Hotel of Heroes mafia

[storyteller0910]

@Wolverine

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.

When and where was that proven?

Oh, and it wasn’t fishing. It was more or less an accusation; I was just trying to be cute about it.

[Meeko]

@storyteller0910

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.

I’m actually going to take a page from Ushi here.

I thought meta for meta purposes was bad. One could argue that you have no real reason to vote Astral here, but that you want to stick him with something none the less.

@storyteller0910

I think Plankton’s still alive.

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.

Or am I wrong here?

[storyteller0910]

@Meeko

I’m actually going to take a page from Ushi here.

I thought meta for meta purposes was bad.

I didn’t say that, and don’t agree with it. So there you go.

One could argue that you have no real reason to vote Astral here, but that you want to stick him with something none the less.

One could argue that, or one could read the seventy-five billion words that came before the sentence you quoted and make an accurate argument. That would be up to one.

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.

Or am I wrong here?

I don’t know what you’re talking about here.

[Meeko]

@Meeko

Or am I wrong here?

It would seem that I am. :smack:

**
I must have read that thing a GOOD half a dozen times, and saw " Pleonast " instead of Plankton. **

:smack:

Story, help me out here, didn’t you magic bag claim Jack of All trades earlier? That you had used one power? I guess I was thinking you had some regeneration or some such.

The thing is, I did preview, to check that I had the bold, underline, and italics right. Not once did I check to make sure I had the name right.

:smack:

[storyteller0910]

@Meeko

It would seem that I am. :smack:

**
I must have read that thing a GOOD half a dozen times, and saw " Pleonast " instead of Plankton. **

:smack:

Hee. SCUM SLIP!

Story, help me out here, didn’t you magic bag claim Jack of All trades earlier? That you had used one power? I guess I was thinking you had some regeneration or some such.

I claimed Albus Dumbledore, Jack of All Trades. I have four powers, each a one-shot. One was tracking, which I used on Pleo Night One. The other three I haven’t revealed.

[Suburban_Plankton]

Some thoughts on **Astral’s **thoughts on **storyteller **(and **story’s **rebuttal):

I have to mostly agree with **story **here. I don’t see the Scumminess in most of the things that **Astral **brings up, but there are a couple things that ping me.

Day 1:
I don’t really see any inconsistency with his early vote on me, or with his stance on **ushi **and the votes against him.

He does seem to be having problems with the schedule, though; first he didn’t seme to realize the game had started, and later he was surprised that the Day was ending so soon. That suggests he’s not paying close attention to the game, but doesn’t really say anything about his alignment.

He does start the bandwagon on **Oredigger **(Post 504). This was the first time he mentioned **Oredigger **the entire Day.

Day 2:
I don’t see any wild inconsistencies regarding his stance on Pleonast, but it does seem that his support wanes as the Day wears on. That’s not necessarily a Scum tell, though.

He votes for **Chipacabra **(Post 760) based entirely on **my **case. This is, as far as I can tell, the first time he’s mentioned the name ‘Chipacabra’ in the entire game, and definitely the first time he’s expressed any suspicion of him.

So, my biggest complaint about **storyteller **to this point is with his voting record. Both of his Day-ending votes have been made on players that he had never even mentioned before voting for them, and both of those players have been Town. I’m just not quite sure what to make of this yet.
I’m off now to take another look at Wolverine, as I think that the arguments against him seem to have merit.

[Astral_Rejection]

@Wolverine

I’m already on Astral’s bad list, […] 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.

If it makes you feel better, when I was doing those three WoWs, I saw a lot of stuff that struck me as townie coming from you. You’re not on my bad list, you were just the case I felt best about. That’s no longer the case!

@storyteller0910

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!

Story, 2 questions: 1) Would you mind terribly if I added this OMGUS vote (yay, my first!) to my reasons for finding you suspicious? 2) Can I still play in your future games?

As for being suspicious of Wolverine, I’m down with that. My point in including that section wasn’t that the suspicion itself is odd, or the want to do the reread, but the blase way you mention it, as if it’s just been brought up. I attributed a certain “playing it safe” attitude to your playstyle, and that post jibed with that feeling.

