This.
I don’t think things are un-salvageable, but at the moment it’s just a bit hard to get excited about things.
For me, I’m also playing in 2 other Mafia games at the moment; one of which will be heading into Night in just a couple hours, and one which has just started. I should have some more time to devote to this game later on this evening. Hopefully we can right this ship and get things moving again.
Trying to turn the tide.
It may come across as a ‘scum wouldn’t do that’ perspective, or perhaps an indication that he’s 3rd party and acting alone, but I just have a hard time swallowing that Wolverine and his string of ‘bad ideas’ is indicative of any sort of coordinated effort ala scum.
I’d probably feel differently if either I or others found his ideas more compelling and went on record as such, and if the potential anti-town consequences were slowly dawning on us over time. But that isn’t how it has been going. His ideas are being dismissed and counter-argued in my head before I even get to the bottom of his posts.
I just don’t see it as a scum gambit to try and hide in plain site by making a string of questionable proposals that garner him a lot of negative attention.
And I mean the tide of participation, not as a nefarious nudge/wink to clandestine compatriots.
Let’s play some mafia! This won’t be a full WoW, just interesting stuff I’ve noticed.
Scuba_Ben!
Votes Idle Thoughts because Idle voted “just because.” He was trying to choose between Ushi and Idle in this post.
Unvotes Idle in his next post and moves to Peeker because he thinks Peeker is trying to start a little red wagon, whatever that might mean. Only 4 posts separate this post from his previous. I’d like to point out that he bragged about how he had just finished the entire thread, so it seems odd to me that he wouldn’t mention Peeker at all in his first post, and then be “compelled” to vote for Peeker in his second. Not really much of a tell (we all miss things) but it is worth pointing out.
His third post is almost entirely fluff. He calls out Ushi, then backtracks and says he understands. He hedges his Day 1 vote by saying he never does well on Day 1. Then he lampshades this by saying he should stop playing the “poor play style” card.
Calls for folks to add to the discussion, while adding nothing of his own. Also restates that his vote is based on very little.
He doesn’t particularly care for the cases on Ushi and thinks it’s an undeserved bandwagon. In this same post, he puts no effort into discussing why he doesn’t like the cases or who he finds suspicious. It just seems odd to me to point out that something seems off and not elaborate or investigate that issue.
As I’ve pointed out earlier, he posts his desire to look at the late-day Oredigger bandwagon, and then immediately follows it up with a post wholeheartedly hopping on said bandwagon. What stands out to me on this reread is how entirely onboard he was. Let me quote some of the phrasing he uses:
Every single one of those quotes comes from his casemaking against Oredigger. Does that sound like someone who was “tricked” or beguiled or whatever into voting for Oredigger? He follows this claim up with a promise to review both me and story, something that I note never materialized. I guess maybe he really didn’t care that much? He then, at the very bottom of this post, repeats his assertion that he was bamboozled into voting for the death of poor, innocent Oredigger, and shouldn’t we all feel sorry for him? Scummy, scummy, scummy, in my opinion. My favorite part about this is that he said he was concerned about the late-day effort to lynch Oredigger, then immediately joined the effort, then claims to have been suckered into it. Maybe he forgot he was supposed to be suspicious of it?
He then doesn’t post anything for 5 days, which is cool I guess. I’m not gonna call that a scum tell, but it’s not exactly pro-town. Basically he checks in to tell us he’s not dead. I approve of that message, and it’s good to know he’s gonna follow up and rejoin the game.
Oh, except he doesn’t. He hasn’t said anything since. I didn’t see him vote yesterday, either. Definitely hanging low, and definitely striking me as scummy.
Pants! You’re next!
Astral Rejection crits you with a Wall of Words!
Pants:
Starts off suggesting a mass name claim. Since he’s new to the game, and on Day 1 most conversation is good conversation, I’m gonna say this isn’t indicative of anything.
Repeats how much of a newbie he is. Further discusses a mass name claim.
Offers adifferent kind of claim, one that offers no information whatsoever to anybody. Again, he’s new, maybe he doesn’t realize that moderators often give fase claims to the scum. This actually leans me town, since there’s no value whatsoever for scum to float out this idea.
