It’s not an argument. It’s a statement. I contend that you had a lack of participation Yesterday and Today, is making post analysis difficult.
You seem to think that availability of posts from the beginning of Yesterday, before the interesting stuff happened, puts you in the clear and that you should be untouchable for some bizarre reason.
I say no.
And now you are twisting words by saying that I’m implying that you are a lurker which for some (again bizarre) reason makes me scummy.
Your strict and one-sided interpretation of my words is self-serving.
Haven’t you been apologizing profusely for not being around enough? Why are you attacking him for criticizing you for the same thing you’ve been apologizing for? Gah, I’m still suspicious of sach, too, but man he’s getting some ridiculous crap today.
OK, you know what? I think that’s nonsense - my posts from early in the Day are as amenable to analysis as any other - but I get where you’re coming from, anyway.
But that’s nonsense, too. Of course I’m not untouchable. I’m just saying that what you are saying - that my posts can’t be analyzed because there aren’t enough of them (or, I guess, enough of them that meet the arbitrary criterion of coming after the “interesting stuff happened” - is patently false. I’m neither in the clear nor untouchable.
“Twisting words” is becoming one of my pet peeves in this game. I didn’t twist your words, sach. I posted them, in their entirety, unedited. You said what you said. You said, for example, and I’ll quote it again:
I am contending that this statement - that I was “quiet Yesterday” - is factually untrue. If you meant to say something else, fine, but you said what you said and in this game, words mean things.
What the fuck interpretation is there to your contention that I was “quiet yesterday?” That’s a straightforward contention, requiring no interpretation. It was not true. Jesus, at least man up and admit that much.
Thanks. I needed that.
I’m going to self-impose a sanity hiatus for a bit. I’ll check in before I leave work though.
Except it’s not just this weekend, its been the entirety of the game. If it were just this weekend, I wouldn’t have said anything. I mean, almost everyone was quiet this weekend, including myself. But he’s been quiet since Day 1, and he’s been posting in the offsite Apocolypse game. Sure seems possibly scummy.
I don’t even know what to make of this. The people who haven’t been participating should be lynched for that. I have been participating, so I’m probably scum, but you don’t want to lynch me as a reward? You don’t even want to win anymore? I can’t tell if this is some sort of bizarre scum ploy to sow chaos and confusion or if you’re just burning out on forum Mafia. Or maybe both. It’s happened before, with zuma in Batman.
I’m not.
I am apologizing for missing a chunk of the Day - for recent nonparticipation.
sach has attempted to spin that into “he hasn’t posted much at all, and therefore we can’t analyze him.”
As to why that’s scummy? Well, from my perspective, I have less to fear from what sach calls post-based analysis. I know I’m in a precarious position, and I have only one advantage: I’m Town. Because I know my own motives to be pure, I’d rather people actually look at my post history, which is substantial, as they look to make decisions regarding me. sach’s moves in this thread so far have been pushing people away from looking at my actual post history - because he is falsely claiming that the history is sparse - in favor of a “situation-based” analysis which, in the absence of reliable information on the situation, amounts to guesswork.
Is that distinction at least somewhat clear? It’s not that he’s attacking me for nonparticipation; it’s that he’s using a false picture of my overall participation in the game to promote a strategic approach that is less effective than post analysis would be.
I have no extra information. The post in question was a cut-and-paste error.
I think sach is also criticizing you for recent nonparticipation, as he clarified when he said above:
This is presumably in response to you posting the raw vote count. In other words, he was saying that the total number of posts aren’t relevant, but how much you’ve been involved since you claimed. So, is his critique fair? Let’s look at the tape:
You claimed in post 333. Since then and until sach first mentioned your lack of participation in post 644, you made 9 posts. One was complete fluff, one was supplying a definition of “smudge” and saying that you had returned, and one was saying that you had too much work and would not be back. I discount those. So, that leaves 6 posts from claim to criticism, which was a span of 6 pages and 311 total posts.
So, to be honest, he’s right. 6 posts is not a lot to work with.
I’m curious, does my quick little analysis change any of this for you? I felt / still feel the same way, but I got myself worried looking at mislynches in this whole thing…we could wind up with a good bit confirmed, but 0 or 1 mislynches left.
While I’m at it and got my chance to post, I want to put one on the table for Hal …
vote Hal Briston
He HAS been active in the off board game, he’s played enough games to know that lurking isn’t generally a good thing to do. This seems like a good chance for a quiet wolf to hide amongst all the other noise thats happening right now.
Not particularly. What your analysis didn’t include is the possibility of a second constable, or the existence of a mason group. We get into some complicated math here which Blam is probably a lot better at than me. But let’s go with what you already said.
Worst possible case scenario is that both investigations are masons and the only masons in the game, and story is the only constable. That means that the situation is as bad as it could be, we have no way of confirming anybody else out of the remaining 10. If story is a constable and there is another constable, then we’ll have 4 investigations at best, with maybe some overlap. If story is a constable and there are masons that aren’t investigated, we’ll have 2 investigations + 2 or 3 masons to narrow down the pool. If story is scum, any “investigations” are moot and we just have one big pile to take from.
