this too agreeable. Sir Con, whom I find acting with ideas (the gambler's fallacy) and actions (fake-vote and poking bears) which cannot make it certain whether they paint him in a good colour or smudge his reputation. With such a player as Sir Con over here, it can certainly go both ways. I'm not impress by his former ideas, on account of them not telling me much about which suspects he's pursuing, plus I'm still very intrigued how the "she was bad so many times, she must be good this time" rationale for Mme Sorsha and the "he was mislynched so many times, he must be good again" one for Sir Bird are consistent. Regarding his risky statements towards Madam S. van S., it may surprise some, but I actually find the "linki" part of his explanation not inconceivable, if seeing Sir Serge's post beforehand indeed influence him to add an extra "dragon" line. Two captains - or even Sir Con, attempting to mirror Sir Serge, should the first be a captain and the second not - coordinating to pressure a person with the same language would be more than foolish on their (or his) behalf.
Sir Serge - his taunt of the fairy Madam S van S. is certainly not something I'd call inspired, but the biggest issue I'd bring forth is with his comments on bandwagoning with ease or even abstaining from vote. I would still appreciate for the gentleman to explain if this is such common of an MO on his behalf. Otherwise it's truly an uncomfortable stance to appreciate.
Yeah, the civ BTS thing, I know. That is why I have not voted tbh.
Becasue I am pretty positive Serge does have BTS. Otherwise why rile up me? The person in this game who he has seen most as bad would have been Epi, and Epi was pretty convincing in Turf Wars. I would have been paranoid of him rather than me with his experience.
The thing that get me too, though, is how sig is mischaracterizing the points on Serge. I am going to read back a bit.
Skip softly, my moonbeams, for I have heard tell
That the stairs up to heaven lead straight down to hell
One thing I would like to point out, in my research, is that so far there's a serious stream of benevolent appreciation of Madam Sorsha, coming from different directions: Sir Con with his thesis, Sir Bird merely agreeing with Sir Con and Sir Sig not having in my mind any such lynch despite disagreeing, in principle, with Sir Con's thesis. I would be aghast if this will prove to constitute an entire group of officers trying to protect a single source.
Long Con wrote:I came back from work to find a post that I had started and never posted before I left. So I'll give it now.
Scotty wrote:What do you think of Serge?
I feel like he's Civ. Unless he's known for playing in a wacky way as his usual meta (which I'm not familiar with), I think his "vote with any leading bandwagon" statement isn't one a baddie would likely make. Also, he kept going with the dragon thing, whereas if he and I were bad and it was a BTSC faux pas, he'd be more likely to want to sweep it under the rug.
That's my thoughts on Serge, I see that he has a few votes now anyway.
I thought he was trying to make a joke of it, actually.
sig wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
sig wrote:I don't think Serge would be a good lynch choice today, I think we should lynch Zebra for her purposeful misconstruction of the events regarding my vote and her attempt to bandwagon me based on not just weak but, also faulty and obvious incorrect logic.
Zebra tends to read into things in a much more byzantine way than most ever could. I think this is fairly normal behavior for her. Plus I am not seeing much of a bandwagoning effort on her part.
Why do you think Serge is a poor choice, your thoughts on Zebra aside?
Okay then.
I'm wary of a Serge lynch since it appears he might be lynched just for being a low poster, yes it's day 1, but having that attitude in such a small game is very very dangerous. I dislike MPs vote on Serge for that reason, we really don't have much room for error this game and just going after low posters won't help much.
But none of the votes on him are on him for being a low poster, except MPs before Serge came in last night and posted. The people who are voting for him seem to be voting for him for things that he has said.
What do you think of what he has said?
I was mainly talking about MP's vote.
I'm not seeing much from Serge that is scummy, however gut wise his posts do seem a little odd. However, I find it strange zebra isn''t defending him at all?
Long Con wrote:Good point on the low poster thing, S~V~S. I may have to put my vote on sig for not paying enough attention to get that right. That's a baddie indicator to me.
About an hour left to vote! Right now, my aim is at sig... but I'm here till the deadline, so I'll hold off on the hard vote until I see more opinions coming in.
Why? there was only two votes (counting Mps) on Serge when I said it. MPs reasoning was only that he was a low poster which makes me wary of the lynch.
Sorsha wrote:I could see my vote going to Wilgy- he has mostly joke posts and his serious, on-topic ones are about the gamblers fallacy thing. I don’t see how someones opinion on that would be an indicator of civ/bad leanings so its looking like fluff disguised as content.
