PDA

View Full Version : Random Mafia


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

One And Only Wanderers
03-30-2010, 10:43 AM
For the record, even though I just confused myself while defending it, I would not have voted based on Wanderers' vote. I'm voting for him because I didn't think demanding a full copy-and-paste from someone who had already name-claimed was helpful.


I'm gonna go ahead and vote Jimmy

I had only asked Chronos why he hadn't quoted when making his claim. I never asked for a FULL claim and this is a blatant smudge to suggest I was.

special ed
03-30-2010, 10:44 AM
It's Tuesday, folks. We really need to have a lot of people get in here and chime in with thoughts about what you are thinking and what we should do. Otherwise, we have nothing to base our votes on and this will lead to a weak vote, something scum would obviously want us to do.

Any thoughts are better than no thoughts.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think we have a ton of people laying low. It's anti-town.

Aside from a comment on Drain and the 'overnight' kerfluffle, what exactly are you contributing to the conversation?

Mahaloth
03-30-2010, 10:49 AM
Aside from a comment on Drain and the 'overnight' kerfluffle, what exactly are you contributing to the conversation?

Anything I can, specialed. There is little to comment on. Encouraging people to get out here and speak is certainly a good point and worth saying. Certainly better than bantering with Meeko again(still).

Meeko
03-30-2010, 11:33 AM
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think we have a ton of people laying low. It's anti-town.

I've always thought this. It seems it happens every game. The posting numbers, or lack thereof.


Then again, consider my posting numbers, and you see my perspective on the issue. Everyone seems "laying low" to me.

Untill I see something else, I'll keep my vote on Freudian.

You guys might have different terms, but, I think the smudges against me are something to look at.

And I know I'm good on this term:: The quantity therein pings me.

ShadowFacts
03-30-2010, 11:58 AM
Tuesday afternoon vote count!

Freudian Slit (2) - voted by Rysto [655], Meeko [666]
Meeko (1) - voted by Freudian Slit [651]
TexCat (1) - voted by Tom Scud [706]
Drain Bead (1) - voted by Zeriel [715]
Jimmy Chitwood (1) - voted by OreDigger77 [717], OAOW [751]

Chronos
03-30-2010, 12:10 PM
Quoth storyteller:(Incidentally, if the Scum were thinking like this, it suggests [but does not prove] that the Scum themselves have names suggestive of their alignment, and have false-claimed. This isn't particularly valuable in and of itself, but is worth keeping in mind going forward).Assuming that the color in the death post indicates alignment (since there's no other indication of alignment we're given), this doesn't really work. We know that NAF was Town, since the Scum killed him (yes, this is an assumption, but far more likely than the assumption that a Vig we don't even know we have killed NAF while simultaneously the real Scum kill was blocked), and his color was blue, same as peeker's, so that means that the Wicked Witch of the West was Town. And if we've got a Townie with a blatantly evil name, then that probably implies that we can have Scum with non-evil names.

Jimmy Chitwood
03-30-2010, 12:48 PM
I'm gonna go ahead and vote Jimmy

I had only asked Chronos why he hadn't quoted when making his claim. I never asked for a FULL claim and this is a blatant smudge to suggest I was.

Really? Post 267 just now jumped out at you as a reason to vote for me; that is really something. You are reading this game in a peculiar order.

This couldn't have anything to do with the fact that I haven't liked the way you're playing today, could it? I mean, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that a post that had been sitting out there forever just suddenly cried out to you that it needed a response, as opposed to say my more recent posts which were directed at you. And your distinction is nonsense, which is why you hadn't made it previously -- he made his claim and you pressured him about the fact that it wasn't a quote; why else would that be a problem other than the notion that he was withholding information? I really can't see any other way around it at this point -- your initial vote on NAF was ill-conceived and factually in error, your suggestion about the night kill was ridiculous, and now you're coming after me based on an objection to a non-controversial days-old comment I made. I don't know what you're going for, but

Vote One And Only Wanderers

Despite the fact that we've got, what, seven votes on six people now? That's not really very good. Other townies should start looking at existing cases, I think, so we can come to some kind of a consensus and actually get the ball rolling here.

Freudian Slit
03-30-2010, 12:58 PM
I want to go back and review the thread later today, actually, because I'm starting to learn towards One and Only. The whole spelling thing jumps out at me, and I'm really not getting his Jimmy vote.

Zeriel
03-30-2010, 02:12 PM
That OMGUS vote looks pretty damn shady, One and Only--if that post was a problem why wasn't it a big deal yesterday? Heck, you even went back for a re-read at or about post 400ish, and felt the need to point said re-read out to us.

Oredigger77
03-30-2010, 02:48 PM
I was thinking about the OAOW's vote on my run and I really don't like it. When it's combined with his myopic version of why the scum would have killed NAF it looks like he has something to hide. I don't like that I'm flip-flopping sides of this argument but I don't see a case that is build on at least two solid data points like that.

Vote OAOW

Jimmy Chitwood
03-30-2010, 04:00 PM
OK, so.

I just went back and started over at the beginning of this day, which is 650. Rather than type it up into some kind of narrative, here's my notes directly in summary of the participation from that point forward (the numbers are total posts but probably aren't razor-sharp since I just control-F'd each one):

TexCat – 4, some early day nonsense
Tom Scud – 6 and a vote
Oredigger – 4, two votes & an unvote
special ed – 14, all but one at meeko/about meeko (one at mahaloth’s “not enough talk" talk)
Freudian Slit – voted meeko immediately, 10, mostly meeko related but not entirely
Red Skeezix – one post, partially about a previous game, nothing much really
Meeko – 23 and a vote
Mahaloth – 6, no vote, mostly chatty
Storyteller – 1, no vote, promised further reading
GuiriEnEspana – 1, no vote, summary of NAF
One and Only Wanderers – 5 and a vote for me
KellyCriterion – 1 post, no gameplay
MHaye – nothing.
NAF1138 – is dead
Jimmy Chitwood – is me
Rysto – 10 and a vote
Chronos – 2, no vote
Drain Bead – 4, no vote, mostly defending herself
Zeriel – 8, voted
Peekercpa – is dead

It's an ugly picture.

Essentially ed and Meeko and Freudian are primarily involved with each other, and then me and Rysto and Zeriel are mixing it up a little, and Oredigger is voting. There you go, you're up to date; that's the whole game.

Kelly, MHaye, Red Skeezix, storyteller, Chronos, and Guiri are combining for almost literally nothing in terms of gameplay so far. Drain Bead and Tex have posted a little bit more.

If I was scum right now, I'd be telling the other scum to just post two or three times about nonsense, and don't even worry about the rest of the game, and I'd be doing the same. Don't vote, don't anything, until a few others do. If the scum are sticking their necks out, it's a mistake. Which means two things: one, it raises the ugly possibility that there hasn't even been a case presented against an actual scum yet, and two, it's pretty much impossible at this stage of the game to even distinguish one of the majority of the players from any other one of the majority of the players. If the game picks up (if it doesn't we're just going to lose is all) I want this out there because the rational thing to assume is that the scum are mostly within that group who haven't said much. Of course, the town is mostly within that group, too, but what the hell, I can't help that.

Zeriel
03-30-2010, 04:13 PM
Jimmy's hit on something here that's been bugging me as well. I realize that many of you can't play on the weekends, but guys, it's Tuesday. (insert old joke about giving up coffee here).

Some of you have got to have something to say about something today.

As of now we have just under two days until the lynch. Get something out there.

To summarize where I stand:

Drain Bead tripped a trigger of mine that I feel often catches me scum--that is, she made a statement about a "group" of players that implied something far different that what it actually said (when parsed, it only came down to one player).

Tom Scud and One and Only Wanderers are tied in second place in my suspicion-o-meter, the former for uttering the phrase "overnight thread" (a potentially highly damning slip) while trying to defend Drain and the latter for tossing out an OMGUS based (supposed) on a post made early in Day One that went ignored until he had a need to vote for Jimmy.

I will likely, given the activity in the game, switch my vote before the deadline to whichever one of the three is highest in votes.

Freudian Slit
03-30-2010, 04:15 PM
I find the death of NAF interesting. Why would scum shoot in that direction? Maybe one of the misspelled brotherhood is scum and wanted to confirm that misspellings were not a data point?

[QUOTE=Jimmy Chitwood;12276262]

Apart from the personal benefit that you'd receive if we all interpreted the nightkill that way, I think it's a huge stretch to jump right to that explanation (or any explanation in particular, really). Is that really the first thing that jumped to mind -- not that maybe NAF was on the right track at some point, but that somebody who tried to kill NAF, i.e. you, was actually on the right track?

[/QUOTE
To be honest, I didn't remember who else all was mis spelled, and I didn't have time to go find out, hence my use of the term. "Brotherhood". I obviously wasn't on the right track with Naf as that looked like a town reveal. That said the choice of NAF for death on night one is interesting, and the killer(s) had to have some reasons for chooing NAF.

Unless I'm missing something, the only other player who had a misspelling in their claim was Meeko.

[QUOTE=Jimmy Chitwood;12276262]

Apart from the personal benefit that you'd receive if we all interpreted the nightkill that way, I think it's a huge stretch to jump right to that explanation (or any explanation in particular, really). Is that really the first thing that jumped to mind -- not that maybe NAF was on the right track at some point, but that somebody who tried to kill NAF, i.e. you, was actually on the right track?

[/QUOTE
To be honest, I didn't remember who else all was mis spelled, and I didn't have time to go find out, hence my use of the term. "Brotherhood". I obviously wasn't on the right track with Naf as that looked like a town reveal. That said the choice of NAF for death on night one is interesting, and the killer(s) had to have some reasons for chooing NAF.

WTF? You make this whole case about the misspellings and yet can't be bothered to figure out who is and who isn't misspelled? Why do I feel like this whole misspelling thing is so much smoke and mirrors? I thought the votes against you on day one were kind of misguided, but now I'm not so sure. This is weird.

And the vote on jimmy--I can't figure it out. It reads like so much OMGUS you suck, to me.

unvote meeko

Vote One and Only Wanderers

Freudian Slit
03-30-2010, 04:17 PM
NETA: Sorry for the weird coding. I think one of the people I quoted had something going on. Also, disregard last quote--it's just a repeat by accident. Vote remains.

special ed
03-30-2010, 05:16 PM
OK, what's with the bandwagon on One and Only?

Would someone please remind me what the case is?

After a complete re-read, and this is likely a bias I accrued while re-reading, I'm still pinged heavily by Jimmy. The OMGUS you suck vote (which seemed to start this quick bandwagon) and then jumping on the Mahaloth's soap box while basically flinging mud at nearly everyone.

I'll be occupied with that and another issue that came up and will post some more information when I damn well feel like it.

Jimmy Chitwood
03-30-2010, 05:23 PM
Do you have a real question or are you just bored because you haven't yelled at anyone in a while?

special ed
03-30-2010, 05:32 PM
Do you have a real question or are you just bored because you haven't yelled at anyone in a while?


Sure, let's start with your vote.

Really? Post 267 just now jumped out at you as a reason to vote for me; that is really something. You are reading this game in a peculiar order.

This couldn't have anything to do with the fact that I haven't liked the way you're playing today, could it? I mean, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that a post that had been sitting out there forever just suddenly cried out to you that it needed a response, as opposed to say my more recent posts which were directed at you. And your distinction is nonsense, which is why you hadn't made it previously -- he made his claim and you pressured him about the fact that it wasn't a quote; why else would that be a problem other than the notion that he was withholding information? I really can't see any other way around it at this point -- your initial vote on NAF was ill-conceived and factually in error, your suggestion about the night kill was ridiculous, and now you're coming after me based on an objection to a non-controversial days-old comment I made. I don't know what you're going for, but

Vote One And Only Wanderers

Despite the fact that we've got, what, seven votes on six people now? That's not really very good. Other townies should start looking at existing cases, I think, so we can come to some kind of a consensus and actually get the ball rolling here.

So, here's your reasoning as I see it.

1. OAOW brought up a point from early in the game about you as a reason for voting (which you ignorned in your post, btw, only dismissing it with a handwave)
2. OAOW voted for NAF, a now-dead Townie
3. OAOW made what is in your opinion a ridiculous comment on the possible circumstances of NAF's death.
4. OAOW is voting you for something you feel isn't controversial.


So, OMGUS with a little bit of 'you voted for a Townie' thrown in.

Is that correct?

or, like I asked, would you like to clarify the case?

MHaye
03-30-2010, 05:33 PM
Evening folks.

I've read the Day a couple of times (a prerequisite for me to comment on it intelligently, as when I react quickly I find myself doing things like vote the Vig for a bad vote. Right, Zeriel?)

Further explanation of my vote? Let's see.

I voted in 591. My line of reasoning was this, as far as I can no reconstruct it.

OAOW made an extremely bad vote, for a reason that anyone could have seen was a bad reason (Sorry OAOW, but it was a very poor vote.) But it wasn't the sort of vote that Nefarious Forces were likely to place, was it? Nefarious Forces have to be careful, because they know that every man's hand will be raised against them if they slip – even their own mates will join the baying pack. That early in the game, the best defence the Forces have against untimely demise is a moment's thought.

Thus, OAOW's vote was not an indication of his alignment with the Nefarious Forces (at least, not as I was seeing it looking back from the end of Day 1). If anything, it was a weak pointer that OAOW was town-aligned (which, paradoxically, might offer a reason for Nefarious Forces to take such an action.) So, why did Chronos place his vote on OAOW? My reading was that Chronos might be one of the NF's hoping to get a bit of traction for a case against a Townie, hence my vote.

That OAOW has attracted three votes just today is something I want to review before commenting on it. More later.

Zeriel
03-30-2010, 05:46 PM
I've read the Day a couple of times (a prerequisite for me to comment on it intelligently, as when I react quickly I find myself doing things like vote the Vig for a bad vote. Right, Zeriel?)

Hey, now. :p

Jimmy Chitwood
03-30-2010, 05:57 PM
So, here's your reasoning as I see it.

1. OAOW brought up a point from early in the game about you as a reason for voting (which you ignorned in your post, btw, only dismissing it with a handwave)
2. OAOW voted for NAF, a now-dead Townie
3. OAOW made what is in your opinion a ridiculous comment on the possible circumstances of NAF's death.
4. OAOW is voting you for something you feel isn't controversial.


So, OMGUS with a little bit of 'you voted for a Townie' thrown in.

Is that correct?

or, like I asked, would you like to clarify the case?

As far as point 1 goes, no, he didn't bring up a point from early in the game as a reason, he voted for me exclusively because of that post, after having ignored it up to this point. I addressed it as directly as it needs to be addressed.

Point 2, yes.

Point 3, no, he made what was a ridiculous speculation that served to cast suspicion on an individual player without naming that player, and referred to a group of players that didn't actually exist, and admitted that he didn't even bother checking to see if the group existed, and which also served to put his earlier vote, which he was criticized for, in a more flattering light.

Point 4 see point 1.

I don't know what you're getting out of misconstruing the context here, but you've ignored basically everything I've said about the events leading up to the vote. So now I'll repeat it all again, and continue cluttering up this thread with a rehash of prior events, and we can waste the entirety of day 2 the same as we wasted the entirety of day 1, running around in circles.

I really don't like this post. You seem very sensitive about your vote to kill NAF, who was town and is now dead. Like Rysto said, by "one of the misspelled brotherhood," you obviously must mean Meeko. Why phrase it the way you did instead of just saying so? Who is the rest of the brotherhood?

Apart from the personal benefit that you'd receive if we all interpreted the nightkill that way, I think it's a huge stretch to jump right to that explanation (or any explanation in particular, really). Is that really the first thing that jumped to mind -- not that maybe NAF was on the right track at some point, but that somebody who tried to kill NAF, i.e. you, was actually on the right track?

It's a bold effort, and to be honest I'm having trouble imagining the scum coming out of the gate with such a ham-handed manipulation, but that suggestion isn't the most pro-town I've ever seen.

Was your first response to think that probably NAF was killed in order to throw up a smokescreen and protect the rest of a "Brotherhood" of people with misspelled posts? Is it helpful to the search for answers to obliquely suggest that this unidentified class of people (which upon 30 seconds' investigation is revealed as a class of one: Meeko) will benefit from the kill, and thus are scum, and that's the most likely explanation?

The first word is "scenario," and you say yourself it's pure conjecture; in other words, you've made up a set of assumptions, and then based on those assumptions you're giving us an explanation of why it happened that way.

The question is, why that particular conjecture? It's all well and good that within the constraints you've created, you can give us reasons why the logic is consistent. That doesn't tell the rest of us anything about why you created the scenario in the first place. I mean, hey, scenario: NAF town, Meeko town. In this universe, you're being ridiculous and scummy. See how easy that was for me to do?

And then he voted for me. And his reason had nothing to do with anything in the most recent 500 posts.

Chronos
03-30-2010, 06:08 PM
Quoth Jimmy Chitwood:Kelly, MHaye, Red Skeezix, storyteller, Chronos, and Guiri are combining for almost literally nothing in terms of gameplay so far. Drain Bead and Tex have posted a little bit more.
Yes, my participation has been a bit lower than usual, but it looks to me like I made the argument that ended up determining the lynch yesterday. OK, that wasn't exactly a good thing, given that peeker apparently turned out to be Town, but it's a stretch to call it "almost nothing".

MHaye
03-30-2010, 06:13 PM
Chronos, you're ignoring the parameters of Jimmy's participation analysis.

He said :OK, so.

I just went back and started over at the beginning of this day, which is 650. Rather than type it up into some kind of narrative, here's my notes directly in summary of the participation from that point forward (the numbers are total posts but probably aren't razor-sharp since I just control-F'd each one):What have you done on Day 2? That's what Jimmy was asking.

Drain Bead
03-30-2010, 06:32 PM
Jimmy's hit on something here that's been bugging me as well. I realize that many of you can't play on the weekends, but guys, it's Tuesday. (insert old joke about giving up coffee here).

Some of you have got to have something to say about something today.

As of now we have just under two days until the lynch. Get something out there.

To summarize where I stand:

Drain Bead tripped a trigger of mine that I feel often catches me scum--that is, she made a statement about a "group" of players that implied something far different that what it actually said (when parsed, it only came down to one player).

Tom Scud and One and Only Wanderers are tied in second place in my suspicion-o-meter, the former for uttering the phrase "overnight thread" (a potentially highly damning slip) while trying to defend Drain and the latter for tossing out an OMGUS based (supposed) on a post made early in Day One that went ignored until he had a need to vote for Jimmy.

I will likely, given the activity in the game, switch my vote before the deadline to whichever one of the three is highest in votes.

If I turn up as Town, what does that make you think of Tom Scud's alleged defense of me?

Tom Scud
03-30-2010, 06:34 PM
OAOW made an extremely bad vote, for a reason that anyone could have seen was a bad reason (Sorry OAOW, but it was a very poor vote.) But it wasn't the sort of vote that Nefarious Forces were likely to place, was it? Nefarious Forces have to be careful, because they know that every man's hand will be raised against them if they slip – even their own mates will join the baying pack. That early in the game, the best defence the Forces have against untimely demise is a moment's thought.

Thus, OAOW's vote was not an indication of his alignment with the Nefarious Forces (at least, not as I was seeing it looking back from the end of Day 1). If anything, it was a weak pointer that OAOW was town-aligned (which, paradoxically, might offer a reason for Nefarious Forces to take such an action.) So, why did Chronos place his vote on OAOW? My reading was that Chronos might be one of the NF's hoping to get a bit of traction for a case against a Townie, hence my vote.

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Drain Bead
03-30-2010, 06:34 PM
Also, zeriel, why are you so concerned with me making a general comment that only pointed to you, and yet you've never brought up OAOW making a generalization that only pointed to Meeko? This is another reason why I think your vote on me essentially boils down to OMGUS.

GuiriEnEspaña
03-30-2010, 06:44 PM
Well I stand deservedly poked. I think I've been finding it difficult to contribute to the game as discussion seemed to focus on a reduced group of players and I haven't had much to add. I realise a lot more has been going on but the little voices tend to get drowned out. I also realise that being quiet does not help us find scum, apologies.

I'm not quite convinced of the case on OaOW. I found his first post about his theory on NAF being killed a little over-simplified and so I replied with a WoW on NAF and various alternative scenarios. I didn't intend to kill the discussion with this post but it sort of died out until OaOW gathered a vote from Jimmy for his theory.

I still think Zeriel's vote on Drain is mainly OMGUS.

I think Tom's slip makes no sense as a slip (everything happened in this thread so it's likely he was referring to this thread) but was an unfortunate choice of words.

I've no idea what to make of Meeko's case on Freudian (more OMGUS?) but don't see Freudian's case on Meeko as sufficient reason to lynch him - just as it wasn't yesterday, it was flawed reasoning but not necessarily scummy.

I'll do my best not to leave my vote till the last minute toDay.

Tom Scud
03-30-2010, 07:00 PM
In fact (having marked the second night of Passover by starting some nummy-looking pork chops marinating), FoS MHaye for a vote reason that would make Vizzini blanch.

(BTW, yesterday was the first night of Passover; not sure if anyone else had any family obligations, but I did; that together with a fun little bout of food poisoning on Saturday has cut considerably into my Mafia-playing time.)

special ed
03-30-2010, 07:06 PM
As far as point 1 goes, no, he didn't bring up a point from early in the game as a reason, he voted for me exclusively because of that post, after having ignored it up to this point. I addressed it as directly as it needs to be addressed.

OK, so that was the reason. Fine. As far as cases go, it's not a strong one, but I'm not seeing the Scum motivation in making it.

Point 2, yes.

OK, so OAOW voted for a Townie and then unvoted him, eventually settling on as yet undetermined Zeriel.

Point 3, no, he made what was a ridiculous speculation that served to cast suspicion on an individual player without naming that player, and referred to a group of players that didn't actually exist, and admitted that he didn't even bother checking to see if the group existed, and which also served to put his earlier vote, which he was criticized for, in a more flattering light. I didn't find it so ridiculous. Yes, he didn't take into consideration every possibility, but all he was saying was, 'maybe scum did this because of this, and that means NAF=Town, Meeeko=Scum' A valid point, and I didn't see him saying it was true, and I don't recall a vote or even any pressure because of his suppositions.

Point 4 see point 1. I get it now, anyone suspecting you is therefore suspicious. Have you been drinking Meeko's Kool-Aid?

You seem to think you've responded so well to your odd behavior that no one should be questioning it anymore.



I don't know what you're getting out of misconstruing the context here, but you've ignored basically everything I've said about the events leading up to the vote. So now I'll repeat it all again, and continue cluttering up this thread with a rehash of prior events, and we can waste the entirety of day 2 the same as we wasted the entirety of day 1, running around in circles.

What did I misconstrue? I've interpreted things differently, yes. And what does everything else you've had to say about the NAF stuff matter?

I don't ind OAOW's ponderings terribly suspicious. And I'm finding the fact that you do suspicious.


<snipped all of Jimmy's comments on why the thinking about NAF's death is irrelevant>

And then he voted for me. And his reason had nothing to do with anything in the most recent 500 posts.





I'd like to add, that in attacking OAOW's ponderings about NAF's death and how incomplete they are, what's the Scum motivation here?


but more importantly, to be honest, I'd like to hear from the other peopple who joined you in voting for OAOW, they were even more brief, and didn't at all appear to be OMGUS like you.

so, um Oredigger, Freudian, any comments?

Freudian Slit
03-30-2010, 07:08 PM
Evening folks.

I've read the Day a couple of times (a prerequisite for me to comment on it intelligently, as when I react quickly I find myself doing things like vote the Vig for a bad vote. Right, Zeriel?)

Further explanation of my vote? Let's see.

I voted in 591. My line of reasoning was this, as far as I can no reconstruct it.

OAOW made an extremely bad vote, for a reason that anyone could have seen was a bad reason (Sorry OAOW, but it was a very poor vote.) But it wasn't the sort of vote that Nefarious Forces were likely to place, was it? Nefarious Forces have to be careful, because they know that every man's hand will be raised against them if they slip – even their own mates will join the baying pack. That early in the game, the best defence the Forces have against untimely demise is a moment's thought.


In general, though, "Scum would NEVER..." is poor reasoning. It's in Scum's best interests to be as unpredictable as possible, so I don't know that I agree with your reasoning.

