Tweet
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
PS - if Mourning is a human, i second the notion of changing the mayor from Rasko to Indy0731
PS - if Mourning is a human, i second the notion of changing the mayor from Rasko to Indy0731
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
I'm triggerhappy?
2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws
Comment
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
it's an internal joke with you mate.Originally posted by Mourning View PostI'm triggerhappy?
Comment
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
Ok, well I don't get it and two that vote would be the doom of the remaining humans. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote up and the order in which things happenned afterwards.
Obviously the wolves want to protect their new mayor in office. What better way to do this by immediately taking out the person who has been most vocal against the new mayor and has given an alternative thats much safer for us humans. Seems like you skipped that part. You better be 100% sure that Rasky isn't a wolf. You did see that post from Rasky a few days ago that I looked up and posted again to remind everyone who is on his "dead list" and that everyone NOT on that suddenly is voting to hang me. Coincidence? Also the people most vocal against voting enmasse for one person. What did they do now? Coincidence.
Just think about all of that. This is a VERY important vote you are placing now. Rasky is going to vote for me, count on it. That would make it 3-3, with you it turns 4-3, meaning I'm dead and you are suit to follow, take my word for it. I AM NOT A WOLF. IF I voted strange then I explained yesterday and today. The same can not be said of those that accuse me, also the ones who have been printing out hit lists like crazy.
Vote wisely.
Regards,
Mourning
2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.wsComment
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
Here is where we are:Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
Rasko was randomly chosen as mayor by Nat. Stoned after the unfortunate death of Tyrion. Mourning, Indy, and I believe that the people should elect a mayor, thus I have proposed a recall vote to remove Rasko and allow us to elect a mayor. That would require 7 votes since there are 13 of us left.
The other option open is to vote for a person to hang. Here is how the two options stand:
Remove the mayor:
Me
Mourning
Indy
Lynch:
Bellisimo
Rasko
Pig Nash
Anthem
Shade
The 3 of us that want a recall have also posted our lynch votes in order to save time if the recall doesn't go through, which it doesn't look like it will.Comment
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
I don't like the concept of my vote being more heavy than the others.Originally posted by Mourning View PostOk, well I don't get it and two that vote would be the doom of the remaining humans. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote up and the order in which things happenned afterwards.
Obviously the wolves want to protect their new mayor in office. What better way to do this by immediately taking out the person who has been most vocal against the new mayor and has given an alternative thats much safer for us humans. Seems like you skipped that part. You better be 100% sure that Rasky isn't a wolf. You did see that post from Rasky a few days ago that I looked up and posted again to remind everyone who is on his "dead list" and that everyone NOT on that suddenly is voting to hang me. Coincidence? Also the people most vocal against voting enmasse for one person. What did they do now? Coincidence.
Just think about all of that. This is a VERY important vote you are placing now. Rasky is going to vote for me, count on it. That would make it 3-3, with you it turns 4-3, meaning I'm dead and you are suit to follow, take my word for it. I AM NOT A WOLF. IF I voted strange then I explained yesterday and today. The same can not be said of those that accuse me, also the ones who have been printing out hit lists like crazy.
Vote wisely.
Regards,
Mourning
I've seen that hit list by Rasko...and Im also included in that which does not make me happy. Hence I am giving him the final chance to prove that he is not a wolf and that he actually knows something we do not.
I totally know where you're coming from...it makes sense to defend yourself...but at the moment, you are what I call a sacrifice for the better good of the remaining guys. If you are Human...then it is obvious that Rasko/Shade/Anthem are wolves. If you are a wolf, then maybe they are on to something, and will see what way they go on ahead with.Comment
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
I came on and saw what had happened last night but didn't post anything as I thought I'd think on things a while.
I've never been a Rasko supporter and I know there are a few here that are confident he's a human but I am not one of them. At this point though, I've seen the support for Rasko's suspects and I guess I'm willing to give it a shot. I would not have chosen Rasko for mayor but there are a couple others I would have considered worse office holders.
I vote for Mourning.Comment
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
Ok, whateverrrrrrrrrrr....
