[Kalse]

agreed, at this point no-one knows who they or anybody else is chained too, later on in the game when there are fewer numbers left we may be able to deduce who we think is chained to whom, but this is what makes it all the more interesting at the moment, with everyone in the same 'blind' position in respect of who they are chained too, we all have the same chance, as far as we are aware, of activating our own collar.

[Tellan]

Other than ourselves though there is a 1 in 15 chance of doing this. We don't know how many scum there are but say that each of them are attached to an innocent. That would give us an 1 in 2 chance of hitting scum if we lynch today if my maths is correct. (This is based on 4 scum and a total of 8 pairs) It is definately worth lynching today.

[Ampelas]

Ok just read up, not a huge amount to go on but i was getting weird vibes off Omtose who just felt the need to randomly pop on and point out that scum could end up killing themselves.Not sure what it was but this sort of post just sent my scumdar tingling so until something more comes along

vote Omtose

[Path-Shaper]

It is Day 1. 9 hours and 41 minutes remaining

16 Players still alive: Ampelas, Barghast, Fener, Galayn Lord, Hood's Path, Kalse, Korabas, Liosan, Merrid, Omtose, Osseric, Rashan, Ruse, Silanah, Sorrit, Tellan

9 votes to lynch, 8 votes to go to night.

1 Vote for Sorrit ( Fener )
1 Vote for Hood's Path ( Liosan )
1 Vote for Fener ( Hood's Path )
1 Vote for Omtose (Ampelas)

Players not voted: Barghast, Galayn Lord, Kalse, Korabas, Merrid, Omtose, Osseric, Rashan, Ruse, Silanah, Sorrit, Tellan

[Omtose]

Osseric, on 19 January 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

There's nothing that says that can't change though, there may very well be an ability that relates to discovering who someone is chained to, but we can't be sure of that at this point, so we must operate on the information supplied, which is nobody knows who anybody is chained to.

EDIT - added last clause and changed wording of first clause

This and the circle are two of the scummiest things so far. Lets see what we have so far. Sorrit who said that it might be possible for there to be circles of linked players. Even though the op and tapper have both said that it is a - b. I was willing to over look that as a player who hadn't yet read all of the op or just didn't understand it. But putting out there that the partners who players are collared to can change. That is just creating WIFOM for the sake of WIFOM.

[Omtose]

Tellan, on 19 January 2011 - 12:43 PM, said:

Other than ourselves though there is a 1 in 15 chance of doing this. We don't know how many scum there are but say that each of them are attached to an innocent. That would give us an 1 in 2 chance of hitting scum if we lynch today if my maths is correct. (This is based on 4 scum and a total of 8 pairs) It is definately worth lynching today.

Is there any argument for not lynching each and every day. I hate to have to say this each and every game. In a town v.s. Scum game. The only way that the town can get information is by lynching. Counting on a finder or some other reveal is asking for a fake reveal from scum. So we have to lynch every single day if we want to get any information and win the game.

[Omtose]

Ampelas, on 19 January 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

Ok just read up, not a huge amount to go on but i was getting weird vibes off Omtose who just felt the need to randomly pop on and point out that scum could end up killing themselves.Not sure what it was but this sort of post just sent my scumdar tingling so until something more comes along

vote Omtose

There was nothing random about it. That was when I was able to post and all people were talking about was circles and there + and minus. You sir are trying to look like you are contributing to the game. When in reality you only have two posts for a grand total of 5 lines. I see your vote and pathetic attempt to lay claim to some kind of participation and laugh sir. I laugh.

[Tellan]

Omtose, on 19 January 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

Tellan, on 19 January 2011 - 12:43 PM, said:

Other than ourselves though there is a 1 in 15 chance of doing this. We don't know how many scum there are but say that each of them are attached to an innocent. That would give us an 1 in 2 chance of hitting scum if we lynch today if my maths is correct. (This is based on 4 scum and a total of 8 pairs) It is definately worth lynching today.

Is there any argument for not lynching each and every day. I hate to have to say this each and every game. In a town v.s. Scum game. The only way that the town can get information is by lynching. Counting on a finder or some other reveal is asking for a fake reveal from scum. So we have to lynch every single day if we want to get any information and win the game.

The reason I mentioned this is for a couple of reasons. The first being that there are a few new players, but the main reason was because people may hold back the lynch in case they activate there own collars. The chances for this are minimal as I explained and the chance to get scum on day one is great.

edit. added quote

This post has been edited by Tellan: 19 January 2011 - 02:51 PM

[Osseric]

Omtose, on 19 January 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Osseric, on 19 January 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

There's nothing that says that can't change though, there may very well be an ability that relates to discovering who someone is chained to, but we can't be sure of that at this point, so we must operate on the information supplied, which is nobody knows who anybody is chained to.

