erm… apologies for the double post above. I meant to click “Go Advanced” and clicked “Post Quick Reply” instead. Oops.
Nice smudge.
Vote WF Tomba
I was waiting to see what Blaster Master was going to do Today.
As some of you may recall I voted for Blaster Master Yesterday because I was getting a feeling that Blaster Master could not possibly be that bad of a player, which put me in an awkward position because if Blaster Master really is Town then I was really really insulting him, which I felt bad about.
My theory is this: Blaster Master is an experienced player. He has played both scum and town many times. While he, like everyone else, might come to the wrong conclusions and think someone who is Town is scum, his behavior Yesterday regarding OAOW was unreal. The logic was not merely lacking but 180 degrees off. I don’t understand how Blaster Master could look at all that data and narrow-mindedly fixate on OAOW as scum. The data was obvious. I yelled and screamed for everyone to look at the case, and I don’t understand how Blaster Master could have missed how obviously Town OAOW was.
Now he’s voting for me, which I asked for Yesterday because I was 100 percent sure that the case against OAOW was BS. (I wasn’t 100 percent sure that OAOW was Town, but the case against him was complete and utter BS). While I admit that part of me wants out of this stupid town, the point of lynching me Yesterday instead of OAOW is gone (Proving that Blaster Master was indeed wrong and a fool is tempting, though if he is scum, the impact won’t be quite as satisfying).
My defense of OAOW was anything but “implicit.” I’m pretty sure I crossed into “explict” quite clearly.
And of course I’m going to point out that I’ve been acting pro-town. Duh. Look at what you are doing. I was the most vocal at pushing for not lynching OAOW; where was my logic incorrect? The key is I wasn’t vaguely or “implicitly” defending OAOW. My reasoning was upfront and clear. I layed out my case explicitly. All the data is there, nine of you just chose to ignore it.
So what’s the logical response to finding out that OAOW’s is Town? Oh, right, lynch the person trying to prevent OAOW’s death. That makes sense. :rolleyes:
vote Blaster Master
because I don’t think he sucks that bad.
I don’t think a pro-town Blaster Master would have missed how blatantly obvious OAOW’s mislynch was.
I don’t think a pro-town Blaster Master would be incapable of admitting he was wrong about OAOW’s case.
I don’t think a pro-town Blaster Master would attack a townie who has acted in the Town’s best interest.
I don’t think a pro-town Blaster Master would be so petty as to assume that someone must be scum rather than capable of figuring out OAOW was town without prior knowledge.
If Blaster Master is indeed town, then I’ve insulted him and I’m sorry for that (but it’s sort of kind of a compliment, sort of). But, Blaster Master, if you are town, you really need to re-think your gameplay.
I’m totally adopting terse mafia gameplay from now on.
Interesting. The fact that sachertorte was right and OAOW was Town does not alter your opinion of him at all? You’re just gonna carry that (promised) vote over as if we didn’t have that additional info? I mean, let’s face it - you’re the one who drove the lynch of a townie, and drove it hard. Between the two of you, it seems to me that you’re the one who has some ‘splainin’ to do.
And sach is correct about your description of his OAOW defense - it was about as opposite of implicit as you can get.
Geez, you guys sure don’t have much to say Today, do ya? Don’t make me have to get all Joker on your asses to stir up some shit! It took me most of the day to get caught up. It ought to be pretty fun playing the game as semi confirmed for awhile*. I’ve got some notes at work about some things that happened Yesterday, so try to get a post up by noon tomorrow. For now, a quick question to clarify since I know he gets online before I do in the morning:
story, did you clarify if you had extra info that said there were 3 wolves (was it a slip, or a “slip”?)
*I’m operating under the assumption that story is town. First, it’s too risky of a move for scum to make this early in the game. Second, it’d be found out eventually anyway. And third, I like when he’s on my team better. 
Also, I should be posting about 3-4 players I found scummy on Day One, tomorrow. If I don’t, somebody call me on it.
Ok, I wanted to look at the story situation a little bit. Forgive me if this is hard to make sense of, I had a bad night of sleep yesterday.