I could see a sig vote- I think he’s over reacting to zebra voting for him, it also kinda bothers me that he wouldn’t at least wait to see if he had to vote the same way after the whole early end time mistake. The plus side is that he doesn’t seem to be pushing for a Wilgy wagon and I kinda like a Wilgy vote myself. .
I overreacted to someone who was completely ignoring an error in the polls and all my posts proving that is what I thought? Her main point agaisnt me is that I knew the phase wasn't going to end when I voted for Wilgy that is all she has. So I don't think I overreacted. It is a weak reason to vote for someone based around the fact there was an error in the poll. Also Llama said to revote in his post revote meaning vote for who we already voted for since votes are unchangeable.
Sorsha wrote:The LC/Serge dragon thing- It's possible they do have BTSC and decided to see who they could rile up for a reaction. There is just as much civ bts this game as there is mafia though. I don’t think prodding someone or fishing for reactions is something only mafia do. They deserve to have an eye kept on them for sure but I don't plan on voting for either of them today.
Well that's cool, but like I said before, we don't have BTSC.
Long Con wrote:Good point on the low poster thing, S~V~S. I may have to put my vote on sig for not paying enough attention to get that right. That's a baddie indicator to me.
About an hour left to vote! Right now, my aim is at sig... but I'm here till the deadline, so I'll hold off on the hard vote until I see more opinions coming in.
Long Con wrote:I came back from work to find a post that I had started and never posted before I left. So I'll give it now.
Scotty wrote:What do you think of Serge?
I feel like he's Civ. Unless he's known for playing in a wacky way as his usual meta (which I'm not familiar with), I think his "vote with any leading bandwagon" statement isn't one a baddie would likely make. Also, he kept going with the dragon thing, whereas if he and I were bad and it was a BTSC faux pas, he'd be more likely to want to sweep it under the rug.
That's my thoughts on Serge, I see that he has a few votes now anyway.
I thought he was trying to make a joke of it, actually.
sig wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
sig wrote:I don't think Serge would be a good lynch choice today, I think we should lynch Zebra for her purposeful misconstruction of the events regarding my vote and her attempt to bandwagon me based on not just weak but, also faulty and obvious incorrect logic.
Zebra tends to read into things in a much more byzantine way than most ever could. I think this is fairly normal behavior for her. Plus I am not seeing much of a bandwagoning effort on her part.
Why do you think Serge is a poor choice, your thoughts on Zebra aside?
Okay then.
I'm wary of a Serge lynch since it appears he might be lynched just for being a low poster, yes it's day 1, but having that attitude in such a small game is very very dangerous. I dislike MPs vote on Serge for that reason, we really don't have much room for error this game and just going after low posters won't help much.
But none of the votes on him are on him for being a low poster, except MPs before Serge came in last night and posted. The people who are voting for him seem to be voting for him for things that he has said.
What do you think of what he has said?
linki, we have MacDougalls on the Emerald Isle as well
Skip softly, my moonbeams, for I have heard tell
That the stairs up to heaven lead straight down to hell
Long Con wrote:Good point on the low poster thing, S~V~S. I may have to put my vote on sig for not paying enough attention to get that right. That's a baddie indicator to me.
About an hour left to vote! Right now, my aim is at sig... but I'm here till the deadline, so I'll hold off on the hard vote until I see more opinions coming in.
Madam SVS and Sir Con, you're suggesting Sir Sig has mischaracterised Sir Serge's voters' reasonings, yet he disagrees with Sir Serge being voted. Does that make him and Sir Serge teamies in your opinion or what? 'Cause otherwise I'm tad confused.
I don't agree with his thoughts on the gambler's fallacy thing for sure. But he made a response that made me feel like he was presuming to know how the mafia are thinking. And how a civ could presume to know that on Day 1 doesn't sit right with me. Especially when he hasn't answered my question to him about it.
I don't know, my hierarchy between the wagons would still be Sir Serge > Dr. Wilgy > Sir Sig. At least the latter gentleman is bringing issues forth and confronting issues related to him, whilst the other two haven't been so generous, except in flinging stuff around. If there is a matter of Sig and Serge being teammates, I would be astounded by Sir Sig being so poorly prepared in what his teammate's voters are criticising.
I don't agree with his thoughts on the gambler's fallacy thing for sure. But he made a response that made me feel like he was presuming to know how the mafia are thinking. And how a civ could presume to know that on Day 1 doesn't sit right with me. Especially when he hasn't answered my question to him about it.
