Oh, and yes, I add pedescribe to the list of people who are just looking for someone that isn’t them to type up a quick case on and then move on as quick as possible and avoid attention.
I asked why you were voting to Lynch me. Yes, my explanation came after your quoted post, but you reiterated your vote, without a new reason, after my explanation.
Uhh … yeah, “perhaps” so. I’m afraid I didn’t grasp that I would need to express this explicitly.
(1) True. As I stated in the explanation. I also stated that during Day 1, I avoided detailed explanation of the tactic, hoping that Scum would overlook this.
But note that if indeed Scum will avoid targeting the claimed vanilla for recruitment, they pay an opportunity cost: They’ll be less likely to find the Sleepers.
(2) There were other plausible Lynch candidates; and many (including myself and several voting for Pleo) thought there was a good chance he was vanilla as claimed. Obviously I wasn’t suggesting an arbitrary random Lynch.
(3,4) The tactic obviously breaks down when there are more than 1 or 2 Vanilla Town claimants. And, as I emphasized repeatedly by writing “delay the Lynch”, the claimant doesn’t get a permanent free pass, but rather can expect to be targeted eventually (perhaps the very next Day).
It’s possible that having 1 such Vanilla claimant is better than having zero, but that doesn’t apply now: Unless/until someone comes forth with a recruitment-attempt claim, we assume a Doctor and new Scum came into being last Night.
(5) Lynching a sleeper is slightly good for us. Lynching a sleeper who’s already been transmogrified into Scum is far better.
(6) No one asked anyone to “ignore all of our evidence.” The suggestion was to delay the Lynch of one Vanilla claimant, probably for as little as a signle Day.
Mine was more of a minor tactical argument than a full “plan;” and I admitted it was likely to do little good in the absence of Scum error. However I feel you’ve misrepresented my argument.
If my tactical idea really has the “madness” you now allege, I’m surprised you didn’t post this earlier.
This comment really sends a “pingy” sensation up my spine. We each have but a single Lynch vote. If we’re Town we spend it on whoever seems scummiest. If we’re Scum, we toss it almost arbitrarily and hope for a bandwagon to materialize.
Astral, your one and only Lynch vote is on me. You’ve stated your reason (Septimus ccontends “it’s better to keep a claimed vanilla alive, for whatever reason. He keeps mentioning tactical reasons, but I can’t think of any outside of letting scum win.”); I answered by explaining the reasons and you … ignored my response … waiting for me to “ask me [Astral] to reconsider my vote now that I can consider your explanation.” A Townie is eager to understand if his Lynch vote is missing scum. A Scum is happy to leave arbitrary votes in place until challenged, hoping for a bandwagon.
Nevermind the soundness of my plan (sachertorte and I seem to agree it was flawed, mainly because it hopes for Scum misplay). I disagree with most of what you posted about my “plan” but the real point is that you were uninterested in considering the plan until I asked you to, despite that you were voting for me because of that plan!
(And lest I now seem overly OMGUS, recall that Astral was my Day 1 Lynch choice as well.)
Unvote Gadarene
Vote Astral Rejection
You’ve misunderstood my case against you. To an alarming degree.
Here’s what I posted:
I don’t really care about your plan. Yeah, I’m glad we can agree that it sucked. But my case hinged upon you TWICE urging people not to lynch Pleo, even when it had nothing to do with the case you were building. You created a three way tie between me and two other people, while Pleo still had one more vote than us. There are twelve sentences in my vote for you. 11 of them deal specifically with your actions regarding Pleonast. Only one refers just to your silly plan. I question how you then decided that one sentence was more critical to my case than the other 91% of my case?
You also try to have your cake and eat it, too. You keep repeating that I didn’t evaluate your case until challenged, yet you also attack me for mentioning it in my vote post for you.
Remember that? It got mentioned. And when you explained, I still thought there were no practical benefits for town. My mind didn’t change, I just further elaborated when you asked. I’m sorry I didn’t feel the need to reiterate myself before you asked.