He defends his idea a bit more in various posts. He misses the obvious fact that scum can, if they choose, lie. He misses this over and over and over again, it seems.
He votes for Special Ed (now Scuba_Ben) because Ed is disruptive. That’s all that’s given prior to the vote. After he does the whole bold and blue thing to his vote, he then adds that he decided to vote “for someone who argued against the connection between names and alignment as if facing being lynched they will presumably have to claim, including their name at some point.” I’ll be honest and admit I’m not 100% sure what that means. He also calls out Peeker for being confrontational, calls out Red for voting in a suspect way, and somehow ties Red’s vote for Chronos to Chronos’ vote for Ed. Somehow he decides that if Red voted for Chronos, and Chronos voted for Ed, it increases the suspicion on Ed. Seriously, go read that post. It didn’t make a whole heck of a lot of sense to me, but maybe I’m missing something obvious.
Realizes he made an error and stands by his vote anyway.
Says his suspicions aren’t hard or fast because it’s just Day 1, and admits he’s voting for Ed somewhat because Ed’s ideas don’t tally with his. THen he adds that his vote is not just merely voting for someone who disagrees with him, but because Ed’s counter to his mass claiming idea “wasn’t entirely logical.”
Ultimately, he just misses the point of what Ed’s saying. He still thinks someone would claim an evil name (like Satan) and still pretend to be a good guy. Ed points out that the bad guys could lie and say they have a good guy name, and Pants is voting him for that.
He does a complete 180 and unvotes when Ed asks to be subbed out. Honestly, up to this point I’m getting a very solid townie vibe from Pants. Of course, this vibe won’t last long.
I’d like to quote one of his posts directly. Check this out.
One of them must be town. One of them. Presumably, then, Pants would know which one is which? Two townies can get into a fight, of course, but then he would mean that both of them were town. Unless he thinks Ed is scum, in which case he should be voting for him? This struck me as all kinds of wrong. Too much of a "look how much of a townie I’m trying to be!’ kind of thing. If you and some random player got into a fight, you wouldn’t remind everyone else how one of you must be town. You’d say YOU were town, and look into the other player’s reason for disagreeing with you. This quote does not sit right with me.
Then, at the very bottom of this post, he play the newbie card again. Something I did over and over and over again when I was scum. Just rings false to me to keep reminding us how we should excuse his posts.
Hops on the Oredigger bandwagon at spot #4, after admitting he doesn’t know who to vote for. He’s not convinced that Ushi is scum, but then says he gets that Ushi seems scummy. He says both cases have merit, and then ties the vote at 5 to 5. What really gets me is that he says he’s wary of casting a “meaningless” vote, when he’s waffling between the two vote leaders. Neither of those votes would be meaningless, so what is he talking about? Slight slip, assuming both targets are town? Something else? I’m not sure, but it’s a damned odd thing to say.
All of these posts (roughly 75% of his output) are all on Day 1, by the way. There’s stuff I didn’t feel like mentioning which buffs out his post count. I find it interesting that so much of his posting was on Day 1, and he’s been comparatively silent since.
Calls out Pleo for calling self-preservation votes a scum tell. In his defense, he was right. But he’s not the first to point this out, and scum love bussing other scum when the chips are down. Does not vote for him in this post.
Then he votes for Pleo a few posts later. Again, in his defense, nobody else discussed the Pleo issue, so that’s not actually too scummy.
AGAIN plays the newbie card to defend his voting for Oredigger. Lists his prime suspects as Pleo, Mental, and Ushi.
Gets really upset when I call him out for editing his posts twice. He thinks this represents a weak way to get a bandwagon rolling. Seems very, very defensive. When I defend mentioning it, he never mentions the issue again. Maybe he’s trying to make up for how defensive he was earlier?