Tom Scud
03-30-2010, 07:08 PM
Looking back over TexCat's posts, I still don't see a reason to switch off of her; that vote of peeker remains pretty egregious. And the fact that she's had nothing much to say since then (aside from an OMGUS vote of Skeezix) doesn't help much.

Two marks in her favor: (1) she was the first to claim an "evil" name (and is the only "evil" name claimant at the moment) and (2) she spotted Meeko's misspelling, which went a long way towards dispelling any suspicion of now-known Townie NAF. But still.

Freudian Slit
03-30-2010, 07:10 PM
NETA: I don't know what OaOW's motivations would be. The misspelling tactic is a weird road to go down for a scum, I'll admit. And it's not like OaOW is a noob who would do something odd or do an OMGUS vote. But honestly, I do think that trying to go down the misspelling path again is very anti town. It just makes absolutely no sense and it's way distracting.

Jimmy Chitwood
03-30-2010, 07:11 PM
I'm not going back and forth with you and wasting everybody's time, ed. I stated my reasons.

If you've got something better it would be absolutely swell if you'd out with it finally.

Tom Scud
03-30-2010, 07:21 PM
So how many players do we need to lynch for distracting you in anti-town ways, Freudian?

unvote TexCat
vote Freudian, vote magnet or no.

special ed
03-30-2010, 07:21 PM
In general, though, "Scum would NEVER..." is poor reasoning. It's in Scum's best interests to be as unpredictable as possible, so I don't know that I agree with your reasoning.

So, you argue that someone did something because they are Scum....and then when pointed out there's little Scum motivation to do so....your response is, well, just because they aren't Scum for my reason doesn't mean they aren't Scum is kinda foolish, no?

Freudian Slit
03-30-2010, 07:34 PM
Well, OK, granted we do have to find reason for people acting as they do. I just think you can't defend people by saying they can't be scum because scum would never do x.

Mahaloth
03-30-2010, 08:13 PM
So how many players do we need to lynch for distracting you in anti-town ways, Freudian?

unvote TexCat
vote Freudian, vote magnet or no.

Dude, Tom, what is with this vote? She points out anti-town behavior and you vote for her?

WTF?

Mahaloth
03-30-2010, 08:23 PM
I don't have a vote on record for the day and Tom's the first one to really ping me with his lame vote there, so I'm gonna lay one down.

Vote Tom Scud

Tom Scud
03-30-2010, 08:27 PM
Dude, Tom, what is with this vote? She points out anti-town behavior and you vote for her?

WTF?

Well, let's see. Yesterday, she spends all day going ... oh peeker is anti-town and confusing, but I don't think he's scum, so I won't vote for him... but then she finds a reason to vote for him. Lo and behold, peeker is Town.

Then she starts off the day voting Meeko on fairly specious grounds, and draws a couple votes for it.

Then as soon as a wagon starts on someone else, she's right there. And conveniently neglects to mention that her vote pushes her out of the vote lead, while we're at it. And her justification is some vague waffle about anti-town.

This looks distinctively opportunistic to me.

NETA (and on preview I see you've voted me. Whatevs.)

Tom Scud
03-30-2010, 08:28 PM
Bleah. NETA "distinctly opportunistic". (Stupid 60 second rule)

Zeriel
03-30-2010, 08:32 PM
Also, zeriel, why are you so concerned with me making a general comment that only pointed to you, and yet you've never brought up OAOW making a generalization that only pointed to Meeko? This is another reason why I think your vote on me essentially boils down to OMGUS.

I'll be quite happy voting for OAOW, you just happened to be the one I spotted first.

As for Tom, his slip is independent of yours, and regardless of how you flip, he's gonna get my vote eventually too.

Drain Bead
03-30-2010, 08:36 PM
I'm not sure if I should be subbed out--I have the ability to read and post, but my head is totally not in the game. I can't even remember who I ended the day voting for yesterDay.

Freudian Slit
03-30-2010, 08:38 PM
Well, let's see. Yesterday, she spends all day going ... oh peeker is anti-town and confusing, but I don't think he's scum, so I won't vote for him... but then she finds a reason to vote for him. Lo and behold, peeker is Town.

Then she starts off the day voting Meeko on fairly specious grounds, and draws a couple votes for it.

Then as soon as a wagon starts on someone else, she's right there. And conveniently neglects to mention that her vote pushes her out of the vote lead, while we're at it. And her justification is some vague waffle about anti-town.

This looks distinctively opportunistic to me.

NETA (and on preview I see you've voted me. Whatevs.)

Well, I genuinely thought that Chronos made a good argument for voting for peeker. And he IS anti town in every game he plays in. You know that.

I don't think my vote for Meeko was specious. His defense of Kelly was specious to my mind.

I changed my vote because OaOW seemed a LOT scummier, and because it wasn't likely my vote for Meeko was going to make any headway. I'm still keeping my eye on him, but for now, I'm going with someone who pings me more.

special ed
03-30-2010, 08:55 PM
Hey, everyone.

Any opinions on what Tom is pushing against Freudian?

Freudian does seem to be going from target to target with weak cases and poor reasoning.

Freudian Slit
03-30-2010, 09:38 PM
special ed, I voted for red and then I changed to peeker. Today I voted for meeko and then one and only. I don't know that that's jumping, but isn't it better that I vote for whom I think is scummiest rather than just staying put for the sake of looking less suspect? Besides, other people have voted for those people. Why are you only calling me out for having a "weak" case?

TexCat
03-30-2010, 09:45 PM
Tom and Jimmy have both been pinging me. Tom, I think may be just OMGUS pinging. Although the night thread slip could very well be a real slip. Jimmy has been pinging me since he did not agree with the name claim, was reluctant to tell us his name, and was one of the last to do so. I also do not like his vote on Wanderers. I find the death of NAF interesting. Why would scum shoot in that direction? Maybe one of the misspelled brotherhood is scum and wanted to confirm that misspellings were not a data point? I don't find anything in Wanderers' post particularly scummy. He is merely speculating on NAF's death, and naturally his speculation would wander to his retracted vote on NAF. Is he trying to point to Meeko being scum, and if so, why didn't he join Freudian in a Meeko vote?

I'm not sure what to make of Freudian. Her behavior does look a lot like scum trying to start a bandwagon. But she pointed out Tom's slip and so I don't think both Tom and Freudian are scum, and Tom's been pinging me, so I'm willing to give Freudian the benefit of the doubt for the moment. Hell, I don't know, I could very well be wrong about everybody.

Vote: Jimmy Chitwood
for not wanting to name claim and for his vote on Wanderers on reasoning that was suspicious.

Rysto
03-30-2010, 10:05 PM
Hey, everyone.

Any opinions on what Tom is pushing against Freudian?

Freudian does seem to be going from target to target with weak cases and poor reasoning.

Tom? I've been after Freudian for this since Day One!

Jimmy Chitwood
03-30-2010, 10:05 PM
Good, good.

Freudian Slit
03-30-2010, 10:07 PM
Tom? I've been after Freudian for this since Day One!

But again, I wasn't the only person on those people. On day one I voted for Red and peeker. I don't remember if anyone else was pro voting red, but chronos voted for peeker. He started that case. Was he suspect? Or just me?

special ed
03-30-2010, 10:16 PM
special ed, I voted for red and then I changed to peeker. Today I voted for meeko and then one and only. I don't know that that's jumping, but isn't it better that I vote for whom I think is scummiest rather than just staying put for the sake of looking less suspect? Besides, other people have voted for those people. Why are you only calling me out for having a "weak" case?

I'm interested in what people think about the case against you. I guess I wasn't really thinking about asking you for your reaction, but I appreciate your thoughts

I do believe your reasoning has been weak for your votes, but I'm not necessarily holding that against you.

special ed
03-30-2010, 10:35 PM
But again, I wasn't the only person on those people. On day one I voted for Red and peeker. I don't remember if anyone else was pro voting red, but chronos voted for peeker. He started that case. Was he suspect? Or just me?



If i had to venture a guess as to other people's reasons for suspecting you more than other people who have voted in the same fashion as you, it would be because of this:

Chronos, my bad. It pretty much is a vanilla claim. I guess I just figured that since this game is so cryptic, we might as well be up front. Plus, I figured it's not like I was giving away special info I did have--like giving a away a power role would be bad.

I also think that voting for TexCat for voting for peeker is weird. He genuinely is the most scummy person but then again he's ALWAYS the most scummy person. Not to be totally meta, but

vote red skeeviz

That actually makes a lot of sense to me. It also explains why he was so vague. And the Elizabeth Berkeley photo--if he got the sense that other scum was NOT posting their real IDs, he could play coy and act like it was just a game, he was just playing around--see, he posted a pic of the chick in Showgirls. Why are you taking this so seriously? But since there were other "evil" roles, he could be all, "Yeah, that's my role, wtf? How is that not obvious! fsalkfjsaf!"

So. unvote red

vote peeker



You can't really say that someone is scum every time they vote for you, dude. It smacks of OMGUS. Anyway, why is it that he's flawed, and yet the fact that you get votes all the time on day one doesn't mean that you as a player are flawed?

and then this:

It would be the Mormon. DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM!

So I'm assuming both our deaths were Town? I'm curious about what Rysto asks.

Anyway, I'll start off today with my vote.

Vote Meeko

Why? For your justification that Kelly due to the numbers couldn't be scum again.



<in response to OAOW>

WTF? You make this whole case about the misspellings and yet can't be bothered to figure out who is and who isn't misspelled? Why do I feel like this whole misspelling thing is so much smoke and mirrors? I thought the votes against you on day one were kind of misguided, but now I'm not so sure. This is weird.

And the vote on jimmy--I can't figure it out. It reads like so much OMGUS you suck, to me.

unvote meeko

Vote One and Only Wanderers

Now, on the surface, it just looks like 4 weak votes (and, again, weak isn't necessarily a scummy thing on Days 1 & 2)

However, the vote on Red almost immediately followed TexCat's vote on red. and put Red in the lead over Oredigger, OAOW, peeker and TexCat.
The switch to peeker later pushed him into the lead over Texcat (when peeker had momentum and red obviously had none).

ToDay, the early vote on Meeko might be viewed as opportunistic. It didn't get any traction either. And when Jimmy voted for OAOW, you were quick to support it and after Oredigger bought in, you added your vote. It pushed Oredigger into the lead over you and Texcat and Zeriel.

Then, later, when MHaye questioned the very basis of your suspicion of OAOW, your response was basically, 'OK, my reasoning for voting OAOW may be bad, but that doesn't mean he's Town' Hardly a resounding support for your vote, because it also doesn't mean OAOW is any more likely to be Scum.

special ed
03-30-2010, 10:49 PM
NETA
ToDay, the early vote on Meeko might be viewed as opportunistic. It didn't get any traction either. And when Jimmy voted for OAOW, you were quick to support it and after Oredigger bought in, you added your vote. It pushed Oredigger* into the lead over you and Texcat and Zeriel.

*Oredigger should read OAOW

Meeko
03-30-2010, 11:54 PM
Wow.

Wow wow.

You don't touch the game for nearly a day, and stuff happens.

Hrm.

Still seems we have late stragglers coming in.

Gonna stay put until we get more voices coming in.

Chronos
03-31-2010, 12:26 AM
I was going to put off voting until after I had gotten caught up in my notes, but that hasn't happened yet, and it's Tuesday. So I'm just going to put a vote in now, and possibly change it later.

Vote GuiriEnEspana
For post 345 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12254260#post12254260), where he claims that peeker was the second to claim. I maintain that it was impossible for anybody other than peeker himself to actually know at the time that that was a claim, and that it looks to me like Guiri said that just to have a pretext for defending peeker. He later tries to backpedal that (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12260221#post12260221), after I expressed suspicion over it, saying that he thought it was a breadcrumb at first, but I don't think it's possible to see it as a breadcrumb, either, until peeker made his actual claim.

I'm also suspicious of Tom Scud, since that "overnight thread" thing really does look like it might have been a Scum slip, and I may well end up switching to him, but in the meanwhile, I want to get a little more daylight on Guiri.

Rysto
03-31-2010, 12:57 AM
But again, I wasn't the only person on those people. On day one I voted for Red and peeker. I don't remember if anyone else was pro voting red, but chronos voted for peeker. He started that case. Was he suspect? Or just me?

First of all, I'm suspicious that you've chosen to focus on my Day One vote, and in particular the peeker train. This was the kind of thing that I did as scum in Cecil Pond to deflect heat. Focus on a single part of the case against you, and a weak part of it. If you can manage to frame the debate to be around that point, then you stand a much better chance of talking your way out of trouble.

To answer your question, Chronos actually developed a case, whereas you bandwagoned, so even on that particular data point I find you more suspicious than him. I'm not saying that scum won't develop cases and lead bandwagons(heck, I did it twice in Cecil Pond), but I do find followers more suspicious than leaders. And I'm not just voting you because you voted for peeker. I'm voting for you because you have a history in this game of going after easy targets(whether they be vote leaders or players who tend to attract a lot of negative attention). There was also my Day One reasoning, which I'll get into in the morning because it's well past midnight.

One more quick thought before I go to bed: Does Freudian seem unusually defensive in this game to anybody else? She kind of does to me, but I worry that I'm seeing all of her posts through a "she's scummy" lens right now.

Freudian Slit
03-31-2010, 01:35 AM
I'm not focusing on your day one vote. I'm focusing on MY day one votes. Yes, peeker happened to be an easy target, but there was also a good reason for voting for him.

I also didn't bandwagon on Meeko--I built that case, and quite a few others thought that what he was doing was scummy. I don't think you can have it both ways--that I band wagon on easy targets and that I try to deflect suspicion to poor targets with my own, albeit poor, reasoning.

Obviously, I'm biased, but I see your voting for me as a bit of a stretch. And arguably, am I not an easy target, garnering votes typically early on?

GuiriEnEspaña
03-31-2010, 03:13 AM
I was going to put off voting until after I had gotten caught up in my notes, but that hasn't happened yet, and it's Tuesday. So I'm just going to put a vote in now, and possibly change it later.

Vote GuiriEnEspana
For post 345 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12254260#post12254260), where he claims that peeker was the second to claim. I maintain that it was impossible for anybody other than peeker himself to actually know at the time that that was a claim, and that it looks to me like Guiri said that just to have a pretext for defending peeker. He later tries to backpedal that (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12260221#post12260221), after I expressed suspicion over it, saying that he thought it was a breadcrumb at first, but I don't think it's possible to see it as a breadcrumb, either, until peeker made his actual claim.

@ Chronos, I was absent for 2 days and read the thread before posting. Peeker had made the case that his first post was his "claim" and that his second post was a clarification that the first post referred to his character in this game as it became apparent no-one had understood this was his intention. My point in #345 was that at the time of Peeker's first post, call it a claim, a "claim", a breadcrumb or a random youtube video, there was no standard format for name claiming, Special Ed had posted his PM and Meeko had earlier hinted that he was a "surreal artist" but not given his name. In light of these two precedents, I could understand Peeker being imaginative (and yes, quite unclear) about how he intended to communicate his character and, with his follow-up clarification post, I accepted this as his claim. At the specific time of his first post, I agree that no-one, except possibly a player expecting someone else to claim "Wicked Witch of the West" could possibly have interpreted the first post as a claim but the second post made it clear that this was Peeker's intention. To put it simply, I understood and accepted Peeker's explanation, did not see it as helping scum in any way, and said this in the thread when giving my opinion on the case against him. I'm not sure what's scummy or suspicious about this.

When you clarified Special Ed's case you introduced a new scenario and additional theories on why Peeker may have claimed in the manner he did. I found your theory plausible but offered a counter theory, again in light of further discussion, further explanations from Peeker and further developments in the game. My premise was the same, I could not see a pro-scum motivation for claiming in the manner he did based on my interpretation but I could understand your alternative case. I also gave an example from a previous game where Peeker attempted to communicate that he'd been blocked through a SpongeBob video. Again, I'm not sure what's scummy about giving alternative readings. I believe Storyteller had pretty much the same idea that I had and even Special Ed had agreed that his play could be interpreted as a breadcrumb follow-up with a clarification - although there was no obvious reason why Peeker would feel the need to breadcrumb his role, especially as we now know he was Town.

I hope this clarifies my stance on the issue.

One And Only Wanderers
03-31-2010, 03:50 AM
I'm thinking I could be a good lynch for today guys. A quick wagon built up on me spuriously yesterday, and here we are again today. A lynch will nail down my alignment conclusively and you can then work with the info you have.



Jimmy - just because I didn't notice a smudge on me until the next day does not absolve you of said smudge. As far as I can see, you still haven't addressed it....

special ed
03-31-2010, 07:47 AM
I'm thinking I could be a good lynch for today guys. A quick wagon built up on me spuriously yesterday, and here we are again today. A lynch will nail down my alignment conclusively and you can then work with the info you have.



Jimmy - just because I didn't notice a smudge on me until the next day does not absolve you of said smudge. As far as I can see, you still haven't addressed it....


um....what?

GuiriEnEspaña
03-31-2010, 08:03 AM
My thoughts on the OaOW bandwagon:
- Jimmy's vote seems an appropriate reaction to OaOW's vote
- Freudian and Zeriel both comment on the weakness of OaOW's vote but don't vote him. Zeriel adds to the case against him by reminding OaOW that in post #401 he said he was going to re-read. Why didn't he catch Jimmy's supposed smudge then and not 350 posts later.
- Oredigger's finds two solid data points make a good case and votes
- Zeriel notes that OaOW seems to have opportunistically used the smudge as a motivation to vote Jimmy as a response to the pressure received - but no vote
- Freudian then votes for voting NAF's typo and the weak vote on Jimmy
- Special Ed is pinged by Jimmy's vote on OaOW which started the bandwagon
- MHaye thinks OaOW's vote on NAF is an indication of his towniness
- Special Ed understands Jimmy's case against OaOW but doesn't see the scum motivation. Asks other voters to explain their reasoning.

I don't find either the vote on NAF for the typo, the theory on why NAF was killed or the vote on Jimmy as particularly indicative of scummy behavior. Of all his posts (see spoilered Wow), only the latest one pings me somewhat:
Jimmy - just because I didn't notice a smudge on me until the next day does not absolve you of said smudge. As far as I can see, you still haven't addressed it....
As Zeriel mentioned, in post #401 OaOW said he was doing a re-read, didn't he notice the smudge then? It seems convenient that he just happened to find that smudge when under pressure from Jimmy. Of course he may not have got around to doing the re-read... I don't know if his offer of self-sacrifice in the name of gaining information is pro or anti-town. I don't know.
#126 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12243703&postcount=126) Confirms PM, notes that he doesn't have a profession but a description
#179 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12244900&postcount=179) Notes the typo in NAF's claim, votes him. Quotes own PM (Fu Mingxia (Olympic Gold Medalist)
#181 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12244978&postcount=181) Asks Chronos why he hasn't quoted his PM.
#186 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12245454&postcount=186) In response to vote from Jimmy, defends that Chronos simply stood out from the crowd by not quoting, accepts it is not a strong case.
#222 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12246259&postcount=222) In response to second vote from Meeko, expects to be lynched on Day1, curious about attention he's got for his admittedly weak vote.
#226 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12247170&postcount=226) In response to Chronos, suspects a bandwagon is building up against him.
#288 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12251673&postcount=288) Unvotes as the typos appears to be a null tell.
#326 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12252757&postcount=326) In response to Peeker, alignment in previous games has no effect on current game, states that he is town.
#401 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12256708&postcount=401) Admits being lost and needs to re-read.
#404 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12256802&postcount=404) Agrees with NAF about little information to be gained from a Peeker lynch. Admits his playstlye makes the game hard to follow but he adds value.
#490 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12261225&postcount=490) To Meeko, explains reasons for initial vote on NAF and that his usual MO is agressively going after slips. Comments on Meeko's fallacy about vote transfer.
#570 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12265128&postcount=570) In response to Zeriel's vote on Drain, does not see smudge or hidden agenda and proceeds to vote Zeriel.
#643 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12268872&postcount=643) Fluff about companion thread.
#682 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12275503&postcount=682) Wonders why scum killed NAF, suggests theory on clearing "misspelled brotherhood" from suspicion.
#684 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12275690&postcount=684) In response to poke from me about being sure NAF was the scum-kill, explains that it was an assumption.
#714 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12278283&postcount=714) To Jimmy about interpretation of NAF's death, didn't go back to check who the brotherhood was. Is still interested in the choice of NAF on night 1.
#722 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12279229&postcount=722) Comment on Meeko sounding like Elmo. Re-explains theory on choice of NAF to Freudian.
#751 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12283183&postcount=751) Votes Jimmy based on smudge from Day1.
(#757 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12283682&postcount=757) Jimmy votes OaOW)
(#760 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12284218&postcount=760) OreDigger votes OaOW - for vote on Jimmy)
(#763 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12284650&postcount=763) Freudian votes OaOW - OMGUS vote for OMGUS vote)
#807 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12286583&postcount=807) OaOW Similar to #222 above, expects to be lynched. Thinks his lynch could generate information. Responds to Jimmy about delay in picking up on smudge, hadn't noticed it before.

As for the case on Freudian, I am really quite pinged by her change from defending OaOW for voting NAF for the typo to then voting OaOW for voting NAF for the typo, admittedly among other things but she gave the mispelling quite a lot of emphasis is all posts related to her Day2 vote on OaOW. To go from "I thought that pointing out the typos didn't seem scummy"" to "But honestly, I do think that trying to go down the misspelling path again is very anti town." is weird.

#81 Confirms PM
#108 Suspicious of anyone cagey about claiming as scum won't have prepared fake roles
#123 In favor of mass claim, mentions her role shows race, not a profession
#128 Still in favor of claim, PM shows name and race
#154 Second to (explicitly) claim, claims Patroclus (Greek - fictional)
#172 To Meeko re: not claiming in last game
#210 To Peeker, questions use of "chose" for name claim
#214 To Peeker in response, defends right to analyze others' posts. Wonders if the fictional charactes mean anything
#219 & #227 & #231 Asks Peeker for his "role", gets poked by Special Ed for asking for "role" and not "name"
#259 Wonders how noobish Kelly really is. States "I thought that pointing out the typos didn't seem scummy"
#262 Thinks OaOW's voters are scummier than he is
#264 & #266 & #270 Defends OaOW: "Well, I don't think the vote was unjustified when he first made it."
#270 Another question about signification of fictional roles, claims that she has no additional roles or powers
#271 Changes point of view on OaOW, "he could be scum jumping on an easy reason to vote for a lynch"
#318 & #320 Peeker is being himself, anti-town play, easy for scum or town to vote him
#337 to Peeker, claim wasn't clear
#364 Confirms vanilla claim. Votes Red for voting Tex for voting Peeker for being cagey about claim
#370 Doesn't understand what's bad about an unprovoked vanilla claim
#376 Now understands reasoning
#417 What's FCS?
#433 To Peeker on use of videos for communication
#435 Best if Peeker stopped posting random crap
#457 Doesn't understand Peeker
#473 Question to mod about day end
#478 Votes Peeker based on Chronos' case
#492 To Peeker on claim of town, we're all town
#499 To Meeko, why is Kelly more likely to be scum?
#501 Understands Meeko meant less likely
#513 To Peeker, playstyle draws votes from both town and scum
#514 Comment to Meeko on probabilities
#517 FOS on Meeko for defense of Kelly
#520 & #523 To Meeko re: pinging NAF
#558 To Story, clarifies reason for vote on Peeker - based on Chronos' case
#575 To Peeker, a vote on a town player doesn't mean the voter is scum
#578 Re: OaOW, still doesn't see vote on NAF as a scum tell
#585 Fluff
#592 to Story re-clarifing reason for voting Peeker
#603 Admits vote on Red was poor
#618-#639 fluff
#651 Votes Meeko for bad math
#654-#699 Defends vote
#708 & #720 Comments on Meeko's use of 3rd person
#720 & #758 Leaning towards OaOW, "the fact that you keep harping on the misspelling is odd to me. "
#763 Votes OaOW " I thought the votes against you on day one were kind of misguided, but now I'm not so sure. This is weird."
(got tired)

Meeko
03-31-2010, 09:24 AM
I'm also suspicious of Tom Scud, since that "overnight thread" thing really does look like it might have been a Scum slip, and I may well end up switching to him, but in the meanwhile, I want to get a little more daylight on Guiri.

