Nerjin, your
[[Bah post]]
came barely more than a minute before Meph posted start of day. I know that bah posts are not supposed to contain any meaningful content, but I still have to ask - bahing having died, being alive again, or both?
You tell us
From what I can tell I'm still a Dreamwalker. I was told that I feel like myself but I'm not sure if that means I maintain my dream-walk powers. I'll have to get back to you on that.
Told you feel like yourself? Are you paraphrasing/reinterpreting what your PM said, or is that pretty much the actual wording? I understand you must not quote it.
Also - You likely missed these questions, I forgot to bold your name in the post where I ask them.
Nerjin, was there -anything- in your experiences last night that told you anything about -who- or -how- you were raised, other than that there was a candle? Where did you become alive again? Was it in the Circle with the rest of us, or somewhere else? if somewhere else, where and how did you get back to the Circle?
You quote the player list for the last game and follow that by saying "It's entirely likely that there be a Vampire Cult."
I get the first quote of Meph, he says rules and roles won't change, that supports your sentence.
But the second quote, the player list - it has werewolves and a lone vampire (who died, not surviving to move on to another area as his role said he must to win). What do you see in that player list that supports "It's entirely likely that there be a Vampire Cult."?
Jim,
Back to Persus13. Same reasons as yesterday.
I'm asking because Max has clearly lined out his argument as to why I am scum (in an alphabetically list, no less!), so now is the time to make a decision. Obviously, I know I am town and I think Max is mistaken but I can't expect anyone to just take my word on that.
Yeah, I don't like you trying to bring attention to these two players.
Meanwhile, your vote is on Persus13.
Why are you trying to draw attention to Max White and Nerjin instead of the player you're supposedly trying to lynch?
About that player you're supposedly trying to lynch, will you be making a case on him this day, or is his name more of a comfortable footrest for your vote when it's not out there working for its living?
I totally get that some players are cool and get to do things that other players are clearly uncool for trying, but other than long, drawn out pressure and a 'place' for your vote, what are you doing with your Persus13 vote?
Max,
Ah, I see. What game was it that had a necromancer then?
That would be S3.
Persus, would you answer this question please?
Persus13:
a masked man with a sword (no other description except good instincts)
Who was described as having good instincts - you or the man who broke in with the sword?
Also, have your opinions on who is scummy changed at all today?
I'd like to ask this to everyone, especially Max who seems to have given up his tunneling of NQT. It's been a few days (real-time), giving us a slight break to think things over.
Sort of. I'm swimming as hard as I can to keep up with the flood of real life and 3 simultaneous Mafia games. I think I'm in the process of becoming a better swimmer *gasps for breath*. I need a chance to best immerse myself in this thread again. Trying hard. My previous concerns for Toonyman haven't vanished, I keep evaluating him as I can. My previous concerns over Nerjin still exist, though I've got a lot of new data to exclude (he's also playing simultaneous Mafia games, but what happens in one can't be discussed in the other until after, so I have to exclude and partition like a swarm of honeybees moving into a new hive). New suspicions to add in? Working on it. Working hard. Also very, very deep in thought about what things do and don't mean, as far as claims and direct evidence as given by the current day's opening post.
Imp and Toonyman haven't really done much besides attack NQT
I disagree with your assessment that I was 'attacking' NQT.
Attacks do not invite discussion with their target, the purpose of an attack is not to get questions answered but to highlight the details of the Scumminess you see and move to gain agreement from others that your target should be given their vote. More rarely, attacks are used to 'shut a player down' without attempting to press the case into lynching - I view that as Scummy (you can do that the next day all over again and look like you're Scumhunting to the casual eye, and who really wants to read that anyway? You just switch off to a 'compromise target' for lynches since you were unable to get support for your lynch target. Rinse and repeat each day).
My intention was to discuss some things I was concerned about with NQT and receive his answers and reactions to my concern and questions.
