You can address your false representation of the case against you (‘Pizza case was overkill’ was only scum tell); and you can attempt to clarify your end of day thoughts some more (how you can reconcile your stated hope that someone might stop by to rescue you with you with your contention that you had nothing to gain by speaking up and making a case in your own defense, either after my vote, or after Special Ed’s.
Septimus, I don’t think your arguments really hold together very well. If you think that Normal and/or Pizza are scum, why would they bus me? For the town cred? Because they are under pressure? Normal’s pressure came from Pizza. I guess you think he’s bussing her too? Pizza was under a lot of pressure the first couple of Days, but seemed to survive without bussing anyone.
Isn’t it more likely that a scummy Normal and/or a scummy Pizza latched onto an innocent townie that looked like an easy lynch? Or that two innocent townies, Normal and Pizza, found that I looked scummy, made the case and voted me?
There all kinds of reasons for scum to bus their teammates, but I have found that they don’t start cases on them very often and without good reason. Often when it looks inevitable, scum will add their condemnation and vote, but rarely do they throw teammates under the bus just for the hell of it.
unvote pedescribe
It seems noteworthy to me that Texcat has not much concrete to say in this game, until she gets voted. Then she is all hands on deck, ready to defend.
Hey everyone, I am back in health, catching up at work and obviously have a lot to catch up here as well. Sorry I had to be absent for so long. I’m going to have to post as I go along here since there is so much for me to read, so don’t be surprised if I comment on something from a couple days ago…
And do you think defending yourself is a scum tell? Or being quiet is a scum tell? I haven’t noticed much concrete from you either Weedy. This vote just looks like a bandwagon to me.
The vote on pedescribe was not effective? Do you think he is still scum? Do you think I am scum, or just a convenient or effective? vote?
I’ve been bouncing off the choie case since yesterday off and on, but
vote: choie.
I do think that much of what Pizza has pointed out could be mere personality quirks and thus null tells. I finally get where she could be coming from on me, if she is town (though her presentation nullifies that; see below). And I think that my mis-reading of that one bit of “PIS” regarding Septimus over-influenced my view of the whole case for a while there. But there’s still plenty to be suspicious of.
This, which was aimed at Silver Jan OMGUS-ing her:
It feels like a wrong line of questioning to me. Choie is already voting for Silver Jan, and should thus have some level of suspicion on her. When someone who you suspect OMGUS votes you, the reaction tends to be one of satisfaction on at least some level – hah, I got under your skin, you scummer, and you’ve shown your true colors. That sort of thing. Not soft-peddled questioning about whether the suspect in question has a real case. And the “not get up in arms” thing at the end feels more like trying to wave off something uncomfortable than real sentiment: choie was already voting Silver Jan, so how much more up in arms is it even possible to get?
This:
Like Septimus, choie appears to want to draw attention to the votes on Septimus coming from only three people. Special Ed is dead and probably townie, so apparently it’s ATPG and I who get the stink-eye as a default. But she’s not seeming honest in how she approaches this. Notice the first sentence of the first paragraph: it “bothered” her. Bothered implies that something about it smelled wrong to her. Yet by the end of the paragraph she is saying she is swayed by our opinions, and without any signs of transition from one to the other. Those are not two thoughts that should be capable of residing in one person’s head at the same time.
And then she turns around again to go into great detail on the opposite opinion on Septimus, showing she was not all that swayed by us at all. Not honest.
Finally, her vote on me:
It’s tiny, but that “supposedly” bothers me. This was choie’s own contention, that I was protecting Jan, dating back to day two; it’s certainly nothing that I’d ever claimed about my actions myself. She’s “supposedly”-ing her own case here, not something that I as a suspect had said, not something that any other random player had said, her own case. That feels wrong to me: she’s referencing it in a way that makes it feel like she’s referencing a story someone’s told, not soemthing she herself had honestly previously believed. But it’s just one word.
