Hotel of Heroes mafia

[Suburban_Plankton]

Regarding ushi:

@peekercpa

well we have inconsistencies about positions (within the same stinking post).

This is a good enough reason for a vote, I suppose, especially on Day 1

we’ve got an overblown reaction to confrontation (if it even rose to that level).

It was an overblown reaction, but are you saying that the reaction makes it more likely that he’s Scum? I don’t see the correlation there myself.

we’ve got a vote switch based merely on a substitution - and to some extent if he would have just come out and said that his original vote was because he had a sore ass then he would look even worse.

I still don’t see why this is an issue to people. It’s Day 1; it’s not like he had a real strong case to begin with. Day 1 votes are almost always based heavily on “gut feeling”. He had a “gut feeling” about the Ed/Ben role, based on what **Ed **had posted. It’s perfectly clear to me why he wouldn’t want to carry that “gut feeling” over to Ben. Personally, I think he would have looked better from a “Scum/Town” perspective if he said that his vote on **Ed **was because he had a sore ass…it would have made the original vote look all the worse, but it would have made the reasoning for the unvote crystal clear. Of course, if that wasn’t the reason for the vote in the first place, then it’s a moot point…

and now no fracking vote - based on maha’s most recent update.

I see now that ushi has cast a vote for Cookies; however, I’m bothered by his reasoning:

@ushimitsudoki

For reasons alphabetic and one more reason explained later.

[bolding mine]
It shows a ‘cavalier attitude’ that doesn’t sit well with me.

so yeh, for Day 1 it’s better than a lot of cases.

I don’t get the feeling that ushi is Scum, but I am not getting a “Town” vibe from him either. His play has certainly rubbed people the wrong way, for both “game” and “meta-game” reasons, so I can understand the votes in that respect. I suspect that it’s going to turn out to be a mislynch, but I’m not going to try to talk anyone out of their vote.

[Mahaloth]

**Vote Count:

Idlethoughts(2): Suburban, Pleonast

Peeker(1): ScubaBen

ScubaBen(1): Chronos

Chronos(1): Redskeezix

Pleonast(1): Oredigger

Ushimi(5): peeker, Cometothedarkside, Oneandonly, Chipacabra, Idle

Cometothedarkside(3): Mentalguy, Astral, Ushimi

Suburbanplankton(1): story

Thesearemypants(1): Meeko

Storyteller(1): Wolverine**

[Idle_Thoughts]

@Pleonast

On reread, I’ve something else that bothers me.

First, we have the vote (post 331):

Poor reason to vote. Then, an explanation (post 388) in response to Ben:

Except, Idle’s vote was in post 331, before peeker’s vote. (And Idle even notes that peeker references him.) While voting for no stated reason is bad enough, it looks like Idle is trying to spin his lack of voting to match up with someone else’s later vote.

unvote Suburban Plankton
vote Idle Thoughts
for:

1. Voting without a stated reason.
2. Trying to use someone else’s vote to retcon their own vote.

I’ve already stated TWICE why I voted for Ushimi the first time. Stop skimming.
Read the last sentence of this post.

It was pretty obvious I was only trying to get **Ushimi’**s goat by voting for him after being such a hothead in the Ed debacle.

[storyteller0910]

@peekercpa

well i think the only soul that meets this criteria is idle. and while i don’t discount the fact that he may indeed have several separate and distinct personalities i am not quite sure that i am ready to pluralize him.

Idle is the only one who voted and subsequently unvoted, yes. And between that massive waffle and Pleonast’s case, he’s close to earning my vote.

But then there’s also Oredigger77, who said this at #441, after Pleo’s initial post about Plankton but before the latter’s defense:

I think we’ve got our first lead of the game. I’ll give scuba or suburban a chance to answer first but I think this is going to be about as good as Day one gets.

Then followed up with this, after Plankton’s post (#461):

Well, that response seems reasonable.

So it’s our “first lead” and “about as good as Day one gets” (and by the way, references to it being Day One so hey, the cases don’t have to be that good, are number one on my list of things I unscientifically believe Scum say more often than Town), but then Plankton offers an explanation that, while entirely possible, is also exactly the explanation that any sensible Scum would offer. I ask again – if the response Plankton did give completely satisfied you, what sort of response would not have satisfied you?