Assume Scud is Scum. Will you then vote Drain the next day? Given that he mentions her by name?

--
--
--

I don't know, but as far as I can tell, I wouldn't be able to point out a Scummy Ed from a Townie Ed, based on his interactions with me. If a Scummy Ed was attacking me, how exactly would I know it? Wouldn't it look to me as Ed's default?

Oredigger77
03-31-2010, 10:36 AM
I don't ind OAOW's ponderings terribly suspicious. And I'm finding the fact that you do suspicious.
. . .
I'd like to add, that in attacking OAOW's ponderings about NAF's death and how incomplete they are, what's the Scum motivation here?
My problem with a single data point suggestion for why scum would do something is twofold if other people take it and run with it is easy for the other options to be left behind and in this case it smudges another player without even naming them.

In general if someone mentions a reason for something to happen people will tend to comment on it if doesn’t seem to take much for that thought to become the town’s thoughts on why an action occurred. It also allows plausible deniability because it was only a thought of why something could happen. It seems to me like a good way to influence the towns thinking while keeping your hands clean. In this case Guri jumped in posted a more comprehensive list which I think mitigated this problem but it doesn’t alleviate OAOW’s attempt.

Secondly even is OAOW had been correct and there had been more people them Meeko in the ‘brotherhood of the misspelling’ it created a list of people who could be scum but didn’t bother to name them, which is pretty much a perfect smudge. In this case it was only on one person who was involved so people picked up on it. Again I see this as an attempt to direct the town’s thinking which tends to be something the scum want to do more than the town.

The vote on Jimmy is weak I found a reason to vote for Jimmy in his early analysis of OAOW’s because I thought it was mischaracterization, turns out it wasn’t, but going after Jimmy for things he has done toDay would at least have some basis. Going back on a second or third read through and looking for a single post to paint someone as scum is bad. I think it is pretty blatantly trying to get the data to fit a conclusion which is again an attempt to manipulate us.

While the FS case is looking like it may come together as a better case I think I’m comfortable voting for OAOW. I will review FS’s posts and see if I see what everyone else is looking at but I think two obvious attempts to manipulate the town are a good enough reason for a vote.

special ed
03-31-2010, 11:53 AM
My problem with a single data point suggestion for why scum would do something is twofold if other people take it and run with it is easy for the other options to be left behind and in this case it smudges another player without even naming them.

In general if someone mentions a reason for something to happen people will tend to comment on it if doesn’t seem to take much for that thought to become the town’s thoughts on why an action occurred. It also allows plausible deniability because it was only a thought of why something could happen. It seems to me like a good way to influence the towns thinking while keeping your hands clean. In this case Guri jumped in posted a more comprehensive list which I think mitigated this problem but it doesn’t alleviate OAOW’s attempt.

Secondly even is OAOW had been correct and there had been more people them Meeko in the ‘brotherhood of the misspelling’ it created a list of people who could be scum but didn’t bother to name them, which is pretty much a perfect smudge. In this case it was only on one person who was involved so people picked up on it. Again I see this as an attempt to direct the town’s thinking which tends to be something the scum want to do more than the town.

The vote on Jimmy is weak I found a reason to vote for Jimmy in his early analysis of OAOW’s because I thought it was mischaracterization, turns out it wasn’t, but going after Jimmy for things he has done toDay would at least have some basis. Going back on a second or third read through and looking for a single post to paint someone as scum is bad. I think it is pretty blatantly trying to get the data to fit a conclusion which is again an attempt to manipulate us.

While the FS case is looking like it may come together as a better case I think I’m comfortable voting for OAOW. I will review FS’s posts and see if I see what everyone else is looking at but I think two obvious attempts to manipulate the town are a good enough reason for a vote.


OK, that makes sense. After reading this, I would probably characterize the scum motivation as trying to appear as if they are participating. I really didn't get all of that from your reasoning when you voted.

When you made your vote, what is it you think he was trying to hide?

And I got even less from freudian's vote. Which oddly, included this:

WTF? You make this whole case about the misspellings and yet can't be bothered to figure out who is and who isn't misspelled? Why do I feel like this whole misspelling thing is so much smoke and mirrors? I thought the votes against you on day one were kind of misguided, but now I'm not so sure. This is weird.

And the vote on jimmy--I can't figure it out. It reads like so much OMGUS you suck, to me.

which was later followed up by her defending herself with this:

But again, I wasn't the only person on those people. On day one I voted for Red and peeker. I don't remember if anyone else was pro voting red, but chronos voted for peeker. He started that case. Was he suspect? Or just me?

which is odd, since she "made a case against" Red and yet "Can't be bothered to figure out" who was voting for him..

Jimmy Chitwood
03-31-2010, 11:55 AM
Jimmy - just because I didn't notice a smudge on me until the next day does not absolve you of said smudge. As far as I can see, you still haven't addressed it....

Sure I did, but I'll do so again if you like. It wasn't a "smudge" unless smudge is an accurate term to describe a direct criticism of a perceived anti-town behavior backed up by a vote. Chronos had already name claimed. You challenged him, asking why he hadn't actually quoted his PM: "any reason you haven't quoted yours? You just stated it." I said at the time that it was anti-town to demand, in the context of a universal name claim, a copy and paste of something more than a player's name, and voted based on it. I still believe that to be the case. We were claiming names, Chronos did so, and you implicitly accused him of withholding information even though nothing else had been requested.

When I referred back to it, I clarified that no, I hadn't voted for you simply for pointing out the typo, but reiterated that I suspected you might have been fishing for information that wouldn't hurt the scum and could hurt the town. And I had already voted you for it. If that's a smudge, then guilty as charged.

Now you tell me - why didn't you pick up on any of that during your re-read? What were you looking for that you were reading so closely that you picked up something on me that you consider vote-worthy, but that you had entirely missed previously? Did you find any of whatever you were looking for, provided that you were looking for something other than a reason to hang a vote on me? Because despite the apparent fine-toothedness of your review, you seem to have only come up with that one post and haven't commented on anything else. I have to say, given my early suspicions, you're making it way too easy to see everything you're doing as over the top scummy.

Chronos
03-31-2010, 12:00 PM
Quoth Meeko:Assume Scud is Scum. Will you then vote Drain the next day? Given that he mentions her by name? I don't see the reasoning there. How does a (hypothetically) proven Scum mentioning anyone by name imply anything about that person's alignment?

Mahaloth
03-31-2010, 12:11 PM
I'm thinking I could be a good lynch for today guys. A quick wagon built up on me spuriously yesterday, and here we are again today. A lynch will nail down my alignment conclusively and you can then work with the info you have.

Wow, really? You weren't pinging me until you said this. Yeesh, that is a pretty bold scum move if you are scum and you are more or less challenging us to vote you out and hoping we won't.

Hmm....

I'd feel to foolish to let you trick us with that move, so I'll oblige you with my vote. If you are town, you have seriously made a ridiculously foolish move and have hurt the rest of us town(if you get yourself killed here).

:sigh:

Hoping you are a bold scum and not a foolish townie, I will:

Unvote Tom

Vote OneandOnly

Am I wrong here, everyone? I can't believe I'm the first to call One on this move.

Oredigger77
03-31-2010, 12:16 PM
I don't think I phrased "he has something to hide" the best I could have. What I was going for is that he was trying to cover up his actions.

Take the OMGUS on Jimmy. It wasn't written as a straight OMGUS. OAOW went back and found a quote to justify his vote so he was hiding his OMGUS behind a justified vote. Same thing with the single reason for why the scum would kill NAF it looks like it's helping out by presenting the town with a possible scenario but I think it was trying to lead us into a single line of reasoning.

Meeko
03-31-2010, 12:46 PM
Quoth Meeko:I don't see the reasoning there. How does a (hypothetically) proven Scum mentioning anyone by name imply anything about that person's alignment?

IIRC, the "incriminating" evidendice by Scud was that he commented on Drain's argument from the ""overnight thread"". The way I see it, you can't call Scud guilty on this, without callind Drain guilty as well. -- That is, if the ""overnight thread"" is the scum thread, then Drain must have argument in the scum thread.

Hence Drain has access to scum thread, hence Drain is scum.

Wow, really? You weren't pinging me until you said this. Yeesh, that is a pretty bold scum move if you are scum and you are more or less challenging us to vote you out and hoping we won't.

Hoping you are a bold scum and not a foolish townie, I will:

Am I wrong here, everyone? I can't believe I'm the first to call One on this move.


Snipped. Maha, Help me out here, as a guy who has done his fair share of "last ditch" claiming, I don't see how One and Only is that far gone.

Isn't he basically pulling a Peeker here? Saying that 'Seriously, once I flip plankton town, you guys should look at the people who voted me.'

Right?

I don't see how the "Once I am gone, then you guys will see!" angle is any different this time around, coming from OAOW.

special ed
03-31-2010, 12:50 PM
Sure I did, but I'll do so again if you like. It wasn't a "smudge" unless smudge is an accurate term to describe a direct criticism of a perceived anti-town behavior backed up by a vote. Chronos had already name claimed. You challenged him, asking why he hadn't actually quoted his PM: "any reason you haven't quoted yours? You just stated it." I said at the time that it was anti-town to demand, in the context of a universal name claim, a copy and paste of something more than a player's name, and voted based on it. I still believe that to be the case. We were claiming names, Chronos did so, and you implicitly accused him of withholding information even though nothing else had been requested.

When I referred back to it, I clarified that no, I hadn't voted for you simply for pointing out the typo, but reiterated that I suspected you might have been fishing for information that wouldn't hurt the scum and could hurt the town. And I had already voted you for it. If that's a smudge, then guilty as charged.

Now you tell me - why didn't you pick up on any of that during your re-read? What were you looking for that you were reading so closely that you picked up something on me that you consider vote-worthy, but that you had entirely missed previously? Did you find any of whatever you were looking for, provided that you were looking for something other than a reason to hang a vote on me? Because despite the apparent fine-toothedness of your review, you seem to have only come up with that one post and haven't commented on anything else. I have to say, given my early suspicions, you're making it way too easy to see everything you're doing as over the top scummy.


This is more in-depth. By any chance, do you have popost numbers of things OAOW ignored when making the vote against you?

special ed
03-31-2010, 12:51 PM
Am I wrong here, everyone? I can't believe I'm the first to call One on this move.

well, I did give him a "um...what?" when I read it, didn't I?

Chronos
03-31-2010, 01:01 PM
IIRC, the "incriminating" evidendice by Scud was that he commented on Drain's argument from the ""overnight thread"". The way I see it, you can't call Scud guilty on this, without callind Drain guilty as well. -- That is, if the ""overnight thread"" is the scum thread, then Drain must have argument in the scum thread.That's not the way I see it. The comment that Drain made that Tom was commenting on was from this thread, and it wouldn't have made much sense for her to say it in the Scum thread even if she is Scum. The idea behind it being a "slip" would be that Scum Tom would be in the mindset of thinking of things that happened overnight being in the Scum overnight thread, even if they weren't.

And I haven't said anything about Wanderers' "lynch me" bit because it doesn't really have Town or Scum motivation. Whatever team he's on, it hurts his team: It's either an anti-Town move from a Townie, or a pro-town move from a Scum. It's a frustration tell, not an alignment tell (though I'm not sure why anyone would be so frustrated with over a day to go yet in the Day), and I don't see any way to tell whether he's a frustrated Scum or a frustrated Town.

storyteller0910
03-31-2010, 01:02 PM
Day Two in (sort of) brief:

Freudian starts us off with a vote for Meeko (651). Logic is that his “clearing” of Kelly on the basis of probability is flawed. I don’t necessarily agree that this is vote-worthy, but it’s not egregious. However, Rysto disagrees and votes for Freudian (655), arguing that if Meeko had known his reasoning was bad, he would have also known he couldn’t sneak bad reasoning past us.

I disagree with Rysto here. Suppose Meeko as Scum and Kelly as Town. A good gambit for Scum is always to find some reason to clear a Townie – that makes the Townie in question subtly favor you and doesn’t put you in a position to be spectacularly wrong. A hypothetical Scum Meeko could have seized on this argument, thinking it adequate for his purposes.

Except: Freudian seems invested in the idea that Meeko is doing this as Scum, trying to protect fellow Scum in Kelly (as she outlines at 660). But this is problematic, because why, then, go for Meeko but not Kelly. I know she only has one vote, but if the argument against Meeko (in her mind) hinges on Kelly-as-Scum, then the more reasonable approach would be to vote Kelly first. Right? Ping on Freudian. Meeko OMGUSes Freudian at this point; he puts a bunch of words in her mouth, by the way – saying that she said that he said (heh) that he would never vote for Kelly, which she never claimed that I can see. Anyway, two votes Freudian, one vote Meeko.

Now we get a string of ed-on-Meeko posts, which frankly, have become an utter non-tell for me. Could be anything.

Now Wanderers strikes up a discussion of why NAF was killed. His first major suggestion concerns the damned mis-spelling, and Jimmy Chitwood jumps on him for it at 703, but without voting (Jimmy basically thinks Wanderers’ approach is flawed and self-centered but not necessarily Scummy).

Tom Scud votes Texcat at 706. He thinks TexCat’s peeker vote was opportunistic, and I agree.

Zeriel votes Drain Bead, evidently for the same reason as Day One. This is a weird thing. I get where Zeriel is coming from, but both his proposed explanation and Drain Bead’s proffered explanation seem about equally likely. So another null tell, in my opinion. But Z also promulgates a bit of suspicion of Tom for his use of the term “overnight thread,” which is kind of silly, to me. Rysto, at 716, points out some problems with Zeriel’s approach. I agree with Rysto’s post here.

Oredigger votes for Jimmy. I don’t exactly understand why, but the vote is subsequently withdrawn. Moving on.

Toward the bottom of Page 15, we get a bit of Mahaloth, kind of urging everyone to participate:


It's Tuesday, folks. We really need to have a lot of people get in here and chime in with thoughts about what you are thinking and what we should do. Otherwise, we have nothing to base our votes on and this will lead to a weak vote, something scum would obviously want us to do.

Any thoughts are better than no thoughts.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think we have a ton of people laying low. It's anti-town.

I’m not a huge fan of posts like this – sort of rah! Rah! We need to do better, guys! – particularly when couched with that “Perhaps I’m wrong,” which is a nice way to duck away from conflict. Coupled with Mahaloth’s own agnosticism regarding voting (his major substantive post at this point is one where he suggests that Drain’s apparently general but in practice specific smudge of Zeriel could be an attempt to “stir disorder up by taking what one individual did and try to spread it out and make it sound like there is some kind of negative trend occurring” (even as Mahaloth himself is kind of trying to make it sound like there is some kind of negative trend occurring) and this sequence causes me to view Mahaloth with some suspicion.

More to come in a separate post.

storyteller0910
03-31-2010, 01:11 PM
Now, it should be noted that by the top of page 16, we don’t have a strong lynch leader. Everyone is milling about a bit, and votes have gone toward Freudian, Wanderers, and elsewhere.

Wanderers votes for Jimmy, a vote for misrepresentation that wasn’t really misrepresentation.

Jimmy said this:

For the record, even though I just confused myself while defending it, I would not have voted based on Wanderers' vote. I'm voting for him because I didn't think demanding a full copy-and-paste from someone who had already name-claimed was helpful.

Wanderers replied with this:

I had only asked Chronos why he hadn't quoted when making his claim.

I don’t think these two things are substantively different. Does anyone disagree?

Anyway, special ed questions Mahaloth about his posts (referred in my last post). He asks Mahaloth what he (Mahaloth) has been contributing, and Mahaloth replies:

Anything I can, specialed. There is little to comment on. Encouraging people to get out here and speak is certainly a good point and worth saying. Certainly better than bantering with Meeko again(still).

This bothers me quite a bit. First of all, there’s the “there is little to comment on.” By my count, no one has really done an in-depth look at the peeker lynch. Then we have the Freudian-Meeko thing and the Meeko-ed thing, Drain Bead’s smudge of Zeriel and Z’s response, Tom Scud’s “overnight” thing, Wanderers’ questions about why NAF was killed and the rising suspicion between Wanderers and Jimmy, and lots of smaller side-plots. If that constitutes “little to comment on,” what would meet the Mahaloth standard for “plenty to comment on?” Further, there’s the last line, which to be seems to be baiting ed.

And now, suddenly, the votes for Wanderers start coming. And fast. More on this in a third (and final) post, forthcoming presently.

Jimmy Chitwood
03-31-2010, 01:13 PM
This is more in-depth. By any chance, do you have popost numbers of things OAOW ignored when making the vote against you?

I'm not sure if he ignored it or what, to be honest. But way back when we actually already had the conversation about his Chronos claim thing (which was post 181), I started with:

Speaking of unjustified... Seems obvious enough to me that there's very good reason not to go around pushing everyone for a complete C&P of his or her role, but it seems to be the case that I'm in the minority there.

...

I don't see what good it does the town to push Chronos on that particular point, especially since it ain't hard to fabricate the vanilla role that's already been provided. I can, however, see the anti-town motivation behind sniffing it out.

everyone else had quoted. ppl not doing so already stand out without me saying anything. Fishing? If I were scum I would know for sure Chronos' alignment and if he is tpown he would already be noted. I had no need to say anything in thread. Apart from... I'm not scum, i'm trying to find scum. Surely you're not expecting a strong case on anyone this early in the game, and yet we still have to play. So I look for any deviations i can.


And obviously you didn't need to post anything either way, but you did, and having done so the question is why you might have done that. It's easy for me to believe that on day one the motivation to jump at Chronos' relative pithiness could come from a scum sensing that he can sniff out role information. Like you say, it's far from a smoking gun but hey, day one.

Then he didn't say anything until 222 (speaking of which, does this approach look familiar, Mahaloth?:

cool. looking good for my standard day one lynch. at least i generate some data points!

Not that i'm giving up however. Seriously. Weak votes are the norm day one. Why so much splash for mine?

Then, going back and forth with Freudian, I said the thing that Wanderers is now bothered by:

For the record, even though I just confused myself while defending it, I would not have voted based on Wanderers' vote. I'm voting for him because I didn't think demanding a full copy-and-paste from someone who had already name-claimed was helpful.

But Wanderers' next post was just an unvote, 288, and he hadn't addressed any of this until just now. It seems to me like I described my reasons in nearly identical language each time, and Wanderers responded already to my "pushing for a complete C&P." But my "demanding a full copy-and-paste" is what he's voting me for, so, hey. I feel like I don't really have a choice the way he's playing today.

Shit, story, did you just write all this out?

special ed
03-31-2010, 01:18 PM
Now, it should be noted that by the top of page 16, we don’t have a strong lynch leader.

This always confuses me.. How many pposts per page is standard? I have mine set to 200 posts per page, so I'm only up to page 5

sachertorte
03-31-2010, 01:19 PM
Meeko (0): Freudian Slit 651 763

Freudian Slit (3): Rysto 655, Meeko 666, Tom Scud 783

TexCat (0): Tom Scud 706 783

Drain Bead (1): Zeriel 715

Jimmy Chitwood (2): Oredigger 717 734, One And Only Wanderers 751, TexCat 795

One And Only Wanderers (4): Jimmy Chitwood 757, Oredigger77 760, Freudian Slit 763, Mahaloth 815

Tom Scud (0): Mahaloth 787 815

GuiriEnEspaña (1): Chronos 803

Rysto
03-31-2010, 01:19 PM
I disagree with Rysto here. Suppose Meeko as Scum and Kelly as Town. A good gambit for Scum is always to find some reason to clear a Townie – that makes the Townie in question subtly favor you and doesn’t put you in a position to be spectacularly wrong. A hypothetical Scum Meeko could have seized on this argument, thinking it adequate for his purposes.

I agree with this in principle, but in order to pull this off the argument has to pass cursory inspection. It doesn't work if half of the players are immediately going to shoot down the argument. I find it far, far more likely that Meeko didn't recognize that he was falling victim to the gambler's fallacy than he was intentionally using logic that he knew was invalid.

special ed
03-31-2010, 01:20 PM
Then he didn't say anything until 222 (speaking of which, does this approach look familiar, Mahaloth?:

Is there hidden meaning in this question? Does it refer to something in another game?

Freudian Slit
03-31-2010, 01:21 PM
And I got even less from freudian's vote. Which oddly, included this:



which was later followed up by her defending herself with this:



which is odd, since she "made a case against" Red and yet "Can't be bothered to figure out" who was voting for him..

Well, I voted for him yesterday and I don't remember who else voted for him, and I didn't really feel like going back and seeing because frankly I didn't think it was that important. It was just a one off vote and it doesn't really have that much relevance to what's going on today.

I understand that it's important to ensure that people aren't jumping on bandwagons, willy nilly, but I do notice that people are often urged to "vote early, vote often." Those who hold back are often considered scummy because it's like they don't want to commit, or put their money where their mouth is. I've been trying to avoid that--to actually make a stand. I understand that some of you may find the reasoning poor, but I don't think they are, and I do stand by my choices.

Rysto
03-31-2010, 01:21 PM
This always confuses me.. How many pposts per page is standard? I have mine set to 200 posts per page, so I'm only up to page 5
50 per page is the default.

TexCat (0): Tom Scud 706 783
Say what?

Rysto
03-31-2010, 01:22 PM
Hey, no fair editing behind my back.

Jimmy Chitwood
03-31-2010, 01:28 PM
Is there hidden meaning in this question? Does it refer to something in another game?

I knew that was a stupid thing to say off the cuff. Apologies. I'm referring to Mahaloth's vote at #851, since Wanderers said essentially the same thing the first time he got a couple votes that he said toDay -- oh, well, I guess I'm going to be lynched as always. At least you'll get the information.

Jimmy Chitwood
03-31-2010, 01:29 PM
Sorry, that's #815.

storyteller0910
03-31-2010, 01:32 PM
And finally, the Wanderers wagon.

At 757 Jimmy votes Wanderers. It’s a good vote, as far as I’m concerned. Jimmy points out that Wanderers seems to have just arbitrarily found a mid-Day-One post and seized on it, by happenstance right after Jimmy began expressing criticism of Wanderers’ play. I see a flaw – Townies as much as Scum get defensive when pressed, and it is very comforting to assume that someone coming after you is Scum, so you start looking for evidence that they might be. Taken alone, Wanderers’ weird cherry picking of a post by Jimmy thus isn’t really strong evidence, but it’s some evidence, and I don’t fault Jimmy for this vote.

Oredigger follows shortly, with this:

I was thinking about the OAOW's vote on my run and I really don't like it. When it's combined with his myopic version of why the scum would have killed NAF it looks like he has something to hide. I don't like that I'm flip-flopping sides of this argument but I don't see a case that is build on at least two solid data points like that.

OK. Vote’s a little “me-too” for my taste, frankly. Moving on. Freudian adds on, and her vote is fine, I guess. She also points out the following, regarding Zeriel:

Also, zeriel, why are you so concerned with me making a general comment that only pointed to you, and yet you've never brought up OAOW making a generalization that only pointed to Meeko? This is another reason why I think your vote on me essentially boils down to OMGUS.

That’s a good question. Z?

PS – in here, there is some Jimmy-ed sniping. I don’t know what it means yet, but if I don’t move past it for now I may never finish the analysis.

Tom Scud switches over to Freudian. His reasoning, once questioned, is this:

Well, let's see. Yesterday, she spends all day going ... oh peeker is anti-town and confusing, but I don't think he's scum, so I won't vote for him... but then she finds a reason to vote for him. Lo and behold, peeker is Town.

Then she starts off the day voting Meeko on fairly specious grounds, and draws a couple votes for it.

Then as soon as a wagon starts on someone else, she's right there. And conveniently neglects to mention that her vote pushes her out of the vote lead, while we're at it. And her justification is some vague waffle about anti-town.

I find this highly persuasive. In there, Mahaloth kind of defends Freudian. Gah. I really doubt that Mahaloth and Freudian are both Scum, and yet they are my top two candidates as this analysis winds down. Huh.

At 794, Freudian says:

special ed, I voted for red and then I changed to peeker. Today I voted for meeko and then one and only. I don't know that that's jumping, but isn't it better that I vote for whom I think is scummiest rather than just staying put for the sake of looking less suspect? Besides, other people have voted for those people. Why are you only calling me out for having a "weak" case?