I’m gonna quote you now:
You are wrong. Are you eager to understand how you’re missing the point, or are you happy to leave an arbitrary vote in place until challenged, hoping for a bandwagon?
I don’t see you coming out accusing him of PIS (or saying he’s scum and voting him). Did you respond to Sacherorte’s #332?
Your handwaving of the case had a potential scum motivation, it applies to other players, myself included, but it’s a data point.
That’s what you called it:
OK.
Revote?
One of Septimus’ two strong points against Gadarene was incorrect (for want of a better word). You said the case mirrored your thoughts but I believe you simply added a “me too” vote without checking the facts or details of the case. You didn’t respond to my question in #833 and you quickly jumped onto another case without giving any reason for dropping your previous case.
No, I’m accusing you of making a “me too” vote piggybacking another player without checking the validity of the case or adding anything of substance and then dropping that case without explanation to vote someone you had only mentioned in relation to other players’ votes when you were voting to lynch them (Tom in #266/279 and Mental in #420).
Day 3 Vote Tally
Mahaloth(3) :Manwich[815], sachertorte[842], pedescribe[874]
Astral Rejection(2) :guiri[855], septimus[883]
septimus(1) :Astral Rejection[846]
Idle Thoughts(0) :[del]Mahaloth[810-818][/del]
Gadarene(0) :[del]septimus[825-883][/del], [del]Astral Rejection[830-845][/del]
Suburban Plankton(0) :[del]pedescribe[860-874][/del]
Did Not Vote:Mahaloth,Gadarene,Mental Guy,Suburban Plankton,Wolverine,Idle Thoughts,Drain Bead,storyteller0910,One and Only Wanderers,Zeriel,ComeToTheDarksideWeHaveCookies,peekercpa,special ed
With these votes, Mahaloth would be lynched.
First, I want to apologize for my absence so far toDay.
I am not ready to vote yet, but as I reread the thread during the Night, Gadarene did start seeming suspicious to me. I was also looking closer at Septimus to see what his posts looked like in the hindsight of knowing Pleo was scum. I am still suspicious of him also. I did not pay as much attention to Astral and Mahaloth and want to go back and look at them some more, but Mahaloth’s comment about being a townie did ping me a bit when I first read it.
I am not sure if we have heard from everyone or not for the Day, but do keep in mind that the scum could have chose to not recruit and not have anyone claim to make us think a doctor has been created when one has not.
While Idle’s claim of a recruitment attempt gives him a slight bit of town cred, I do think Idle is the player that would be most likely to try the “fake a recruitment attempt” ploy (with Storyteller being a close second). That said, I have not really read Idle’s play as scummy as Mahaloth has, since I did play with him in “Hotel of Heroes” and his play there was similar and he was town.
Anyway, hopefully by later tonight, I can offer a bit more analysis of some of the players mentioned above.
[ul]
[li]Because of my case on Day 1[/li][li]Post 855 and the follow-ups[/li][li]the case against septimus which seems to be based on a disagreement about strategy or maybe a failure to understand septimus.[/li][/ul]
Vote: Astral Rejection
I’m also bothered by what to my mind is Mahaloth’s over the top defensiveness.
No. You’re blindly agreeing with Septimus. My case is built upon his actions regarding Pleonast, not due to any strategy disagreements.
I’ve posted, but I haven’t got into voting anyone yet. Our whole family fell ill over the weekend and I’m still recovering.
Mahaloth hasn’t seemed less scummy since Day 1, but he’s also not more scummy either. Day 1 votes are tricky things. I want to take a thorough reread of him and a few of the others once I get more energy.
I had started on a wall of words for Gadarene, but as I got to the end of Day 1, I realized I was really finding him all that suspicious, and I am not sure what it was that made me suspicious of him before (well, I guess since he was so heavily going after me, it might have just been bias on my part that has faded with a bit of time.)
I hope to be able to go through all of septimus’ posts before I vote, but I am not going to have time for that tonight.