[Astral_Rejection]

And now to rebut Story’s rebuttal of my WoW. See you guys in a few!

[storyteller0910]

@Astral_Rejection

Story, 2 questions: 1) Would you mind terribly if I added this OMGUS vote (yay, my first!) to my reasons for finding you suspicious?

Yes, mostly because - like many things that get taken for granted as Scummy - I don’t really think OMGUS votes are inherently so. And this isn’t one of them anyway, since I’m voting for you for bad reasoning rather than because you suck

2. Can I still play in your future games?

Of course. I don’t take this personally, as a general rule.

As for being suspicious of Wolverine, I’m down with that. My point in including that section wasn’t that the suspicion itself is odd, or the want to do the reread, but the blase way you mention it, as if it’s just been brought up. I attributed a certain “playing it safe” attitude to your playstyle, and that post jibed with that feeling.

That’s fair, I guess, but the thing to realize is that I tend to fall behind in these games and then catch up all in one giant chomp. Your case on The Guy Who Says “Bub” was not, in fact, something that I had internalized until you posted a (fairly elegant) summary of same not that long ago.

[Suburban_Plankton]

On Wolverine:

I can’t help but be a bit suspicious of someone who seemed so confident that I was town on Day 1…

In Post 520, when asked (by story) for his thoughts on “the other votes that have been made toDay, and of those who have made the votes”, he mentions half a dozen people but is wishy-washy on all of them.

He admits to making a weak ‘me-too’ vote on Oredigger, giving as a defense the fact that his original cases (on **Pleo **and story for voting **me **over the ‘pronoun issue’) fell apart, so he had to vote for someone…

He voted for ushi, even though he thinks **ushi **is Town, because it will give us “the best information”. Then he unvoted **ushi **after **Pleonast **claimed, which still makes no sense whatsoever to me. He didn’t want to vote for **Pleo **until he made a full claim, but ultimately lost patience and did so anyway. And now he’s back to voting for ushi, who he still thinks is Town, because he still thinks it will give us information.

So at the moment he is advocating that we lynch someone he believes is Town, despite the fact that we lost not one, not two, but three Town players last Night.

**Wolverine’s **play is completely befuddling to me. But it looks to me more like someone who’s new to the game than someone who’s Scum.

[storyteller0910]

While I’m here, on the subject of Cookies.

She has noted that I haven’t really given a specific reason why I find it hard to believe that she would choose to be Town under the circumstances. I wanted to get my thoughts out there, because however things play out, we will eventually have to make a decision on this and I don’t really know how we’re going to do it. If I’m dead when we get to that point, I at least want my thought processes clear and public.

So:

First of all, I cannot criticize Cookies for choosing to kill last Night. I assume she was unaligned as claimed. I’ve tried to figure a scenario where it makes sense that she was co-Scum with Pleonast and have not been able to think of one; similarly, I can’t think of a reason Pleo would out her as “unaligned,” and she would confirm same, if she were in fact a simple (malicious or non-) third-party. As an unaligned player, she was, in effect, a different Cookies than the one now playing the game. As ridiculous as it sounds, to hold toDay’s Cookies accountable for the actions of yesterDay’s Cookies is bad play on our part, as they have different roles. If we didn’t want her to kill last Night, we should have lynched her yesterDay, when she was definitively not on our side.

So it comes to this: does it make sense that Cookies chose to be Town? And here is where I fall down analytically, because I have a block that I struggle to get past. I noticed it in Mazalan, for the first time, really. I got so incredibly frustrated, so intensely frustrated, when Mister Blockey and BillMc refused, when invited, to join or even consider joining an alliance that very nearly guaranteed its members a better chance at winning the game (and indeed, all five winners came from that alliance). It made no sense to me. It was only in reading their comments after the game that I understood: to some players, there are considerations more important than maximizing your chances to win.