Immediately votes Ushi at the start of Day 3 for “1st day voting.” Acknowledges that 3 people died, and says he’ll happily take Cookies at face value. No attempt to incorporate any new data into his vote. Hasn’t made any substantial contributions to the game since; his two follow-up posts ask if the other mason should declare and asking Story to reveal more powers in an oblique way. He’s been very, very quiet since Day 1. What struck me as interesting is that he asks rhetorically if a newbie scum player would play so loud, and then plays much, much quieter the next two days. Learning his lesson quick, maybe?
Story, you’re next! But I need a break, so later tonight!
I read that with the cause and effect the other way around, actually. That is, he doesn’t want to cast a meaningless vote, therefore he’s waffling between the two vote leaders (because a vote for anyone else would be meaningless).
Oh man, I am so bummed out right now. I was almost done with my Story write-up, and I accidentally closed the tab. I found a TON of scummy stuff, so I guess back to work I go. These take so much time!
Unvote Wolverine
Vote Storyteller
That’s how scummy he struck me doing this.
**Vote Count:
Ushimi(5): Idle, Thesearemypants, Wolverine, Meeko, Chronos
Wolverine(1): Ushimi
Cometothedarkside(1): Suburban
Suburban(1): Red Skeezix
Story(1): Astral**
Story WoW 2.0, the shorter and more abridged version
One thing that struck me about Storyteller is how agnostic he is. He consistently plays things safe, doesn’t take sides, and hedges as best he can. I originally wrote about each individual case, but now I’m just gonna link examples.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13370339&postcount=395
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13370358&postcount=398
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13371835&postcount=434
He votes Suburban based on Pleo’s reasoning. Of course, he just takes Pleo’s word for it. Yeah, I mean yeah.
Thankfully, he goes back and looks at the case for himself. He agrees with Idle that there could be any number of rational explanations, and he just wants to wait for SP to respond.
Chides Wolverine for suggesting that Pleo remove his vote from SP. Wolverine’s reasoning is that after having heard from SP, he found it reasonable and thinks unvotes are in order. I’ll note Story was also waiting for SP to respond; yet, if he doesn’t care what SP’s response is, why was he waiting? Just trying to appear open-minded to a cursory examination? Funnily, I never would have noticed this if he hadn’t taken the time to attack Wolverine. Defending Pleo, maybe?
Does an excellent “sudden shock at day end!” post, and then completely out of the blue defends Ushi. Up to this point, Story hasn’t mentioned Ushi in any substantial way. Why the sudden concern? Where is this coming from?
Starts the case on Oredigger. Admittedly, what he points out is good case-building material. But couple it with his sudden, inexplicable defense of Ushi, and it takes on a sinister light. I hadn’t realized until I started doing this read-through how close in proximity these two events are. I remember phrasing this so much better the first time I did this WoW, but I guess this is what you get.
Requests that SP unvote Ushi, couched in reasons of analysis. Reiterates that he’s opposed to the lynch, as of three of his posts ago.
Indirectly attacks every single person voting for Ushi, without giving names or specifics. On a meta-level, I really enjoy reading Story’s commentary in the spoiled threads of games he’s been a moderator in. He’s very smart and insightful, and this is the sort of thing he complains about. On a non-meta level, casting a wide net of suspicion is not very pro-town.
Stands by his case for Oredigger, which is a null tell (unlike Scuba_Ben, who ran as fast as he could! Ba-ZING!) He questions Pleo.
He then attacks Pleo, coming out strong and voting for clear reasons - no wait, none of that happened. He questions Pleo, andthen in the same post comes up with his own defense for Pleo’s actions and says it’s a null tell and doesn’t hold it against him. Very diplomatic of you, Story.
Acts all perplexed that Pleo’s half-ass non-claim would garner more votes. Story says Pleo claims a power role, which isn’t technically what Pleo did; instead, Pleo claimed nothing at all. And why is Story so concerned with disregarding all of the other arguments against him? This isn’t a binary all or nothing issue - tearing one reason down doesn’t discredit the rest.
Defends Pleo’s decision to not claim, even though Pleo is about two hours away from getting lynched. My guess is, scum only have a few covers and don’t want to waste one.