Astral Rejection does something similar in the space of two posts, but was noncommittal about the slip in the first place so his acceptance of Plankton’s explanation rings less false to me.

Both Idle and Digger behaved in a way that I think appears to suggest that their initial enthusiasm for the slip was something less than entirely genuine. I myself am unsatisfied, and will keep half an eyeball on Plankton, but for now I am more suspicious of those two.

More so of Digger. Why? Partly because at least Idle was up front with what he was doing. Digger with-held his vote (in spite of it being “as good as Day One gets”). But even more problematic for me is the fact that Oredigger has subsequently voted for Pleonast (a notorious lightning rod of a player, and, if Pleo will forgive me for saying it, a relatively easy target to get lynched) because Pleonast brought up the subject that Oredigger called our best lead so far.

That hugely inconsistent and opportunistic act, coupled with evidently insincere “suspicion” of Plankton, means I am happy to be able to:

unvote Plankton

and

vote Oredigger77

[storyteller0910]

@Suburban_Plankton

I don’t get the feeling that ushi is Scum, but I am not getting a “Town” vibe from him either. His play has certainly rubbed people the wrong way, for both “game” and “meta-game” reasons, so I can understand the votes in that respect. I suspect that it’s going to turn out to be a mislynch, but I’m not going to try to talk anyone out of their vote.

I am.

If you’re voting for ushi because you genuinely believe he is Scum (or, if he is Town, because you’re Scum who wants to pretend you genuinely believe he is Scum), then I encourage you to keep your vote where it is. It will be easier to analyze later.

But if you’re voting for him because he’s pissed you off, because he’s questioned how we play, because he’s acted a bit unpleasant: please unvote. A vote like this is: (1) unlikely to produce a positive outcome; and (2) definitely not going to be easy to analyze on future Days.

For my part, I am opposed to this lynch. I have a very difficult time believing that Scum ushi acts in the way he does. Maybe it’s a brilliant act and he’s counting on people thinking exactly that, but if it is, it’ll backfire eventually because he won’t be able to sustain it through endgame.

[Suburban_Plankton]

@Scuba_Ben

My position hasn’t changed – I don’t have any good candidates to vote for. So instead of looking for suspicion “peaks” maybe I should look for suspicion “lows” and work by process of elimination.

(Some minutes and mental editing later…)

I have no read on anyone. I’ve got 17 lows and myself. Which is normal for me. All I do have is the dust-up between ushimi and Ed, a distraction I’ve fallen for several times before. Plus I’m now in Ed’s shoes. I don’t think that fray is reason enough for me to vote for ushimi.

I’ll reread this thread as time permits.

So, does this mean you’re reconsidering your vote on peeker?

@Scuba_Ben

I missed that one; thanks for catching it Idle. Peeker cast a “me too” vote for ushimi, which I should and do find suspicious.

In fact, it seems to me Peeker has just a bit more reason for my vote: First, he votes ushimi for the aforementioned posts in ushimi’s fray with Ed, and second Peek sounds like he’s trying to form a little red wagon. (Which is a far cry from a bandwagon.)

It’s still Day 1, so that’s all I’ve got to go with for now.
Unvote Idle Thoughts
Vote peekercpa

Aside to Idle: Scuba Steve is a different poster, here with me in the extreme sports section.

[Suburban_Plankton]

@storyteller0910

I am.

If you’re voting for ushi because you genuinely believe he is Scum (or, if he is Town, because you’re Scum who wants to pretend you genuinely believe he is Scum), then I encourage you to keep your vote where it is. It will be easier to analyze later.

But if you’re voting for him because he’s pissed you off, because he’s questioned how we play, because he’s acted a bit unpleasant: please unvote. A vote like this is: (1) unlikely to produce a positive outcome; and (2) definitely not going to be easy to analyze on future Days.

For my part, I am opposed to this lynch. I have a very difficult time believing that Scum ushi acts in the way he does. Maybe it’s a brilliant act and he’s counting on people thinking exactly that, but if it is, it’ll backfire eventually because he won’t be able to sustain it through endgame.