Taking a quick stab at this: because sometimes the case against someone boils down to more than the sum of their actions. In your case, you have a pattern of pursuing soft targets, players who are generating suspicion in other quarters, and of jumping to those targets at times when you appear to be early on the wagon, but not early enough to get attention. Each individual move is justifiable – which is why, if you’re Scum, they’re good moves – but as a whole the picture looks odd.

Chronos comes in and votes for GuirienEspana. Money quote:

or post 345, where he claims that peeker was the second to claim. I maintain that it was impossible for anybody other than peeker himself to actually know at the time that that was a claim, and that it looks to me like Guiri said that just to have a pretext for defending peeker.

I think I have a blind spot here, but at least one player other than Guiri recognized what peeker did as a claim. Just saying. I continue to find Chronos suspicious.

Wanderers does that “maybe you should lynch me” thing (which I think qualifies, by the way, as a de facto claim of vanilla. If Wanderers claims a power role at some point I will be very suspicious). Mahaloth follows it up with an opportunistic vote.

OK.

---------

I am suspicious, to varying degrees, of four players in particular: Chronos, Freudian, Mahaloth, and yes, Wanderers.

For the moment, I am going to put down my strongest suspicion in vote form:

vote Mahaloth

However, I think we are generally doing ourselves a disservice by spreading our votes so thin. I intend to go back to Day One tonight and see if I can dig up anything else there. My vote very well may change as tomorrow approaches.

storyteller0910
03-31-2010, 01:36 PM
I agree with this in principle, but in order to pull this off the argument has to pass cursory inspection. It doesn't work if half of the players are immediately going to shoot down the argument. I find it far, far more likely that Meeko didn't recognize that he was falling victim to the gambler's fallacy than he was intentionally using logic that he knew was invalid.

I agree with you, and I don't think Meeko was thinking that his logic was invalid. I think his argument sounded good to him.

My point is that it doesn't really matter whether Meeko believed his own argument or not. What he clearly didn't do was put a ton of thought into it. It is entirely possible that Meeko just wanted to get on the record as defending someone (he knew to be) Town, so he grabbed at what he considered to be a suitably likely reason.

Meeko's been wildly paranoid the whole game, and suddenly, randomly, he finds a reason to declare someone off-limits for Day One?

So yeah, you know, add Meeko to my list, above, of folks who look questionable to me.

Red Skeezix
03-31-2010, 01:41 PM
ARG, I'm getting hella frustrated with this board, I haven't been able to log on to post and have only been able to connect to read occasionally.

(This post is going to be a bit rambly, as I've not had a chance to clarify some points or recheck my notes.)


There are several players who are mildly pinging me right now, but one who is pinging me hard, and that is freudian slit. To me it seems like she is weak voting every bandwagon that comes along. The only vote of hers that makes sense to me is the one for meeko, since if any other player had asserted that another player was town with such a handwave, instead of meeko, they'd be getting lynched pretty quick.

The votes in question:

Freudian votes Red Skeezix: For weirdness that I would vote for texcat for voting for peeker. 1. I didn't vote texcat for voting peeker, I voted texcat for voting anyone with such spurious reason. Also states that peeker is always the most suspicious player.

Freudian votes Peeker:For an attributed motivation. I don't see how what you suggested would be more likely for a scum peeker than peeker just making up a claim. Hell he could've just claimed last or claimed after texcat, who also had an evil (questionably so) name.

Freudian votes Meeko: Other players have regarded this as an easy vote. Or cherry-picking, I disagree with that sentiment.

Freudian votes OAOW: this looks like bandwagon jumping and the reasoning behind the vote is weak. Your initially stated reason is that his play seems weird to you and you are unsure what to make of it. Then you accuse him of OMGUS voting Jimmy, which maybe is true but it feels to me like you were scrabbling for a reason to get on a bandwagon.

vote Freudian Slit

Mahaloth
03-31-2010, 02:55 PM
Snipped. Maha, Help me out here, as a guy who has done his fair share of "last ditch" claiming, I don't see how One and Only is that far gone.

Isn't he basically pulling a Peeker here? Saying that 'Seriously, once I flip plankton town, you guys should look at the people who voted me.'


No, One is telling us that it is actually recommended to vote for him. I think it is a bold scum move to try to get us to not do it. If One is town, then that was a ridiculously foolish thing to think the rest of us town would let go by.

well, I did give him a "um...what?" when I read it, didn't I?

That's fair. I was second. :)

Not much to say about the vote on me from story. I did defend Freudian a bit after that lame vote placed on her. At least story gives a reason with his votes, which I can respect.

sachertorte
03-31-2010, 03:14 PM
Hey! Look at that. I have a meeting tomorrow at 2PM.
Maybe if you ask nicely, you can convince ShadowFacts to end the Day for you.

special ed
03-31-2010, 03:29 PM
Here's what I goot as votes. It looks like a 4-4 tie between OAOW and Freudian. Then, I've added a few comments about each player. (it's difficult playing from work. I can't concentrate as much as I'd like)

These are mostly notes for me for when I get home and can look things over.


Meeko (0): Freudian Slit 651 763

Freudian Slit (4): Rysto 655, Meeko 666, Tom Scud 783, Red Skeezix 835

TexCat (0): Tom Scud 706 783

Drain Bead (1): Zeriel 715

Jimmy Chitwood (2): Oredigger 717 734, One And Only Wanderers 751, TexCat 795

One And Only Wanderers (4): Jimmy Chitwood 757, Oredigger77 760, Freudian Slit 763, Mahaloth 815

Tom Scud (0): Mahaloth 787 815

GuiriEnEspaña (1): Chronos 803

Mahaloth (1): storyteller 833

Meeko (0): Meeko always appears suspicious to me. He always comes across as paranoid and filled with OMGUS. His odd defense of kelly still stands out and pings me.

Freudian Slit (4): She too often does things that are suspicous. Like Peeker and meeko, this does make it difficult to get a good read on her. He weak reasoning, apparently opportunistic voting

TexCat (0): meh, I haven't really noticed him too much. I do recall his name coming up as I investigated the vote switching by freudian, but there's nothing that stood out to me.

Drain Bead (1): There was the odd comment from Tom Scud, but I tend to accept the explanation...still it was an odd comment from someone who usually plays here (I mean Tom Scud)

Jimmy Chitwood (2): I admit I've been pinged a couple of times. His more recent explanation of how he arrived at his vote made much more sense to me. There was something that pinged me on Day 1 as well, I'll have to go back and check.

One And Only Wanderers (4): I really wasn't at all pinged by the comments regarding NAF's demise. It seemed like it could have easily been a Townie thinking out loud. However, I can see how some might interpret it as Scum plotting to get suspicion on Meeko (who already had a vote) without really putting their neck on the line. The self-sacrificing thing bothers me.

Tom Scud (0): meh

GuiriEnEspaña (1): I see Chronos' case. I just think it's weak.

Mahaloth (1): I was pinged twice by him toDay. Once for the "come on everyone, participate" comments, then again for jumping on the OAOW wagon late. He did give reasoning however, and it's not a thought that didn't occur to me. I like story's comments regarding him, but then, story always has good arguments.

Chronos is someone I'd like to look over when I get home as well.

At this point, I'm probably most suspicious of Mahaloth, OAOW, and Freudian (not necessarily in that order).

Jimmy Chitwood
03-31-2010, 04:10 PM
Jimmy Chitwood (2): I admit I've been pinged a couple of times. His more recent explanation of how he arrived at his vote made much more sense to me. There was something that pinged me on Day 1 as well, I'll have to go back and check.

#460. I said it felt to me like town was chasing its own tail, which you didn't like because only scum would know for sure.

Drain Bead
03-31-2010, 04:16 PM
Love how the only comment about me is based on something that someone ELSE said regarding me.

story, there was an answer to my question earlier--you probably missed it in there. zeriel basically said that my generalization was the one he noticed first. Thing is, I'm 95% sure that the OAOW/Meeko[/b] thing happened and was pointed out before I even made my FOS on zeriel...so I'm not particularly accepting that as a response--at best, it shows that zeriel is just as guilty of skimming as I am in this game. I'm not necessarily one who thinks that skimming is a definite scumtell, because I'll admit it--I skim regardless of what team I'm on--I don't have the time to read every single disjointed Meeko post for comprehension, for example. If I tried, I'd end up frustrated and with a lot less free time on my hand.

However, I do think zeriel is being a bit hypocritical here, and while I think it's probably more OMGUS than scummy, if OAOW turns up Scum, I'll definitely start to question zeriel's motivations a bit more.

MHaye
03-31-2010, 05:17 PM
Evening folks.

I'm sorry not to have looked in before, but I'm afraid I've been blindsided by a spring cold. Right now, I can't concentrate for the life of me.

I'll see how things go tomorrow. Maybe after a night's rest I'll be able to concentrate.

One And Only Wanderers
03-31-2010, 05:57 PM
Wow, really? You weren't pinging me until you said this. Yeesh, that is a pretty bold scum move if you are scum and you are more or less challenging us to vote you out and hoping we won't.

Hmm....

I'd feel to foolish to let you trick us with that move, so I'll oblige you with my vote. If you are town, you have seriously made a ridiculously foolish move and have hurt the rest of us town(if you get yourself killed here).

:sigh:

Hoping you are a bold scum and not a foolish townie, I will:

Unvote Tom

Vote OneandOnly

Am I wrong here, everyone? I can't believe I'm the first to call One on this move.


it's foolish townie. And just to clarify, when I said once i come up town, scrutinise the votes on me - I only mean the votes before that post. Fully understand the votes after it.

special ed
03-31-2010, 06:14 PM
Love how the only comment about me is based on something that someone ELSE said regarding me.

Well, that's because nothing you've done has really pinged me.....yet....

Drain Bead
03-31-2010, 06:25 PM
Well, that's because nothing you've done has really pinged me.....yet....

You said that you were making comments about each player. Mine wasn't about me at all, it was about Tom. You could have commented on the whole zeriel thing, but you chose not to. I find that interesting.

special ed
03-31-2010, 07:01 PM
You said that you were making comments about each player. Mine wasn't about me at all, it was about Tom. You could have commented on the whole zeriel thing, but you chose not to. I find that interesting.

OK, I'm sorry if it's a blow to your self-esteem. The only interesting thing about you so far is the interaction with Tom Scud...and, honestly, it's not that terribly interesting either. If you noticed, I was commenting on the people who had received votes (and I added Chronos in because a comment he made pinged me and I don't want to forget about him.


You know, though, I think you might be the first person who seems upset at me for not making more comments about them....:smack:

Tom Scud
03-31-2010, 07:01 PM
Ok, having reviewed OneandOnly's posts, and Jimmy's relevant posts, I understand why people find 751 (his Jimmy vote post) suspicious. I think I'm reinventing the wheel here, but in any case reviewing the tapes:


Whilst we're on it - any reason you haven't quoted yours? You just stated it.

I would not have voted based on Wanderers' vote. I'm voting for him because I didn't think demanding a full copy-and-paste from someone who had already name-claimed was helpful.


I had only asked Chronos why he hadn't quoted when making his claim. I never asked for a FULL claim and this is a blatant smudge to suggest I was.

Now, Jimmy did not say that One had asked for a Full claim, just a fully-copied-and-pasted name claim. And, though it was in the form of a question, the post to Chronos pretty clearly reads to me as an insinuation that failing to do a full (minus power role information) quote was a sign of scumminess.

Moving on, one thing that I don't think others have commented on popped up in his posts from today (684):

Someone killed him, and had a reason for doing so. if it was SK, we can still consider it.

Now, someone who was being careful about fact-checking would have noticed that there cannot be a Serial Killer in this game, because the mod has stated that there are no third parties. I actually see this as perversely supporting One's case with respect to his "brotherhood of misspelling" remark; the lack of third parties is something I wouldn't have expected to slip from a scum's mind any more than a town's (maybe it would even stick tighter), and I don't see any scum benefit from bringing up an (easily disproven) SK; thus we have some independent evidence supporting One's assertion that he is maybe a bit foggy on the details.

Anyway, I don't hate the One case. I don't think it's as good as the case on Freudian, but I'm not going to twist myself into pretzels to stop it either.

(Don't have time to go into it in detail, as this post got way longer than I wanted it to, but I also see story's case on Mahaloth as having merit; I'm a little leery of OMGUSing him for jumping to vote me as quickly as he did, but he and Freudian both jumped on the Peeker wagon in classic "me-too" form, and he's otherwise not stuck his neck out very far.)

GuiriEnEspaña
03-31-2010, 07:23 PM
I don't feel strongly on most of the case against OaOW but, as I mentioned in this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12286800&postcount=809), I was very pinged by his post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12286583&postcount=807) this morning. Both the opportunistic resurrection of a case against Jimmy, OMGUS or not, and the offer to be sacrificed are quite strange. His latest post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12288989&postcount=842) just adds more confusion but also makes me hesitate to vote him now.

I was about to vote Freudian Slit but I've just realized I misinterpreted her vote on OaOW and she didn't actually do the 360 on her view of his vote on NAF as I'd originally thought, sorry for the misrepresentation. I still maintain a healthy level of suspicion for the bandwagon voting but my intended case is now somewhat weakened. I'll need to review.

I fully intended to place a vote now and avoid repeating my Day1 last hour vote but again I'm not feeling comfortable with voting either of the vote leaders. I'll sleep on it and see if I'm inspired first thing in the morning.

Drain Bead
03-31-2010, 07:37 PM
OK, I'm sorry if it's a blow to your self-esteem. The only interesting thing about you so far is the interaction with Tom Scud...and, honestly, it's not that terribly interesting either. If you noticed, I was commenting on the people who had received votes (and I added Chronos in because a comment he made pinged me and I don't want to forget about him.


You know, though, I think you might be the first person who seems upset at me for not making more comments about them....:smack:

You were commenting on the people who received votes, yes...but totally ignored the reason I had that one vote to begin with. Which I find odd. It's not that I wanted more comments, I just don't understand why the comment you made about me was actually about Tom.

special ed
03-31-2010, 09:57 PM
You were commenting on the people who received votes, yes...but totally ignored the reason I had that one vote to begin with. Which I find odd. It's not that I wanted more comments, I just don't understand why the comment you made about me was actually about Tom.

OK, OK, fine, let's change that to say: I don't really find anything out of the ordinary with Drain. I can see a Townie making the mistake regarding Zeriel and the case against peeker. However, there was the odd comment from Tom Scud, but I tend to accept the explanation...still it was an odd comment from someone who usually plays here (I mean Tom Scud)

special ed
03-31-2010, 09:58 PM
OK, OK, fine, let's change that to say: I don't really find anything out of the ordinary with Drain. I can see a Townie making the mistake regarding Zeriel and the case against peeker. However, there was the odd comment from Tom Scud, but I tend to accept the explanation...still it was an odd comment from someone who usually plays here (I mean Tom Scud)

and, before Tom Scud complains about his "meh', let me edit that to say: meh, there was an odd comment about the overnight thread, but I'm willing to chalk that up to a mistake unless other data points present themselves.

Red Skeezix
03-31-2010, 10:51 PM
@story: I'm trying to understand your case against Mahaloth and a term has come up and I've seen it before, but I don't think I understand it like I thought I did or at least not how your using it. Opportunistic voting. I've always thought it meant scum jumping on a town player doing something superficially scummy. IE, I think that OAOW's vote on NAF for the spelling error was opportunistic, since I've seen my share of spelling mistakes in scum claims. Mahaloth's vote looks weakly motivated to me since I consider those kind of displays to be null, but it doesn't seem to fit in my definition of opportunistic. Care to explain what you mean here?

@texcat: Can you explain your vote for JC, more thoroughly? From where I stand it appears that you are mischaracterizing him in one of your points. You have said him being against a name claim is scummy. But when I looked back to find where he said that, I could only find him stating that he was against a name claim on the first day of the game, which I interpreted to mean, before anyone had a chance to weigh in on whether that was a good idea or not.

ShadowFacts
03-31-2010, 10:54 PM
Hey! Look at that. I have a meeting tomorrow at 2PM.
Maybe if you ask nicely, you can convince ShadowFacts to end the Day for you.

I can be "convinced" with french fries and tiramisu (not necessarily together). ;)

Meeko
04-01-2010, 12:04 AM
Would be interesting, if everyone that questions my Gamblers fallacy were scum. Low hanging fruit, and a reason to get rid of a townie.

One wonders how "Meeko" would look when he is on a hot streak.

-
-
-



For the LAST time ::

Yes, I Fell for Gambler's Fallacy.

Everyone who assumes that Kelly HAS To be scum is also falling victim to it.

I have no clue what alignment Kelly has.

BASED ON THIS GAME ALONE kelly has a better chance of being town.

TexCat
04-01-2010, 12:16 AM
@texcat: Can you explain your vote for JC, more thoroughly? From where I stand it appears that you are mischaracterizing him in one of your points. You have said him being against a name claim is scummy. But when I looked back to find where he said that, I could only find him stating that he was against a name claim on the first day of the game, which I interpreted to mean, before anyone had a chance to weigh in on whether that was a good idea or not.
Red, you no doubt are referring to this post:
For the record, deciding on and actually proceeding with a name claim on Friday night, and the first day of the first Day? I think I'm against that.[...]
and FTR, I don't know why you would be against the name claim, on the first day or the last day. I gives information to town, and doesn't seem to have been any help to the scum. BTW, at the time of Chitwood's post 13 or (14 if you count peeker) people had claimed, but Jimmy does not claim until this post 2 1/2 hours and 2 claims later...
Originally Posted by One And Only Wanderers
everyone else had quoted.A decision I don't think was for the best, but hardly a good reason to exacerbate the situation.
Here he questions OaOW, about asking Chronos about not quoting his claim. This seems like a niggling, little point to me. What difference does it make whether you put your claim in [ quote ] marks or not? I was suspicious of peeker for the same reason. Though, peeker spent a long time only claiming wicked witch of the west, without parentheses. I wasn't sure that what was in the parentheses made any difference. He could have been Wicked Witch of the West(commander of flying monkeys) or Wicked Witch of the West(leader of munchkins), or Brittany Spears (singer). The point is not that the information is going to make much difference to me as town, or to the scum, but WHY people are hiding the information. Neither Jimmy nor Chronos quoted their PM, and they did not include the Wiki link like I believe the rest of us did (though peeker's link was broken!). It just makes you wonder why. Chronos explained that he wanted to leave some doubt about whether he had a power role or not. I'm not sure I buy that explanation, but I guess it might make sense.

Jimmy continues
Yes, people do stand out if they don't post a full PM, which is why I don't like it, would prefer not to do so myself, and hope nobody else does, but that standing out is a symptom of (what is in my opinion) the problem, not a good reason to make an even bigger deal out of it.

And obviously you didn't need to post anything either way, but you did, and having done so the question is why you might have done that. It's easy for me to believe that on day one the motivation to jump at Chronos' relative pithiness could come from a scum sensing that he can sniff out role information. Like you say, it's far from a smoking gun but hey, day one.[...]
He admits that people stand out, but obviously doesn't think that it is scummy in any way. I just question why an honest townie would hide information from the town. What was he scared of?

GuiriEnEspaña
04-01-2010, 04:14 AM
Hopefully this will be early enough to allow for further discussion before the end of the Day.

My problem with a single data point suggestion for why scum would do something is twofold if other people take it and run with it is easy for the other options to be left behind and in this case it smudges another player without even naming them.
I've come up with an alternative reading for the single data point suggestion which adds another possible scum motivation. OaOW suggested, what I consider to be, one of the least likely reasons why NAF was killed. So, when I first read the post I wanted to jump in and point to (what I considered) the more obvious reason why scum killed NAF - he was too close to Kelly. However when typing up my reply I felt I may have been tricked into reacting this way - a scum OaOW may have been playing us to get exactly that response and then allow him and fellow scum to jump on a bandwagon to lynch Kelly without having been the ones to actually make the case. I rephrased my reply to include both options: Kelly is scum and scum want us to think Kelly is scum, as a way to avoid opening this door. A bit of WIFOM and probably a stretch of imagination but a further "what's the scum motivation"
No, One is telling us that it is actually recommended to vote for him. I think it is a bold scum move to try to get us to not do it. If One is town, then that was a ridiculously foolish thing to think the rest of us town would let go by.
While I'm a little suspicious of Mahaloth for other things ("So, was Witch Town (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12265919&postcount=616)" as opposed to "Was Witch scum?" considering he'd voted for Peeker, presumably because he thought Peeker was scum, not town, "Any thoughts are better than no thoughts (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12282952&postcount=749)" but "There is little to comment on (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12283207&postcount=753)" and his skimming in "I can't believe I'm the first to call One on this move. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12287547&postcount=815)" when both Special Ed (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12286784&postcount=808) and I (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12286800&postcount=809) had responded to it), I tend to agree with this.
it's foolish townie. And just to clarify, when I said once i come up town, scrutinise the votes on me - I only mean the votes before that post. Fully understand the votes after it.
And this sort of gives everyone who hasn't voted him yet, a suspicion-free invitation to vote, he's suggesting that scum and town alike can add themselves to the bandwagon against him but shouldn't be scrutinised for doing so. Another useful ploy if he's scum as it's likely none of his teammates were among the initial voters.

I really hope OaOW is scum as we cannot let a scum get away with this sort of play. This vote is open to scrutiny.

Vote One And Only Wanderers

KellyCriterion
04-01-2010, 05:18 AM
Sorry guys, I have too much going on right now:

Please remove me from the game

If it's too late to be removed, let me know, and I'll see if I can up my involvement.

Good luck to all.

Meeko
04-01-2010, 07:33 AM
And this sort of gives everyone who hasn't voted him yet, a suspicion-free invitation to vote, he's suggesting that scum and town alike can add themselves to the bandwagon against him but shouldn't be scrutinised for doing so. Another useful ploy if he's scum as it's likely none of his teammates were among the initial voters.

I really hope OaOW is scum as we cannot let a scum get away with this sort of play. This vote is open to scrutiny.



Holy Crap!

It's a WIFOM Boilermaker.

Wine Inside Wine In Front Of Me.

Wonder if Guiri is Scum getting a vote on scum so as not to stick out. But, why place a vote in language of a similar fashion as OAOW's "My vote will confirm me" type language.

Then again, would Guiri be so bold as to say all of this, as scum?

special ed
04-01-2010, 07:54 AM
For the LAST time ::

Yes, I Fell for Gambler's Fallacy.

You can say it repeatedly, but only you really knows if it's true.

Don't get upset because people don't believe you. It's how the game is played.


Everyone who assumes that Kelly HAS To be scum is also falling victim to it.

Can you point out a quote where anyone assumes that Kelly must be Scum? I know some people have indicated that it's possible

I have no clue what alignment Kelly has.

BASED ON THIS GAME ALONE kelly has a better chance of being town.

BASED ON THIS GAME ALONE meeko has a better chance of being town.

BASED ON THIS GAME ALONE special ed has a better chance of being town.

BASED ON THIS GAME ALONE drain bead has a better chance of being town.

BASED ON THIS GAME ALONE freudian slit has a better chance of being town.

BASED ON THIS GAME ALONE GuiriEnEspaña has a better chance of being town.


etc. We can say that of anyone.

The key is finding who is more likely than another player of being Scum...otherwise, we'll never vote for anyone.

Meeko
04-01-2010, 07:55 AM
This vote is open to scrutiny.



Isn't every vote in Mafia open to scrutiny?

Doesn't this go with out saying? Why then is there a knee-jerk reaction to add it in?

GuiriEnEspaña
04-01-2010, 08:08 AM
Wonder if Guiri is Scum getting a vote on scum so as not to stick out. [/B]
Your post made me smile.

This vote comes late in the Day. It pushes OaOW into the lead. It's prefaced with a hope that there'll be time left for discussion before Day end. It includes a partial case against another player. I don't think this is an attempt to not stick out.
Isn't every vote in Mafia open to scrutiny?

