Oops. I hadn’t noticed that the day is ending so soon. I did an extremely quick read of the latest posts, and I don’t really have any strong candidates.
I agree with some of the sentiments about peekers claim, but I also think it is a bad lynch choice - possibly even if he is serial killer.
I will vote Blaster Master. He just pings me as scum flying low colours and jumping the peeker train just doesn’t make it better IMO.
Wow, peeker definitely found a way to flush out the lurkers :D.
The points do seems to be a PFK win condition (and alpha/beta give kill could give different points). A vigilante mechanic is possible also, maybe town kills give negative points and his balance needs to stay positive. Or maybe he can use them to kill that last one fifth Deadite (bit far fetched I think).
I don’t understand why he claimed though. I see no benefit for either vig or SK. It also seems on purpose, not a slip.
Unofficial vote count is now:
dotchan (4) - amrussell, total lost, hockey monkey, Natlaw
hawkeyeop (3) - Cometothedarksidewehavecookies, pedescribe, Almost Human
peekercpa (3) - Nanook, brewha, Blaster Master
Cometothedarksidewehavecookies (1) - hawkeyeop
Chucara (2) - NAF1138, Diggitcamara
Blaster Master (2) - peekercpa, Chucara
Hawk vs Cookies: I find some of Hawk’s arguments to be spurious and/or confirmation bias: e.g, that a vote for not-Macey is one intended to protect Macey. However, my gut feel is that he’s town trying to work the available info and carrying it too far. As for Cookies, I’m not convinced by Hawk’s case.
Peeker: !!! Looks like a clear killing-role claim - I’m not willing to vote without hearing more from him. Don’t see the pro-town side of a Vig claiming though. Or indeed, quoting a PM. However, unlike Blam, I don’t assume that my inability to think of a reason for the “+2” to be town-related means that it can’t possibly be.
So I’ll stick with my vote on dotchan, who has been generally smudgy, and has been caught skimming so much she can’t vote accurately.
Gah.
It looked to me like he was posting a PM from Story, and is vaguely-but-not-really worried about being modkilled for it. Hardly a “slip”, Blam…
I owe everyone an apology, I’ve been forced to skim over the past couple days, and I don’t have a hard feeling on anybody. The way Hawk magic-bagged his theory bugged me, but I’m agreeing with most of what he’s got to say (and, FTR, I understand exactly what he means when he says voting for Player B means an attempt to save Player A. I also agree that we’re not holding scum accountable for their actions… scum ran away with SDMB, and were perilously close to another run-away in Marvel, by colluding and not getting called on it). I think I’m a little more bugged by the way Cookies reacted to it (even though I was fully in her camp at first). Aggressively defensive, and there were some inconsistencies in her defense that somebody else already called her on, that she appears to have ignored.
I want more from Peeker before he gets a vote, although if he doesn’t come clean I’d consider him a very valid candidate for the night-lynch theory. I’m not feeling a Dotchan-lynch, either, although this could be pure sympathy, I dunno. 
I do wanna know what the heck Pedescribe is referring to when he says he prevented Cookies from false-claiming - did I miss something?
I’m going to Vote Cookies, and apologise again for my lack of participation.
Replying out of order, because I can…
Really? I won’t attempt to defend my lack of posts, but that’s more because a lack of posts is purely a null tell. Others have even come in and stated that it’s not a surprise for me to come and go for long stretches. I’ve done it as town, I’ve done it as scum. Either way, casting a vote based on a lack of participation is essentially no different from a random vote.
Second, what is wrong with “jumping the peeker train”? If someone came in, and made essentially the same post, but in a way that made it obvious he was scum and not a serial killer, would you fault me then? The correlation between my posting and peeker’s slip is purely coincidental. I would have posted then regardless, the only difference being that it likely wouldn’t have included a vote.
So I ask you, you say it looks scummy to have done it, you’re right, it’s reasonable to believe that scum, given my lack of game posts, might have behaved that way. However, you’re completely ignoring what a townie might have done given the exact same circumstances. The thing is, both explain it, which is why it’s a null tell. Besides, you can be sure that you’ll have plenty of substance from me to get a good reading on my alignment as I post more.
You need to explain this. Eliminating PFKs is iffy, because chances are that both the scum and the town want them eliminated. Ideally, we would want the scum to take him out. The problem is, he’s most likely a serial killer, and serial killers are far more likely to hurt the town than scum. Beyond that, eliminating anti-town kills at night is to the town’s benefit because it will generally decrease the town body count and simultaneously increasing our information.
Some might argue that it’s a mislynch to lynch a PFK, and that is technically correct. But, the situation is further complicated by the fact that his death will reduce the number of deaths in the future. We got lucky that his first kill was scum, but if we lynch him now, and he otherwise would have killed enough townies to result in fewer days, it works out to our advantage numerically. Beyond that, lynching him will also reduce the penalty for actual mislynches in the future because there will be fewer anti-town night kills.
Either way, you need to qualify your statement beyond that.
