Is there value in revealing who I choose to investigate? That’s a serious question - I’ve never been a cop before. My gut feeling is that, without a result, telling scum who I investigated isn’t worth it. Town gains nothing by learning who I tried to investigate, and scum learns who I would have, letting them know who I may or may not have suspicions on.
You say this, but…
… you meant this.
I’m confused. You snarkily attack me, telling me I need to “read more games,” and you seem to very clearly say town is devoting time and energy into finding the roleblocker. You further elaborate that power roles (referring specifically here to scum roleblockers, I assume) reveal themselves all the time, making it a worthwhile chase. And then you immediately back down when called on it, saying that you never meant town hunts for them at all? Why bring up that power roles reveal themselves, then?
Further, what does town lose if I claim there’s a roleblocker and they’re spending all their time blocking me? When I die, you’ll see I’m telling the truth. Nobody else so far has been affected by it. It’s not going to radically destabilize the game.
You’re making a mountain out of a molehill here, and you’re changing your story.
Also, I’d like to caution you that this does not help your team, be it scum or town, in any way. We want you to play, and these votes are by no means set in stone.
I haven’t made a mountain at all. I haven’t said anything other than, in as many words, that I’m not planning on revoting you. That is the extent of my commentary on this game. Everything else was a longwinded extemporaneous exercise on my part to answer Hirka’s question as to why a false claiming cop would claim being blocked. And power roles DO reveal themselves and there have been games where players have made astute guesses on who to lynch based on what they supposed the makeup of the scum team is.
If you are correct in there being a roleblocker then town loses nothing. If you are not correct then town begins making incorrect assumptions, assumptions that could lead to wildly different scum teams down the road. However, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. I’m more than happy to take claims as written and see how they shake out down the line.
Well this is a strange start to a day. I want to give Astral the benefit of the doubt for now because he sounds plausible.
**gnarley’s **vote on himself is like saying “please read what I have to say” I don’t think it’s a scum vote because I don’t think scum would vote for themselves like that. It’s a bit annoying that he has done it. If he flips Town people will reconsider his arguments. I don’t like it when people vote for themselves! It doesn’t help either team.
Once again, be careful when saying “scum wouldn’t do that.” Scum will do anything and everything to win. A scum gnarly could make this play in an attempt to get us to unvote him.
It’s fair to assign this event a town or scum bias depending on how you interpret it. Just don’t totally disregard other interpretations when making your decision.
As far as I can tell, gnarly has no arguments. There’s little for us to go back and check on when he flips if he’s town. That’s why I hope he reconsiders and tries to find scum. As it stands, he’s not helping town at all, while still trying to garner sympathy so we don’t lynch him.
Oh, I hadn’t thought of that. I do agree that** gnarly** has really only looked at Astral as scum. The way that looks is as if gnarly is scum and wants town to lynch** Astral**. I also agree that he isn’t helping town at all at the moment. In fact he hasn’t really said much of anything.
I don’t know that if you reveal who you wanted to investigate would be helpful or not but I think that it is very helpful to know who you are suspicious of, in fact that’s what a vote says, doesn’t it?
No he hasn’t. Or rather, with the claim of a roleblocker, the only way we had to test his claim has vanished. What opportunities do we have to catch him out, if he’s always reporting a block?
The fact that Red won’t be revealing roles (something I didn’t realise until Night 1) does reduce the utility of the “Give Astral some rope and see what he comes up with” plan. Once Astral dies, we won’t learn what his role is. However, we will learn his alignment, which will show us whether he is trustworthy overall.
Also, if he does turn out to be a Slumlord, we learn there is a roleblocker.
I won’t be paying much attention to this game until the weekend, as usual. Alice Mafia’s Night falls first.
okay, let’s be clear. i’m NOT giving up on the game. it is my most strenuous way of expressing my disappointment in people’s reasoning.
let me explain my D2 vote for you again. since in these boards, people seem to adhere more to the vote early and often belief, i did just that. it would be illogical to vote someone else since i have not gone through (reread) D1 yet. as i said i’m in the process of moving and have not gone through your casebuilding or Zeriel’s posts deeply. if i saw the logic of those posts, i would definitely change my vote (vote often, right?).
now let me summarize what i believe is the case against me:
not voting Astral when i thought i found him suspicious
making a snarky remark to his question why i didn’t vote for him
voting for him after being told i should vote for who i think is suspicious
‘backtracking’ on my poking around (which i have actually replied to)
not considering the other cases offered by other players
i think i’ve already addressed #s 1 to 4. as for #5, i’m still packing and unable to reread D1. i have a few more days this Day so i will definitely contribute after our move. but i still will not unvote.
By way of bringing something new to the party, a quick look at TexCat’s votes yesterDay:
He votes for Astral very quickly (third, in fact!) but doesn’t sound all that convinced:
Given that he can’t understand why scum or third-party would make such a statement, it’s a little odd that he “has” to vote. We get more of the same here:
Each time TexCat discusses his reasons for voting Astral, he talks about how he might be wrong. It smacks of pre-emptive defence.
Later, however, much later, TexCat changes his vote to fubbleskag:
As fubs pointed out, this case is based on a misapprehension, of which more below. Even disregarding that, this seems like a weak vote. Firstly, it’s a real bandwagon vote - the 8th on fubs (at that time) and the 4th in 40 posts. Secondly, TexCat never articulates a scum motivation. He echoes the pattern of votes that others have pointed out (so much so that he misses a vital detail -see below) but doesn’t explain why this makes fubs scum.
