[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
On the other side, you say you “attacked one of its leaders”. But I:
By “one of its leaders”, I meant Blaster Master, not you.
I know it was directed at sachertorte. So what?
OK, here is my magnum opus: a complete review of the **OAOW **votes from yesterDay. I hope it is useful.
To set it up, let’s review the action. **storyteller **is getting a lot of heat for his slip/typo about the number of lynches. So he soft claims, gets pushed by OAOW, then actually claims. Several unvotes follow, and **OAOW **begins to garner votes for pushing **story **too hard. Here are the vote posts in order:
[QUOTE=Fretful Porpentine - post 356]
Well, I really don’t like OAOW’s actions, including the unvote; my sense is that a Townie who sincerely believed storyteller was a Wolf would leave the vote where it was.
Vote One and Only Wanderers
[/QUOTE]
Note the vague “I don’t like his actions” language. A very insubstantial vote, IMO.
Next is Blaster Master, who in the post before said he didn’t like Freudian’s reason for voting for OAOW. Then he says this:
[QUOTE=Blaster Master - post 359]
Huh?
What I said was it’s exactly what I’d expect him to say if he’s lying. IOW, there’s no way, based upon his claim, to discern whether he’s telling the truth or lying. Hence, the risk is too serious.
Now, seeing that I JUST made the point about why you unvoted him and this obviously wasn’t your logic since you’re FOSing me for it, I can’t see any other motivation for your behavior besides scum, so…
Vote One And Only Wanderers
[/QUOTE]
Following this votes are pages and pages of justification from **Blaster **when challenged about it by WF Tomba and sachertorte, including the fabulous “motivational transference.” I don’t know entirely how I feel about this vote. **Blaster **has certainly justified it to death, so it’s not like he had no reason. On the other hand, he completely misread OAOW’s FOS of him (as we now know in hindsight). Deliberate mis-read or simple mistake?
Next up is the cause of the whole brouhaha:
[QUOTE=storyteller - post 360]
I am leaving work in fifteen minutes; I may check the game when I stumble in from rehearsal tonight but chances are that will be after midnight and I will not be in any kind of intellectually useful condition. Tomorrow I am not permitted near any electronic devices of any kind all day, and will have rehearsal again tomorrow night.
This will probably be my last post until Thursday morning.
I am left with a choice: leave my vote where it is, or switch it to Wanderers. My own experience over the last few hours has provided an object lesson in seizing on a single statement - no matter how evidently revealing - as a definitive scum tell, so I’m inclined to back off Fretful for the moment. Wanderers, on the other hand, engaged in a series of behaviors that were individually and collectively scummy.
So it’s really not much of a choice at all.
unvote Fretful Porpentine
vote One and Only Wanderers
[/QUOTE]
Storyteller, please explain what **OAOW’s **series of behaviors were that you found individually and collectively scummy. I’m assuming since you used the word “series” that you should be able to produce at least three. (And I hope your show went well! I’m a theatre man myself.)
Next up is Freudian Slit, who had not yet garnered the votes that she accumulated yesterday:
[QUOTE=Freudian Slit – post 369]
I don’t really like how OaoW is acting, re: storyteller. I’m not sure how I feel about the role claim myself because it does seem like whenever someone role claims, it’s never a boring vanilla role, but some pivotal role.
But I’m going to vote One and only Wanderer
[/QUOTE]
A classic bandwagon vote, with no specifics whatsoever. Also of note is how she questions story’s role-claim at the same time. This is the most suspicious vote so far, IMO.
Next up is **RoOsh **at post 391, but we now know he was Town, so I’ll skip that for now (plus his vote post was, as usual, too huge to reproduce here). So then next after that was Nanook, who had this to say:
[QUOTE=Nanook of the North Shore – post 424]
It seems to me that the whole issue with storyteller basically boils down to he is either scum false claiming or the real deal. The thing is though, false claims seem to happen very rarely at best. There was the mason false claim with Idle and zuma, and Mad from last game, and not much else. (I’m not really counting Ryjae from last game, since that wasn’t really a false claim so much as it was the only thing he could say other than giving up.) Therefore, it seems more likely than not that story is telling the truth. This leads me to take a closer look at anyone that gives such a claim a hard time. In this case, that person is OAOW. Others have expressed suspicion, like Blam, but are willing to accept the claim provisionally. This seems like the prudent choice. But OAOW has been on the offensive for quite a while regarding the claim. Yes, he unvoted story, but even in the post he did you can see him laying the groundwork for more attacks/suspicion on story tomorrow, assuming story survives the Night. I can only see two good reasons for this sort of attitude. Either story is lying and OAOW is the real constable, in which case the skepticism is understandable. I don’t think I agree with the tack he is taking if this is the case though, so I’m not sure I buy it. Or OAOW is scum, and is trying his hardest to get the constable lynched or at least disbelieved.
I know that there is a third possibility, where OAOW is vanilla town or some non-constable power role, and simply feels that story is lying. I just don’t think this option is that likely considering the way the events went when taken as a whole. Therefore I feel comfortable at this time with voting for him.
Vote OAOW
[/QUOTE]
Obviously, we now know that **Nanook **was mistaken about the third possibility. However wrong, though, the vote seems well-thought out and plainly stated.
Next up is **Koldanar **(whose post I’ve snipped a bit of non-relevant material):
[QUOTE=Koldanar – post 440]
On story’s claim : At first glance, I really don’t trust it. I’ve seen him do some damn fine things during a game, but it doesn’t preclude him from making a slip. It could just be a quick cover for a mistake; however I don’t really see any evidence (or anything I can truly putforth a good motivation argument about) to make a case this way. Suspicious, yes. Voteworthy, no.
OAOW : I like the case here. Initially, back in post #220, **I was pinged a little when he? (Correct, yes?) removed a vote for Cat and then quoted Cat as a reason to vote Shadow. **Then, in post #296, switches vote again very quickly with almost no case stated beyond calling it a slip. Everyone else that caught the 3 instead of 3 to 5 (as is claimed by story) pointed a finger and demanded explanation. OAOW voted immediately with little to no discussion. Agression combined with almost no justifications before people started voting for him makes him, in my mind, the best target today.
Vote One And Only Wanderers
[/QUOTE]
Note the bolded part there, which **OAOW **was quick to comment on in the next post.
[QUOTE=OAOW]
I mean Koldanar just voted me and cited my removal of my random vote! That’s a new one on me.
[/QUOTE]
**Koldanar **responds to that with:
[QUOTE=Koldanar]
It’s not your random vote removal, but rather your “yea, me too” and voting how Cat voted.
[/QUOTE]
But in review of the bolded part, it was the vote removal that was (part of) the problem. The ping was unvoting someone, then quoting that same person as a reason to vote someone else. I don’t like **Koldanar’s ** dodge here.
After this we have lurker extraordinaire Hal Briston:
[QUOTE=Hal Briston – post 447]
The hell? I made a nice, long, substantive post (with a vote) yesterday, but it would seem that it became hamster chow without my realizing it. Crap.
Well, the short version of it was my suspicion that OAOW played storyteller to the hilt, his actions simply reeked of a scum ploy to me, and it ended with:
Vote OAOW
Now that I’ve got that back on the record, I’m going to catch up on what’s happened since then. Updates/revisions to follow.
[/QUOTE]
Another classic bandwagon vote, citing vaguely what others had already posited and adding no reasoning of his own. Also note that no “updates/revisions” were to follow. Lurking and bandwagon jumping is a very suspicious combination, in my mind.
And last but not least:
[QUOTE=Darth Sensitive – post 492]
I think that I’m going to:
Vote OAOW
The hammering of story just twinged me. I think that some suspicion is only natural, but I think that not giving him a chance to show himself as twon is bad.
[/QUOTE]
This is another bandwagon-y vote, and is very lazy, just like Hal’s. But one thing in** Darth’s** favor here is the timing. At the time, it was 8-4, and he was the only player without a vote in. In other words, **OAOW **was going down and there was no compelling reason why a scummy **Darth **would have needed to put his vote on to ensure the lynch. So, I’m thinking this was more laziness than scumminess. YMMV.
All, right, there it is. I think I got them all and in order. I look forward to hearing what others think.
I don’t see why being skeptical of storyteller while also voting for OaOW is necessarily a tell. I mean, it’s natural to be skeptical of any claim. No one’s going to claim a boring role–they always claim the most important ones. But at the same time, what if he’s telling the truth, you know? I admit, I was wrong on the OaOW vote but so was everyone else.
[QUOTE=Freudian Slit]
I don’t see why being skeptical of storyteller while also voting for OaOW is necessarily a tell. I mean, it’s natural to be skeptical of any claim. No one’s going to claim a boring role–they always claim the most important ones. But at the same time, what if he’s telling the truth, you know? I admit, I was wrong on the OaOW vote but so was everyone else.
[/QUOTE]
No one claims a boring role?
So what did you and OAOW claim yesterday then. :dubious:
No, you and some others were wrong on the **OAOW ** claim, but not everyone else was. As to why some people voted **OAOW ** is another matter.
[QUOTE=Freudian Slit]
I don’t see why being skeptical of storyteller while also voting for OaOW is necessarily a tell. I mean, it’s natural to be skeptical of any claim. No one’s going to claim a boring role–they always claim the most important ones. But at the same time, what if he’s telling the truth, you know? I admit, I was wrong on the OaOW vote but so was everyone else.
[/QUOTE]
(bolding mine)
First, you are right that it is natural to be skeptical of any claim. Like you, **OAOW **was skeptical of storyteller’s claim (quite vehemently so, in his case). If you agree that **story’s **claim is suspicious, why did you vote for the person who was arguably the most skeptical of said claim? Perhaps if you had provided some specifics about **OAOW **in your vote post, there would not be such a contradiction, but you didn’t. You just “didn’t like the way he was acting.” What precisely about the way he was acting didn’t you like?
Second, you are wrong about role claims - not everyone claims an important role. For example, **OAOW **claimed vanilla.
Third, in the bolded sentence, are you saying that everyone who voted for **OAOW **is equally suspicious? If that is what you’re saying, I couldn’t disagree more. This is exactly what I would expect scum hiding in a townie bandwagon to say. “Hey, everyone who voted was wrong! Don’t look at me!” (<- that’s a paraphrase) Big FOS Freudian Slit.
NETA: Bah, Cat, you stole my thunder. (My post was better, though) 
[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
BTW, Hal, since you still are in this game, would you mind setting up one of your famous vote spreadsheets?
[/QUOTE]
It won’t be until after the holiday weekend, but yeah, I’ll get off my duff and participate more this Day, including whipping up a vote chart.
Hey everybody. Just checking in to say that I’ve gotten internet in Florida so I’ll be able to follow along toDay between my efforts at working on some sort of tan. 
And 
Roosh.
Wow, everyone has been online and several of them not posted.
C’mon guys and gals, we have some scum to catch.
At least one person should be reporting and several of them have some explaining to do.
Or are we hoping to do it all in 3 days?
My vote yesterday was easy. I was pressed for time, so posted quickly. OAOW rubbed me the wrong way, and I wanted to go on record with that.
It was a lazy play, I’m sorry all.
[QUOTE=CatInASuit]
Wow, everyone has been online and several of them not posted.
C’mon guys and gals, we have some scum to catch.
At least one person should be reporting and several of them have some explaining to do.
Or are we hoping to do it all in 3 days?
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, storyteller was on the Dope last night according to his profile. Dude, you gotta know we’re all waiting to hear what your investigation (or lack thereof) turned up!
(Not to mention I have some questions for you in my monster post I would like to see answered).
[QUOTE=Darth Sensitive]
My vote yesterday was easy. I was pressed for time, so posted quickly. OAOW rubbed me the wrong way, and I wanted to go on record with that.
It was a lazy play, I’m sorry all.
[/QUOTE]
OK, well, maybe you could make up for it by catching some scum today. Who do you find most suspicious and why?
[QUOTE=CatInASuit]
No, you and some others were wrong on the **OAOW ** claim, but not everyone else was. As to why some people voted **OAOW ** is another matter.
[/QUOTE]
Wait, not everyone who voted for OAOW was wrong? I mean, he was town–anyone who voted for him for any reason is wrong by sheer virtue of him not being scum.
Hi, folks -
Sorry for the delay in response. This next week will be even more active than last week. I will continue to read and post, but I’ll be nowhere near as prolific as I usually am. My show (THE FULL MONTY; if you’re in New Jersey and a musical about amateur male strippers appeals to you, feel free to stop by!) opens on Friday, so I’ll be spending a good bit of the next four days at the theatre managing technical stuff and rehearsing. If I am alive in-game by next week, I’ll have much more free time and be back to me old self.
Anyway, I investigated CatinaSuit last Night. I thought he stood an excellent chance of being a very bad kitty - in particular his stance that I should be lynched if I came up with anything but a Wolf seemed iffy.
I was not blocked, so when I die and am confirmed, you may consider that excellent evidence that there is no Alchemist. An Alchemist would have no reason on Earth not to block me last Night, as it would have prevented me from investigating and likely resulted in my lynch.
CiaS is not, I’m very sorry to report, a bad kitty (at least, not as far as I can tell). Pro-town reading.
Shadow, I’ll go check out your long post and address whatever questions you asked.
For the sake of efficiency, please see my posts at #343 and #408.
Thanks! It’s been very stressful. But my wife is in the show, so it gives a chance to do something together, and that’s nice. And it’s generally pretty fun, except for tech week.
[QUOTE=By Someone who shall remain nameless]
It was a lazy play, I’m sorry all.
[/QUOTE]
This is terrible. I can accept that people are busy. I plan to be busy myself now and then. However, lazy is much much worse than absent. If we allow “lazy” play to be a valid excuse, then we might as well stop playing. Personally, I’m all for turning this “veterans” game into a “tutorial” game. I’m becoming less and less interested in “winning” and more and more interested in poking people into thinking about the game differently.
Memorial Day today (and my Anniversary) so not much more posting from me until tomorrow.
Maybe fluiddruid should edit the thread title from [Game in Progress] to [Game on Holiday]
Hmm, so there is no Alchemist … if storyteller is telling the truth.
Case #1: storyteller is a Wolf, and is lying. Presumably, he chose to say that CiaS is a townie, rather than that he’d been blocked, in order to look useful and spread disinformation. He’s probably not lying about CiaS’s alignment, since there’s still a nonzero chance that he might end up being lynched and that would be a disaster for the wolves. But he may be (and probably is) lying about the Alchemist, since this is a point about which he can easily sow confusion without causing the Wolves any negative consequences.
Case #2: storyteller is telling the truth. In that case, we have one confirmed townie (yay!) and fairly solid evidence that there’s no Alchemist (um … yay?) I guess my big question, then, is: does the fact that they don’t have an Alchemist imply that they’re more likely to have a Scout, in terms of game balance? (I don’t really understand the mathematics of game-balancing, so I’ll leave this one to people who have crunched the numbers and come up with the possible combinations.)
Okay, well, I think it’s the safest thing to believe storyteller for now.
And in other news, I’m still not scum.
:rolleyes: Not posting further analysis at the time was taking the easy way out. I was running late for work and thought it was best that I make my thoughts on the relative scumminess known. I didn’t just say to myself “OAOW has the most votes, so I’ll toss mine in there”
I don’t think that WF Tomba’s ‘s/17 probability of scum’ after the comments by Fretful are on the level. It felt and feels far to unwilling to say anything at all, which make me feel that something is being hidden.