What do you interpret this to mean?GC wrote:Then in my replacement PM I was given, in quotation form, a PM to the mod from skillit about a double boost, and the mod said something along the lines of "You will get more specific information about choices from a target."
I think that's probably a good idea if we decide to lynch a claimed vanilla, since townies apparantly get no benefit from boosts and scum do. If we lynch GC boosting him is again the safest choice, now that I think about it. I guess the only other viable option is lynch someone who isn't GC and boost GC to test his claim and possibly help confirm a townie, but that's quite a risk.Incog wrote:Oh and eldarad's last post gave me an interesting idea. What do people think of making our next boost choice the same person we lynch?
I know, but Xtoxm's defense is basically saying "not!" and yours relies on other factors. I still fail to see how it can not apply.Incog wrote:Raging Rabbit, I get your case against Xtoxm. I've continued to understand your case against Xtoxm. It's been banged into my head enough.
Not sure what your point is here. I still think, that for Xtoxm to be townRaging Rabbit wrote:Here's an assingment for Incog, GC, eldarad and TDC - come a with a possible PM phrasing that's in any plausible for both sthar's and Xtoxm's claims.
I think you have completely missed the point.Raging Rabbit wrote:Here's an assingment for Incog, GC, eldarad and TDC - come a with a possible PM phrasing that's in any plausible for both sthar's and Xtoxm's claims.
I'm totally down with that.Incog wrote:Oh and eldarad's last post gave me an interesting idea. What do people think of making our next boost choice the same person we lynch?
Yeah...that isn't really what you meant though, is it?GC wrote:The original role PM said that my power would grow with subsequential boosts. Skillit asked what would happen if he was boosted a second time. I coined this as a "double boost;" that is, boosted a second time.
However, in your comments on Green Crayons (at least before he went ahead and claimed "psychic") you had the following to say about him:1227, eldarad (bolded blue is my emphasis) wrote:So I re-read the end of Day 1.But at the same time I agree with everything he says about Huntress.sthar's #676 is potentially our smoking gun as he positions himself to vote Huntress in preference to the Jahudo wagon.
Unfortunately, he didn't have time to respond to Huntress' claim on Day 1 (yeah, yeah, that's partly my fault for hammering).
I don't find Xtoxm to be scummy, although I am anxious about Incog's certainty on this point
I'm curious as to why this gearing up to vote Huntress was potentially a "smoking gun" for Xtoxm/sthar8 but not even mentioned by you for Green Crayons if it was something you noticed in your re-read.1252, eldarad wrote:GC-TDC: I have re-read both of these players in isolation recently, and I just don't see anything scummy about either of them.
I just don't get why you didn't label his 649 as a possible "smoking gun" much the same way you labeled sthar8's 676 as a "smoking gun" also. I think your read of Green Crayons before he claimed psychic was comparatively softer than your read of sthar8/Xtoxm despite the fact that you were pretty much analyzing comparable pieces of information in order to obtain those reads.eldarad wrote:Incog: I have no problem with GC's #649 - I read it when I was re-reading GC -and largely agree with his comments on Huntress, both in that post and in subsequent posts.I don't really have anything more to add in answer to your question...
I guess it's funny (in the ironic sense, I suppose, rather than the haha sort of way), because I didn't really see another way the semi-ambiguous description of my role could have been interpreted. This just proves me wrong and reminds me that, yet again, making assumptions is a poor play philosophy. In this case, I assumed my role was my first thought as to what it entailed. Sometimes it's just hard to see the assumptions your making until someone else points them out.Incog wrote:Green Crayons, the way you've described your role makes it sound like some sort of tracker when boosted the first time and watcher when boosted a second time. I don't understand why you didn't just say that from the beginning instead of, as you say, claiming the flavor behind your role.
What? If someone is boosted twice, I would consider them to be "double boosted." I don't know how you're assuming I meant boosted twice within the same day since the mod himself stated in the second post to this game that, quote, "You may not vote twice to boost the same person."Eld wrote:Yeah...that isn't really what you meant though, is it?
To put a finer point on this:Green Crayons wrote:I guess it's funny (in the ironic sense, I suppose, rather than the haha sort of way), because I didn't really see another way the semi-ambiguous description of my role could have been interpreted. This just proves me wrong and reminds me that, yet again, making assumptions is a poor play philosophy. In this case, I assumed my role was my first thought as to what it entailed. Sometimes it's just hard to see the assumptions your making until someone else points them out.Incog wrote:Green Crayons, the way you've described your role makes it sound like some sort of tracker when boosted the first time and watcher when boosted a second time. I don't understand why you didn't just say that from the beginning instead of, as you say, claiming the flavor behind your role.
No, essentially. This post has more detail.Xtoxm wrote:Mod is it possible to boost no one?
I think GC's claim is completely fake and he needs to be lynched. I got that impression from the initial claim, and GC's subsequent explanations have not assuaged me. That takes precedence over everything else. On top of that, my feeling is that GC-scum is mutually exclusive of RR-scum.Incog wrote:I fail to see how Green Crayons's claim could completely change eldarad's view on him from not seeing anything scummy about him after rereading him to actually switching his vote to him after laying out a case against Raging Rabbit and gunning for his blood since yesterday.
So if I vote RR on Day 2 and on Day 3, is he "double-voted"?GC wrote:What? If someone is boosted twice, I would consider them to be "double boosted."
GC wrote:I'm a psychic. If I'm boosted, I can determine if someone made a night choice by targetting them. If I'm double boosted, I can determine who that person's target was, if anyone.
Sounds like you are claiming to be "a psychic" and the rest of your claim is describing what that role is. It contrasts sharply with Huntress' claim - where she doesn't even name her role, and Incog's claim - where the mechanics of his role is instantly recognisable as a vig. Your claim is of a power that is - initially - unorthodox, but you have felt the need to give it a name.GC wrote:I never claimed a role name, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from. I said that I'm a psychic.
I am well aware of post 2. But here's the thing...GC wrote:I'm sorry if you didn't read post 2. But, you shouldn't assume I didn't read it either when I come up with jargon to describe game mechanics, and then base a vote off of that limited perception you're espousing.
GC wrote:Then in my replacement PM I was given, in quotation form, a PM to the mod from skillit about a double boost, and the mod said something along the lines of "You will get more specific information about choices from a target."
Skillit replaced out before Electra revealed that we could only be boosted twice. So why would Skillit specifically ask about if he was boosted aGC wrote:The original role PM said that my power would grow with subsequential boosts. Skillit asked what would happen if he was boosted a second time. I coined this as a "double boost;" that is, boosted a second time.
On second thought, I think we should boost one of the vanillas Today - it will be useful to confirm that our assumption about Electra's information (ie, some people are unaffected by boosting) does indeed apply to the vanilla townies.Incog, post 1279 wrote:Oh and eldarad's last post gave me an interesting idea. What do people think of making our next boost choice the same person we lynch?
To whom else should it apply? Mafia?eldarad wrote:On second thought, I think we should boost one of the vanillas Today - it will be useful to confirm that our assumption about Electra's information (ie, some people are unaffected by boosting) does indeed apply to the vanilla townies.
Why are you phrasing this in such a convoluted way? The two people that haven't boosted him are Incognito himself (duh) and you.eldarad wrote:Oh, and we need to lynch one of the people who boosted Incog Today. This is non-negotiable.
We ynch GC.Oh, and we need to lynch one of the people who boosted Incog Today. This is non-negotiable. Anyone who opposes this plan of action needs to speak up now.
Maybe, or just the Godfather. Or maybe Huntress - who appears to have been a "pure" power role rather than a boostable one? I think we should check, since we have the opportunity.TDC wrote:To whom else should it apply? Mafia?
For example by boosting me, I confirm that I received no power, and then lynching me the following Day to prove my alignment.eldarad, post 775 wrote:If testing the providence of Electra's information becomes vital to the success of the town, then we do have a few fairly extreme options available to us, should we need them.
No, I don't think I am 'confirmed.' I think at the moment it is a numbers game.TDC wrote:Why are you phrasing this in such a convoluted way? The two people that haven't boosted him are Incognito himself (duh) and you.
So, really, what you're saying is that we need to lynch someone that isn't you.
Are you claiming that by not boosting Incognito, you've somehow confirmed yourself?
I trust Incog to be town. I don't trust him to be right...at least not all the time...Xtoxm wrote:If you trust Incog the obvious boost is me.
Or Guardian.eldarad wrote:Maybe, or just the Godfather. Or maybe Huntress - who appears to have been a "pure" power role rather than a boostable one? I think we should check, since we have the opportunity.TDC wrote:To whom else should it apply? Mafia?
For what its worth, I think Electra's info does indeed relate to vanillas - and it was one of the ways I believed Electra's info to be testable...I just didn't want to claim at that point.
I think you're probably town, hence yes. My point is that this doesn't follow from the fact that the other three have boosted Incog, while you have not, but from me seeing you as town in the first place. If this wasn't the case then, no, there might as well be only one scum among the boosters.From my point of view both scum must be on Incog's boostwagon (assuming Incog is town). Even if we mislynch, Incog can vig one of the boosters - and he'll have a choice between one townie and 2 scum.