Votes “me too!” on Chipacabra based on SP’s reasoning (the same SP Story voted for earlier, based on Pleo’s reasoning. Adds nothing to the case. Suddenly asks Pleo to do a full reveal, stating that he can’t “see any reason” to withold information. This is only 6 minutes after his defense of Pleo’s silence.
Bam! Another 180! Now he comes up with 4 reasons FOR Pleo to not do a full reveal. To be fair to him, he’s just responding to Chronos. To completely undermine the sentence I just typed, Chronos specifies “in this situation.” The situation, I might remind you, where Pleo is gonna be lynched in 2 hours.
Oops, I forgot to quote it, but somewhere Story says Pleo has claimed detective. Pleo did no such thing. Perhaps a PIS based on what Pleo meant to claim? If I find this later, I’ll quote it.
Story claims that he never defended Pleo, just attacked the decision to lynch him. At the risk of arguing semantics, yes you did. You defend his decision not to do a full reveal, and you defend his decision to consider self-preservation votes scummy. That’s two just off the top of my head. Your claim, by the way, makes no sense to me. You have FOUR POWERS, and you didn’t use anything on night 2. What exactly are you waiting for? Your inevitable death now that you’ve claimed for no reason whatsoever? Seriously, this makes no sense to me. You claim… with nothing to report… and powers still remaining. Well done, I guess.
I agree with you about Cookies, unless you’re scummy mcscummerson and trying to throw us off her trail. Which I think you are.
It’s not dishonest on Chronos’ part, Story. He asks very specifically “in this situation.” You may have been talking “in general” but the natural follow-up questiion is, why were you talking in general? Chronos was talking about Pleo.
What exactly about my Wolverine case is so hard to follow? Yes, it seems reasonable at first glance, probably because it’s very, very easy to read. There is literally nothing here that needs a reread, especially since I’ve been building this case for literal days. Where have you been? Again, I think you’re playing it safe but not taking a stance on anything.
So, there you go. My vote is here for now.
Idle, you’re next. Tomorrow. I’m done with these for tonight.
I’m just wondering what Wolverine has to say, in general, over Astral’s wow’s. He was so critical over mine for Pleonast.
Do you have anything to say? I was hoping maybe all of that work would spark some discussion. 
Aside from not grokking how his saying that he thinks I chose to side with scum as a way of throwing people off of my trail, I find your in-depth of review of Story pretty compelling and would consider returning my vote there at this point.
I’d like to do a re-read of him myself, but I will just toss in the observation that if you are to consider the possiblity that I’m being truthful, a reasonable Scum angle would be to burn Town attention on me as much as possible, without being too obvious about it. Kinda like a seemingly innocuous NETA post trying to get inside my head and coming to the conclusion that it is really REALLY unlikely that I’m being truthful.
Then there was the whole putting words in my mouth thing by portraying my question of why he thought it was really unlikely as me saying that it was ‘ridiculous’ to think that I was more likely to have chosen scum. And don’t forget the whole conveniently happening to investigate things that we already knew happened. Not hugely compelling on its own, and not that it hasn’t actually happened with Town powers in the past, but as a data point it is a) quite a coincidence and b) one of the few ways that Scum can manufacture investigative results without exposing themselves to people countering those claims because they actually happened. He also claimed that his investigation results on Pleo were “utterly useless”, which was not necessarily the case. With the possibility of an elaborate scum gambit between Pleo and I, I think a truly Town player would have still been inclined to share that information prior to Pleo being lynched.
So yeah, back goes my vote on Storyteller
The exchange, for those playing along at home, took place on page 17 between
posts #819 (Story’s soft claim) and #836.
Vote Storyteller
Re-read took place while composing, and I neglected to delete the intent to reread.
I was critical because I didn’t think you had a good argument against Pleonast then. I’ve reread Pleonast’s original post and your response and I’m still not reading scum from it. There were lots of other things that Pleo did that were scummy (attacking Plankton, voting Oredigger for self-preservation, outing Cookies) but I don’t see that post as one of them. Everything he said sounded the same to what he said in International Mafia when he wasn’t scum.