I *think *that **peeker **is the only person who is voting for **ushi **because “he pissed him off”; the others are saying it’s because of his unvote of Ben.

I don’t think the latter is worth a vote, but it’s a defensible position…and I know better than to try to talk **peeker **out of anything

[storyteller0910]

@Suburban_Plankton

I *think *that **peeker **is the only person who is voting for **ushi **because “he pissed him off”; the others are saying it’s because of his unvote of Ben.

The others are saying that. I’m just not sure that the “pissed me off” factor isn’t at play with more than one voter in this particular case.

[Wolverine]

unvote storyteller0910

I need a little more time before coming back with a vote.

[Pleonast]

@Wolverine

Since Pleonast has taken his vote off of Suburban Plankton
unvote Pleonast
vote storyteller0910
I still think Plankton’s comment can be explained fully by the comments made in this thread from page 1 to his post. Any appeal to a scum board as being the source is entirely unsubstantiated and feels like digging for an excuse to lynch somebody.

Sorry, but you did ask for it story.

You are so confident in Plankton’s truthfulness, that you’re going to vote for anyone voting for him?

I don’t know if you’re really that gullible, or if you’re scum and know he’s being truthful, but something is off about your votes. Accepting their explanation as reasonable is one thing, but trusting them enough to base votes on it is quite another.

@Idle_Thoughts

I’ve already stated TWICE why I voted for Ushimi the first time. Stop skimming.
Read the last sentence of this post.

It was pretty obvious I was only trying to get **Ushimi’**s goat by voting for him after being such a hothead in the Ed debacle.

Ah, missed that. So you actually tried spinning your reasonless vote twice.
vote Idle Thoughts
for

1. Voting without a reason (post 331: “just because”).
2. Stealing someone else’s reason to justify that vote (post 388: “the same reason Peek”).
3. Spinning the reason some more (post 454 “wanted to poke a little harmless fun”).

[Wolverine]

Actually, rereading storyteller0910’s vote on Oredigger77 made a lot of sense. I know I should add something new to continue the conversation (to keep it from being a me too vote), but I think story has the best lead so far and I’m following it.

Vote Oredigger77

[Idle_Thoughts]

I’m confused, Story.
Both you and Pleo pointed out Plankton’s usage of “odd pronouns”. Well, yeah, that is weird when one learns of Scuba’s history of that. So I voted for Plankton on your explaining it.
But then Plankton came in and explained it, and, what do you know, it makes sense to me! So I unvote and go back to the person I was previously voting for.

How is any of that scummy behavior? :dubious: Try as I might, I can’t even REACH to find anything there scummy-like.
What am I missing here?

[Idle_Thoughts]

@Pleonast

for

1. Voting without a reason (post 331: “just because”)

I didn’t vote without a reason though..you’re wrong.
I’m starting to find it hard to believe you could purposefully be wrong like this when I’ve already told you what my reason for voting for him was.

[Wolverine]

@Pleonast

You are so confident in Plankton’s truthfulness, that you’re going to vote for anyone voting for him?

I don’t know if you’re really that gullible, or if you’re scum and know he’s being truthful, but something is off about your votes. Accepting their explanation as reasonable is one thing, but trusting them enough to base votes on it is quite another.

I read Plankton’s comment as it was intended, a joke that was an extension of the conversation near the beginning of the thread. I voted to keep pressure on anyone voting for Plankton*** solely based*** on that comment. I’m not 100% positive Plankton is town (maybe only 75%), but he did not deserve the votes without further arguments against him.

[storyteller0910]

@Wolverine

I read Plankton’s comment as it was intended, a joke that was an extension of the conversation near the beginning of the thread. I voted to keep pressure on anyone voting for Plankton*** solely based*** on that comment. I’m not 100% positive Plankton is town (maybe only 75%), but he did not deserve the votes without further arguments against him.

What do you think of the other votes that have been made toDay, and of those who have made the votes?

[Suburban_Plankton]

@Pleonast

Ah, missed that. So you actually tried spinning your reasonless vote twice.
vote Idle Thoughts
for

1. Voting without a reason (post 331: “just because”).
2. Stealing someone else’s reason to justify that vote (post 388: “the same reason Peek”).
3. Spinning the reason some more (post 454 “wanted to poke a little harmless fun”).

