Jump to content

little wilson

Moderators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2831

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Everything posted by little wilson

  1. little wilson
    I'd like to meet up still. Most week nights work for me, so I don't really mind when.
  2. little wilson
    I'm not sure if I should feel appreciated for all those votes or hated... And thank you, Nyali. I was so close to figuring it out too! I spammed Maill's inbox with a PM where I went through all sorts of attempts, from hl to background-color and more. The mystery is solved.
  3. little wilson
    [highlight=#ff0000]test[/highlight] Edit: Well....that didn't work.... I'm going to look more into this. For my own curiosity's sake.
  4. little wilson
    Well, I guess that's one way to get my attention to a topic.... The biggest problem I can see is that some people will want to mention someone to draw their attention to a comment but they don't want to vote for them. And, as Gamma mentioned, retracting would still require coloring. One possibility is using the highlight feature we have now. Something like this: Joe and Joe. Though it makes it a little hard to read. Maybe bolded? Joe. Joe. That has possibilities....
  5. little wilson
    Actually, I told you initially that I would tell you my role if you told me yours first. I told you weren't getting my role out of me without me getting yours first because I don't trust you. You refused. I never told you I would be completely honest if I went first. So yes, I lied, but once you claimed, I told the truth. So....nope. Should've made sure I'd tell the truth if I went first. Though if you'd done that, you never would've learned my role, because I would've told you no deal just like I told someone else last night when they asked something I wasn't willing to give.
  6. little wilson
    Gamma is being a troll, but he may be trolling you by PAFOing you on something that is a "no." I know I've done that before. Someone asks something, and I'm thinking, "Of course not!" but that's not what I tell them. I tell them "PAFO" because not only does it give out less information, it's also really fun to see them try to figure out what I mean. I rather doubt Fain started with a convert already. I suppose he could've, since he might be wanting to prevent what happened last time, with Fain being killed before he could get any converts, but I still doubt it. And for the Channeler/Warder thing, it goes both ways: Take note of the first bolded section. Orlok's Channeler has one cycle left to live after this night ends.
  7. little wilson
    I get that it's ridiculously hard to steal, but if a Soulcaster targeted a thief, trying to move the role action, the Soulcaster would fail, but they'd succeed for a Ghostblood, Spy, or Artifabrian. If a Thief targeted someone with an Alerter but they weren't stealing the alerter, the Alerter wouldn't say who targeted them, because it was before the Alerter was activated. The Emotion Bracelet also wouldn't pick up on theft because the thief is stealing before that. They have a hard win con, but the order of actions makes it literally impossible to stop a thief without killing them. Which only makes their win con even harder since they'll have people trying to kill them since that's the only way to stop them from stealing an item. As for the order of actions, you could fix it by having certain things happen simultaneously, so perhaps something like this: Spanreed Thieving/Item Giving/Pain Knife/Soulcaster/Emotion Bracelet/Alerter Painrial Kills Spying Artifabrian The reason Alerter would go on the second tier and not the first with the Spanreed is that nothing can stop a Spanreed from being in use that night. Pain Knives should be able to stop an Alerter though, even though it's not really a targetable action. This makes it so protects and kills can be used if they're passed to you, but Pain Knives, Soulcasters, Emotion Bracelets and Alerters wouldn't be able to be.
  8. little wilson
    I'd also suggest that items like the Pain Knife and Soulcaster can stop/redirect any targetable action, including giving items or thieving. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be the case. Especially in the case of thieves, since the thieving action is ridiculously strong right now, if they know where an item is. It can't be redirected or stopped, it can't be seen, you don't get the item information if the item is stolen from you, and you can't give the item away since thieving comes first. Sure, they have to guess where items are, but since every other role in the game has something that can block it or redirect it or something, thieving stands out as the one things that nothing stops. Which, flavor-wise, makes no sense. If a Shardblade-kill can be stopped or Plate prevented from protecting (through a double pain knife), then why shouldn't thieving be possible to stop?