On to Astral’s WoWs:
Pants - Astral sees that a lot of what Pants is doing as newbie and I agree. However, I think his assessment of Pants comment of the fight with Ed is a little off. I took Pants as saying there’s no way two scum would be fighting like this so we should presume that one of us is at least town.
I’m already on Astral’s bad list, but Pants vote on Day 3 is too similar to my own for me to be critical of Pants. I don’t expect Astral to be so forgiving. It is consistent with how he’s played. The thing that does concern me is that Pants was very vocal at the beginning and much quieter now, much like he’s being coached.
Overall - Pants is newbie town but shows some small signs of scumminess.
Story - Astral has a strong case. List of suspicions I agree with: Story voted along with Pleonast against Suburban Plankton, did not move his SP vote right away after being shown it was wrong, defends Pleo several times (his Day 1 vote and outing of Cookies), his waffling on issues.
Things I disagree with - Attacking those who vote for Ushi. I think these are null tells. Astral seems to have a bigger problem with play style than thinking these posts show as scummy. Attacks Story for wanting to reread my posts. Why is this a bad thing? I agree his case is straightforward (while wrong) but why is spending time going over the thread again considered bad play or scummy? This seems like something good players should do.
Overall - Story looks a lot more guilty than I originally thought but I’m sticking with my Ushi vote.
On to Astral himself:
Since he has been my most vocal critic, it is hard to be objective. He clearly is working hard to find scum (pro-town) but falls into the True Believer syndrome. Once he was convinced I was scum, everything I said was scummy. If I said I liked Spider-Man or I ate granola for breakfast, that is more proof that I’m scum.
He disagrees with my vote for Ushi and my reasoning. That’s his right. I don’t expect to get through Mafia without somebody disagreeing with me. I play the way I think will help Town win. I’m not going to change just because I get some pressure from somebody else.
I haven’t got a strong scum feel from his actual posts, so that’s why no vote from me. However, he’s voted away from both Ushimitsudoki and Pleonast. I want to see what happens with Today’s vote before casting further aspersions.
So I sat down to consider the case Astral Rejection has compiled against me (one that’s brought Cookies back over to voting for me, surprise, surprise, how convenient that she’s got a good reason to be “suspicious” of a player who has actively doubted her claims). It is a striking case, not because it’s good - it’s not - but because it’s scrupulously honest, as far as it goes. With a few very modest exceptions (which I’ll chalk up to misreading or misunderstanding), I have in fact done everything that Astral Rejection accuses me of doing.
It’s just that none of it is Scummy. What Astral has done here is compiled a list of behaviors, put them all together, and declared them Scummy by fiat. The heavy lifting of actually connecting this list of behaviors to likelihood of being Scum is left to the reader’s own paranoia. It’s really sort of cool. I hope Astral is Scum, because if he is this is really one of the more clever Scum moves I’ve seen so far. If he’s Town, then it’s just one giant Confirmation Bias Sundae. Let’s take examples.
By the way, I’m snipping out URL’s from these just to increase readability.
Well, first of all, I disagree with you on the subject of my own agnosticism. I think I’ve pretty consistently stated that I think ushi is Town, for example, and I think I was pretty clearly and obviously opposed to the lynch of Pleonast yesterDay. That said, even if I have been “agnostic,” why is that Scummy?
In your first linked example, do you really imagine a Townie would say “I am 100% sure that ushi is Town and no power on earth will convince me otherwise,” but Scum would show some amount of skepticism about his/her own rightness? The second linked example is me providing a potential downside to a counterclaim, in response to a direct question regarding same. I don’t know how that even applies to the central point. Your third point contains absolutely no hedging at all; I request a clarification from Pleonast and agree with Pleonast’s take on ushi. So, why is that Scummy?
Yeah, I mean, yeah. I took Pleo’s word that Scuba_Ben was known for use of “funny pronouns,” a fact that was basically out of game and easily disproven. Why is that Scummy?
Yes, you are correct. I did go back and look at the case for myself. I agreed that the Scummy explanation was not the only possible explanation. It wasn’t then and it isn’t now: why is that Scummy?