However, the bulk of the accusation (from “but here’s a thought” to “fake vanilla town claim from Normal”) also looks like a story. It’s a big “what if” tied up with a neat red bow; it even starts with “what if”. This doesn’t read like something she believes. It looks like someone trying to sell you something. She voted me on day two for something now proven false. She votes me again on day three for the opposite reasoning, presented as a big “hey maybe this is it instead. Think so? Well what the heck, let’s do it”. I don’t think it’s real.
Keeping quiet is a plausible scum strategy, yes. You seem much more concerned about your own lynch than anything much else so far this game. I always try to give lurkers the benefit of the doubt, that maybe they are busy, or away, but you are clearly around, because once you started taking some heat you were right on the spot.
Have you read my posts, including my vote posts? I voted for pedescribe to hopefully get his attention. I did think it was slightly scummy to lock in a vote so early in the day yesterday, because then he has an excuse for being disengaged for the rest of the day, but it’s no much to go on. Last game he pretty much completely disappeared for days on end, but he turned out to be town. Someone who just isn’t there isn’t giving any information one way or the other, but someone who is around, but not posting, is choosing to keep her thoughts to herself.
Suburban Plankton - I’m not very convinced by this case. Looking over your posts about him, it seems a lot like you were blowing off steam about people complaining about your playstyle. Yes, he shouldn’t have suggested it’d be OK to lynch you even if you were town - but is that subtle scum manipulation or just his honest reaction to your playstyle? He’s not the only one to do so - IIRC, you yourself said at one point you’d be a good lynch candidate, just because too many people were focused on you. I’m not sure that differs too much from what SP was saying. The core argument you have against him seems to be that he reasoned badly, therefore he’s scum. I agree that scum are essentially forced to reason badly by virtue of making cases that they know have false conclusions, but town are perfectly capable of reasoning badly themselves.
ShadowFacts - similarly, most of Normal’s case against him boils down to “Bad reasoning ==> scum” e.g. “Weird isn’t scum” (indeed!) “bad criticism of another player” “conclusions drawn are too facile”. Equally, there’s quite a lot of “Town wouldn’t do that!” e.g. consider voting for pedescribe, ask Lightfoot to reveal. Town will do all of that and more. The points about being overcautious and ducking a direct Q from you are more persuasive, but not enough to convince me to vote.
TexCat - I find this case more convincing. Suburban’s analysis of her as coming in to say something that makes waves before dropping back out of sight does seem to fit the pattern of her posts, and is plausible scum behaviour. Ditto her avoidance of the tie-break vote despite having made a case against septimus. I’ll have to think about it some more but she might be edging ahead of Mental Guy in my suspicions.
Yes, you quoted me. But your response did not address the argument I made. I could actually be partially to blame here, because it occurs to me that I used an ambiguous “he” in my post: something which I try to avoid for this very reason. Look at what I posted again:
Now replace all occurrences of “he” with “Texcat”. You then get
“At the time” here meaning “on Day 1”; that is, you never told us you were suspicious of Ed during Day 1. You only mentioned it on Day 2, by saying “I was suspicious yesterDay of Ed”
I wasn’t focused on the timing of your vote. I was focused on the fact that the arguments you used to support your vote (you had been suspicious of **Ed **since the previous Day, and you thought Silver Jan was Town) were things that you had never mentioned before that post. It appeared to me that you needed to invent a reason to vote for Ed, and you did so on the spot.
Let’s see…there are 16 living players in the game at the moment. We have so far identified 0 Scum. So there are most likely at least 4 Scum still in the game. So pick any 4 players at random; how many do you think will flip Scum?
I personally think your statement is correct: that there is at least one Scum in the group you named, and I am voting for her. But statistically speaking your statement would be correct for any group of 4 players you happened to pick, so it really doesn’t mean much.
I think you’re skippng a lot of context on ShadowFacts, Stanislaus. The Lightfoot thing for instance: it wasn’t his asking her to reveal; it was his apparently not realizing that there could be any reasons not to. Voting pedescribe is fine; doing it at the time and in the context and manner he did were suggestive. You don’t see me givign Weedy a hard time for voting for pedescribe today, for instance.
