No, I thought it was a slight misrepresentation, which is what I called it in my explanation. It may be nothing at all, but I’m putting it out there, and I am interested in hearing what Red and the rest of you have to say about it. You obviously disagree fairly strongly. If you think I am misrepresenting Red, feel free to vote for me (not that you need my permission). Let’s get this party started.
Well, I’ve gone from vague suspicion that Story’s lurking to vague worry that he missed the start of the game or something. Also, I don’t think there’s any big danger of Story not speaking up when he DOES show up, so
Unvote Story
I’m going to take some time to muse over what’s been stirred up so far. I’ve got suspicions about Skeezix, but not necessarily enough to warrant a vote (other than for the sake of OMGUS).
Time to think about this. And do yardwork. Yay yardwork.
( Following quotes have been Bleached, some pieces have been snipped)
Yes, I did mention it as part of a larger argument, as it was presented as a point in a larger case. I think the the argument that he was making as a whole is bad, and it is not hard to see, at least to me, how his actions are scummy. The lurker (sort of, since he’s voting for people who may not be aware the day has even started) voting + he’s voting so that he has a vote down.
It does not mostly ignore it (the fact that the vote was a prod) my analysis. I mention it specifically and as the opening in how I was interpreting the vote. And I allude to it when I say it is a vote of no accountability. There is no arguing with the fact that he’s voting for a person who is absent, but his vote says nothing other than: “So and So” hasn’t shown up yet and I want to make sure I have a vote down at the end of the day. (Which is what I said in my original case.)
I disagree. You cannot attribute a cause and effect relationship between prods and people showing up to play, especially at this point in the game. Furthermore, prod votes are a good place for scum to park votes (because they don’t force scum to fabricate a reasoning) during the day especially if the prodded never respond to the prod.
(Quote clarification added, please advise if I’m missing the point)
Saying that I ignored/downplayed that aspect of the vote is either disingenuous or a misconception on your part. I considered it as part of the whole reason for his vote, and made my case accordingly.
In conclusion and for the point of clarification:
I am voting Chipacabra because his vote is especially weak, and it bears no accountability, all while providing the benefit of appearing to do something pro-town aka voting.
What do you mean by “reasons shopping”?
Hmm. Still sticking with that? I’ve explained what I’m doing, and I think I’ve been pretty clearly acting to stir up information, not to cover my own ass.
I mean, you’re voting for me because my vote is weak, when I don’t even have a vote out there right now.
Frankly, I was suspicious from the beginning, but there were a lot of possibilities and not all of them mean you’re scum. But those are seeming less and less likely now. You’ve talked yourself into this.
Vote Red Skeezix
Feel free to talk yourself out of it again, I’m still listening.
Also, thanks for distracting me from the yardwork I SHOULD be doing. I really need to stop hitting refresh so much…
Obviously, you are not covering your ass with that strategy, since I’ve called you out on it. Whether or not you were attempting to originally, remains to be seen.
I’m voting for you for your reasoning and vote on tiltawhirl; the fact that you’ve unvoted since has no bearing on my vote.
I’m not sure if you are trying to bully me with a vote or not here. I assure you, that if that is the case, that your vote based on what looks like more spurious reasoning does not give me pause about my own vote.
Cherry Picking.
I was following Shadow’s line against you, on how you appeared to not give Chip a fair shake.*
I’m gonna step back from any advanced, but still-yet-to-vote, position, as it looks like this is heating up.
It would appear that someone somewhere is on to something, and I think voting in the thick of it would be premature.
- FTR: I’m further away from this position now, than I was earlier.
Nope, not a bully vote. Right now, you are the most suspicious person to me. Your original vote against me didn’t really set off alarm bells. Your defense of your vote has. As far as I can tell, you look like either scum, or opposed to my efforts to find scum.
Points:
-
Your vote against me is NOT a direct factor. In fact, the post where you vote against me struck me originally as possibly just being a townie that misunderstood what I’m doing. I can hardly blame you for a weak vote when I’m admitting that my prod votes are weak!
-
I told you directly what I’m doing (prodding inactive players) and asked you straight out if I was wrong to do so. You did not answer. You’ve addressed other people, but not me until I directly accused you. This makes your protest that you aren’t cherrypicking seem really weak to me.
-
You are hung up on my vote against tiltawhirl, even though I also prodded Shadowfacts and Storyteller. Why tiltawhirl in particular? I considered the possibility that you were both masons and you were just trying to emphasize the weakness of my vote so tilt wouldn’t get dogpiled. But if that were the case, you’d have reconsidered after my vote moved on to Story. So your continued vote says you do want suspicion aimed at me, and aren’t interested in suspicion aimed anywhere else. And that makes me suspicious!
Ok, it’s not a direct factor. Fair enough.
I assume this and it’s linked post are what you are referring to here. I thought I had explained these points before you asked the questions, but apparently I had not been as clear as I thought.
A random vote is always scummy no matter when it is cast, because it leaves a player without accountability for their actions. A player who does not cast a vote all day is equally scummy for all the same reasons. A player who has not posted yet is not especially suspicious to me.
-
I’m not hung up about the fact that you voted for tiltawhirl, who you voted for is irrelevant to me. I’m hung up on how you voted for tiltawhirl, and what the implications of that vote are.