This is alien to me. I don’t mean to sound like a Vulcan, because I play games for fun, obviously, but to me “fun” means “I’ll try my best to win (within the rules of the game and subject to certain principles of sportsmanship) and you do the same; let’s see how it turns out.” I may make decisions in these games that don’t maximize my chances of winning (because I’m not actually very good at this), but I almost never make decisions that I don’t think maximize my chances of winning.

So here’s the thing; if I had been in Cookies place last Night, I’d have chosen Scum every time, and twice on Sundays. If her only concern was maximizing her chances of winning, then she definitely would have chosen to be Scum.

So the question is, do we believe that Cookies is a player who is willing to accept a lower chance of winning? I don’t know how to answer that, but I don’t think there is any other way to figure out whether she is now Town or Scum than to address that basic question. The Scum won’t kill her for us if she’s Town, that’s for sure.

Anyway, just wanted to put that out there.

[Chronos]

As an aside, Storyteller, reading your response to Astral’s WoW, I couldn’t help but hear it in a Marc Antony voice. “You all recall that on the Lupercal, I thrice did offer him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse. Why is this scummy?”

But in all seriousness, you did rather out of the blue start attacking the case against ushi (still of unknown alignment, and suspected by many) and started the case against Oredigger (now known to be Town), which could be scummy because it was an effort to save a Scum-buddy. Likewise, your defense of Pleonast (now known to be Scum, and yes, saying that people shouldn’t be voting for someone is a defense of them) could be the same thing. A seasoned player like yourself shouldn’t have to ask why that looks Scummy.

And Pleo didn’t claim anything about himself at all; maybe his “claim” was that he was a jack-of-all-trades and that was a one-shot power, maybe his “claim” was that he was just vanilla, but that someone else had a power that caused that information to be transmitted to him. He had a very clear Scum motivation for keeping his mouth shut: The more he said, the greater the chance he would say something that could be used against him.

And I don’t think Astral touched on this, but why did you make your claim? You were under no pressure, and you had no information useful to Town to share.

[storyteller0910]

@Chronos

But in all seriousness, you did rather out of the blue start attacking the case against ushi (still of unknown alignment, and suspected by many) and started the case against Oredigger (now known to be Town), which could be scummy because it was an effort to save a Scum-buddy.

Doesn’t this statement contain a rather large assumption?

I have to head home now, but will address the rest of your post when I get home.

[Astral_Rejection]

@storyteller0910

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?

Why is being agnostic scummy? Why is never taking a stance scummy? Why is avoiding conflict scummy? Why is staying away from controversy or hard votes scummy? Why is never attaching yourself to a particular case scummy? Why is… have made my point? Asking the question doesn’t make it less scummy, mostly cuz it is. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about this particular example, though.

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?

Example 1: You say you are strongly disinclined to vote for Ushi, or Ed. So basically you read the exchange between them and have no opinion other than it didn’t strike you as scummy. You use plenty of weasel words: “WIthout reference to the substance of the argument”, “I am having a hard time”, “I am open to being convinced otherwise, I guess”. It’s not about whether scum or town would do something every single time. It’s a pattern of behavior. You don’t weigh in on the matter in any substantial way. And P.S., pointing to this post as an example of where your future concern for Ushi comes from makes me roll my eyes. You say FOR THE MOMENT you are disinclined to vote for Ushi FOR HIS ARGUMENT WITH ED.

Example 2:
You lead off by doing the mother of all hedges, “This pure devil’s advocate, mind.” You say you don’t think Mahaloth’s game can be broken, AND you say that scum might learn some small bit of info from a name claim. This is fair. I’m not saying this post screams OMG SCUM to me. But it’s a pattern of behavior - playing it safe, taking both sides, and not actually advocating one or the other, just raising concerns. It’s a way to appear townie without doing anything. Do you see what I’m saying?

Example 3:
Again, you take no substantial side on the case. You’re basically saying “Oh, I guess it’s something to discuss, and it has unpleasant implications for ScubaEd as well.” You add that you are “uncomfortable with this turn of events.” But you don’t vote. Or add anything to the conversation except restate it. And say that you’re concerned. Pattern of behavior, Story.

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?