EDIT - added last clause and changed wording of first clause

This and the circle are two of the scummiest things so far. Lets see what we have so far. Sorrit who said that it might be possible for there to be circles of linked players. Even though the op and tapper have both said that it is a - b. I was willing to over look that as a player who hadn't yet read all of the op or just didn't understand it. But putting out there that the partners who players are collared to can change. That is just creating WIFOM for the sake of WIFOM.

Wow, good job at completely misrepresenting what I said. We were talking about people knowing who they or others are tied to, in fact the next clause you so casually ignore even states that it is related to finding out about people's connections. The change I'm referring to is everybody's ignorance, I'm not trying to suggest that people's partners can change.

[Silanah]

Osseric, on 19 January 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

Omtose, on 19 January 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Osseric, on 19 January 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

There's nothing that says that can't change though, there may very well be an ability that relates to discovering who someone is chained to, but we can't be sure of that at this point, so we must operate on the information supplied, which is nobody knows who anybody is chained to. EDIT - added last clause and changed wording of first clause

This and the circle are two of the scummiest things so far. Lets see what we have so far. Sorrit who said that it might be possible for there to be circles of linked players. Even though the op and tapper have both said that it is a - b. I was willing to over look that as a player who hadn't yet read all of the op or just didn't understand it. But putting out there that the partners who players are collared to can change. That is just creating WIFOM for the sake of WIFOM.

Wow, good job at completely misrepresenting what I said. We were talking about people knowing who they or others are tied to, in fact the next clause you so casually ignore even states that it is related to finding out about people's connections. The change I'm referring to is everybody's ignorance, I'm not trying to suggest that people's partners can change.

I don't think he is misrepresenting what you said at all. In fact I think you did imply that people partners can change. Very tactless. <BR><BR><STRONG>Vote Osseric <BR><BR></STRONG>Edit to Bold

This post has been edited by Silanah: 19 January 2011 - 03:36 PM

[Omtose]

Fine in the exact context of the conversation that you were having with merrid.

Merrid, on 19 January 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

read the rules post

shin even under lined it

no one knows who is on there collar, the scum may know who the other scum are, but from the op I'm not to sure, but even if the scum know whose on which team, they have just as much chance of hitting the person chained to themselves as hitting a RI-RI chain

Osseric, on 19 January 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

There's nothing that says that can't change though, there may very well be an ability that relates to discovering who someone is chained to, but we can't be sure of that at this point, so we must operate on the information supplied, which is nobody knows who anybody is chained to.

EDIT - added last clause and changed wording of first clause

Oh hey look at no point are you or him referring to peoples ignorance changing. In fact looking at it in the correct light makes it even more scummy. That and your defense really leave something lacking.

Vote Osseric


Sil you need to bold.

[Tapper]

It is Day 1. 6 hours and 7 minutes remaining

16 Players still alive: Ampelas, Barghast, Fener, Galayn Lord, Hood's Path, Kalse, Korabas, Liosan, Merrid, Omtose, Osseric, Rashan, Ruse, Silanah, Sorrit, Tellan

9 votes to lynch, 8 votes to go to night.

2 Votes for Osseric ( Silanah, Omtose )
1 Vote for Sorrit ( Fener )
1 Vote for Hood's Path ( Liosan )
1 Vote for Omtose ( Ampelas )
1 Vote for Fener ( Hood's Path )

Players not voted: Barghast, Galayn Lord, Kalse, Korabas, Merrid, Osseric, Rashan, Ruse, Sorrit, Tellan

Seeing all the <BR> in Sil's post, I think we have a broken html code or something, or a bad skin translation. Since I think it is not for lack of trying that I can't see it bolded in Grey skin, it counts for me.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 19 January 2011 - 05:25 PM

[Osseric]

Silanah, on 19 January 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

Osseric, on 19 January 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

Omtose, on 19 January 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Osseric, on 19 January 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

There's nothing that says that can't change though, there may very well be an ability that relates to discovering who someone is chained to, but we can't be sure of that at this point, so we must operate on the information supplied, which is nobody knows who anybody is chained to. EDIT - added last clause and changed wording of first clause

This and the circle are two of the scummiest things so far. Lets see what we have so far. Sorrit who said that it might be possible for there to be circles of linked players. Even though the op and tapper have both said that it is a - b. I was willing to over look that as a player who hadn't yet read all of the op or just didn't understand it. But putting out there that the partners who players are collared to can change. That is just creating WIFOM for the sake of WIFOM.

Wow, good job at completely misrepresenting what I said. We were talking about people knowing who they or others are tied to, in fact the next clause you so casually ignore even states that it is related to finding out about people's connections. The change I'm referring to is everybody's ignorance, I'm not trying to suggest that people's partners can change.