I don't like it when anyone brings those jargon/philosophical/fallacy things into the game myself because those can also be used by civvies. Just becasue someone uses a logically fallacious argument does not mean they are wrong. But I have never thought someone was bad for bringing it up.
But the not answering you makes sense. I did not quite understand the suspish on Wilgy, so Thanks.
Skip softly, my moonbeams, for I have heard tell
That the stairs up to heaven lead straight down to hell
a2thezebra
0
No votes
agleaminranks
0
No votes
birdwithteeth11
0
No votes
DFaraday
0
No votes
DrWilgy
3
sig (2), Sorsha (9), birdwithteeth11 (13) 21%
Epignosis
0
No votes
Long Con
1
Epignosis (11) 7%
Movingpictures07
0
No votes
Ricochet
0
No votes
Scotty
0
No votes
Serge
3
Scotty (5), DFaraday (8), Ricochet (14) 21%
Sig
3
a2thezebra (3), S~V~S (10), Long Con (12) 21%
Sorsha
0
No votes
S~V~S
0
No votes
William Makepeace Thackeray (Host/Mod/Dead/Non-Player)
4
thellama73 (1), JaggedJimmyJay (4), ika (6), Metalmarsh89 (7) 29%
Total votes : 14
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
Ricochet wrote:Madam SVS and Sir Con, you're suggesting Sir Sig has mischaracterised Sir Serge's voters' reasonings, yet he disagrees with Sir Serge being voted. Does that make him and Sir Serge teamies in your opinion or what? 'Cause otherwise I'm tad confused.
Ricochet wrote:Madam SVS and Sir Con, you're suggesting Sir Sig has mischaracterised Sir Serge's voters' reasonings, yet he disagrees with Sir Serge being voted. Does that make him and Sir Serge teamies in your opinion or what? 'Cause otherwise I'm tad confused.
I already said that I think Serge is Civ.
Then Sir Sig is a baddie mischaracterising Sir Serge's votes, with which he does not agree, to what purpose?
Oh, how unsportsmanlike! Men are supposed to duel to prove their honor. Men! However, in your haste for bloodshed, you have inadvertently caught an old and defenseless woman in the crossfire. Shame on all Irish scum for such a crime. Then again, she was only a peasant, and probably without long to live in any case. Oh well, that's the way the potato crumbles.
Sig has been lynched. He was Belle, Redmond Barry's mother.
YOu have 24 hours to submit your night actions
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
My idiot friend bailed on me so I got the post up on time after all.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
Ricochet wrote:Madam SVS and Sir Con, you're suggesting Sir Sig has mischaracterised Sir Serge's voters' reasonings, yet he disagrees with Sir Serge being voted. Does that make him and Sir Serge teamies in your opinion or what? 'Cause otherwise I'm tad confused.
I already said that I think Serge is Civ.
Then Sir Sig is a baddie mischaracterising Sir Serge's votes, with which he does not agree, to what purpose?
Well, I suppose an answer doesn't mean anything now... but, as I said before I thought his lazy play could be a baddie tell. Clearly not. Sorry sig.
Hey, why am I leading? It was obviously a joke. I would've used it on anyone, if they had captain on their tag, SVS just happened to be the person to have it. I saw the opportunity to crack a joke, I did. Weak sauce, Serge voters.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Wilgy's vote is an enigma of science. Philosophers are known to throw their tomes across the auditorium in a fit of frustration after failing to solve its mystery.
insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:50 pm
WTF was up with Wilgy's entire deal?
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Wilgy's vote is an enigma of science. Philosophers are known to throw their tomes across the auditorium in a fit of frustration after failing to solve its mystery.
insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:50 pm
WTF was up with Wilgy's entire deal?
Serge wrote:Hey, why am I leading? It was obviously a joke. I would've used it on anyone, if they had captain on their tag, SVS just happened to be the person to have it. I saw the opportunity to crack a joke, I did. Weak sauce, Serge voters.
Sir Scott may have voted you for such a reason, but Sir Faraday and myself did not.
I imagine Madam SVS and/or Sir Con would cry "mischaracterization" about this, now.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Wilgy's vote is an enigma of science. Philosophers are known to throw their tomes across the auditorium in a fit of frustration after failing to solve its mystery.
insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:50 pm
WTF was up with Wilgy's entire deal?
Sorry sig.
