Animal Rescue: petsPick (Game Over!)

[lewarcher82]

how so? I am half a vig, half a flavour cop.

You're killing players based on whether the animal is a dog or a cat. I'd hope all of the scum weren't cats, that'd be a pretty silly set up.

and? who said all scum are cats???

[glowball]

how so? I am half a vig, half a flavour cop.

You're killing players based on whether the animal is a dog or a cat. I'd hope all of the scum weren't cats, that'd be a pretty silly set up.

and? who said all scum are cats???

NO ONE! That is the problem

Didn't you say that if you investigate a player and they are a cat, they die? How is that helpful to town, unless cats are scum? It's not, you'll just be killing off townies that have cats.

[Ghostlin]

Honestly, we have a vig that's going to kill off half the majority of the animals here, and has been pretty scummy to begin with. Yup, still comfortable with my vote where it is post claim. The PR doesn't seem benefical to town at all.

[Untrod Tripod]

it's beneficial to town if scum are cats

which we have no evidence to assume that they are

so yeah, I'm gonna go with the "then lynch me" option

[glowball]

it's beneficial to town if scum are cats

which we have no evidence to assume that they are

so yeah, I'm gonna go with the "then lynch me" option

Exactly.

[xRECKONERx]

What if your player has a cat AND a dog? You'll die and kill them too?

[Sotty7]

I have less issue with Lew's claim than I do with his actual behavior. He keeps saying the case on him is built on nothing and yet his vote on Vi seems completely out of spite rather than anything else. I don't know why Lew was asking for another dog claim when we had one early in the day, one he singled out and talked directly down to.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I see no indication that multiple pets are possible.

And of course the role is beneficial to the town. Extra town-directed kill is always good regardless of the limitations it has - even if none of the scum are cats, you could vig someone suspicious who had claimed his pet and save us a lynch.

[Llamarble]

I imagine animal isn't correlated to role or else scum would have to fake entire histories of interaction with their pets not to get reamed by massclaim.

[xRECKONERx]

I see no indication that multiple pets are possible.

I thought the basic setup of the game was "You send me all your pets, I'll make a role/story out of them" or something.

[VP Baltar]

lew, why did you partially claim your info? What did you gain by keeping the vig part of the claim close to your chest at that time?

[Kublai Khan]

I am Mao-Tse-Tung, and I am a town assassin cat. Each night I can decide to visit a player. If that player has a cat, I will kill him. If that player has a dog, I will die. The flavour is connected with the real biography of my former cat Mao, who was killed by a dog.

But why does he kill other cats? What's the flavor reasoning for that?

[lewarcher82]

lew, why did you partially claim your info? What did you gain by keeping the vig part of the claim close to your chest at that time?

Good question: in order to prevent people from thinking that I want to prove my role by killing someone, the only acceptable pro-town plan I can propose with a full claim involves self sacrifice, which is what I have proposed once I was forced to fullclaim.

[lewarcher82]

I am Mao-Tse-Tung, and I am a town assassin cat. Each night I can decide to visit a player. If that player has a cat, I will kill him. If that player has a dog, I will die. The flavour is connected with the real biography of my former cat Mao, who was killed by a dog.

But why does he kill other cats? What's the flavor reasoning for that?

NINJA'D. Mao was an extremely aggressive cat. No other cat in the neighborhood as long as he was alive.

[VP Baltar]

lew, why did you partially claim your info? What did you gain by keeping the vig part of the claim close to your chest at that time?

Good question: in order to prevent people from thinking that I want to prove my role by killing someone, the only acceptable pro-town plan I can propose with a full claim involves self sacrifice, which is what I have proposed once I was forced to fullclaim.

So if you had not been forced to full claim, what was your plan exactly? Say you got the role info that glowball was indeed a dog (though I think that was already implied) and people back off your lynch. You were going to sacrifice yourself overnight then without telling the town?

[lewarcher82]

lew, why did you partially claim your info? What did you gain by keeping the vig part of the claim close to your chest at that time?

Good question: in order to prevent people from thinking that I want to prove my role by killing someone, the only acceptable pro-town plan I can propose with a full claim involves self sacrifice, which is what I have proposed once I was forced to fullclaim.