  9. little wilson
    I suppose it wouldn't be the first time the eliminators (try to) kill one of the village's top suspects, but that particular strategy usually isn't the best thing to do, particularly not after you've lost such a critical role.
  10. little wilson
    Exactly.
  11. little wilson
    I think I might retire after this game. Me being village is bad.
  12. little wilson
    Geez, people. I go out to dinner and you expand the thread another 4 pages?! I'm never going to get my notes up-to-date at this rate. Gah. ....I can't say I'm particularly okay with some of the reasons on the Gunshy vote. Particularly Seonid's. Voting for someone solely because I'm suspicious of them makes me absurdly uncomfortable but whatever. For now. I'll place a vote on Gunshy, solely to make sure there's a lynch and because I have a stronger gut feeling about Gunshy than I do about Elodin. And a number of people I somewhat trust have said they're less suspicious of Elodin now, and until I have time to catch my notes up, I'll rely on that. Now let's post and see what the ninjas have said....
  13. little wilson
    I'm doing my notes differently this game than I ever have before and it's taking considerably longer--I'm going piece by piece through every post, summarizing it, and giving thoughts on it if I have thoughts on it. I'm only onto page 11 of the main thread. So right now, I don't have any thoughts on Bard, because I haven't gotten to the bandwagons and vote-switching. I will say that even when Nyali threw out the idea of Bard being the one to do the eliminator kill, I was incredibly skeptical of that. He might be evil, sure, but I'm less sure about that. I kind of want to get further into my post analysis before solidifying my thoughts there though. Oh, and feel free to RP me as Fain. There's a reason I claimed it. If certain players are going to make not-so-veiled comments and ridiculous accusations like that, I may as well embrace it for what it's worth (even if it's an utter lie). Might get me RPing as well.
  14. little wilson
    Meta, I'm pretty sure that I said back on day one that you were throwing out possible links between players to see how they would respond, and I even said last night again that I thought you were just gauging reactions, so I don't think you confirming that is going to really make much of a difference. Do I think you've gone a little overboard with it at times? Yeah, but you're trying to get reactions so I can see why you'd go extreme. The difference between the two is that your question in the PM was only half-serious and I'd thought it was a complete joke at the time. You knew that if I actually was Fain, I wasn't going to answer it and if I did, it would be in the negative, and you knew I'd probably do the same if I wasn't Fain. So I ignored the question at first because it was pointless to answer. Then you brought it up again, so I gave you what you wanted: a negative, and you responded exactly how I thought you would: that I responded exactly how you thought I would so you didn't learn anything. Which was exactly why I didn't respond in the first place. And now you're agreeing with Elodin's accusation about me. Sure, you don't put much weight in your thoughts (so you claim), but according to his accusation, he does. What do you think validating his thought process is going to do? Especially when you don't even comment on the absurdity of some of his claims on me. You know his "evidence" on me is pure bogus, but instead of saying anything about it, you validate him. Either you're doing it because you're considering the possibility of me being Fain more seriously than you claim or you're still trying to get a reaction out of me. Either way, you're not going to get the reaction that you want, because I've know what you're doing since you started it. And if you keep trying to get a reaction out of me, I will go full-on troll mode on you, and then you won't get anywhere with me. So knock it off and start being genuine. And I shouldn't even have to comment on that last bit about my defensiveness. You know that's my usual playstyle. It's not alignment-indicative in any way. At one point, it was, but that alignment indication was exactly the opposite of what you're trying to say it is. I'm not your usual "ignore the accusations if I'm good" type of player. I've always gone uber-defensive. You know that. So why are you saying that my uber-defensiveness now is because I'm likely to be Fain? It's not. Though I'm so tempted to just fakeclaim Fain still. Actually, no, you know what? Fine. You guys want me to claim Fain, I will: Yes, I'm Padan Fain. Kill me. But it will never stop my conversions because everyone is Padan Fain.
