The Dark Knight - Fade to Black

[Grundbegriff]

 tru1cy 
 


Hell, I'm all for team spirit. If my elimination and semi-active participation is a distraction than I'm all for culling me from the field

Way to reinforce my suspicions of you. Voting for yourself and sulking isn't exactly "team spirit".

Yeah, but it's 100% in character. tru1cy is sort of the Eeyore of Team OO.

But that doesn't mean he's innocent!

[Lagom Lite]

Code: Select all

Gordon    Newcastle

That would suck royally btw.

[Grundbegriff]

Code: Select all

Gordon    Newcastle

That would suck royally btw.

Every death is a tragedy.

[Lagom Lite]

Code: Select all

Gordon    Newcastle

That would suck royally btw.

Every death is a tragedy.

Nah, some are funneh

[Brendan]

I have forced myself to assign every player to a role. In some cases, these are strong suspicions; in others, they're swags.

Code: Select all

Batman    Brendan or Unagi
Rachel    Lassr
Alfred    theohall
Gordon    Newcastle
Lucius    Mr Bubbles
Dent      Scoop or Unagi
Joker     Scoop or Brendan
Sniper    Isgrimnur
Ramirez   tru1cy
Citizen01 Grundbegriff
Citizen02 Chaosraven
Citizen03 Remus West
Citizen04 Lagom Lite
Citizen05 Semaj

You've made an assumption here that you haven't explicitly addressed - one that could certainly affect a player's behavior.

And, thinking about this some more, it could imply that you're one of the bad guys.

[Remus West]

Brendan, care to expound on your thinking?

[Brendan]

Sure - the ordinarily painstakingly precise Grundbegriff has not accounted for the possibility that Newcastle was Rachel.

[Semaj]

I've finally had a chance to read the entire thread.

It has been a while since I've shared a suspicion matrix in these games, so I'll jump right out of the gate with one.

I have forced myself to assign every player to a role. In some cases, these are strong suspicions; in others, they're swags.

Code: Select all

Batman    Brendan or Unagi
Rachel    Lassr
Alfred    theohall
Gordon    Newcastle
Lucius    Mr Bubbles
Dent      Scoop or Unagi
Joker     Scoop or Brendan
Sniper    Isgrimnur
Ramirez   tru1cy
Citizen01 Grundbegriff
Citizen02 Chaosraven
Citizen03 Remus West
Citizen04 Lagom Lite
Citizen05 Semaj

I, too, don't want to discourage tru1cy's more active participation. On the other hand, I can envision an evil team on which tru1cy and his partners decide that he should be more visible precisely because it will attract attention and lead people to the conclusion that it must be innocent.

 tru1cy 
 


I'm willing to vote against any of {Scoop | Brendan | Isgrimnur | tru1cy}. What say ye?

Your thoughts are shockingly close to mine in terms of evil..

Considering how much scoop is going at everyone else.. Would he be a good test or would they? What if he is doing his fixate on one target and forget everyone else deal? He could cost us 2 days worth of sillyness.

Much reading to go, but this stuck out to me

[Lassr]

Sure - the ordinarily painstakingly precise Grundbegriff has not accounted for the possibility that Newcastle was Rachel.

anything you see that indicates to you that Newcastle was Rachel? I mean, Grund didn't acct for Newcastle being Batman, Lucious, Dent, etc either...

[Brendan]

Sure - the ordinarily painstakingly precise Grundbegriff has not accounted for the possibility that Newcastle was Rachel.

anything you see that indicates to you that Newcastle was Rachel? I mean, Grund didn't acct for Newcastle being Batman, Lucious, Dent, etc either...

What I mean is that his list doesn't include Two Face, meaning that either he's a) decided that no one is acting as such and thus personally eliminated the possibility, which is un-Grundy or b) he knows that Newcastle wasn't Rachel and therefore didn't bother to account for it.

[Lagom Lite]

I have forced myself to assign every player to a role. In some cases, these are strong suspicions; in others, they're swags.

Code: Select all

Batman    Brendan or Unagi
Rachel    Lassr
Alfred    theohall
Gordon    Newcastle
Lucius    Mr Bubbles
Dent      Scoop or Unagi
Joker     Scoop or Brendan
Sniper    Isgrimnur
Ramirez   tru1cy
Citizen01 Grundbegriff
Citizen02 Chaosraven
Citizen03 Remus West
Citizen04 Lagom Lite
Citizen05 Semaj

You've made an assumption here that you haven't explicitly addressed - one that could certainly affect a player's behavior.

And, thinking about this some more, it could imply that you're one of the bad guys.

Of course it could. But tradition dictates not lynching Grund until after a couple of days (if he hasn't already been killed by the baddies), simply because if he is good guy, he's such an awesome resource.