2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.wsComment
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
Mourning and indy0731, there's no need to become that aggressive. It takes a lot of fun out of the game for me. And I really have enjoyed it thus far.
Ok, as I have re-read yesterday night's posts, it appears that I actually was randomly chosen to become the mayor. I really thought Tyrion vouched for me, because I asked him to do so for someone he trusted.
I'm of the opinion that the people should always be able to elect the mayor. That the mayor is being chosen randomly in the beginning of the game, doesn't really matter. But at this point, it doesn't seem fair to me that a crucial factor in the game is decided by chance. I'd be frustrated as well if someone in my suspects list was appointed as mayor. I want to be the mayor, and I want the wolves to be hanged, but not in this unfair way.
That's why I (possibly only temporarily) step down and call for everyone to cast their vote for a new mayor. I however won't remain passive as the wolves are trying to get one of them in the office.
Dear fellow humans,
I'd like to nominate Anthem, Fool and myself as candidates for the upcoming elections.
Why should other humans trust us to be human? For the same reason Tyrion trusted us. I ask you to take a look again at page 12 of this thread:
http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...=24118&page=12
We were voting for someone to hang in round 3. You can see that I'm the first to give up my vote to Tyrion, followed by Anthem and Fool. Let it be known that neither of us were aware of the fact that Ty was going to vote for Since86. Ty can confirm this if needed.
This proves that we're human. A wolf would never blindly give away his vote to a human (Tyrion), unless every villager is doing it. Besides myself, Fool and Anthem are the ones I'm 100% sure of to be human.
So, I urge you to vote for one of us. Be however aware of the fact that we have to vote as a pack to get the majority. That means that once the first vote for one us (eg for Fool) has been made, every other human has to follow that choice.
Since I'm one of the candidates, I will lay out to the people what I stand for. That is, share my wolves theory with you.
I would like for every human to reconsider their wolves theory (that's what I'm trying to do every round and it's what I'm forced to do sometimes) and take a look at mine.
Right after Gyron was hung, I obviously had to adapt my theory, cause I was convinced he was a wolf (I advised Tyrion to choose indy0731 or Gyron). For a while I didn't really know what to think anymore, but then I read Shade's post
http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...&postcount=481
more carefully, and concluded this had to be it. My theory stayed more or less the same. It got even better in the way that the wolves weren't trying to feed the mob mentality through an obvious duo (Gyron and indy0731). You've seen that I said I agreed with Shades suspects list. I also send him a PM with more thoughts about this. I might as well make this public:
So that was my theory yesterday, before Ty was eaten.Originally posted by Shade
Because we've again reached another day, I'll reconsider it again. Here's a list of the 12 alive players
1) Mourning
2) Pig Nash
3) bellisimo
4) Rasky
9) SoupIsGood
10) Fool
12) Hoop
14) twscholl
15) 0731
16) Anthem
18) SycamoreKen
19) Shade
As you can see, I didn't include Karma, because he just doesn't play in this game. If he were a wolf, I assume natstoned would've told us by now. So we're looking at 5 wolves vs. 7 humans. I will exclude the certain humans from this list.
Anthem, Fool and I have proven their humanity according to the above rationale. Belli has also given away his vote to Ty in round 4 (but unfortunately changed it because of the "deadline"). That gives us another human.
As for Shade, our former mayor, there are a lot of signs to show that he's human. First of all, he saved Anthem, a human. I know he killed the seer instead, but if he were a wolf, there was no reason at all for not following the majority vote and kill Anthem. Why risk the chance of becoming suspicious?
Second, his theory was exactly the same as mine. We independently came to the same result. If he were a wolf, it could be that a couple of names from his list are also on mine, but all of them? I don't think so.
Now I'd like to ask all of you humans, who have me, Shade and Anthem on their wolves lists (if there are any): Why? Don't you agree with the above rationale? It seems to me that it's pure logic and nothing but logic.
Ok, let's continue by scratching our 5 humans of the list. This gives
1) Mourning
2) Pig Nash
9) SoupIsGood
12) Hoop
14) twscholl
15) 0731
18) SycamoreKen
Now, which 2 of these are the remaining humans? Let's take a look at their voting behaviour. (I looked it up in the thread. I believe this is all correct.)
1) Mourning pollardfreek(2)/Karmakillaz(2)/Soup(3)/Gyron(9)/Anthem(3)
2) Pig Nash Rasko(2)/bellisimo(1)/Soup(2)/Soup(1)/Ken(1)
9) SoupIsGood Rasko(1)/Rasko(1)/Rasko(1)/Gyron(10)/?
12) Hoop pollardfreek(6)/None/None/Gyron(6)/?
14) twscholl pollardfreek(5)/None/Pig Nash(1)/Gyron(5)/?
15) 0731 pollardfreek(7)/Anthem(2)/Rasko(2)/Gyron(8)/Anthem(1)
18) SycamoreKen pollardfreek(10)/Karmakillaz(1)/Anthem(2)/Gyron(7)/Anthem(2)
More in particular, let's now see whether they voted for each other.
1) Mourning voted once for Soup.
2) Pig Nash voted twice for Soup and has just now voted for Ken.
14) twscholl voted once for Pig Nash.
That's all.
If we want the principle that the wolves don't vote for each other (*) to hold, there are two solutions: Mourning and Pig Nash are human, or Soup and Pig Nash are human.
There's an easy way to see this, instead of having to consider all possibilities. The above statements imply that the following couples can't be wolves at the same time: Mourning & Soup, PN & Soup, PN & Ken and PN & twscholl. (couples rule)
Say twscholl's human. Then it is impossible to select 3 wolves out of the other 4 without violating the couples rule.
Thus twscholl's a wolf. That means PN is human. Now Mourning and Soup can't be both wolves, so one of them has to be human.
If I had to make a choice right now, I'd choose for Soup and Pig to be human, and that's because I think that Soup's human. Soup has always stated that he thought that Shade was human. Furthermore, he's voted 3 times in a row for me, which doesn't make sense for a wolf. A wolf adapts his vote according to what makes him less suspicious and according to what suits him at the time. He also was, unlike SycamoreKen and Mourning (PN just didn't respond), willing to give up his vote to Ty in response to my infamous PM.
I won't exclude that the principle (*) has been violated by the wolves, making it possible that out of the list of 7, anyone could be a human. However, right now, my list of 5 wolves would include
1) Mourning pollardfreek(2)/Karmakillaz(2)/Soup(3)/Gyron(9)/Anthem(3)
12) Hoop pollardfreek(6)/None/None/Gyron(6)/?
14) twscholl pollardfreek(5)/None/Pig Nash(1)/Gyron(5)/?
15) 0731 pollardfreek(7)/Anthem(2)/Rasko(2)/Gyron(8)/Anthem(1)
18) SycamoreKen pollardfreek(10)/Karmakillaz(1)/Anthem(2)/Gyron(7)/Anthem(2)
So I made one change compared to my list of yesterday: Pig Nash is now human and twscholl has become a wolf. That's why reconsidering a theory is important.
I'd like you to share your thoughts on all this.
If you agree with my wolves theory, vote for me (I don't exactly know what Anthem and Fool think) to become your new mayor. If you don't, please explain why.
RaskoWord on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
Bum in Berlin on MyspaceComment
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
Excellent post, Rasko. Oddly enough, PigNash was the weakest of my choices for being a wolf, and twscholl was the weakest inclusion in my list for human.
I'm almost 100% positive that the other four are wolves. If 0731 gets into office, IMO, this is all over.Comment
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
What do all the numbers mean? Like SoupIsGood(number)You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?
Comment
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
ok I guess the most important part of your Speech to the Union is this tidbit...after your hardnosed investigation...these are the suspects in your eyes.Originally posted by Raskolnikov View Post
Fair enough...but just because you were hanging out with Tyrion, does not mean I feel confident that you are a human...as Ty hasn't been the best judge of character...we lost 2 brothers from his guidance....and in some sense he passed some of the blame on you for leading him that way.
all in all...I am a bit paranoid yes.
seems like there are 2 or 3 groups of people right now....
of those...one group is the wolf group...
which one is that...Im still clueless.