  15. little wilson
    Well, actually, when he asked me, I did think about trolling him and saying that I was Fain just to see what he would do, but then I decided not to. No, if I were Fain, I just wouldn't have claimed at all. And I wasn't planning on it, but then he said something else and I'm just like "You know, what the heck. Let's drop this huge hint as to my role and see what happens." And he knew what I meant, and we went from there. The point is, I don't lie about my role (well, usually. When Kipper goes and forces me into a web of lies to cover up the fact that I'm Cultivation since I got a little too claim-happy on the first cycle, I start lying to a number of people). My default setting is to be honest about my role, and if I don't want to be honest, I will simply not say anything about it.
  16. little wilson
    I was just throwing that out there. The Black Ajah is basically an evil Channeler, so Darkfriend Channeler in this case. I will say that I don't necessarily agree that the Channeler should reveal themselves, though. The Darkfriends could have a Whitecloak, and if they do, you can bet money that Channeler will be detained until they die, just to make it so they can't do anything potentially harmful to the eliminators. Sure, they won't kill them because they're a dead person walking, but there are other ways to make someone useless that doesn't entail killing them. I'm not you. When I claim, I'm being honest. And I've claimed N1 before. LG6 Kas and Wes knew I was Aiel-Blooded on the first night. You and Aonar may have as well, but I'm not as certain about that. I know I hinted very strongly at my role to Aonar, Ren, and Gamma in LG9 on Day 1. I roleclaiming in LG8 early, and I also revealed myself to a number of players in the first cycle of LG14 (namely Orlok, Kipper, and Seonid, though a number of others greatly suspected my role as well, if they didn't know it). I abide by PM safety rules to a certain extent, but I don't let it dictate my every move. Paranoia isn't my playstyle. I wouldn't really say I helped move the Sart lynch along. I barely even posted in the thread at all in the last half of the turn, and that's where most of the stuff happened with the bandwagoning and Sheep and Straw. I didn't get involved in that and I didn't call people out for that either. I could barely even keep up with the thread while that was going on since I was with family I hadn't seen in over a year. And yes, I do go after people for semantics. When I gun for someone, I look at how they word things, and I analyze that. I base most things off of gut reads, but once I break out the analysis, I get into semantics. Because that's my strong suit. I'm not going to stop being suspicious of people for semantics because if I do that, I'm cutting out 75% of what makes me a halfway decent villager. So no. Sorry. I will continue analyzing language. And let's be clear here: you're analyzing my behavior based on how you think Padan Fain would act and his mindset. What you think and what the player who has that role thinks are possibly two entirely different things. Also, it's true that Gamma never said that people couldn't have two roles, but until I see proof otherwise, I am going to assume that this is one-role game for all players. Padan Fain has no reason to have an additional role, unless it's perhaps Aiel-Blooded. Anything else, he wouldn't be able to really use, since if he's using night actions for another role, he can't convert. And even Aiel-Blooded, I'm seriously skeptical about. Padan Fain shows up as a villager (probably a regular villager) to Viewer scans. Anyone the Viewer scans as having a role, therefore, cannot be Padan Fain, because they have a role. Now, any regular villager a Viewer scans doesn't have the same guarantee at all. But I'm not regular. Hence, I'm not Fain, and I will gladly submit myself to any Viewer who'd like to check that.