I'd like to hear more of what you think however. Traditions are meant to be challenged.

[Lagom Lite]

Sure - the ordinarily painstakingly precise Grundbegriff has not accounted for the possibility that Newcastle was Rachel.

anything you see that indicates to you that Newcastle was Rachel? I mean, Grund didn't acct for Newcastle being Batman, Lucious, Dent, etc either...

What I mean is that his list doesn't include Two Face, meaning that either he's a) decided that no one is acting as such and thus personally eliminated the possibility, which is un-Grundy or b) he knows that Newcastle wasn't Rachel and therefore didn't bother to account for it.

Ah, ok. I get it. thx

[Lassr]

Sure - the ordinarily painstakingly precise Grundbegriff has not accounted for the possibility that Newcastle was Rachel.

anything you see that indicates to you that Newcastle was Rachel? I mean, Grund didn't acct for Newcastle being Batman, Lucious, Dent, etc either...

What I mean is that his list doesn't include Two Face, meaning that either he's a) decided that no one is acting as such and thus personally eliminated the possibility, which is un-Grundy or b) he knows that Newcastle wasn't Rachel and therefore didn't bother to account for it.

ah.

[Brendan]

Am I wrong?

[Semaj]

I'm not joining the Remus West bandwagon.

I refuse to accept the "bandwagon" terminology while it remains a single person. It is more a delirium based crusade.

Well, lets see where I stand with Grund's list then. I don't agree with him regarding tru1cy's malleability due to peer pressure so I'm not joining his vote. I would throw my voice in with Unagi to see what Brendan is made of but have no desire to see him end up on the Bats side of Grund's matrix and outed day 1. That leaves Scoop and Isgrimnur. I don't really agree with Lassr giving Isgrimnur a pass based on the day/night thing but neither do I really see much threat in him. I don't think Scoop goes so insane for me as an evil player or I would have already started trying to get him lynched. He has, at the very least, likely bought himself a barrage of scans tonight so that should take care of itself as none of the good guys really has motivation to stay hidden if they hit their scan target. So...I find myself not agreeing with any of his suspects.

For some reason I feel best about my
 Semaj 
 

vote.

And your only rationale for Semaj is it will be funny to cause it will piss him off (it would be I admit). Not much difference between our votes, is there?

No, my rationale for voting Semaj (admittedly is very weak but...) is his reaction to the whole situation. It being funny because it will piss him off is just the cherry on top. Although, I agree with you that there is not a lot of difference in our votes other than I know yours is wrong.

Was going to comment on the first it, decided to just comment on the whole exchange.

As far as I can tell your rallying cry is: "Lets piss off Semaj."

Why it annoys me more than most is, well, if we went by this philosophy I'd die day one every game... After 3 or 4 games it would just become too darn funny for everyone else not to. So yeah, I'd rather you at least find a flimsy but in theory valid reason for offing anyone.

As far offing someone because it will piss them off... I find that to be a horrible reason. All I ask is there be a reason for us to vote someone off, period.

[Lagom Lite]

Am I wrong?

It would explain why he's agreeing with me.

[Lassr]

Am I wrong?

I'm meh on that point. Is it possible that Newcastle was Rachel? Sure it is but I have not even ventured down that road because there is not much I can do about it right now. I'm looking for bad guys. Good guys can still win if Two-Face is alive.

[Brendan]

The whole point of my analysis, such as it is, was to debate whether the Big G is a bad guy.

[Unagi]

Sure - the ordinarily painstakingly precise Grundbegriff has not accounted for the possibility that Newcastle was Rachel.

anything you see that indicates to you that Newcastle was Rachel? I mean, Grund didn't acct for Newcastle being Batman, Lucious, Dent, etc either...

Exactly what I was going to ask.

[Brendan]

Sure - the ordinarily painstakingly precise Grundbegriff has not accounted for the possibility that Newcastle was Rachel.

anything you see that indicates to you that Newcastle was Rachel? I mean, Grund didn't acct for Newcastle being Batman, Lucious, Dent, etc either...

Exactly what I was going to ask.

Keep reading.

[Unagi]

Am I wrong?

I guess not, but it seemed like a bit of a specific complaint to make... when, of course Grunds list is (I'm sure he'd even admit, actually - perhaps not.) likely 80-100% wrong.

[Mr Bubbles]

Am I wrong?

I'm meh on that point. Is it possible that Newcastle was Rachel? Sure it is but I have not even ventured down that road because there is not much I can do about it right now. I'm looking for bad guys. Good guys can still win if Two-Face is alive.

+1

[Lassr]

The whole point of my analysis, such as it is, was to debate whether the Big G is a bad guy.