I’m gonna dispel a myth you seem to have that every single example of mine in this WoW was meant to be the end-all, be-all of scummy behavior. That’s not true. Again, I’m looking at patterns of behavior. And voting for someone, without adding any of your own casebuilding, based on the say-so of KNOWN SCUM, is a little suspicious, no? Worth mentioning, maybe? Smoking Gun, though? Definitely not.

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?

You misunderstood, actually. I included this to be fair - that you did go an research the vote. I never said that was scummy. But it does fall into your pattern of behavior, which is playing it safe, coming up with potential reasons against the vote with Idle, and “waiting for SP to respond.”

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?

You say in response to Wolverine, and I quote, “Again, what did you think he was going to say? “Yes, you’re right, I heard that ScubaBen was subbing in on the Scum board?” Of course he was going to say some variant on what he actually said, whether true or not.”
Your belief is that ANY response would be insufficient, then? Let me repeat my question: what kind of response WERE you waiting for, then? If this one isn’t good enough, surely there must be one that is. I think you said maybe he’d claim mason, or something? Why would he do that before he had actual vote pressure? You’re being hella disingenuous here, Story. It’s scummy because you say something, clearly don’t care what the response is, and then cast aspersions on EVERYONE who voted and then unvoted, AGAIN without going into details or naming names. You never follow up on those aspersions, either, so I really, really think you just didn’t care all that much. Man, this is even scummier-looking that I first thought.

Who said I didn’t care what SP’s response was? Not I.

I’ll take credit for this one.

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.

I’m glad you followed up on your suspicions with an examination of those posters who - what’s that? You didn’t? Oh.

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.

I’m sorry that interjecting my own guesses as to your behavior counts as unfair. It’s not a non-sequitor to say “Defending Pleo, maybe?” That’s a logical guess based on the evidence given in my opinion, not something that makes no sense. Trying to pretend otherwise is silly.

…yes, I did. I like the SUBTLE SCARE QUOTES. I did not realize the day was about to end. Why is this Scummy?

It’s good to know my work is appreciated! As to why it’s scummy, your sudden concern with the lynch of Ushi, who you’ve mentioned ONCE (not never as I originally said) and only to say his tussle with Ed wasn’t particularly scummy. You don’t mention any of the other arguments against him. You just appear totally exasperated at the lynch decision of the town, when I’m fairly certain Ushi was the lynch leader for quite a while. You really don’t get why this might be seen as scummy behavior?

[quote]
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? [/quot]
Yes, the very first post, referring to a single incident between him and Ed, and making no mention of any of the other cases against him. That’s the one. You really don’t get why this might be seen as scummy behavior?

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?

Yes, you actually have to explain. You didn’t have any interest in him whatsoever up to this point. “Why the sudden concern?” is a perfectly valid question.

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>

Do you honestly believe your ridiculous straw man example is in any way comparable to “trying to derail a lynch” and “derailing a lynch?” Because that’s what I’d call it. Question the lynch, offer a counter-lynch. In close proximity. In a game where people are trying to lynch each other. You’re being obtuse on purpose, I believe!

Both of these sentences are essentially true. Why is this Scummy?

You request that SP unvote Ushi, after chiding Wolverine after he asks people to unvote SP. It was an interesting little parallel. Not a great one, but worth pointing out. Reiterating that you’re opposed to the lynch shows how against lynching Ushi you are, and I’m reminding my faithful readers how soon this interest occurred.

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.

You forgot to ask me why this might be scummy. You said, and I quote, “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.” You impugn every single person voting for Ushi, saying that their reasons for voting for Ushi aren’t what they say. You accuse me of scare quotes, I’ll accuse you of scare italics. And maybe scare bold, except you bolded the whole thing. My point is, you’re casting doubt on their MOTIVATION for voting. You offer one example now: the “pissed me off” factor. Who knows what motivation you might ascribe to them later? Do you see how casting doubt on someone’s reason for voting might be seen as scummy?

…

Come on, it was funny!

Thanks. Sing it with me if you know the words: why is this Scummy?