  17. little wilson
    I cut out the edit because I'd already addressed the edit. I mentioned exactly what Orlok was saying and what Gunshy said and they don't match up. Orlok was saying that the mayor vote should go to people other than me or Meta because we are widely respected and our opinions are already valued, so the mayor should go to someone who is less heard from to get them to speak up. Gunshy was saying the opposite. He said that the mayor role shouldn't go to use because we're feared (though "set on edge" was his term). That wasn't Orlok's point, and it's not something that a brand new player who has never looked at any other games would know. Yes, because placing one vote--the first vote, mind you--is really gearing up to lynch someone. And without contest? It was less than 2 hours into the turn. No one had more than one vote, and I was calling someone out on something suspicious. Sure, it was semantics, but hey, guess what? That's not the first time semantics has killed an eliminator and sure won't be the last. If you want to be suspicious of me for doing what I always do when I'm good, have at it. Good luck. Really hope that doesn't backfire on you... Hm. Did I somehow color a name red without realizing it? Nope. I haven't. I haven't voted at all today! Imagine that! And you mean that this is something that could be interpreted ten different ways like.....the lack of a Darkfriend kill last night? Yet that hasn't stopped the discussion about that. Nor has the discussion about people's different views on that automatically made them suspicious. How about you start calling people out on that now too? I mean, you seem to like calling people out on---oh wait, no. That's just me. Sorry. Once again, you're misconstruing my points again. Twisting my words in ways that are not logical based on how I worded something and the context that I very clearly meant it (trust me. I'm an English major. I have a degree in this. I know how to say exactly what I mean). And it looks like at least one person understood the way I meant it: So try again, Elodin. I'm not Padan Fain, and no amount of your word-twisting will change that fact. I even have a role, so if I'm viewed, since the viewer sees role and alignment, they'll see that I cannot possibly be Padan Fain. Nor have I been converted by him either, and if he's smart, he won't convert me, because I fully plan on setting a plan in motion tonight that will lead to my lynch in a few cycles if I haven't been killed yet by then. Converting me would be a very bad idea. Orlok's Channeler isn't going to come out if they're a Darkfriend. Personally, I'm hoping they are a Darkfriend so we don't have to worry about the Black Ajah, but I'm not going to get my hopes up on that front. Another Channeler could easily be a Darkfriend as well. I'm pretty sure I suggested that just before Elodin claimed Dreamwalker. If I didn't, he ninja'd me. I'm also skeptical of his claim too, because it seems a little too convenient. If the Darkfriend Whitecloak detained him, he'd be able to claim Dreamwalker and get us to keep him alive since we just killed a Dreamwalker and we don't want to lose PMs. Granted, this would mean they'd have to hope and pray that there's another Dreamwalker out there, but if there is, who knows how long they'd be able to keep up that gambit? It's not like the Whitecloak is going to come out and say "Hey, I detained him! He's lying!" Because they're teammates in this scenario. I never said (nor do I think) that my points against Gunshy are conclusive of his guilt. If I thought that, I'd be voting for him. I'm not. I want to hear from him first. And yes, I agree there are stronger leads and I agree that Elodin is highly likely to be evil, but ya know what? People were already talking about Elodin. He was getting a lot of attention already. I decided to talk about someone else that I find suspicious as well. To be completely honest, you're on my suspect list too, Seonid. Not as far down as Elodin and Gunshy, but you're there. I'm only about 4 pages into my D1 analysis, but I ran across this post, and it raised some red flags for me. Meta's vote came over 2 hours after mine, and while a number of other people mentioned suspicion of Sart, no one voted on him. People were very careful not to solidify a lynch early. And unlike you and apparently Nyali, I don't see anything wrong with placing a second vote on someone who's done something suspicious who you'd like to get talking more--particularly a player like Sart who has a habit of being quiet. A second vote puts the threat of death onto them and makes it so they have to talk. Because now they could die. Only one vote though? That's nothing. You can ignore one vote and I've seen plenty of players do just that. The funny thing is that there was a time not too long ago when the metagame was very much in support of placing a second vote on people to get them to talk and then going from there after they talk. It's shifted away from that to a fear of lynching people, so rarely do we get over 3-4 votes for any given lynch, but I don't think there was anything wrong with the way it was for that time. Gamma isn't exactly one to balance that carefully. He's more a "do what the RNG says" type of person. If the RNG puts you and I on a team together, that's what happens. And anyway, I roleclaimed to you last night as well, so you know that I can't actually be Fain. Your harping on this distribution stuff and how we couldn't possibly be on the same team together makes me wonder if you're Fain, however, Meta. Particularly since you have been a little too aggressive. I get that aggression is your MO, but it's not usually spinning things so out of context for so many different people. I was willing to overlook it for most of the first day since I figured you had a motive behind it (and I still think you did--I think you were gauging people's reactions), but you're usually more put together than this.