So if you had not been forced to full claim, what was your plan exactly? Say you got the role info that glowball was indeed a dog (though I think that was already implied) and people back off your lynch. You were going to sacrifice yourself overnight then without telling the town?

Of course I would have tried to go on and convince you guys of the silliness of the case on me (perhaps by getting Vi lynched and by seeing her/him flip scum), and in case of success, the plan might have become no longer necessary. In which case I would have tried to survive to day 2 and then I would have either bluffed or explained my behaviour by fullclaiming one day later.

[Kublai Khan]

What if your player has a cat AND a dog? You'll die and kill them too?

You keep ignoring this question.

[xRECKONERx]

I'm not buying the claim solely because he keeps ignoring that question... because that question REALLY fucks up his claim.

[Vi]

I have re-read my ISO and I really don't understand the case on me.

Well, Vi: appear self-confident and everyone will think you know what you are doing, huh? This is the most unfounded and quickest wagon I have ever seen

.

I'm glad we're playing this game over the Internet. I think I went through two or three different "astonishment" facial expressions over the course of these two lines and I think all of them were embarrassing.

It's okay if you don't claim to understand the case on you and/or disagree with it. I wasn't really counting on your vote on this wagon anyway. In the meantime, you'll forgive me if I don't respond to your borderline

ad hom

s.

Oh and btw, I'm pretty sure

everyone

in this game is a power role. That's kind of the whole point of this being a UPick. You are not a special snowflake being maligned for no evident reason by a manifestly malevolent Mafioso.

I am Mao-Tse-Tung, and I am a

town assassin cat

. Each night I can decide to visit a player. If that player has a cat, I will kill him. If that player has a dog, I will die. The flavour is connected with the real biography of my former cat Mao, who was killed by a dog.

In order to avoid a short day 1 and a stupid mislynch, I will accept to do as follows:

You unvote me, and tonight I will visit someone who will claim to have a dog (no full claim required, any dog will do). By doing that, I will be dead and flipped on the morning of day 2. You will quit wasting your time tunneling me, I will be dead anyway and today we can go on playing and discussing other cases. Despite Vi's tunneling, we might end up lynching someone who is actually scum. Also: I will get more time to analize the wagon on me and leave a legacy of reads.

I know it's weird, but it's the only strategy occurring to me.

On the one hand, you'll excuse me if I don't really care for the potential of your "legacy of reads" until you do something other than lightly taunt me. Likewise, I'm really not sure what you were trying to get out of fakeclaiming Role Cop, except a chance to confuse Town - your fakeclaim would have been exposed D2 no matter what. Further, your claimed role isn't even worth using

except

with outstanding claims, making it look like a massclaim punisher role.
On the other hand, letting you die for free is tempting.

I'll think about it.

---

Also, if there was a chance to throw in multiple pets, I completely missed the memo, so etc.

[Ghostlin]

My beginning scum reads:
1) Lewatcher: I'm not buying it. It's completely counterintuitive for you to be opposed to a pet claim when it's got a chance of killing you. Also, flipping out about said claim, and your current focus on Vi means you're looking for an easy way out of this.

As for your suggestion? No Deal.

2) Llamarble: Has contributed zero to town and all he's really done is restate the obvious.

[xvart]

You're really reaching xvart.

How many posts have to happen before people are allowed for form reads?

It's not about the number of posts. It is solely about the context of those posts and the events that transpired afterwards. Let us look at the posts in question. There are only two so it will be easy. Jason's first post:

hello, everyone!

vote:xvart

for being the first persons name I saw when closing my eyes, and opening them again with player list in front of me!

No game related content at all. Pure RVS post and therefore unable to get any information about alignment (unless there is some meta of which I am unaware; but I think that would have been brought up by now).

Your post, five posts later:

Vote: Jason

You recently said that you had a gut read on Jason based on his one post. However, at the time of this post there was no publicly available information to suggest anything you had a gut scum read on Jason. Certainly not in the next five posts when Quilford claimed you town for your only post in the game which contained nothing other than a vote:

Anyway, here's the reads: Jason, scummy; lewarcher82, townish; KK, null; Sotty7, townish; VPB, null with a twist of scum.