You’re being difficult on purpose. Questioning Pleo (a KNOWN SCUM) and then defending Pleo (a KNOWN SCUM) all on your own in the same post is pretty damn interesting, no?

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.

You’re ignoring perhaps the key part of this argument: that you willfully do not comprehend the reasons people are voting for Pleo. Nobody was voting because he claimed whatever. They were voting for their suspicions, of which there were plenty. THe important part was that you’re all perplexed, making no effort to understand the votes. You’re just opposed to them.

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?

My question remains; why did you want their opinions INDEPENDENT of the other arguments. I’d call that “disregarding them,” myself, but I’m no expert. I’ll agree that wanting to pursue that line of inquiry isn’t really all that scummy, though. Does that make you feel better? It’s still a pattern of behavior where you attempt, however obliquely, to defend Pleo.

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.

I’m sorry that I made you so angry. I have no rebuttal beyond what I originally posted.

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?

It’s not a non-sequitor, Story. You voted for SP based on Pleo’s say-so. Now you’re voting for Chip based on SP’s say-so. You aren’t seriously considering these cases, or adding anything of value to the discussion. They’re safe votes that won’t get anybody lynched, and you can point to Pleo or SP and say “Hey, it was their idea” if anything goes wrong. Pattern of behavior!

And is it really your intention to argue that a player who might be Scum can’t make a valid argument?

Of course not. They can make dishonest arguments, though. Ones that would be served better by investigation than empty “me too!” votes. But I digress.

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?

I can see it. But only six minutes have gone by. I would have expected you to make mention of this in your previous post, or something. But I’ll agree this really isn’t that scummy.

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.

Fine. Okay. You win on this one. I don’t know why you’re continuing this meaningless conversation about some random possibility that isn’t happening instead of dealing with the here and now, but whatever, that’s your prerogative. My bad for misunderstanding Chronos’ “in this situation.”

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?

My point being, Pleo could have any number of roles. You skipped that part in my argument. If this was the ONLY THING I had on you, I’d let it go. But it’s just another piece of the scummy puzzle. My point remains, and I note you haven’t argued it: Pleo didn’t claim anything, and you called him a detective. Perhaps a PIS? Maybe not, but maybe so, and definitely worth mentioning.

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:”

Fine, semantics, whatever. I disagree.

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 understand that you don’t base your strategy around what I would do. But you also made no attempt to explain why you didn’t use a power last night, and why you claimed despite being under no pressure today. You say the context should be clear, and you think we should all be mostly claiming? Can you point to me where this context might be?

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.

Again, I’m sorry that I made you so ragingly angry. I’ll let Chronos’ defend this part, because I fully admit maybe I really did just misread the whole damn conversation.

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?

I rebutted this in my previous post.

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.

I do love this part. I’m scum for playing the game. They call that a service ace in tennis, folks.

[Suburban_Plankton]

@storyteller0910

First of all, I cannot criticize Cookies for choosing to kill last Night.

I do have a problem with Cookies choosing to kill last Night, for 2 reasons.

1. I don’t think there was sufficient evidence against anyone to warrant a non-compulsive Vig kill (which is essentially what it was), if the killer in question is ‘Town-leaning’ as Cookies claimed to be.

2. She all but promised that she would *not *kill last Night.

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

I obviously can’t negotiate with the scum in the game thread, so the Town gets the boon of my transparency and the opportunity to tether my kill.

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

Though no one has so far entertained the offer of tethering my kill, it is possible that consensus would be for me to live and not try to kill Tonight. If consensus is for me to try and make my kill, then my offer is to kill whoever consensus wants me to kill. If my kill goes through as ordered, that would put any innocent blood on the hands of the consensus, not my responsibility alone.

If consensus is for me to kill, I could be redirected or blocked. That is a risk that I can’t address if there is indeed a scum redirector or blocker or Townie redirector or blocker who might choose to act contrary to the consensus.

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

I don’t have to try and kill Tonight. If you trust for a moment that I’m claiming and pledging my Townie loyalty honestly, what is the risk of letting me live and not kill Tonight?