  18. little wilson
    You're assuming he reads sigs for one thing (a number of people skip right over sigs or even ignore them as a whole) and you're also assuming he took the time to read past games and those games he took the time to read happened to be the games that Meta and I played in (as El said, we haven't played in many games recently). I would venture to say that he didn't read any games. Not everyone is like Elbereth. In fact, from what I've seen, most players who join the games have maybe followed along with one game prior. Maybe. Possibly more if they know someone. Now, Gunshy does know someone. Bugsy. Let's see what Bugsy has to say about this topic: Oh, interesting. His only exposure to the forums has been threads relevant to this game. No past games. So how is he getting the idea that we're scary and not just well-known? Well-known does not immediately equate to scary. The only quote in my sig that would give people the idea that I'm a scary player is the one from Kas. The other two don't really give any indication one way or the other. Lastly, Elodin, why do you care so much about whether we think Gunshy is evil? Worried about your teammate? For you, Lopen, I got off my phone and booted up my laptop. Though I'm not sure how much analysis I can really do, since that was specific to Nyali, who has apparently bailed on the game, which renders my analysis of her pointless, not only because she's done but also because I see no reason why an eliminator would bail on the game, so my read of her was wrong--which I was actually started to collect evidence for so that kind of makes me sad for the time I spent on that, but it's probably for the best that I didn't pull a MaillLynch on Nyali by writing up an essay about why she's evil.....though it's been a while since I've done one of those essays. Maybe I should do one for Maill for old times' sake. What do you say, Maill? Do you miss my essays condemning you to death? Anyway. The person I suspect most now is Gunshy, but I don't really want to do anything with that until he posts something, so I'm going to wait to do further analysis on him until then. And if he doesn't post, I'd highly recommend him as a target for a wolf-kill.
  19. little wilson
    Orlok's exact words were this: "I'm not sure I support giving more power to a player like Meta or Wilson. Both are widely respected in this subforum, and have illustrious reputations. Hence, we give their views a great deal of thought and value anyway - and also scrutinise them perhaps further." Compare that to Gunshy's comment: "Why give more power to the people who already set others on edge with just their rep? " You might be able to say that the very last bit about scrutinizing us more indicates that we set players on edge, but I don't think so, because people who set others on edge aren't widely respected or have their views given value. Players who set others on edge create friction and usually irritate others. That's the very definition of setting someone on edge. It's not mere caution. It's much more than that. The very term "set on edge" indicates that he knows more details than he should for someone who is absolutely brand new to the forum and the games. That is my point. I was on my phone for most of the night. Orlok started a PM with me, yes, because he knew he'd irritated me during the day turn and he wanted to talk to me about that. I responded to him once because the rest of the time, I was either with family or in a car. He replied towards the end of the night but I wasn't even able to look at it until after the rollover (I got back to my apartment about 15 minutes before the rollover). I barely talked to anyone last night and those I did talk to can testify that I didn't say much. I'm not the reason Orlok is dead. I didn't kill him and I didn't have anyone else kill him either. Even if I were in contact with someone with a kill role, I wouldn't have had them go after Orlok. If I were sending them after anyone, I would've picked Elodin, Gunshy or Nyali (who I still have a very strong gut read on and despite what she's trying to claim, it has nothing to do with retribution. I said I'd do analysis if anyone wanted it. No one asked for it, so I didn't).