I know but that list doesn't tell me anything about his alliance at the moment because I've seen this stuff before. We usually tackle the Grund issue on day 2 or 3 if he's still alive. Lately though he has been living and misfiring on his targets and a good guy so that throws a new monkey wrench into the plan.

[Brendan]

The whole point of my analysis, such as it is, was to debate whether the Big G is a bad guy.

I know but that list doesn't tell me anything about his alliance at the moment because I've seen this stuff before. We usually tackle the Grund issue on day 2 or 3 if he's still alive. Lately though he has been living and misfiring on his targets and a good guy so that throws a new monkey wrench into the plan.

Whether he was a good guy in the last game has no bearing on whether he is in this one.

On a day where we're just looking for reasons to lynch somebody, I would argue that Grund's mistake is at least as valid a reason as most, and certainly more valid than "piss off semaj," "vote for Remus just because," and, of course, "I don't think Brendan thinks I'm generally trustworthy." I would vote tru1cy for his ham-handed earlier proposal, but I'm willing to wait to do so until he gets so terse as to slow the game down.

[Grundbegriff]

The whole point of my analysis, such as it is, was to debate whether the Big G is a bad guy.

Fruit of the poisoned B?

[Brendan]

Okay, now I'm inclined to forgive everything because you're funny.

[Grundbegriff]

Grunds list is (I'm sure he'd even admit, actually - perhaps not.) likely 80-100% wrong.

[Grundbegriff]

I would argue that Grund's mistake

Il n'y en a pas. I did not intend for my mapping to express all possible combinations. I intended it to express a particular combination: the one I want you to understand as my favorite at the moment.

The real question here is why you, a man who ought to know better than to confuse "Here's a likely mapping" with "Here's an exhaustive set of mappings", would offer and sustain a complaint against me simply because, in offering the former, I had declined to provide the latter.

So I ask you: is there some reason to suppose that I did-- or that I would-- expose the full scope and depth of my thinking in a single suspicion matrix?

[Brendan]

I would argue that Grund's mistake

Il n'y en a pas. I did not intend for my mapping to express all possible combinations. I intended it to express a particular combination: the one I want you to understand as my favorite at the moment.

The real question here is why you, a man who ought to know better than to confuse "Here's a likely mapping" with "Here's an exhaustive mapping", would offer and sustain a complaint against me simply because, in offering the former, I had declined to provide the latter.

So I ask you: is there some reason to suppose that I did-- or that I would-- expose the full scope and depth of my thinking in a single suspicion matrix?

I expressly acknowledged, in a later post, that it was possible that you had considered and abandoned that particular permutation. Do I think it's likely? No. In my experience, you have two primary strategies when you lay out your thinking: intentionally leave out or misrepresent nuances in the hope of forcing someone into misspeaking, or exhaustively list every possibility (or at least admit that you'd left something out.)

You didn't do the latter. Did you do the former? Perhaps.

But as to why I'm "sustaining", it's simply to move the game forward.

The real question to you is now why you think I ought to know better.

[Grundbegriff]

I expressly acknowledged, in a later post, that it was possible that you had considered and abandoned that particular permutation.

It's also possible that I have considered and not abandoned that particular assignment, but have offered for consideration a roster that elides it.

Do I think it's likely? No. In my experience, you have two primary strategies when you lay out your thinking: intentionally leave out or misrepresent nuances in the hope of forcing someone into misspeaking, or exhaustively list every possibility (or at least admit that you'd left something out.)

My repertory is somewhat broader than that. I return to those two with some frequency only because they have proven their potency in the field.

You didn't do the latter. Did you do the former? Perhaps.

In the post in question, I stated exactly what I was doing. All your complaints presuppose that I was doing something other than what I said I was doing.

Why is that?

The real question to you is now why you think I ought to know better.

I chose to use "combination" rather than "permutation", since every combination is a permutation and since my emphasis was on the particular assignments.
You silently amended to "permutation" in your reply.
That's why I know that you know better.

After all, would it make sense that someone who pretends to be able to summarize my bag of tricks could not also tell the difference between "Here's an assignment" and "Here's an epitome of all possible assignments"?

[tru1cy]

[Brendan]

My repertory is somewhat broader than that. I return to those two with some frequency only because they have proven their potency in the field.

I'm speaking from my experience with you - in my admittedly limited sample size, I've seen those trotted out several times. Are you capable of Greater Manuevering? Sure, probably.

After all, would it make sense that someone who pretends to be able to summarize my bag of tricks could not also tell the difference between "Here's an assignment" and "Here's an epitome of all possible assignments"?

"Pretends to be able to summarize"? I did summarize your bag of tricks. You just disagree with my conclusions.

