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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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):
Note the bolded part there, which **OAOW **was quick to comment on in the next post.
**Koldanar **responds to that with:
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:
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:
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.
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.
(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) 
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.
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).
OK, well, maybe you could make up for it by catching some scum today. Who do you find most suspicious and why?
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.
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.