PDA

View Full Version : Mafia V: The Cult of Sekham


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

fluiddruid
07-06-2007, 09:16 PM
As for the day, I'm neutral. I'm impatient and I don't think we can discover that more today, but, if people haven't had chances to contribute, by all means hold it off. Either way.

storyteller0910
07-06-2007, 09:39 PM
Maybe some other people will agree with me and take a look at his posts. Maybe it won't be a one-off at the end of the day. Maybe I'll change my mind if something new comes to pass in the next 24 hours. It's not a one-off until the end of the day. Right? :dubious:

So here's the thing: having read this response, my first instinct was to check and find out whether or not Fretful, for whom you voted, actually did place her "one-off" vote at the end of the Day. She did. But looking closer at the details of Fretful's Day 1 activity shows how easy it is for theories like this "one-off vote" hypothesis to be misused - either by overeager townies or maliciously, by scum - to distort events and make them harder to analyze.

Consider, first, the spirit of the "one-off voting" theory as posted by sachertorte.


My theory? This is a nice place for scum to hide. Some will hide in bandwagons, no doubt. But I think a throw-away vote makes sense for some scum.


Put less succinctly, a one-off vote can be scummy because it allows a player to make a vote that has zero chance of affecting the game - he or she is thus on the record as having voted, but will not be noticed in the fallout that inevitably accompanies a lynch of any kind. If done at the end of the day, it's particularly likely to be forgotten even by the subject of the vote, allowing the one-off voter to slip even further beneath the radar.

It's a fair enough theory. I don't particularly subscribe to it - I have always said that everyone should vote for the person they think most likely to be scum, whether or not the bandwagon has other riders, and this theory would keep people from doing that - but it is not at all unreasonable.

But.

Let's take a look at Fretful's actual voting behavior from Day 1, shall we?

She first voted for Autolycus, citing his typically maddening pseudo-participation, in post #677, at 11:15PM on 6.28. Although hers was the first vote for Auto, this was about 2 and a half days from the end of the Day, hardly a last minute vote. It was also hardly a "safe" vote, in the end - it seems to me that Auto is pretty much always in danger of being lynched, so placing a vote for him that early in the Day is taking a chance that you will be in on the lynch in the end.

Then she all but vanishes. For a while.

At 9:37AM on 7.1, she changes her vote from Autolycus to Nava, for the stated reason that she wants to "poke" Nava a bit. The day ends about six hours later, with her vote hanging on Nava.

Now, technically, this was a solo vote, for a player in no danger of being lynched, and therefore qualifies as a "one-off" vote under the above definition. But at the same time - it clearly doesn't fit the criteria according to which we've theorized that a one-off vote could be scummy.

See, thing is, by July 1 at 9:37AM, Fretful's was one of only two votes for Auto. By that point in the Day, momentum had started to build on Mtgman's wagon, and AzTeach and sachertorte had both drawn more interest than Auto, as well. Auto was, at that moment, in no more danger of being lynched than was Nava.

Had Fretful been scummily trying to float under the radar with a safe vote, she could have very easily left her vote on Auto. Now she has a vote that can be easily justified if she's called on it, a vote that she shares with another player who is more suspected than she and is thus likely to take the heat if there is any, and a vote that will have no effect on the Day's lynch.

Changing votes as she did so close to the deadline, far from directing attention away from Fretful, could only have made her more noticeable. Thus, the stated reason for thinking "one-off" votes might be scummy simply does not apply in this case.

And yet HockeyMonkey uses it as the foundation for an attack on Fretful.. This seems to me to be a pretty scum-tastic maneuver, if well-executed. Take a theory advanced by two other players (in this case, sachertorte and fluiddruid). Tell everyone you like it. Then find someone to whom it technically applies - trust that no one will do the research to see how well it really applies - and fire off a vote that: (1) probably won't actually get her lynched; but (2) makes you look like you're voting for a carefully thought-out reason.

I make no particular representation as to the alignment of Fretful in this scenario - if Hockey Monkey is scum, using this gambit to push suspicion (though likely not lynching-level suspicion) onto one of her fellows would be a brilliant move, allowing her to point out later in the game that she was on to scum all along. But for her twisting of the facts to make an invented scum tell seem to fit Fretful when it did not, I'm going to

vote Hockey Monkey

---

FAIR WARNING: I am highly unlikely to post again until Sunday morning. I have to attend a picnic at my boss's beach house tomorrow, and then have my anniversary dinner in the evening, so I'll be away from the computer. It's possible I may sneak in one post early tomorrow, if developments warrant.

Hockey Monkey
07-06-2007, 10:11 PM
I did read it, and I snipped it for the sake of brevity, not to misquote you.

Here is your quote again:Yes, you did explain it. I still do not agree with it. Why is why I said:
I did not say that you did not give a reason, I said I was puzzled by what you said, not because you left anything out -- because, to clarify, it is counterintuitive (and counter-Town if you get right down to it). It is counterintuitive to cast suspicion on people for discussing the reasons behind a night kill.

To be extra clear, this is because casting suspicion on players for trying to establish motives and patterns behind scum is far more beneficial to scum than it is to town. Again, it makes absolutely no sense for scum to pick someone at random. It may not be determinable by the information we have, but there is always a reason - even if it is a weak or poorly chosen reason.

I'm sorry Fluiddruid, but I think we are misunderstanding each other. My suspicion is not because people are/were discussing the night kill and the motives. It was specifically because often the first people to chime in after dawn and say "Huh, wonder why the scum killed ____?" are scum. I've seen this before in several games. I don't have any real suspicion of you at the moment because I felt that at least one of the people asking the question was genuine. Like I said, I don't think the discussion in and of itself is bad, but I have seen scum use this tactic to direct the discussion away from themselves and guide the town into a debate that has nothing to do with finding the bad guys. Is it a true scum tell? I don't know, but it's the best lead I have at the moment.

Fretful Porpentine did this, and coupled not only the one-off vote, but the very strangeness of that vote is why I believe he is scum. He unvoted one player and voted for Nava with about 4 hours to go in the game in order to "poke" her. This was a throw away vote with no accountablility behind it. I'm hoping that others will look into it and perhaps agree with me, but if mine becomes a one-off, at least it has some logic and reason and I will stand behind it.

I'm not agreeing with the votes for Malacandra, and although I have some concern that Kat inherited a scum role from AZTeach, I personally like to give a subbed in player a game Day to establish their own identity in the role. I think SnakesCatLady asked why I didn't choose one of the other players who already had votes and vote for one of them. Well, because I don't want to vote for someone I don't think is scum. Damned if you bandwagon and damned if you don't, I always say. :p So I hope this clears up any confusion over my action.

I'll probably check the thread tomorrow before work, but I am expecting a big day a the Chariot Dealership, so I may not get to post again till nightfall. If we are slow in the morning, I'll see if there is anything else that I need to do.

HazelNutCoffee
07-07-2007, 01:57 AM
Ow. My eyes. Sore. Can't. See. Too. Much. Text!

Well, at this point I'm torn. I see the votes are concentrated around two players, while the rest are scattered. I have several suspicions but I'm not sure whether I want to act on the one I feel strongest about or the one that will make more of a difference.

I actually have a (admittedly somewhat irrational) suspicion of DiggitCamera. His vote on the Mtgman bandwagon, as others have pointed out, seems somewhat questionable in terms of timing. His vote is currently still on Monkey Mensch, with the ostensible claim of wanting to prod him into action. My tired mind is suggesting to me that this could be the move of a scum who hopped onto a bandwagon on the first Day, then casts an off-vote on the second to deflect suspicion. In post 1012, he asks for a comprehensive list of night kill possibilities, which to me seems like an attempt to generate fruitless speculation on something that will not end up helping town very much.

It's all very vague and haphazard. But I'm going to stick to it. My initial suspicion of Mal has faded for the moment, and while I agree that both Kat and fluidruid seem suspicious, I can't make up my mind as to which is more so. I suppose we still have some time before the end of the Day, but for the moment I'm going to

vote DiggitCamera

Pasta
07-07-2007, 02:12 AM
Well, about 14 hours left. (Unless BM extended the day?)

I find myself where I did at the end of Day 1 -- with my vote not counting for squat. It has not escaped my attention that MHaye (my current votee) never got around to responding to my singleton vote. Perhaps that's because he is assuming it will vanish into the night.

He may be right, alas. Because unlike yesterDay, I feel I can contribute a meaningful vote here. But first:


Neither vote counted for anything except as a "Hey, future townie, I don't trust this person" beacon.
Ah, but therein lies the bit of trust one would have to put on your part.
Oh, but I agree -- I certainly don't expect any trust to be extended while I still breathe. My point was that eventually (in all likelihood) I will die, and then the votes I cast in the past (such as yesterDay's SCL vote) will stand out for the remaining townies. Indeed, I plan to go back and re-read the voting arguments delivered by each deceased townie when their day comes. I'll then know I can trust their motives (though their arguments must still past muster.)

Onward, to the vote leaders.

Today has not offered up many strong reads. Malacandra's original Day 2 post came off to me as purely tongue-in-cheek.(*) The noise that has followed it is consistent with this impression, but the noise is also a good way to find "reasons" to vote for someone. That leads me to a Malacandra voter, fluiddruid, for whom I will be voting at the end of this post for the reasons that follow (And, yes I know it's the third vote. Come on, folks! Should I just not vote?)

(*) (save the possible MHaye-Mal connection I mentioned in (1127 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8747251&postcount=1127)).)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fluiddruid, in reference to Malacandra in 1031 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741148&postcount=1031), writesUltimately, everyday townies have no real reason to worry about "get out of dunking free" cards. Yes, everyone wants to play, but if self-preservation is a driving reason for your strategy then you're at best a bad townie and far more likely to be scum (or, admittedly, a power role but I think a power role would lay lower).
I agree: self-preservation is not the goal. But, it is very much a means to the goal. Quoting Malacandra:
As a Town player my default position would of course be to value my own life at a straw, but we can't all adopt the same ultra-helpful attitude or we'll all go gently into that good night and hand the game to the scum on a plate. It is right and proper that a townie should be willing to die in a good cause, but we should resist getting dunked for no good reason.
fluiddruid, you found this statement "no less troubling". I'd say Malacandra makes an important, solid point. Would you have only scum defend themselves?

In response to FCoD saying that there is likely at least one scum in the Mtgman 'wagon, fluiddruid says (1039 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741428&postcount=1039))
FlyingCowOfDoom, I just don't buy it. Considering the odds are greatly on their side, scum has no real reason to bandwagon on Day One and a very strong reason NOT to - to avoid giving any information at all at first. I find throwaway (one-off) votes or no votes much more suspicious than anyone on that list, at least for solely the voting pattern.
I'd agree that throwaway votes are certainly suspicious. But, fluiddruid seems to be disuading someone from suspecting a group of people because "scum probably wouldn't act that way." Of course, no one can say they would act that way. But at the same time, how can he say they wouldn't? If he had said, "I don't think it was a bandwagon because I looked at the late voters and here are the reasons they all seem kosher," then okay. But saying, "scum wouldn't pile on like that, so.. umm... look elsewhere" -- I can't see a townie saying that. A townie has no special information that would warrant such a dissuasion of suspicion. (And the original statement was simply that "there's likely a scumbag in there." Yeah, I'd say there could be.)

Fretful Porpentine countered fluiddruid, prompting the reply in 1078 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8742691&postcount=1078):

I think we'd be very fortunate if that were the case, but I doubt it. The Cultists would absolutely want to minimize their involvement with a non-Cultist vote - and they have the benefit of knowing who's who.
fluiddruid, do you think it impossible that there's some scum in the pile? Could there not easily be some (perhaps newbie) scum trying to protect their partner AT? Admittedly, the list is probably not crawling with scum, and the one-off voters certaintly deserve their turn under the viewing glass. But, fluiddruid (it seems) is discouraging people from investigating the list because "scum wouldn't act that way." I'm not the first to say: scum won't all act the same way, but more than that: fluiddruid knows this, which makes his "nah, no scum in there, don't bother" statements seem even more manipulative.

Moving on: there's the "why zuma?" post. I agree that scum have reason to try that as a ploy, but then town also has reason to inquire, so I can't make much hay there.

Then, fluiddruid has a large post in 1222 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8752715&postcount=1222) regarding the following sequence (469 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8722652&postcount=469), 833 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8731810&postcount=833)) :

The best (or, perhaps more accurately, easiest) way for scum to succeed in the early game is to simply stay off the radar altogether. Make weak or no assertions, vote little, suspect little, post innocuously and avoid suspicion. MIII showed the value in letting townies go about their business in the early game. If I would have changed one thing about that game it would have been to draw back more and let the town go about its dirty business. The odds are frankly on their side (i.e. nonscum being dunked rather than scum) so early and why give people a case to build on?
[H]ere's a direct question to fluiddruid: How do you think town should handle folks who behave as you describe in the above quote?
The most damning thing is that in your long follow-up post (1222 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8752715&postcount=1222)) you never actually answered the question! How do you think town should handle such players? You danced around for 478 words on the topic (not even counting the NAF quote), but you never managed to answer. To go along with this, you are acting exactly as you said scum should and how you wished you had played in a past life. I'll add to my question: fluiddruid, could you please point out to the rest of town who you see acting in this scum-tastic way, so that our eyes may be drawn? That's partly rhetorical, since I certaintly wouldn't expect scum to go pointing out scum, but I'd be curious who you point out. Since you think it's the best strategy, you've surely been looking for players playing that way, no?

Which brings me full circle. If you were town, you would be sharing your suspect list the whole time, and the list would certaintly not be empty since you have a good feel for a good scum strategy (according to none other than yourself) to keep a watch for. Ironically, your vote is sitting on a well-above-the-radar player for actions which, while possibly scummy, are also possibly unmalicious ramblings.

What I meant by "training the newbies": You laid out the strategy that you thought scum should take, and it was Day 1. Scum hadn't had a chance to pow-wow yet, so some of the newer players may not have realized that sitting back works so well for scum. But, they did after you posted, and they could see you (their fellow scum?) following that exact strategy. "Oh, I should maybe sit back for the rest of toDay. fluiddruid makes a good point."

So, my vote will perhaps count this Day.

unvote MHaye
vote fluiddruid

Nava
07-07-2007, 02:14 AM
There is only one person I really, really feel suspicious of. I realize that with the current vote count he's unlikely to take a bath but well, he's the one that gets me worked up.

For the whole discussion (which admittedly may be newbie eagerness),
but also and mainly because there's been several shots (no I'm not going to dive around looking for the posts, leaving now to go spend the day in Geneva) which got responses but he never acknowledged the responses,

vote sachertorte

Pasta
07-07-2007, 02:18 AM
Also, I may as well post what I just counted.

------------------------------------------------------------

(Unofficial) Vote Count ~ 1256

Kat (repl. ArizonaTeach) (5) - Fretful Porpentine, Autolycus, SnakesCatLady, Kyrie Eleison, Scuba_Ben
Malacandra (4) - Pleonast, fluiddruid, sachertorte, Idle Thoughts
fluiddruid (3) - Zeriel, NAF1138, Pasta
Fretful Porpentine (1) - Hockey Monkey
Hal Briston (1) - Queuing
MonkeyMensch (1) - DiggitCamara
Pleonast (1) - FlyingCowOfDoom
Hockey Monkey (1) - storyteller0910
DiggitCamara (1) - HazelNutCoffee
sachertorte (1) - Nava

MHaye
07-07-2007, 03:40 AM
I managed to get through the thread's debates, and find myself at a loss about who to vote for. So I'll tacke the other subject first.

Pasta, I was not ignoring your vote for me in post 1127 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8747251&postcount=1127) – I was holding off on tackling it until I got there on my reread (I think I said that earlier).

I think he's mostly characterised my play style correctly. I don't post much during a Day, but read and reread the thread trying to wring some sense out of what is going on, then make a post placing a vote and explaining my thinking.

It's somewhat of a habit of mine, that posting “grudges are bad folks” at the beginning of every game. Because they are. It developed where I used to play, as I think some of the other players did need it. I've just kept it up. I doubt that I'll give it up any time soon.

I feel he's mischaracterised post 851 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8732260&postcount=851). It's not “mostly 'random voting is bad', plus the zuma thing.” The player I devoted most space to in that post was actually Pasta. Strange he didn't at least acknowledge the fact I was critical of him. Yes, I felt then that zuma and Malacandra were more scummy at the time. But I find Pasta more suspicious now for trying to skate over a criticism.

He's right in saying that I'd not voiced any suspicion of Mtgman before post 874 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8734743&postcount=874). Looking at my file, maybe I should have done. The reason I did not was that he'd backed off the idea that first drew my eye to him. It really came to the fore with what I felt was voting backed by cites that (to my eyes) did not support his vote.

He also finds it bad that I am disagreeing with him over the list of possible Cult suspects. Disagreement between players is not evidence that either are Cult members. Really.

Finally, I may have posted four times at Night, and that did form a significant percentage of posts, because I am a quiet player. I plead posting under the influence of laughter. Personally, I don't think Night posts should be considered at all – if you're going to do postcount analysis, you should make the effort to exclude Night posts from everyone. You should also exclude posts prior to the start of the game.

So with that out of the way, I'm going to think about who to vote for. After some breakfast.

Pasta
07-07-2007, 04:34 AM
Thanks for your reply. I figured you were going to get back to it, but I thought it worth a poke, since I was posting. Regarding this:

I feel he's mischaracterised post 851 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8732260&postcount=851). It's not “mostly 'random voting is bad', plus the zuma thing.” The player I devoted most space to in that post was actually Pasta. Strange he didn't at least acknowledge the fact I was critical of him.

Except that your criticism of me was that the list of lurkers "pretty much has to be random because you've got no basis for an informed selection. Thus we are back to a random vote but with a smaller field." (Quotation from your post, 851.) I did not ignore your criticism of me. On the contrary, your criticism was part of the "random voting is bad" point of your post, which is what I cited. (This is, of course, ignoring the fact that my suggestion was never to kill random lurkers. My point was misinterpreted by a few, so no worries -- that discussion has passed on.)

What's for breakfast? (I hope to get some shut-eye now, myself.)

MHaye
07-07-2007, 04:38 AM
Except that your criticism of me was that the list of lurkers "pretty much has to be random because you've got no basis for an informed selection. Thus we are back to a random vote but with a smaller field." (Quotation from your post, 851.) I did not ignore your criticism of me. On the contrary, your criticism was part of the "random voting is bad" point of your post, which is what I cited. (This is, of course, ignoring the fact that my suggestion was never to kill random lurkers. My point was misinterpreted by a few, so no worries -- that discussion has passed on.)Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll go and revise the draft post I'm working on now.

What's for breakfast? (I hope to get some shut-eye now, myself.)I only had some toast and butter, and a pint of coffee. It'll keep me going until lunch.

MHaye
07-07-2007, 05:29 AM
I listed my suspicions at the end of Day 1 in post 874 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8734743&postcount=874). What's happened to that group of players?

Well, the two on the top of the list are dead, and cleared by their deaths. Of the remaining four, I'm less suspicious of Malacandra, mostly because of post 1111 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8744445&postcount=1111) (although the suspicion refuses to go away, mostly because he was so quick to make the argument floated in post 989 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8739113&postcount=989)) and Pasta (who's response to my post 1258 cleared up something that was making my scumdar ping). I remain slightly suspicious of Storyteller0910 as well – it's not that he's done much to deserve it, more his track record and general helpfulness. As for Sachertorte, I found post 1129 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8747652&postcount=1129) a bit suspicious. His argument that Queueing cannot be suspicious of DiggitCamara on the grounds of the latter's “throw-out-votes” plan because Queueing supported it at first really rubbed me the wrong way. He just seems to be going out of his way to attack Queueing on these grounds. I note that the last such incident was actually a reply to someone else about his suspicions though, or I'd have mentioned that too.

So it seems that the only one from Yesterday still causing me much suspicion is Sachertorte. Was there anyone else who's behaviour raised flags?

DarkCookies voted for Kat in post 1154 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8748498&postcount=1154), basing her vote in part on Mtgman's arguments for lynching ArizonaTeach, which did not ring true with me. Nothing else struck me about her Today though. (I hope you don't mind the abbreviation of your name?) Then Idle Thoughts raised my eyebrows in post 1167 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749060&postcount=1167) by asking why people were talking about “Third vote is scum tell.” That just seems disingenuous to me. Finally, USCDiver failed to produce reasoning for a conclusion (post 1108 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8744018&postcount=1108), claiming that he did not keep notes. That felt to me that it might be just a useful excuse – ie that he may have failed to keep notes to have an excuse for not being able to produce working. There were other little flags, but they were either adequately explained or are too slender a twig to hang a suspicion on, let alone a full-blown accusation

(I'm also gradually growing more concerned about those who are flying under the radar, so to speak. There are five or six players on the list - still too many for me to think about moving towards a lurker lynching. It's not until we have exhausted possibilities among the more active players that we should think about lynching lurkers. I wouldn't be surprised if there were one Cultist in those players – it's just that with little or no information, picking a name would be a random selection. And we all know what I think of those, right?)

So that leaves me with Sachertorte, DarkCookies, Idle Thoughts and USCDiver. Of these, Sachertorte is the person I am most suspicious of, although that's not saying much.

There's one more thing I need to think about before voting. Therefore that's where I'll leave the discussion. However, I'll be back quite soon.

MHaye
07-07-2007, 05:33 AM
:smack:

EBWOP is necessary.So that leaves me with Sachertorte, DarkCookies, Idle Thoughts and USCDiver. Of these, Sachertorte is the person I am most suspicious of, although that's not saying much.To that list, add Malacandra and Storyteller0910.

MHaye
07-07-2007, 06:40 AM
Sorry for the multiple posts; I just wanted to consider two issues.

The first was whether I am suspicious enough of Sachertorte to place a vote for him. I'll admit to being horribly uncertain in my suspicions, and wanted to consider the possibility of making a "no vote" vote.

The second is, given that Sachertorte is not likely to be dunked, whether my vote would be better placed in the frontrunning group in order to help ensure a player of whom I was genuinely suspicious was lynched. Right at this minute the choice is between Kat, who I am not suspicious of (either for her actions or those of ArizonaTeach) and Malacandra who I have less suspicions of than I currently do of Sachertorte - and I'm having a hard enough job persuading myself that that lynch is justified.

The more I type the less happy I feel about voting at all. And yet, not voting does not help. We need records of suspicion and voting.

So with some reluctance, I vote Sachertorte.

It looks like I'll be going out about 5pm my time, which means that unless something comes up soon to change my mind then this will be my last post of the Day.

Captain Klutz
07-07-2007, 07:27 AM
Time to put down a few thoughts.

First, the Malacandra thing (yes, that post again). I've tried looking at it from the point of view as 1. Mal is scum and 2. Mal is town.

Mal said to the effect of " ... if X turns out to be scum then I'll look better ..."

1. Mal is scum

If he chooses an X who turns out to be scum then he must know that his statement will actually end up making him look worse. He therefore chooses a town X.
He now finds he has garnered lots of suspicion, so he tries to allay that by persuading his fellow scum to off zuma, thinking this will then clear him
The next morning (post 989) he immediately points out zuma's innocence and suggests that this clears him as well

This gives some explanation as to why the scum chose zuma (yes, I am assuming it was a scum kill).

2. Now consider if Mal is town:

He chooses X more-or-less at random, the post possibly being intended as a random vote with a joking justification (although as a joke it went over like a lead balloon)
Seeing all the suspicion on Mal, the scum targeted zuma to call attention to Mal. Or possibly, after zuma's happy acceptance of the vote, the scum may have thought they were masons.
After zuma's death, Mal apparently thinks that zuma's innocence clears him as well

Mal's post was ill advised in either case, but I believe it makes more sense (or less non sense) to come from a town Mal. In particular, if Mal is scum I can't see how a group of scum would agree that killing zuma would somehow exonerate Mal, but if Mal is town then there are some plausible reasons for the scum to target zuma.
I think Mal was just having a bad day so I will not be voting for Malacandra.

Of other players:

Sachertorte feels like town: he put forth various ideas that he thought were good for the town and stuck with them even when they resulted in earning him lots of suspicion. I believe if he were scum he would have backed off much earlier.

Autolycus - come out and play (please).

ArizonaTeach/Kat - I have doubts but I'm in the camp that wants to give the replacement a chance to play (at least this early in the game).

Idle Thoughts I'm wondering a bit about, as he is trying to tell us that he is not doing anything during game Nights (#902).

And now to find a vote. Unfortunately, the one I'm most suspicious of is AzTeach/Kat, and since I really want to give Kat a chance to play I will instead give it to the village idiot and vote Autolycus. If that looks like a throwaway vote then so be it.

sachertorte
07-07-2007, 11:27 AM
There is only one person I really, really feel suspicious of. I realize that with the current vote count he's unlikely to take a bath but well, he's the one that gets me worked up.

For the whole discussion (which admittedly may be newbie eagerness),
but also and mainly because there's been several shots (no I'm not going to dive around looking for the posts, leaving now to go spend the day in Geneva) which got responses but he never acknowledged the responses,

vote sachertorte(color removed)
Okay, I think I've been pretty good about responding to votes, but this one leaves me with absolutely nothing to go on. "whole discussion" ?? What is that supposed to mean? "several shots...(snipped)... which got responses but he never acknowledged the responses." Huh? I believe I received one other vote today, which I responded to on a point by point basis. I believe the voter is satisfied by my response because the vote was withdrawn. Does anyone else feel that I've been delinquent in responding to posts about me? Because if no one else feels the same way as Nava, I'll be quite happy ignoring this vote.

Nava, if you have something specific you'd like me to addess, I will. Otherwise, maybe you should post more before accusing others of being unresponsive.

Sorry for the multiple posts; I just wanted to consider two issues.

The first was whether I am suspicious enough of Sachertorte to place a vote for him. I'll admit to being horribly uncertain in my suspicions, and wanted to consider the possibility of making a "no vote" vote.

The second is, given that Sachertorte is not likely to be dunked, whether my vote would be better placed in the frontrunning group in order to help ensure a player of whom I was genuinely suspicious was lynched. Right at this minute the choice is between Kat, who I am not suspicious of (either for her actions or those of ArizonaTeach) and Malacandra who I have less suspicions of than I currently do of Sachertorte - and I'm having a hard enough job persuading myself that that lynch is justified.

The more I type the less happy I feel about voting at all. And yet, not voting does not help. We need records of suspicion and voting.

So with some reluctance, I vote Sachertorte.

It looks like I'll be going out about 5pm my time, which means that unless something comes up soon to change my mind then this will be my last post of the Day.
I'm also going to ignore this vote as well since there is nothing here except general suspicion which I can't address directly. Specific questions or reasons will get real responses.

fluiddruid
07-07-2007, 11:50 AM
fluiddruid, in reference to Malacandra in 1031 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741148&postcount=1031), writes
I agree: self-preservation is not the goal. But, it is very much a means to the goal. Quoting Malacandra:

fluiddruid, you found this statement "no less troubling". I'd say Malacandra makes an important, solid point. Would you have only scum defend themselves?No, I wouldn't. But, often the most ardent self-defenders are scum. This isn't to say that it's always true, but, scum definitely doesn't want to go early. From the perspective of previous games, scum is more likely to panic. This isn't to say that Town can't.

Of course, nobody wants to be shuffled out. I'm not saying "never defend", I'm saying the manner in which Malacandra defended itself appeared to me as scummy. Do I have a rock solid case? No, of course not. At this stage of the game, no one does. But, I voted with my gut and I have not seen a whole lot more that's ssuspicious.

In response to FCoD saying that there is likely at least one scum in the Mtgman 'wagon, fluiddruid says (1039 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741428&postcount=1039))

I'd agree that throwaway votes are certainly suspicious. But, fluiddruid seems to be disuading someone from suspecting a group of people because "scum probably wouldn't act that way." Of course, no one can say they would act that way. But at the same time, how can he say they wouldn't? Female, FYI.

I can say that because it doesn't make sense. Sure, there might be one or two - especially given that it's Day One, and there could be some newbie scum that haven't had a chance to discuss strategy. However, game after game, what happens? We lynch lynchers. That's just how Town seems to operate. We used it to success in the early game by just staying out of it.

There's absolutely NO incentive, and a strong disincentive, for scum to vote for town that is likely to be lynched if the fore-runners are all town.

If he had said, "I don't think it was a bandwagon because I looked at the late voters and here are the reasons they all seem kosher," then okay. But saying, "scum wouldn't pile on like that, so.. umm... look elsewhere" -- I can't see a townie saying that. A townie has no special information that would warrant such a dissuasion of suspicion. (And the original statement was simply that "there's likely a scumbag in there." Yeah, I'd say there could be.)No, I have no "special information". But this is pretty spurious reasoning. I *have* been scum in a prior game, and that was the only game where I was in for any length of time (killed on Night One in MIV). And, as such, most of my game experience has been from scum. And it just doesn't make sense.

If you disagree, tell me why. Tell me why scum would vote for a townie who is getting lynched in Day One. Because, so far, you've tried to attack me rather than attack my argument.

fluiddruid, do you think it impossible that there's some scum in the pile? Could there not easily be some (perhaps newbie) scum trying to protect their partner AT? It is possible. But it is improbable, given the fact that a) scum are far in the minority, so based on numbers, it is highly likely that we will kill a townie on the first day in any case and b) it's simply not a reliable means of targeting scum. Could there be scum in that pile? Sure. But I don't think it's any more likely than targeting scum based on alphabetical order or who prefers full milk over skim.

Admittedly, the list is probably not crawling with scum, and the one-off voters certaintly deserve their turn under the viewing glass. We all do, but the point is, not for that reason.

The most damning thing is that in your long follow-up post (1222 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8752715&postcount=1222)) you never actually answered the question! How do you think town should handle such players? You danced around for 478 words on the topic (not even counting the NAF quote), but you never managed to answer.Actually, I did.

I can't really argue that I couldn't be characterized based on how I phrased scum should act. How is that not an answer? I said I couldn't argue that I wasn't following that pattern. Do I need to say "we should dunk the most likely scum?" Would that have been clearer? I then explained why I followed that same pattern, though it was not a "strategy", as I mentioned. It just occurred.

To go along with this, you are acting exactly as you said scum should and how you wished you had played in a past life. Yes. As I said, it's coincidental. Really, why would I lay out a potential scum strategy and then follow it for any other reason?

I'll add to my question: fluiddruid, could you please point out to the rest of town who you see acting in this scum-tastic way, so that our eyes may be drawn? That's partly rhetorical, since I certaintly wouldn't expect scum to go pointing out scum, but I'd be curious who you point out. Well at this point, frankly, I think I should just in case I garner a few more votes.

Unfortunately, due to my activity level, I still don't have a lot of leads. I will say that I'm a bit puzzled by your aggressiveness, and, I'm not particularly impressed by your arguments. You seem to reach too much. I'd give you about a 75% percent chance of being enthusiastic town and 25% chance scum.

Otherwise, I don't have much. I'll say that NAF is on my trusted list. His voting pattern (of course knowing I'm town, which you don't agree with) doesn't make sense if he's scum - why vote for a townie, unvote, then revote, especially since there is increasing support for my death?

Other than that, being on the chopping block I'm extremely hesistant to give a trusted/suspect list out of the air because it's based on nearly nothing at all. Death brings a huge amount of legitimacy to someone's opinion and frankly I want to be on the record for what I really think. I'm not going to post potential scum as trusted or potential town as suspect without a real reason. It's destructive.

Which brings me full circle. If you were town, you would be sharing your suspect list the whole time, and the list would certaintly not be empty since you have a good feel for a good scum strategy (according to none other than yourself) to keep a watch for.Or, it could be for exactly the reasons I specified: I've had real-life issues going on and it's hard to get a feel for a thread while skimming through for highlights. Instead I'm trying to offer general strategy because that's the best I've got.

[qupte]What I meant by "training the newbies": You laid out the strategy that you thought scum should take, and it was Day 1. Scum hadn't had a chance to pow-wow yet, so some of the newer players may not have realized that sitting back works so well for scum. But, they did after you posted, and they could see you (their fellow scum?) following that exact strategy. "Oh, I should maybe sit back for the rest of toDay. fluiddruid makes a good point."[/quote]Oh. Well, that's not the intention, though there's no real way I can disprove it. Discussing the actions of scum always has that potential on Day One. But I don't think I said anything that would help scum particularly on Day One at all. Frankly I find this silly. I'd think I would have been too nervous to be as plain as you think I seem to be if I was intending to "train" scum.

Hal Briston
07-07-2007, 12:38 PM
If I don't vote now, I probably wouldn't get a chance to get one in by the end of the Day. So, even though I only managed to skim the last several dozen posts enough to update the spreadsheet (http://www.sirblah.com/misc/sekham.htm), I'm going to vote Malacandra for the exceptionally odd zuma bit.

No idea if I'll be back on at all today, but I'll certainly try.

USCDiver
07-07-2007, 12:40 PM
Sorry for my prolonged absence. Sunny California has been keeping me busy for the last several days. I've managed to read through the thread and I want to make my vote before the end of the Day.

My biggest suspicion right now is for MHaye.

For Post 1225 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8752755&postcount=1225) in which he argues we should consider the Cultists are making random kills. This goes against everything we know about how Cultists operate. They have information, we have none. They make kills based on knowledge, we lynch based on suspicions.
Also he was already on my list for his late bandwagoning of Mtgman. When I did my initial read through the voting history I didn't find anything overtly scummy and I said so. I didn't take notes because I didn't find anything. Not because it was a convenient excuse.
Now I do find MHaye to be Culty.

vote MHaye

Autolycus
07-07-2007, 03:16 PM
For Nairu has spoken in The Book of Sayings, 3:12, that one shall make their words count, lest they suffer the wrath of fools.

Mine eyes have been watching today's current progress, and nothing has changed my mind on my vote. But rest assured, that the judgment will fall soon on the non-believers, and there will be much rejoicing.

Idle Thoughts
07-07-2007, 03:16 PM
Where the heck is everyone? Shouldn't Day be ending today? I would have thought I'd come on to see a lot more posts than this.

Anyway, just a few things:

Then Idle Thoughts raised my eyebrows in post 1167 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749060&postcount=1167) by asking why people were talking about “Third vote is scum tell.” That just seems disingenuous to me.

Dunno why. It was a geninue question that I had never heard of before.

Idle Thoughts I'm wondering a bit about, as he is trying to tell us that he is not doing anything during game Nights (#902).

Dunno if you saw it or not but I replied to you regarding this back in reply #1118. If you're already aware of this, though, or have seen it but still suspicious, well, I don't know what else I can say.

Idle Thoughts
07-07-2007, 03:18 PM
Dunno if you saw it or not but I replied to you regarding this back in reply #1118. If you're already aware of this, though, or have seen it but still suspicious, well, I don't know what else I can say.

And I obviously meant "but are STILL suspicious". :o

Pasta
07-07-2007, 03:25 PM
We've had a tie going for about 4 hours. Not much time, I admit, but it makes me think that both of the vote leaders are town. If one was town and one was scum, surely some cultist would throw in another vote for the townie. Ten people have voted for the top two, so it's not like the voter would need to reach deep looking for reasons.

I think the Cult is happy to sit back and watch either one of the top two vote getters get dunked.

I don't have time before the 5pm bell to reply to fluiddruid's response, but I encourage other townies to read my arguments and her response carefully, because while she said a lot of words, she did not address my concerns and has actually increased her scum-dar reading for me. I'd love to at least see fluiddruid make the tie-break round with a couple late votes so that I may respond before Day's end.

Kat
07-07-2007, 03:25 PM
I haven't had time to reread the thread, since I've had people over, and they're still here, so I'm voting based on my current notes.

The only player I'm feeling strongly enough to cast a vote for based on my previous suspicions is Malacandra.

sachertorte
07-07-2007, 03:35 PM
Just a few thoughts before the end of day. I counted today's posts. Some of the things I thought were interesting is people I thought weren't posting enough actually had decent post counts (I haven't checked for post fluffiness yet). And some people have nearly stopped posting all together that I hadn't noticed were slacking. I don't know if this means anything or is helpful. At the very least it points to people who need to be poked, and poked often tomorrow. I offer the following without further comment:
Day Two Vote counts up to post #1273 (approx 4:30PM EDT)

Autolycus 5
Capatin Klutz 6
Cookies 10
DiggitCamara 16
fluiddruid 11
FlyingCowOfDoom 5
Fretful Porpentine 11
HalB riston 13
HazelNutCoffee 8
Hockey Monkey 9
Idle Thougts 16
Kat (AZ) 12
Kyrie (CJ) 14
MadTS 0
Malacandra 9
MHaye 12
Mensch 2
NAF 18
Nava 8
Pasta 8
Pleonast 3
Queuing 19
sachertorte 13
Scuba 16
SCLady 8
storyteller 8
USCDiver 5
Zeriel 10

Kat
07-07-2007, 03:48 PM
And now I feel bad, reading Pasta's simulpost with mine, because he's got a convincing point regarding the town vs town top voters.

Kat
07-07-2007, 03:52 PM
Not edited to add: Based on posts 1255 and 1266, I'm tempted to change my vote to grant Pasta's request, but one vote isn't enough to pull fluiddruid into the tie and there's only 9 minutes left based on my clock.

MHaye
07-07-2007, 03:55 PM
USCDiver. I get the feeling I've offended you. I apologise for my poor wording. I really should have made it a hypothetical, or not said it at all.

Idle Thoughts : If memory serves this business of "the third vote is a scum tell" was hashed over in previous games. That's why I was surprised you hadn't seen it.

Sachertorte my suspicions were outlined in the post I made before voting you.

Fretful Porpentine
07-07-2007, 05:24 PM
Well?

:: fidgets ::

Idle Thoughts
07-07-2007, 05:27 PM
I haven't had time to reread the thread, since I've had people over, and they're still here, so I'm voting based on my current notes.

The only player I'm feeling strongly enough to cast a vote for based on my previous suspicions is Malacandra.


:dubious:

So he just so happens to be the "only" player you're suspicious enough to vote for and, by sheer coincidence, be the one who is tied with you for most votes?

Crap, if you're going to vote for him because you want to see him hang instead of you and don't want to risk your head being in the noose, just be honest and say so.


I actually find this shady a bit. Just saying that he happens to be the only one you have enough suspicions to vote for (and do so) but make no mention of the fact that you and him are currently tied and this is the killer vote. If anything, that's at least a bit understandable. That you'd vote for him to save your own neck. But you make no mention of that here in your post and, instead, make it sound like you just "happen" to be voting for him because he "happens" to be the "only" person you have suspicions over. :dubious:

Queuing
07-07-2007, 05:28 PM
We've had a tie going for about 4 hours. Not much time, I admit, but it makes me think that both of the vote leaders are town. If one was town and one was scum, surely some cultist would throw in another vote for the townie. Ten people have voted for the top two, so it's not like the voter would need to reach deep looking for reasons.

I think the Cult is happy to sit back and watch either one of the top two vote getters get dunked.

I don't have time before the 5pm bell to reply to fluiddruid's response, but I encourage other townies to read my arguments and her response carefully, because while she said a lot of words, she did not address my concerns and has actually increased her scum-dar reading for me. I'd love to at least see fluiddruid make the tie-break round with a couple late votes so that I may respond before Day's end.

You might be right, but in the only game of Mafia I have played the town got into a lot of trouble by last minute vote swings. I will not do it again, and find it suspicious you want us to.

Idle Thoughts
07-07-2007, 05:31 PM
Idle Thoughts : If memory serves this business of "the third vote is a scum tell" was hashed over in previous games. That's why I was surprised you hadn't seen it.


Huh. Go figure. I've never seen it discussed before.

Oh, and I don't know if I'm too late or what but unvote Malacandra.

Now it should be a tie again.

Kat's last post and reason for voting just doesn't sit well with me and after reading a lot of posts from others about the zuma/Mal thing, I've been slowly ebbing off my huge suspicions on him too.

Kat
07-07-2007, 05:37 PM
[QUOTE=Idle Thoughts]I actually find this shady a bit. Just saying that he happens to be the only one you have enough suspicions to vote for (and do so) but make no mention of the fact that you and him are currently tied and this is the killer vote.[QUOTE]

I actually typed something about that out before I submitted the post, and then deleted it because it sounded like I was making excuses.

Malacandra
07-07-2007, 05:42 PM
:dubious:

So he just so happens to be the "only" player you're suspicious enough to vote for and, by sheer coincidence, be the one who is tied with you for most votes?

Crap, if you're going to vote for him because you want to see him hang instead of you and don't want to risk your head being in the noose, just be honest and say so.


I actually find this shady a bit. Just saying that he happens to be the only one you have enough suspicions to vote for (and do so) but make no mention of the fact that you and him are currently tied and this is the killer vote. If anything, that's at least a bit understandable. That you'd vote for him to save your own neck. But you make no mention of that here in your post and, instead, make it sound like you just "happen" to be voting for him because he "happens" to be the "only" person you have suspicions over. :dubious:

Dubious indeed. But I still will not vote for Kat, despite a strong temptation.

Go on, someone, say that's a cunning bluff of scummy proportions.

Kat
07-07-2007, 05:43 PM
Incidentally, if you'd read my subsequent posts, you'd have noticed I was perfectly aware of the tie situation. But no matter how I worded it "I know this vote puts him one vote over me, but that's not why I'm voting for him" didn't sound anything but bad to me.

Idle Thoughts
07-07-2007, 05:48 PM
Okay, looking back at your most recent posts, your second to last post before you just voted for Mal read (post 1183):

Yes, I did. I'm just not sure why that makes it non-scummy.

At this point, though, I'm starting to doubt my reasoning for the vote, so I'll unvote sachertorte. You've still got an FOS, though.

Now I have to go find somebody else to vote for. Too bad Mad's incommunicado, he's my traditional backup vote. ;)

Bolding mine.

It sounds here like you have no suspicions then, really. So where did all the Mal ones come from then all of a sudden? If it was from all the stuff that he did earlier (which is why I and a few others are/were voting for him) why didn't you say something or act sooner? This just seems off. Again, if you were throwing your vote in for him just so it would safeguard against you being dunked, then why wouldn't you say that? Instead you make it sound like it just happened to be the "only" one you have suspicions about, even though prior to that vote, you never mentioned him at all and even said you need to "find someone else to vote for".

I never really had any pings from you or from ArizonaTeach as of yet, but nothing that made me feel otherwise either. Now, with this and other things from earlier that others have been going on about for a bit, I'm starting to majorly swing that way.

How much time is left for Day anyway? By my clock it should have ended three hours ago.


And on preview, you say:

Incidentally, if you'd read my subsequent posts, you'd have noticed I was perfectly aware of the tie situation. But no matter how I worded it "I know this vote puts him one vote over me, but that's not why I'm voting for him" didn't sound anything but bad to me.

I have and the last two posts before your vote just now, you make a joke about not "FOS"ing MadtheSwine at all and then the post I quoted above where you say, word for word "I have to go find somebody else to vote for."

This sounds like you didn't, previously, have much to go on with Mal, yet two posts later, you're voting for him saying that he's the only one you're suspicious of. What are they? And if they were the things everyone else (including myself) voted for him for, why did you say, two posts prior to that, that you didn't have anyone to vote for yet?

Kat
07-07-2007, 06:04 PM
Day ended at 5:00 PM Eastern Time, or an hour and 27 minutes before your post 1279. I convinced myself that my first 2 replies weren't strategizing, but I can't believe myself anymore, so I'll hold off replying to you unril Dawn.

Kat
07-07-2007, 06:05 PM
That's based on
Day Two - Dawn -- Day Two - Vote Count ~ 1235 -- Day Two - Dusk @ 5:00 PM EDT Saturday

Idle Thoughts
07-07-2007, 06:09 PM
Well that's all well and good but I'm at a college right now that is closing at four thirty (PST--that's in about 25 minutes) and probably won't be able to get on again until tomorrow. And I rarely get on before noon PST (which sucks since BM runs the game based on EST.

So I plan to cast a vote again before I go and, if possible, it'd be nice to hear any explanations you may have/offer.

Idle Thoughts
07-07-2007, 06:11 PM
Well, then, for all we know Blaster may not even count any votes placed after that time, his time. But don't let that stop you.

Idle Thoughts
07-07-2007, 06:26 PM
Day ended at 5:00 PM Eastern Time, or an hour and 27 minutes before your post 1279. I convinced myself that my first 2 replies weren't strategizing, but I can't believe myself anymore, so I'll hold off replying to you unril Dawn.

I just went back to my apartment really quick and on the way pondered over what this could mean. Then it hit me, you think that BM wouldn't count anything said or votes after the deadline his time.

So if that's the case, I'm sorry if I broke the "no strategizing/voting after dusk" rule and I'll shut up now. :eek:

fluiddruid
07-07-2007, 06:37 PM
I don't have time before the 5pm bell to reply to fluiddruid's response, but I encourage other townies to read my arguments and her response carefully, because while she said a lot of words, she did not address my concerns and has actually increased her scum-dar reading for me. I'd love to at least see fluiddruid make the tie-break round with a couple late votes so that I may respond before Day's end.Dude, I did respond to your concerns. Read my post. Maybe they weren't the responses you were fishing for, but they were point-by-point responses nonetheless.

Kat
07-07-2007, 06:45 PM
So if that's the case, I'm sorry if I broke the "no strategizing/voting after dusk" rule and I'll shut up now. :eek:

I won't turn you in, provided I'm allowed to point and laugh.

NAF1138
07-07-2007, 11:44 PM
So...um...is it night? Can we start drinking?

If so I would like a whiskey. ;)

Kat
07-07-2007, 11:52 PM
I've been refreshing about every 10 minutes since I got rid of my houseguests. Where is Blaster Master? I need to go to bed soon.

I need a shot. And leave the bottle.

SnakesCatLady
07-07-2007, 11:55 PM
I'm with you on that. Margarita, please, with a side of catnip. And keep 'em coming.

Autolycus
07-08-2007, 12:40 AM
Drinking is the sign of a true believer!

Nava
07-08-2007, 02:12 AM
The bar doesn't open until we know who can't I serve any more. It' s the Law.

HazelNutCoffee
07-08-2007, 03:21 AM
Heaven forbid we feed alcohol to a zombie.

Captain Klutz
07-08-2007, 06:19 AM
Did Blaster extend the day? If he did I must have missed the announcement...

MHaye
07-08-2007, 06:53 AM
Did Blaster extend the day? If he did I must have missed the announcement...He did float the idea here. I think the majority was either "don't care" or "leave as is" so I doubt it has been.

How about that! Learned how to link to posts in context. :D Thanks to rowrrbazzle for explaining it in ATMB recently enough that I remembered it...

NAF1138
07-08-2007, 10:58 AM
Just a few thoughts before the end of day. I counted today's posts. Some of the things I thought were interesting is people I thought weren't posting enough actually had decent post counts (I haven't checked for post fluffiness yet). And some people have nearly stopped posting all together that I hadn't noticed were slacking. I don't know if this means anything or is helpful. At the very least it points to people who need to be poked, and poked often tomorrow. I offer the following without further comment:
Day Two Vote counts up to post #1273 (approx 4:30PM EDT)

Autolycus 5
Capatin Klutz 6
Cookies 10
DiggitCamara 16
fluiddruid 11
FlyingCowOfDoom 5
Fretful Porpentine 11
HalB riston 13
HazelNutCoffee 8
Hockey Monkey 9
Idle Thougts 16
Kat (AZ) 12
Kyrie (CJ) 14
MadTS 0
Malacandra 9
MHaye 12
Mensch 2
NAF 18
Nava 8
Pasta 8
Pleonast 3
Queuing 19
sachertorte 13
Scuba 16
SCLady 8
storyteller 8
USCDiver 5
Zeriel 10


OK, well since we are in a weird limbo and the day doesn't seem to really be over, how about some light discussion.

I would like to hear what sachertorte thinks of the list he posted. The people he was surprised that had posted and the people he thought had posted a lot but had low post counts.

It's going to be individual, but this sort of list thing without analysis can be dangerous, but with analysis might be a very useful tool.

Blaster Master
07-08-2007, 11:16 AM
Sorry, I didn't have access to the internet yesterday like I expected to to end they day, and I won't have time to do it until later today. So, even though I had pretty much decided not to extend the day, since I don't see any reason to have everyone sitting around waiting for me, so consider this an extension until 5:00 PM today, and I'll end it about then.

Idle Thoughts
07-08-2007, 11:36 AM
I was up at the crack of dawn checking and refreshing this page. And now that we all have the go ahead, I'm going to hold my vote off for now because I'm curious and hoping to get some clarification or a better explanation from Kat.

Kat
07-08-2007, 01:05 PM
It sounds here like you have no suspicions then, really.

Not no suspicions at all, just that at the time I posted, I was planning on going over the thread again before I voted.

So where did all the Mal ones come from then all of a sudden? If it was from all the stuff that he did earlier (which is why I and a few others are/were voting for him) why didn't you say something or act sooner? This just seems off. Again, if you were throwing your vote in for him just so it would safeguard against you being dunked, then why wouldn't you say that? Instead you make it sound like it just happened to be the "only" one you have suspicions about, even though prior to that vote, you never mentioned him at all and even said you need to "find someone else to vote for".