  20. little wilson
    Because detaining Straw only blocks his viewing. Detaining you keeps you alive. I think I know why the Darkfriends didn't attack anyone last night. One, the Forsaken was dead, obviously. Two, they probably only have 3 other players and all of them were tied up with other actions. Right now, I'm thinking both Elodin and Gunshy are Darkfriends. Elodin took heat so their Whitecloak Darkfriend (who is not Gunshy) targeted Elodin to protect him from any kills and to make sure he couldn't be viewed. This meant that both the Whitecloak and Elodin couldn't make any actions. And Gunshy's computer died so he wasn't online. Why do I think Gunshy is evil? This post and this post. The first post says that the discussion so far in the day has been a "huge mess" of assumptions and allegations, which I think is a pretty major over-exaggeration. Yes, there was a bit of aggression coming out and there were some assumptions and some allegations but nothing even close to a huge mess. More like a very minor mess. Then, he says that he's not going to vote until Cycle 2, to get more information into posts, but voting is one of the ways information gets into posts, and I'm always wary of people who say "I want information but I'm not willing to give information for that information," or anything even similar to that. Which is exactly what he's doing. Third, he comments that Nyali's points about the D1 lynch is a good one. That point about how the village only has the lynch to find and kill eliminators, baring vig roles....How is that a good point? I'd think that was a point that anyone could come up with on their own. I know I did, which is why I called Sart out in the first place. He also says that there's evidence supporting Sart being an eliminator. No, there wasn't really. There was evidence that he might be an eliminator, but what he'd done is something a villager could do too. The biggest mark against Sart was the fact that there was such a concerted effort to turn the lynch away from him, but that hadn't happened when Gunshy made this post. So what evidence was there against Sart....? The second post I think is the more damning of the two, though. Orlok never said that Meta and I set people on edge. He said that our opinions are already respected so we don't need the mayor position, and he thinks it would be better to go to someone less outspoken so they have a chance to be heard as well. But Gunshy says that he agrees with Orlok that players who set others on edge with just their rep shouldn't be given more power. Gunshy is a new player. He's never played with me or Meta. He has no idea about our reps, and those reps hadn't really been talked about much (nor in a way that shows that people are "set on edge") at that point in time, so I find this a very peculiar twist for him. Unless he's in a doc and people have been talking about those reps in there. That would make a lot of sense then.
  21. little wilson
    Damnation has already claimed me, Twei. I'd apologize, but I don't feel anything down here.
  22. little wilson
    Also, to counter El's worry about me being converted, there a really good reason why I'm a very bad candidate for conversion: I will certainly die early in this game. Padan Fain only has a limited number of conversions. Converting me would give him *maybe* a bit of info, but I would die shortly after and that conversion will be wasted. His converts living for longer is more important than a bit of info he may or may not get.
  23. little wilson
    For the first point, as I said, I didn't retract my vote because of the people saying he was the one we're learn the most about. I've participated in enough mislynches as a villager that knowing that someone is probably going to flip villager doesn't inherently make me remove my vote, particularly when that person *is* the potential lynch candidate discussed the most in context with the lynch. For the vast majority of the day, he was the only serious contender, and while the arguments against him were far from the best in terms of a lynch. I don't think they were the worst either. Yes, the metagame was different when Sart played and yes, the meta lynch discussion was talked about. But the discussion *about* that discussion *also* happened, and how most of the discussion was tied up in that discussion so the day ended without any real info gained (though that discussion usually happened in the dead and spec docs). The point is, that topic is an easy default to throw the village onto a track that leads nowhere. I don't care what Orlok or anyone else says about it. Aman is right: it's pointless to discuss. If you support it, do it, but don't force others to vote in it off they don't want to. If you don't support it, don't get involved with the lynch, but don't try to stop it. It's really that simple. No need to over complicate it. I stand by my reasons for voting Sart initially and I'd stand by it regardless of his alignment. I mentioned if he kept participating, I'd likely remove that vote, but I was keeping it there to keep him talking. He stopped. He didn't post at all after that. So I don't agree that it was "ganging up", no matter how simply you want to put it. For the second point, what exactly am I supposed to say? I don't think I'm off. I'm stating my views in as honest a manner as I can. If people want to say they think I'm off, they can do that, but I don't have to address something as flimsy as "she's just acting unusual," if I don't see anything to back that up.
  24. little wilson
    To be completely honest, I didn't think he was a Darkfriend (much less the Forsaken). I thought about removing my vote multiple times, but decided against it each time because someone would say something about how Sart was the one talked the most about and therefore the one we'll get the most info from. I'd be inclined to say that only one Darkfriend max was involved in Sart's defense. There's likely one that voted for Sart later on (maybe), and almost assuredly more than a couple who joined the bandwagon on Strawman or Sheep (whichever one the bandwagon formed on. I couldn't really pay attention during that part of the day since I was with family (and still am)).
  25. little wilson
    Huh. Still think Meta and I would kill the Forsaken, Maill?
×
×
  • Create New...