Vote Diggit
Let’s hear a claim already.
Vote Diggit
The difference is motive of the player being voted on. That is, I suspect you more than I suspect Diggit, and I frankly think that I suspect you more than Mhaye suspects Diggit.
My point is simply that I think Peeker is 100% correct with his play on counterclaiming pedescribe’s claim. We can both entertain hypotheticals on what Peeker should have done. However, given the result, I don’t think any other course of action could have been more pro town.
Peeker put it best when he explained his rationale in part with::
i think he claimed this to save his butt hoping that he would get investigated and show up town. then when i, the real vig, showed up he would just call b.s. and potentially have the dick confirm that he is town. shoot, enough confusion to not only potentially get a mislynch but also unearth the detective.*
As per your post 531, you still cling to a anti town stance, even after Peeker’s gamble paid off.
I didn’t like Mhaye’s case, or his reasons, or his explanation [ or seeming lack of one ] to vote against Diggit. Diggit’s questions reminded me of moves I made in the past. I can see those moves as being innocent and harmless.
You remain anti-town, and I believe that, that warrants a vote. Based on 531 It would appear to me that your explanation will be more of the same, telling me that Peeker was wrong.
I would like to think that my argument for my vote on you was enough, but you do bring up a valid point.
You seem to want to say something, and I am bit ahead of myself for not asking you.
I can not move off voting for you yet. I will listen to what you feel you need to say, however.
Meeko, you have not yet explained how my opinion about peeker’s counterclaim is anti-town, or pro-scum, or anything beyond a difference of opinion. Please feel free to do so.
That last post was you essentially repeating yourself from your vote post.
Secondly, I have nothing pressing to say, just to point out that you are being blatantly hypocritical. It appears that you believe that when you do something that you have criticized, the same criticism is not applicable to you and that your suspicion is paramount to consistent play.
Snipped.
I believe we are done here.
Vote Count with about 1 day, 2 hours, and 45 minutes
11 Votes required to start countdown.
(peak vote in parentheses)
6 Votes
*DiggitCamara (6 #642) Red Skeezix (593), peekercpa (603), MHaye (606), Tom Scud (633), Freudian Slit (64), ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies (642)
5 Votes
Freudian Slit (7 #584) Zeriel (512), Red Skeezix (536 593), Drain Bead (545), Tom Scud (561 633), GuiriEnEspaña (568), USCDiver (582), Mental Guy (584)
2 Votes
Meeko (2 #540) Tom Scud (534 561), storyteller0910 (540). Mahaloth (571)
Red Skeezix (2 #590)) peekercpa (526 603), Alka Seltzer (590), Meeko (627)
0 Votes
Mental Guy (1 #522) Alka Seltzer (522 590)
Zeriel
Drain Bead
Tom Scud
Alka Seltzer
peekercpa
Mahaloth
Nanook of the North Shore
ToeJam
USCDiver
MHaye
GuiriEnEspaña
storyteller0910
ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
Lynch Leader
**
Not voting:* Nanook of the North Shore, ToeJam, DiggitCamara
Cookies, can you expound a little bit on your vote? I assume it is related to this post above:
I take it this is now enough rationale for you to place a vote, but it wasn’t when you first posted it. Right now, your vote simply looks like you’re breaking a tie in **Freudian’s **favor.
Would you rather I just not vote where I feel the most suspicion then? I’ve stated a few times why I don’t have much confidence in the case against Freudian, and I can see at least one significant and compelling mark against Diggit. It is compelling enough for me to vote for him.
No, I think your vote is fine if that’s where your suspicions are, but I just couldn’t find where you spelled out what made you suspicious in the first place. Your vote post was lacking. The best I could find was the post I quoted and I just wanted you to confirm that that was your reasoning or to provide more if that wasn’t it.
Cool beans, I guess I figured the post you quoted had been recent enough. Aside from my anecdotal statement of justification I also just simply agree with the other observations that have already been made about dishing strategy in one post and then chastising other players for strategizing later, and the motivation behind trying to quell such discussion seems more likely to benefit scum than town.
can we just kill diggit and move on?
another fish in the boat, woot woot.
" another fish in the boat " ?
Care to share with the rest of the class, peeker?
Looking back on Freudian’s play, I still think she looks scummy. I have seen similar play, though, from frustrated town players. I can’t really say the same thing about Diggit and since his play seems to have more scum motivation behind it, I will
**
Unvote Freudian Slit**
Vote DiggitCamara
Re: DiggitCamara, when he made his last post (#602) he had received just one vote from Red Skeezix and his post was a response to the pokes and accusations received from Red. He was active on the board yesterday morning when he had gathered 3 more votes (4 to Freudian’s 5). Since then he’s gone on to get 3 more votes and is the lynch leader (7-4) but he hasn’t been back to respond to any of the votes after Red’s.