It is not an inability to think of a reason, it is that it completely flies in the face of vigilante-ism in general. I can think of possible explanations for why a vigilante might get a score, the problem is, they all end up being self-contradictory.
For instance, maybe the vigilante gets points for killing scum and loses them for killing town, and he has to have a positive count to win. Fine, sounds reasonable. Except, if that’s the case, why would a vigilante target someone unless he was reasonably sure that that target was scum? He targeted someone who had no real tells on night one. Vigilantes targetting on Night One is generally just silly, unless there’s good reason, which there wasn’t AFAICT, or they’re compulsory. So, perhaps he’s a compulsory vigilante that keeps score? That sounds outrageously cruel to give that sort of role to someone, and I would judge our moderator better than that. Further, if he DID have such a role, he very much would have been best off just coming out and claiming immediately. OTOH, keeping score is a very reasonable mechanic for a serial killer, and the possible explanations are legion.
So, sure, he could be a Vigilante, but if he is, he’s got some unusual mechanics that probably meant he should have claimed, and certainly means he should have done a better job explaining after inadvertantly revealing such information. So, it’s reasonable to think that he’s much more likely to be a serial killer than a vigilante and, for reasons I already outlined, I think getting a serial killer out of the game early is definitely to the town’s advantage.
I almost slept through the vote deadline!
OK, so re: this whole peeker thing: I have him on my high suspicion list, but I can’t send him to the noose without any explanation. Please come clarify what the heck is up, because if you are pro-Town and that was a role claim to try to prove it, you’re shooting yourself in the foot, currently.
Dotchan: Not feeling it…is this based on her mistake, confusing one poster for another? Because I made one of those too, and it was honest.
**
Hawkeyeop**: Only sort of feeling it; I actually grok most of his arguments
Cookies: Definitely not feeling it; I already said why
Blaster: I would have probably put my vote there to try and test the Night lynch, but he showed up, so now I’ll let him speak.
Sigh…
I’m going back to the votes from yesterDay and picking out someone who was trying to pull the vote away from macey.
Vote DiggitCamara
Reminding myself that there are no throwaway votes in this game…
Well, at the very least he might know that none of his scum buddies had killed **Thing Fish **and have a better guess at the Night-lynch theory.
I have no idea why he would know how bufftabby was killed, though.
When is the deadline? By my count, Peeker and Dotchan are tied.
Gah right back at ya!
It isn’t a slip in the sense that we normally think of one; it is an accidental posting of information intended for the moderator, like the Top Dog incident in the game I moderated. This isn’t a “did he or did he not have extra information” sort of deal. It is clearly a situation of real, tangible information. We have three definite pieces of information.
He’s responsible for the bufftabby death. This means he’s some sort of killing role.
He got points for being responsible for that death. This isn’t as clear cut as the previous one, but it’s something that needs to be considered with looking at possible explanations.
He mentions Cranky in a way that makes it look like its a role name. Again, not quite sure what it means, but it’s definite information.
Now, sure, if it were just possible that he’s a PFK, then I wouldn’t really care, but we’re talking about the likelihood of reducing the number of anti-town kills Tonight. Even if Cookies is scum, and I haven’t caught up enough to determine whether she is or not for myself, it still makes more sense to lynch the Serial Killer now to reduce the body count for Tonight, and test the theory on Cookies rather than the other way around.
I’ve got Dotchan in the lead with 4 and Peeker and Hawkeye tied at three.
25min to go.
1 PM EST IIRC. ETA, 22 MIN. *
Oh, and Blam - I’m well versed in the Evil Dead series. I could pretty much quote AOD word for word and have seen the first Evild Dead several times.
I’ve only seen Evil Dead II once or twice.
But, to my knowledge, there is no notable character named Cranky.
why does peeker mention brewha in his +2 quote? (and how do I do a quote within a quote correctly?)
Cranky? the only reference I can find is that a company called Cranky Pants Games produced the Evil Dead video games. Does anyone else have more information.
I realize time is short for a vote, but I’m dreadfully uncomfortable with this ‘slip’ and finding it difficult to find pro-town reasons for it. I’d also lie the hawkeyeop/cookies converstaion to continue so that perhaps we can try the Night lynch thing on them.
Therefore, vote peeker
**peeker **being peeker, my guess would be that he’s referring to himself. And not to his in-game name, mind you.
This is a good question. Perhaps he intended that as a PM to storyteller to say who he intended to target Tonight?
Also, I don’t think you can double quote. I could be mistaken though.
That “gah” was aimed at me, not at you, sorry.
Where do you get “information intended for the moderator”? I don’t see that at all. I have no doubt that his little “ask me” game with Brewha was his lead-up to this claim, except that Brewha hasn’t come back, and thus spoiled it for him. So he drops the bomb anyway, because he’d have us believe that we needed to know what he knew. Note that he used the phrase “I’m a little cranky” upthread, again in reference to Brewha asking him questions. No, he planned this, there’s no slip here.
I’m as confused as you are by what it means, though… I don’t know why we needed to know that he’s a killer, I don’t know if he’s referring to last nights kill that made her mostly dead, or if he’s destroyed the hand, I don’t grok the points at all, and I’m very nervous about the whole thing. I will note that Peek has a history of (what I would consider) ill-advised and ill-executed claims as Town. Of course, he’s been known to false-claim as scum, too.
Screwit, lets put this to bed. I think Peek is a better lynch than Dotchan
unvote Cookies
vote Peekmeister
I get the whole peeker being peeker thing. But the construction of it makes it look like part of his whole “Go Town” part. That is, even given his bizarre manner of posting sometimes, I’m much more inclined to believe he’s refering to someone he actually wants dead and not himself. That is, if a townie were stuck in the situation, I could see it as “Go Town. Kill the scum.” or vice-versa for scum “Go scum. Kill the town.” Thus, in a vigilante or serial killer scenario, to which we’re pretty much limited, it would make the most sense that Cranky is his target. However, since the only lead we have on how Cranky is possibly related to the game is what special ed found, it’s hard to know what more to make of it.
I said that I had a gut feeling Cookies was town. I was worried, though, that I might be wrong, and the scum could kill me and have her claim mason, fighting off any counterclaims by pointing to my breadcrumb. So I said that she wasn’t a mason.
Finally caught up with posts, so it’s time to vote. Hopefully the board won’t crash now.
At the end of last Night, I didn’t have much in the way of suspicion. The things that had pinged me on Day 1 had been cleared up, or I’d settled in my own mind that the case was a mistake – and now Thing Fish is dead, I had to start anew Today.
The first big thing to catch my eye was Dotchan’s vote in post [post=10621193]16[/post]. My impression was that it was a simple slip, and she’d switched Hockey Monkey (who did “me too” vote, and has never denied doing that) and DarkCookies. When this was pointed out, she unvoted; however, she did not immediately vote HM, who was the actual “me too” voter. Why not?
Maybe Dot was just not suspicious of HM, or maybe she didn’t want to throw suspicion on HM. I could fall either way.
As for HM’s “me too” vote, this can be scummy, but is not necessarily scummy. Laziness, efficiency (the other player has said what you were thinking so much more clearly than you could) or lack of time could all be reasons for a “me too vote” applicable to either Town or Scum. HM’s reaction (being up front with what she did) makes it a null tell for me; she’s either got a clear conscience or she’s facing her accusers down. I’m not voting for her just for this.
I want to spend a little time thinking about Hawkeyeop. He’s had one or two theses in this game which have set my teeth on edge. The first one was floated last Night in post [post=10613667]D01.268[/post]. His suggestion that the quality of an argument helps determine whether the subject of the argument is scum is wrong. What it does help is in determining whether that subject gets lynched. It does not change the actual alignment of the subject at all. Mind you, if the subject is lynched, that reveals the alignment. Usually. Some games (see Pleonast’s Conspiracy games) obfuscate it for a while, though. However, that’s not a scumtell on its own. After all, Town can misstate things too.
Hawk’s next thesis was in post [post=10624324]D02.037[/post]. My problem with it is that the standard position on votes (especially early-day votes like this) is that you should vote for who you think is most scummy. A vote for someone other than Macey yesterday, by any Townie, simply says “I think this person is scummier than Macey.” Any scum caught voting for someone other than Macey is in fact voting against a Macey lynch, but townspeople so voting are not. So the thesis is flawed.
Now I know, from assisting Hawk with the last game, that he’s developing some radical theories about Mafia, and I want to discuss some of them; but doing it now will mean I don’t get a vote in. Also, I keep telling myself that floating ideas that provoke discussion is not necessarily a scum tell. It could be done to generate data or to obfuscate patterns that might be emerging to a scum eye. I think this qualifies for a note that Hawkeyeop needs to be watched for a while.
Now I come to Peekercpa’s posts ([post=10628561]D02.099[/post] and [post=10628575]100[/post]). Here Peeker reveals (if he is telling the truth) that he’s playing some sort of game within a game. The thing is, what? It appears to be a claim that he killed Bufftabby. So he has a killing role. But (a) why did he strike Buff (who didn’t have much (if any) evidence pointing at her, at least as far as I recall) and (b) what is the purpose of his game?
Now here I have to say that this is a bit reminiscent of the Marvel Mutants game set on Skrull Planet (see here.) In this game, Peeker made a Day 1 claim of Miller – that is, a Town-aligned player who investigates as scum. Despite the inherent impossibility of distinguishing his true alignment with conventional investigators (and the person who did claim to do so was a lying scum), he wasn’t Nightkilled to test his claim. He had just enough of a downside to kill him to make us decide against lynching him, day after day, until finally we got some evidence to reveal the truth.
Maybe he’s trying that gambit again? This time planning to claim vig, and manipulating us into not voting him, when he is in fact an SK? I can’t see that he’s scum, but I strongly suspect SK.
In the absence of a strong pointer to scum, an SK will do.
Vote Peekercpa.