Just curious, but did you forget that you actually voted for **Idle **only 11 posts before this?

@Pleonast

Except, Idle’s vote was in post 331, before peeker’s vote. (And Idle even notes that peeker references him.) While voting for no stated reason is bad enough, it looks like Idle is trying to spin his lack of voting to match up with someone else’s later vote.

unvote Suburban Plankton
vote Idle Thoughts
for:

1. Voting without a stated reason.
2. Trying to use someone else’s vote to retcon their own vote.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@Pleonast

Idle Thoughts**[/color]
for

1. Voting without a reason (post 331: “just because”).
2. Stealing someone else’s reason to justify that vote (post 388: “the same reason Peek”).
3. Spinning the reason some more (post 454 “wanted to poke a little harmless fun”).

I can play the link game, too.

I vote for Ushimi in post 331 because he was being annoying and insulting for no good reason. The phrase “Methinks you doth protest too much” comes to mind.

Here I thought it was obvious that after his over-the-top, insulting tirade (which was post 326) why I’d vote for him a mere 7 posts later.
But, I guess it WASN’T obvious after all that someone would vote for someone else on being a slightly annoying git, so I had to put the cookies on the lower shelf and explain my vote after Scuba called me out for voting for no reason here.

If you read that post by me where I explain my vote (the one where you try to spin it as me using Peeker’s reason), it clearly shows me saying it’s because he was being annoying as all get out. So how was this piggybacking off peeker’s vote? I voted for Ushimi being annoying first. Before Peeker.
You are deliberately making it in a way it wasn’t.

And finally, I point you back to the reason, since you seemed to have missed it and you say I’m spinning again.

If you’re not scum or third party in this game, I’ll be very surprised. I happen to think Ushimi is scum too, though, so I’ll not switch votes.

[Mahaloth]

**Vote Count:

Idlethoughts(2): Suburban, Pleonast

Peeker(1): ScubaBen

ScubaBen(1): Chronos

Chronos(1): Redskeezix

Pleonast(1): Oredigger

Ushimi(5): peeker, Cometothedarkside, Oneandonly, Chipacabra, Idle

Cometothedarkside(3): Mentalguy, Astral, Ushimi

Oredigger(2): story, Wolverine

Thesearemypants(1): Meeko**

Day One ends in 2 hours and 51 minutes.

[Scuba_Ben]

@Suburban_Plankton

So, does this mean you’re reconsidering your vote on peeker?

Yes I am. I’ve been reconsidering it since yesterday evening. But at present, it seems to me one weak vote is as good as another.

The only thing I’m certain of is that voting for ushimi (claimed Batman, VT) isn’t going to make a difference. {Insert comment about VT claims here.}

I think ushimi is getting an undeserved bandwagon for not-good reasons. If he flips Town and as claimed, I’m going to have to assess the lynch effort.

Observation: If ushimi is claiming truly, we shouldn’t count on character names to indicate powers. I personally would have given Batman a power role of vigilante, detective, or combo. On the other hook, Idle Thoughts’s opening claim of Joel Robinson, vanilla Town would be consistent between the character and the (non) power.

Side observation: We have 18 players, and 10 have votes on them. I think that’s the highest fraction I’ve seen on Day 1 this close to Dusk.

[Wolverine]

@storyteller0910

What do you think of the other votes that have been made toDay, and of those who have made the votes?

I don’t think Idle Thoughts was backtracking, but I can see how somebody might think that. Pleonast has a weak case there, but legitimate.

I’ve voted now 3 times so I’m clearly delusional.

Ushimitsudoki knows he is voting mostly to save his butt, however, his point about Cookies not liking meta-gaming while engaging in it herself is helpful.

Meeko makes a good observation about Pants, but I don’t think it is a strong enough for a Day 1 lynch. It seems more like lynch the lurker after Pants disappeared for a day.

I’m skipping over Oredigger’s vote and your vote in response. My attitude is clearly summed up in my vote for him.

Which others have missed that you want to know?