And my argument was the SP’s response was insufficient, in that it was precisely and only what you would expect from either Town or Scum caught in a slip. The explanation changed nothing. My opinion, frankly, is that what Wolverine was doing there isn’t particularly helpful; Pleo was no more or less Scummy after he unvoted SP, but Wolverine removed his own vote from Pleo and placed it on me. That kind of reactive voting is trivially easy for Scum to manipulate (as Pleo, who was Scum, himself demonstrated by easily pushing Wolverine’s vote from Scum to Town [ie from Pleo to me]).
How is this opinion Scummy?
Who said I didn’t care what SP’s response was? Not I. I cared very much. I found it insufficient to make a difference. There were certainly responses that would have changed my opinion. “I’m a Mason, bug off,” would have been one, obviously. There are also specific wordings and tonal things that would have changed my opinion. If anything, I’d say that the players who didn’t really care what the response was were the players who reflexively unvoted when any explanation was presented, regardless of how obvious and un-illuminating the explanation was.
So, regarding my position on this: why was this Scummy?
These are non-sequitors, and the “rhetorical question as assertion” thing is lame. Attacking an argument against a player does not constitute defending that player. I have been “defending” ushi, for example, who I do not believe to be Town. The arguments against Pleonast were crap regardless of how he turned out.
…yes, I did. I like the SUBTLE SCARE QUOTES. I did not realize the day was about to end. Why is this Scummy?
You mean other than in the very first post of mine that you quoted, in which I said, explicitly, that I couldn’t picture Ushi as Scum behaving in the way he was behaving? But let’s assume that this was the first time I mentioned Ushi (it wasn’t). Still: why was this Scummy?
The Day was almost over, and ushi was due to be lynched. These breathless questions are a little silly. If I actually have to explain why I have interest in the player about to be lynched shortly before the deadline, then we’re playing very different games. Why is this Scummy?
Also, I brushed my teeth that day. Ooh, and that particular evening, I think I had rehearsal for Wedding Singer. While I was there, one of the actors had to leave so I filled in for him. Ordinarily, I would think nothing of it, but coming in such close proximity to my vote on Oredigger it seemed sinister.
Which is to say, the paragraph above isn’t even an argument. It’s just… things that happened. Why are they Scummy>
Both of these sentences are essentially true. Why is this Scummy?
This is hideously dishonest, the only time in your whole analysis that you indulge in outright misrepresentation. The post you linked was doing the opposite of casting a wide net of suspicion. My entire point in the sequence you are picking apart is that the people who were voting for ushi for personal reasons were muddying the water, making it impossible to distinguish motivation. Either Town or Scum are equally likely to vote for someone for personal reasons, so saying that I believed some players were voting for personal reasons (which I did and do) is doing the opposite of what you suggest.
…
Thanks. Sing it with me if you know the words: why is this Scummy?
Oh, come on. That’s total crap. Pleo did NOT claim nothing at all. He claimed to have an investigation result. That is a power role claim. This is semantic quibbling of the worst kind.
Absolutely. You’re right about that. Where did I “disregard” the other arguments? Here’s what I said: “Independent of any other arguments against him, can one of the late voters for Pleonast explain why a partial claim is, in and of itself, Scummy?” I found it curious that a role claim (even a partial one) would cause some players to become more, rather than less, inclined to vote for Pleo. I was interested in pursuing this line of discussion. Why is that Scummy?
Omigod, this line of discussion is making me so very, very angry. The statement, from Chronos, to which I was responding was this: “But a half-assed claim like he made? A Townie has no good reason to hold back information like that.” Chronos here is talking about PLEO’S INITIAL CLAIM (and I, in my response, am obviously doing the same). NOT ABOUT THE SITUATION TWO HOURS BEFORE LYNCHING, WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES WERE DIFFERENT. At the time of Pleo’s initial claim, there were potential reasons (with Pleo as hypothetical Town power role) for him to hold back information; at the time of Pleo’s death, there no longer were. This distinction is obvious, and I’m getting apoplectic at having to explain it to this level of detail.
