This day’s been remarkably quiet. I don’t like any of the extant cases.
I’m going to return to the one truly scummy thing I’ve seen done thus far–the forcing of a tie near the end of the Day.
vote Hrika
That was Winston, Day One. Pretty wishy-washy all around. Says that Pleo is not pro-town, but won’t go as far as to say that he’s anti-town. Back and forth on Astral, coming down on one side and then the other.
Later, we get a sarcastic(??) remark about ignoring Pleo’s claim and a remark that he more or less believes Pleo’s claim.
This was followed by another vote for Pleo on Day Two:
And then total silence from Winston on Day Three. Winston has taken almost no stance at all except for his vote on Pleo, and even then he won’t call Pleo anti-town and says that he believes that Pleo was trying to confound scum.
Vote: Winston Smith
It has been very quiet in here lately and nothing has really changed for me. I still feel happy with my vote.
This does not read at all to me how it seems to read to you.
It strikes me as sarcastic, yes, but does not at all indicate that Winston believes Pleo’s claim. Your hint is the “dubious” smiley. His sarcasm is aimed at Pleo’s claim, suggesting that he does NOT believe Pleo.
His second quote also does not assign any sort of believability to Pleo. He’s merely clarifying what he thinks Pleo’s position is.
You seem to have a habit of willfully misrepresenting what people say.
In fact, that reminds me of something I wanted to bring up while rereading the thread.
Why did you ignore my directly asked questions about your case on me? My questions to you were immediately followed by your post, where you vote for me. I immediately followed your vote with a reasking of those same questions, and then followed that with a rebuttal of your case on me.
Did you not see any of that? Post 843, my first set of questions for you, came an hour and change before your vote for me. It’s unlikely you missed it. I reasked those questions two minutes after your vote, again without response. I critiqued your vote, again without response.
Why?
Further, my rebuttal of Ed’s case on me was not the first, nor was I the first to debunk it. You make no effort to discuss or explain why these rebuttals don’t matter; instead, you ignore them. You also make little effort to do your own research into Ed’s case, accepting it as correct long after it’s been proved wrong. I don’t reject your conclusion – my play early on in this game has been laughably bad – but your efforts seem dishonest.
The first time I read through your posts, you struck me as townie. Now, after all of this, I’ve reconsidered. You strike me as scum laying very, very low.
Vote TexCat
Still collecting my thoughts on others, more posts to come.
The next thing I wanted to address was a series of posts by Weedy that I found suspect. What follows is the sum total of his Day 1 discussion of me:
Day 2:
And that’s all he has to say about me. He never really has anything much to say, which is weird because I was pretty much all there was to talk about early Day 1. He comments on town’s name, remarks on how he could understand my confusion if I saw I was the cop and then glossed everything else, and then says he’s not convinced of my story, but wants to look elsewhere. The third post on Day 1 has a whiff of “oh my gosh look how hard this game is, I don’t know who to vote for,” which can be a scum indicator. Overall, it just seems like trying to chime in without even approaching a position on me.
On Day 2, he cautions people not to believe me, but clarifies that he doesn’t know whether I’m scum or not, as if people are expecting him to be 100% certain. Following that with another “this game is so hard, I don’t know what to think” comment pings my suspicion-meter.
This isn’t really a case, because a truly new player could make these posts. I don’t feel confident enough to say “This is worth a vote,” especially given that I feel TexCat is a better target. However, it was something I definitely wanted to point out.
This is worded so poorly. I was thinking about the believing part, and totally spaced on what I was trying to convey. It should have said something like:
It strikes me as sarcastic, yes, but does not at all indicate that Winston is suggesting we should ignore Pleo’s claim. Your hint is the dubious smiley. His sarcasm is aimed at Pleo’s claim, suggesting he does NOT believe Pleo.
Rereading it for the second time has reminded me just how suspicious I found Sister Coyote on Day 1. It seems like a fair number of players found her suspicious, and that suspicion has just about completely faded away. I for one had all but forgotten.
This is something that bears investigating… tomorrow. Bedtime for now!
Astral, I’d appreciate if you could add Silver Jan to your to-do list. Actually I would like that from a lot of people, please. What is giving me trouble as regards my confidence with her is her direct comments aimed at gnarly’s level of activity/contribution. I don’t know that those feel townie to me, per se, but they baffle me as coming from a scum. Just about everything else she has said feels scummy, and it feels like I’m the only one who’s even noticing she’s in the game. That’s frustrating.