-
I didn’t even see your vote for shadowfacts until I saw your vote for tiltawhirl.
-
I had already made a case against you for your tiltawhirl vote when you made your storyteller vote. It seems like you were trying to shake loose suspicion by moving your vote at the first opportunity.
I do want suspicion aimed at you, because I think you are scum. Hence the vote. But my suspicion is not exclusive, I am also willing to discuss other people who are behaving suspiciously, but for now that is you.
Yeah, not convinced. Either you’re scum, or you’re not reading the thread. Either way, my vote stands for now.
OK, so for those that haven’t caught on, despite me explicitly stating it, this has been my plan with every single I’ve made until Red. Cause noise, see what happens.
See, I haven’t played forum mafia, but I’ve played live action werewolf, and you get something similar on day 1, no one knows who to vote for. If no one has a plan, eventually someone will just accuse someone they have a grudge against, and you run from there. Not very helpful.
So one thing town learns to do is spend day 1 pointing at random people, screaming “YOU DID IT!” and see if they flinch. Sometimes you even catch people this way, the poor saps that are bad at keeping secrets. But sooner or later, the scum learns to clam up.
Indeed, on a forum, it’s even easier to clam up. Just don’t type. We can’t see your facial expression to tell if we hit a nerve.
Back to the live action story, I realized that you can still learn useful stuff with wild accusations thrown fast and loose. The trick is, you don’t watch the accused, you watch everyone else. Anyone could look relieved or shocked when the finger is pointed at someone else, but once in a while you’ll catch a glimpse of someone that is annoyed that someone else was targeted. Why could that be? It’s a hint that they’re scum, and they’re annoyed that you’re drawing attention to their scum brethren. Or maybe they’re a mason annoyed that another mason is being pointed at. Or maybe something else.
Point is, someone flinched, and now you have a line of inquiry. And now in this game someone has flinched, and now there is a line of inquiry.
Red, I’m not sure it’s productive at this point for me to respond point by point in a huge wall of quotes (though I will if you feel I have not explained myself well enough). I did want to respond to one thing:
In this game, at least, I think you are wrong about the first point. His first vote was for me, and it did, in fact, prod me to get in sooner rather than later. Not that I wasn’t planning to dive in, but getting a vote did put a little fire under the feet. (Of course, you only have my word for that). More factually, we know that tiltawhirl responded to Chipa’s vote with “I’m here! I’m here!” one hour later. So, to me, that’s cause and effect evidence. Do you disagree?
**Vote Count:
Chipacabra(1): Red Skeezix
Red Skeezix(2): ShadowFacts, Chipacabra**
Day ends Thursday at Noon Eastern.
Three players were prodded:
- Shadowfacts: Came in started reading and placed a vote and have continued to participate.
- tiltawhirl: Came in and made a couple of posts and has been gone > 24 hours.
- storyteller: Has yet to appear.
Using this game as a sole reference, it would have 1/3 (1/2 if we count tiltawhirl’s limited participation as something) correlation of action (prod) implying desired reaction (participation). Not exactly cause and effect, is it? So yes I’d tend to disagree: in most cases (using this game 50%-66% of the time) prodding does squat except provide scum with the wherewithal to couch votes.
Can you elaborate on the flinch you are pursuing here. If I read you right, you are suggesting the possibility of one of the inactive’s you voted being scum, with Red as a scum buddy reacting to teh vote on his team member. Have I read you crrectly? If so which of the 3 votes do you see him as having flimched at?
That’s a good question. If Red were a mason, which I’m fairly sure he’s not, I’d say for sure he flinched at tilt.
As a scum flinch, though, not as sure. Probably not Shadow. He could have been jumping at me thinking that I’d move on to Story next, but that doesn’t seem likely.
So, still guessing the flinch was at the tilt vote, because he showed no signs of even noticing the other votes/unvotes. I even made sure to bold them like the nice mods told me to.
Trying to cover for tilt just seems like such a… clumsy scum mistake, though. That’s what’s keeping me from getting 100% behind my own vote, heh.
But the more Red tries to defend his stance, the less his arguments seem to make sense to me, from a town perspective. Maybe he just has a different idea of how town should play, but that just doesn’t feel like it to me.
This makes sense but four players posted in reaction to your vote or subsequent defense: Red, Tilta herself, Freudian and Meeko. Is it not possible that your vote reasoning was scummy in itself and so any flinching was a normal reaction? Or do you think that Freudian and Meeko are also scummy?
While we’re here, could you explain this comment a little? I’m sure it was intended as humor but the reference to the color confused me and has been bugging me:
+1 it confused me too, but I forgot to ask
OAOW posted something about the England-Germany soccer game, and as only Muggles care about soccer that proved that he was a Muggle.
Wasn’t one of the students at Hogwarts a West Ham fan?
Dean Brown. He was Muggleborn. I just explained the joke; I didn’t say that it precisely matched the colour.
Edit: Ok, if you want to get really technical you could call him a half-blood. JKR ended up dropping a storyline that had Dean discovering that his father was actually a wizard. Whether Dean’s father being a wizard is canonical is debatable.