(This, needless to say, makes a few assumptions? Worst case, if they’re off, discussion should adjust them)
First off, hasn’t someone said we had 3 mislynches? Up to 4 provided a doc is perfect? So, right now we’re down to 2 of those. We already know we have 2 situations : Story is Town, Story is a Wolf. (He could be Dracula but…damn dangerous play if he is. Would make more sense for Drac to lay low).
Ok, assuming story is town…if we let him live one more day, we have 2 investigations. We are down to 15 already. 2 investigations, and get rid of story takes us to 10, assuming a night kill.(15 - 2 investigations - 1 story - another night kill (not story), toDay’s lynch (not story)). If we get another mislynch tonight (ouch) that means we have our guessed upon 3-4 wolves and 1 dracula in that 10. 4 wolf votes, 5 townie, and 1 dracula (if present). Thats not a good situation, right? Of course, none of this is confirmed until we know what story is, and that will take a lynch (if he’s a wolf) or a night kill (town). This is all based on my distrust of story’s claim. What does this mean? I think that I may want to lynch story tonight, in the town’s best interest.
Dude: that’s precisely why he’s an absolute legitimate target for lynching.
- He implicitly defended **OAOW **(and someone else, whose name I don’t remember right now)
- **OAOW **turned out to be town
The question being, of course: *How did he know **OAOW *was town?
Vote sachertorte
He’s carried on his legacy from yesterDay: subtly raising suspicion against others, but not actually starting a vote against them.
And, let’s clarify: I haven’t reread yesterDay completely, so it may very well be that sachertorte explicitly. However, the way I remember it, he did so after he was called on his suspicious behavior.
I’ll try to confirm that notion before tomorrow’s deadline.
I am so, so sorry. I suck. If I listed all the real-life bullcrap that’s happened in the past five days, you’d never believe it. Anyway, I’m back for real, and I will be reading and posting throughout today and tomorrow.
Sorry. Sorry.
Sorry.
So, you’re voting for sachertorte based on events yesterday that you admit you might not remember correctly? (And, in fact, DON’T remember correctly). sach was on a crusade against OAOW voters yesterDay, for cripes sake. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone try that hard to turn a lynch around, and you don’t remember if it was implicit or explicit? He only called out every single person voting for OAOW, pasted their vote posts, and asked them to defend (or, in some cases, offer) their reasoning. He had a multi-page battle with **Blaster Master **about it. You had your vote on sach yesterDay, too - weren’t you paying attention to him? (And I’m so glad you’ll “try” to confirm if your vote makes sense before the deadline - that’s the right way to go about it :rolleyes: ).
This is a lazy-ass, bandwagon-jumping vote. I found sach’s post toDay about storyteller quite suspicious, but nowhere near as suspicious as this garbage.
Vote DiggitCamara
I’m doing the Blaster Master post as I read thing, so please forgive if some of this has been addressed, but sach, you are pinging me terribly, and not because of your suspicion of me, but rather because of one specific element in your argument.
Here you are at post #644:
Then again at post #660:
And yet again at #662:
And now, the top 10 non-Mod posters to this thread, with post counts, as of 10:21AM on Wednesday morning:
sachertorte - 93
Blaster Master - 52
CiAS - 51
OaoW - 50
storyteller0910 - 48
RoOsh - 47
ShadowFacts - 45
WF Tomba - 42
Nanook - 31
Freudian Slit - 27
I contend that, even with my extended absence toward the end of yesterDay and the beginning of toDay, your contention that I have been a low participant and therefore am not amenable to post analysis is not true. I was extremely active in the first three quarters of Day One, and even with my fallow period, I’m the fifth most active player in the game and will probably move up to second-most-active with the upcoming sequence of posts.
Now of course, the above count includes Night posts (I think I made one) and pre-game posts, but the point stands. I have participated, I have created a body of participative evidence sufficient to allow analysis. You keep smudging me with the implication that I have not. You keep pushing suspicion in my direction, but claiming you can’t substantiate that suspicion because I haven’t participated enough to create evidence for you to analyze.