In the meantime,
unvote
vote: TexCat
because that vote on Winston Smith was indeed a poor one; the case the other day was decent; and she’s been a bit oddly quiet (only 12 posts so far).
SisC hasn’t posted anything of substance here in about ten days (and did not vote yesterday). She’s running her idlemafia game fine, though.
Less likely why? You leave the reasoning only half-stated.
It bothers me that you leave out one plausible way that a scummy Astral could have acted like that (what Tom and I discussed above), invent a largely implausible one, leave the reasoning unstated for the third (why is a mass redirection in the hands of ALE unlikely?), yet manage to come to the consensus “Astral is probably town” opinion regardless. It looks a little bit perfunctory.
What exactly are you fishing for Astral? No, I do not care to list my thoughts on everyone in the game. I have voted every day and tried to explain my vote. I have never thought that publishing entire suspicion/non-suspicion lists was a good idea for town.
That’s not what he asked you to do.
And I still think that Winston’s vote is suspect. Whatever you make of his sarcastic remarks with the dubious smiley, he clearly says, “If you’re a town power role, this soft claim, unprovoked, is not pro-town. Not necessarily anti-town, but certainly not in the best interest of town.” He won’t even go as far as calling Pleo anti-town, and yet he continues to vote for him.
Listen, I’m no fan of that reason for voting Pleonast myself, but the implication of what Winston said is clear enough. And you’re skipping this from day two, which would seem to come as close to calling Pleonast non-town as you could wish for.
You’re mistaken on several counts. Either because you’re deliberately misrepresenting what I’ve posted or because you’re just not paying attention to what you’re reading and not taking the time to figure out the context. I’m going with the latter, since it’s pretty obvious your participation here is spotty at best.
When I said “Okay, folks, you heard him. Nothing to see here. Move along. It’s best if we just ignore the claim”, that was commentary on Pleonast stating (explicitly) that his soft claim was (indeed) meant to confound the scum and should be ignored entirely by town.
I’m not going to spend the time digging it all up again, TexCat. That’s your job.
And, I might add, I have not voted for Pleo today (more on that a little later).
TexCat, please at least take the time to follow the links in my post that you’ve quoted. It’s pretty obvious you didn’t, since I’m replying to (linked) comments by Pleo.
And yeah, I haven’t participated much toDay, but I have about twice the number of posts that you have in this game.
I’m dropping my case against Pleo, mainly because I’ve lost confidence in it. My main reason for voting was his suggestion he was a third party of some sort and my interpretation of that definitely being bad. Is it? I don’t know, but I do know this: nobody disputed the facts of the case, but we (as a whole) were not convinced that his posts/actions/etc were necessarily anti-town. So that leads me to ask the question “Is everybody else wrong, or am I wrong?”. Also, Pleo prety much came head-on at my vote. I think when you’ve bagged a bad guy they sort of squirm and try to either deflect or ignore your reasoning. But he came at me and basically forced me to review my case, the posts and my interpretation.
vote Zeriel
First of all, excessive concern with third parties is a scum tell; it lets them do normal Mafia-like play without having to pretend to investigate, which is easier than pretending.
Second, I think he was pretty disengenuous in his response to MHaye & Stanislaus on the third-party thing:
In particular the NETA - the “side discussion” was Z’s whole accusation of Astral, which I find interesting, especially since ed made a pretty good case that he could still be Scum.
Part the third: a couple posts late-ish in the day, wrt Gnarlycharlie:
But Z did not vote gnarly; he voted Hirka (twice) for “making a tie”, which
(part the fourth)
strikes me as a fairly scummy policy vote - “hey he acted in an anti-Town manner! How am I supposed to avoid lynching Townies if they keep acting anti-Town?”
Updated Red’s vote post from earlier (without post numbers for the new votes), partly to get the list of non-voters.
Inner Stickler(3): Silver Jan[978], Weedy[984], Stan
TexCat(2): Astral, Normal
Winston Smith(1): TexCat
Pleonast(1): fluiddruid[921]
Hirka(1): Zeriel
Zeriel(1): Tom Scud
Silver Jan(0): [del]Normal Phase[905-???][/del]
Astral Rejection(0): [del]Mahaloth[del][900-965][/del][/del], [del]Tom Scud[del][928-931][/del][/del]
Did Not Vote:
Mahaloth, Hirka T’Bawa, Inner Stickler, nesta, pedescribe, SisterCoyote, Winston Smith, MHaye, Pleonast
With these votes Inner Stickler would be lynched.