Doesn't this go with out saying? Why then is there a knee-jerk reaction to add it in?
Of course. How do you think I felt voting for a player who basically said that any further votes on him should not be scrutinised? Extremely hesitant. How can a town-aligned player actually make a vote on OaOW at this stage in the Day and after the way he has played without looking like an opportunistic scum? Pretty much impossible but I think it's the best place for my vote. Should I vote for someone else and avoid having this exact discussion? I'm not afraid of heat. Should I simply not vote or make another one-off? That would be anti-town under the circumstances. Or should I do what I think is in the best interests of town but make it clear that I certainly don't expect to cleared of suspicion and think that his ploy only helps scum? Yes.

special ed
04-01-2010, 08:12 AM
vote Freudian

for the vote switching, poor reasoning, and bandwagon-hopping.

Not the strongest of reasons. I'm still not quite comfortable voting for OAOW. I might be willing to vote for Mahaloth.

I'll check back from work, hopefully, as I think Day ends in less than 6 hours

Meeko
04-01-2010, 08:44 AM
Your post made me smile.



Don't pat me on the head, I don't want your applesauce pudding.

I would expect no less from someone wanting to continue it with me, and still appear neutral.


But, I would rather debate you, over other people who can't give something up.

MHaye
04-01-2010, 08:45 AM
BASED ON THIS GAME ALONE kelly has a better chance of being town."Better" is a word used when comparing two things, to indicate that one of the things compared is in some way superior to the other.

So the obvious question is "Better than who, exactly?"

Without an indication of what is being compared to Kelly's chance of being town in this game, that statement is meaningless.

It's also wrong, as Kelly's chance of being Town is :

No. of starting town-aligned roles / Total number of players.

Which is exactly the same as anyone else's.

Time to reread Day 2 and place a vote. I don't like the fact that the vote is currently tied at 5 apiece, but 5 hours is plenty of time for vote shifts.

Back later.

One And Only Wanderers
04-01-2010, 08:52 AM
Just in case it's not clear, I have already claimed fully. I have no further info to my role than what I quoted when name claiming.

Drain Bead
04-01-2010, 08:57 AM
Looks like ed's vote put us back into tie-land. If that's the case, big fat FOS in his direction for forcing a late tie.

I'll break it. vote OAOW

At the time, I see the case against him as being stronger than the case against Freudian, and I also see it leading to more information for us once we see what he is. And since I don't want a late tie, here's my vote.

One And Only Wanderers
04-01-2010, 09:07 AM
Looks like ed's vote put us back into tie-land. If that's the case, big fat FOS in his direction for forcing a late tie.

I'll break it. vote OAOW

At the time, I see the case against him as being stronger than the case against Freudian, and I also see it leading to more information for us once we see what he is. And since I don't want a late tie, here's my vote.

If you believe the player on leader -1 votes is the scummiest, why not place a vote there? For sure you should have good reasoning and evidence for why you are doing it, but it is not, by itself, scummy.

sachertorte
04-01-2010, 09:17 AM
Please remove me from the game


KellyCriterion's role has been offered to Cometothedarksidewehavecookies. If she accepts, she can post as soon as she is ready. If not, something else will happen.

sachertorte
04-01-2010, 09:26 AM
Meeko (0): Freudian Slit 651 763

Freudian Slit (5): Rysto 655, Meeko 666, Tom Scud 783, Red Skeezix 835, special ed 861

TexCat (0): Tom Scud 706 783

Drain Bead (1): Zeriel 715

Jimmy Chitwood (2): Oredigger 717 734, One And Only Wanderers 751, TexCat 795

One And Only Wanderers (6): Jimmy Chitwood 757, Oredigger77 760, Freudian Slit 763, Mahaloth 815, GuiriEnEspaña 855, Drain Bead 865

Tom Scud (0): Mahaloth 787 815

GuiriEnEspaña (1): Chronos 803

Mahaloth (1): storyteller0910 833

storyteller0910
04-01-2010, 09:27 AM
Looks like ed's vote put us back into tie-land. If that's the case, big fat FOS in his direction for forcing a late tie.

I'll break it. vote OAOW

At the time, I see the case against him as being stronger than the case against Freudian, and I also see it leading to more information for us once we see what he is. And since I don't want a late tie, here's my vote.

Near as I can tell, a late tie in this particular game isn't a particularly big problem. If there's a late tie, there will still be a lynch, and one that's under our control. In fact, your vote has not altered the situation, as Ed's vote, while putting us at a tie, didn't change the identity of the lynch-ee currently on the block (nor did yours).

And I can't see anything wrong with Ed voting for the player he thinks is scummy, whether or not it generates a tie. There are still four plus hours until the deadline - should everyone just stop voting at this point for anyone but the lynch leader, for fear of a tie?

Your FoS of Ed for this reason is highly suspect to me. My vote remains with Mahaloth, but you've shot up my list now.

storyteller0910
04-01-2010, 09:31 AM
Also, I hope sach won't mind if I post a cleaned-up and simplified vote count, for reference purposes:

One And Only Wanderers - (6): Jimmy Chitwood, Oredigger77, Freudian Slit, Mahaloth, GuiriEnEspaña, Drain Bead

Freudian Slit - (5): Rysto, Meeko, Tom Scud, Red Skeezix, special ed

Jimmy Chitwood - (2): Oredigger, One And Only Wanderers, TexCat

Drain Bead - (1): Zeriel

GuiriEnEspaña - (1): Chronos

Mahaloth - (1): storyteller0910

One And Only Wanderers
04-01-2010, 09:33 AM
On reflection, given that I know I am town, and I don't know what alignment Freudian is, I am going to tie the game again.

unvote

vote Freudian.

This also removes the possibility of me making a last second situation changing vote, which may make people happier in putting their votes where they wish, safe in the knowedge that the prospective lynchees cannot themselves break a tie in their own favour.

storyteller0910
04-01-2010, 09:39 AM
Wanderers -

Actually, that makes a good deal of sense.

Oredigger77
04-01-2010, 09:42 AM
Story you've got me on there voting twice. I unvoted Jimmy which is why there was a strike through my name.

Zeriel
04-01-2010, 09:44 AM
However, I do think zeriel is being a bit hypocritical here, and while I think it's probably more OMGUS than scummy, if OAOW turns up Scum, I'll definitely start to question zeriel's motivations a bit more.

That'd be pretty funny, considering I said earlier toDay (in post 762) that I'd end up voting for whichever of Tom, OaOW, or you was the vote leader before the bandwagon on OaOW had even really got off the ground.

That said,
unvote Drain Bead
vote One and Only Wanderers

Freudian Slit
04-01-2010, 09:47 AM
Wow. OK, at this point, I really don't know why I've garnered so many votes. I didn't really see my actions as jumping on bandwagons. I tried to explain my votes and honestly, I don't know what else to say. Hopefully, Wanderers will get it and not me, but yeah. Here's hoping I don't come back this afternoon to see myself lynched.

One And Only Wanderers
04-01-2010, 09:49 AM
Hmm everytime there's a tie, up votes a vote on me.

Conjecture time again

This is all based on my knowledge that I am town.

Due to mt own damn posts, I am now a tarnished and controversial figure. Scum know I am town, but would have no real interesr in getting rid fo me, as I will be drawing heat as long as I am alive for the rest of the game.


If however Freudian is scum, then the scum team have an interedt in me being lynched instead.

When I come up town and IF freudian comes up scum, there is a increased likeliness of zeriel and or drain being scum.

end conjecture

Tom Scud
04-01-2010, 09:50 AM
Checking in before I start doing the work they're paying me for.

Looks like we're now at 7 for OaOW (with the tiebreaker edge) and 6 for Freudian, with 3 one-offs and MHaye (and Kelly/cookies) not voting.

I'll note that TexCat's discussion of her Jimmy vote to some degree also addresses my criticism of her peeker vote & votes of her; I'll take another look later since it's not relevant to the current day's end.

One And Only Wanderers
04-01-2010, 09:51 AM
addition.

If freudian flips town also, then that would lessen the chances of zeriel and or drain being scum, as they would have no need to get involved in a controversial lynch race between 2 townies.

special ed
04-01-2010, 10:06 AM
Looks like ed's vote put us back into tie-land. If that's the case, big fat FOS in his direction for forcing a late tie.

I'll break it. vote OAOW

At the time, I see the case against him as being stronger than the case against Freudian, and I also see it leading to more information for us once we see what he is. And since I don't want a late tie, here's my vote.

*delete my rambling comment

on preview, what story said

TexCat
04-01-2010, 10:22 AM
unvote: Jimmy
vote: Freudian Slit

This is a reluctant vote on my part. I still think that the case against OaOW is only a scum fabrication, and I still think Jimmy looks scummy, but I am going to move my vote to what looks to me like the more suspicious of the two dogs in this race. If there is a scum bandwagon on OaOW, it looks like Freudian could easily be part of it.

One And Only Wanderers
04-01-2010, 10:25 AM
Shame I have the better goal difference!

Chronos
04-01-2010, 12:24 PM
With less than two hours left, I don't want to leave my vote on a one-off when there's a close race like this. On the one hand, I don't really see the case against Freudian, which looks to me like it mostly consists of "she voted and unvoted". What is it about her votes that makes them look any more opportunistic than any other votes?

On the other hand, I do see a case against Wanderers. First, if nothing else, there's the reason I voted for him yesterDay, jumping on the spelling mistake. Second, his speculation on the Scum's motives was at best not useful to Town. Third, as the one who started the ball rolling on the whole misspelling thing in the first place, I would have expected him to remember that there were exactly two misspellings.

Unvote GuiriEnEspaña
Vote One and Only Wanderers

It's not the best case in the world, and I would have preferred a lynch of Guiri or Tom Scud, but it doesn't look like either of those is going to happen toDay.

Chronos
04-01-2010, 12:31 PM
Incidentally, does it strike anyone else that the two people vying for the chopping block are the two people who have claimed vanilla? I'm not sure what (if anything) that means, but it does mean that we won't have Scum manipulating the vote to try to get a power role rather than a vanilla.

special ed
04-01-2010, 01:03 PM
On the one hand, I don't really see the case against Freudian, which looks to me like it mostly consists of "she voted and unvoted". What is it about her votes that makes them look any more opportunistic than any other votes?





I summarized it a bit in post 800 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12286006&postcount=800). Others have also added more than voting and unvoting. That post has the relevant quotes from Freudian in it, but here were my ending comments.




Now, on the surface, it just looks like 4 weak votes (and, again, weak isn't necessarily a scummy thing on Days 1 & 2)

However, the vote on Red almost immediately followed TexCat's vote on red. and put Red in the lead over Oredigger, OAOW, peeker and TexCat.
The switch to peeker later pushed him into the lead over Texcat (when peeker had momentum and red obviously had none).

ToDay, the early vote on Meeko might be viewed as opportunistic. It didn't get any traction either. And when Jimmy voted for OAOW, you were quick to support it and after Oredigger bought in, you added your vote. It pushed OAOW into the lead over you and Texcat and Zeriel.

Then, later, when MHaye questioned the very basis of your suspicion of OAOW, your response was basically, 'OK, my reasoning for voting OAOW may be bad, but that doesn't mean he's Town' Hardly a resounding support for your vote, because it also doesn't mean OAOW is any more likely to be Scum.

MHaye
04-01-2010, 01:29 PM
I've been rereading the Day to get a handle on which of the two lead candidates I feel is more likely to be an Infiltrator. As I start to write this, the vote stands at OAOW 8 to 7 for FS.

The votes against Freudian Slit mostly seem to centre on her poor voting history. She is perceived as jumping from one bandwagon to another. Exceptions to this general tone are Rysto, who voted because FS voted Meeko for a weak reason, OAOW who voted FS to attempt to save his own neck, a reasonable position whatever side you are on (except in circumstances that don't apply here) and TexCat, who believes FS is more likely to be an Infiltrator than OAOW is.

The votes against OAOW are for more varied reasons. They range from “This is only important now?” to “OAOW is gaming us” by challenging us to vote for him, to “I think OAOW is more likely to be an Infiltrator.”

Noteworthy (to me, anyway) are the different approaches our two candidates have when placing their votes for the other player.

FS placed hers quite early, in post 763. Her grounds are that the whole misspelling thing feels like smoke and mirrors, and the vote on Jimmy feels like OMGUS. This is actually unlikely in the strict sense because OAOW's vote came first.

That FS broke the tie in her favour is also a point to note, but not much of one iven that there were just under 46 hours to go, so she couldn't have hoped to hide it.

OAOW was quite ope about why he's voting for FS – it's because he knows his alignment and doesn't know FS's. (Of course, if OAOW is an Infiltrator he's lying, but then you'd expect him to.) This makes sense whatever your alignment, except in a few restricted situations.

FS's vote feels slightly spuriously justified, while OAOW's feels straightforward. And in this sort of circumstance I prefer straightforward and open, because a Mafiate tried to sneak a tiebreaking vote like this in in an early game, and I've always been on the watch-out for such shenanigans since. It's just enough to tip the balance of this particular pair of scales in her direction.

Vote Freudian Slit.

Tom Scud
04-01-2010, 01:36 PM
Wow. Knife's edge, again, with only story (and cookies, if she reads reallyreallyfast) uncommitted.

Chronos
04-01-2010, 01:50 PM
I've been rereading the Day to get a handle on which of the two lead candidates I feel is more likely to be an Infiltrator."Infiltrator"? Is this bleed-over from some other game?

ShadowFacts
04-01-2010, 02:07 PM
Hey Kids -

You know, being dead is not as bad as I thought! I get to float around, eavesdrop on everyone, and laugh at all the silly things you say. Yeah, there is that annoying, irresistible urge to count votes, but I guess that comes from being a politician. Speaking of which, here's the count at the end of Day Two:


One And Only Wanderers (8): Jimmy Chitwood 757, Oredigger77 760, Freudian Slit 763, Mahaloth 815, GuiriEnEspaña 855, Drain Bead 865, Zeriel 874, Chronos 882

Freudian Slit (8): Rysto 655, Meeko 666, Tom Scud 783, Red Skeezix 835, special ed 861, OAOW 871, TexCat 880, MHaye 885

Mahaloth (1): storyteller0910 833

Jimmy Chitwood (0): Oredigger 717 734, One And Only Wanderers 751 871, TexCat 795 880

Drain Bead (0): Zeriel 715 874

GuiriEnEspaña (0): Chronos 803 882

TexCat (0): Tom Scud 706 783

Tom Scud (0): Mahaloth 787 815

Meeko (0): Freudian Slit 651 763


One and Only Wanderers (Olympic Gold Medalist) is dead. Welcome to the ranks, big guy, and congrats on adding to your long career of biting it early:

One And Only Wanderers has the distinction of being the first mason claim on the SDMB:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8289344&postcount=477
which I believe was the first and last time One And Only Wanderers escaped the noose.

He was lynched on Day One in Conspiracy:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9038771&postcount=511

He was lynched on Day Two in You-Solve-It:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9316419&postcount=730

He lasted a bit longer in SDMB mafia, making it all the way to Day Four! But lynched nonetheless:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10494351&postcount=1363

He was lynched on Day One in Cecilvania:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9829494&postcount=575

Everyone loves lynching One And Only Wanderers!

Now, I'm not telling you to stop lynching One And Only Wanderers, but seriously, cut the guy some slack. At the very least, mix it up a bit and Nightkill the poor guy.

(Note: sach did all this awesome research, not me).

Zeriel
04-01-2010, 02:13 PM
That "Infiltrator" bit is kinda odd, isn't it. I've never heard that terminology before.

Granted, that makes it marginally less likely to mean anything as a potential slip, given that (as I understand it) this game isn't supposed to be terribly fancy.

Rysto
04-01-2010, 02:16 PM
One And Only Wanderers has the distinction of being the first mason claim on the SDMB:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8289344&postcount=477
which I believe was the first and last time One And Only Wanderers escaped the noose.
And that happened Day Two. If he hadn't had been a mason he probably would have been lynched.

MHaye
04-01-2010, 02:19 PM
No, it's from Sachertorte in this game.

Post 95 says You know the drill. Nefarious forces have infiltrated some random town. Root out this evil before they manage to take over!I started off using "nefarious forces" but "infiltrator" is a lot easier to write coherent English around.

One And Only Wanderers
04-01-2010, 02:36 PM
oooh I have history! Go Town!

Oredigger77
04-01-2010, 02:54 PM
Damn, I thought we had one.

I'll take a random drink to help dull the pain.

Chronos
04-01-2010, 03:17 PM
Wow, that link to the werewolf game is a hoot. Votes flying willy-nilly with no reasons attached to them, people debating whether to lynch a claimed Mason in a game known to have Masons, people attracting suspicion for being the first to vote in a Day... We've come a long way.

Rysto
04-01-2010, 03:33 PM
Wow, that link to the werewolf game is a hoot. Votes flying willy-nilly with no reasons attached to them, people debating whether to lynch a claimed Mason in a game known to have Masons, people attracting suspicion for being the first to vote in a Day... We've come a long way.

Wait until you get to Winston's claim. :D

Rysto
04-01-2010, 03:36 PM
NETA: You forgot "third vote is a scum tell".

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
04-01-2010, 03:47 PM
Howdy.

Disclaimers: This makes my 3rd simultaneous game. I have barely been skimming, and I kinda suck at reading stuff that I'm not directly involved in.

I have at least remembered to unsubscribe myself from the forbidden thread.

Freudian Slit
04-01-2010, 04:00 PM
Hey now, if you guys vote me off the island, I'm not gonna be able to make you any more drinks! Is that what you want?

Meeko
04-01-2010, 07:16 PM
Hey now, if you guys vote me off the island, I'm not gonna be able to make you any more drinks! Is that what you want?

I had to wiki " Boilermaker " for my comment upthread.

Lunch Box [A Boilermaker Variant], please.

Actually can't wait to try one of those IRL.

Freudian Slit
04-01-2010, 07:18 PM
One boilermaker! And yes. It is made from real boilers.

Meeko
04-01-2010, 07:21 PM
Wow, that link to the werewolf game is a hoot. Votes flying willy-nilly with no reasons attached to them, people debating whether to lynch a claimed Mason in a game known to have Masons, people attracting suspicion for being the first to vote in a Day... We've come a long way.

Sounds like a game I could handle.


---


Alternately : Cut me some slack.

special ed
04-01-2010, 07:57 PM
One boilermaker! And yes. It is made from real boilers.

real boilers or real boils?

Meeko
04-01-2010, 08:18 PM
real boilers or real boils?

Can't we just drop Ed into a super-sized pint?

Jimmy Chitwood
04-01-2010, 11:15 PM
Everyone do the town a favor and don't follow my lead no more.

sachertorte
04-03-2010, 02:00 PM
I think we all should take a moment to mourn the severe lack of randomness in this game.
storyteller0910 (Detective Chief Superintendent (Fictional)) is dead.
Freudian Slit(Greek (Fictional)) is dead.

sachertorte
04-03-2010, 02:02 PM
By the way, Peeker was fictional too. I forgot to note that when he died. It doesn't matter though, you know, since he's dead.

Chronos
04-03-2010, 02:03 PM
So, we're waiting for sunrise now, right?

Chronos
04-03-2010, 02:10 PM
Oh, I guess we're not waiting. Well, we have two deaths. Since we don't have any third parties, that's probably the Scum and a Vig. Storyteller's seems to fit the pattern of "strong player killed" we saw last Night, and "second place in the vote total" is a common choice for Vig targets, so I'm guessing that Freudian was the Vig-kill.

There is one piece of good news in this: Since we know know (or at least strongly suspect) that there's a Vigilante in the game, that person can, when e thinks it appropriate, claim to confirm emself.

Mahaloth
04-03-2010, 02:16 PM
Wow, so we must have a vigilante.

I assume it is daytime now?

special ed
04-03-2010, 02:29 PM
I think we all should take a moment to mourn the severe lack of randomness in this game.
storyteller0910 (Detective Chief Superintendent (Fictional)) is dead.
Freudian Slit(Greek (Fictional)) is dead.

FWIW, that doesn't match story's claim.

You are Baldrick (Servant). You are Fictional. You win with the Town.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldrick

from Texcat's list in post 273

TexCat Benedict Arnold (Traitor).
Tom Scud Busby Berkeley (Choreographer).
Oredigger George Washington (President).
special ed Guy de Maupassant (Writer)
Freudian Slit Patroclus (Greek). You are Fictional.
Red Skeezix Ogden Nash (Poet).
Meeko Joan Miró (Aritst)
Mahaloth Samuel Johnson (Critic).
storyteller Baldrick (Servant). You are Fictional.
GuiriEnEspana Gustave Eiffel (Architect).
One & Only Wanderers Fu Mingxia (Olympic Gold Medalist).
KellyCriterion Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Composer).
MHaye Tim Horton (Canadian).
NAF1138 Joesph Smith (Mormon)
Jimmy Chitwood Alexander Graham Bell (Inventor)
Rysto Petr Cech (Goalkeeper).
Chonos Jesse Jackson (Reverend).
Drain Bead Eva Peron (Spiritual Leader of the Nation of Argentina).
Zeriel Lysander (Lover). You are Fictional.
peekercpa wicked witch of the west??? {Witch and fictional}

Mahaloth
04-03-2010, 02:30 PM
Thanks, ed. My list didn't seem to include storyteller for some odd reason. I must have missed his post.

special ed
04-03-2010, 02:37 PM
Voting records

storyteller (0): peekercpa 116 201
peekercpa (4): Zeriel 151 190, TexCat 314 356, Chronos 360, Meeko 383, Freudian Slit 478, Mahaloth 482
NAF1138 (0): One And Only Wanderers 179 288, KellyCriterion 242 244
One And Only Wanderers (0): Chronos 180 360, Jimmy Chitwood 184, Meeko 220 291
Mahaloth (0): Meeko 291 298
KellyCriterion (3): NAF1138 313, Jimmy Chitwood 484, Tom Scud 571
TexCat (1): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328 571, peekercpa 346 450
Oredigger77 (1): Drain Bead 347
Red Skeezix (1): TexCat 356, Freudian Slit 364 478
Chronos (3): storyteller0910 416 564, peekercpa 450, storyteller 590, MHaye 591
Drain Bead (2): Zeriel 560, special ed 565
Zeriel (1): storyteller0910 564 567, One And Only Wanderers 570
Rysto (1): GuiriEnEspaña 576
Freudian Slit (1): Rysto 577
Not Voting (2) : KellyCriterion, Oredigger77

Day 2 (which might not yield much information, since both lynch leaders were Town Scum could be anywhere

One And Only Wanderers (8): Jimmy Chitwood 757, Oredigger77 760, Freudian Slit 763, Mahaloth 815, GuiriEnEspaña 855, Drain Bead 865, Zeriel 874, Chronos 882
Freudian Slit (8): Rysto 655, Meeko 666, Tom Scud 783, Red Skeezix 835, special ed 861, OAOW 871, TexCat 880, MHaye 885
Mahaloth (1): storyteller0910 833
Jimmy Chitwood (0): Oredigger 717 734, One And Only Wanderers 751 871, TexCat 795 880
Drain Bead (0): Zeriel 715 874
GuiriEnEspaña (0): Chronos 803 882
TexCat (0): Tom Scud 706 783
Tom Scud (0): Mahaloth 787 815
Meeko (0): Freudian Slit 651 763

Jimmy Chitwood
04-03-2010, 02:43 PM
Well, Detective Chief Superintendent sure sounds pretty suggestive, doesn't it; no wonder it doesn't match his claim. Eesh.

Well, I was the only person to have multiple votes on me during the run-up to the lynch who isn't currently dead, which means that I should probably leave the vote analysis to somebody else. For what it's worth, I was first in on OaOW, followed by Freudian, followed by a fairly long silence, and Rysto and Meeko were first in on Freudian, both in response to her vote on the latter.

Jimmy Chitwood
04-03-2010, 02:45 PM
Ah, too late again, and inaccurate to boot. Oredigger didn't say the full name in his vote and I missed it.