Here is what I had written about Gadarene, but it is just a summary of his Day 1 posts, I had not gone back and made comments about them.
[spoiler]Gadarene
103 - Discussion of sleepers.
104 - corrects self. “arise” message could be from bomber.
115 - Claiming to receive “arise” message a helpful data point.
208 - Votes for Pleonast for same reasons as Drain and myself. Says Pleo’s play is anti-town.
209 - n/a
321 - Says the “scum point out PIS” theory was accurate in Hotel of Heroes.
338 - questions Pleo how his vote was anti-town.
341 - Says stated positions are all we have to go on on Day 1
345 - Agrees with Pleo that most arguments over tactics are between townies with honest opinions. Explicitly leaves vote on Pleo.
384 - Unvotes Pleo giving Pleo’s defense of himself as the cause.
391 - responds to peeker who has questioned why he switched from Pleo. Says it was primarily a disagreement about tactics.
394 - Votes for me for not voting for person I thought most likely to be scum.
396 - mentions scum can talk during the day and asks for reactions to that.
402 - corrects peeker about third or fourth vote.
403 - n/a
410 - asks septimus if he is not caught up.
413 - wonders about septimus following the experienced players lead Astral thinking septimus is experienced himself (he is wrong).
417 - wonders if Pleo will change his vote to avoid a lynch.
422 - Says if I flip scum, Mahaloth should be looked at more closely.
428 - tries to clarify to ed Pleo’s explanation of why he did not claim in Hotel of Heroes.
432 - Wonders why ed is not switching his vote to me.
433 - Asks for vote count.
435 - Of Plankton’s possibilities says he think me being scum jumping on bandwagon against town Pleo is most likely.
438 - Agrees with peeker’s count of one-off votes.
444 - Says if I flip scum, then Planktons vote on Pleo will not look super great for him.
452 - questions Pleo for staying with his vote on pede rather than switching to me.
457 - Disagrees with Pleo about not voting for me.
459 - questions septimus about why he doesn’t think I am scum.
460 - clarifies he was quoting me in previous post.
464 - supposedly responding to septimus says must be nice to be scum since if you’re slick no one suspects you. If not you are being a sincere townie.
468 - responds to Zeriel. did not realize carried possibility of no lynch. Prefers my lynch to Pleo’s.
474 - clarifies my post about not switching my vote to Plankton.
476 - posts rule about ties, says ties will result in no lynch 87.5% of time.
484 - responds to sach about sach’s suspicion of him. Essentially says he doesn’t understand why sach finds the things mentioned suspicious.
486 - irrelevant NETA
487 - Asks sach why he would switch to Pleo over me to prevent a tie.
494 - replies to ed’s question about why he was trying to get Plankton to be concerned about how he looked instead of finding scum. Says he has already explained to sach.
496 - confirms dusk time and agrees with Drain that I am best option for lynch.
498 - responds to sach in discussion about his remark to Plankton.
502 - ask sach if he has no thoughts on my reasoning and vote.
504 - in response to ed, encourages Plankton to find scum.
507 - fluffy response to ed regarding the Plankton brouhaha.
511 - reply to ed about why he agrees with Drain’s case, but doesnt’ give any weight to the fact he was first to vote me, but is “piqued” by an off-hand comment.
516 - responds to me about my sentence not really making sense and unvotes me. Says it will look strange if I am alive the next Day.
517 - tells ed to stop being obstreperous.
519 - Says he forgot about jailer, my claim makes his head hurt.
520 - Asks what scum roleblocker would have to do with me being alive the next day.
[/spoiler]
NETA: That should be “I wasn’t really finding him all that suspicious.”
Except that septimus had a valid point when he said that there were tactical reasons for delaying a lynch of Pleonast.
-
What are those valid points? Septimus himself has backed away from his tactical reasons, what are you seeing that we aren’t?
-
Regardless, that’s not why you’re voting for me. One of your bulleted points says “the case against septimus which seems to be based on a disagreement about strategy or maybe a failure to understand septimus.”
