Fable 10- Surprise- Game Thread

[ExiledAtHome]

As for the "throws accusations of 'ignoring' out within less than an hour"-argument itself.
Yup, that looks bad out of context.
Now lets look at it IN context:
- The 'ignored' post was made 1,5 hours before the deadline
- The issue it addressed was the main topic at that time, as it needed to be resolved before the deadline
- You responded to the issue in a way, that only makes sense if you haven't read that post.
- I reacted to that situation less than an hour before the deadline on exactly that issue.

Nah, the point you made (about wanting to better develop your scumreads before we discuss where to pass) was the post I was referring to, and it's the post you accused me of ignoring no more than 45 minutes after you'd initially posted it.

link? (i have no idea which posts you're talking about here)

I already provided the timestamps 23:30 and 00:15, so I'm not sure why you're confused about this.

But, here, at 23:30, you said this:

And yes, we can hammer out, right now, where all the pieces need to go for pretty much the rest of the game, as piece movement becomes increasingly limited.
But maybe.... and here's a crazy idea.....
I would like to have an idea where i want the pieces to go

And the, at 00:15, you said this:

4: Do you have anything to contribute (other than threatening rage-quits) to my 'piece placement is about to become so damn tight, perhaps scumreads a day or more in advance might be useful'.

Is the latter post not referring to the former post from 45 minutes earlier?

[ExiledAtHome]

You ALSO accused me of ignoring your EOD post, but that's not what I was referencing.

NO I DID NOT

You didn't? Isn't this absolutely the bulwark of your criticism today? That I dodged your EOD post on D6 about why passing to 1 player is better than passing to 2?

Am I in the Twilight Zone here?

[shirt]

@Shirt
Who do you think is arguing that "Angel will always be town"? We are arguing that kim was very likely town.

I kind of assumed we're far enough into this game to use the names 'Kim' and 'Angel' as interchangeable as 'Joe' and 'Buffy' were D1, without anyone getting confused about this.
I have trouble seeing how you could misunderstand this, or more specifically.
You've stated you think i'm pretty smart, yet this statement hangs completely on a clear misunderstanding of the basic role of 3rd party, how could you possibly believe i thought that? (and that i talked about something that's ongoing, but somehow something completely different, that the thing that's going on)

Do you disagree that her play was hugely town-kim (you weren't in GQ with her but her scum play was massively different than her Men at Arms play)? Also, do you think she was trying to push lynches as scum would (to people with pieces)?

As i have stated, every time you've asked thusfar:
I HAD her as a townread before (as you did as well) got GM-confirmation that if she asked the question she claimed to have asked, she would not have gotten the answer she claimed she got.
How is this relevant?

It isn't to the 2 points i brought up about this issue:
- We should not bet the entire game on a townread, of someone who flipped 'do NOT assume this person to be town'. Why does everyone seem ok, with going against gm-info?
- How can you be both:
-- The biggest skeptic on trusting townreads 'no matter how strong' as that's how town usually loses
-- The biggest supporter of betting this game on a townread


First off, nothing about this requires kim to be correct about this plan (or me about what she was exactly going for)
.... but sure, i'll take another stab at your defense of a townread, which makes no sense to defend, unless you ARE trying to bet the game on a townread (while not believing in betting the game on townreads)

What's her reason for lying about piece passes, given the risk that that kind of thing could be to her as a third party?

There was very little risk.
Why would Kim have assumed she'd get caught (at any point before, bombing with 2 pieces... aka the best play Angellus could make)?
Was there any indication anyone would doubt that claim?
That anyone would check?

Constructing a reasonable narrative for kim lying would really help you flesh* out this argument. I'm not against that consideration at all, but I just don't see why kim would lie there and I do need to give it more thought.

Then do.
I look forward to seeing this, preferably before mining as many pieces as possible from the 2 set-up 'deaths by assuming a town-3rd-party'

But you seem fairly convinced that she was scum, so maybe you can help the rest of the town understand your process here.

- as you know, she did not get the answer she claimed she got, on the question she claimed to have asked
- nobody seems remotely willing to even consider the possibility, we have literally 2 very predictable kills before anyone starts to try anything
Well i get why a scum among the 'cleared', would want that.... yeah, not seeing the town-motivation for it

Second thing -
Stop accusing EaH of dodging your questions. You've spent most of the game accusing me of dodging your questions or trying to avoid answering you - now you're doing that to to him. You were wrong about me, and even you must know that you have to be wrong about one of us. Consider a different explanation than "player is scum dodging questions, sound the alarm!" whenever you have difficulty communicating with someone; you can push a line of inquiry without continually restating a presumption of guilt at every level of your interaction.

Yeah.... no, to basically all of this.
True, it is certain we have (at least) 1 townie, who believes threatening to throw the game, is ok.
True, it is certain we have at least 1 townie who believes not having any reads what so ever by D3, is perfectly normal (para)
But no i'm not wrong calling these things, wrong. No matter what their role turns out to be.

I mean, i still don't know how it is possible to, 'be so damn sure, playing based on town-reads is so detrimental to town, discrediting a town-read you haven't bothered to understand, yet still be the game's biggest supporter of betting this game on a townread' and this isn't the first time i asked

Also, how would adding the line 'I see a possible reason for scum to do this, but no town-reason that's so damn obvious, it must be that one. So i want you to tell me what the town-motivation was, when you did that. As, whether I can think of a town-motivation for your actions, doesn't give me any insight in your alignment, whether you can tell me which town-motivation you had when you did what you did, will' before every issue i bring up, be in any way helpful?

Btw, isn't this exactly the tactic you claimed to use yourself?
The very tactic that results in, and was used to defend from, the accusations you tend to tunnel as town?

Frustrating, yes. Do you think it matters? If shirt makes a good point against you Joe will consider it when choosing a kill target. Otherwise, if shirt's accusations aren't convincing, they don't matter. We have a judge in this game and you need not worry that someone is accusing you wrongly, as it will have no impact.

How is this "Feel free to ignore anything you believe you can get away with" helpful?
I do see how this would benefit a scum-shadow, who would say this to genuinely-frustrated-town-eah.
I don't see how this would benefit town-shadow addressing unknown-eah (or even town-eah)

[sjg11]

And... stop.

Deadline for Night 7 is the same time tomorrow.

[sjg11]

The Vigil appears in the Town Square with a party hat on his head and a crown on his head.

"Congratulations guys! You caught the last of them! I paid Iggy a visit last night and staked him. He, as expected, turned to dust and vanished into thin air. Congratulations again! Now let's get out of here."

Iggy was a Force for Evil. The game is now over.

AAR here:
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=316&t=56905