Very brief WoW of his 9 game-related posts (spoilered):
#196 Suggests the Vig should hold off for a couple of nights - “our main advantage lies in numbers”.
#198 In response to Tom’s pointing out that previous discussion on the Vig had been held, disagrees that “Night 2” is a good starting point, Vig should hold off till far later - better ratio of scum/town or when info from Cop is available
(70 posts later)
#263 Random comment about how to recognize Peeker when he’s scum due to his behavior always being the same.
(63 posts later)
#326Votes Peeker of the “main lynch candidates” because he pings the hardest and is incomprehensible. (At this time Peeker only has 1 vote from Pedescribe while Pedescribe and Freudian are the two main candidates)
(100 posts later)
#426 Unvotes Peeker to vote Pedescribe - agrees with Tom that there’s no reason why Peeker would make such a claim
(132 posts later)
#558 Also agrees that the “Night Lynch” suggestion is a bad idea as scum can “play” him to their benefit and can influence Daytime discussion. Suggests that Town RB should hold off as much as possible but at his/her discretion
#592To Tom, asks to stop analyzing strategy for scum to avoid giving ideas
* Vote from Red #593, “So it’s okay for YOU to analyze strategy during the day, but everyone should keep mum, lest we give scum ideas.”*
#595 Responds to vote “we’re trying too hard to guess what scum will be doing about peeker and while doing so, we might easily give them ideas about him”
#602 Second and final response to Red - “I only was voicing my discontent at analysis that might optimize Scum’s strategy.” Accepts corrected analysis on risks of Roleblocker hitting the town Cop or Doc.
I’d really like to hear something from Diggit before Day End - a claim, a response to the votes, a defense - as the simple fact of lurking while gathering votes and accusations is not pro-town but as he apparently hasn’t been active since the case against him started to gather momentum, I’d prefer to hold off on moving my vote for now - realizing that both keeping my vote on Freudian and moving my vote to Diggit this late in the Day would look equally scummy in the eyes of several people.
Vote Count with about 13 hours, and 18 minutes
(peak vote in parentheses)
7 Votes
*DiggitCamara (6 #642) Red Skeezix (593), peekercpa (603), MHaye (606), Tom Scud (633), Freudian Slit (640), ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies (642), MentalGuy (653)
4 Votes
Freudian Slit (7 #584) Zeriel (512), Red Skeezix (536 593), Drain Bead (545), Tom Scud (561 633), GuiriEnEspaña (568), USCDiver (582), MentalGuy (584 653)
2 Votes
Meeko (2 #540) Tom Scud (534 561), storyteller0910 (540). Mahaloth (571)
Red Skeezix (2 #590)) peekercpa (526 603), Alka Seltzer (590), Meeko (627)
0 Votes
MentalGuy (1 #522) Alka Seltzer (522 590)
Zeriel
Drain Bead
Tom Scud
Alka Seltzer
peekercpa
Mahaloth
Nanook of the North Shore
ToeJam
USCDiver
MHaye
GuiriEnEspaña
storyteller0910
ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
Lynch Leader
**
Not voting:* Nanook of the North Shore, ToeJam, DiggitCamara
I find it somewhat suspicious that Diggit is so absent. In these cases, it generally means we’ve found a Scum who has given up, or who wants to cause as much confusion as possible by delaying a roleclaim until late in the Day. Switching my vote is meaningless at this point, so I’m going to sit on my Freudian vote until I hear a claim from Diggit, after which point I will re-evaulate.
Y’know, I’ve also seen Vanilla Town act the same way, especially in an open setup. They know a claim of VT is going to be met with skepticism. Still, I’m definitely suspicious of Diggit and don’t object to those who have voted for him, but I’m happy where my vote is now. I’m working from 12p-9p (EST) today, so I’m going to probably miss the end of the Day including any last minute claims.
With the Scum blocker out there, I’d be surprised if Scum didn’t make a claim to try to draw out the Doc or Cop. Unless, of course, Diggit IS the Scum blocker. Not sure what the good play for Scum might be there.
Sorry about that. I was at a wedding yesterday so I couldn’t log in much.
I’m just a lowly vanilla townfolk, so I don’t think I’m too much of a loss at this juncture (particularly since my ideas don’t seem to be getting much common approval in this game).
So: Go Town!
Eh. My switching still means nothing, so I will keep my vote on the person I still believe to be the scummiest.