:confused: I never mentioned him at all? Are you sure? Have you actually read all my posts?

Because Mal was the first person I FOSed in my very first post (how could you miss it? I claimed that I was "judy boggled" at the time!). Was I supposed to every so often mention "Oh, I still suspect Mal." or was the fact that I never retracted the FOS sufficent?

The most innocuous reason I could think of at the time of that first post for the garbled explanation was trying to hide that it was a random vote, but why someone would think that was better than just admitting it was random was beyond me.

I have and the last two posts before your vote just now, you make a joke about not "FOS"ing MadtheSwine at all and then the post I quoted above where you say, word for word "I have to go find somebody else to vote for."

This sounds like you didn't, previously, have much to go on with Mal, yet two posts later, you're voting for him saying that he's the only one you're suspicious of. What are they? And if they were the things everyone else (including myself) voted for him for, why did you say, two posts prior to that, that you didn't have anyone to vote for yet?

I acknowledged the tie in post 1276, after (e.i. "subsequent to") posting my vote. And like I said previously, "I'm not voting for Mal just to break the tie." sounded fishy to me no matter how I worded it (I typed it out 4 times, and each time it sounded worse), so I just deleted the sentence. I figured everyone could see for themselves that it was a tie vote.

If you wanna know the truth, I was on at 7 am yesterday (Central Time) and put off voting for Malacandra then, because that would have brought he and I into a tie vote at that time and I wanted to read through the thread again if I could before I voted, just to make sure there wasn't anybody else I could find more suspicious activity on. Because I was sure that if I caused the tie, somebody would jump all over me. Unfortunately, I was dragged out to breakfast, and then I had people over (and they weren't exactly happy with me checking the internet in the middle of playing the longest Scrabble session in the county, either). Then I had the choice of voting for a person I'd felt suspicious of since my first read-through, or not voting. I decided that the not voting would be worse.

Even without having re-read the thread, I still had the notes I'd already taken, and since I'd already posted being suspicious of Malacandra, long before the voting got close, I decided I could take any lumps over the tie-breaking if I was wrong. Never occurred to me someone would claim I'd never brought up being suspicious of Mal at all.

As for now, since the day got extended, I have the time to look through the thread like I had hoped to yesterday. If I find something more suspicious than Malancandra's explanation of his vote for zuma, I'll let you know.

MadTheSwine
07-08-2007, 01:14 PM
Hi everyone,so sorry for disappearing the last 10 days or so...I was called away...havent checked to see if I have been replaced yet,but was in contact with BM a few days ago and he said I might still be here when I got back in town...so I will read through the thread and check back in later, if I haven't been replaced.Sorry again.

Kat
07-08-2007, 01:18 PM
On top of that, I mentioned during the discussion with sachertorte not understanding why he didn't find Mal's vote scummy, so I technically did bring up still being suspicious of Mal's vote and explanation, in addition to the original FOS. I listed sachertorte's defense of the explanation as one of the reason's I was voting for him in post 1124, then indicated that I didn't understand why he didn't find the explanation scummy in my response to his defense (post 1170), and repeated that in my unvote of sachertorte in post 1183. How many of my posts before the Malacandra vote did you actually read, Idle Thoughts?

Kat
07-08-2007, 01:25 PM
(e.i. "subsequent to")

:smack:

If I survive this Day: I used up the last of my narcotics this morning, so I should stop having so many egregious typos after today.

Idle Thoughts
07-08-2007, 03:41 PM
:confused: I never mentioned him at all? Are you sure? Have you actually read all my posts?

Because Mal was the first person I FOSed in my very first post (how could you miss it? I claimed that I was "judy boggled" at the time!). Was I supposed to every so often mention "Oh, I still suspect Mal." or was the fact that I never retracted the FOS sufficent?

I've been reading them thus far and even went back and read them all again right now. You DO say you're suspicious of him at the start, but you also do that with four other people, one of whom you vote for (sachetorte) and later on unvote when you make the reply I quoted in one of my last posts (how you need to find someone else to vote for). It was just something in the way you said that and how you put it that seemed off.

I acknowledged the tie in post 1276, after (e.i. "subsequent to") posting my vote. And like I said previously, "I'm not voting for Mal just to break the tie." sounded fishy to me no matter how I worded it (I typed it out 4 times, and each time it sounded worse), so I just deleted the sentence. I figured everyone could see for themselves that it was a tie vote.

If you wanna know the truth, I was on at 7 am yesterday (Central Time) and put off voting for Malacandra then, because that would have brought he and I into a tie vote at that time and I wanted to read through the thread again if I could before I voted, just to make sure there wasn't anybody else I could find more suspicious activity on.

What about one of the two others you put "FOS"s on at the start of toDay? Again, you seemed to have more than one...but as the Day went on and is now ending, you seemed to focus first on sach and then on Mal with the other two just being forgotten.

I dunno, how I read it all it just seems like, to me, that you singled Mal out for the sole purpose of saving your own neck...although you claim that's not the case. But let's not forget something that, so far, MANY people have pointed out..and that being on Day One, your predacessor, AZteach was almost put in the noose too, but then was saved by a bevy of votes against Mtgman. Had you not put in your vote on Mal, toDay would have either ended as a tie (and you'd be more in danger of being dunked), or someone could have easily come along and put an extra vote on you had the Day been extended (which it was). Therefore I just see your vote on him as being a saving your own neck one, although you say it's not. And since this is not the first time this has happened (all the people pointing this out to be the case on Day One didn't really trip anything for me but then again, I didn't dismiss it either) I'm now noticing more.


Because I was sure that if I caused the tie, somebody would jump all over me.

I'm puzzled over this and why you'd think it. If anything I'd think more people would jump all over you and find you shady for breaking the tie and casting the killing vote (which you thought you were doing).

Even without having re-read the thread, I still had the notes I'd already taken, and since I'd already posted being suspicious of Malacandra, long before the voting got close, I decided I could take any lumps over the tie-breaking if I was wrong. Never occurred to me someone would claim I'd never brought up being suspicious of Mal at all.

But you also mentioned three other names at the beginning and your suspicions thereof of them. Like I said above, combined with your position's escape on the first Day, it really looks like you're just targetting him to get out of another close call. If that's the case, fine, but you just seem to be saying that it's not (at all) and that just seemed/s off to me. If you are really town and suspicious of him, I'd think you'd use this reason in your vote. If you are scum, well, then what you're claiming would, of course, be something you'd say.

On top of that, I mentioned during the discussion with sachertorte not understanding why he didn't find Mal's vote scummy, so I technically did bring up still being suspicious of Mal's vote and explanation, in addition to the original FOS. I listed sachertorte's defense of the explanation as one of the reason's I was voting for him in post 1124, then indicated that I didn't understand why he didn't find the explanation scummy in my response to his defense (post 1170), and repeated that in my unvote of sachertorte in post 1183. How many of my posts before the Malacandra vote did you actually read, Idle Thoughts?

At the time, two, but then I went back and reread all of the earlier stuff, which didn't change my puzzlement or radar hits from you much since you also had "FOS"s out on others.

So all of it combined, the escape the first day and about to have another, the no-mention of any of the other suspicions you had and making it really easy to dunk Mal (who JUST HAPPENED to be tied with you), and just the way you worded things before you voted and when you did made me pause.



And lastly, there was this, which you just said:

If I survive this Day: I used up the last of my narcotics this morning, so I should stop having so many egregious typos after today.

Bolding mine.

NOW you say that and put it that way...yet before, when you and I didn't know if there'd be an extention, it was:

Day ended at 5:00 PM Eastern Time, or an hour and 27 minutes before your post 1279. I convinced myself that my first 2 replies weren't strategizing, but I can't believe myself anymore, so I'll hold off replying to you until Dawn.

Bolding and correction mine.

Here you don't seem to think there isn't any possiblity that you won't be around come the Dawn.

Forgetfulness? Or slip-up?

Idle Thoughts
07-08-2007, 03:43 PM
Dangit, forgot to include vote Kat

Kat
07-08-2007, 04:05 PM
Er...because at the time I posted that, I was assuming there was no extension, and that everything after the assumed cutoff time was moot, including your unvote. At the time of the later "if I survive" post, it was tied again, thus even if no other votes changed, there was a 50/50 shot of me dying.

I'm puzzled over this and why you'd think it. If anything I'd think more people would jump all over you and find you shady for breaking the tie and casting the killing vote (which you thought you were doing).

Exactly. But by that point, I'd decided to bite the bullet and take the flak. Which I explicitly said in the part of my post that you quoted right after this comment. I'll even repeat it below.

I decided I could take any lumps over the tie-breaking if I was wrong. Never occurred to me someone would claim I'd never brought up being suspicious of Mal at all.

you seemed to focus first on sach and then on Mal with the other two just being forgotten.

*blinks* It's suspicious that I focused on the people I found most suspicious?

Idle Thoughts
07-08-2007, 04:11 PM
Er...because at the time I posted that, I was assuming there was no extension, and that everything after the assumed cutoff time was moot, including your unvote. At the time of the later "if I survive" post, it was tied again, thus even if no other votes changed, there was a 50/50 shot of me dying.


By my clock it's two PM, which means it's five PM Blaster's time. So I'll just reply to this...

It doesn't matter, in either case, you seemed sure you'd be around for the Dawn, and thus have survived the Night.

I don't see how your explanation there covers how or why you said what you did and seemed sure you'd be around for the next Dawn at all. Like I said, maybe forgetfulness, maybe a slip-up. With everything that I pointed out that was combined against you, in my mind, I gave a bit more weight to slip-up and voted accordingly.

Blaster Master
07-08-2007, 04:36 PM
Okay, I'm checking in. I'm really sorry about the delay this weekend. I'm going to count the votes up now and post the end of Day presently.

sachertorte
07-08-2007, 07:37 PM
[QUOTE=NAF1138]I would like to hear what sachertorte thinks of the list he posted. The people he was surprised that had posted and the people he thought had posted a lot but had low post counts./QUOTE]
Ugh.
I thought I didn't have time to write up a full out post regarding the list I made. I posted it shortly before what was supposed to be the end of the day. Now I see that the day didn't really end and I could have posted more, but I didn't know the day didn't end so I didn't.

And now the day has ended.

Ugh.

Blaster Master
07-08-2007, 07:52 PM
This just isn't a good weekend... the internet went out and just came back on. I'm going to post the Day end now.

Blaster Master
07-08-2007, 07:55 PM
There were a total of 24 out of 28 votes cast.

Kat (repl. ArizonaTeach) (6) - Fretful Porpentine, Autolycus, SnakesCatLady, Kyrie Eleison, Scuba_Ben, Idle Thoughts
Malacandra (5) - Pleonast, fluiddruid, sachertorte, Hal Briston, Kat
fluiddruid (3) - Zeriel, NAF1138, Pasta
sachertorte (2) - Nava, MHaye
Autolycus (1) - Captain Klutz
DiggitCamara (1) - HazelNutCoffee
Fretful Porpentine (1) - Hockey Monkey
Hal Briston (1) - Queuing
Hockey Monkey (1) - storyteller0910
MHaye (1) - USCDiver
MonkeyMensch (1) - DiggitCamara
Pleonast (1) - FlyingCowOfDoom


Voter - Action - Votee - Post
Pleonast - Vote - Malacandra - 1004
fluiddruid - Vote - Malacandra - 1031
FlyingCowOfDoom - Vote - Pleonast - 1038
Fretful Porpentine - Vote - Kat - 1064
Pasta - Vote - SnakesCatLady - 1081
sachertorte - Vote - Malacandra - 1119
Autolycus - Vote - Kat - 1120
Kat - Vote - sachertorte - 1124
Pasta - Unvote - SnakesCatLady - 1127
Pasta - Vote - MHaye - 1127
Queuing - Vote - Hal Briston - 1141
SnakesCatLady - Vote - Kat - 1142
DiggitCamara - Vote - MadTheSwine - 1146
NAF1138 - Vote - fluiddruid - 1148
ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies - Vote - Kat - 1154
DiggitCamara - Unvote - MadTheSwine - 1160
DiggitCamara - Vote - MonkeyMensch - 1160
Kyrie Eleison - Vote - Kat - 1166
Idle Thoughts - Vote - Malacandra - 1167
ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies - Unvote - Kat - 1171
NAF1138 - Unvote - fluiddruid - 1175
Kat - Unvote - sachertorte - 1183
Zeriel - Vote - fluiddruid - 1200
NAF1138 - Vote - fluiddruid - 1208
Hockey Monkey - Vote - Fretful Propentine - 1215
Scuba_Ben - Vote - Kat - 1233
storyteller0910 - Vote - Hockey Monkey - 1252
HazelNutCoffee - Vote - DiggitCamara - 1254
Pasta - Unvote - MHaye - 1255
Pasta - Vote - fluiddruid - 1255
Nava - Vote - sachertorte - 1256
MHaye - Vote - sachertorte - 1263
Captain Klutz - Vote - Autolycus - 1264
Hal Briston - Vote - Malacandra - 1267
USCDiver - Vote - MHaye - 1268
Kat - Vote - Malacandra - 1273
Idle Thoughts - Unvote - Malacandra - 1281
Idle Thoughts - Vote - Kat - 1309

Pasta
07-08-2007, 07:59 PM
*crosses fingers* *fidgits*

Blaster Master
07-08-2007, 08:13 PM
It had been another long day of accusations and pointing fingers. Yet, by the end of the day, there remained two suspects in the town's search for the cultists, the befuddling Malacandra and the mad Kat. By the time the final bell struck at the end of the day, it had seemed as though it would be Malacandra who would face the long walk off the short plank into the sacred water of Nairu. But just as he was being led up, one citizen noted aloud that though day light savings had been some time ago, in fact someone had forgotten to set the all important town clock. Quickly, the moment was seized and accusations flew once again as just enough suspicion was switched from Malacandra to Kat, it ended up being her neck on the line this time. Shackled and as she was led up the steps, she resolved not to go quietly as she was pushed into the pool, and yet did not sink to a simultaneous gasp.

Anxiety arose over the town; had they foolishly again convicted someone other than a cultist? No there could not be more than one Non-Believer, surely the light of Nairu was ever present and quickly the town turned on her. Savagely, she was pulled from the water, and dragged; her body nearly torn apart by the citizens as she was tied to the stake where only the day before Mtgman had been burned. A grimmace crossed the face of even the stoic executioner as her desperate pleas became a blood curdling scream as her flesh was consumed in the flame.... and then the silence.

In her remains was found a small talisman, a chain with a seven pointed star of fine silver. It was the symbol of Sekham.

Kat, a Cultist has been burned at the stake.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Night will end at 9:15 PM on Tuesday, or when all Night instructions have been received.

Kat
07-08-2007, 08:16 PM
Damn you, followers of Nairu! *shakes fist fruitlessly in the direction of the townsfolk*

SnakesCatLady
07-08-2007, 08:16 PM
We got one!

Who's buying the first round?

Kat
07-08-2007, 08:18 PM
Hey, I can go eat nachos in the Forbidden Thread now! (The Word of Nairu prohibits nachos, so I can't share, sorry :p)

*maliciously turns all the alcohol into water as she leaves*

Pasta
07-08-2007, 08:26 PM
* throws a bottle of ScopeTM in Kat's way, soaking up her alcohol-to-wine spell, saving the bar *

Sweet!

Blaster Master
07-08-2007, 08:27 PM
Alive
2 USCDiver
3 Idle Thoughts
5 Hockey Monkey
6 storyteller0910
7 NAF1138
8 sachertorte
9 SnakesCatLady
10 Malacandra
12 Kyrie Eleison
13 Hal Briston
14 Pleonast
15 DiggitCamara
16 Fretful Porpentine
17 Nava
18 Pasta
19 FlyingCowOfDoom
20 Scuba_Ben
21 Queuing
22 Zeriel
23 MonkeyMensch
24 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
25 Autolycus
26 HazelNutCoffee
27 MHaye
28 fluiddruid
29 MadTheSwine
30 Captain Klutz

Dead
11 Mtgman - Non-Believer - Day One
4 zuma - Citizen - Night One
1 Kat - Cultist - Day Two

Pasta
07-08-2007, 08:28 PM
errr... alcohol-to-water spell. Don't know about that other spell.

Kat
07-08-2007, 08:29 PM
I turned Scope into wine? Weird.

Idle Thoughts
07-08-2007, 08:42 PM
Oh man does that feel good.

I think I'll take a celebratory Coke.

Kyrie Eleison
07-08-2007, 08:47 PM
Drinking is the sign of a true believer!
If so, you have no idea of how deeply I believe. *Sip*

Fretful Porpentine
07-08-2007, 09:12 PM
We're all allowed Scopewine, right, Nava? 'Cos there weren't any grapes in Scope, last time I looked.

Pass the Scopewine, it's been a very long day.

Hockey Monkey
07-08-2007, 09:32 PM
Woohoo! Awesome! Good job guys!

I think I'll pass on the Scopewine. :::shudder::: A nice mead will be fine.

Scuba_Ben
07-08-2007, 09:39 PM
Nairu be praised! One down.

Autolycus
07-08-2007, 09:57 PM
Yea verily, this shall be a day of celebration! For it is written in the Book of Wise Things, "When the nonbeliever is brought to a justice in a fiery concatenation, that is a time for merriment and the naked dance."

As all good believers know, this dance is mandatory for all town females. Let us begin!

Kat
07-08-2007, 10:08 PM
Based on Auto's last post, I'm suddenly glad to be dead. :D

HazelNutCoffee
07-08-2007, 10:09 PM
Wow, we actually got one! No thanks to me. I think my Scumdar is officially broken. *shakes it doubtfully*

Zeriel
07-08-2007, 10:48 PM
Nairu be praised! A bottle of the sacred whiskey for me!

*wanders off drunkenly, singing "She tramples the unrighteous with hooves of hot iron" at the top of his lungs."

Queuing
07-08-2007, 10:53 PM
Nice, good job those who didn't care about giving a sub a free Day! :)

mmmm, scopewine.

Nava
07-08-2007, 11:07 PM
* throws a bottle of ScopeTM in Kat's way, soaking up her alcohol-to-wine spell, saving the bar *

Sweet!

Actually, since wine is reserved for sacrifices to Nairu, an "all-alcohol-to-wine" spell might actually be quite a problem.

Scope does not involve grape, but how can we know whether the spell didn't at least partially affect the barrels it touched? I'm putting the affected barrels aside until we can bring in a new priest to determine their use.

Serving the rest - margarita with side of catnip here, whiskey, mead, Coke...

Nachos are forbidden since when? Don't listen to that cultist, we got nachos, peanuts, almonds and several kinds of tapas.

Captain Klutz
07-08-2007, 11:24 PM
Oh, well done! That's a Kat who lost all 9 lives at once!

And I'll try a glass of the margarita (hold the catnip).

Malacandra
07-09-2007, 04:01 AM
Hm. Still alive, then. And Kat was a Cultist after all! Excellent. But this is not the time for insobriety. Water is good.

FlyingCowOfDoom
07-09-2007, 07:58 AM
Good job everyone!

--FCOD

storyteller0910
07-09-2007, 08:06 AM
Well, hey. Nice job. This is going to make for some interesting re-reading over the next few days.

fluiddruid
07-09-2007, 08:33 AM
Yeah, I am very optimistic about catching someone so early. Better than hoped :) Thanks to all who obviously saw what I didn't.

Zeriel
07-09-2007, 09:40 AM
Of course, now I'm sitting here like "When's the night gonna be over? I wanna play some more!"

NAF1138
07-09-2007, 09:47 AM
WOOHOOOOO!

Celebration Whiskey please, barkeep Nava. And a round for the tavern!

DiggitCamara
07-09-2007, 11:11 AM
Yeah, I am very optimistic about catching someone so early. Better than hoped :) Thanks to all who obviously saw what I didn't.
True enough. Let's hope the Night brings another Cultist death!

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
07-09-2007, 12:14 PM
I had a hunch that my hunch about Kat was right. If only I'd only gotten the chance to revote my vote... :smack: :mad:

Sorry for my most recent absence everyone. I see that I'm just in time for a bittersweet return after an involuntary hiatus from the intra-web through the weekend. On Saturday, our landlord's dog managed to get tangled with the external ethernet cable that connects our wireless antennae to our wireless router, and she must have tugged something loose in the struggle.

But things were already not shaping up well for the weekend...

Upon returning home from work on Friday afternoon, Mrs. WeHaveCookies and I discovered that my extremely special cat, Pookie (aka Dexter) had managed to liberate himself from our house. :( :( :( :( :(

I'm still clinging to some hope that he'll turn up, but unfortunately he does not possess the sort of faculties that come in handy for "normal" housecats who find themselves lost in the woods. A neighbor who lives about 1/4 down our shared dirt driveway said he may have seen him on Saturday morning, but that is the last possible sighting.

He's given me a scare like this one other time in his life, and it did have a happy ending. But we live in a much more rural area now. Dogs run loose, chainsaws and woodchippers constantly going, mules and atv's driving around.

I'm very sad at the idea that, after 10 years, he may not be sharing his life with us anymore. He is a very unique cat.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kate-and-shay/761714815/
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7343875&postcount=8
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6862835&postcount=91
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8288862&postcount=28
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=245314
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4951579&postcount=24
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8172617&postcount=8

Blaster Master
07-09-2007, 12:25 PM
Upon returning home from work on Friday afternoon, Mrs. WeHaveCookies and I discovered that my extremely special cat, Pookie (aka Dexter) had managed to liberate himself from our house. :( :( :( :( :(
Oh no! I'm sorry to hear, and I hope he turns back up. I know first hand it's a hard way to lose a pet, because you never really get a point for grieving. :(

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
07-09-2007, 12:50 PM
Thanks. My out-of-game life is such a downer lately. I never posted as such during M3, but my friend and co-worker who got in the motorcycle accident passed away. I'm still in good spirits, as usual. I don't really know why I am inclined to share all of my bad news with y'all. I must like you or something...

Idle Thoughts
07-09-2007, 01:54 PM
Sorry about your cat, CometotheDarkSide. : / As a cat owner myself who has had that happen before, that's really tough to take, I know.

You'll be in my thoughts.

Hockey Monkey
07-09-2007, 09:37 PM
Is everybody passed out drunk in the temple? Or is there a party somewhere else I wasn't invited to? Agh, it's high school all over again! :(

Cookies, I hope your kitty comes back!

SnakesCatLady
07-09-2007, 09:47 PM
Cookies, any word on your feline friend? I hope he comes home.

Nava
07-10-2007, 01:32 AM
*hands some catnip to Cookies* Maybe this will help Pookie find his way back.

fluiddruid
07-10-2007, 08:53 AM
I'm so sorry, Cookies. One suggestion I would have would be to call the local PD or animal control. When I was a dispatcher, we used to keep a book of lost and found pets so we could try to match people up. Also, call local shelters. I wish you the best of luck finding your cat.

MHaye
07-10-2007, 11:05 AM
I'm sorry about the runaway cat, DarkCookies. Hope he comes home this time too.

*Persuades the barstaff to pour him an unhealthy slug of rotgut.*

Confusion to the Cultists.

Blaster Master
07-10-2007, 11:07 AM
FYI, I expect that dawn will be coming soon...

DiggitCamara
07-10-2007, 11:20 AM
Sorry to hear about your couple of rough weeks, Cookies.

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
07-10-2007, 11:21 AM
Still no sign of Pookie. I've become oddly zen-esque about it now. We had an amazing 10 years, and it is a testament to veterinary medicine and human ingenuity that he even survived his kittenhood.

Blaster Master
07-10-2007, 12:04 PM
The town had spent the Night celebrating their first victory in the war against the Cult of Sekham. At last, they had found the and burned Kat. Surely, her death had left some clues as to the identity of the other Cultists; it was only a matter of time. As such, many of the town's citizens had barely made it home before passing out drunk. But this was not true of the wise storyteller0910. It was his code not to partake in boozing it up, for it would distract him from his duty, and yet to cover his tracks, he'd spent time at the bar drinking other non-alcoholic beverages. And as the evening waned into Night, he took the opportunity to slip out and head home.

What was that!? It sounded like a footstep into a puddle just a few yards behind. Was it a Cultist... a confused Crusader... was it some Psychopath out to kill him? It didn't matter, he was being tailed, and he couldn't let them discover his secret. He dropped his coat and ran, but it was too late as a dagger was plunged into his heart by his pursuer.

Later that Night, as DiggitCamara returned home from his Night errand. He creeped the door open slowly, so as not to awaken his sleeping children. Just as he'd lifted his lattern far enough into the doorway to see, all he could was the flash of a face before a razor-sharp blade stabbed him in the heart.

As the morning sun rose, storyteller0910 was found where he was slain at the outskirts of the town. He had been laid on his back, his heart bloodily removed, and his eyes and now both ears skillfully removed. Without his coat, he was found wearing robes, prayer beads around his neck. Surely this man was no ordinary believer, he was a man who had devoted his life in service of Nairu.

And yet, as they raised their eyes, the citizens were aghast to see smoke from across the town. As they came upon the dwelling, it was clear that it was coming from the home of DiggitCamara. A trail of blood led from the entrance way to the source of the smoke, a makeshift wooden altar, where was left the ramins of DiggitCamara and his family. As one brave soul approached, he observed a similar pattern as all the other slayings: eyes and heart removed, and the crescent symbol of Nairu around his neck, but it was difficult to tell what else, if anything, had befallen him as most of the rest of the evidence was burned. Another brave citizen entered the home, following the blood, where it ended was a sword.

Alas, the town gathered at the temple to mourn the passing of two more of their now dwindling citizenry and hopefully follow the train they hope was left by Kat.

storyteller0910, a Monk has been slain.
DiggitCamara, the Crusader has been slain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Day will end at 1:00 PM EDT on Sunday.

Blaster Master
07-10-2007, 12:06 PM
Alive
2 USCDiver
3 Idle Thoughts
5 Hockey Monkey
7 NAF1138
8 sachertorte
9 SnakesCatLady
10 Malacandra
12 Kyrie Eleison
13 Hal Briston
14 Pleonast
16 Fretful Porpentine
17 Nava
18 Pasta
19 FlyingCowOfDoom
20 Scuba_Ben
21 Queuing
22 Zeriel
23 MonkeyMensch
24 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
25 Autolycus
26 HazelNutCoffee
27 MHaye
28 fluiddruid
29 MadTheSwine
30 Captain Klutz

Dead
11 Mtgman - Non-Believer - Day One
4 zuma - Citizen - Night One
1 Kat - Cultist - Day Two
6 storyteller0910 - Monk - Night Two
15 DiggitCamara - Crusader - Night Two

DiggitCamara
07-10-2007, 12:16 PM
Good luck town!


Wanders off to get some nachos...

HazelNutCoffee
07-10-2007, 12:21 PM
Sweet Nairu!!

It has been a bloody night.

storyteller0910
07-10-2007, 12:22 PM
Crap and dammit. Why can't I make it past Day 2? Good luck to everyone, and sorry I died without contributing a damn thing.

Blaster Master
07-10-2007, 12:23 PM
Crap and dammit. Why can't I make it past Day 2? Good luck to everyone, and sorry I died without contributing a damn thing.
Hey, you made it all the way to the end in M2!

Oh, wait... you mean between M4 and M5. Hmm...

FlyingCowOfDoom
07-10-2007, 12:24 PM
Well that pretty much sucked ass.

--FCOD

Malacandra
07-10-2007, 12:37 PM
Bugger.

Scuba_Ben
07-10-2007, 12:46 PM
Well, there goes huge chunks of game plan. See you two at the after-party.

Now to figure out who paid unwelcome attention to DiggitCamera, and find the scum hiding in the Kat burning and Malacandra mob. There were 11 votes in there, including Kat. So 40% of the remaining town voted for one or the other. Statistically, 40% of the Cultists would be in there too. More usefully, as I understand it, those would be good places to hide a vote.

(It's not much of a plan, but it's as good as I've got.)

Kat (repl. ArizonaTeach) (6) - Fretful Porpentine, Autolycus, SnakesCatLady, Kyrie Eleison, Scuba_Ben, Idle Thoughts
Malacandra (5) - Pleonast, fluiddruid, sachertorte, Hal Briston, Kat

Queuing
07-10-2007, 12:49 PM
Well shit, that sucked. 2 potentially important believer roles whittled down or gone.

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
07-10-2007, 12:49 PM
Curse you, blood-thirsty (and damn lucky) heathens! Fsckity fsck.

Seriously. What are the odds that two power roles are selected on the same Night so early in the game?

NAF1138
07-10-2007, 12:52 PM
Well...that sucked.

At least we know more or less who killed who this time*. The Crusader couldn't have killed himself.


*I know the psyco could have been activated, but that is very unlikely in the grand scheme of things.

Queuing
07-10-2007, 12:56 PM
Well...that sucked.

At least we know more or less who killed who this time*. The Crusader couldn't have killed himself.


*I know the psyco could have been activated, but that is very unlikely in the grand scheme of things.

I agree with this. Most likely the Crusader killed Storyteller and The cultists went after DiggitCamara. However I find the choice of Storyteller to be a very odd one by DiggitCamara as I personally did not get a scum feeling from Story.

Zeriel
07-10-2007, 01:01 PM
Observation one: If I understand the rules/roles correctly, either the secret role can kill or we know the psychopath is activated.

Observation two: I based some analysis on the fact that Mal had a nice early vote lead, and some people came out of nowhere to vote for Mal only after Kat was in the lead. Those people who voted for Malacandra to keep the vote tied up between the two of them were Idle Thoughts and Hal Briston.

Now, on one hand, Hal's on a lot of people's radar. And his vote for Mal was basically a throwaway based on the stupid zuma thing. On the other hand, Idle's last-minute switch could either be seen as damn fortuitous or as a scum trying to hide as deeply as possible by putting the ice on a scum who went so far as to tiebreak with her own vote. Not only that but he didn't mention Kat as suspicious at all in his big analysis post where he voted for Mal in the first place.

Therefore, I'm going to start off my day with a bang:

FOS Idle Thoughts
vote Hal Briston

Either one of you could push the other into the lead with a intelligent response.

Zeriel
07-10-2007, 01:02 PM
I'd completely forgotten about the idea Diggit could've killed storyteller first. *facepalm* Preview preview preview!

Fretful Porpentine
07-10-2007, 01:03 PM
Well, there goes huge chunks of game plan. See you two at the after-party.

Now to figure out who paid unwelcome attention to DiggitCamera, and find the scum hiding in the Kat burning and Malacandra mob. There were 11 votes in there, including Kat. So 40% of the remaining town voted for one or the other. Statistically, 40% of the Cultists would be in there too. More usefully, as I understand it, those would be good places to hide a vote.
I don't think I buy the 40% argument, since the cultists' votes are anything but random, and while I realize that they will vote for their own, I don't see too many of them voting for Kat in a close vote when there were plenty of other options on the table.

Scuba_Ben
07-10-2007, 01:08 PM
I don't think I buy the 40% argument, since the cultists' votes are anything but random, and while I realize that they will vote for their own, I don't see too many of them voting for Kat in a close vote when there were plenty of other options on the table.
I agree, Fretful Porpentine, that pure statistics won't prove anything. I have to reread about a thousand (!!) posts and construct a careful web of who said what about whom.....

Let's see who defends or attacks Malacandra toDay. He's the obvious first target, as he came within inches of being yesterDay's player in the wet seat.

Zeriel
07-10-2007, 01:08 PM
Next random thought: We know, at least, that Kat wasn't the Avatar. Neither of the deaders voted for her.

HazelNutCoffee
07-10-2007, 01:14 PM
Next random thought: We know, at least, that Kat wasn't the Avatar. Neither of the deaders voted for her.
Blaster Master said the Avatar-kill is a Day Kill; as in, when the Avatar is lynched, someone is immediately struck down dead on the spot.

Zeriel
07-10-2007, 01:14 PM
Final thought on my lunch break--anyone wanna call the odds of Diggit having activated the Psychopath on night one? If we make that as a potential assumption, can we potentially get any ideas of who he might have been trying and failing to whack on night one?

NAF1138
07-10-2007, 01:15 PM
Next random thought: We know, at least, that Kat wasn't the Avatar. Neither of the deaders voted for her.


Oy, we would have known if she was the Avatar instantly because the Avatar is a Day killer.

That being said, I would like to hear more on what you think about Hal. I am not sure why you voted for him.

It seems like you said that you are voting for him because others are finding him suspicious...which seems :confused: .

I am going to guess that I am misinterpreting you though. Please to explaine further. ;)

Zeriel
07-10-2007, 01:17 PM
Blaster Master said the Avatar-kill is a Day Kill; as in, when the Avatar is lynched, someone is immediately struck down dead on the spot.
Hrm, I think I missed that post. Oh well, we still know it, just for even better reasons. =P

MHaye
07-10-2007, 01:17 PM
Next random thought: We know, at least, that Kat wasn't the Avatar. Neither of the deaders voted for her.The Avatar's backlash victim is not a night kill role. If the Avatar is burned, one of the players voting for Him is killed before Night falls.

BM said so here. (On preview, HazelNutCoffee beat me to it. The reference is useful though.

I looked at my notes on ArizonaTeach after Nightfall, and had basically very little. I had nothing on Kat either, until about three minutes to (original) Nightfall; when I logged her vote and realised it broke the tie between her and Malacandra, and she had said nothing about that, my antennae twitched. (I know she explained it away, but they didn't convince me).

Scuba_Ben
07-10-2007, 01:19 PM
Final thought on my lunch break--anyone wanna call the odds of Diggit having activated the Psychopath on night one? If we make that as a potential assumption, can we potentially get any ideas of who he might have been trying and failing to whack on night one?Given the information available to Diggit at that time, I figure the odds were 1/28. The role description does not discuss whether a failed attack (50% chance) will also activate the Psychopath.

Queuing
07-10-2007, 01:22 PM
Well, there goes huge chunks of game plan. See you two at the after-party.

Now to figure out who paid unwelcome attention to DiggitCamera, and find the scum hiding in the Kat burning and Malacandra mob. There were 11 votes in there, including Kat. So 40% of the remaining town voted for one or the other. Statistically, 40% of the Cultists would be in there too. More usefully, as I understand it, those would be good places to hide a vote.

(It's not much of a plan, but it's as good as I've got.)

Kat (repl. ArizonaTeach) (6) - Fretful Porpentine, Autolycus, SnakesCatLady, Kyrie Eleison, Scuba_Ben, Idle Thoughts
Malacandra (5) - Pleonast, fluiddruid, sachertorte, Hal Briston, Kat

And stats rears its ugly head again. I, like Fretful, do not agree with this either. It might be true if the cultists did act randomly, but they don't, so its kind of useless.

In light of full disclosure, and to save some work potentially, I was I think the only person to actually vote for DiggitCamara. I did so in day 1 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8727810&postcount=670) . I also FOS'd him along with a number of other people here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8748069&postcount=1141)

ON PREVIEW: Scuba Ben, I find what you are saying odd. First you say we should look at who wanted to DiggitCamara dead, now you are openly threatening anyone who dares mention Malacandra? Huh?

Zeriel, that would be useless. We would have absolutely no way to know who Diggit tried, or even if he did try. We would just be wasting our time.

Zeriel
07-10-2007, 01:23 PM
Oy, we would have known if she was the Avatar instantly because the Avatar is a Day killer.

That being said, I would like to hear more on what you think about Hal. I am not sure why you voted for him.

It seems like you said that you are voting for him because others are finding him suspicious...which seems :confused: .

I am going to guess that I am misinterpreting you though. Please to explaine further. ;)
So much for lunch break.

Basically, I looked at the voting patterns on Mal and Kat, and I determined who acted to make sure that Kat wasn't in the dunking seat. Both Idle and Hal made essentially poorly-supported votes that kept the tally between the two potential dunkees close (albiet with Kat consistently in the lead by one. So I'm suspicious of both of them.

This is, at this point, a early-day vote. I'm willing to change it when there's responses.

I'm less suspicious of Idle, at this moment, only because he brought the final vote. I'm still suspicious of him, because a tiebreaker could have easily continued to lean towards Kat and a dramatic vote change like that can make a reputation, after all. So for now I vote for Hal for making a poorly-supported vote that kept Kat within spitting distance of alive.

NAF1138
07-10-2007, 01:23 PM
Given the information available to Diggit at that time, I figure the odds were 1/28. The role description does not discuss whether a failed attack (50% chance) will also activate the Psychopath.

Well let's find out:

BM can you tell us if a failed or blocked attack on the Psyco will activate him/her?

NAF1138
07-10-2007, 01:25 PM
So much for lunch break.

Basically, I looked at the voting patterns on Mal and Kat, and I determined who acted to make sure that Kat wasn't in the dunking seat. Both Idle and Hal made essentially poorly-supported votes that kept the tally between the two potential dunkees close (albiet with Kat consistently in the lead by one. So I'm suspicious of both of them.

This is, at this point, a early-day vote. I'm willing to change it when there's responses.

I'm less suspicious of Idle, at this moment, only because he brought the final vote. I'm still suspicious of him, because a tiebreaker could have easily continued to lean towards Kat and a dramatic vote change like that can make a reputation, after all. So for now I vote for Hal for making a poorly-supported vote that kept Kat within spitting distance of alive.


Thanks! That cleared things up for me.

Kyrie Eleison
07-10-2007, 01:26 PM
Given the information available to Diggit at that time, I figure the odds were 1/28. The role description does not discuss whether a failed attack (50% chance) will also activate the Psychopath.
Blaster would have to clarify, but the Crusader's role description reads in terms of him "losing his nerve" if he fails his roll, i.e. not making the attempt. From that perspective, I'd say it's likely that the odds of this are 1/28 * 1/2 * X, where X is the inestimable probability that Diggit elected to make an attempt on the first night.

Zeriel
07-10-2007, 01:28 PM
Zeriel, that would be useless. We would have absolutely no way to know who Diggit tried, or even if he did try. We would just be wasting our time.
I can't totally agree with you without looking through his posts--if *I* were the crusader, damn sure I'd be leaving breadcrumbs just on the off chance that I activated the psychopath.

Scuba_Ben
07-10-2007, 01:37 PM
And stats rears its ugly head again. I, like Fretful, do not agree with this either. It might be true if the cultists did act randomly, but they don't, so its kind of useless.

...

ON PREVIEW: Scuba Ben, I find what you are saying odd. First you say we should look at who wanted to DiggitCamara dead, now you are openly threatening anyone who dares mention Malacandra? Huh?
I'm slowly getting away from pure stats, as if this was a stats game we could simply roll dice.

I'm exploring whether it would be useful to determine if DiggitCamera was murdered for a particular reason or if the Cultists simply, well, rolled dice and his number came up. (On further reflection -- no, it probably wouldn't be useful. I don't recall any posts saying essentially "Go after X and don't worry about Y; they're going to bite it anyway.")

I'm not threatening anybody who goes after Malacandra, again I'm exploring a line of investigation. Or are you trying to defend him?

Queuing
07-10-2007, 01:38 PM
I can't totally agree with you without looking through his posts--if *I* were the crusader, damn sure I'd be leaving breadcrumbs just on the off chance that I activated the psychopath.

I suppose, but it is not just the crusader who can activate the psychopath. It says

When the Cultists or the Crusader attack you at night, you will awaken startled and barely manage to scare off your attackers; however, because you were unable to identify them in the dark, your paranoia will set in

It seems to be me to be to much of a chance of you yourself being nightkilled by leaving breadcrumbs for a fairly small reason.

I have stated this before, but I feel the only way to get a lone killer is purely chance.

Blaster Master
07-10-2007, 01:39 PM
Well let's find out:

BM can you tell us if a failed or blocked attack on the Psyco will activate him/her?

Good question, and it was poorly worded in the description, but Kyrie Eleison got the gist of what I was going for here:

Blaster would have to clarify, but the Crusader's role description reads in terms of him "losing his nerve" if he fails his roll, i.e. not making the attempt.

That is, he has a 50% chance of losing his nerve, and thus he wouldn't even attempt the attack. The Psychopath would not be activated if he didn't know someone was thinking about attacking him, they would actually have to try. Thus, a failed or blocked attempt would not activate the Psychopath. However, from the perspective of the killer, a failed or blocked attempt would be indistinguishable from the activation of the Psychopath.

Queuing
07-10-2007, 01:41 PM
Let's see who defends or attacks Malacandra toDay. He's the obvious first target, as he came within inches of being yesterDay's player in the wet seat.

This is a thinly veiled threat, but call it what you want. I do like that you say you are not threatening anybody and then add:

I'm not threatening anybody who goes after Malacandra, again I'm exploring a line of investigation. Or are you trying to defend him?

Another thinly veiled FOS. To me it seems that you are trying to end a line of investigation by basically saying anyone who mentions Malacandra will be investigated.

sachertorte
07-10-2007, 02:44 PM
My personal belief is DiggitCamara chose not to kill on Night One and therefore had to kill on Night Two. I believe he chose storyteller because it was storyteller's indictment of MtgMan that largely led to his death. DiggitCamara has already lost this game as he (the crusader) will not be able to successfully produce a non-believer/cultist night kill.

I do not believe the psychopath was activated:
1) Based on the evidence, a Night One activation is the only possible activation time.
2) The Crusader likely skipped the first nightkill as the probability is only 50% and the first day yields little information
3) Whoever activated the psychopath would know that activation was a possibility and would have good reason to target the same person the next night. It does not appear that such a sequence occurred, although the Crusader's 50% probability obscures things.

We probably don't need to worry about whether or not the psychopath was activated since this information will become easily apparent tomorrow since the Psychopath must attempt a kill every night. Without a Crusader, two deaths in one night will confirm a psychopath activation, as well as when (barring doctor blocks, alchemist... blah blah).

Also, this game just got longer. :eek:

Queuing
07-10-2007, 02:48 PM
My personal belief is DiggitCamara chose not to kill on Night One and therefore had to kill on Night Two. I believe he chose storyteller because it was storyteller's indictment of MtgMan that largely led to his death. DiggitCamara has already lost this game as he (the crusader) will not be able to successfully produce a non-believer/cultist night kill.

Where do you get this from? Want to explain this a little further?

sachertorte
07-10-2007, 02:54 PM
Blaster Master:
Based on the events of the past two weekends where the Days have both ended on the weekend when everyone is not around (including the GM), I put forth the idea that Saturday and Sunday be treated as one day to compensate for the slower traffic on weekends.
Alternatively, if you could tweak the rules so that Days only end on weekdays, I think that would be helpful to all. (e.g. force days that would end on Saturday to end on Friday instead, and force days that would end on Sunday to end on Monday)

sachertorte
07-10-2007, 02:56 PM
Where do you get this from? Want to explain this a little further?
It's a non-important piece of information. According to the rules the Crusader's win condition requires a successful Crusader kill of a non-believer or cultist. DiggitCamara did not achieve this requirement. He can't win.

Queuing
07-10-2007, 02:58 PM
It's a non-important piece of information. According to the rules the Crusader's win condition requires a successful Crusader kill of a non-believer or cultist. DiggitCamara did not achieve this requirement. He can't win.

Yes, but why do you think he killed storyteller because he couldn't win?

Queuing
07-10-2007, 03:00 PM
Blaster Master:
Based on the events of the past two weekends where the Days have both ended on the weekend when everyone is not around (including the GM), I put forth the idea that Saturday and Sunday be treated as one day to compensate for the slower traffic on weekends.
Alternatively, if you could tweak the rules so that Days only end on weekdays, I think that would be helpful to all. (e.g. force days that would end on Saturday to end on Friday instead, and force days that would end on Sunday to end on Monday)

Ugh, sorry for the double post. While my availability is way down on the weekends (I usually actually do stuff), please god no. Why make this game even longer? Particularly based on one weekend's worth of information?

Fretful Porpentine
07-10-2007, 03:12 PM
Ugh, sorry for the double post. While my availability is way down on the weekends (I usually actually do stuff), please god no. Why make this game even longer? Particularly based on one weekend's worth of information?
Seconded. The Days are too long as it is.

sachertorte
07-10-2007, 03:13 PM
Yes, but why do you think he killed storyteller because he couldn't win?
That would be two thoughts running together.
1) I think he killed storyteller because of the MtgMan dunk
2) I note that DiggitCamara cannot win.
Separate thoughts. Sorry.

sachertorte
07-10-2007, 03:18 PM
If the days are too long, then perhaps we can shorten them instead so that the day doesn't end on a weekend? With 5 day Days and 2 day Nights, we are stuck on a weekly schedule that has us pinned into having the important part of the Day landing on a weekend.

NAF1138
07-10-2007, 03:26 PM
Just a few thoughts before the end of day. I counted today's posts. Some of the things I thought were interesting is people I thought weren't posting enough actually had decent post counts (I haven't checked for post fluffiness yet). And some people have nearly stopped posting all together that I hadn't noticed were slacking. I don't know if this means anything or is helpful. At the very least it points to people who need to be poked, and poked often tomorrow. I offer the following without further comment:
Day Two Vote counts up to post #1273 (approx 4:30PM EDT)

Autolycus 5
Capatin Klutz 6
Cookies 10
DiggitCamara 16
fluiddruid 11
FlyingCowOfDoom 5
Fretful Porpentine 11
HalB riston 13
HazelNutCoffee 8
Hockey Monkey 9
Idle Thougts 16
Kat (AZ) 12
Kyrie (CJ) 14
MadTS 0
Malacandra 9
MHaye 12
Mensch 2
NAF 18
Nava 8
Pasta 8
Pleonast 3
Queuing 19
sachertorte 13
Scuba 16
SCLady 8
storyteller 8
USCDiver 5
Zeriel 10


Since it is daylight again and you seem to be online right now.

Sach, would you mind answering the question I posed to you at the end of Day 2?

So you don't have to look for it again it was:

OK, well since we are in a weird limbo and the day doesn't seem to really be over, how about some light discussion.

I would like to hear what sachertorte thinks of the list he posted. The people he was surprised that had posted and the people he thought had posted a lot but had low post counts.

It's going to be individual, but this sort of list thing without analysis can be dangerous, but with analysis might be a very useful tool.

So...what do you think of your list?

fluiddruid
07-10-2007, 04:37 PM
If the days are too long, then perhaps we can shorten them instead so that the day doesn't end on a weekend? With 5 day Days and 2 day Nights, we are stuck on a weekly schedule that has us pinned into having the important part of the Day landing on a weekend.I would definitely agree with this.

sachertorte
07-10-2007, 04:50 PM
Since it is daylight again and you seem to be online right now.

Sach, would you mind answering the question I posed to you at the end of Day 2?

So you don't have to look for it again it was:



So...what do you think of your list?
Oh yeah. Please note, I was intending to look at these posts and make a assessments based on fluffyness. i.e., a few substantive posts being more 'pro-town' than a few more fluffy posts. I don't know if/when I'll have time to do so. These counts could very well be skewed by posts of no consequence.

My intention was to do a more full analysis of posting rates. On day one (and two?) we had been relying on the board count of posts. I decided to count up the posts for day two, and day two only to remove fluff posts from night and pre-game. I also wanted to see if my suspicions regarding post count of particular players panned out. Beyond the obviously missing MadTheSwine and previously noted MonkeyMensch. I was wondering about Fretful Porpentine, Nava, USCDiver, Malacandra, and SnakesCatLady. Based on post count alone, I was surprised to see Fretful Porpentine with 11 posts, which could very well be due to my own perceptive inabilities (I need to check). Furthermore, I was surprised to see Nava and SnakesCatLady's 8 posts were equal with other players I did not note as 'low substance' (HazelNutCoffee, Pasta, Storyteller). I was not surprised to see USCDiver with only 5 posts.

Other surprises include Pleonast , who I did not note as 'missing,' with just 3 posts. (I hope I didn't mess this count up).
Autolycus and FlyingCowOfDoom with 5 posts weren't on my radar either, but that is most likely due to the high profile from Day One. But the low post count for Day Two might warrant further study.
I didn't have time to do more analysis before (what I thought was) the end of Day, so I just posted the counts for everyone to have.

I am a little bit sensitive to the idea of 'substantive' posting, as I've had the lack of substance accusation thrown at me. Perhaps it would be beneficial if everyone did a summary of their own "Here is the evidence of my participation," with links to every substantive post made, divided into Day one and Day two. It would save quite a bit of time and effort and would serve as a good record for future re-readings.

MHaye
07-10-2007, 04:53 PM
And I'm against it.

As I sad earlier, I'm not allowed to post during the working day, and I find that in the evenings I find I'm really drained and don't always have the energy to do the stuff I want to do. The day I get the most quality time on the game is Saturday.

I've got another four weeks of my sentence to serve (at the end of this one) and then I'll be able to give more time to the game.

That being said, please remember that the Days do get shorter as the number of players fall, so ultimately you'll get your wish.

MHaye
07-10-2007, 04:58 PM
Perhaps it would be beneficial if everyone did a summary of their own "Here is the evidence of my participation," with links to every substantive post made, divided into Day one and Day two. It would save quite a bit of time and effort and would serve as a good record for future re-readings.I've started doing a count of posts by period, but so far have only got up to page 4 - that is, three posts into Day 1. I'll pick it up again as time allows. When I'm done we just need to find some way to host it.

I'll probably work in tranches of 50 posts.

Idle Thoughts
07-10-2007, 05:24 PM
Holy crap. That wasn't a very good or confidence inspiring Night.

First of all, I'm haven't read any posts in here yet but the Dawn post. So apologizes if some of these insights were already mentioned.

A lot of possibilities there too..although the most obvious and likely one seems to be that Diggit, the Crusader killed storyteller, one of the Monks, and the Cultists offed Diggit.

That's what I think it was and certainly one of the more (if not most) plausible.

However there's scores of other possibilities, even combining Night One with some of them (AKA Diggit tried someone and was successful but it was the Psycho, who was activated and toNight his attempt failed and the scum killed him and the Psycho killed storyteller, Diggit tried someone and was successful but it was the Psycho, who was activated and toNight his attempt failed and the scum killed storyteller and the Psycho killed him, Diggit is the one that killed zuma and the Cultists were the one to activate the Psycho, and toNight etc etc etc...the list goes on with various combos of the Cult, Crusader, possible activated Psycho, possible tries on Priests or Disciples, or Alchemist blocks--and this leads me to remember something Diggit mentioned to me on Day Two in this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8739880&postcount=1012) post, which may or may not have clues in it regarding if he made an attempt to hit someone that previous Night or not)

But pushing all that aside, I think the most likely and choice with best odds, again, is just the simple Crusader hits Monk and Cult hits Crusader outline.

IF it's that (and I'll be talking in the mindframe that is is) then I wonder why Diggit found storyteller scummy. Maybe he was operating under the belief that story, based on M2, was trying to pull a fast one again? I dunno. I can only speak for myself, but story didn't set off any of my tripwires...so that's the only thing that makes me wonder. But more importantly, why Diggit for the Cult? Going over his posts from the last two days, he doesn't seem to say much or give anything away. Course, that could be the reason right there. But him having that power role, it's making me try to see something he could have said that made him seem likely for it and I just don't/can't see it.

But time to catch up for me:


Well, there goes huge chunks of game plan. See you two at the after-party.

Now to figure out who paid unwelcome attention to DiggitCamera, and find the scum hiding in the Kat burning and Malacandra mob. There were 11 votes in there, including Kat. So 40% of the remaining town voted for one or the other. Statistically, 40% of the Cultists would be in there too. More usefully, as I understand it, those would be good places to hide a vote.

(It's not much of a plan, but it's as good as I've got.)

Kat (repl. ArizonaTeach) (6) - Fretful Porpentine, Autolycus, SnakesCatLady, Kyrie Eleison, Scuba_Ben, Idle Thoughts
Malacandra (5) - Pleonast, fluiddruid, sachertorte, Hal Briston, Kat

You know, one name I keep seeing on all of these lists is Pleonast. Not only was he on the Day One train of Mtgman but people seemed to think that someone on there could have possibly taken it away from one of the other three at the time (Kat, Kyrie or Auto or hell, maybe even two or all three of them).

Day Two, he's on another like it again with Mal. Granted he WAS the one that cast the first vote there before there was ever a tie to break or even knowledge there'd be a close one, but when I look at all of the past Days posts and votes, he's the biggest suspicion I have right now.
Now Mal still may be scummy TOO (I still haven't ruled him out completely) but based on two other full Days of suspicions I've had against Pleonast, this just heightens it for me, considerably. I'd really like to hear from him today.


Observation one: If I understand the rules/roles correctly, either the secret role can kill or we know the psychopath is activated.

How do you draw these conclusions?

Observation two: I based some analysis on the fact that Mal had a nice early vote lead, and some people came out of nowhere to vote for Mal only after Kat was in the lead. Those people who voted for Malacandra to keep the vote tied up between the two of them were Idle Thoughts and Hal Briston.

"Out of nowhere"? I expressed suspicion of Mal and continued to build on it in my posts as early as Day One when he cast that WTF vote on zuma. I even said at the beginning of Day Two that he and Pleonast were among my top two suspected players. I wasn't even drawn to Kat (nor was I AZteach at all when he was still in the game) until nearing the end when it seemed like she was voting for Mal just to save her own neck, but kept protesting this wasn't the case and was seemingly "oblivious" to it.

So I don't know where your'e getting the vote being out of nowhere. Yeah, my vote, at the time, tied it up, but at the time each person only had FOUR votes apeice. I dunno, but I'd be more concerned if someone was casting a or the killer/deciding vote (which Kat was trying to do) and call them out on it.

On the other hand, Idle's last-minute switch could either be seen as damn fortuitous or as a scum trying to hide as deeply as possible by putting the ice on a scum who went so far as to tiebreak with her own vote. Not only that but he didn't mention Kat as suspicious at all in his big analysis post where he voted for Mal in the first place.

Because, as I said, I honestly HAD zero suspicions of Kat/Teach before that.

Next random thought: We know, at least, that Kat wasn't the Avatar. Neither of the deaders voted for her.

:dubious:
We knew that Kat wasn't the Avatar at the end of the last Day. Otherwise, as with most roles, I assume Blaster would have said "Kat, the Avatar, has been dunked/killed [whatever it is he says]" rather than "Kat, a Cultist has been dunked/killed".

Are you just now figuring out she wasn't the Avatar?

Oh, nevermind, I see/read that others have pointed this out. :p

I looked at my notes on ArizonaTeach after Nightfall, and had basically very little. I had nothing on Kat either, until about three minutes to (original) Nightfall; when I logged her vote and realised it broke the tie between her and Malacandra, and she had said nothing about that, my antennae twitched. (I know she explained it away, but they didn't convince me).

It's always nice to see that someone else sees the same things I did/do and is struck the same way by them.

Basically, I looked at the voting patterns on Mal and Kat, and I determined who acted to make sure that Kat wasn't in the dunking seat. Both Idle and Hal made essentially poorly-supported votes that kept the tally between the two potential dunkees close (albiet with Kat consistently in the lead by one. So I'm suspicious of both of them.

The only thing I disagree with you on is, like the "out of nowhere" line above is the "poorly-supported vote" line. I had about as much as everyone else did and as far as I can tell, most all who voted for him (Mal) did so for his vote Day One and trying to seemingly have it both ways on Day Two. As far as I can disacern, therefore, the only thing that makes Hal and I different from the rest is that we placed votes that lead to a tie.

Where do you get this from? Want to explain this a little further?

Huh.
That's what I asked her (him?) on Day Two when she said it. I don't get it completely either.

Hockey Monkey
07-10-2007, 05:45 PM
Time for my first convoluted vote analysis post of the game. I'm looking at who ArizonaTeach and Kat voted for, who voted for them, and the timing of the votes and how the votes for Mtgman and Malacandra weave in.

Day One:
ArizonaTeach votes Zeriel then about 2 hours or so later unvotes. Seemed like a scummy thing at the time and several people noted it as such. Scum will vote and unvote each other to confuse the trail. FOS Zeriel.

The first vote for AZTeach(1) doesn't come until post 585 by NAF1138.
Autolycus votes AZT(2) post 767
Scuba_Ben votes MtgMan(1) post 783
Mtgman votes AZT(3) post 804 and puts AZT into a tie with sachertorte(3), Clockwork Jackal/Kyrie Eleison(3) at 3 each
Storyteller (now dead) votes Mtgman(2) post 824
Kyrie Eleison votes AZT(4) post 847 and breaks tie
Hal Briston votes Mtgman(3) post 856
DiggitCamara (now dead) votes Mtgman(4) post 867 putting AZT and Mtgman in a tie at 4 each
Zeriel votes Mtgman(5) post 870, breaks tie
Pleonast votes Mtgman(6) post 871
Mhaye votes Mtgman(7) post 874
Hockey Monkey (me) votes Mtgman(8) post 884

Day Two: It really comes down to Kat vs Malacandra so I'll focus on those.

Pleonast comes out of the gate with a vote for Mal(1) post 1004
Fluiddruid votes Mal(2) post 1031
Fretful Porpentine votes Kat(1) post 1064
sachertorte votes Mal(3) post 1119
Autolycus votes Kat(2) post 1120
SnakesCatLady votes Kat(3) post 1142 - ties her with Mal
Kat tosses in a vote for sachertorte post 1124
Cookies votes for Kat(4) post 1154
Kyrie Eleison votes Kat(5) post 1166
Idle Thoughts votes Malacandra(4) post 1167
Cookies unvotes Kat(4) post 1171 - ties vote - FOS Cookies for this unvote
Kat unvotes sachertorte post 1183 FOS sachertorte for the same reasons as my FOS on Zeriel
Scuba_Ben votes Kat(5) post 1233
Hal Briston votes Mal(5) post 1267 - ties vote
Kat votes Mal(6) post 1273 breaks tie in her favor
Idle Thoughts unvotes Mal(5) post 1281
Idle Thoughts votes Kat(6) post 1309

This whole analysis puts quite a few people over into my “more trusted” column now. Autolycus and Kyrie Eleison both voted for AZT/Kat both days, and left there votes there. Idle Thoughts single-handedly swung the vote and dunked the Kat. I’m not sure if this is a brilliant scum tactic or a fortuitous townie move, but for right now I’ll go with townie move. Fretful Porpentine is off my FOS list for now because she voted Kat first on day two. I'm also sliding Malacandra into that colomn, because I think if Kat and Mal were both scum, she would have just let it go to a tie and let the chips fall.

People who get giant FOS’s from me are the ones who swung the vote on day one over to Mtgman and effectively saved AZTeach’s ass. Diggit was going to be one of those, but since he’s dead, that narrows the scope down to Zeriel and Pleonast. I’ve already noted reasons above.

To sum up:
FOS Zeriel
FOS Pleonast
lighter FOS sachertorte
lighter FOS ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

I have a lot of thinking and re-reading to do, and of course take into account today’s discussion before casting a vote. It took me all day to compose this during work. :p I haven't caught up on the days discussion yet, so I may be back shortly to comment.

Idle Thoughts
07-10-2007, 05:57 PM
[random off-game comment]I had never heard or seen the word "fortuitous" before reading it twice today and had to go look up what it meant. I learned a new word today and a little less ignorance is seeped from the world. Thanks Mafia V![/random off-game comment]

Hockey Monkey
07-10-2007, 06:01 PM
My personal belief is DiggitCamara chose not to kill on Night One and therefore had to kill on Night Two. I believe he chose storyteller because it was storyteller's indictment of MtgMan that largely led to his death. DiggitCamara has already lost this game as he (the crusader) will not be able to successfully produce a non-believer/cultist night kill.
<snip>

Someone may have addressed this already, but why do you say that the Crusader can't/couldn't have fulfilled his win condition? There is more than one non-believer in the game...in fact at least 2 more...the player who is the psychopath thinks he/she is a regular non-believer till activated, and the Alchemist is a non-believer. We don't know how many non-believers there were to start, but there were at least 3 according to Blaster Master. And I am pretty sure there is more than one cultist or the game would be over right now. :p

Hockey Monkey
07-10-2007, 06:03 PM
I see that Queuing has asked this and it has been addressed. Nevermind.

Blaster Master
07-10-2007, 06:05 PM
Blaster Master:
Based on the events of the past two weekends where the Days have both ended on the weekend when everyone is not around (including the GM), I put forth the idea that Saturday and Sunday be treated as one day to compensate for the slower traffic on weekends.
Alternatively, if you could tweak the rules so that Days only end on weekdays, I think that would be helpful to all. (e.g. force days that would end on Saturday to end on Friday instead, and force days that would end on Sunday to end on Monday)

I am disinclined to lengthen the day because I think five is about the limit for a reasonable Day, even though the unfortunate timing of the Day ending on the weekend makes it difficult for me to end the Day promptly.

However, if it seems the general concensus of the town is for the Day to be shortened to four days now... that is something I'm willing to do. I had expected the player count to drop to 20 in about four Days, and thought with this many people the extra day would be helpful; but it looks like it may be unnecessary at this point.

SnakesCatLady
07-10-2007, 06:22 PM
I've been doing some re-reading, and am going to post my notes.

Why did ArizonaTeach vote for Zeriel after Zeriel accused Captain Klutz of lurking? Queuing brought this up in post 1133 and it really made me start looking for posts from Captain Klutz - but I haven't found any. I have in my notes that he voted yesterDay, but I didn't notice any posts from him in the last 7 pages. I may have missed them, but it definitely makes me want to take a closer look at the Captain.

Hal Briston made some comments about Queuing's list - "four FOS's and a vote in two sentences" that bothered me. He seemed to act like it was a bad idea for us to list who we suspect, and the only ones who benefit from that are Cult.

I am very suspicious of Hockey Monkey. When she cast her one-off vote for Fretful Porpentine yesterDay, one of the reasons she gave for the vote was a one-off vote FP had cast. Another of the reasons was that FP was one of the players to ask "why zuma?" at the beginning of Day 2. However, another of the players she quoted as saying "why zuma?" was fluiddruid, who had at least three votes at the time. So why do something you consider suspicious (throwing a one-off) when someone else you suspect already has votes? Now she is saying she no longer suspects FP, because FP cast the first vote for Kat.

I am also concerned that we haven't heard from Mad the Swine; he checked in on Sunday and I don't think he has posted since.

I'm not placing a vote yet, but will be keeping up.

MadTheSwine
07-10-2007, 07:12 PM
I am also concerned that we haven't heard from Mad the Swine; he checked in on Sunday and I don't think he has posted since.

Hi.

Hockey Monkey
07-10-2007, 10:04 PM
<snip>
I am very suspicious of Hockey Monkey. When she cast her one-off vote for Fretful Porpentine yesterDay, one of the reasons she gave for the vote was a one-off vote FP had cast. Another of the reasons was that FP was one of the players to ask "why zuma?" at the beginning of Day 2. However, another of the players she quoted as saying "why zuma?" was fluiddruid, who had at least three votes at the time. So why do something you consider suspicious (throwing a one-off) when someone else you suspect already has votes? Now she is saying she no longer suspects FP, because FP cast the first vote for Kat.

<snip>

Yes, I was exceedingly wrong in my logic. I didn't vote for Fluiddruid because I felt that one of the askers of the "why zuma" question was genuine, and I thought that it might be fluid. Yep, I made a one off vote. Heh, I think that was the first in about seven lynches (from M4 and this game) that I did not participate. (I was a crew member on the Pirate ship who somehow managed to have a lynching vote every single time!) I really thought that Fretful was where my vote should go, and I knew that it would look bad to some people if it ended up being the only vote for him/her. I don't recall that I suspected Fluiddruid at all. I think I said I was suspicious of Fretful and sachertorte (who at the time didn't have any votes either.) And now that we have information to gather from Kat's lynching, I don't suspect Fretful anymore.

You've mentioned a couple of times that you didn't like it that I didn't pick from someone on the list already. I don't see why I should have to. I prefer to do my own thinking. Sometimes I come to the same conclusions as others and sometimes I end up way out there in left field having a picnic by myself. I can admit when I'm wrong and move on.

**rummages through the picnic basket** So that's where I left the asbestos panties from last game!

Zeriel
07-10-2007, 10:43 PM
Idle, I'll admit I didn't go back too far, but from my re-read it seemed like you hadn't mentioned any suspicions of Mal prior to that post, and then you came out of nowhere. And honestly, I was more worried about your essentially unsupported vote for Kat--either you flipped a coin and got REAL lucky, or you're a calculating scum. I'm not sure which one yet.

For now the FOS is still pointing, but not quite as adamantly.

Pasta
07-10-2007, 11:42 PM
As was pointed out by others, Pleonast was mixed up in the dunk voting. My notes had almost nothing on him, so I went for another player workup.

My summary:
- There are certaintly a couple scummy nits here and there, with a weak vote or two.
- Many people picked at these (although I think most cases involved folks talking past one another.)
- But, overall I saw a lot of consistency, pro-town strategy talk, and general pro-town vibe.

Since I'm looking for scum here, I stopped around post 605 since I was getting a "townie" read. I went ahead and finished up the post list with a few links for those who want to investigate Pleonast more. For me, I'm going to look for a taller nail in the board.

(I should note that a lot of people talked about Pleonast in their posts, so the summary below is far from a complete "workup" since other people's observations are still sprinkled throughout the thread.)


The post list:

Day 1
221 - discusses whether to dunk or not (says yes), votes randomly for USCDiver
234 - discussion of random voting (says "no better alternative")
240 - continues; brings up whether to dunk
248 - continues
249 - simple erratum
303 - clarifies position on Day 1 random voting
387 - voices "nay" re: sachertorte's plan; votes MadTheSwine (no reason given)
392 - says will vote for next person who discusses pro-town power roles
400 - short post re: random voting
405 - unvotes MadTheSwine, votes sachertorte (reason: see 392)
415 - more urging to stop O/A discussion; suggests other topics (avatar, recruitment)
421 - short followups; nothing new
447 - gives 5 reasons no to discuss oracle
573 - big post; just go read it here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8725200&postcount=573); unvotes sachertorte, votes Malacandra (for zuma weirdness)
588 - reaction to accusations from ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies; another one you can just read here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8725490&postcount=588)
596 - "vote early, vote often"
605 - ...lots of reasonable...
610 - ...statements that I haven't summarized because...
632 - ...at this point in the research I'm...
764 - ...just not seeing scum here...
823 - makes a suspect list (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8731428&postcount=823)
871 - unvotes Malacandra, votes his #2 Mtgman

Day 2
1004 - votes Malacandra for continued zuma stuff
1036 - responds to any accusations (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741326&postcount=1036) {consistent with his previous posts, in my estimation}
1205 - "I've been away"

Pasta
07-10-2007, 11:45 PM
1036 - responds to any accusations (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741326&postcount=1036)
should be "responds to many accusations". :smack:

NAF1138
07-11-2007, 12:13 AM
As was pointed out by others, Pleonast was mixed up in the dunk voting. My notes had almost nothing on him, so I went for another player workup.

[snip]

- But, overall I saw a lot of consistency, pro-town strategy talk, and general pro-town vibe.



I agree with you on this Pasta. It does look bad for Pleonast on paper, but if you really look at it, Pleonast just isn't reading as scum. At least not yet. I am not a fan of his playstyle, but I think that is all this is.

And not to beat a dead horse, but this is why we need to look at more than just stats. We need to take a look at things in context and see who is really behaving in a pro town fashion. The scummiest looking players almost never turn out to actually be scum.

For now I fluid is still highest on my suspicion list, but all I really have against her is a wine in front of me argument and a gut feeling. I need to go back and take a closer look at some of the players I have been neglecting, see if there is something I missed. It is easy to get tunnel vision in this game.

Idle Thoughts
07-11-2007, 12:49 AM
Just wanted to hit this topic one more time before I head off. Like all games of this I'm in, it's like heroin.

I honestly thought it'd have more replies than what it has now, though. Only about one full page even a good 12 or so hours after Day started. :(

Idle, I'll admit I didn't go back too far, but from my re-read it seemed like you hadn't mentioned any suspicions of Mal prior to that post, and then you came out of nowhere. And honestly, I was more worried about your essentially unsupported vote for Kat--either you flipped a coin and got REAL lucky, or you're a calculating scum. I'm not sure which one yet.

For now the FOS is still pointing, but not quite as adamantly.

As with Mal my vote for Kat, I thought, was pretty apparent with the reasons and why's and all. Her reasons and things she said in her last vote (which by the way, was the deciding vote for the tie) just seemed off. She seemed to be voting, but more or less just based on suspicions she had said wayyy early on and seemed to forget about...even taking time out in the middle to say things like "I need to find someone else to vote for" (verbatim) before hopping back on the Mal train, and what more, saying it was just because she had some suspicions of him (when, in fact, she had three other people she had named back then) and singled him out seemingly, saying nothing of the fact that it was the killer vote until AFTER that post. These struck me hard and when I questioned her about it, more things popped up (like her saying she was afraid to cast a vote that would tie it up....yet she was fine enough to cast a vote to BREAK the tie :confused: and that whole telling me that she'll explain at Dawn...without putting the possibility out that she might not even be around at Dawn--knowing what we know now, I feel this was a slip or mistake) and so I felt like I had a lot of good and supported reason to vote for her. I dunno, do you honestly think I didn't? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you or taking what you're saying wrong.

Captain Klutz
07-11-2007, 01:14 AM
Why did ArizonaTeach vote for Zeriel after Zeriel accused Captain Klutz of lurking? Queuing brought this up in post 1133 and it really made me start looking for posts from Captain Klutz - but I haven't found any. I have in my notes that he voted yesterDay, but I didn't notice any posts from him in the last 7 pages. I may have missed them, but it definitely makes me want to take a closer look at the Captain.
I had some posts earlier in the Day (pages 22 and 23, so I'm not sure what last 7 pages you're looking at). There was also my voting post #1264, in which I explained why I was not joining the Malacandra bandwagon.

I'm only just catching up now (for me, Day 3 started at 3 a. m. and my wife has only just relinquished the computer).

Captain Klutz
07-11-2007, 01:43 AM
Dunno if you saw it or not but I replied to you regarding this back in reply #1118. If you're already aware of this, though, or have seen it but still suspicious, well, I don't know what else I can say.
Yes, I saw #1118. I was just a bit struck by your #902 because the off-game-musing was the entire content of the post: it looked like something you wanted to say, rather than a casual side comment.

But, rereading 1118 I notice that you said that you were bored at the time, and so presumably just felt like posting something (I suppose that also ties in with your 'heroin' comment above). I'm happy with your explanation.

Autolycus
07-11-2007, 03:50 AM
As Nairu spoke in the Book of Rude Things, Chapter threeve verse A: "Thou shall substitute from slaying cultists if thou hast a prior engagement and does not have time to fulfill ems duties"

In plain words, I apologize, but I must drop out. I'll be out of the country and much too busy to play, even at my slow pace. At least I helped greatly in getting a scum though ^_^

Good luck town!

Nava
07-11-2007, 04:35 AM
Crazy day at work. Have only read enough to say OUCH to storyteller and Diggit. We lost the Crusader and a monk on the same night? Sorry gotta run.

FlyingCowOfDoom
07-11-2007, 09:18 AM
Well, my suspicions from yesterDay are still pretty much the same. I do think Pleonast is even more scummy than he was before, now that I see that AZTeach/Kat was a cultist. The mtgman lynch happened pretty quickly and Pleonast was one of the players that voted to swing the vote from AZTeach/Kat to mtgman. Adding that to my previously existing suspicion of him, I'm pretty comfortable with voting Pleonast.

--FCOD

MadTheSwine
07-11-2007, 09:27 AM
Ok,I am here.
Gonna spend my read through time today focusing on one person.I am way behind and will try to get something up today with substance.During my absence I thought often of a post made early in Day1 and was gonna focus on that player when I got back(assuming I was still in the game),but that player has been killed,so off to plan B.I gotta lot to read so be patient.

Hal Briston
07-11-2007, 09:36 AM
Ok, vacation over, time to get back to work.

Which means, of course, back to the game...woohoo! I've got about three pages or so to sift through (Yay for burning Kat! Boo for losing storyteller and Diggit), so I'll be back a little later with my own feelings of what's what.

sachertorte
07-11-2007, 09:36 AM
Not a whole lot more since yesterday, but I suppose (hope) everyone is re-reading the past few days. This is what I've been up to. I did a similar Day One Day Two vote analysis as Hockey Monkey. I would like to add my observations.

Mtgman received five votes after posting he was done for the Day
In Post #857, Mtgman states, "Ok, I'm off this roller coaster. My Day 2 vote is decided. See you all next week, have a good weekend."

In the previous post (856), about 20 minutes earlier Hal Briston votes Mtgman. Presumably, Mtgman saw this vote an left the game for the Day knowing the vote count was ArizonaTeach(4), Mtgman(3), as well as sachertorte and Kyrie Eleison at (3).

After Mtgman stated he was no longer reading the thread, five people voted Mtgman:
DiggitCamara
Zeriel
Pleonast
MHaye
Hockey Monkey.

-----
People voting for both Mtgman and Malacandra:
Hal Briston
Pleonast
I put this here for the record. At this time I don't think we can draw conclusions from this fact because we don't know the alignment of Malacandra (although I agree recent events point 'town'), and a townie is just as likely (if not more so) to vote 'wrong' by accident as scum would be to bandwagon/save an ally.

-----
NAF voted for ArizonaTeach Day One, but did not vote ArizonaTeach/Kat Day Two:
NAF explains his reasoning for this change of heart as not wanting to put a replacement on the spot the first day. With Kat being scum, I felt this required additional scrutiny.
NAF establishes precedent for this point of view with ClockworkJackal/Kyrie Eleison long before ArizonaTeach withdraws. NAF unvotes CJ in post 394, and maintains a consistent view of 'giving replacements a day' before voting for them. (My conclusion, NAF's statements hold for now; revisit if/when Kyrie turns up dead).

More on NAF:
In looking at NAF's past I also reviewed his discussion with Zeriel regarding 'lurkers' / 'invisible' players.
NAF calls out 'invisible' players in post 512.
Zeriel takes umbrage with being included on NAF's list in post 522.
Zeriel also takes the time to compare NAF's list to actual post counts (as counted by SDMB) in post 565:
Of those people, actual post counts:
17 Zeriel
12 Zuma
10 Fretful Propentine
8 MonkeyMench
5 Malacandra
5 Captain Carrot
5 Autolycus
2 Captain Klutz

People with similarly low (<=10) post counts not mentioned:
ArizonaTeach
fluiddruid
Mhaye
Clockwork Jackal + Kyrie Eleison combined
Hockey Monkey
Unfortunately for NAF, ArizonaTeach is on the list of low post counts that NAF neglected to mention.
In post 585 NAF votes for ArizonaTeach along with the statement,
And you all thought I was crazy when I posted that list.
I have two issues with NAF's statement accompanying his vote for ArizonaTeach:
1) ArizonaTeach was not on NAF's list. ArizonaTeach was on Zeriel's list of people NAF neglected to include on his list.
2) How can NAF be so sure that ArizonaTeach will show us that he's not crazy? Perhaps NAF knew ArizonaTeach was scum.
FOS NAF

-----
Additional note of interest, but irrelevant at this point:
Earlier in the game Hal Briston (I think) mentioned "bringing up the 3rd vote as a scum tell" as a scum tell itself, which he said held true in M4 (I think, I'm not searching for this one).
Just to note for historical reasons, ArizonaTeach brings up the 3rd vote "rule" in post 807.

MadTheSwine
07-11-2007, 09:38 AM
Who are the noob players in this game?

Malacandra
07-11-2007, 09:43 AM
I too feel vaguely suspicious of fluiddruid, but that's partly on account of my narrow escape (the last 24 hours of yesterDay it felt like anything I said or did was going to get me killed) and the fact that fluid seemed to have it in for me. Really it needs something more than vague suspicions though, and that's just what I can't manage right now - I can't comb through this monster thread at the moment and shan't have any free time this evening either. I'm glad to have provided a focus for discussions in the first couple of Days though; it's netted us a Cultist already. :)

NAF1138
07-11-2007, 09:51 AM
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
I have two issues with NAF's statement accompanying his vote for ArizonaTeach:
1) ArizonaTeach was not on NAF's list. ArizonaTeach was on Zeriel's list of people NAF neglected to include on his list.
2) How can NAF be so sure that ArizonaTeach will show us that he's not crazy? Perhaps NAF knew ArizonaTeach was scum.
FOS NAF[QUOTE]

Quick question, can I get a post number or something on the "you thought I was crazy comment." I don't remember saying it (I believe I did, but I don't remember it) so I don't remember the context.

MadTheSwine
07-11-2007, 10:07 AM
Additional note of interest, but irrelevant at this point:
Earlier in the game Hal Briston (I think) mentioned "bringing up the 3rd vote as a scum tell" as a scum tell itself, which he said held true in M4 (I think, I'm not searching for this one).
Just to note for historical reasons, ArizonaTeach brings up the 3rd vote "rule" in post 807.

Hal was trying to cover his scum tracks in M4,he pointed out that I had cast the dreaded 3rd vote against him in M4 and that I was scummy.I said "bringing up the 3rd vote scum tell is scummy".I don't know if it is a legit tell to bring it up or not,(I would guess not) but in that game I knew Hal was scum already and anything Hal said was a scum tell.
I haven't gotten to the part you are referencing,but I am anxious to get there and see what Hal is up to.

Gah! I am never gonna get through this at this rate.

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
07-11-2007, 10:25 AM
Still no internet at home, and work has been unforgiving this week.

Scum will vote and unvote each other to confuse the trail.

And town will vote and unvote when they change their mind or have errors in their analysis or reading comprehension pointed out to them, such that they can make a better decision.

Cookies unvotes Kat(4) post 1171 - ties vote - FOS Cookies for this unvote
Kat unvotes sachertorte post 1183 FOS sachertorte for the same reasons as my FOS on Zeriel

Laying suspicion on both sides of votes/unvotes like this, at this stage of the game, carries a bit too much risk of false-positives for my comfort level, but then again I am a more conservative player.

Queuing
07-11-2007, 10:32 AM
Hal was trying to cover his scum tracks in M4,he pointed out that I had cast the dreaded 3rd vote against him in M4 and that I was scummy.I said "bringing up the 3rd vote scum tell is scummy".I don't know if it is a legit tell to bring it up or not,(I would guess not) but in that game I knew Hal was scum already and anything Hal said was a scum tell.
I haven't gotten to the part you are referencing,but I am anxious to get there and see what Hal is up to.

Gah! I am never gonna get through this at this rate.

I believe I had something to do with this 3rd tell thing. I mentioned it here in post 1141 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8748069&postcount=1141) and used it as part of my justification for voting for Hal Briston. Hal doesn't like it here in post 1144 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8748345&postcount=1144) . Hal and I go back and forth a couple more times, here 1150 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8748446&postcount=1150) 1186 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749744&postcount=1186) here 1189 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749792&postcount=1189) mentioned last here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8750286&postcount=1196)

Nava
07-11-2007, 10:34 AM
I'm a newbie, but I hope I'm not a noob!

Things have quieted down a bit.

I think I have a notion why sachertorte and perhaps others may get the impression that I talk less than I do. I'm not doing the hardest analysis at all, but also there is the timezone issue.

I'm on CET. That means I'm posting this and about to go home at about 17:30 my time. My previous post in this same page (1421) shows me a posting time of 11:35am - that's 5:35am in the East Coast, 2:35 if I'm not mistaken on the West. So in the majority of my "playtime" (yes, I mostly Dope from work) many of your are asleep... then I go to do those things people do when not at the Dope and oop-la! Three pages of posts! Makes it hard to have coherent conversations, sorry :) I try, though.

When I get home I'll post what is it I was doing on Day Two, as requested.

Kyrie Eleison
07-11-2007, 10:50 AM
Those who ended Day Two without a final vote cast: Malacandra, MonkeyMensch, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, MadTheSwine.

MM and MTS have been rather noticeably absent, which somewhat explains why they did not vote. MTS seems to be back now.

Cookies did cast a vote, but later unvoted, and has explained that networking difficulties prevented her from returning before day's end.

However, Malacandra, to my knowledge, has not offered any reason why he was not able to or elected not to vote. Mal, your Day One vote seemed to get you in a bit of trouble. Would you care to explain why you didn't vote the next day?

Fretful Porpentine
07-11-2007, 10:52 AM
Kat unvotes sachertorte post 1183 FOS sachertorte for the same reasons as my FOS on Zeriel
Agree with you on Zeriel, since he had a pivotal vote in Day 1's lynching and his second-day vote (for fluiddruid, who had no other votes at the time) seems like a distancing measure. I'm not convinced about sachertorte, for reasons I've already outlined, but Zeriel seems to have the right persona for a Cultist -- a middle-of-the-pack player who posts enough to get noticed, but doesn't get controversial or confrontational. ('Course, you could probably lynch ME on that kind of evidence, so I'm not convinced enough to cast a vote yet.)

MadTheSwine
07-11-2007, 11:03 AM
MTS MTS seems to be back now.


If it's all the same to you,I prefer to be called Mad or some variation, other than an abbreviation. Mad has three letters just like mts,so you ain't wasting any keystrokes. Thanks for your consideration in this matter.

Captain Klutz
07-11-2007, 11:11 AM
#435 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8722141&postcount=435)
No, I misread. Stupid Prophet.
I'm honestly of the opinion that it's in the town's best interest to treat "non-believer" as "scum" unless proven otherwise. Dang, that REALLY confuses the issue with detecting the convert now that I think about it.
I think we're in for a bumpy ride.(bolding added)

I'm not sure what the non believer/scum ambiguity has to do with detecting the convert, as conversion is not detectable by the Oracle/Apprentice. From the rules:
Further, because the recruit is the result of twisting his mind and not a change of heart, he will ALSO continue to appear as he would previously would to the Oracle and Apprentice.
So both the Prophet and conversion are undetectable.

Zeriel
07-11-2007, 11:15 AM
To answer MadTheSwine, this is my first game on the dope, my third on messageboards, and I play the meatspace version of it all the time.

To answer Fretful Porpentine, maybe I should have fought with NAF1138 more? =P

Speaking of that,
In response to sachertorte, damn, nice catch. Not enough for a FOS on NAF, but enough that I'm not really rescinding my ongoing suspicion of him. Funny, I was so fixated on the idea that NAF being outed as scum might make the list a valuable scumfinder that I never even considered that scum on the list might make NAF look more suspicious.

NAF1138
07-11-2007, 11:24 AM
Speaking of that,
In response to sachertorte, damn, nice catch. Not enough for a FOS on NAF, but enough that I'm not really rescinding my ongoing suspicion of him. Funny, I was so fixated on the idea that NAF being outed as scum might make the list a valuable scumfinder that I never even considered that scum on the list might make NAF look more suspicious.

So then do you have the context for the original quote? Because I still haven't found it. Little help here?

(yes I know I am being lazy, but your help is appreciated)

Kyrie Eleison
07-11-2007, 11:29 AM
If it's all the same to you,I prefer to be called Mad or some variation, other than an abbreviation. Mad has three letters just like mts,so you ain't wasting any keystrokes. Thanks for your consideration in this matter.
Sure, sorry if you expressed this before, and I missed it.

BTW, regarding your "noob" question -- I've played the first two days of two games. I don't know what class that puts me in.

Malacandra
07-11-2007, 11:35 AM
Those who ended Day Two without a final vote cast: Malacandra, MonkeyMensch, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, MadTheSwine.

MM and MTS have been rather noticeably absent, which somewhat explains why they did not vote. MTS seems to be back now.

Cookies did cast a vote, but later unvoted, and has explained that networking difficulties prevented her from returning before day's end.

However, Malacandra, to my knowledge, has not offered any reason why he was not able to or elected not to vote. Mal, your Day One vote seemed to get you in a bit of trouble. Would you care to explain why you didn't vote the next day?

Sure. Once I was well and truly under the spotlight - which is how I spent most of Day Two - it was looking like any vote I made would be seen just as a scummy attempt not to get dunked, and invite the uncommitted to vote against me. That's not a nice position to be caught in when the final hours are ticking away and my chief rival for the wet seat is tipping the vote against me, but I saw nothing better than to sit still. Similarly, most of the votes I felt I could meaningfully make would have looked like OMGUS votes and, again, got me the big cold bath.

As I said earlier, to fluiddruid IIRC, I can well understand that it is good strategy for a vanilla townie to accept a lynching in a good cause - at least in the knowledge that there are worse outcomes, like a pro-town role getting wasted - but it didn't look like there was even that much justification for my sitting on the big seesaw, so I didn't want to take any action that looked like making such an outcome more likely.

Zeriel
07-11-2007, 11:41 AM
So then do you have the context for the original quote? Because I still haven't found it. Little help here?

(yes I know I am being lazy, but your help is appreciated)

it's in sachertorte's post, dude. Number 585 is your statement.


So you VOTE for Z, then unvote him a few minutes later because the person he accused isn't defending himself? You either don't have any faith in your convictions or you just let fly a major scum tell.

I am going with scum

vote ArizonaTeach

And you all thought I was crazy when I posted that list.


As far as the Mal thing goes. I can't believe that Mal would be dumb enough to make a stupid slip like that as scum. But he deserves a bop on the nose for not playing in a pro town fashion.

Bad Mal.

(ok, so the coffee has kicked in and I am feeling a bit happy, woohoooooo! )

Pleonast
07-11-2007, 11:48 AM
Ah, a new Day.

I'm still think Malacandra is scum. There's been no reasonable defense. His voting record seems to indiciate he's trying to lay low. Day 1: voted for zuma. No follow-up on that. Day 2: no vote at all.

But MonkeyMensch is also bothering me. His posts of substance:
639 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8726799&postcount=639): about Priest strategy.
664 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8727620&postcount=664): Vote for sachertorte on Day 1, based on power-role discussions.
666 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8727651&postcount=666): Affirming that we should dunk. (Post of the Beast!!!!)
854 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8733416&postcount=864): Reaffirming Day 1 vote.
1190 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749804&postcount=1190): Agreeing with others' suspicions of tie-breaking votes on Mtgman.

Notice how there's few to none new insights in his posts. While you can't separate Cultist from Town based on the leader/follower axis, being a follower does help staying out of the hotseat easier. And no votes on Day 2. In fact, he playing very similar to Mal, which means my scumdar is consistent (and probably wrong :p). Between the two, I rank Mal higher the Mensch. So yet again:

Vote Malacandra

To those of you who complain about my vote for Mtgman: I switched my vote from my first-in-line candidate (Mal) to my second. I was the only one voting for Mal at the time, and Mtgman was already up 5-3 over the nearest competitor. So hardly an earth-shaking vote, especially on the Day 1 when information is sparse.

And, yes, I'll switch my vote to Mensch, if near the end of the Day, Mensch is getting votes and Mal is not. I'm not so certain about my suspicion list that I'm not flexible.

NAF1138
07-11-2007, 11:51 AM
it's in sachertorte's post, dude. Number 585 is your statement.

:smack: :smack: :smack:

Ever have one of those moments where you just wish you could crawl into a hole and die?

Man I need to learn how to read.

NAF1138
07-11-2007, 11:55 AM
oh, and I was so embarrased that I forgot to adress it the quote.

I think I was just being silly. A bad idea in this game, as it turns out, but there was a lot of talk about "the list" at the time and I was having a stressful day at work. I don't really have a clear memory of my intention though.

Zeriel
07-11-2007, 11:55 AM
Gah, submit too soon.

Anyway. It's really suspicious to me that NAF1138 voted for AZ/Kat pretty strongly based on this false premise the first day, and then totally ignored the entire voting war on the second day--I mean, full disclosure, I ignored the Mal/Kat vote too but that's because I hadn't been suspicious of either of them prior and I didn't want to make a snap decision that killed someone on a second day.

Wheras YOU, NAF1138, came out hardcore against AZ the first day, didn't push it too hard when people followed your lead, and then dropped it entirely on day two--and this "let the sub play a day" doesn't really ring true with me, because honestly scum is scum. I'm glad the town made the collective right decision on it, but where were YOU?

I'm suspicious that you were pushing out a list of townies-as-scum, using spurious anti-lurker "logic" to hide your lurking scum-buddies, voting for one to establish your anti-scum cred when I called you on the list (and trying to make it like you were citing your own list instead of mine), and then lying low when it turned out that your scumbuddy might actually get caught in a close voting race. Proof? No. Convinced? Not yet.

FOS NAF1138 (again)

This, btw, is how I tend to play messageboard mafia--I tend to do rereads of vote patterns and otherwise rely on other people's research of posts to jog my memory of patterns I'd noted and then forgotten. I'm great at pattern recognition and poor at unjogged recall.

NAF1138
07-11-2007, 11:56 AM
Fuck me!

Sorry for the spelling in my previous post. :(

I swear, I am a collage graduate. From a good school and everything.

NAF1138
07-11-2007, 12:06 PM
I'm suspicious that you were pushing out a list of townies-as-scum, using spurious anti-lurker "logic" to hide your lurking scum-buddies, voting for one to establish your anti-scum cred when I called you on the list (and trying to make it like you were citing your own list instead of mine), and then lying low when it turned out that your scumbuddy might actually get caught in a close voting race. Proof? No. Convinced? Not yet.


Zeriel, I was letting you slide with some of your comments earlier. But you slipped right here.

First off, my logic wasn't spurious, your interpritation of it was. If you can't understand that I wasn't talking about lurkers that isn't my fault, it's yours. Below the radar isn't the same as lurking.

Second, you have had an obsession with me since I put you on that list, and I have been trying to ignore it hoping that you would hang yourself on your own rope. BTW continued obsession with a player who has cast mild suspicion on you...that's a scum tell. Town tends to let that shit go and move on.

Then:

pushing out a list of townies-as-scum townies? How do you know that the list only had townies on it? I don't know if the list only had townies on it. But do you know who would know if the list only had townies on it? That's right, scum!

Add this to your middle of the pack, and general scummy flying under the radar behavior, and the strange out of nowhere vote AZ placed on you then removed.

vote zeriel

SnakesCatLady
07-11-2007, 12:15 PM
>snip<

Starting back on my re-read of Day Two, I’m mildly suspicious of the people who very early after the break of dawn, said “Why zuma?” I feel like this is a tactic to deflect suspicion away from themselves. There may be some legitimate questions in there, but on the whole, asking that reeks of someone trying to convey the idea to others that “I’m not a Cultist so I have no possible idea why they might have killed him.”

The posters that did it were: Fluiddruid (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8739125&postcount=992), sachertorte (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8739190&postcount=994), and Fretful Porpentine (http://http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8739231&postcount=999).

Other than Pleonast's post (http://http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8739345&postcount=1004) on Malacandra, I can't see a whole lot more reason to be suspicious of Mal. Pleonast makes the only valid point I have seen in the argument in that he linked himself to another player.

>snip<
And Fluiddruid’s post addressing FCOD’s bandwagon list on Mtgman I totally agree with. The one-off votes are highly suspicious to me.

>snip<
According to sachertorte's list here of one-offs, and coupled with my list of people who exclaimed "why zuma?", I have narrowed down my FOS list to two: sachertorte and Fretful Porpentine.

>snip<
So now finished reading and catching up, and I am going to place my vote with Fretful Porpentine, for being among the first to exclaim “Why zuma?”, for having an one-off vote, and for the reason that others had mentioned, the timing of that vote.

You did say you suspected fluiddruid - "mildy suspicious" was the term you used. You did not go so far as to FOS her.

Zeriel
07-11-2007, 12:24 PM
Zeriel, I was letting you slide with some of your comments earlier. But you slipped right here.

First off, my logic wasn't spurious, your interpritation of it was. If you can't understand that I wasn't talking about lurkers that isn't my fault, it's yours. Below the radar isn't the same as lurking.

Second, you have had an obsession with me since I put you on that list, and I have been trying to ignore it hoping that you would hang yourself on your own rope. BTW continued obsession with a player who has cast mild suspicion on you...that's a scum tell. Town tends to let that shit go and move on.

Then:

townies? How do you know that the list only had townies on it? I don't know if the list only had townies on it. But do you know who would know if the list only had townies on it? That's right, scum!

Add this to your middle of the pack, and general scummy flying under the radar behavior, and the strange out of nowhere vote AZ placed on you then removed.

vote zeriel
I stand by my suspicion. You'll note my vote's still on Hal.

I know *I*'m a townie, and I was on the list. I know AZ/Kat was scum, and she wasn't on the list even though she easily could have been. My point has been from the get-go that your "subjective" list of people-you-don't-notice has the potential to be carefully crafted to hide scum lurkers. So far, the only dead scum is from the list of lurkers you didn't happen to notice lurking. Of COURSE I find that suspicious.

Kyrie Eleison
07-11-2007, 12:27 PM
You did say you suspected fluiddruid - "mildy suspicious" was the term you used. You did not go so far as to FOS her.I may be fighting a losing battle here, but I continue not to see a distinction between saying "I'm mildly suspicious of X," and "I mildly FOS X." Either way, you've expressed suspicion, but come short of a vote. Is this a distinction without a difference, or am I failing to play according to well-established custom?

Zeriel
07-11-2007, 12:29 PM
Kyrie, I'm pretty sure that a "suspicion" is ALWAYS expressing less suspicion than a FOS, by convention only. At least that's how I use them.

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
07-11-2007, 12:30 PM
I may be fighting a losing battle here, but I continue not to see a distinction between saying "I'm mildly suspicious of X," and "I mildly FOS X." Either way, you've expressed suspicion, but come short of a vote. Is this a distinction without a difference, or am I failing to play according to well-established custom?

I pretty much interpret them the same, but respect the right of the poster to have their own line in the sand. :D

Zeriel
07-11-2007, 12:40 PM
Having just read back, at least one of the names on NAF1138's original list is confirmed town: zuma.

I don't think I'm going to vote for NAF1138 today, unless he works for it, but I notice Malacandra and fluiddruid, both popular vote-getters on previous days, are on his and my lists respectively. If either of them gets lynched or nightkilled and is in the "correct" classification, we might start having a pattern strong enough to vote on.

NAF1138
07-11-2007, 12:49 PM
I stand by my suspicion. You'll note my vote's still on Hal.

I know *I*'m a townie, and I was on the list. I know AZ/Kat was scum, and she wasn't on the list even though she easily could have been. My point has been from the get-go that your "subjective" list of people-you-don't-notice has the potential to be carefully crafted to hide scum lurkers. So far, the only dead scum is from the list of lurkers you didn't happen to notice lurking. Of COURSE I find that suspicious.


You really aren't big on context are you?

Did you ever think that maybe AZ wasn't on the list becuase he and MgtMan had been having a vocal discussion and that AZ had in fact posted some content at the top of the page my list was posted on? Attention was being paid to AZ, there was no reason to put him on the list of people who were being ignored

Ignoring the context of the situation and twisting facts to make them fit your needs is also scummy.

NAF1138
07-11-2007, 12:51 PM
Having just read back, at least one of the names on NAF1138's original list is confirmed town: zuma.

I don't think I'm going to vote for NAF1138 today, unless he works for it, but I notice Malacandra and fluiddruid, both popular vote-getters on previous days, are on his and my lists respectively. If either of them gets lynched or nightkilled and is in the "correct" classification, we might start having a pattern strong enough to vote on.

Well the list had 8 names on it, they couldn't all be scum or we would be screwed.

Your logic is lacking.

Also, what do you mean you won't vote for me "unless he works for it?"

SnakesCatLady
07-11-2007, 01:05 PM
I may be fighting a losing battle here, but I continue not to see a distinction between saying "I'm mildly suspicious of X," and "I mildly FOS X." Either way, you've expressed suspicion, but come short of a vote. Is this a distinction without a difference, or am I failing to play according to well-established custom?

Kyrie, my post was in response to Hockey Monkey's post where she says she doesn't recall saying she was suspicious of fluiddruid. I was pointing out that in post 1412 she did say she was mildly suspicious, but went on to FOS two other players and vote for them.

I personally don't tend to use FOSs, I state suspicions and I vote. I think it is just a matter of personal preference because FOSs don't really count for anything.

Pleonast
07-11-2007, 01:09 PM
I pretty much ignore FOS statements. They're not accountable, unlike votes. I look at what the accusations are (or lack of them).

Queuing
07-11-2007, 01:16 PM
FOS/Suspicions mild or otherwise= same shit different pile.

Kyrie Eleison
07-11-2007, 01:29 PM
townies? How do you know that the list only had townies on it? I don't know if the list only had townies on it. But do you know who would know if the list only had townies on it? That's right, scum!
Your contention is that, unbeknownst to you, your list has only townies on it, and that Zeriel knows this? On the surface, Zeriel's contention that it's a "townie-as-scum" list does look questionable. However, if he's right, and your assumption seems to be that he is, I'll FOS the both of you as scum staging a fight. My back of the envelope calculation of the probability of randomly constructing a list containing only townie players, assuming 30 players and 6 scum, is 0.57%. For 5 scum, it's 0.84%.

Granted, that assumes that selecting eight players that have failed to come to NAF's attention is equivalent to selecting eight players at random, which might be contested. Nonetheless, if that list proves to have only townies on it, you'll both come up smelling funny to me.

Hal Briston
07-11-2007, 01:34 PM
Ok, Post #1369 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8764647&postcount=1369) has Zeriel voting for me based on what he refers to as my "throwaway based on the stupid zuma thing". He then graciously lets me know he'll remove the vote if I give an "intelligent response". Ok, here ya go: <Gaaa...I can't do it. I've edited this post a dozen times, each time revising the snarky phrase I use in this spot. So as tempting as it is to simply respond with "Pppfffttthhh", I have no real truck with you...therefore, I'll leave the rest of the post as-is, but at least I'll be nice(r) about it>.

You're voting for me, as you say in Post #1381 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8764788&postcount=1381), a "for making a poorly-supported vote that kept Kat within spitting distance of alive"? Huh...guess I should be thankful that it didn't, you know, actually have an effect on the outcome of the voting.

Well, you can refer to it as "the stupid zuma thing" all you like...it was still a very odd couple of things for Mal to have said, and given the time restrictions I was under, I stand by it. Call it a throwaway all you like, it still won't make it true. I love that you're referring to my vote (that several others agreed with) as weak and using that as justification for your own voting. Alanis could take lessons.

And now, on to more reading...