So for Wanderers it was me, then Oredigger, then [b]Freudian, then the gap.

special ed
04-03-2010, 02:45 PM
Voting records

storyteller (0): peekercpa 116 201
peekercpa (4): Zeriel 151 190, TexCat 314 356, Chronos 360, Meeko 383, Freudian Slit 478, Mahaloth 482
NAF1138 (0): One And Only Wanderers 179 288, KellyCriterion 242 244
One And Only Wanderers (0): Chronos 180 360, Jimmy Chitwood 184, Meeko 220 291
Mahaloth (0): Meeko 291 298
KellyCriterion (3): NAF1138 313, Jimmy Chitwood 484, Tom Scud 571
TexCat (1): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328 571, peekercpa 346 450
Oredigger77 (1): Drain Bead 347
Red Skeezix (1): TexCat 356, Freudian Slit 364 478
Chronos (3): storyteller0910 416 564, peekercpa 450, storyteller 590, MHaye 591
Drain Bead (2): Zeriel 560, special ed 565
Zeriel (1): storyteller0910 564 567, One And Only Wanderers 570
Rysto (1): GuiriEnEspaña 576
Freudian Slit (1): Rysto 577
Not Voting (2) : KellyCriterion, Oredigger77

Day 2 (which might not yield much information, since both lynch leaders were Town Scum could be anywhere

One And Only Wanderers (8): Jimmy Chitwood 757, Oredigger77 760, Freudian Slit 763, Mahaloth 815, GuiriEnEspaña 855, Drain Bead 865, Zeriel 874, Chronos 882
Freudian Slit (8): Rysto 655, Meeko 666, Tom Scud 783, Red Skeezix 835, special ed 861, OAOW 871, TexCat 880, MHaye 885
Mahaloth (1): storyteller0910 833
Jimmy Chitwood (0): Oredigger 717 734, One And Only Wanderers 751 871, TexCat 795 880
Drain Bead (0): Zeriel 715 874
GuiriEnEspaña (0): Chronos 803 882
TexCat (0): Tom Scud 706 783
Tom Scud (0): Mahaloth 787 815
Meeko (0): Freudian Slit 651 763

yikes, the strike throughs didn't copy/paste. Sorry for not noticing that earlier

GuiriEnEspaña
04-03-2010, 02:50 PM
I suppose with a character having the profession of "Detective Chief Superintendent" Story was hesitant to claim honestly as he'd have been a likely target for a scum night-kill. He was the last (or penultimate?) to claim so I guess when he saw there were no obvious doctors or vigilantes he thought a fake claim was the safest option. Of course, now we've no idea if he actually was our detective or not...

On preview, what Jimmy said: "Eesh", but in more words.

Chronos
04-03-2010, 03:03 PM
:smack: Apparently I'm not fully awake yet, since I completely failed to notice that storyteller's death reveal included a "real" Mafia role. I guess I was just thinking of the "roles" as meaningless, and didn't even bother reading it. Losing a Detective before he had a chance to tell us anything hurts.

Of course, now I'm really wondering what, precisely, storyteller's PM said. Was he really given the name "Baldrick", or was he Clousseau or some such? Did he have the "role" "servant" in addition to detective? Did he have the random information and then his game powers, or just the game powers?

Rysto
04-03-2010, 03:20 PM
I suppose with a character having the profession of "Detective Chief Superintendent" Story was hesitant to claim honestly as he'd have been a likely target for a scum night-kill. He was the last (or penultimate?) to claim so I guess when he saw there were no obvious doctors or vigilantes he thought a fake claim was the safest option. Of course, now we've no idea if he actually was our detective or not...

Seriously? story was Town, he lied about his profession and he was a detective. He was definitely our cop.

Drain Bead
04-03-2010, 04:18 PM
I suppose we should probably go back and look at his posts and suspicions now, huh.

Rysto
04-03-2010, 04:35 PM
I looked at his first couple of Day Two posts. Nothing stands out. He defended Freudian at one point and then said that another post pinged him. He did develop a case against Mahaloth, but it was completely based on Mahaloth's Day Two actions.

Freudian Slit
04-03-2010, 04:37 PM
Goodbye, cruel world!

Chronos
04-03-2010, 05:29 PM
If there are breadcrumbs, I think they'd be for an innocent result. I think that he would have claimed if he'd found a guilty.

Tom Scud
04-03-2010, 05:44 PM
Ugh. Dead cop.

Freudian looks like a classic vig kill, saving Town a mislynch and a wasted Day if she's Town and nabbing a scum otherwise.

In terms of Story and breadcrumbs, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that he was pretty hard after Chronos on Day 1 and then didn't pick the case up at all on Day 2; but I think he did say that he was still suspicious of Chronos at some point or another.

special ed
04-03-2010, 05:53 PM
There is one piece of good news in this: Since we know know (or at least strongly suspect) that there's a Vigilante in the game, that person can, when e thinks it appropriate, claim to confirm emself.

I agree that it appears we have a Vigilante. I also agree it's liely the Vig killed Freudian (why would the Scum bother when she's the likely lynch target.)

As an aside, even though she's Town, it's probably not entirely bad. I probably would have pushed for her lynch toDay, and it might have cost us an entire Day of conversation

:smack: Apparently I'm not fully awake yet, since I completely failed to notice that storyteller's death reveal included a "real" Mafia role. I guess I was just thinking of the "roles" as meaningless, and didn't even bother reading it. Losing a Detective before he had a chance to tell us anything hurts.

Of course, now I'm really wondering what, precisely, storyteller's PM said. Was he really given the name "Baldrick", or was he Clousseau or some such? Did he have the "role" "servant" in addition to detective? Did he have the random information and then his game powers, or just the game powers?

Maybe I'm just overly suspicious. But I'm not buying that you failed to notice the 'detective' in story's death reveal.

based on what I see as subtle attempts at redirecting our attention, I'm going tofor now:

vote Chronos

I'll do a more thorough re-read of Chronos as the Day goes on.

If there are breadcrumbs, I think they'd be for an innocent result. I think that he would have claimed if he'd found a guilty.

I don't believe this either. A detective easily might not claim with one guilty finding, since building a troop of confirmed Town is much better than finding Scum.

Story's Day 2 posts (I apologize that the quotes within quotes aren't included) but click the little arrow thing and you can see the whole post:
Yikes, well, off to a rousing Day Two start. This "Day starts on a Saturday" thing is frustrating, because if I happen to have a busy Monday I'm basically AWOL until halfway through the Day.

I see on initial skim that there is a bit of speculation regarding the death of NAF. This early in the game, there's really one especially likely reason for a Scum kill - they are trying to identify and kill power roles, and especially the Doctor. NAF may have looked like a potential Doctor for the simplest of reasons: his claimed name, with its religious overtones, could have been spun into a protective role. (Incidentally, if the Scum were thinking like this, it suggests that the Scum themselves have names suggestive of their alignment, and have false-claimed. This isn't particularly valuable in and of itself, but is worth keeping in mind going forward).

For the rest, I will begin re-reading immediately.

Day Two in (sort of) brief:

Freudian starts us off with a vote for Meeko (651). Logic is that his “clearing” of Kelly on the basis of probability is flawed. I don’t necessarily agree that this is vote-worthy, but it’s not egregious. However, Rysto disagrees and votes for Freudian (655), arguing that if Meeko had known his reasoning was bad, he would have also known he couldn’t sneak bad reasoning past us.

I disagree with Rysto here. Suppose Meeko as Scum and Kelly as Town. A good gambit for Scum is always to find some reason to clear a Townie – that makes the Townie in question subtly favor you and doesn’t put you in a position to be spectacularly wrong. A hypothetical Scum Meeko could have seized on this argument, thinking it adequate for his purposes.

Except: Freudian seems invested in the idea that Meeko is doing this as Scum, trying to protect fellow Scum in Kelly (as she outlines at 660). But this is problematic, because why, then, go for Meeko but not Kelly. I know she only has one vote, but if the argument against Meeko (in her mind) hinges on Kelly-as-Scum, then the more reasonable approach would be to vote Kelly first. Right? Ping on Freudian. Meeko OMGUSes Freudian at this point; he puts a bunch of words in her mouth, by the way – saying that she said that he said (heh) that he would never vote for Kelly, which she never claimed that I can see. Anyway, two votes Freudian, one vote Meeko.

Now we get a string of ed-on-Meeko posts, which frankly, have become an utter non-tell for me. Could be anything.

Now Wanderers strikes up a discussion of why NAF was killed. His first major suggestion concerns the damned mis-spelling, and Jimmy Chitwood jumps on him for it at 703, but without voting (Jimmy basically thinks Wanderers’ approach is flawed and self-centered but not necessarily Scummy).

Tom Scud votes Texcat at 706. He thinks TexCat’s peeker vote was opportunistic, and I agree.

Zeriel votes Drain Bead, evidently for the same reason as Day One. This is a weird thing. I get where Zeriel is coming from, but both his proposed explanation and Drain Bead’s proffered explanation seem about equally likely. So another null tell, in my opinion. But Z also promulgates a bit of suspicion of Tom for his use of the term “overnight thread,” which is kind of silly, to me. Rysto, at 716, points out some problems with Zeriel’s approach. I agree with Rysto’s post here.

Oredigger votes for Jimmy. I don’t exactly understand why, but the vote is subsequently withdrawn. Moving on.

Toward the bottom of Page 15, we get a bit of Mahaloth, kind of urging everyone to participate:



I’m not a huge fan of posts like this – sort of rah! Rah! We need to do better, guys! – particularly when couched with that “Perhaps I’m wrong,” which is a nice way to duck away from conflict. Coupled with Mahaloth’s own agnosticism regarding voting (his major substantive post at this point is one where he suggests that Drain’s apparently general but in practice specific smudge of Zeriel could be an attempt to “stir disorder up by taking what one individual did and try to spread it out and make it sound like there is some kind of negative trend occurring” (even as Mahaloth himself is kind of trying to make it sound like there is some kind of negative trend occurring) and this sequence causes me to view Mahaloth with some suspicion.

More to come in a separate post.

Now, it should be noted that by the top of page 16, we don’t have a strong lynch leader. Everyone is milling about a bit, and votes have gone toward Freudian, Wanderers, and elsewhere.

Wanderers votes for Jimmy, a vote for misrepresentation that wasn’t really misrepresentation.

Jimmy said this:



Wanderers replied with this:



I don’t think these two things are substantively different. Does anyone disagree?

Anyway, special ed questions Mahaloth about his posts (referred in my last post). He asks Mahaloth what he (Mahaloth) has been contributing, and Mahaloth replies:



This bothers me quite a bit. First of all, there’s the “there is little to comment on.” By my count, no one has really done an in-depth look at the peeker lynch. Then we have the Freudian-Meeko thing and the Meeko-ed thing, Drain Bead’s smudge of Zeriel and Z’s response, Tom Scud’s “overnight” thing, Wanderers’ questions about why NAF was killed and the rising suspicion between Wanderers and Jimmy, and lots of smaller side-plots. If that constitutes “little to comment on,” what would meet the Mahaloth standard for “plenty to comment on?” Further, there’s the last line, which to be seems to be baiting ed.

And now, suddenly, the votes for Wanderers start coming. And fast. More on this in a third (and final) post, forthcoming presently.

And finally, the Wanderers wagon.

At 757 Jimmy votes Wanderers. It’s a good vote, as far as I’m concerned. Jimmy points out that Wanderers seems to have just arbitrarily found a mid-Day-One post and seized on it, by happenstance right after Jimmy began expressing criticism of Wanderers’ play. I see a flaw – Townies as much as Scum get defensive when pressed, and it is very comforting to assume that someone coming after you is Scum, so you start looking for evidence that they might be. Taken alone, Wanderers’ weird cherry picking of a post by Jimmy thus isn’t really strong evidence, but it’s some evidence, and I don’t fault Jimmy for this vote.

Oredigger follows shortly, with this:



OK. Vote’s a little “me-too” for my taste, frankly. Moving on. Freudian adds on, and her vote is fine, I guess. She also points out the following, regarding Zeriel:



That’s a good question. Z?

PS – in here, there is some Jimmy-ed sniping. I don’t know what it means yet, but if I don’t move past it for now I may never finish the analysis.

Tom Scud switches over to Freudian. His reasoning, once questioned, is this:



I find this highly persuasive. In there, Mahaloth kind of defends Freudian. Gah. I really doubt that Mahaloth and Freudian are both Scum, and yet they are my top two candidates as this analysis winds down. Huh.

At 794, Freudian says:



Taking a quick stab at this: because sometimes the case against someone boils down to more than the sum of their actions. In your case, you have a pattern of pursuing soft targets, players who are generating suspicion in other quarters, and of jumping to those targets at times when you appear to be early on the wagon, but not early enough to get attention. Each individual move is justifiable – which is why, if you’re Scum, they’re good moves – but as a whole the picture looks odd.

Chronos comes in and votes for GuirienEspana. Money quote:



I think I have a blind spot here, but at least one player other than Guiri recognized what peeker did as a claim. Just saying. I continue to find Chronos suspicious.

Wanderers does that “maybe you should lynch me” thing (which I think qualifies, by the way, as a de facto claim of vanilla. If Wanderers claims a power role at some point I will be very suspicious). Mahaloth follows it up with an opportunistic vote.

OK.

---------

I am suspicious, to varying degrees, of four players in particular: Chronos, Freudian, Mahaloth, and yes, Wanderers.

For the moment, I am going to put down my strongest suspicion in vote form:

[B]vote Mahaloth

However, I think we are generally doing ourselves a disservice by spreading our votes so thin. I intend to go back to Day One tonight and see if I can dig up anything else there. My vote very well may change as tomorrow approaches.

I agree with you, and I don't think Meeko was thinking that his logic was invalid. I think his argument sounded good to him.

My point is that it doesn't really matter whether Meeko believed his own argument or not. What he clearly didn't do was put a ton of thought into it. It is entirely possible that Meeko just wanted to get on the record as defending someone (he knew to be) Town, so he grabbed at what he considered to be a suitably likely reason.

Meeko's been wildly paranoid the whole game, and suddenly, randomly, he finds a reason to declare someone off-limits for Day One?

So yeah, you know, add Meeko to my list, above, of folks who look questionable to me.

Near as I can tell, a late tie in this particular game isn't a particularly big problem. If there's a late tie, there will still be a lynch, and one that's under our control. In fact, your vote has not altered the situation, as Ed's vote, while putting us at a tie, didn't change the identity of the lynch-ee currently on the block (nor did yours).

And I can't see anything wrong with Ed voting for the player he thinks is scummy, whether or not it generates a tie. There are still four plus hours until the deadline - should everyone just stop voting at this point for anyone but the lynch leader, for fear of a tie?

Your FoS of Ed for this reason is highly suspect to me. My vote remains with Mahaloth, but you've shot up my list now.

Also, I hope sach won't mind if I post a cleaned-up and simplified vote count, for reference purposes:

One And Only Wanderers - (6): Jimmy Chitwood, Oredigger77, Freudian Slit, Mahaloth, GuiriEnEspaña, Drain Bead

Freudian Slit - (5): Rysto, Meeko, Tom Scud, Red Skeezix, special ed

Jimmy Chitwood - (2): Oredigger, One And Only Wanderers, TexCat

Drain Bead - (1): Zeriel

GuiriEnEspaña - (1): Chronos

Mahaloth - (1): storyteller0910

Wanderers -

Actually, that makes a good deal of sense.

So, basically, story had suspicion of Chronos, Freudian (now dead), Mahaloth, OAOW (now dead), and Meeko.

Drain Bead
04-03-2010, 06:09 PM
ed, what do you think of the theory above that story investigated Chronos Night 1?

special ed
04-03-2010, 06:11 PM
ed, what do you think of the theory above that story investigated Chronos Night 1?

I don't think he would have he would have directly stated that he was still suspicious of Chronos in that case.

Unless he investigated Chronos as Scum, I suppose

Jimmy Chitwood
04-03-2010, 06:17 PM
Yeah, I really don't understand, Drain Bead. Why would storyteller say something like "I continue to be suspicious of" a player he's investigated and found to be town? That's like the opposite of how you do that.

I agree that we probably have to assume he got a town reading on somebody, and that somebody is not in the list of people he's suspicious of, and that's all we've got. If he got a reading of scum, it wasn't on the person he voted for, clearly, and so either way all we've got is the list of those he suspected.

Chronos, why do you think it matters whether storyteller got his role handed to him or whether he made it up?

Rysto
04-03-2010, 06:30 PM
It's possible that story didn't get a Night One result, or it was on NAF. I would have expected him to breadcrumb that, but maybe he wouldn't have.

Chronos
04-03-2010, 06:47 PM
Chronos, why do you think it matters whether storyteller got his role handed to him or whether he made it up? It probably doesn't matter yet, but it might down the line, when people start making full claims, and we're looking for inconsistencies.

And there's not really any defense I can make to special ed's vote: It really was a brain fart, but I don't suppose there's any way I can prove that.

By the way, I probably won't be on at all tomorrow. Easter's always a busy day for me.

Meeko
04-03-2010, 08:24 PM
Wow, so we must have a vigilante.

I assume it is daytime now?

I guess it means its not a Compulsory Vig.

One wonders if that lends weight to it being a Town Vig.

Mahaloth
04-03-2010, 08:34 PM
1. Good choice, vig. You either would have killed a scum or most likely saved us a bad Day Three lynch. Still, sorry to see Freudian go. :(

2. I see story's vote ended on me yesterDay. I don't really know why or have much to say about it. I'm town and that's all I can say about it. Perhaps he got a town result on Night One for Freudian or OneandOnly. I guess we won't know, unless he bread-crumbed in some way we haven't figured out.

3. Having been wrong about OneandOnly(still a stupid move by him, I think), I still suspect Tom Scud first because of his terribly lame vote for Freudian.

In fact, I don't mind getting a vote in early. So, I will.

Vote Tom Scud

Same case as I made yesterDay, but even stronger now we know Freudian was town.

special ed
04-03-2010, 08:59 PM
I guess it means its not a Compulsory Vig.

One wonders if that lends weight to it being a Town Vig.

I would bet not compulsory. I wouldn't think sachertorte would put one in a more basic game. He's usually not overly fond of anti-Town Town roles.

And, a Vig is pretty much Town by definition. A Scum with an extra kill would be a strongman, and certainly not basic. And a 3rd party killer would likely be a serial killer. And we don't even have 3rd party roles.

But, yes, a kill of Freudian only makes sense coming from a Town role. Scum would have wanted us to waste a Day lynching her.

Chronos
04-04-2010, 01:29 AM
Actually, come to think of it, I can make a defense against special ed's vote on me. Namely, what would the benefit have been to Scum, for me to first deliberately ignore storyteller's revealed role, and then to post that I hadn't noticed it? ed, in his vote post, calls it an attempt at misdirection, but really, is there any chance that I would have been able to distract the Town so much that, out of all of the many folks still alive, none of them would have noticed? And even if I were naive enough to think that might work, why would I make that second post?

But enough about me. I agree with others that Freudian was a logical choice for the Vig last Night, but I would caution the Vig not to make it a habit to always kill the runner-up. A predictable Vig can too easily be exploited by the Scum. Even in the simplest case, the Scum can conspire to vote such that the runner-up is Town, secure in the knowledge that the Vig will kill that person for them, while avoiding the exposure that comes from leading an actual lynch of a Townie. In a worse scenario, if the Scum have a power that can protect one of their own or swap targets, or if they figure out who the Vig is and have a roleblocker, they can choose to just always block or redirect the Vig when he's targeting Scum, and let him have a free hand when he's targeting Town. The solution to this is for the Scum to not know who the Vig is targeting until they see the corpse, which means that the Vig has to be unpredictable.

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
04-04-2010, 02:56 AM
Still trying to catch up guys. I'm looking primarily at Tom Scud right now, and will be putting together a more useful post tomorrow, once I'm off the clock.

Oredigger77
04-04-2010, 11:18 AM
It's good to know we have a vig but it's too bad that Story got aced before he was able to let us know any results. I think it's a good thing that the vig took out FS otherwise we would have had toDay lynch on rails pretty much. I'm going to have to go back and take a look at our two wagons from yesterDay and see if I can see any scum manipulation but with two vanillas in a race I'm not sure how much the scum would have cared.

Meeko
04-04-2010, 08:31 PM
I would bet not compulsory. I wouldn't think sachertorte would put one in a more basic game. He's usually not overly fond of anti-Town Town roles.

And, a Vig is pretty much Town by definition. A Scum with an extra kill would be a strongman, and certainly not basic. And a 3rd party killer would likely be a serial killer. And we don't even have 3rd party roles.

But, yes, a kill of Freudian only makes sense coming from a Town role. Scum would have wanted us to waste a Day lynching her.

Just calling this as I see it, on first blush :

That seems a tad too "fast" a reaction, there, Ed.

By that I mean to say, you seem eager to offer up reasons, and make conclusions that I think are a bit too far apart.

Jimmy Chitwood
04-04-2010, 08:34 PM
Would you like to provide an example of such a conclusion, having made the accusation?

TexCat
04-04-2010, 08:36 PM
ed, what do you think of the theory above that story investigated Chronos Night 1?

I'm not Ed, but I don't think it's possible. If story had investigated Chronos and found him scum, he would have, at the very least, voted for him. If story had investigated Chronos and found him town, he wouldn't have put him on his FOS list.

He voted Mahaloth, so it's possible that he got a scum result on Mahaloth, but he certainly didn't push the case like he had that knowledge. Much more likely that he got a town result.

[...]
Chronos, why do you think it matters whether storyteller got his role handed to him or whether he made it up?

If storyteller made up a role, then it's likely the scum also made up roles.

Does anyone else have suspicions about blue really being town? When OaOW turned up town, I would have put money down that Freudian was scum. YesterDay in a two townie race, I would have guessed that a few of the scum would have taken the opportunity to put votes down on their fellow scum. Or is it possible that Freudian was scum and that the result was somehow tampered with?

special ed
04-04-2010, 08:37 PM
Just calling this as I see it, on first blush :

That seems a tad too "fast" a reaction, there, Ed.

By that I mean to say, you seem eager to offer up reasons, and make conclusions that I think are a bit too far apart.

maybe you should wait for your second blush.

Not that I actually understand what point you're actually making....What is 'too fast' of a reaction? That I think a Vigilante is Town? OK, do you know of any other types of Vigilantes? And, aside from the fact that we know this game has no 3rd party players, would you call a Scum with a secondary kill a Vigilante? That's not the standard use of the term.

Or maybe you object to my agreeing with you that the Vigilante appears not-compulsory.

Oh, why am I trying to figure out what ou mean when you use your very indirect way of posting?

Let me be more direct.

1. What did I do too fast for you?
2. What reasons did I offer up?
3. What conclusions did I reach?
4. How are those conclusions a bit too far apart?
5. What are those conclusions far apart from?

Jimmy Chitwood
04-04-2010, 08:48 PM
Does anyone else have suspicions about blue really being town? When OaOW turned up town, I would have put money down that Freudian was scum. YesterDay in a two townie race, I would have guessed that a few of the scum would have taken the opportunity to put votes down on their fellow scum. Or is it possible that Freudian was scum and that the result was somehow tampered with?

If blue doesn't mean town there's not much point to playing the game. We just kill each other until somebody says one team wins?

To put it another way, what can we do with this possibility other than discount it utterly? I don't see how town can be served by speculating about this.

TexCat
04-04-2010, 08:54 PM
If blue doesn't mean town there's not much point to playing the game. We just kill each other until somebody says one team wins?

To put it another way, what can we do with this possibility other than discount it utterly? I don't see how town can be served by speculating about this.

And why are you so quick to absolutely discount the idea that the results on Freudian were tampered with? Not only do you dismiss it, but you are discouraging town from discussing it? That's going to win my vote.

Once again,
vote: Jimmy Chitwood

special ed
04-04-2010, 08:55 PM
And why are you so quick to absolutely discount the idea that the results on Freudian were tampered with? Not only do you dismiss it, but you are discouraging town from discussing it? That's going to win my vote.

Once again,
vote: Jimmy Chitwood

Um, did you actually read Jimmy's post?

And if so, why did you so clearly fail to understand it?

TexCat
04-04-2010, 09:01 PM
umm.. yes i read it. And yes I saw that he refers only to town being blue, not to the results on Freudian, but then he does try to stop discussion.

Jimmy Chitwood
04-04-2010, 09:04 PM
Now that you've scratched that itch, let me ask a question that just popped into my head and I definitely didn't ask already: what can we do with this possibility other than discount it utterly?

special ed
04-04-2010, 09:05 PM
umm.. yes i read it. And yes I saw that he refers only to town being blue, not to the results on Freudian, but then he does try to stop discussion.