I am very tentatively agreeing with your take on SP, and on the whole I’ve had a much townier vibe from him today than previously (largely due to his questions aimed at TexCat and IIRC MentalGuy earlier in the day. they felt like townie sorts of questions to ask). It’s not solid, but he’s off my short list for now. That said, I didn’t agree with some of his specific reasoning on TexCat (including the “making waves” thing – that’s too deliberate for what I think that scum usually act like), only with the case as a whole. So we’ll see.
do i have to defend? i felt his argument was weak and IMO is doing what he accuses me of. so if i consider his post about Kelly substantial, it seems to be the only thing he has done that makes him ‘better’ than me. i decided to look into his posting record because i didn’t recall him posting anything more substantial than i had. after that i said his argument was weak and voted for you for what to me was an opportunistic vote for me. at the time i was looking for a way to automatically put all his posts together but didn’t know how to. apparently i had to manually do it so i did. i needed to so my vote for him wouldn’t seem out of nowhere.
to borrow from Ed, bah! sounds like you’re parroting Normal’s defense of you. i’m not voting for you because i felt your posts were scummy. i felt you were accusing me of something you were doing yourself.
why don’t you use it? it only gets locked in if you use both votes on the same person.
I see lots of folks piling on TexCat, but Stanislaus, SP, and ShadowFacts seem a lot less popular for the lynch.
Maybe TexCat was the wrong choice, says my paranoid brain. I’d like to see some votes on some of those other names.
[QUOTE=septimus]
ATPG asked me questions and I gullibly thought he was interested in my opinion. No, it was just a play with his pretense that he finds me scummy.
[/QUOTE]
I can find you scummy yet also question you and be interested in your answers.
Vote count coming later, when I get home. I wanted to let you guys know the day will be ending an hour early tomorrow, at 5 pm central time instead of six. I’ll be busy buying a new car, since mine decided to die.
I have begun the long slog of catching up. The first thing I feel compelled to address is something from the NP/me fracas at the end of the Day yesterDay. It’s probably old news at this point, but I don’t want to leave it hanging, particularly since I have been accused of dodging.
To recap, NP said this about me (among lots of other things):
I responded:
Needless to say, I was feeling pretty confident there. Then Hirka T’Bawa and NP responded by quoting my pedescribe vote. To review:
[/QUOTE]
I have to admit, that upon review that comment is a little wishy-washy. I challenged NP to find one example of me being wishy-washy, and there it is. Oops. That said, looking at all of my votes, I don’t think that *any *reasonable person could possibly conclude that I am “constantly disavowing your first [vote] even as you place it.”
OK, I’ve caught up to the **septimus **role claim, and based on the claim I will say that his last-minute voting is a null-tell. That is, I can see a Town motivation for it, and a Scum motivation:
Town motivation (assume he is not lying, duh): septimus is a power role and SJ had claimed vanilla. Better her than him, even if she is Town, which he does not know. Additionally, his power is one that is best kept secret, so claiming is something he would want to avoid if at all possible. I played a similar True Scotsman role here before (though I was immune to first lynch, too) and I can definitely see the mindset.
Scum motivation: Survive another day, natch.
So, I say null-tell. This by itself is not cause to vote, IMO.
OK, I’m up to ATPG’s case on **choie **(post #905):
I admit that based on the sheer volume of words, I read quickly, but I don’t see enough there to vote for choie. Too much of the case is based on “tone,” which is impossible to rebut because tone is in the eye of the reader. (His original case on **septimus **was similarly “tone-based,” if significantly shorter :)). choie’s “I’m new” repetitions certainly have gotten old, but I’m not seeing the play-acting and insincerity that **ATPG **is. No vote right now on **choie **for me.
Someone else said something similar to this earlier, but I can’t remember who and I don’t want to go back and track it down. Anyway, this sentiment makes no sense to me. **septimus **came within moments of being lynched yesterDay, and only avoided the noose with a last-minute vote switch that was sure to be controversial. It makes perfect sense to me that Scum would skip him and assume that there was a high probability of him being lynched today. Why bother killing him when he’s garnering tons of suspicion and likely to die the following Day?
Then Hirka T’Bawa and NP responded by quoting my pedescribe vote. To review: