You know a lot of why people get votes in this game, good votes, in indefensible bullshit.
Also, saying stuff like “remember this post” is sort of :dubious:.
And yes, I am voting to lynch you at least partially because I want to see what will happen and because I think that the lynch yesterDay smells of trying to save your ass.
It’s a small town and we are unfortunately short on information. Bandwagons build quickly and watching them build is informative and interesting. I do not believe that DB (now Rysto) was/is scum. It’s not something I am certain of, but I don’t like it enough for a vote.
While I am thinking about it, Romanic is acting strangely, but that could be small quite town creating that.
So going with my gut, yeah, still you. And if it’s not you, at least we found some stuff out about some other people. Myself included.
Strange as in…not like the player I have come to expect. It’s a tone thing and it’s hard to put my finger on which is why I didn’t do anything more than simply note it. You haven’t actually done anything to make me think you are scum, you are just different somehow this game.
What I’m saying is that my history of playing mafia has taught me that I can’t be trusted to give an honest appraisal of votes against me. The best thing for me to do is leave that to other players and focus on other players. Yes, I realize making a policy of this leaves me with a rather public blind spot, but my OMGUS votes never help the Town, and I trust that if a scum makes a manipulative case against me that other players will be able to recognize it.
Firstly, post 197 (as I have documented) shows, when considered as a whole, that there was a significant level of suspicion aimed at travellers. ShadowFacts tried to spin what he wrote to play down the level of suspicion, but it is there.
Again I disagree, and (again) you are excising the part of Drain Bead’s post that shows this.To repeat; [post=13239682]post 213[/post] starts off this way.
(Bolding mine)
The bolded part cannot be referring to post 84. It simply cannot. ShadowFacts never used that phrase in [post=13224185]post 84[/post]; he used it in [post=13235810]post 197[/post], in the context of refuting Drain Bead’s initial use of it. Therefore it is quite clear that Drain’s response was to 197 and not 84.
Did I miss the “r” in stretching? Sorry.
I said you were stretching for two reasons.
One, to claim that Drain Bead was responding to 84, which is simply wrong, and second because you accepted ShadowFacts’s claim that not many players showed suspicion of travellers; I do consider four “many” given the size of the active population (12 during the first twelve Hours.)
On the subject of ShadowFacts, he’d be my second choice for a life sentence.
I’m aware that the New Zealand populace had some suspicion of Drain Bead as well, so maybe you drew off that. But I can’t jail Kiwis at the moment so I haven’t studied that deeply.
It’s referring to the duel of wits between Vizzini the Sicilian and the Dread Pirate Roberts in Princess Bride. (A true classic - if you’ve not seen the film, you might be able to find the scene on YouTube.)
No snark intended, but I think you typo’d something here, because I have no idea what you are saying.
Yeah, you’re right about that. That’s just frustration talking.
OK, so I want to look at this a bit more, despite the fact that you admit to “going with your gut,” and to being “stubborn,” and it’s obvious that nothing I say will make you change your vote. But I’m going to do this anyway. Taking your last sentence as a jumping off point, let’s say that I get lynched and turn up Town. Be honest now: what exactly are you going to find out about people, from your perspective? Will your mind change about Drain Bead? Will **McGinty **become suspicious to you? Or will you conclude that, since you were suspicious of me, you can’t really fault others for following your lead?
I know I said I wasn’t going to do this, but I guess I am a glutton for punishment.
I didn’t pad that post with quotes to “stretch” a case. I was attempting to quote every post to date that had anything to do with travel to show that there were no “guns blazing” against travelers. The whole point was to be comprehensive. If I had not quoted every post regarding travel, I’m sure I would have been accused of ignoring posts that didn’t agree with me to bolster my case. :rolleyes: I refer you to the post in question, bolding added:
If you still don’t think that post (197) is convincing, perhaps you could point me to those guns that were blazing? Because no one has come up with any to date, AFAIK.
OK, I’ve read over the entire Day in Wellington. Here are the notes I took, followed by some hopefully cogent thoughts (sorry, no post links):
[ul]
[li]Natlaw pushes for Travel Plans and eventually gets lynched for it. Given that we now know he was Scum, Seems like a good idea to avoid doing what he wanted (duh).[/li][li]Cookies is playing super-defensively. She really seems to be avoiding all confrontation. I can’t decide if there is significance.[/li][li]Natlaw questions Scuba_Ben - post 337.[/li][li]Guiri votes peeker - 347 - and gets that train rolling. Can’t fault her for that vote - peeker was totally wrong about that whole thing.[/li][li]special ed subtly supports Natlaw’s idea of a travel claim.[/li][li]Natlaw casts dreaded 3rd vote on peeker - 367, bandwagon officially rolling[/li][li]Peeker claim - post 378[/li][li]Guiri and cookies immediately unvote; plankton hangs on, for what appears to me to be OMGUS reasons.[/li][li]Guiri builds the case against Natlaw, based on some stuff SP commented on also - post 395[/li][li]Suburban takes some heat for staying on peeker mahaloth/cookies[/li][li]Cookies floats the idea of voting for Scuba Ben, but settles on Natlaw - 433[/li][li]Natlaw claims vanilla and votes Scuba-Ben - 437 [/li][li]NP questions the case against Natlaw in a wishy-washy way. Shortly after votes Scuba Ben.[/li][li]Special ed makes a weak case again Scuba_Ben.[/li][/ul]
OK, so what do I think about what happened there?
[ul]
[li]First, peeker is pretty obviously confirmed. Yes, there is a miniscule chance he is some kind of scum role with investigative powers, but it’s so unlikely as to be not worth bothering about, IMO.[/li][li]Second, I have a strong town reading on Guiri. She worked hard all Day to find suspects, she started the case on peeker which, while wrong, was totally justified. Once he claimed, she unvoted and moved on to build the case that caught scum. Yes, of course scum build cases against other scum all the time, but the timing and the comprehensiveness of the case are persuasive. Based on how she played, I would be shocked if she were scum.[/li][li]It’s hard to know what to make of Cookies’ defensive play. Could be nervous scum, could be nervous power role. Overall, though, I got the feeling for the latter. That plus the plausible claim has me leaning Town.[/li][li]In retrospect with the knowledge that Natlaw is scum, there is a clear effort to drum up a case against Scuba_Ben. Normal Phase and Special Ed should get attention. It’s doubtful that both of them are scum (since that would mean 3 scum voting for the same person - unlikely), but I bet one of them is. They merit special attention. Given special ed’s subtle support of Natlaw’s travel claim idea earlier, I lean toward him as scum.[/li][/ul]
And finally, before I wrap it up for the night, in my review I came across a post from **Normal Phase **about **NAF’s **suspicions on me that I thought was cogent and would like **NAF **to respond to:
I would appreciate it if you would answer his question, NAF.
I had actually just finished the post that I said I was going to make responding to Normal when I read this. So below are my comments, Normal interpretations, and my responses.
[QUOTE=MentalGuy]
Hi, I am primarily letting everyone know that I am indeed here.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have a strong argument against this point because I was mainly posting to be posting. I had not posted since the start of the game at noon the day before and knew it was likely I would not get another chance to post until late that night, and so I was primarily posting just to let players know I was not absent from the game. I figured I might as well comment on the things that I had noticed even if they didn’t amount to much rather than just say “I’m here.”
[QUOTE=MentalGuy]
There are several players that I have not played with before so some of the things that have jumped out at me might just be from being unfamiliar.
[/QUOTE]
This paraphrase is not really inaccurate, but obviously you are trying to phrase it in a way to make it sound as scummy as possible.
If someone like Idle or NAF had started voting Pleonast for his suggestion, then I would definitely consider that suspicious. As far as I know, though, I have never played with Baffle, and I don’t know how much experience Baffle has with Pleo. If I put myself in the shoes of a new player or a player that has not played with Pleo, then I can see finding Pleo suspicious in that situation.
[QUOTE=MentalGuy]
For example, I found Baffle jumping on Pleonast for pushing a mass claim a bit suspicious when I did not really consider it a push for a mass claim and the suggestion that was made I did not really find surprising from Pleo. But looking at it from a bit more distance, I can see how someone (especially if they are not that familiar with Pleo) might find it suspicious. So, while I think Baffle may have been trying to drum up support for an arrest candidate, I can see where his fear might have been legitimate. I am not trying to say that I think Pleo is Town, I just think this particular suggestion is something that he would do from either side.
[/QUOTE]
Since my suspicion was based on a player jumping on Pleo, I was afraid players might miscontrue that I was defending Pleo. I was just trying to make clear that that was not the case.
[QUOTE=MentalGuy]
Since I don’t know how the unusual rules will affect the game, I am not advocating a mass claim now, and I don’t know if there will be a point in this game in which I would. I do wonder, however, why Suburban Plankton and Romanic are universally against mass claims. I have found that generally, a mass claim is more of a benefit to Town that it is to the scum team.
[/QUOTE]
Here is where you jump the rails from misinterpretation to outright misrepresentation. I did not say I was against a mass claim now (or at any time). I said I was not advocating it, by which I meant pushing for it. If the Town had decided they wanted one, then I would have been fine with that. The real misrepresentation comes after that, though, when you say I am throwing “wonder” at people who are also against claiming “now”. Suburban Plankton did not mention now. He said “Of course, I am against mass claims as a matter of principle…”. Romanic said “About mass claiming: I am always against it.” I was interested in why these players had a point of view that was directly opposite mine. I never said I found there views suspicious. For you to claim I was casting suspicion on players (when I wasn’t) who were saying the same thing as me (when they were not) is what would have had me voting for you had I been in Wellington.
[QUOTE=MentalGuy]
I, too, find Wolverines suggestion a bit odd, but I also don’t really see what scum would have to gain by that strategy since they know nothing about the person they would be targeting and don’t even know if they would ever be coming to London.
[/QUOTE]
Again, your paraphrase is essentially accurate. Of course, stating it the way you do totally overlooks the fact that I mention specifically what I am talking about and it also leaves out the context which is that Wolverine made his suggestion just 3 posts before mine and it was a major topic of discussion at the time. I will also note that I did not even suggest that I thought the idea was a scummy one.
If your comments had been restricted to my opening greeting and the following paragraph, I could at least feel that you were in good faith trying to find scum even if you were incorrect. But the way you misrepresent the next two paragraphs really makes me feel that you are up to something more nefarious.
Like I said, if I had been in Wellington, I would definitely have been voting for you. The only thing that makes me have doubts that you are scum is the fact that no one tried to use your arguments to start a bandwagon on me here in London. Of course, there could be various reasons why they might not want to go after me right now. It is even possible that your scum partners did not like your argument and thought it better to go after Drain or Shadow.
You do realize that you are voting for me, right? How do you jive that with the bolded comment? Why would NP’s hypothetical scum partners come after me if I’m scum?
I understand that I did a major post dump up there, but I had to post when I had the time. What is the proper ratio, btw? I’m interested in your advice here. Assume for a moment that I am Town (hard for you, I know). What, in your mind, are the proper actions for me at this time?
And then I spent hours reviewing the situation in Wellington and giving my Town/Scum thoughts there. Maybe you missed it - it’s that big post at the top of the page. I’ve also pointed out weaknesses in the case against me in an effort not to get lynched.
What have you done toDay? What scumfinding efforts can you point to?
I’m doing it right now, engaging with my prime suspect.
You, on the other hand, spent a tiny amount of effort accusing Drain Bead/Rysto - who you have since totally ignored - and then went on to post a whole lot of other stuff, which has no bearing on today’s lynch at all.