The case against Septimus is not based on a disagreement about strategy, or a failure to understand him. I disputed that, and you waved your hands in the air and said “oh well, you’re still wrong.”
To be accurate. You corrected me, and I stated that you’re still wrong.
Let’s look at your vote post:
and, for completeness sake, the 2 posts of septimus that you linked to:
Now, septimus was correct in stating that there were tactical reasons for keeping a claimed Vanilla alive. There are. You might not agree with his opinion, but there it’s not as cut and dried as it was seeming with sachertore (I think?) running the numbers on good/bad lynches.
And, while he does repeat himself in a post where he votes for you, it makes perfect sense. Pleo, a claimed Vanilla, was in danger of being lynched. He saw a case against you and voted for you. Surely that’s not a valid reason for voting for you, is it? The fact that he mentioned a desire to not lynch the vote leader when voting for you?
Now, maybe you couldn’t think of any tactical reasons for keeping a claimed Vanilla alive (and I hadn’t either at that point), but septimus apparently had. He’s stated them very clearly now. Or do you think he just came up with the "let’s not lynch my scumbuddy Pleo for ‘tactical’ reasons, and then was later to come up with a logically sound tactical reason to not do so?
So, yes, to my eyes it appears that either you disagree with that strategy or you didn’t understand it. I mean, didn’t it appear to you to be a strategic discussion you were having about septimus’ suggestion today? You all had points as to why it would be good or bad.
Okay, so I’ve finished my analysis of Day One’s votes. The highlights are as follows:
-
Suburban Plankton is leaning town. In post 444, with 3.5 hours left in the day, he breaks the MentalGuy-**Pleo **tie by voting for Pleonast. A scum could have just as easily sat on his previous **Mahaloth **vote or voted for **MentalGuy **(who had not yet claimed).
-
**septimus ** unvoted **pleo ** in 268 (citing a need to investigate **Manwich **and Astral) and shortly thereafter voted for … **Mahaloth **in 284. Pushed it close to a tie, in point of fact. (6-5)
-
the first actual tie-maker was peekercpa, who placed the nice safe town-cred-building 7th vote on **Pleo **near the beginning at 230, then switched to **MentalGuy **in 400. Not only did he tie it up at 5-5 between **Pleo **and Maha, but he lampshaded the fact he thought he was the 3rd vote on **MentalGuy **(a traditional scum tell, which he may have been trying to avoid getting dinged for by lampshading it).
-
Honorable suspicious mention goes to pedescribe–who also placed a nice town-cred-building vote on **Pleo **(vote 6) at 216, and who was the recipient of Pleo’s final vote after a lot of pious speechmaking from **Pleo **about looking at who voted for who after he was dead–a reverse of the usual gambit, to be sure, and admittedly the weakest of the inductions I draw here.
Play today has been fairly inconclusive for me, so I’m going with the analysis vote:
vote septimus
<snipped>
yeh, that pesky third vote traditional scum tell worked out well, huh?
also, what happened to that threatened vote (chastisement?)
for the early hamerer? is it an inconvenient vote for you becauase of who it was?
Ugh, are you kidding me? Why would so many players prefer four days to five? What’s with all the rushing in this game? Early hammers, shortened Days… it makes it very difficult to participate, especially when the first two real-life days happen over a weekend.
Bah.
Hey, don’t blame me. I voted to extend the Day.
Looks like less than half of us even voted either way.
<snipped and bleached>
i really don’t like this post. and maybe this is too meta but what the hey.
i don’t think i have ever seen sach use this type of reasoning for a vote. a Night fluff post that he doesn’t feel expresses honest emotions as the lynchpin of his case. crap that’s the kind of reasoning i would use. which is definitely not in sach’s wheelhouse, so to speak. seriously, coming from any host of characters it might be just x being x but coming from sach it seems really out of character. almost like he had his mind made up on a target and then just kind of fabricated something to justify his conclusion.