Comment
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
LOL! So, by not aggreeing to give up my vote I must be wolf? That's absurd. You might want to take into the equation that Tyrion was just one of humans too and he ALSO speculated. Yes, he speculated, because WHEN did he manage to point to a wolf and get it killed?
That's right ZERO times! I will repeat that ... when Tyrion lead the voting ZERO wolves got killed. But, because we all know he's 100% human he must be right with whatever he votes or speculate. WRONG.
I didn't aggree with giving up my vote as I wasn't sure about the ones Tyrion was pointing towards. IF another candidate who I thought had more chance of beying a wolf would get to an equal amount of votes as the block voting you proposed (which you btw despised just a little earlier in the game) then I could still have control over my own vote and thus swing the favor to the candidate I preferred. That's all there is to it. Nothing more, nothing less.
And, yes, I don't want Rasky in office. He likes to make himself look 100% trustworthy, but I am NOT buying it. The wolves only need one or days to get in the majority, so giving up the mayor office is a, and I mean that, brilliant move to get more credibility with the remaining humans. That credibility will only have to last for a shortwhile.
Think about it. Who were the ones drawing up the "hit lists"? Who were the ones complaining about block voting and then doing a 180 degrees turn by doing that themselves. IF anything I have been more independent then Raskolnikov and Anthem in their voting.
I have also offered a proposal to elect someone to the mayor seat who isn't participating in the game (Karmakillaz), but strangely none of Shade, Anthem or Raskolnikov are replying to that proposal, even though it's by far 100% the safest method of avoiding getting a wolf there. Ignoring that proposal alone should make them suspects alone.
Electing Karmakillaz would do several things:
1) if Karmakillaz is killed by the wolves, we will be sure that he wasn't a wolf and that there are in fact actually FOUR active wolves and not THREE (Karmakillaz, beying the fourth is something not many seem to be considering, strangely). You can be sure they will try to get a new candidate in that mayors seat than.
2) Karmakillaz lives. Then rational would dictate that he IS one of the wolves, but as he's not here, so he can't kill us (can the Wolves kill one of their own in their own (night) phase?). Then we are looking for just THREE active wolves amongst us.
3) We are 100% sure the mayor in this crucial phase will screw it for the humans by ignoring the majority rule.
These three points are almost given. You can't just simply ignore this!
Btw as we are making deadlists now, I might aswell produce my own.
1) Anthem
2) Raskolnikov (these two have been cooperating pretty close since the beginning of the game)
3) Fool (as he's just been named as a new candidate for the mayors seat by Raskolnikov)
4) Shade (stepping down was a truly great and smart move to save his life and regain some credibility as beying a "human").
And Raskolnikov I am not making this personal at all, but come on, I have got to defend myself too. I haven't been that aggressive in pointing fingers in this game. You call your lists "theories", I call them wild speculation. What if the wolves would just not show a rational pattern, but adjust and discuss their position each turn? Because, that's what it looks like most.
Regards,
Mourning
2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.wsComment
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
Oh, btw I will vote not on Anthem, Fool or Raskolnikov for the position of mayor, because as you can see above they are my prime suspects. I adhere to my own theory about getting Karmakillaz in office and if that fails I will vote for indy0731 for mayor.
He's way to high profile and obvious to be a wolf IMO.
I will change my vote IF I can prevent one of the above three beying moved to the mayor's seat.
Btw Soup those numbers are the order of application to this TWG. So, you were the 9th person to join the game.
Regards,
Mourning
2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.wsComment
-
Re: The Wolf Game Begins, Returns and it's United
Some other points I hadn't even considered yet. By getting close to the only sure human, Tyrion, and "cooperating" and aggreeing with him in several times Rasky might have very well been almost above suspicion, except no wolf got killed. MINOR detailOriginally posted by bellisimo View Post 
And Tyrion did seem to get a little suspicious of Rasky later.
Regards,
Mourning
2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.wsComment
Comment