I say you are lying - using the fact of my absence to create a myth of nonparticipation around me that you’re in turn using to create paranoia - and I say it’s the scummiest thing I’ve seen so far.
I want to finish my re-read, but I will almost certainly be voting for you when I’m done.
Hey everybody. Today is hopefully going to be a lazy day at the beach (lots of relaxing and miniature golf, heh) so I should be able to do a longer post later today. But for now lemme comment on the big issue.
Re: storyteller - Here’s my thing about lynching storyteller today. We get 0 information about other people if we lynch him today. Sure, we know what storyteller is (and if he’s scum, we’ve lynched scum and that’s always good) and there’s a good chance that there’s no roleblocker as well if he’s town. But as far as CatinaRuggerSuit’s alignment, we get jack-diddly. If storyteller was scum, Rugger could be actual town or a scum buddy, we don’t know. If storyteller was town, Rugger could be actual town or maybe the Alpha Wolf, we don’t know.
However, if we wait until tomorrow, we have a stronger chance of gaining a non-zero amount of information. Except if storyteller died during the Night, but that would mean he’s town and then we wouldn’t have wasted a lynch on him. Under the assumption that storyteller survives the Night, if he comes up with another townie and is town himself, then we know at least one of Rugger and person X is 100% town. If he comes up with scum, we’ll know that either person X or storyteller is scum (or maybe even both). We might even find out that he was blocked and there IS a roleblocker. The only possible zero information gain is if he turns up another townie and he’s scum, we’ll just gain more WIFOM and no solid evidence.
I don’t think storyteller is the best lynch for today, but I do think he’s the best lynch for tomorrow.
Don’t you think it possible that I would like to hear what you have to say after your claim?
Do you dispute the assertion that your participation since your claim has been sparse?
Is it so hard to understand that I’m lamenting your lack of commentary over the OAOW’s situation?
Don’t you think that I and everyone else would be interested in what you had to say during that entire episode?
storyteller, you threw down the gauntlet on OAOW, then disappeared.
You claimed on page 7. We are now on page 14.
You’ve missed a big part of the game.
I definitely don’t think **storyteller ** is a good lynch today. I’m not going to risk lynching the Constable. If he’s lying, it gives the real Constable some time to bank some investigations, and the truth will come out eventually. For now, I’m believing him.
**Sachertorte ** and Freudian Slit are high on my suspicion list still. **Sach’s ** posts are just ringing false to me. I’m reading them and saying to myself “where is he getting this from?”. Freudian Slit has popped into the thread to tell us she’s not scum. :dubious: Got anything else?
:the Holiday combined with an new software program training session at work this week have conspired to rob me of my Mafia Time this week. I’m off work today, and should be able to contribute to the discussion.:
None of those things is what you said.
Jesus, hit reply too soon. Continuing:
None of those things is what you said. What you said is that I have not been participating, that while you would like to analyze my posts, you have nothing to analyze. Which is not true.
Hmm. So the final Day 1 vote count looked like this:
I would assume that the Wolves probably didn’t vote in a block on the first day, so at least one Wolf is probably to be found among the five votes for Freudian Slit, which is the safest place to hide if you don’t want to vote for OAOW.
Of these, OAOW is confirmed town. CatInASuit / Santo Rugger is a tougher case, since storyteller may be lying or he may be the Alpha Wolf, but I don’t think we should lynch him without further evidence that one or the other of these things is true. I’m having a hard time buying sachertorte as scum; considering how vocal and how aggressive he’s been, it would surprise me if he were anything other than a vanilla townie.
I’ll be taking a close look at Pollux Oil and Hockey Monkey, since I haven’t got much of a read on either of them.
Whatever.
WTF? With which part of what I’m saying do you disagree? I quoted you three times, specifically and explicitly saying that you would like to “scrutinize” me / do a post analysis, but that there was “little to analyze.” Nothing about those statements was time-bound or conditional the way your response to my response was.
You made a disingenuous argument, I called you on it, now you’re changing your argument.