This is important because as I read it, the other votes for fubs were based on the idea that he was defending a scum buddy with his posts in support of Astral, and then jumping on the bandwagon when ed appeared to provide a smoking gun with the PMs. Given that TexCat unvoted Astral to vote fubs, he can’t possibly believe this case. But he doesn’t tell us what he does think fubs is trying to pull.
As said, fubbleskag had moved his vote. The following posts, which all preceded TexCat’s vote, all demonstrate this:
NB - this vote was miscoded in blue, not red. It’s understandable that this could be missed.
The last quote is the post immediately before TexCat’s vote, but posted c. 15 minutes before. To miss all of these posts by and to fubbleskag that show his vote has moved suggests a pretty high degree of skimming - specifically, of skimming the person TexCat is about to vote for.
TexCat didn’t post after that vote, so he didn’t get a chance to change his vote. However, it seems pretty clear that he was very much following other players’ lead with his votes, both with Astral and fubs.
I haven’t lost my suspicions of Zeriel, but in the interests of getting a response:
**
vote TexCat**
I did see fubb’s unvote later. I was posting in a hurry and I was focused on fubb’s answer to my question which actually came after the unvote.
I think my vote reasons remain even after the unvote, but might have been amended to: I just don’t get it. You were unwilling to vote Astral before Ed posted the PMs. Then you used that as an excuse to change your vote. Now, in spite of our moderator basically telling us that the PMs are a null-tell, you stubbornly continue to call them “damning evidence” and leave your vote in place long after the “damning evidence” has been de-bunked.
I saw fubbleskag defending some one who I thought looked scummy, then jumping on a bandwagon for what was later shown to be a null-tell. This could have been fubbleskag defending a scum buddy, or it could have been a scummy fubbleskag defending a townie for the cred. The more important thing for me was the jumping on the bandwagon and then staying there and calling the evidence damning even after the posts from Normal and our mod.
Regarding my vote for Astral, I admit to ambivalent thoughts on it as shown in my posts.
Inner Stickler seems to be posting a lot and saying nothing. Some quick highlights:
[quote=“Inner_Stickler, post:229, topic:582387”]
Normal, I don’t know what I think. At the beginning of the day, I was willing to chalk it up to breezy townie not paying much attention because hey, he’s town. I do find some of the scenarios you and Ed have been making a little more believable than Astral’s explanation; however, I feel that he is adequately voted for and am more interested in looking to see if I can call out other scummy behavior.[/QUOTE]
Well that’s the hat, now for the cattle.
Or possibly the fond reminiscences of “games I have known”…
This is easily Inner’s favourite topic this thread. And that’s fine, but remember: he’s more interested in looking to see if he can call out other scummy behaviour. Which he does in posts like this one:
That magnificent piece of “maybe so, maybe no” analysis of gnarlycharlie (a whole fraction of a sentence) is the only thing I could find that consisted of “trying to find other scummy behaviour”. I could have missed something though - Inner?
Inner ultimately voted Astral following ed’s PM post, and left the vote there.
Can you elaborate on this? I’d like to hear your reason for this vote. You said “[a]ll the same as yesterDay”, but I believe you voted for Astral yesterday.
I don’t see how “scummy fubbleskag defending a townie for the cred” works. It would go something like this:
Phase 1: Defend townie Astral when he gets in trouble for thinking CARS are anti-Town. So far, this makes sense. Phase 2: Vote for townie Astral when PM analysis seems to show that he’s definitely scum. Even when you know for a fact he’ll flip the other way if lynched. Jumping on the bandwagon is a complete 180 on the original plan. Phase 3: Keep voting for townie Astral when further input from Normal and the mod show that PM analysis is non-conclusive. This is where it gets difficult - why would scum go out of their way to be so controversial? If fubs voted for Astral to keep his nose clean, why draw attention by sticking with his vote? He’s gone from unpopularly defending Astral to unpopularly condemning him in the face of the evidence. Why do that if he wants to win cred?
Hmm. Nice case on Inner, Stanislaus. I’m going to check it out for myself before laying a vote – after all I can’t fault someone too much for some fluff on Day 1 – but on the other hand I get pinged too, once you put all that together. My philosophy tends to be: show me, don’t tell me. Don’t tell me you’re working hard to provoke scum, just do it. If you tell me but don’t show me then my heckles get raised in particular, of course. But, even more than that, “tellers” are establishing a defense before they’re questioned, and it shows your real interest lies in defending yourself as a top priority. That isn’t always scum either, but it tends to be a scum interest more often than not.
Well, then you won’t be disappointed because I’ve already explained that it isn’t either of those.
It isn’t your lack of contribution.
And I did not “perceive backing off”. Actually, you completely changed what you said and tried to pass it off without attracting attention. One more time. You said that you poke people and step back to watch reactions. When challenged on this, you tried to say that you poke holes in arguments which is quite different than poking people for reactions.
Not only that, but you know this is the case and your above post I quoted is yet another attempt to glaze over the case on you by misrepresenting it.
I gotta say I don’t see that aspect of your argument at all, Mahaloth. It doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but still. Poking people to see what happens is a valid strategy for a townie in my book, and doesn’t need defense or qualification.
gnarlycharlie, you need to quit with the self-vote. It’s emotional manipulation and it’s not fair to the rest of us.
Then we disagree. I think poking people then stepping back to watch their reaction is a scummy way to stir up the pot. I think gnarly knew this, so he changed it to “poke holes in arguments” which sounds a lot better.