NAF1138
07-11-2007, 01:36 PM
Your contention is that, unbeknownst to you, your list has only townies on it, and that Zeriel knows this? On the surface, Zeriel's contention that it's a "townie-as-scum" list does look questionable. However, if he's right, and your assumption seems to be that he is, I'll FOS the both of you as scum staging a fight. My back of the envelope calculation of the probability of randomly constructing a list containing only townie players, assuming 30 players and 6 scum, is 0.57%. For 5 scum, it's 0.84%.

Granted, that assumes that selecting eight players that have failed to come to NAF's attention is equivalent to selecting eight players at random, which might be contested. Nonetheless, if that list proves to have only townies on it, you'll both come up smelling funny to me.


I would be shocked if there were only townies on that list. But who knows, anything is possible.

Zeriel
07-11-2007, 01:41 PM
Your contention is that, unbeknownst to you, your list has only townies on it, and that Zeriel knows this? On the surface, Zeriel's contention that it's a "townie-as-scum" list does look questionable. However, if he's right, and your assumption seems to be that he is, I'll FOS the both of you as scum staging a fight. My back of the envelope calculation of the probability of randomly constructing a list containing only townie players, assuming 30 players and 6 scum, is 0.57%. For 5 scum, it's 0.84%.

Granted, that assumes that selecting eight players that have failed to come to NAF's attention is equivalent to selecting eight players at random, which might be contested. Nonetheless, if that list proves to have only townies on it, you'll both come up smelling funny to me.
My original contention was that NAF's behavior was contingent on me finding out if he had that kind of knowledge--that is, if he was scum then my list of people he didn't list were maybe scum too. Since then, I also stated that I'd think he was scum if his lists proved he had special knowledge. I know two of his original eight are--myself and zuma. (you of course are only sure of one.) I know one of my original list of lurkers not listed by NAF is in fact scum--AZTeach/Kat. So far that's two hits pointing to NAF having special knowledge--not nearly enough to go vote on, but enough to suspect him.

Oh, and NAF, I thought the guessing originally was that there were at least 3 and likely 5-7 scum.

Zeriel
07-11-2007, 01:47 PM
Hal, you're right to an extent--I made a dumb decision that I'd make an early vote based mostly on the pattern of the votewar between Mal and Kat, and you and Idle for the reasons stated were the top two on that list. I'm trying to get out of the mindset that early finger-pointing in the day tend to kickstart discussion, but it's a habit with me in live-action games to come out the gate with strong accusations regardless of what side I'm on. Online, as I'm finding here and in the vastly different small noob games on mafiascum, is another animal.

unvote Hal Briston, but I'm still half-heartedly convinced there's something important in the pattern of votes for Mal and Kat yesterday.

And NAF says I'm not controversial enough and that I fly under the radar. :dubious: :p

NAF1138
07-11-2007, 01:48 PM
My original contention was that NAF's behavior was contingent on me finding out if he had that kind of knowledge--that is, if he was scum then my list of people he didn't list were maybe scum too. Since then, I also stated that I'd think he was scum if his lists proved he had special knowledge. I know two of his original eight are--myself and zuma. (you of course are only sure of one.) I know one of my original list of lurkers not listed by NAF is in fact scum--AZTeach/Kat. So far that's two hits pointing to NAF having special knowledge--not nearly enough to go vote on, but enough to suspect him.

Oh, and NAF, I thought the guessing originally was that there were at least 3 and likely 5-7 scum.
Lemme tell you, if there are 7 scum and a recruit we are screwed also. I don't know if Blaster made this game that unbalanced, but we don't stand a chance if there are that many scum. There isn't enough to balance it out on our side.

USCDiver
07-11-2007, 02:24 PM
My post at the end of Day 2 was for MHaye. I know he didn’t get a lot of attention during that day, but Pasta made a long analysis (”http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8747251&postcount=1127”) of his posts in 1127.

My initial suspicion for him was based on the bandwagoning of Mtgman at the end of Day 1.

I went back and re-analyzed his posts from the end of Day 1 until now.

In 1261 (”http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8754123&postcount=1261”) he says:
DarkCookies voted for Kat in post 1154, basing her vote in part on Mtgman's arguments for lynching ArizonaTeach, which did not ring true with me. Nothing else struck me about her Today though. (I hope you don't mind the abbreviation of your name?) Then Idle Thoughts raised my eyebrows in post 1167 by asking why people were talking about “Third vote is scum tell.” That just seems disingenuous to me. Finally, USCDiver failed to produce reasoning for a conclusion (post 1108, claiming that he did not keep notes. That felt to me that it might be just a useful excuse – ie that he may have failed to keep notes to have an excuse for not being able to produce working. There were other little flags, but they were either adequately explained or are too slender a twig to hang a suspicion on, let alone a full-blown accusation

In one post he defended Kat (now known to be scum) and accused me of failing “to produce reasoning for a conclusion” when in fact, the whole point of Post 1108 (”http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8744018&postcount=1108”) was that I had no conclusions.

He then insinuates that he insulted me (1277 (”http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8755527&postcount=1277”)) when my Post 1268 (”http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8755021&postcount=1268”) was merely reasons for voting for him, and showed no hint of insult.

vote Mhaye again

Nava
07-11-2007, 02:26 PM
This is what I did on Day One (why does this remind me of those "what I did on vacation" first essays for Spanish class after the summer?):

I'd introduced myself during the night and mentioned that I hadn't seen the "you're in" until Monday morning, when it was night already.

Post 1027 I gave a list of people I'd noticed, for good or bad, including myself as a joke.

1112 and 1113 I explain about that being a joke and spell out my location field. I tend to shoot my mouth too fast and here we can't edit, oops; that's why two posts.

1202 I ask to keep Mad on and not rely too much on "scum tells."

1256 I vote for sachertorte

The next time I got in it was after dusk, so I didn't respond to sachertorte's response to my vote. I could do it now I guess but I think it might muddle the waters, since I'm not re-voting him at this point and want to wait and read what people post tonight-rl and think things through.

sachertorte
07-11-2007, 02:44 PM
I stand by my suspicion. You'll note my vote's still on Hal.

I know *I*'m a townie, and I was on the list. I know AZ/Kat was scum, and she wasn't on the list even though she easily could have been. My point has been from the get-go that your "subjective" list of people-you-don't-notice has the potential to be carefully crafted to hide scum lurkers. So far, the only dead scum is from the list of lurkers you didn't happen to notice lurking. Of COURSE I find that suspicious.
Zeriel, we're pretty much having the same suspicions on this one, but I would like to point out that my belief is not that NAF carefully crafted the list to hide scum lurkers, but that NAF presented a subjective list of people he didn't notice which is colored by the fact that had ArizonaTeach and NAF both been scum, that alignment would cause NAF to legitimately leave ArizonaTeach off his 'I haven't noticed you' list. i.e. NAF noticed someone not notable because they are both scum. I don't expect the list itself to be carefully crafted.
Did that make sense? I feel like I'm babbling.
Furthermore, I think there is more to NAF's statements than just the fact that ArizonaTeach was missing from his list and turned out to be scum. NAF's words imply to me that NAF knew ArizonaTeach was scum. Ergo, NAF is scum.

sachertorte
07-11-2007, 03:02 PM
Since I have the spreadsheet already, I'll post the post numbers for each person for day two. Hopefully this will help people investigating others, and maybe encourage everyone to sum up their contributions (Thanks, Nava).

This list is for Day Two up to post #1273; in other words, it doesn't include the extra day.

Autolycus
1024
1110
1120
1125
1269

Captain Klutz
1100
1103
1104
1106
1136
1264

Cookies
983
1049
1055
1143
1154
1171
1201
1229
1237
1239

DiggitCamara
1012
1045
1096
1139
1145
1146
1159
1160
1163
1168
1185
1188
1206
1211
1244
1245

fluiddruid
992
1031
1039
1041
1078
1222
1224
1227
1250
1251
1266

FlyingCowOfDoom
1038
1063
1117
1122
1247

Fretful Porpentine
999
1009
1015
1064
1070
1074
1082
1114
1131
1231
1248

Hal Briston
986
1005
1011
1054
1068
1094
1144
1147
1186
1187
1189
1192
1267

HazelNutCoffee
984
1018
1080
1093
1174
1180
1243
1254

Hockey Monkey
987
1003
1016
1195
1215
1220
1221
1234
1253

Idle Thoughts
1006
1010
1013
1023
1084
1088
1089
1092
1097
1118
1167
1226
1228
1240
1270
1271

Kat
1020
1021
1046
1056
1059
1107
1124
1170
1176
1183
1184
1273

Kyrie Eleison
1000
1001
1050
1052
1061
1062
1072
1095
1149
1152
1166
1172
1193
1207

MadTheSwine

Malacandra
1060
989
1027
1033
1111
1115
1121
1126
1135

MHaye
988
996
998
1156
1225
1232
1238
1258
1260
1261
1262
1263

MonkeyMensch
1173
1190

NAF
985
995
997
1002
1077
1098
1101
1138
1148
1155
1157
1164
1175
1194
1208
1210
1214
1241

Nava
1022
1028
1044
1112
1113
1116
1202
1256

Pasta
1026
1081
1127
1181
1255
1257
1259
1272

Pleonast
1004
1036
1205

Queuing
1043
1087
1090
1105
1133
1141
1150
1161
1165
1169
1178
1179
1196
1199
1204
1213
1217
1218
1246

sachertorte
994
1032
1048
1051
1085
1086
1119
1129
1158
1162
1177
1182
1265

Scuba_Ben
1014
1030
1040
1042
1053
1058
1066
1067
1071
1073
1083
1109
1197
1198
1216
1233

SnakesCatLady
1091
1099
1142
1230
1242
993
1008
1017

storyteller
1029
1076
1079
1128
1203
1212
1219
1252

USCDiver
1025
1037
1102
1108
1268

Zeriel
990
991
1047
1057
1123
1130
1200
1209
1223
1249

NAF1138
07-11-2007, 03:43 PM
Zeriel, we're pretty much having the same suspicions on this one, but I would like to point out that my belief is not that NAF carefully crafted the list to hide scum lurkers, but that NAF presented a subjective list of people he didn't notice which is colored by the fact that had ArizonaTeach and NAF both been scum, that alignment would cause NAF to legitimately leave ArizonaTeach off his 'I haven't noticed you' list. i.e. NAF noticed someone not notable because they are both scum. I don't expect the list itself to be carefully crafted.
Did that make sense? I feel like I'm babbling.
Furthermore, I think there is more to NAF's statements than just the fact that ArizonaTeach was missing from his list and turned out to be scum. NAF's words imply to me that NAF knew ArizonaTeach was scum. Ergo, NAF is scum.

Well you are misinterpreting my words, but at least this is a legit argument. Zeriel's argument bothers me because it seems so oportunistic, he had been somewhat obsessed with me for a while and it feels like he is jumping now that someone else has some suspicion of me. But I am going to drop it for now, I have a tendancy to get self absorbed when it comes to accusations against myself. If y'all agree with me you will vote, if not you won't.

Kyrie Eleison
07-11-2007, 04:03 PM
My original contention was that NAF's behavior was contingent on me finding out if he had that kind of knowledge--that is, if he was scum then my list of people he didn't list were maybe scum too. Since then, I also stated that I'd think he was scum if his lists proved he had special knowledge.
Understood. However, I took NAF1138 to be implying that during the course of your discussion, you began referring to his list as a list of townies, implying that you had more knowledge of its composition than perhaps you ought. He implies that this was a meaningful slip on your part, rather than just a poorly chosen expression, which wouldn't be meaningful at all.

That wasn't the only basis for his vote for you, but it was part of it. What struck me as odd is that if his supposition is true, and you did reveal knowledge that the list was composed only of townies, he damns himself by damning you. It would mean that either he beat 1:100 odds, and constructed a list of 8 townies without foreknowledge, or that his list is less random than it ought to be. That's a necessary prerequisite for you to be able to perform such a slip. In other words, if this part of his accusation is true, he's either a very lucky townie, or you're both scum.

Unfortunately, I don't know what to make of this. I would imagine it will be some time before we find out the truth behind everyone on that list. And I find it difficult to determine whether this fault in NAF1138's reasoning is malicious, revealing, or just erroneous.

Hal Briston
07-11-2007, 04:15 PM
Since I have the spreadsheet already, I'll post the post numbers for each person for day two. Hopefully this will help people investigating others, and maybe encourage everyone to sum up their contributions (Thanks, Nava).Damn, that's a rather large request for info. Still, it can pretty much only help. Here ya go:

Hal Briston
986 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8739090&postcount=986): "...sorry to see you go, zuma"
1005 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8739382&postcount=1005): Props to Pleonast for catching Malacandra's "heads I win, tails you lose" post regarding zuma.
1011 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8739491&postcount=1011): The Crusader is better off going for the definite kill every other night rather than the 50/50 shot each night. Moot point now, though...
1054 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741983&postcount=1054): Call for gender clarification from everyone.
1068 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8742497&postcount=1068): Correction of Fretful Porpentine, who FOS'd me for pushing Mgtman into the voting lead, something that was untrue (and later acknowledged).
1094 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741983&postcount=1054): Announcement that I was foolishly taking it upon myself to create a voting spreadsheet, a la Millit the Frail in M3.
1144 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8748345&postcount=1144): Response to Queuing's ill-placed vote for me.
1147 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8748367&postcount=1147): Note that I was moving the Spreadsheet from Google to my own host.
1186 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749744&postcount=1186): More back and forth with Queuing.
1187 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749756&postcount=1187): A response to a question on the history of players subbing in and being scum.
1189 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749792&postcount=1189): Still more with Queuing.
1192 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749819&postcount=1192): Announcment that I'd be redoing my bathroom and spending some family time, so I'd be posting very little for five days.
1267 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8755017&postcount=1267): Vote for Malacandra, based on the above-mentioned zuma bit, coupled with the fact that I'd been too busy to keep a close enough eye on the board to develop any other suspicions.

Kyrie Eleison
07-11-2007, 04:16 PM
He then insinuates that he insulted me (1277 (”http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8755527&postcount=1277”)) when my Post 1268 (”http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8755021&postcount=1268”) was merely reasons for voting for him, and showed no hint of insult.

Weird. USCDiver, all of the links in your post appear to be of the form

http://xn--http-fb7a//boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8744018&postcount=1108"

in your post. However, when I quote you to respond, they look correct in the edit window. Am I the only one seeing this?

Hal Briston
07-11-2007, 04:20 PM
However, when I quote you to respond, they look correct in the edit window. Am I the only one seeing this?No, I see it in the same, incorrect form, no matter how I'm viewing them.

The quotation marks are the problem -- they're causing the software to think it needs to parse it as a URL, when it doesn't.

USCDiver
07-11-2007, 04:21 PM
Bizarre.... I composed the post in Word and it may have parsed the links inappropriately

USCDiver
07-11-2007, 04:23 PM
Let me try this again... it appears Word uses a different 'quotation mark' symbol than vB.

My post at the end of Day 2 was for MHaye. I know he didn’t get a lot of attention during that day, but Pasta made a long analysis (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8747251&postcount=1127) of his posts in 1127.

My initial suspicion for him was based on the bandwagoning of Mtgman at the end of Day 1.

I went back and re-analyzed his posts from the end of Day 1 until now.

In 1261 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8754123&postcount=1261) he says:


In one post he defended Kat (now known to be scum) and accused me of failing “to produce reasoning for a conclusion” when in fact, the whole point of Post 1108 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8744018&postcount=1108) was that I had no conclusions.

He then insinuates that he insulted me (1277 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8755527&postcount=1277)) when my Post 1268 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8755021&postcount=1268) was merely reasons for voting for him, and showed no hint of insult.

vote Mhaye again

USCDiver
07-11-2007, 04:24 PM
By the way Blaster Master, that is only one Vote for MHaye

Hal Briston
07-11-2007, 04:26 PM
Let me try this again... it appears Word uses a different 'quotation mark' symbol than vB.Ahhh, yeah, that'll do it...it most certainly does.

Not only that, but it uses separate marks for opening and closing quotes. It's something that causes a lot of havoc with the searches I write at work. The answer is to always use Notepad for things like this.

Kyrie Eleison
07-11-2007, 04:48 PM
Since I have the spreadsheet already, I'll post the post numbers for each person for day two. Hopefully this will help people investigating others, and maybe encourage everyone to sum up their contributions (Thanks, Nava).

Gah, I hate homework:

Kyrie Eleison

1000 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8739258&postcount=1000) -- Inappropriate speculation of who killed whom, based on color.
1001 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8739289&postcount=1001) -- Correction of omission in inappropriate speculation.

1050 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741796&postcount=1050) -- Explanation of and apology for inappropriate speculation
1052 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741898&postcount=1052) -- Expression of suspicion regarding Idle Thought's discussion of what he does at Night.
1061 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8742159&postcount=1061) -- Suggestions regarding post counts and their significance. (I don't like 'em)
1062 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8742191&postcount=1062) -- Revelation of gender (Male)
1072 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8742577&postcount=1072) -- Discussion of whether it's suspicious to find newly subbed-in players suspicious. (Me: It's not.)
1095 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8743356&postcount=1095) -- Announcement of holiday departure. (I had fun, thanks.)
1149 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=426256&page=23&pp=50) -- Discussion of Malacandra's Day-opening remark. (It was ironic)
1152 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=426256&page=23&pp=50) -- Summary of the candidates I was currently examining (Hal Briston, Fretful Porpentine, fluiddruid, and Kat)
1166 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8748972&postcount=1166) -- Vote for Kat.
1172 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749337&postcount=1172) -- Discussion of fluiddruid. Mild FOS of NAF1138.
1193 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749820&postcount=1193) -- Somewhat fluffy discussion of "3rd vote is scummy."
1207 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=426256&page=25&pp=50) -- Response to storyteller0910's inquiry into the reasons I listed for voting for Kat.

USCDiver
07-11-2007, 05:04 PM
USCDiver
1025 Checking in after Dawn of Day 2; mention my intention of reviewing Mtgman's lynching
1037 can't figure out the zuma killing
1102 can't find anything scumming in the Mtgman lynching
1108 explaining why I didn't take notes on my Mtgman review (I didn't find anything to note; also left for California)
1268 Vote for MHaye

Idle Thoughts
07-11-2007, 05:25 PM
Wow, a lot to catch up on. Not bad at all.

Well, my suspicions from yesterDay are still pretty much the same. I do think Pleonast is even more scummy than he was before, now that I see that AZTeach/Kat was a cultist. The mtgman lynch happened pretty quickly and Pleonast was one of the players that voted to swing the vote from AZTeach/Kat to mtgman. Adding that to my previously existing suspicion of him, I'm pretty comfortable with voting Pleonast.

--FCOD

Yeah, more and more he's seeming to be the only one that's taken a very far lead in my own mind too.

To those of you who complain about my vote for Mtgman: I switched my vote from my first-in-line candidate (Mal) to my second. I was the only one voting for Mal at the time, and Mtgman was already up 5-3 over the nearest competitor. So hardly an earth-shaking vote, especially on the Day 1 when information is sparse.

Snipped.

But this doesn't really take away the suspicions I've had. In order to win this game it requires town being able to at least try to think how scum would think. It seems more likely to me that scum wouldn't TRY to make any earth shattering votes but more or less try to ease into the mob slowly (like with a vote that wouldn't have mattered much). It's true that yours didn't, but it was another nail in the proverbial coffin and drew Mtgman's votecount farther from Kats/ArizonaTeaches which is what I (and others I think maybe, although I can only speak for myself) am looking :dubious: at.


As for the "FOS" slang..I dislike it myself. As you see, I usually only use it if/when it's in context to what someone else said, and even then I put quote marks around it. I just don't get the "FOS" term. There's suspicious of someone, and then there's voting for someone. And often they go hand in hand. But I don't see the point in saying "FOS" player x without doing anything there. I'll say who I'm suspicious of and then vote. That's what I've always done and what I'll always do no matter if I'm town, power role, or scum.

Just my two cents on it.

Lemme tell you, if there are 7 scum and a recruit we are screwed also. I don't know if Blaster made this game that unbalanced, but we don't stand a chance if there are that many scum. There isn't enough to balance it out on our side.

Seven scum and a possible eighth for 30 players? Plus two other roles (the Crusader and the Psychopath) who have the potential to off people each Night? That's impossible. As someone who has hosted many of these games, I can honestly say that those odds would be too far in favor of the bad side if that were the case.

Just based on my own experience, I'd guess, if you wager in the roles that did or COULD be killers (and I have no idea if the secret role might ever be able so but let's not count it out) and then the recruit, a guess of four to five Cultists would be a bit closer. I could see as little as three and MAYBE as many as six, but in those cases it's pushing it, I feel.


I don't know what to think about the NAF/Zeirel thing. Zeirel I've felt fairly neutral on so far but NAF I had some suspicions on early in Day One for awhile. But in each of my analysis's he faded more and more from it (as did sach and Clockwork/Kyrie).

It's like watching a tennis match.


And I'll do my best to sum up my posts when I return. It's lunch time. HOT WINGS! :D

MHaye
07-11-2007, 05:36 PM
Let me try this again... it appears Word uses a different 'quotation mark' symbol than vB.You use Word. That's your problem then...

My initial suspicion for him was based on the bandwagoning of Mtgman at the end of Day 1.

I went back and re-analyzed his posts from the end of Day 1 until now.

In 1261... I discuss the evolution of my suspicions over Day 2. I started with my list of suspicious posters, noted that the top two were already dead and discussed the other four. I then moved on to discussing players who had made me suspicious over the course of Day 2. One of those was USCDiver; my main problem being that he failed to (as Queueing put it) "show his working" in post 1108. That was what I meant by "failing to substantiate his conclusion."

I obviously could not have been too concerned about it though, as I did not make him Top Suspect. It was firm enough to mention it, but not firm enough to form the basis of a vote.


In one post he defended Kat (now known to be scum)I need reminding of the post. I'll have to look for it later. Unless someone has a reference handy?

He then insinuates that he insulted me (1277) when my Post 1268 was merely reasons for voting for him, and showed no hint of insult.I interpreted your saying I didn't take notes because I didn't find anything. Not because it was a convenient excuse. as meaning that you felt slightly offended, and chose to apologise. I didn't want the game spoiled because of rancour between us is all. If you weren't upset about it, frankly that's a load off my mind.

HazelNutCoffee
07-11-2007, 05:56 PM
984: Fluff about regretting zuma's death

1028 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8742971&postcount=1018): Noting that my suspicions of zuma were based on his exchange with Mal. Either Mal is scum and was trying to bait zuma into getting angry, or he isn't scum and his first vote for zuma was simply unfortunately worded. Basically comes to no conclusion either way.

1080 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8742971&postcount=1080): Assumption that Mtgman's death was not led by the cultists, and suspicions concerning scattered votes.

1093 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8742971&postcount=1093): Reiterates that it is unlikely a bandwagon would have been led by scum on the first day. Also notes that scum would have had no group strategy and most of them would probably have tried to lay low at that point in the game.

1174 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749358&postcount=1174): Repetition of the fact that Mal's vote itself doesn't mean much but the reasons behind the vote are still weird.

1180 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749466&postcount=1180): Gender clarification - female

1243 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8753188&postcount=1243): Apologies for silence and promise to post vote.

1254: Vote for DiggitCamera. Admits suspicions is somewhat irrational but cites questionable timing of vote on Mtgman bandwagon and off-hand vote of Monkey Mensch, as well as his request for a comprehensive list of night-kill possibilities (notes this could be a distraction tactic).

USCDiver
07-11-2007, 06:29 PM
I need reminding of the post. I'll have to look for it later. Unless someone has a reference handy?

Opps, dammit it again. I quoted myself to fix the links and the nested quote from my first try didn't make it through.

Here was the relevant portion:

DarkCookies voted for Kat in post 1154, basing her vote in part on Mtgman's arguments for lynching ArizonaTeach, which did not ring true with me. Nothing else struck me about her Today though.

Although to be honest, re-reading it, I may have confused your pronoun 'her' in the second sentence there to be referring to Kat when it may have been referring to Cookies

HazelNutCoffee
07-11-2007, 06:41 PM
You know what? I completely forgot about my initial suspicions regarding MadTheSwine and his over-reaction to Clockwork Jackal's post. (Mad said that CJ's saying "no one looks scummy yet" was a scum tell, along with Hal's concern about player distribution; CJ pointed out that she had said "no one looks scummy EXCEPT this one person" and said that she "would FOS" Mad for saying player distribution is unimportant; Mad said that he didn't like revenge votes nor did he like people twisting his words and promptly voted CJ. When it was pointed out that CJ had not voted for him at all (and it was also argued that her interpretation of his words was not necessarily twisting them but an arguably reasonable reading), Mad conceded his mistake but kept the vote.)