Anyway, we've exceeded my capacity and interest in pedantry. You win. I will still be leaving my vote on you, because while I lack the formal training of a logician, I make up for it with that ol' gut feelin'.

[Grundbegriff]

I'm speaking from my experience with you - in my admittedly limited sample size, I've seen those trotted out several times. Are you capable of Greater Manuevering? Sure, probably.

Greater? Only in the sense of "more"; I'm lobbying for recognition of trickSet.size() > 2.

"Pretends to be able to summarize"? I did summarize your bag of tricks. You just disagree with my conclusions.

Au contraire, I agreed with your conclusion as far as it went, but suggested that it didn't go far enough!

Anyway, we've exceeded my capacity and interest in pedantry.

You are aware that you're playing Werewolf, right?

[Brendan]

Impress me with a new trick, and I'll grant the expansion of your repertoire!

And yes, I'm certainly aware that Werewolf games often hinge on the most minute of details - my own skillz (The z is a tribute to Scoop) are limited mostly to sussing people out by the manner in which they present themselves.

[Lassr]

I can't remember who I was voting for anymore. I think it was semaj.

 tru1cy 
 

[stessier]

Vote Count - Act 1

• Scoop acc tru1cy (1)
  Lagom acc Chaos (1)
  Remus acc Semaj (1)
  theohall acc Mr Bubbles (1)
  Semaj acc Remus (1)
  Lassr acc Brendan (1)
  Lagom wd Chaos (0)
  Scoop wd tru1cy (0)
  Scoop acc Remus (2)
• Bubbles acc Chaos (1)
  tru1cy acc Unagi (1)
  Semaj wd Remus (1)
• Semaj acc Isgrimnur (1)
  Brendan acc Unagi (2)
• Unagi acc Brendan (2)
  Isgrimnur acc Grund (1)
• Lagom acc tru1cy (1)
• Chaos acc Brendan (3)
  Brendan wd Unagi (1)
• Brendan acc Grund (2)
  Scoop wd Remus (0)
  Isgrimnur wd Grund (1)
• Isgrimnur acc Scoop (1)
  Lassr wd Brendan (2)
  Lassr acc Semaj (2)
  Remus wd Semaj (1)
  Remus acc Unagi (2)
• Scoop acc Remus (1)
• Grund acc tru1cy (2)
  theohall wd Bubbles (0)
• theohall acc Chaos (2)
  Remus wd Unagi (1)
• Remus acc Semaj (2)
  tru1cy wd Unagi (0)
• tru1cy acc tru1cy (3)
  Lassr wd Semaj (1)
• Lassr acc tru1cy (4)

Mob rule occurs at 7 votes.

Against tru1cy (4): Lagom, Grund, tru1cy, Lassr
Against Brendan (2): Unagi, Chaosraven
Against Chaosraven (2): Bubbles, theohall
Against Semaj (1): Remus
Against Isgrimnur (1): Semaj
Against Grund (1): Brendan
Against Scoop (1): Isgrimnur
Against Remus (1): Scoop

No votes:

[Chaosraven]

 tru1cy 
 
does anyone wonder about the Remus 'mortised' post and comment? It would seem to me like someone who is previewing his post and hit submit by accident or someone paying painstaking attention to his own posts and seeing it in the original version immediately worried what others might make of it.

[Unagi]

 tru1cy 
 
does anyone wonder about the Remus 'mortised' post and comment? It would seem to me like someone who is previewing his post and hit submit by accident or someone paying painstaking attention to his own posts and seeing it in the original version immediately worried what others might make of it.

I don't understand what you are asking - are you asking about Remus or about Scoop here.

Here is what I saw:

1) Scoop says that he has seen a quiet Tru1cy as bad-guy, why would he change that...
2) Remus quotes that, but changes "bad" to "good" - to make the point that Tru1cy is indeed just very often, quiet.

3) Scoop sees the quote and wants it on the record what he really said (asks Remus to re-post or fix it)
4) Remus re-quotes Scoop, but this time he used the strikeouts and blue text.


Who is it that you are saying might have hit <Submit> by accident ?

[Remus West]

Have you ever had a hunch that was correct?

Yeah, it must suck getting nabbed on something like that, huh?

I wouldn't know and won't can't out this game. Sorry to disappoint.

That was mean to read "won't/can't find out". Stupid LordMortis syndrome.

This is the post Chaosraven is referring to Unagi.

and no, Chaosraven, I didn't preview because if I had I would have caught it before posting and not needed to clarify.

[Chaosraven]

Uh no, i'm talking about remus 'cant wont out' with an immediate 'cant\wont find out' pair of posts... Why is he paying so much attention to his own post?