So my point is that Quilford had absolutely no way to discern your alignment since the only thing you had said is "vote: jason". Then he went on to delay providing his explanation to VP, produced several other reads without providing explanation for your read, then came back and finally said "Sotty is town because she voted for Jason." Again, no available information to determine your alignment based on your one post; plus the delay of producing such an easy explanation.

And my reference to post size or word count or whatever can easily be summed up by looking at Quilford's posts in question:

VPB I'll get to you in about 9 hours.

well it's just that I'm about to sit an exam so

Compared to the easy explanation:

He voted for jason.

Insta town points.

The delay was because he called you town for no reason, got called out for it, and then had to fabricate some explanation since VP had been persistent about getting that read explanation. Otherwise, he would have said "Sotty is town for voting Jason. Instant town points" the first time around plus the added benefit that he came back to "explain" why he would be absent after VP voted him. Even the explanation he finally gave is questionable in terms of motive.

I'm sad to see that this has somehow been misconstrued into a xvart vs. Sotty debate because I have no opinion of your alignment either way at this juncture. At this point, without evidence to the contrary, I would be more likely to think that he called you town like that because he was scum buddying town because I don't see the benefit of scum buddying scum in the first 15 posts of the game.

---

What if your player has a cat AND a dog? You'll die and kill them too?

I think this question is ridiculous as I don't see anyone having two pets and there has been no evidence to suggest otherwise (except for maybe the Roxi voter).

I do think like Sotty said, Xvert is reaching. Many people post early reads (gut or otherwise) saying X is town, Y is scum just from the RVS and the fact he seems set on pushing Quil and Sotty on this is strange. I am keeping my vote on for now until he starts making sense and stops tunnelling this issue.

I'm not pushing Sotty as being scum. The only thing that I can see at this point is that might indicate that she is scum is because she got drawn into this by being the target of Quilford's unexplained town read, which I am slightly inclined to believe makes her town pending Quilford's scum flip.

how so? I am half a vig, half a flavour cop.

You're killing players based on whether the animal is a dog or a cat. I'd hope all of the scum weren't cats, that'd be a pretty silly set up.

and? who said all scum are cats???

NO ONE! That is the problem

Didn't you say that if you investigate a player and they are a cat, they die? How is that helpful to town, unless cats are scum? It's not, you'll just be killing off townies that have cats.

This is starting to sound more like a third party role of "kill X number of cats and you win". I'm trying to remember some MD thread I saw zoraster posting in about different roles or modified role usage because he may have thrown a few of those tweaked roles in. I'll see if I can find it because I think a modified SK/modified lyncher was discussed.

[xRECKONERx]

I think this question is ridiculous as I don't see anyone having two pets and there has been no evidence to suggest otherwise (except for maybe the Roxi voter).

It's not ridiculous if it's entirely possible. Why are people getting so butthurt over a perfectly reasonable question?

Mod: is it possible for a person to have more than one pet in their role?

[Quilford]

The delay was because he called you town for no reason, got called out for it, and then had to fabricate some explanation since VP had been persistent about getting that read explanation.

You're almost completely correct. I did have an initial town read for the unexplained vote on jason, but I thought people would point out that this could come from either alignment, so I just made an attempt at sounding humorous. I did have exams to rush off to, though.

The fact that you are pushing me as scum for my questionable town read on Sotty when I posted 1) selfmeta which shows me doing this only as town and 2) a bunch of other reads which are also based on very little substance and were yet not called into question is rather deliciously stupid.

What's even dumber is that you propose I am 'buddying' Sotty from my weak read on her from one post, despite the two points made above.

In no posts do you draw any connection between my actions and my alignment, apart from the hilarious buddying accusation mentioned above.

[xvart]

Limited access for until Friday afternoon. I should be able to get on each of the next two nights; but depending on activity levels I may not be able to post much. This is my last conference so after this stretch no more V/LA for the foreseeable future.

[Amrun]

Listen, we don't kill vig claims... That's dumb.

Haven't properly caught up, but I wanted to say that. Let's lynch jason instead.