I don't think he is misrepresenting what you said at all. In fact I think you did imply that people partners can change. Very tactless. <BR><BR><STRONG>Vote Osseric <BR><BR></STRONG>Edit to Bold

Umm...are you telling me what you inferred from my post (in which case I'd like to see the specific wording that caused you to think that), or are you telling me what I personally intended to imply? There's a difference, and I can tell you I very much didn't imply that. Any inference to the contrary of my position is your own fault, not mine.

Oh, and tactless? Seriously, what game are you playing?

Omtose, on 19 January 2011 - 03:28 PM, said:

Fine in the exact context of the conversation that you were having with merrid.

Merrid, on 19 January 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

read the rules post

shin even under lined it

no one knows who is on there collar, the scum may know who the other scum are, but from the op I'm not to sure, but even if the scum know whose on which team, they have just as much chance of hitting the person chained to themselves as hitting a RI-RI chain

Osseric, on 19 January 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

There's nothing that says that can't change though, there may very well be an ability that relates to discovering who someone is chained to, but we can't be sure of that at this point, so we must operate on the information supplied, which is nobody knows who anybody is chained to.

EDIT - added last clause and changed wording of first clause

Oh hey look at no point are you or him referring to peoples ignorance changing. In fact looking at it in the correct light makes it even more scummy. That and your defense really leave something lacking.

Vote Osseric


Sil you need to bold.

Ok, I'll capitalise it since you don't seem to get it.
Merrid: 'Nobody knows who is on their collar...' - talking about people's current knowledge of collar-mates, no? i.e. nothing.

Me: 'There's nothing that says THAT can't change though, there may very well be an ability that relates toDISCOVERING WHO SOMEONE IS CHAINED TO' - suggests a role that allows said lack of knowledge to increase i.e. finding the links of others or your own.

How is that implying people's partners can change? It merely suggests there might be an ability that allows someone so see who is linked to who, there's nothing there that I can see that even remotely suggests partner-switching. If the first clause said 'there's nothing that says they can't change', I'd concede the point, but it wasn't, so I'm not.

'Looking at it in the correct light makes it even more scummy'? What? If my defense is lacking, it's because what you're accusing me of is based on a misconception and that said post was 'scummy'. How am I to defend against that? It's a subjective opinion, and as of yet you have not elaborated as to why it's scummy, correct light or no, or why, if I was scum, I would have reason to suggest it in the first place, or how it benefits team scum for people to take it seriously. Substantial defenses require substantial cases, good sir.

[Hood's Path]

Was the forum down for anyone else? I couldn't get for the last two hours or so.

Omtose, I'm not sure where you are coming from. Osseric says in the post that you quoted he was talking about people finding out who their partners are. The bit that says

Quote

there may very well be an ability that relates to discovering who someone is chained to

Granted Osseric wasn't as precise as he could have been in referring to what might change, but his explanation didn't leave anything lacking. Panicking a bit with Amp's vote against you?


And Tellan, you might want to state your assumptions before you say something like we have a 1 in 2 chance of getting scum with the collar mechanic. That post read very weird.

[Liosan]

did the forums go down for anyone else? I haven't been able to get here for a few hours now. Very odd because it looks like people have been posting recently. oh well. I am back.

Since it is clear that no one is going to do the smart thing and vote for Hoods path( you will look back on me in awe once SH is reached), then I will gladly vote for Osseric. Why? Because after 2 votes, with 9 needed he is showing a bit of over reaction at 2 votes. I don't really think the case has merit... and that could be why he is over reacting a tad.

Also, I could vote for Omtose. After Silanah starts it, Omtose does what he has wanted to do all along and vote Osseric.

Of the 2 I am more inclined to go with an Omtose vote.

BUT...

leaving my vote on HP for now in hopes that you folks will see the light ( or dark as the case may be) he is clearly scum.

[Liosan]

wow, very odd similar post by me and HP... I wonder if that means we are linked O.O!!!! oh noes!! I am voting for my link partner and by extension voting for my own demise... cruel world!!

[Liosan]

Do we have any indication one wat or the other that scum know eachother or have off thread comms? If they don't we could be in trouble as it will be much more difficult to draw connections between partners. I don't remember if I read something about that or not in the OP.

gonna go check.

[Rashan]

Osseric, on 19 January 2011 - 06:01 PM, said:

Silanah, on 19 January 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

Osseric, on 19 January 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

Omtose, on 19 January 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Osseric, on 19 January 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

There's nothing that says that can't change though, there may very well be an ability that relates to discovering who someone is chained to, but we can't be sure of that at this point, so we must operate on the information supplied, which is nobody knows who anybody is chained to. EDIT - added last clause and changed wording of first clause

This and the circle are two of the scummiest things so far. Lets see what we have so far. Sorrit who said that it might be possible for there to be circles of linked players. Even though the op and tapper have both said that it is a - b. I was willing to over look that as a player who hadn't yet read all of the op or just didn't understand it. But putting out there that the partners who players are collared to can change. That is just creating WIFOM for the sake of WIFOM.