You never explained this, Mad, and both storyteller and I voted for you but withdrew our votes simply because you were not around to defend yourself. Mind explaining the reasons you kept that vote?

Zeriel
07-11-2007, 07:52 PM
Alright, as suggested by sachertorte, a re-read and summary. Open admission that I am liable to not remember why I posted some of this stuff. =P

990 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8739118&postcount=990), 991 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8739124&postcount=991) : Speculation that the scum are brainless for nightkilling a player who'd got a significant number of votes as it was.

1047 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741618&postcount=1047) : Rationale for voting mtgman (he was getting more scummy, and I'd already made up my mind to unvote Kyrie), including a brief defense of why I think it's appropriate to take votes away from one-offs and commit to one of the frontrunners late in the day.

1057 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8742115&postcount=1057) : Speculation on Nava's RL location, facts on Zeriel's gender.

1123 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8746955&postcount=1123) : FOS on Malacandra for being excessively condescending in his own defense.

1130 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8747659&postcount=1130) : Snarking vs. Mal.

1200 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8750721&postcount=1200) : Vote for fluiddruid based on her attacks on Mal followed up by silence, heavily influenced by other's analysis.

1209 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8752432&postcount=1209) : Comment on slowdown of game over the 4th.

1223 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8752725&postcount=1223) : List of current suspicions as of that particular time, including Malacandra, Kyrie, SCL, Autolycus, and NAF, in roughly that order.

1249 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8753347&postcount=1249) : Poor explanation of why I suspected who I did (poor, given that their status of "having voted for Kat was kinda irrelevant next to "haven't said much of substance" or "made me suspicious on a gut level for no good reason". Additional suspicion on MHaye for discouraging analysis of why zuma was targeted.


And there you have it. I think I'm staying pretty consistent in who I suspect and why -- I don't like NAF's list, I don't like ANYONE being quiet for too long, I don't like discouragement of strategy discussion, I don't like people who vote and then lurk, and some people itch me the wrong way for no reason. I try to vote on things more substantial than the last one.

Zeriel
07-11-2007, 07:55 PM
Quick question for NAF1138: what, if anything, is the difference between "an obsession" and "a suspicion, based on articulable evidence, that resurfaces when additional evidence presents itself"? You'll note I barely mentioned you on Day 2 except for that one mention of a nagging unease (and you were behind FIVE other people on my suspicion list at the time of mention, counting the strong-enough-to-vote suspicion) and in fact I used your arguments as part of the rationale for my Day 2 vote in the first place.

Captain Klutz
07-11-2007, 08:07 PM
Post summary Day 2

1100 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8743530&postcount=1100) - comment on an Idle Thoughts post
1103 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8743736&postcount=1103) - night kill stuff - who and why
1104 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8743783&postcount=1104) - Crusader talk (night kills)
1106 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8743842&postcount=1106) - what to post. And identifying myself as a guy
1136 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8747807&postcount=1136) - my un FOS of storyteller0910
1264 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8754275&postcount=1264) - discussion of Malacandra, some thoughts about some others, and my Day 2 vote
1299 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8757101&postcount=1299) - a post during the twilight, asking if the Day had been extended

Fretful Porpentine
07-11-2007, 08:31 PM
All right, summary of my posts coming right up, skipping fluff posts:

272 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8719472#post8719472). I attempt to figure out how many scum / nonbelievers / townies there are. Unfortunately I totally forgot about recruitment, so use these numbers at your peril.

278 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8719525#post8719525). I discuss the flaws in chrisk's plan in Mafia 2, and give a cautious nod to sachertorte's plan.

358 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8720303#post8720303). Further discussion of numbers and roles.

457 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8722457#post8722457). Clarification on sachertorte's plan, which I'm no longer on board with, but don't see the harm in discussing. At 467 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8722576#post8722576) I point out a potential benefit to the plan.

515 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8723752#post8723752). Argue that sachertorte is probably town; express suspicions of Autolycus because of his silence.

548 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8724862#post8724862). Discuss benefits and risks of Apprentice making self known to Oracle. Follow-up at 560 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8724955#post8724955) and 567 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8725057#post8725057).

677 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8728096#post8728096). Disagree with Mtgman and agree with storyteller in terms of overall strategy, but think Mtgman is town. Vote Autolycus.

875-6 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8734886#post8734886). Unvote Autolycus because he's started to talk; vote Nava instead. Speculate about whether scum more likely to sub out than town. Follow-up posts at 878 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8734905#post8734905) and 881 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8734978#post8734978).

999 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8739231#post8739231) and 1009 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8739464#post8739464). The "Why zuma?" posts.

1064 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8742389#post8742389). Argue that if AZTeach / Kat is scum, Cultists would have an excellent reason to pile on one of the other candidates. Vote Kat and FoS Hal Briston and DiggitCamera (on the incorrect assumption that Hal Briston cast the tying vote). Follow-up / corrections at 1070 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8742519#post8742519), 1074 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8742619#post8742619) (FoS Zeriel), and 1082 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8742771#post8742771).

1131 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8747703#post8747703). Defend sachertorte again, on grounds that people who push unpopular strategies are more likely town.

1231 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8752818#post8752818). Semi-defend Queuing; argue that asking "Why zuma?" is not a scum tell.

1248 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8753305#post8753305). Vote not to change deadline.

1371 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8764670#post8764670). Argue that cultists probably didn't vote for Kat since the election was so close.

1434 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8768246#post8768246). FoS Zeriel.

Queuing
07-11-2007, 08:46 PM
And there you have it. I think I'm staying pretty consistent in who I suspect and why -- I don't like NAF's list, I don't like ANYONE being quiet for too long, I don't like discouragement of strategy discussion, I don't like people who vote and then lurk, and some people itch me the wrong way for no reason. I try to vote on things more substantial than the last one.

So who else beyond NAF do you suspect? Who do you think has been to quiet? I know the person I have noticed the most you have not mentioned.

SnakesCatLady
07-11-2007, 09:16 PM
Ok, I'm going back to page 1 and doing a summary of my posts.

Before start of game:

#23 - I'm in.
#73 - fluff.
#159 - acknowledgment of PM from BlasterMaster.

Game starts #197.

#349 - semi-fluff post - at that point in the game, saying Hal Briston said we were in a dry town because he was afraid of liquids was just about as much of a suspicion as I had. There had been a lot of wrangling about telling the Oracle and the Apprentice how to play, and I didn't want to get caught up in that because a) it's a bad idea and b) even if it was a good idea we have no way to enforce it.

#359 - response to sachertorte about post #349.

#403 - voted for sachertorte for refusing to drop the Oracle/Apprentice argument.

#423 - stated that there is value in "fluff" posts, that a player may be more likely to let something slip if they don't feel they have to watch every word they type. Also another plea for an end to the Oracle/Apprentice discussion.

#453 - question concerning the continuing Oracle/Apprentice discussion.

#494 - asking Mgtman if I was correct in thinking he had advocated power roles claiming early in the game. (I had misunderstood how early he was talking about - he was referring to "Days" not days, and 4 or 5 Days instead of earlier.)

#507 - asking how we can be sure a "random" vote is really random.

#519 - discussion about how to discourage "lurking".

#571 - another plea to stop the Oracle/Apprentice debate.

#619 - talking about how scum would most likely satotage a "unified town strategy"

#835 - response to Pasta.

#855 - unvote sachertorte, vote pasta for deliberately misrepresenting what I had said in post #835.

#892 - fluff.

Day 1 ends post #893.

#899 - fluff.

#931 - fluff.

#938 - fluff.

#980 start Day 2.

#993 - farewell to zuma.

#1008 - comment on Malacandra's comment about zuma.

#1017 - comment on Scuba Ben getting on Pleonast for voting for Malacandra. Discussion of suspicion of Pleonast.

#1091 - commented that sachertorte had expressed my feelings about Malacandra's comment better than I could. Remarked that I had had problems getting on the board. Said I found it odd that Fretful Porpentine would unvote Autolycus to vote for Nava so near to the end of the Day. Said that I was suspicious of Kat but didn't really want to vote for someone who had just subbed in. Gave notice that I would not be posting until Thursday morning.

#1099 - responded to NAF1138 saying that I didn't take a stand on anything.

#1142 - vote Kat, with reasons.

#1230 - asking Zeriel why she only suspected three of the four players who had voted for Kat at that time. Commented on Hockey Monkey placing a one-off vote on someone, listing as a reason for suspicion that the player had placed a one-off vote.

#1242 - said it didn't matter to me if the game Day was extended or not.

#1295 - fluff

#1317 - Day 2 ends.

While going back through all of this I have taken some notes and will be back with some comments after I eat dinner and take a bath.

Zeriel
07-11-2007, 09:17 PM
Beyond NAF1138 right this second...

MHaye because he sticks in my head as trying to stifle strategy discussion, especially with the bizarre claim that the scum would pick a townie at random for the sole purpose of derailing night-kill analysis.

Fluiddruid still pings on my suspicion radar based on her starting the Malacandra voting, and then bailing out for a while.

Auto, Mad, and Monkey are also awfully quiet, although I see some "busy in RL" excuses, and I can't imagine someone being scummy enough to use that as a tactic. Nava's also quiet, but she's got legit issues about time zone.

Idle and Hal based on my itch about voting patterns in the endgame of Malacandra vs. Kat yesterday.

Kyrie itched me for a while, since I had a big suspicion of Jackal but she's giving a town vibe now. Fretful strikes me as town, as does sachertorte and klutz, because they all have some good workable pro-town strategy discussion going on.

You, Queuing, bother me because for some reason my reptile brain is just SCREAMING "Psychopath! He's the psychopath and he's active and he's going to eat your baby!" I have no rationale so I'm almost embarrassed to admit it, but it's there in case anyone wants to trust my gut. =P

Pleonast barely trips my sensors, less because of what he's doing and more because a lot of rational people have been pressing him but not hard enough to precipitate a lynching--one of the scum tells I look for in RL mafiascum is people who're trying to organize a bandwagon--it's a much more reliable scum tell IRL than people who JOIN a bandwagon.

Who's your biggest perceived scum right now? I know you voted for Hal yesterday but I haven't seen much from you yet today.

Honestly, I want to see more summaries like this of what people are thinking, if someone who's killed is a power role later in the game, they might well be handing out a very nice list of potential targets. And if everyone does it, the scum doesn't know who's a power role and posting certainty and who's a townie or non-believer just posting suspicions.

Queuing
07-11-2007, 09:43 PM
You, Queuing, bother me because for some reason my reptile brain is just SCREAMING "Psychopath! He's the psychopath and he's active and he's going to eat your baby!" I have no rationale so I'm almost embarrassed to admit it, but it's there in case anyone wants to trust my gut. =P

Geez I have to re-evaluate the way I play this game. This is my second time playing. The first one I was also accused of being a lone killer, the SK in that case, and I lasted right to the end of the game. Not exactly a sign of the scum being scared of me if they didn't ever even think about killing me. Of course that is because I was always on a lot of scumdars.

Anyway, enough of that. My suspicions? These are all just gut right now. I may have time tomorrow to take a closer look but the whole damn company just got new blackberries and guess who has to set them all up?

I still have questions about Hal Briston. For the reasons I laid out in Day 2. Not ready to throw a vote his way again however.

I don't know what to make of Zeriel/NAF tiff, nor do Malacandra/Zuma. I am waiting for someone else to make a better argument one way or the other.

Pleonast has been tripping my scumdar since day 1, but it is mostly based on his voting patterns. These voting patterns are consistent with the way he played in M2 however, when he was a mason, so I don't want to vote for him yet either.

Scuba Ben has my gut saying "scum". I have his posts ready to look through hoping I can find out why.

MonkeyMensch is the one I am closest to voting for. He has done pretty much nothing but fluff posts. This is what he did in M2. In M2 he was the SK. He also kept repeatedly trying to set me up as the SK in M2 (with my inadvertent help I suppose). Just saying scum to me.

I think DiggitCamara was killed to try to get the town to suspect me. This could just be my paranoia however. However people who played M2 with me know I seem to be very good at drawing suspicion upon myself. This has happened in this game, but not quite to the same degree, however there have been a couple of posts similiar to yours---my posts don't say scum but your gut says different. Therefore I look at people who played with me in M2. Monkeymensch has tried this before to pretty damn good effect. NAF was the mod, seeing and knowing all. Fretful was in it as well (scum I think but can't remember now) as was Pleonast. Probably others as well (Kat and Story but they are dead now so whatever). Auto has quit this game.

If you want a vote from me now I will give it:

vote Monkeymensch

Queuing
07-11-2007, 09:52 PM
Err I didn't preview and since you can't edit...

To expand on the DC was killed to throw suspicion on me. I *think* I was the only person to attempt to throw any suspicion onto him. I voted for him. In some of my larger analysis posts I FOS/voted for him in two of them. The scum know that the town will look for reasons why someone was killed. It tends to be the very first thing that is discussed. If someone had looked the could have seen that I was pretty much the only person who tried to go after DC. Or I could be a freaking brilliant scum using this to try to prove that I Believe, and am a citizen. Since the voting has been VERY spread out I do not think it would be overly hard to get a bandwagon started on a few people; Malacandra, NAF, sachertorte and myself. I only have a feeling on one of those people, sachertorte, and know what I am. I think the scum *might* be trying to set-up a believer to be lynched later on in the game, and will be going after one of the other today. Just my $0.02.

SnakesCatLady
07-11-2007, 10:34 PM
Just a few thoughts - I'm tired and I have to get up earlier than I am accustomed to in the morning.

I'm still suspicious of Hockey Monkey for the one-off vote on Fretful Porpentine; I think she has now retracted her suspicions, which is very convenient. A good way to vote but not have it really mean anything.

While rereading to "do my homework" I noticed MadtheSwine's vote against Clockwork Jackal - it looked like he was pretty much placing a revenge vote after saying he doesn't like revenge votes. Then he has no vote at all at the end of Day 2.

I will always be suspicious of players who don't vote.

In post #1264 Captain Klutz says that he wants to give a sub a chance to play. This was Kat, who replaced ArizonaTeach - who had voted for Zeriel when Zeriel voted for Captain Klutz. Is this a case of Cult trying to help out Cult?

For some reason I am suspicious of fluiddruid; however it might be that she was scum in the only other game I have played so the taint has lingered. I am trying not to let roles in the last game influence this one!

It will be interesting to see who "does their homework" in regards to sachertorte's list in post 1468.

Cookies, did the kitty ever come home?

HazelNutCoffee
07-11-2007, 11:28 PM
I've reading this monster of a thread for the past hour and a half, and here are some random, incoherent notes.

The initial ArizonaTeach/Auto kerfluffle.
At the time, many were speculating as to why Arizona had had such a spectacular meltdown and left. Many opined that it was probably more of a townie frustration thing than anything else. I didn't post anything at the time because my suspicions were elsewhere, but at the time, I agreed. The suspicions died down a bit when Kat subbed in because many felt it was unfair to judge her by her predecessor. But now we know for a fact that Arizona was scum, as yesterDay's drowning of Kat revealed. Re-reading the whole meltdown, I am wondering if the entire argument was staged. It just seems rather odd for a Cultist to back themselves into a corner, have a fit, and then decide to withdraw from the game altogether. His meltdown may have been genuine, I suppose - Auto's roleplaying can get on some people's nerves. But getting annoyed doesn't necessarily lead to a meltdown. I've even considered the wild scenario that he needed to be subbed out because of an IRL issue but decided to have a meltdown first to confuse everyone. I'm not sure what this says about Auto, though. The fact that he was consistent in voting for Arizona/Kat may be in his favor, but his vote was fairly early on in the second day and he didn't even wait to see what Kat had to say for herself. If he is scum, it's possible that he didn't predict a bandwagon against her would build up by the end of the Day. By the time he made his last post for that Day, it was too late to change anything anyway, I think.

Pleonast's initial vote for Malacandra.
It was rather hasty. Granted, I was also suspicious of him for a long time, but Day 2 had barely started when Pleonast cast his vote.

Kyrie Eleison's attempt to find something in the Night Kill description when Blaster Master made it perfectly clear there was nothing to be found. Yes, he explained it away as "jumping at shadows." I don't know if I buy it. And then his insinuation that Idle Thoughts was posting about playing games to kill time during the Night because he was trying too hard not to look like scum. (To be fair, Captain Klutz did this as well.) It was a pretty innocuous out-of-game remark, and anyway, I doubt scum would call attention to themselves in such a heavy-handed manner. storyteller also points out that Kyrie is inconsistent with his suspicions of posters who "vote for effect" (post 1203).

Kat's list of FOSs in post 1020 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8740328&postcount=1020) is interesting. I am thinking that there has to be at least one other scum in there. Note the hesitant FOS for Pleonast.

Sacher points out inconsistencies in Kat's argument in post 1177 (how she calls Diggit on what she considers a scum tell but gives Queuing a pass); in post 1183, Kat admits she has no reason for this other than that she's familiar with Q's "playing style." Flimsy reason - perhaps enough for a suspicion?

USCDiver
07-11-2007, 11:51 PM
Just for curiosity sake, I looked back at the timing of Kat joining the game. Blaster Master announced her as ArizonaTeach's replacement in the same post he announced he had received all of Night One's instructions.

Kat's first post was immediately following Day Two Dawn (as noted above by HazelNutCoffee) and included some analysis of Day One goings on.

Unless I'm mistaken, she never had the opportunity to converse with her fellow scum before she was lynched at the end of Day Two.

I'm not sure of the significance of this because I'm sure she was told who her fellow Cultists were. But if there was a particular strategy formed in that first Night, she wouldn't have been a part of it.

Kyrie Eleison
07-12-2007, 01:08 AM
Kyrie Eleison's attempt to find something in the Night Kill description when Blaster Master made it perfectly clear there was nothing to be found. Yes, he explained it away as "jumping at shadows." I don't know if I buy it.
There's not much I can say about this that I haven't already here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741796&postcount=1050). If you think I am being untruthful, so be it.
And then his insinuation that Idle Thoughts was posting about playing games to kill time during the Night because he was trying too hard not to look like scum. (To be fair, Captain Klutz did this as well.) It was a pretty innocuous out-of-game remark, and anyway, I doubt scum would call attention to themselves in such a heavy-handed manner.
You seem to have overlooked that my post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741898&postcount=1052) referenced two remarks, in two separate posts, by Idle Thoughts, only one of which concerned a game other than this one. Did you read the original post, or did you rely only on the summary I recently provided? The characterization of Idle Thoughts' post, or posts, as the case may be, as both "innocuous" and "heavy-handed" seems to me to be oddly oppositional.
storyteller also points out that Kyrie is inconsistent with his suspicions of posters who "vote for effect" (post 1203).

Already explained here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8751824&postcount=1207). The poster directly in question was ArizonaTeach. I wouldn't characterize myself as inconsistent; rather, I failed to fully explain what I considered a relatively minor point regarding my vote at the time I cast it. Storyteller0910 asked about it, somewhat obliquely, and I responded. He seemed satisfied with my response; might I ask why you are not?

HazelNutCoffee
07-12-2007, 01:19 AM
There's not much I can say about this that I haven't already here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741796&postcount=1050). If you think I am being untruthful, so be it.
Like I said, I'm not sure if I do or not. Let's just say I find it worth noting.

You seem to have overlooked that my post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8741898&postcount=1052) referenced two remarks, in two separate posts, by Idle Thoughts, only one of which concerned a game other than this one. Did you read the original post, or did you rely only on the summary I recently provided? The characterization of Idle Thoughts' post, or posts, as the case may be, as both "innocuous" and "heavy-handed" seems to me to be oddly oppositional.
Innocuous if devoid of ulterior motives; heavy-handed if truly an attempt by someone who is scum - is what I meant. I saw the original post, and while I only referenced the game quote what I said applies to both.

Already explained here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8751824&postcount=1207). The poster directly in question was ArizonaTeach. I wouldn't characterize myself as inconsistent; rather, I failed to fully explain what I considered a relatively minor point regarding my vote at the time I cast it. Storyteller0910 asked about it, somewhat obliquely, and I responded. He seemed satisfied with my response; might I ask why you are not?
I read your response. I may be mis-remembering, because I was re-reading the whole thread at once and it was a daunting task, but I thought your response, while not an implausible one, was somewhat vague. (Actually, I'll have to re-read your full response and get back to you on why I wasn't satified with it. Sorry.)

But first I need some sleep. :)

Idle Thoughts
07-12-2007, 01:44 AM
Recent post sum up via me. Since I tend to reply to a LOT of things at once in long posts, some of these sum ups might be long in themselves:

1006-Mention of Night timepassers that some took suspicion over; trying to figure out what the possiblities were in the killing of zuma; Wondering why sach seems so sure of her/himself; increasing my suspicion of Mal and [/b]Pleonast[/b] based on a quote and vote from Pleonast

1010- Random wondering of why two players wrote "heesh" instead of "he". :confused:

1013- Admitting I had forgottena few possiblites in post 1006

1023- Last post before I go for the night (much like this one is); agreeing with Hal who also said what I thought was probably the case in 1006; more stuff building up on my suspicion of Pleonast and Mal and looking at people who voted for Mtgman; bad pun :p;

1084- Replying to a post Mal made and trying to make sense of it and showing, what I believe, are minor descrepencies in it; mentiong that AZteach/Kat doesn't seem too suspicions to me just yet even though a lot of people, at the time, was thinking he/she was; talking about the speed of the game; building yet more suspicion against Pleonast in my own head; clarifying info on past games to someone; reply to Kyrie about the Night activity mentions; saying my opinion that nobody should ever trust anyone totally in this game as I won't be trusting anyone after Scuba Ben said he I was "less suspicious"; saying all those who I am suspicious of at the time; telling everyone my gender.

1088- Idle thoughts about how the scum may sometime (or even in this game maybe) actually do very obvious things since everyone always seems to brush it aside right off.

1089- Pointing out a correction to Scuba Ben that was mentioned by two others about the same time.

1092- Finding what Queuing was saying amusing because he seemed to be deliberately putting heat and suspicion on himself but seemed to be doing/saying it jokingly.

1097- Talk about my lack of life.

1118- Again addressing issues about my mention of boredom killers when the game is slow at Night; making a fun jab at FCOD over a striking of Gauderes Law on him.

1167- First hearing about the "third vote is scum" theory/strategy; more things that didn't make too much sense regarding Mal; mentioning Pleonast again as someone I'm most suspicious of; wondering why Diggit was voting for Mad and Monkey when they hadn't been around for ages instead of asking BM for a sub; talk of people who voted weird/seemingly threw votes away like Diggit just had (in my mind) and Pasta did earlier; sum up of my suspicion list again and the why's; vote on Malacandra.

1226- Reply to Pasta over things I mentioned in 1167; Clarifying past games again; replying to Hal thanking him for explaining the third vote thing; two cents to Scuba Ben over what scum or town might or might not say; more talk about the speed of posting which was slow at the time; mentions of people who don't seem to be posting at all; talking to fluid regarding things I said about scum being obvious in post 1088.

1228- Mention that I'm keeping my vote for now pending further info or observances.

1240- Not caring if BM extends Day or not.

1270- Post thinking Day should have been over by then but thinking it must not have been yet; reply to MHaye about questioning the third vote is scum strategy; addressing issues again about comments I've made regarding killing time at Night;

1271- Correcting myself

That was all you had for me sach, however after that....

1279- Finding Kat's reasons for voting fairly weird/off including her failing to mention it was a tie breaking vote.

1281- Talking with MHaye about things in 1270; unvoting Mal making votes a tie again;

1285- Going back over Kat's past recent posts more carefully and new posts with growing suspicion.

1288- Thinking that by the time I made it back online Day will have ended and hoping that Kat would reply again explaining things.

1289- Not knowing if BM would count things passed the deadline or if the Day was extended like he said it might be.

1290- Realizing I'm the only one still talking in the thread :p, that most think it may be Night, and saying I'll shut up now.

1303- Hearing the official word on the extention and inquires of Kat again.

1308- Pointing out many things I find wrong and weird about Kat's reasons; pointing out that it didn't make sense she'd be more afraid to cast a tying vote than a tie breaking vote involving herself; seemingly catching her in an earlier recent slip up (?).

1309- Voting for Kat, which I meant to put in 1308.

MHaye
07-12-2007, 01:45 AM
Opps, dammit it again. I quoted myself to fix the links and the nested quote from my first try didn't make it through.

Here was the relevant portion:DarkCookies voted for Kat in post 1154, basing her vote in part on Mtgman's arguments for lynching ArizonaTeach, which did not ring true with me. Nothing else struck me about her Today though.Although to be honest, re-reading it, I may have confused your pronoun 'her' in the second sentence there to be referring to Kat when it may have been referring to CookiesSorry about being unclear; I was indeed referring to DarkCookies and not Kat with that pronoun.