So, basically:

1. You read his post
2. You directly stated that his post said something that it clearly did not.
3. You voted for him for what his post did not say.
4. You stated that he clearly wanted to stop discussion of Freudian when clearly he said nothing about Freudian.
5. When questioned, you imply that because a discussion of town=blue is likely to be fruitless, Jimmy therefore wants to dismiss all discussion including that of Freudian


Is that an accurate summary?

TexCat
04-04-2010, 09:11 PM
It looks to me like Jimmy discounted the blue meaning town part of my discussion, hoping to discount everything I said. He doesn't comment on the tampered results part and then quickly tries to discourage discussion.

And after "scratching", Jimmy still doesn't comment on Freudian. Yet, if the Freudian results were tampered with, it makes a tremendous difference in the vote analysis. It certainly makes the OaOW voters look scummier, and this is exactly what I think Jimmy is trying to avoid and doesn't even what us to consider.

Rysto
04-04-2010, 09:17 PM
TexCat, he dismissed the suggestion because it's just not workable. Giving the scum the ability to manipulate the cardflip would be horrifically unbalanced. One of the basic premises of this game is that the Town trades numbers for information. If the information we get in that exchange is unreliable, how are we to win?

special ed
04-04-2010, 09:18 PM
It looks to me like Jimmy discounted the blue meaning town part of my discussion, hoping to discount everything I said. He doesn't comment on the tampered results part and then quickly tries to discourage discussion.

And after "scratching", Jimmy still doesn't comment on Freudian. Yet, if the Freudian results were tampered with, it makes a tremendous difference in the vote analysis. It certainly makes the OaOW voters look scummier, and this is exactly what I think Jimmy is trying to avoid and doesn't even what us to consider.

OK, just 2 points, then I'll let other people chime in

1. When you make 2 or more distinct points in a post, expect people to comment on just part of the post. Not commenting on the other part is perfectly normal. Jimmy made what appears to me to be a valid point about your comment regarding blue=Town.

2. Since 16 people voted for either OAOW or Freudian and a dead person voted for Mahaloth, I would think there is 100% certainty that Scum voted for Freudian or OAOW.

3. Your comment on the Scum having the power to make Freudian appear Town when she was really Scum isn't worth considering. This is a newbie friendly game. I can't imagine sachertorte put a mechanism like that into the game. If you wish to pursue that, then make a case. Don't expect other people to comment on something that isn't even worth considering.

2.

Jimmy Chitwood
04-04-2010, 09:20 PM
Oh, come on now. I "still didn't comment on Freudian?" What on earth do you want a comment about?

And hey, why Freudian exactly? If somebody's got the power that makes the moderator lie to us, why not everyone else's reveal too? Maybe they were all scum. Why don't you want to talk about that, huh?

TexCat
04-04-2010, 09:27 PM
I see some of your points Ed. I voted Jimmy yesterday and my vote is going to remain on him for now. I just can't seem to come to grips with both OaOW and Freudian both being town. Regarding your first number 2, that's what's bugging me. Why didn't one or two of the scum take the opportunity to vote for a fellow scum? Why did they all jump on one of the townie bandwagons? It doesn't make any sense unless either OaOW or Freudian were scum.

special ed
04-04-2010, 09:29 PM
I see some of your points Ed. I voted Jimmy yesterday and my vote is going to remain on him for now. I just can't seem to come to grips with both OaOW and Freudian both being town. Regarding your first number 2, that's what's bugging me. Why didn't one or two of the scum take the opportunity to vote for a fellow scum? Why did they all jump on one of the townie bandwagons? It doesn't make any sense unless either OaOW or Freudian were scum.

Anyone voting for someone aside from OAOW and Freudian would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Just as Town was motivated to not spread out the votes like before, Scum was motivated to blend in.

Jimmy Chitwood
04-04-2010, 09:39 PM
I see some of your points Ed. I voted Jimmy yesterday and my vote is going to remain on him for now. I just can't seem to come to grips with both OaOW and Freudian both being town. Regarding your first number 2, that's what's bugging me. Why didn't one or two of the scum take the opportunity to vote for a fellow scum? Why did they all jump on one of the townie bandwagons? It doesn't make any sense unless either OaOW or Freudian were scum.

Why not? As it stands every single scum's day 2 vote is perfectly meaningless; voting for anybody other than the two main candidates would have not only drawn attention to the scum voter, but to the scum votee as well. Why bother cooking up a diversionary vote (and draw Town's attention to a teammate) when scum's objective is perfectly achieved by simply hiding?

You thinking this doesn't make sense really isn't making any sense.

Tom Scud
04-04-2010, 11:07 PM
3. Having been wrong about OneandOnly(still a stupid move by him, I think), I still suspect Tom Scud first because of his terribly lame vote for Freudian.

In fact, I don't mind getting a vote in early. So, I will.

COLOR="bleach"Vote Tom Scud/COLOR

Same case as I made yesterDay, but even stronger now we know Freudian was town.
You know, I made a fairly comprehensive response to your vote yesterday, referencing three of Freudian's votes and her terribly lazy justification of her vote on OaOW (who also was Town oh by the way). I'm trying not to OMGUS you, but I'd like to think there's more than this to your vote.

In other news, I've hardly looked at this thread over the weekend. Bad Tom. I'll try to (1) go back to the TexCat thing I noted late Yesterday and (2) actually have something productive to say tomorrow, probably tomorrow evening.

Zeriel
04-05-2010, 09:50 AM
TexCat , you had better explain to us just why you think in a game billed as "relatively standard" and "Newbie friendly" that you think there'd be a mechanic to alter the cardflips (something typically seen only in Gastard games).

For that matter, I'm not convinced that the identification of story as "detective" is 100% sure, either. I had a thought as to falsely claiming my own name and PM since I was listed as "lover", which is a semi-typical power role name, but nothing in my PM indicates I'm anything of the sort--perhaps Story had the same thoughts and went through with it to avoid the pain of having "detective" as his title and no powers (almost certainly resulting in an early lynch or NK).

*flips a coin* vote Tom Scud for the "overnight thread" slip from yesterday. (if it'd been tails, it would have been continuing the Drain Bead vote trend for the same old reasons) I will be happy with either of their lynches today and will shift vote accordingly as necessary.

Briefly, I don't believe we need any other evidence than "overnight thread" in a single-threaded game.

Drain Bead
04-05-2010, 10:48 AM
zeriel, if I were to be modkilled right now and flip Town, would you think differently of Tom's slip? It seems like the only way that would make sense as a slip is if he were discussing something with me in an "overnight thread," and while you might not know he wasn't, *I* certainly know he wasn't, so I don't find it as significant as you do. Hence my question--if I were confirmed to you to be Town, would your vote change, and why or why not?

Chronos
04-05-2010, 12:01 PM
I've certainly seen games before where two Townies were vying for the lynch, both with a lot of votes. It's not extraordinary to think that might have happened here, too. And when coupled with the card flips, we're to the point where not only is it not stifling discussion to dismiss the possibility that one of them was Scum, it's actually stifling discussion to not dismiss it. To paraphrase a quote I heard once, if it turns out that one of them actually was Scum, then the appropriate response is to lynch the moderator.

Zeriel
04-05-2010, 12:15 PM
zeriel, if I were to be modkilled right now and flip Town, would you think differently of Tom's slip? It seems like the only way that would make sense as a slip is if he were discussing something with me in an "overnight thread," and while you might not know he wasn't, *I* certainly know he wasn't, so I don't find it as significant as you do. Hence my question--if I were confirmed to you to be Town, would your vote change, and why or why not?

As far as I'm concerned, the slip is independent of your alignment -- it's not that he necessarily was referencing something you said in any hypothetical "overnight thread", it is that he even said "overnight thread" as though it were separate at all. You don't need to be scum for him to have made that slip.

TexCat
04-05-2010, 01:21 PM
TexCat , you had better explain to us just why you think in a game billed as "relatively standard" and "Newbie friendly" that you think there'd be a mechanic to alter the cardflips (something typically seen only in Gastard games).

I guess I don't have enough experience to know what is standard and what is gastardly. I know that godfathers usually investigate as "town". I didn't see it as such a stretch for the flip to show "town" somehow.

Drain Bead
04-05-2010, 01:53 PM
A role that comes up differently on the flip is called a Death Miller, and is usually considered quite gastardly. See the Screamers game for an example of a Death Miller REALLY screwing with people's heads.

Zeriel
04-05-2010, 02:08 PM
I guess I don't have enough experience to know what is standard and what is gastardly. I know that godfathers usually investigate as "town". I didn't see it as such a stretch for the flip to show "town" somehow.

What Drain Bead said, but typically Godfathers investigate as town but death-reveal as scum. The issue is that if we don't have accurate information on whether someone is scum or town at death, then we can't make viable decisions. The only false death reveals I've ever personally seen were in explicitly Gastardly games.

Rysto
04-05-2010, 02:08 PM
I guess I don't have enough experience to know what is standard and what is gastardly. I know that godfathers usually investigate as "town". I didn't see it as such a stretch for the flip to show "town" somehow.

I suppose it depends on the game history for a given group of players. Godfathers that investigate as Town are standard procedure around here, so we know to watch out for them. I've never seen a role that could alter the cardflip, so I would never even consider that a moderator might spring that on me without some kind of warning.

GuiriEnEspaña
04-05-2010, 03:18 PM
Since I'm no longer the only one who's mentioned it, I agree with Zeriel that we may be making a mistake assuming that our cop is dead and until we have further evidence, we should avoid assuming that a character's profession=role.
Seriously? story was Town, he lied about his profession and he was a detective. He was definitely our cop.
I may be being a little naïve but I don't think it's 100% definite that Story was our cop, although it's quite likely. The profession shown in his reveal was Detective Chief Superintendent, a term mainly used in the UK and was most certainly the profession of the character he was assigned, not a generic mafia term for his role in this game. After the name claim Story himself commented on how unlikely it would be for characters and their professions to match roles in the game. Sure, this could have been wifom to throw scum off his tail (or sarcasm aimed at sachertorte?) but as he chose to false claim, I think both options are valid:
In Lost, we were dealing with established canon; the information gained stood at least a chance of being helpful, at least for organizational purposes. Here there are two differences:

1. There is evidently no canon. The information we've seen can't be interpreted, that I can see (at least, not yet). Also, on a meta-level:

2. sachertorte has been intimately involved in designing all of the games I've moderated so far. In every case, one of his driving motivations is reducing the number of ways that a game can be exploited or broken. Creating a game where a name claim would have any effect at all would be so out-of-character for him as to be inconceivable. The idea that he'd have given the Scum names like Dirk Dastardly and Genghis Kahn? Yeah, no. Not from sach.
Another factor is related to the newbie-friendliness of the game, I find it hard to believe that a newbie could have been assigned a town-aligned role of, for example, Gregory House (Medical Doctor) (fictional) and would have been forced to lie during the name claim which, in this particular game, could have been the player's very first post. What happened to lynch all liars?

I realize this discussion doesn't get us anywhere useful and possibly opens a door to a scum false-claiming detective later in the game while also opening a door to a claim from a real surviving cop but I'd prefer we didn't automatically assume character=role without further evidence.

Rysto
04-05-2010, 03:28 PM
If character does not indicate the role, then we have no method of knowing who had what role. And given sachertorte's comments after Cecil Pond, there's no way he left the Town with no way of knowing who was the cop, for example.

Zeriel
04-05-2010, 03:40 PM
If character does not indicate the role, then we have no method of knowing who had what role. And given sachertorte's comments after Cecil Pond, there's no way he left the Town with no way of knowing who was the cop, for example.

We don't even know that there IS a cop.

My expectation is that we would see something like
storyteller0910 (Detective Chief Superintendent (Fictional)) is dead.
Freudian Slit(Greek (Fictional)) is dead.
Joe Schmoe Townie (Painter (Town Investigator)) is dead.

Chronos
04-05-2010, 04:18 PM
Let's worry about that if we ever see a reveal like "Joe Schmoe Townie (Painter (Town Investigator)). In the meanwhile, we're only on Day 3, and wouldn't have expected to have any Detective information available yet anyway. We should probably move on with what we do have, not what we might hypothetically eventually have.

Zeriel
04-05-2010, 04:19 PM
Let's worry about that if we ever see a reveal like "Joe Schmoe Townie (Painter (Town Investigator)). In the meanwhile, we're only on Day 3, and wouldn't have expected to have any Detective information available yet anyway. We should probably move on with what we do have, not what we might hypothetically eventually have.

More or less what I'm trying to say--hunting for a Story breadcrumb is just about as pointless as it gets.

Rysto
04-05-2010, 04:22 PM
We don't even know that there IS a cop.
sachertorte stated repeatedly after Cecil Pond that he feels that any game without a cop is broken. I'm quite sure that we had a cop in this game.

Zeriel
04-05-2010, 04:27 PM
sachertorte stated repeatedly after Cecil Pond that he feels that any game without a cop is broken. I'm quite sure that we had a cop in this game.

This is a guessing game I'd prefer not to play in a closed setup, regardless of author, without more information either way.

Tom Scud
04-05-2010, 06:35 PM
So. Texcat:

Here's the set of posts directly related and leading up to her peeker vote. First, to Chronos, on the question of whether or not (possibly modified) quotes of PMs were a good format for the name claim: (somehow I missed this in my multi-quote round up so it's copy/pasted, ohtheirony - it's post #208):

I see no particular advantage in copy/paste either, other than it was faster for me, being such a slow typist. You seemed to be saying that there was some disadvantage, that's what I didn't understand and still don't. I don't buy that the scum could figure something out by us all posting PMs, all identical to the vanilla pm.


She then posted twice about how unclear peeker's claim was, and requested that he clarify it, including the parenthetical. (quotes deleted to make this less spammy) several other people also chime in.

peeker responds to Red Skeezix with a clarification of his claim. (also copy/pasted rather than multiquotes, it's post #303)


oh for goodness' sakes. yes i am the wicked witch of the west. i am a witch and i win with the town.


Now, I'm reading this with hindsight and all, but to me THAT claim was perfectly clear, including where the () around "witch" should go. ("i am a witch")

(the vote, 11 posts and about an hour and a half after the above)

vote peeker
for being so cagey about his name and parenthetical description (which we still don't know). It's distracting town at best, scummy as hell at worst.

Anyway, I voted her (twice) because I thought it was disingenuous to go after peeker for obfuscation after he'd just clarified himself, and because I thought there was a major disconnect between her 208 and her insistence that the parenthetical be between actual parentheses.

She never really responded to that, nobody else ever picked up on it, and I wound up shifting my vote both days.

Anyway, moving on to the post that caught my eye Yesterday about her vote on Jimmy:


Here he (Jimmy) questions OaOW, about asking Chronos about not quoting his claim. This seems like a niggling, little point to me. What difference does it make whether you put your claim in [ quote ] marks or not? I was suspicious of peeker for the same reason. Though, peeker spent a long time only claiming wicked witch of the west, without parentheses. I wasn't sure that what was in the parentheses made any difference. He could have been Wicked Witch of the West(commander of flying monkeys) or Wicked Witch of the West(leader of munchkins), or Brittany Spears (singer). The point is not that the information is going to make much difference to me as town, or to the scum, but WHY people are hiding the information. Neither Jimmy nor Chronos quoted their PM, and they did not include the Wiki link like I believe the rest of us did (though peeker's link was broken!). It just makes you wonder why. Chronos explained that he wanted to leave some doubt about whether he had a power role or not. I'm not sure I buy that explanation, but I guess it might make sense.


Now this post jumped out at me because it finally offers at some length what she was thinking about peeker: not that his information would have made a difference, but that he was hiding it. But going back, the fundamental inconsistency between 208 and everything that follows is still there: if the form the name claim was made in isn't important - if cutting and pasting is only a matter of convenience - then why is it that it suddenly becomes terribly suspicious if people don't want to cut and paste or use [ quote ] tags? (And a reason to suspect Jimmy and Chronos)?

Maybe I'm too hung up on 208 - it was a quickly bashed-out post, maybe her thought evolved between point A and point B. But it pings me hard.

Another thing that is pinging me: how does TexCat go from casting a reluctant vote for Freudian yesterday, to being so convinced that she was scum that she now thinks she was a death-godfather? (I do believe her claim that she didn't realize how outre a death-godfather would be, but I think that's a null tell as to her townieness - neither Town nor Scum would have speculated on that if they'd realized how gastardly it would be.)

Anyway, I'm going to try and take another look at Day 2, but it might have to wait until I've gotten a bit more sleep.

Oh, yeah:

vote TexCat

Tom Scud
04-05-2010, 06:45 PM
On the was-story-a-real-cop question - if he wasn't (or at least some power role), why did he false-claim his name? Yes, his real claim would have put him in the scum's crosshairs, but for a Vanilla townie, being night-killed by the scum is something you WANT to happen. And of course if there happens to be some kind of name cop or lie detector, false-claiming your name opens you to the possibility of being caught in a lie, exposing a power role, and probably being mislynched; where's the percentage?

Chronos
04-05-2010, 11:08 PM
Something I just noticed from Guiri-- He was the first to speculate about a Serial Killer, in post 683 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12275586#post12275586):@ OaOW I remember asking on Day2 of Screamers "Why would scum kill TexCat?" and got enormous heat for assuming TexCat was the scum kill. While imho it's unlikely, NAF could have been killed by a Vig, other non-3rd-party killing role or by a redirection. Why are you so sure scum killed him?Now, one thing I've found is that Scum tend to be much more concerned about third parties than Town are: The first game I played in, I correctly identified Rysto as Scum for that (he was focusing exclusively on the third-party in that game, not on the Scum), and when I was Scum in Screamers, I genuinely, honestly believed that peeker was a third party. This happens because, even when we're Scum, our Scumdar keeps on working: If you're Scum but think someone else looks Scummy, then you'll naturally jump to the conclusion that that person is a third party. So I think that a Scum would be more likely than a Townie to bring up the possibility of a Serial Killer.

Combined with my previous reason (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12286281#post12286281), I'm still suspicious of Guiri.

Meanwhile, the voting yesterDay: The end-of-Day votes can't tell us very much, since (almost) everyone voted for Freudian or Wanderers, and they were both Town. However, it might be instructive to look at where those two wagons came from. Jimmy started the case on Wanderers, but it looks to me like his voters had a variety of reasons. The Freudian case, however, looks like it was driven pretty heavily by Tom, starting from before it was clear that the only two end-of-Day wagons would be on Townies. This looks to me to put some suspicion on Jimmy, and more on Tom. And I still haven't seen a plausible explanation for a Town Tom coming up with that "overnight thread" phrasing.

Vote Tom Scud

TexCat
04-05-2010, 11:10 PM
Another thing that is pinging me: how does TexCat go from casting a reluctant vote for Freudian yesterday, to being so convinced that she was scum that she now thinks she was a death-godfather? (I do believe her claim that she didn't realize how outre a death-godfather would be, but I think that's a null tell as to her townieness - neither Town nor Scum would have speculated on that if they'd realized how gastardly it would be.)

Didn't everyone show up this mOrning ready to lynch Freudian? Several people have stated that the vig has saved us a mislynch. I was convinced that either OaOW or Freudian was scum, and yesterDay OaOW looked slightly less scummy to me. After he showed up in blue, I was convinced that Freudian was scum. New information leads to new opinions...it's hard to see what's wrong with that.

Jimmy Chitwood
04-06-2010, 12:07 AM
I was convinced that either OaOW or Freudian was scum, and yesterDay OaOW looked slightly less scummy to me. After he showed up in blue, I was convinced that Freudian was scum.

Paraphrase, "After OaOW showed up in blue, and thus must have been town, I was convinced that Freudian, who showed up in blue, was scum."

C'mon, TexCat. Up until now I've been seeing you as just as likely to be an overzealous townie making a mistake (which, in my privileged position of knowing what I am, I can say definitively you are making with at least your vote), but this is an exceedingly bizarre avenue of argument you're taking us down. It's getting increasingly difficult to read your level of investment in this argument as harmless, and I really, really really don't want anybody else getting lynched just for being stubborn in their particular flavor of distraction.

Separate discussion that I'd like some input from others about -- Meeko has more or less disappeared from gameplay lately. As far as I can remember that's unprecedented. Except it was preceded in this case by him catching some heat for his Kelly defense. Increasingly suspicious given the way the lynch proceeded between two townies, one of whom he'd gotten a vote on, n'est ce pas? He's even been called out a couple of times, which I would expect him to have a response to, but nothing. Cat got your tongue or what, Meeko? I fully realize the potential for a damned-if-you-do/don't phenomenon here, but that's not what I'm after. I'm looking at the ratio of scumminess-to-post, and the suspicious activity followed by a sudden withdrawal, except for a few nitpicks that weren't followed up on, has caught my attention.

Red Skeezix
04-06-2010, 12:52 AM
Time to play catchup, again.

First off storyteller as a power role: Maybe he was the cop maybe he wasn't. I do think the fact that he came up as town, and he lied during the name claim indicates that he was some sort of power role. Does his, for lack of a better word, occupation translate to cop? I don't know. There has been little to suggest that this is the case and nothing to suggest that this is not the case. I would say that anything based solely on the assumption that storyteller was a cop and he breadcrumbed results, is a bit lacking in substance.

TexCat suggesting freudian might have been scum (death-godfather?):
I don't see this as a very likely possibility, I'd give the thought a whole lot more creedence under a different mod, say pedescribe. But Sachertorte, IIRC, has made statements concerning truthfulness from mods in role reveals before, and has billed this game as "newbie friendly". And a scum player who reveals as town on death is opposite of newbie friendly.


*flips a coin* vote Tom Scud for the "overnight thread" slip from yesterday. (if it'd been tails, it would have been continuing the Drain Bead vote trend for the same old reasons) I will be happy with either of their lynches today and will shift vote accordingly as necessary.

Briefly, I don't believe we need any other evidence than "overnight thread" in a single-threaded game.

This vote is pinging me for a couple of reasons:

1. The random/coin-flip mentality of it seems like a minor abrogation of accountability of his vote.

2. Zeriel focused pretty intently on Drain late day 1, then voted Drain day 2 with a comment about the "overnight thread" on Tom, and now has moved on to Tom. I can see a potential scum motivation for playing this way. Focusing on a single player too long is often seen as a scum tell, and after two days of zero momentum on the Drain case (Which may also had an element of OMGUS), maybe it was time to move along.

I can't see a motivation why a scum player would call attention to the fact that they were doing either of these things. So for now FOS Zeriel.

The case on Tom Scud:
His phrasing is a null tell for me. The reason being that in the last game I was in (SSBM:2), I made a colossal slip by criticizing another player for not mentioning his win condition when he quoted his PM, when none of the town PM's (mine included) had the win condition in them.

Jimmy on Meeko:
It's not unprecedented, maybe it's a more recent thing for him, but I can think of 2 games where his participation occasionally waned. The first one is Colorless, where he was scum. The second one I'm thinking of is SSBM:2, where he was town.

Chronos:
You have commenting on being suspicious of Guiri mentioning a SK first. In the text block you quoted, he doesn't. In the post you linked to, he doesn't. The closest he comes is alluding a non-3rd party killing role, which does not immediately imply serial killer, as they are usually 3rd party/PFK.

And in fact, one of the conclusions that he made was :

And then someone killed him. As there are no 3rd parties I assume it must be either the scum kill, receiver of a redirection or a vig kill, although I'd doubt the latter two as NAF was active, involved and made the case against the lynch runner-up.


Your statements are a mischaracterization, and ignore what he actually said, and are followed by an explanation why that mischaracterization would indicate scum if it were true. This looks like smudge and bluster to me.

vote Chronos

Chronos
04-06-2010, 01:42 AM
Good lord, I'm really off my game lately. I didn't see the "non" in front of "third party". OK, I retract that on Guiri, and apologize.

I'm still pretty comfortable with my Tom vote, though, unless someone points out another colossal blunder on my part.

GuiriEnEspaña
04-06-2010, 05:02 AM
@ Chronos, in #882 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12291716&postcount=882) you said:
It's not the best case in the world, and I would have preferred a lynch of Guiri or Tom Scud, but it doesn't look like either of those is going to happen toDay. And more recently, in #971 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12307235&postcount=971), along with a misinterpretation, you reiterated your suspicion of me:Combined with my previous reason (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12286281#post12286281), I'm still suspicious of Guiri. If you're so convinced of my scumminess, would you at least respond to my replies to your accusations?