Wow, good job at completely misrepresenting what I said. We were talking about people knowing who they or others are tied to, in fact the next clause you so casually ignore even states that it is related to finding out about people's connections. The change I'm referring to is everybody's ignorance, I'm not trying to suggest that people's partners can change.

I don't think he is misrepresenting what you said at all. In fact I think you did imply that people partners can change. Very tactless. <BR><BR><STRONG>Vote Osseric <BR><BR></STRONG>Edit to Bold

Umm...are you telling me what you inferred from my post (in which case I'd like to see the specific wording that caused you to think that), or are you telling me what I personally intended to imply? There's a difference, and I can tell you I very much didn't imply that. Any inference to the contrary of my position is your own fault, not mine.Oh, and tactless? Seriously, what game are you playing?

Omtose, on 19 January 2011 - 03:28 PM, said:

Fine in the exact context of the conversation that you were having with merrid.

Merrid, on 19 January 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

read the rules postshin even under lined itno one knows who is on there collar, the scum may know who the other scum are, but from the op I'm not to sure, but even if the scum know whose on which team, they have just as much chance of hitting the person chained to themselves as hitting a RI-RI chain

Osseric, on 19 January 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

There's nothing that says that can't change though, there may very well be an ability that relates to discovering who someone is chained to, but we can't be sure of that at this point, so we must operate on the information supplied, which is nobody knows who anybody is chained to.EDIT - added last clause and changed wording of first clause

Oh hey look at no point are you or him referring to peoples ignorance changing. In fact looking at it in the correct light makes it even more scummy. That and your defense really leave something lacking. Vote Osseric Sil you need to bold.

Ok, I'll capitalise it since you don't seem to get it. Merrid: 'Nobody knows who is on their collar...' - talking about people's current knowledge of collar-mates, no? i.e. nothing.Me: 'There's nothing that says THAT can't change though, there may very well be an ability that relates toDISCOVERING WHO SOMEONE IS CHAINED TO' - suggests a role that allows said lack of knowledge to increase i.e. finding the links of others or your own.How is that implying people's partners can change? It merely suggests there might be an ability that allows someone so see who is linked to who, there's nothing there that I can see that even remotely suggests partner-switching. If the first clause said 'there's nothing that says they can't change', I'd concede the point, but it wasn't, so I'm not.'Looking at it in the correct light makes it even more scummy'? What? If my defense is lacking, it's because what you're accusing me of is based on a misconception and that said post was 'scummy'. How am I to defend against that? It's a subjective opinion, and as of yet you have not elaborated as to why it's scummy, correct light or no, or why, if I was scum, I would have reason to suggest it in the first place, or how it benefits team scum for people to take it seriously. Substantial defenses require substantial cases, good sir.

All I am getting from this exchange is that there was a misunderstanding, and that meaning was taken out of context with regards to what Osseric said (whether or not this was deliberate is debatable). Omtose had one vote against him, but did defend himself(that in itself wouldn't be too hard, considering most of the votes are made based on such a tiny amount of evidence). I would say that the conflict thus far has been a result of miscommunication, rather than outwardly scummy behavior. We shouldn't ignore this exchange, just keep in mind how often things like this happen on the first day.
Do we have an estimate of how much time is left?

[Tapper]

The forums were down for me as well. I factored in 2 hours of compensation. Unfortunately that means that I will be unable to resolve night.

- T.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is Day 1. 6 hours and 41 minutes remaining

16 Players still alive: Ampelas, Barghast, Fener, Galayn Lord, Hood's Path, Kalse, Korabas, Liosan, Merrid, Omtose, Osseric, Rashan, Ruse, Silanah, Sorrit, Tellan

9 votes to lynch, 8 votes to go to night.

2 Votes for Osseric ( Silanah, Omtose )
1 Vote for Sorrit ( Fener )
1 Vote for Hood's Path ( Liosan )
1 Vote for Omtose ( Ampelas )
1 Vote for Fener ( Hood's Path )

Players not voted: Barghast, Galayn Lord, Kalse, Korabas, Merrid, Osseric, Rashan, Ruse, Sorrit, Tellan

[Fener]

Galayn Lord, on 19 January 2011 - 06:21 AM, said:

Fener, on 19 January 2011 - 12:48 AM, said:

All that said, we need to lynch and Day 1 is pretty much completely blind in every sense.

Vote Sorrit

No particular reason other than I don't like the circle theory.

they not vote Tellan?

Because it was Sorrit's idea?