She offers to give us the opportunity to ‘tether’ her kill. She asks for a consensus as to whether or not she should kill, and if so who. And than she says “what is the risk of letting me live and not kill Tonight?”

Obviously, the risk was that she’d take it upon herself to kill anyway.

@storyteller0910

So the question is, do we believe that Cookies is a player who is willing to accept a lower chance of winning? I don’t know how to answer that, but I don’t think there is any other way to figure out whether she is now Town or Scum than to address that basic question. The Scum won’t kill her for us if she’s Town, that’s for sure.

There is only one way to know for sure which way Cookies has turned, and that’s to lynch her. I agree that the Scum will let her live if she’s Town, because she’s both Vanilla and suspect, so she’s a continuous distraction. But I don’t think she’s Town.

[Chronos]

Quoth Storyteller:

Doesn’t this statement contain a rather large assumption?

No, it does not. Oredigger’s and Pleonast’s alignments are both known, and ushi’s is not. What I said was that it could be explained as a Scum trying to save his Scumbuddies, and that’s absolutely true: It can be explained that way. Am I assuming that that’s the only possible explanation? No, of course not. But it’s certainly a good enough explanation to garner suspicion.
And on the question of Cookies, there is one good thing that came out of her decision to kill last Night, whether it was intended or not: A bonus kill by Scum late in the game can be devastating, and if unknown-alignment Cookies still had her kill, we’d have to worry about the possibility that she’d be using it late in the game as Scum. Now, we can be pretty confident that even if she is Scum, she’s almost certainly just a goon. Of course, on the flip side, Town bonus kills are also more valuable in the late game, and if she’s Town, she’s also almost certainly vanilla.

[Suburban_Plankton]

This tidbit of the discussion between Astral and storyteller escaped my notice the first (and apparently second) time around, but now that it’s been referecned a third time, I think I need to address it.

@Astral_Rejection

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.

@storyteller0910

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.

Both of these sentences are essentially true. Why is this Scummy?

@Astral_Rejection

Both of these sentences are essentially true. Why is this Scummy?

You request that SP unvote Ushi, after chiding Wolverine after he asks people to unvote SP. It was an interesting little parallel. Not a great one, but worth pointing out. Reiterating that you’re opposed to the lynch shows how against lynching Ushi you are, and I’m reminding my faithful readers how soon this interest occurred.

The problem here is that I never voted for ushi, so storyteller couldn’t (and didn’t) ask me to unvote him. The post in question is here:

@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.

**story **was not telling *me to unvote ushi, he was telling the people who were voting because **ushi *had ‘pissed them off’ to unvote.

I can probably forgive **Astral **for misinterpreting this post in his WoW, but I’m not so sure I can forgive **storyteller **for not catching the error and correcting the misinterpretation of his own statement. **Astral **was basically misquoting **storyteller **in order to further his case that **story **is Scum. I’d think that **story **would be eager to correct that, but instead he agreed that he said something that he didn’t actually say.

[Astral_Rejection]

@Suburban_Plankton

I can probably forgive **Astral **for misinterpreting this post in his WoW, but I’m not so sure I can forgive **storyteller **for not catching the error and correcting the misinterpretation of his own statement. **Astral **was basically misquoting **storyteller **in order to further his case that **story **is Scum. I’d think that **story **would be eager to correct that, but instead he agreed that he said something that he didn’t actually say.

This is a really excellent catch, SP. It’s true I didn’t catch my mistake (I interpreted his quoting of you as a response to you, and assumed you must be doing what he was talking about), but he really should have.

I made that exact mistake in LOTR mafia, and I was - you guessed it - scum in that game.

[Astral_Rejection]

NETA: The mistake my second paragraph refers to is Story’s mistake. Don’t want anybody thinking I’m outing myself as scum.

[Mahaloth]

**Vote Count:

Ushimi(5): Idle, Thesearemypants, Wolverine, Meeko, Chronos

Wolverine(1): Ushimi

Cometothedarkside(1): Suburban

Suburban(1): Red Skeezix

Story(2): Astral, Cometothedarkside

Astral(1): Storyteller**