I first made the comment about Peeker's controversial claim in #345 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12254260&postcount=345):
Re: Peeker and transparency: Peeker was the second player to claim and, at that time, there was no standard claim format established. I don't see his attempt at subtlety or his continued reluctance to share his PM as helping scum.
You first expressed a suspicion of me in #360 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12255018&postcount=360) with:
I'm having a hard time seeing why anyone would defend peeker on this point, so I'm also suspicious of Guiri. Your comment was discussed at length by a number of players, Peeker included, so when I got back to the thread I thought it was clear that a number of players accepted Peeker's claim as such and so I didn't comment until when you restated (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12259911&postcount=466) Special Ed's case against Peeker I responded in #467 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12260221&postcount=467):
@ Chronos, this makes sense and is actually quite plausible. The alternative could be that he attempted to subtly breadcrumb his character in #153, got no response, and so in #174 clarified that he had claimed earlier. This is the reading I got when I first read through the events of the day and it wouldn't be the first time Peeker tried to communicate through youtube (he used a Spongebob video in Screamers to infer that he'd been blocked). I didn't see this action as particularly anti-town or pro-scum based on my interpretation of the events but I can see your interpretation too.
You did not feel the need to make any comment on this reply until 336 posts later, in #803 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12286281&postcount=803), when you resurrected your case against me recognizing that you had actually read my reply, thought that I was backpedalling and placed a vote:
Vote GuiriEnEspana For post 345 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12254260#post12254260), where he claims that peeker was the second to claim. I maintain that it was impossible for anybody other than peeker himself to actually know at the time that that was a claim, and that it looks to me like Guiri said that just to have a pretext for defending peeker. He later tries to backpedal that (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12260221#post12260221), after I expressed suspicion over it, saying that he thought it was a breadcrumb at first, but I don't think it's possible to see it as a breadcrumb, either, until peeker made his actual claim.
I promptly responded in #806 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12286550&postcount=806):
@ Chronos, I was absent for 2 days and read the thread before posting. Peeker had made the case that his first post was his "claim" and that his second post was a clarification that the first post referred to his character in this game as it became apparent no-one had understood this was his intention. My point in #345 was that at the time of Peeker's first post, call it a claim, a "claim", a breadcrumb or a random youtube video, there was no standard format for name claiming, Special Ed had posted his PM and Meeko had earlier hinted that he was a "surreal artist" but not given his name. In light of these two precedents, I could understand Peeker being imaginative (and yes, quite unclear) about how he intended to communicate his character and, with his follow-up clarification post, I accepted this as his claim. At the specific time of his first post, I agree that no-one, except possibly a player expecting someone else to claim "Wicked Witch of the West" could possibly have interpreted the first post as a claim but the second post made it clear that this was Peeker's intention. To put it simply, I understood and accepted Peeker's explanation, did not see it as helping scum in any way, and said this in the thread when giving my opinion on the case against him. I'm not sure what's scummy or suspicious about this.

When you clarified Special Ed's case you introduced a new scenario and additional theories on why Peeker may have claimed in the manner he did. I found your theory plausible but offered a counter theory, again in light of further discussion, further explanations from Peeker and further developments in the game. My premise was the same, I could not see a pro-scum motivation for claiming in the manner he did based on my interpretation but I could understand your alternative case. I also gave an example from a previous game where Peeker attempted to communicate that he'd been blocked through a SpongeBob video. Again, I'm not sure what's scummy about giving alternative readings. I believe Storyteller had pretty much the same idea that I had and even Special Ed had agreed that his play could be interpreted as a breadcrumb follow-up with a clarification - although there was no obvious reason why Peeker would feel the need to breadcrumb his role, especially as we now know he was Town.

I hope this clarifies my stance on the issue.
Again you did not respond but 86 posts later you say you were looking for me to be lynched and now you repeat your suspicion of me. If you think I need to be lynched, why didn't you respond to my comments on Day 1 or my response to your vote on Day 2 and explain why you still find me so scummy? If you don't defend your case and ignore replies from your accused, how can you expect anyone else to buy into your case to have me lynched? Do you really think I'm scum or are these throwaway comments for show? You seem to be making a half-hearted attempt to paint me as scum but are not putting much interest or effort into it, just rehashing your suspicions every now and then. I'll take your recent "serial killer" comments as a misinterpretation rather than an attempt to mischaracterize me but I'm very suspicious of your pursuit of me.

sachertorte
04-06-2010, 09:11 AM
Chronos (2): special ed 924, Red Skeezix 974

Tom Scud (3): Mahaloth 931, Zeriel 954, Chronos 971

Jimmy Chitwood (1): TexCat 941

TexCat (1): Tom Scud 969

Zeriel
04-06-2010, 09:49 AM
Didn't everyone show up this mOrning ready to lynch Freudian? Several people have stated that the vig has saved us a mislynch. I was convinced that either OaOW or Freudian was scum, and yesterDay OaOW looked slightly less scummy to me. After he showed up in blue, I was convinced that Freudian was scum. New information leads to new opinions...it's hard to see what's wrong with that.

I, for one, would not have voted for Freudian--the case on her was pathetic.

Tom Scud
04-06-2010, 09:55 AM
This is a reluctant vote on my part. I still think that the case against OaOW is only a scum fabrication, and I still think Jimmy looks scummy, but I am going to move my vote to what looks to me like the more suspicious of the two dogs in this race. If there is a scum bandwagon on OaOW, it looks like Freudian could easily be part of it.

I was convinced that either OaOW or Freudian was scum, and yesterDay OaOW looked slightly less scummy to me. After he showed up in blue, I was convinced that Freudian was scum. New information leads to new opinions...it's hard to see what's wrong with that.

I see. "the case against him is only a scum fabrication" == "slightly less scummy".

Tom Scud
04-06-2010, 09:56 AM
(In case it's unclear, the first quote above was TexCat's vote post from yesterday.)

Meeko
04-06-2010, 10:17 AM
Just calling this as I see it, on first blush :

That seems a tad too "fast" a reaction, there, Ed.

By that I mean to say, you seem eager to offer up reasons, and make conclusions that I think are a bit too far apart.


maybe you should wait for your second blush.

Not that I actually understand what point you're actually making....What is 'too fast' of a reaction? That I think a Vigilante is Town? OK, do you know of any other types of Vigilantes? And, aside from the fact that we know this game has no 3rd party players, would you call a Scum with a secondary kill a Vigilante? That's not the standard use of the term.

Or maybe you object to my agreeing with you that the Vigilante appears not-compulsory.

Oh, why am I trying to figure out what ou mean when you use your very indirect way of posting?

Let me be more direct.

1. What did I do too fast for you?
2. What reasons did I offer up?
3. What conclusions did I reach?
4. How are those conclusions a bit too far apart?
5. What are those conclusions far apart from?

You were all like a town vig would Vig freudian to keep us from a mislynch today.

Seems way too convenient. This game seems full of ""But of course that is why X would do that."" It just strikes me as knee-jerk to the first reason someone would do something.

Just because a path can be taken to get to an action, doesn't mean it is the exclusive path to that action. It doesn't even mean that path was taken.

Scum would want town to go down the primrose path of assumption. Especially if it plays into an assumed "That's better for town if it happens that way" school of thought.

But Easter has gotten me too far removed from this game. I need to catch up.

We have people flipping coins to place votes now?! really?

But, I think we have a red herring factory elsewhere. It needs to be stopped.


Does anyone else have suspicions about blue really being town? When OaOW turned up town, I would have put money down that Freudian was scum. YesterDay in a two townie race, I would have guessed that a few of the scum would have taken the opportunity to put votes down on their fellow scum. Or is it possible that Freudian was scum and that the result was somehow tampered with?

I have suspicions, but not on text color.

Bringing this up does no good for town, in any event. Noise, not signal, at a point when the game can barely handle more noise.

Vote TexCat

Meeko
04-06-2010, 10:18 AM
Ack.

Unvote

Vote TexCat

Oredigger77
04-06-2010, 10:27 AM
I think that Chronos is looking pretty bad right now between his missing the non in front of third parties and his lack of responses to Guri. I'm going to go back and flip through his posts and see if I can find anything more substantial but for right now I thinking that a pretty good case is shaping up on him.

I don’t buy the Tom ‘slip’ considering he was referring to a post in this thread over Night. I tend to look at the simplest explanation and that seems to match up pretty well to the facts but I’ll review Tom while I’m at it in case I missed something during my primary reading.

Drain Bead
04-06-2010, 11:46 AM
Yeah, it definitely looks like Chronos is trying to trump up cases against people. I don't think it makes sense that he missed the "no" in that sentence, because if he did, what he was reading Guiri as saying was patently untrue according to the rules. For me to accept his explanation, I'd have to also accept that Chronos somehow didn't notice that there are no third parties in this game, something that was explained in the rules posting and has been reiterated by quite a few players during the game itself.

vote Chronos

I'm also suspicious of TexCat for the bit of craziness about the flip upthread, but I can't really see a scum motivation behind it--it's not an idea that anyone would expect to gain traction, and could bring a lot of negative attention upon the one who brings it up.

TexCat
04-06-2010, 12:04 PM
[...]Bringing this up does no good for town, in any event. Noise, not signal, at a point when the game can barely handle more noise.

Vote TexCat

Yes, I brought it up. I have already said that I didn't realize that it was so gastardly when I brought it up. If I had thought it was totally out of the question then I never would have brought it up. I don't think I'm causing the noise about it now...Tom is the one who continues and continues to bring it up, as well as Jimmy here:

Originally Posted by TexCat
I was convinced that either OaOW or Freudian was scum, and yesterDay OaOW looked slightly less scummy to me. After he showed up in blue, I was convinced that Freudian was scum.Paraphrase, "After OaOW showed up in blue, and thus must have been town, I was convinced that Freudian, who showed up in blue, was scum."
This post seems particularly bad to me. Jimmy, people can read what I said. They don't need you paraphrasing. (This, Meeko, is what causes noise.) Let me try it again. After OaOW showed up in blue ON THURSDAY, I was convinced that Freudian was scum. When Freudian showed up in blue ON SATURDAY, I was surprised and started thinking about what I now realize is a too gastardly twist. When you snipped my quote, you lost the first part about the timing, "this mOrning".Didn't everyone show up this mOrning ready to lynch Freudian? Several people have stated that the vig has saved us a mislynch. I was convinced that either OaOW or Freudian was scum, and yesterDay OaOW looked slightly less scummy to me. After he showed up in blue, I was convinced that Freudian was scum. New information leads to new opinions...it's hard to see what's wrong with that.

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
04-06-2010, 01:14 PM
Ok. I've sat down to make this post a few times, but actually cutting through the backlog and ignoring all distractions has proven to be a bitch.

Vote Tom Scud

I picked up on him looking primarily at voting history and a quick look at his posts. I realize that others are voting for him, but I don't want to rely on those cases, so I've gone through all of his posts to cite my particular references for my vote.

Exhibit A (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12243279#post12243279)An early soft claim alluding to the 'townieness' of his name.

Exhibit B] A bit of a smear on my former incarnation here, but most importantly is what I consider may be an exploit of the 'eek'...some people get Meeko and Peeker, and some people don't. Even if you've 'gotten' either of them in one game, doesn't necessarily mean you'll 'get' them the next time around. Alignment usually has no bearings on who does and does not parse their styles of play. As such, they may offer scum some convenient leverage if a Townie happens to fall on the wrong side on the suspicion spectrum.

[url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12258493#post12258493]Exhibit C (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12252839#post12252839) On the flip side of the scum-would-know-peeker-was-town-and-use-it-to-their-advantage coin, despite using lack of understanding of Peeker against Texcat, he seems perfectly willing to embrace suspicions of Peeker here. The juxtaposition strikes me as someone who is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Exhibit D (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12260684&postcount=476)
Seems to arrive back at the conclusion that peeker is just misunderstood town, while being careful to say that he has no idea of peeker is scum or town. That's a lot of flip-flopping with respect to Peeker and he still seems to be allowing himself the flexibility to continue to flip-flop in case it comes in handy again, if he hadn't died and flipped Town. Contrast this behavior with a single-minded pursuit of Texcat consistently through the game, and I think it is interesting.

It also leads me to Exhibit E (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12265141&postcount=571) where he switches his vote from Texcat, who he still thinks is the scummiest, to my predecessor. It doesn't matter if your views are unpopular, Town should vote with their suspicions instead of muddying the voting history by joining a more popular bandwagon.

Exhibit F (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12277014&postcount=706), the potential slip about a Night thread.

Exhibit G (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12285342&postcount=783) Another vote change away from his favorite whipping horse, Texcat, this time onto a known townie-lynching bandwagon on Freudian.

That's as far as Ive gotten in my review, but more than enough to make me happy with my vote.

Chronos
04-06-2010, 03:33 PM
Quoth TexCat:When Freudian showed up in blue ON SATURDAY, I was surprised and started thinking about what I now realize is a too gastardly twist.I was waiting until you replied on this point to comment, but should I take this as meaning that you're dropping the "maybe Freudian was Scum after all" discussion? That's good enough for me.

Oh, and Meeko, there are at least three reasons why it's good tactics for a Vig to shoot the runner-up, not just that it might prevent the waste of a lynch. First, someone who a lot of folks voted for is more likely to be Scum than someone selected at random, and of course it's the best-case scenario if the Vig actually hits Scum. Second, killing someone (and thus, learning their alignment) who's gathered a lot of votes yields more information than killing someone who hasn't had as much interaction with other players. And third is the possibility of preventing a wasted lynch, on the assumption that someone who got a lot of votes the previous Day might get a lot of votes on the next Day, too.

Tom Scud
04-06-2010, 08:19 PM
Ok. I've sat down to make this post a few times, but actually cutting through the backlog and ignoring all distractions has proven to be a bitch.

Vote Tom Scud

I picked up on him looking primarily at voting history and a quick look at his posts. I realize that others are voting for him, but I don't want to rely on those cases, so I've gone through all of his posts to cite my particular references for my vote.

Exhibit A (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12243279#post12243279)An early soft claim alluding to the 'townieness' of his name.


Uh, whatever. We were discussing whether a name claim would be useful. It was relevant though not very illuminating.

Exhibit B] A bit of a smear on my former incarnation here, but most importantly is what I consider may be an exploit of the 'eek'...some people get Meeko and Peeker, and some people don't. Even if you've 'gotten' either of them in one game, doesn't necessarily mean you'll 'get' them the next time around. Alignment usually has no bearings on who does and does not parse their styles of play. As such, they may offer scum some convenient leverage if a Townie happens to fall on the wrong side on the suspicion spectrum.

Well, yeah, re: the smear - Kelly had done something that didn't look good, and I said it didn't look good.

On exploiting the eek - so anyone who ever votes peeker/meeko is exempt from scrutiny? Peeker's 303 was about as clear as I've seen him be, and the real explosion didn't happen until after TexCat's vote.

[url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12258493#post12258493]Exhibit C (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12252839#post12252839) On the flip side of the scum-would-know-peeker-was-town-and-use-it-to-their-advantage coin, despite using lack of understanding of Peeker against Texcat, he seems perfectly willing to embrace suspicions of Peeker here. The juxtaposition strikes me as someone who is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

I was trying to understand the argument being made; Ed was at least making an argument about scum motivation, play, and something other than "peeker is SOOO weird". It was a pure relief to be back into something remotely rational.

Exhibit D (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12260684&postcount=476)
Seems to arrive back at the conclusion that peeker is just misunderstood town, while being careful to say that he has no idea of peeker is scum or town. That's a lot of flip-flopping with respect to Peeker and he still seems to be allowing himself the flexibility to continue to flip-flop in case it comes in handy again, if he hadn't died and flipped Town. Contrast this behavior with a single-minded pursuit of Texcat consistently through the game, and I think it is interesting.


I listened to ed's (and Chronos's) argument, once there actually WAS an argument about peeker, and didn't in the end like it.


It also leads me to Exhibit E (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12265141&postcount=571) where he switches his vote from Texcat, who he still thinks is the scummiest, to my predecessor. It doesn't matter if your views are unpopular, Town should vote with their suspicions instead of muddying the voting history by joining a more popular bandwagon.

This is pure bullshit. If I see a bad lynch happening, I'm not supposed to shift to someone who I think is scummier than the primary lynch target? I think that's crazy, and I've caught scum before for refusing to make such a shift on "principle".

Exhibit F (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12277014&postcount=706), the potential slip about a Night thread.

About which I've said what I have to say.

Exhibit G (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12285342&postcount=783) Another vote change away from his favorite whipping horse, Texcat, this time onto a known townie-lynching bandwagon on Freudian.

Who had just made a terrible defense of a not-very-good vote on OneAndOnly. And who had been on my radar since her vote of Meeko earlier.

And yes, I've continued to be suspicious of TexCat. Shocking, I know.

Meh. It looks like I'm hanging today. At least there's data being generated.

sachertorte
04-07-2010, 09:21 AM
Chronos (3): special ed 924, Red Skeezix 974, Drain Bead 984

Tom Scud (4): Mahaloth 931, Zeriel 954, Chronos 971, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies 986

Jimmy Chitwood (1): TexCat 941

TexCat (2): Tom Scud 969, Meeko 982

Oredigger77
04-07-2010, 10:12 AM
I went back and looked through Chronos and in general he's pretty clean. I really can't find anything besides through twisting his statement to mean more then face value. On the other hand I am getting seriously pinged by the things that have been brought up toDAy (missing the non and ignoring arguments but pushing a case).

For now I'm going to vote for him but I'm worried about creating another tie, we have time to break it, but I think the scum keep pushing us into situation where we have two strong candidates while they sit back and laugh.

Vote Chronos

Chronos
04-07-2010, 11:56 AM
Y'know, I'm not exactly eager to get lynched, but I don't entirely mind being in a close race with Tom. I think this is a close race between a Townie and a Scum, and the voting in that kind of race generates a lot of useful data (as opposed to a close race between two Townies, like we had yesterDay).

Drain Bead
04-07-2010, 12:04 PM
I went back and looked through Chronos and in general he's pretty clean. I really can't find anything besides through twisting his statement to mean more then face value. On the other hand I am getting seriously pinged by the things that have been brought up toDAy (missing the non and ignoring arguments but pushing a case).

For now I'm going to vote for him but I'm worried about creating another tie, we have time to break it, but I think the scum keep pushing us into situation where we have two strong candidates while they sit back and laugh.


This whole post REEKS. So you've got someone who is "pretty clean," but you're going to vote for him to create a tie, even though you don't want to create a tie? Wow, talk about trying to create deniability. And nothing in there says you bothered to examine any of the other vote getters, or anyone else, for that matter. I am not liking this vote at all. Even if Chronos comes up Scum, which I think he is at this point, I still find this vote incredibly suspect.

Oredigger77
04-07-2010, 12:28 PM
This whole post REEKS. So you've got someone who is "pretty clean," but you're going to vote for him to create a tie, even though you don't want to create a tie?

Basically, ties are bad. In the tie break mechanism of this game my vote is worthless because Tom got there first so in order for my vote to count I have to hope someone agrees that Chronos is scummier then Tom. Maybe it's just me but that seems pretty open to scum manipulation and I don't like that.

I didn't find anything to add to Chronos's case which strikes me as pretty clean but I think what's already there makes him scummier then Tom. Z is the only person who's put together a case that's even slightly convincing against Tom. I think I should vote for the better case even if that person is pretty clean.
And nothing in there says you bothered to examine any of the other vote getters, or anyone else, for that matter. I am not liking this vote at all.

So you want me to post an evaluation of every single case or every single player to prove that I’m examining other players? I went back and reread Chronos and Tom. I haven’t done more then have an initial impression on the other cases but they didn’t strike me as very solid. Honestly at this point in the Day I don’t think it’s worth bothering with one off votes but I’ll review the Texcat case and let you know what I’m thinking.

Oredigger77
04-07-2010, 12:29 PM
Uups, it wasn't Z it was Cookies that put together the good case against Tom.

special ed
04-07-2010, 02:27 PM
This whole post REEKS. So you've got someone who is "pretty clean," but you're going to vote for him to create a tie, even though you don't want to create a tie? Wow, talk about trying to create deniability. And nothing in there says you bothered to examine any of the other vote getters, or anyone else, for that matter. I am not liking this vote at all. Even if Chronos comes up Scum, which I think he is at this point, I still find this vote incredibly suspect.

+1

Oredigger's "case" reeks of someone saying, 'there aren't any good cases, so I'm going to vote for the least bad one, but don't hold it against me, I mean, it's not like I could actually make a good case. You guys forced me to pick between 2 good cases.'

PS, does "while [the Scum] sit back an laugh" strike anyone as gloating?

So, to break the tie, let's try this:

unvote Chronos
vote Oredigger

special ed
04-07-2010, 02:31 PM
is it correct that Day ends in about 24 hours?

special ed
04-07-2010, 02:33 PM
NETA

good" should be "bad"

+1
"
Oredigger's "case" reeks of someone saying, 'there aren't any good cases, so I'm going to vote for the least bad one, but don't hold it against me, I mean, it's not like I could actually make a good case. You guys forced me to pick between 2 [good] bad cases.'

PS, does "while [the Scum] sit back an laugh" strike anyone as gloating?

So, to break the tie, let's try this:

unvote Chronos
vote Oredigger

Mahaloth
04-07-2010, 03:16 PM
is it correct that Day ends in about 24 hours?

Yes, unless this Day is different for some reason.

Quick thoughts since I've been rather busy lately.

1. I think my vote for Tom is still the best vote, though Oredigger's vote up there(for Chronos) was ridiculous as well.

2. I don't get the case on Chronos. I mean, I guess his errors could be intentional, but I don't get the scumminess of them. Anyway, I don't really get it.

Jimmy Chitwood
04-07-2010, 03:44 PM
Man. I really can't believe that vote.

On the one hand, it's completely shocking to me that in a game where so little pressure's been generated, a member of the scum would turn up with a vote like that and be so baldly disinterested in justifying it. Right? To say "yeah, he looks clean, and I'm voting for him" suggests an incredible apathy toward the way that message is going to be perceived, which doesn't, to me, really seem like the mentality I'd expect from the scum at this point.

On the other hand... shit, what else can you do when it happens? Drain Bead is exactly right about the deniability issue, and Oredigger's response is just as worrisome as the vote was. It's definitely not an approach that seems at all geared toward actually finding any scum.

In each of those two posts I think the main theme is just not caring that much how it plays. That is, to some degree, how each of the previous lynches was determined -- a town player being thoughtless and kind of silly, somebody getting on them about it, and then a whole bunch of votes piling on top. That trend bothers me a lot.

I don't think I'm comfortable voting for it. Could you guys run down for me how you think an Oredigger-as-scum scenario plays out such that he was inclined to make that post? Is it premised on Tom being scum, or do you think it doesn't matter?

GuiriEnEspaña
04-07-2010, 06:46 PM
2. I don't get the case on Chronos. I mean, I guess his errors could be intentional, but I don't get the scumminess of them. Anyway, I don't really get it.
I'm not sure about the scum motivation for an intentional error but I suspect he's trying to act like he's hunting scum but making the minimum possible effort to avoid attracting too much attention. While I understand there's an element of omgus and personal annoyance in my case against him, he's basically repeated that he's suspicious of me on a number of occasions but each time I've replied, either to comment on the same Day1 issue (Peeker's "claim") or to defend myself, he's chosen not to respond. I realize there's no rule about having to reply to a defense post but I've even asked him directly and have not received a reply. This is getting a little irritating and I see no pro-town aspect of rehashing suspicions (and fabricating evidence based on a false premise he himself was aware of (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12299178&postcount=908) irrespective of the "non") against another player on multiple occasions without actually interacting with the accused in any way. What could the scum motivation be? To try to give the impression that he's actively looking for scum, is suspicious of a number of players and is unwilling to engage with me because the case is so weak that it would be obvious to all that it's just a show. It's not watertight but I'm comfortable to:

Vote Chronos

Y'know, I'm not exactly eager to get lynched, but I don't entirely mind being in a close race with Tom. I think this is a close race between a Townie and a Scum, and the voting in that kind of race generates a lot of useful data (as opposed to a close race between two Townies, like we had yesterDay).
Possibly, although I think Tom could be scum too.