Do you agree with me about the difference between attacking and Scumhunting? If not, could you help me understand how I was attacking notquitethere?
And then your attacking Nerjin for not scumhunting, when he seems to have given all he had. And he also said this.
Actually it's because I don't see the point. There's not enough time or information for me to make a proper go at things.
Not everyone can churn out walls of text like you can in a short amount of time. And churning out lots of information isn't guaranteed to help town like you seem to think it is.
You are seriously confusing either 'the difference between Scumhunting and analysis' or my motives, or both. Scumhunting isn't analysis - it can use analysis, but it is the action of gaining more information that can be used to determine the intentions and thinking of those you play with.
That's why RVS questions - or even just a naked voted name thrown alone into a post - is considered a type of Scumhunting. You press for a reaction. It's great (and necessary) at some point for someone to analyze the behaviour that ensues - both the asker and the asked - BOTH are providing information about their intentions and thought patterns for all the players to consider.
When I 'attack' Nerjin (again, what I did with Nerjin was NOT an attack. I was almost begging Nerjin to interact with me - that I was interacting with him, seeking to draw him out and inviting his response - not presenting already gained (or created) information about him to convince others is the very core concept of the difference between what is and is not an attack) at the end of D1, I am extending to him the greatest in-game kindness I currently can imagine - support and assistance in making his play matter. I mean it, when I say 'so what if you die because you can still win (unless dying breaks your wincon)'. His behavior at the end even -could- have changed my vote, and possibly provoked posts from me to try and gain support from enough others to shift votes to a different lynch.
I cannot discuss ongoing games, so I can offer no support that I actually think like this, have these intentions, or have ever attempted such actions. Oh well.
Toonyman:
@NQT:
If a town monster hunter has an investigate and a kill ability, should they investigate their targets before killing them?
Should a priest use their resurrect power?
I would probably investigate first. I haven't had a vig role in awhile though.
Does it matter to you what sort of investigate power you have? Reminded that you had a hunter in S1, who could detect vampires in a vampire-free game (there were two priests, but both were defined as pious, so no chance of them creating a vampire), do you think you'd probably still use your inspect, whatever that inspect was?
notquitethere:
Hunters can investigate as well as kill.
This is not actually true - at least it is not actually
always true.
In S5, this was Toaster's role PM:
Toaster (town)
This world is full of evil. Vampires, Werewolves, Cultists. Demons, Devils. Monsters of all types. And it falls to you, Monster Hunter, to seek them out and slay them. Each night you may choose to attack and Kill another player that you suspect is evil. But choose wisely, for your skills are deadly to good and evil alike.
In S1, this was Toonyman's role PM:
ToonyMan (town)
You are a mighty Vampire Hunter. You are a master of combat, able to slay even the most powerful monsters. But your specialty lies in hunting Vampires. You know how to protect yourself from being turned into one, and have learned to identify them. Each night you may choose to either Inspect a person to see if they are a Vampire or Not, or to Kill someone that you know or suspect is a threat to the town.
And, his inspect was useless, in the sense that there were no vampires in that game.
In fact, of the four(five, counting the 'useless' Hunter vampire check) inspect roles in this game, only two are extremely useful, in the sense that they give answers which are likely to be of certain and obvious meaning - the Seer, who has been able to inspect "the soul of another and see if they are Benign or Malevolent towards you and the good people of the town" and the Oracle, who inspects a "player to determine which Faction they belong to" - Fortune tellers get told a category (but it is a lot of (guess)work still to try and figure out what that category mean? A killer could be benign or malicious - a changer could be a priest, a devil, or a converter) and dream walkers dont even get to pick whom they try to inspect, nor do they usually even know who they have observed.
So only 50% of the Hunters this game has seen have had an inspect, and no hunter who has possessed an inspect yet could have gotten a positive result no matter how it was used.
I'm at work now so only have time to do these responses but I intend to do some proper analysis, hopefully tonight, before pressing my next round of cases.