Point is, from what I see I personally don’t think we’re going to be in a horrible situation if we wait until tomorrow to lynch storyteller. There is a possibility that we end up in a particularly horrific situation but it’s not a huge possibility. But I can’t do any formulaic math analysis on the subject. 
What the hell are people doing even considering talking about thinking about lynching storyteller? How is that even remotely acceptable? Look: The more investigations he has, the more dangerous he is to scum. If he’s town, they have to get rid of him, else they’ll basically be screwed when the Masons reveal and there are all these confirmed townies and dead scum he’s revealed. If he’s scum, he’s going to get caught sooner or later. Why don’t we shelf the discussion until then? Otherwise, it’s just wasting time, energy, and taking up space when we go back to look for clues in the later days. It’s of my opinion that these first two Days hold the answers on Day 5 and beyond. YMMV, but, for Og’s sake, don’t lynch a flippin’ claimed Cop at beginning or mid-game!
I think you’re being overly unfair to storyteller, and, honestly, a little over the top. Up thread you criticized basically everyone who voted for Wanderer for being bad players…you just seem way too much on the offensive for someone supposedly pro-town.
For now, vote sachertorte
Day 2 Vote Count (as of Post 713)
3- sachertorte: Blaster Master, DiggitCamara, Freudian Slit
2- Hal Briston: Nanook, Koldanar
1- WF Tomba: Darth Sensitive
1- Blaster Master: sachertorte
1- DiggitCamara: ShadowFacts
No Current Vote: Fretful Porpentine, storyteller, Hal Briston, Pollux Oil, Hockey Monkey, Santo Rugger, WF Tomba
Hey folks.
How goes the wolf hunt?
Some of you may not have heard me the last time.
Several of you are not posting enough. By several I mean a lot. Like enough people that if we mod killed everyone who wasn’t posting enough today and allowed a Night kill and a lynch there would be 7 fewer players come morning.
As it is we will probably sub out instead.
Some of you are posting in other games with a good deal of frequency. Step it up people, lurking is not a viable game strategy in this game. Mod kill gains no one any information, no role will be revealed, no lynch will be averted, the mod killed player is simply removed from the game and is no longer a player for either side.
We start mod killing the second we run out of subs.
There are 23.5 hours left in the Day.
Just to be clear, your reasons for voting for sachertorte are:
[ul]
[li]He is being overly unfair to storyteller[/li][li]He is being a little over the top[/li][li]He criticized the people who lynched a townie[/li][li]He is way too on the offensive to be pro-town[/ul][/li]
Upon further review, do you think those are legitimate reasons to vote for someone?
What do you think of **DiggitCamara’s **reasons for voting for sach? What do you think of Blaster Master’s reason for voting for him?
Allright, so would you like to discuss something else? Whether he’s a true cop or not, he’s confirmed you as town (and I believe that a town or wolf story would not have lied on the first one) but I would still like to hear your opinions; you’ve had what, 2 posts since subbing for cat?
I had a nice refreshing afternoon. I don’t see much more to comment on.
storyteller seems convinced that I’m deliberately trying to malign him based on word choice. So instead of explaining his actions regarding OAOW, his opinions of Yesterday, or what his thoughts are about the OAOW lynch, he just attacks me for pointing out that he hasn’t been posting. Grand.
Oh and of course we can’t even discuss the possibility of lynching storyteller, because Oh No! Lynching a claimed constable is Oh No!
Freudian Slit is voting for me because I’m “over the top.”
DiggitCamara is voting for me because I’m “implicit.”
It’s actually kind of amusing at this point.
Things people aren’t commenting on:
- I tried to get people to explain their OAOW vote Yesterday. Only Nanook and Blaster Master responded.
- ShadowFacts tried to get people to explain their OAOW vote Today. Again, no response.
- Some players seem quite content to fixate on one piece of data and ignore the totality of the game. This lynched OAOW, and people seem content to apply this narrow-mindedness to me. Look at the totality of my posts and what I have done. Picking out a single detail and distorting it to meet your needs is scummy.
Vote chart is updated.
Now then, I owe someone an apology, because I can’t remember who should get credit for this. In one of the recent games, someone pointed out how scum were tag-teaming a particular townie. One player would toss out little smudges against someone, and then back off. Then a second player would do the same against that same person. Little quick-hits, so neither one of them was screaming “they’re scum!” from the rooftops, but enough that it made it look like hey, maybe that person is scum.
Of course, the two players making the accusations were both scum…they were cleverly keeping the ball rolling against players they obviously knew to be town, but they were being relatively low-key about it.
Kinda the way ShadowFacts and Nanook have pulled against me the past two Days.
Most interesting there is ShadowFacts – tell me, why vote for me for lurking on Day One, but have zero to say about me on Day Two? It wouldn’t be that you’ve “tagged out” to a partner now, have you?
No, you are wrong. Near the start of this Day, I had this to say about you:
So, not zero at all. Would you care to comment on this error? Or would you care to comment on my accusations of lurking and bandwagon-jumping, since you did not respond to them earlier?
And if it makes you feel any better, I’ve been considering voting for you for quite a while, and if you are the only viable candidate opposite sach, I will definitely be switching to you. The only reason I haven’t is because DiggitCamara posted something I found extremely suspicious (which, by the way, NO ONE else has commented on - come ON, people!)