All true. I guess I could have strung together a bunch of non-sequitors and called them a case, but I didn’t. I found an argument that I found compelling and went with it. How is that Scummy?
And is it really your intention to argue that a player who might be Scum can’t make a valid argument?
See above. This is willful, right? You can’t possibly be unable to see how I could defend a player remaining silent at the time of an initial claim, but not remaining silent through the actual lynch. Right? Right?
This is BULLSHIT. The conversation was continuing, with Chronos, and began with Chronos explicitly calling into question Pleo’s decision to make a half-way claim AT THE TIME PLEO CLAIMED. There was no 180, there was no reversal, there was a situation that changed. The proper strategy for a Town power role under mild lynch pressure is different from the proper strategy for a Town power role literally about to die.
You’re really going to die on the “Pleo didn’t claim Detective” hill, huh? If I claimed to be pro-Town and that I killed someone last Night, and someone else says I claimed “Vigilante,” will you be similarly obtuse about it?
WHICH ARE ATTACKING THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST HIM!!! For the love of all things soft and fluffy, how can you not make this distinction? Here, I’ll show you “defending a player:”
Don’t vote for Pleonast. I think he’s probably Town, because <insert text here>.
First question: why is this Scummy? OK, it makes no sense to you, but frankly I don’t base my strategic decisions around the question of “What Would Astral Rejection Do,” so I’m OK with not making sense to you. Especially since you could be Scum! The question shouldn’t be, “does this make sense to me?” The question should be… well, maybe you can figure it out from the rest of this post.
I claimed, as the context should be clear, because I think we should mostly all be claiming. Why is that Scummy?
Argument by assertion. Why is this Scummy?
This conversation emerged from Chronos’ comment on Pleo’s behavior WHEN HE CLAIMED. I read “in this situation” to mean “in the situation THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING.” Go re-read the above while I pop an ACE Inhibitor.
The piece de resistance, and the one that convinces me that you are not playing it straight here. You have castigated me for making “me too!” posts. You’ve castigated me for “taking Pleo’s word for it.” And now, here, you castigate me for not taking your word for it. So yes, to the extent that I wanted to go back and see how accurate your characterizations were, and to review the individual situations in context, I plead guilty. One more time, for the posterity and for the folks at home:
Why is this Scummy?
vote Astral Rejection
I have a meta-game reason, too, FWIW. This game has sort of flagged a bit in terms of interest. In my experience, when that happens, it is often the Scum - who have cool Scum roles and want to play, dammit -who start throwing a lot of energy into the game as Astral has toDay.
Interesting. When did we prove that my vote on SP was wrong?
Not that alternative explanations exist, mind you. That the “Scum slip” explanation was out-and-out wrong?
I think Plankton’s still alive. He could be Scum, and if he is, then my vote on same wasn’t “wrong” in the sense that I think you mean it. As far as I can tell, this possibility is still open.
Do you know otherwise?
Not wrong in the sense that Plankton is or is not scum, but wrong in that a scum board is the most logical explanation for Plankton posting about pronoun usage when it was clearly shown to be an extension of the conversation of the thread.
Nice fishing at the end there BTW.
Wow, that was… really REALLY long. And probably overkill. Short version: most of the things Astral says I did I actually did do, but scare quotes and paranoid interpretations aside, they were not Scummy or even anti-Town; they were just things that happened. I think Astral was looking for gotchas and was so occupied in trying to find them that he didn’t even bother to approach similar behaviors consistently (do one thing: Scummy! do exactly the opposite thing at another time: Also Scummy!).
I am increasingly suspicious of Wolverine, now, for reasons outlined by Astral - see, Astral, you can find someone suspicious and still agree with their reasoning! - but also for a reason to which I alluded in my last post: a lot of Wolverine’s approach, both at the time of the SP kerfuffle and since, seems to hinge on a certainty that SP is Town and that the “slip” was not a slip. That is the kind of PIS that I think you can find if you look closely enough - just a player knowing something and failing to account for the fact that not everyone know it as well. I may move my vote to Wolverine; this needs thinking.
(And if Wolverine is Scum, I strongly expect SP is Town).