I am very interested in seeing this - as well as to learning the use to which you intend to put your gathered answers to.
One thing about the information you tabulated so far bothers me.
Stands at:
Yes Inspect before Kill:
NQT
Persus
Toony
Max
No Inspect before Kill:
Jim
Caz
Hasn't yet to commit to whether Inspect before Kill:
Imp
Toaster
Nerjin
Tiruin
Cmega
Yes Nerjin:
Persus
NQT
No Nerjin:
Jim
Apparently Nerjin
Toony
Jim
Max
Unclear Nerjin:
Caz
Has yet to commit about Nerjin:
Cmega
Tiruin
Imp
Your first question is accurately reported: You ask us if a hunter should inspect before killing, and you report the answers as Yes/No Inspect Before Kill. That's clean.
Your second question is inaccurately reported: You ask us if a priest should use their resurrection power, and you report the answers as Yes/No Nerjin.
I know I would have answered you quite differently if you asked me a specific question such as 'Do you feel I should have resurrected Nerjin this game?' - other players' answers might also not fit neatly into the 'Yes/No Nerjin' box given that you did not ask that question.
Was that category choice just an oversight?
Finally, I would really like for you to explain your reasoning about this more clearly.
Max
Oh, was he? If you think he was starting to straighten up and fly right then why were you voting for him yesterday? How did he go from lynch worthy to a town asset, even as third party?
Nerjin was so borderline. I didn't know whether he was just appearing to give an effort just because I gave an ultimatum and I knew I could resurrect him if I was wrong. I probably would have unvoted him if his scum-pick breakdown had made much sense.
If what I quote you as saying is your actual thinking, how do you correlated that to your stated decision to resurrect him given that you also said:
notquitethere, why Nerjin?
We knew he was town and by the end of Day 1 it looked like he was getting his act together and finally starting to think critically about the game. If he keeps that up, even if he's a survivor third-party now, he'll be a town asset. Also, I might die or be converted on any given night so I thought it best to use my power on the first competent town player that died.
Also:
Max
If you think he was starting to straighten up and fly right then why were you voting for him yesterday? How did he go from lynch worthy to a town asset, even as third party?
Seems to me like you are trying to set him up, knowing that if there is an inspect in town it is heading straight for him.
Max this is baseless speculation.
The baseless speculation is about the inspect only, or do you refer to the question as well?
Tiruin:
Aha! Thanks, I'd accepted your silence as your answer. Here's the question again.
Tiruin:
Imagine your role made you be a Cult Sexton this game. During N1 you are informed that the grave of the D1 lynch (a townsperson) has been disturbed - in fact the body is missing! No mention is made of that person's reappearance during D2's opening post and the posts in Scumchat tell you that no Scum was involved in this disappearance. Do you take any sort of action which might expose your role on D2? Why or why not?
Caz:
If Nerjin doesn't give us accurate dreamwalker results tomorrow, then he's next to hang.
That bugs me, Caz.
Dreamwalkers can't pick who to investigate, and we may have players who are not taking a night action or having any nocturnal experiences on that given night. For a dreamwalker, 'random and meaningless dreams', the result from an inspection on a player who received no PMs - that's always a possible result.
If he gives us that result we cannot verify his story - he won't even be able to tell us who had a peaceful night. And that doesn't prove anything about his honesty or role after resurrection.
My thoughts about Nerjin:
I think he's a prime conversion target (if there are conversions happening). If the Scum didn't resurrect him then there's a 50% chance he came back as something that's probably more useful to the Scum than a dreamwalker would be (not that a dreamwalker's useless to Scum or Town if they get a lucky inspect target). I do agree with NQT's assertion that if Nerjin comes back changed (and if he was not raised by Scum), he's going to be an issue for the Scum as well as Town and especially if they can convert, I have trouble thinking of any reason NOT to take him as a high priority conversion target.
Author
Topic: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Game Over! (Read 161127 times)