I accept it's not as clear cut for you, but you can clear one of the boosters (yourself). So, do you think there are 2 scum boosting Incog Today?
So you're arguing semantics of how you would label something? That's what you want to lynch me for? BecauseEld wrote:So if I vote RR on Day 2 and on Day 3, is he "double-voted"?
If someone was boosted on 2 Days, I would consider them to be "boosted twice"
I already explained that my role flavor strongly hints to me having psychic powers. Someone who has psychic powers usually is labeled a psychic.Eld wrote:Sounds like you are claiming to be "a psychic" and the rest of your claim is describing what that role is.
I didn't give my role a name. And, in order to not quote the mod and simply to paraphrase, I summed up my flavor text - which consisted of hints as to role mechanics and the like - in a word most apt in description. You're seriously faulting me for using a word to summarize my role flavor/description instead of stating it outright? Brilliant.Eld wrote:It contrasts sharply with Huntress' claim - where she doesn't even name her role, and Incog's claim - where the mechanics of his role is instantly recognisable as a vig. Your claim is of a power that is - initially - unorthodox, but you have felt the need to give it a name.
I don't know. I can't read minds. If I were to guess, he probably was all like, "Cool. I like this role by being boosted once. Oh wait. It says my power would grow if I'm boosted more than once. Let me ask the mod what would happen if I was to be boosted a second time." Maybe Skillit didn't think he would be boosted a third time. Maybe he didn't ask about a third time because he was going to see what a second boost would net him first, and then if he got to that point would inquire further. I don't know - I'm not skillit, so I'm not exactly comfortable trying to speak on his behalf for his thought process; but I'm doing it because apparently you're faulting me for the way his mind works.Eld wrote:Skillit replaced out before Electra revealed that we could only be boosted twice. So why would Skillit specifically ask about if he was boosted a second time?
You're infuriating. At the risk of being modkilled, the PM utilizes the word "again" instead of "subsequent boosts." I'm sorry, you'll have to fault me for paraphrasing the mod's PM to skirt around the issue of being modkilled. But, it says it right there in the original role PM: again. As in, If you are boosted again, then X. You should note that "again" is ambiguous (and probably on purpose - otherwise, Electra's information could be deduced by other players): does it mean only once more, multiple times, or what? Skillit didn't know, because he wasn't privy to Electra's information. But he made the assumption that it meantEld wrote:If your role PM suggests a boost this gives you information on what your targeted player does, and that subsequent boosts would make your action "more powerful" I see no reason why there is any need for the mod to elaborate on that the role PM had not contained that level of detail.
It sounds like you're faulting me for not quoting the mod and for not being able to fully disclose the mental thought process of a predecessor.Eld wrote:It just sounds to me that you're subtly altering your claim as you go along
I described my role in terms of summing up the flavor text and putting forth my assumption of what it meant in terms of powers, if boosted. Huntress mentioned her flavor and described her power. Incog mentioned his flavor and described his assumption as to what his boost power would be. I don't see the inconsistency.Eld wrote:I feel we are skating on thin ice regarding rule 11 - since I am well aware of post 1 too - but the point I am making is that, even before #1287, your claim is not consistent with the other claims we have had up till now.
This makes no sense. If you look at every time I have used the term "double boosted," it makes perfect sense in the manner in which I meant for it to be interpreted: to be boosted on more than one occasion. There is not a single example where any of my uses of "double boosted" meant "boosted twice within a single day."Eld wrote:On top of that, the "jargon" that you used does not fit with what you are saying you meant - I think because originally you meant something else, or wanted to give yourself latitude to adapt the claim as needed.
Upon reading the thread, I didn't like this post at all for pretty much the exact same reasons TDC and Raging Rabbit pointed out. The timing was interesting like TDC mentioned -- it came directly after I switched my vote to Jahudo-GF while Guardian and iLord followed suit with their own Jahudo-votes. It really does look like a last ditch attempt to save the power role scum. The content was interesting as well -- I don't think the length of it was necessarily a bad thing since I know that I often find myself producing fairly lengthy cases as town but really the content and feel is what got me. I didn't see much in that post that was based on gut or "feelings", which I think are things town usually need to determine who's scum. It just looked like a post-by-post dissection that relied almost entirely on logic, which isn't necessarily always a bad thing since you1239, Incognito wrote:What do people think about Green Crayons's post 649?
I didn't like this post either but for different reasons than were given by TDC and Raging Rabbit. What stuck out to me about this post was theIncognito wrote:What do people think about eldarad's post 890?
