I think the problem is that the color should not provide clues that help teams advance their win condition.
As such, I think it’s scummy to talk about that, instead of hunting for scum.
vote Stanislaus
My wincon is also the same as that posted by Mahaloth, begining with “You are Town.” Normally I’m not a big fan of voting based on inconsistencies in role PMs, but we seem to have 4 people claiming to have identical Win Conditions, which differ slightly from the ‘sample wincon’ in the rules…unless someone else speaks up and tells us they have a Town Win Condition that’s worded differently from what has been given, I’ve got to believe that Stanislaus copied it from the Rules post and thus got it ‘wrong’.
Why smear just one player, when you can smear two at the same price? I’m pretty sure that wasn’t me. You haven’t really been on my radar despite others’ interest in you, but this isn’t really a good way of staying off said radar.
It could only be Scummy to talk about it if it were established that there are in fact no clues in the color.
If there *are *clues in the color, then it couldn’t possibly be Scummy to talk about them; in that case it would be Scummy to stifle such conversation, since the conversation would itself qualify as “hunting for Scum”.
In our case here, I don’t believe it’s been established either way. I agree that we shouldn’t spend a great deal of time on the subject at this stage of the game, but neither do I think it should be a forbidden topic.
I don’t think clues in the color are likely for reasons I’ve already stated, but I don’t really have a problem with people discussing that possibility. I do however, echo whoever’s sentiment that I think choie should put more effort into analyzing player posts as opposed to the mod’s.
Well I think my feelings on the subject are pretty clear, but it boils down to playing the game vs breaking the game. I liken it to using a handshake to verify players or using a computer program to do voting analysis. To me, that isn’t playing the game. The game is all about us analyzing what the players say, not what the mod says. If you want to do it, I won’t say anything else, but I don’t think you should necessarily expect a bunch of other players to join you or lead much credence to your conclusions.
In a game with a win-stealing Serial Killer, it makes some sense to have a tracker who tracks what a player did the Night before - if Stanislaus could guess which kill was the SK, and then track who visited that player, he could identify the SK.
However, that says nothing about his alignment, given that both Wolves and Town need the SK dead to win.
OK. This is really annoying, choie. Please, PLEASE stop with your walls of text.
Also: when someone tells me a body is described as “undescribable” it means a very different thing then when it isn’t described. When you go on to say
you’re saying stuff that simply isn’t there (crow, “described as”).
I know, your shtick is “I’m looking at color for clues and stuff”, but you’re not sticking to your shtick very well.
:smack:
Well, Stanislaus is screwed now. That seals the deal.
I’ll repeat my earlier plea: if you’re determined to lynch Stanislaus, you should still entertain and further build cases on others.
Day Three Vote Count.
As at post 1130.
Eight votes.[ul][li]Stanislaus : DarkCookies (963), Dizzy (967), [del]choie (+970) (-1020)[/del]. guiri (971), Mahaloth (982), Texcat (1009), DiggitCamara (1072), USCDiver (1106), Suburban Plankton (1122)[/li][/ul]
Three votes.[ul][li]choie : fubbleskag (1042), guiri (1067), DiggitCamara (1076)[/li][li]Dizzy : Astral Rejection (1032), DarkCookies (1043), Gnarlycharlie (1068)[/li][li]texcat : Astral Rejection (1032), DarkCookies (1043), guiri (1067)[/li][/ul]
Two votes.[ul][li]Babale : Gnarlycharlie (1068), LightFoot (1087)[/li][li]Mahaloth : DarkCookies (1043), guiri (1067)[/li][/ul]
One vote.[ul][li]Astral Rejection : Texcat (1059)[/li][li]DarkCookies : Texcat (1059)[/li][li]fubbleskag : guiri (1067)[/li][li]guiri : Gnarlycharlie (1068)[/li][li]Johnny Bravo : DarkCookies (1043)[/li][li]Lightfoot : Gnarlycharlie (1068)[/li][li]Meeko : Gnarlycharlie (1968)[/li][li]Wombat99 : fubbleskag (1016)[/li][/ul]
Heh, and now you are taking time responding to my response to this. I took less than an hour and was not sitting there refreshing constantly.
Sound advice. I’ve been mulling over my for Diggit voters, and though it doesn’t look like any of them are going to get lynched any time soon, I’d advocate using our noodles and tools to ferret out friend from foe in that list in the following order:
#1 Johnny Bravo - he’s new and all but my ping-o-meter tends to go off when I read his posts, but it somewhat depends on how Stanislaus flips. Johnny doesn’t seem to suspect Stanislaus much and I do, and a good bit of his recent posts are about Stan and the barn message.
#2 Dizzy Lizzy - low participation, with a good bit of fluff when she does post coupled the opportunistic(?) vote on Diggit and she was fairly anti-pizza when he was alive.
#3 Mahaloth - Missing the role PM comparison could have been an attempt to try and cover for a scumbuddy who made an error fabricating a claim, though it depends on how Stan flips and since Mahaloth was the one who brought up the comparison which would be quite ballsy as a scum cover move, so I dunno. I know I said I wouldn’t be nit-picking at grammar, but I didn’t say I wouldn’t nit-pick the nit-pickers. 
#4 TexCat - I always think she’s scummy when we play together so this is an adjustment to allow for my apparent inability to be unbiased.
I interpreted it as him feeling that you weren’t asking/biting as much as you usually do; my experience may be less than his, but I don’t think you’re being any less aggressive than usual
actually, you did:
I checked - you don’t make any other comments about Stan prior to this post; in fact, your votes so far seem to be rather easy/lazy ‘drive-by’ votes with no case-building or follow-up
226 - admits to laying low because of early deaths in previous games; likes pizza’s idea on it’s face, but hesitane to trust pizza due to previous games; needs to re-read
227 - pleo’s out of character claim wasn’t out of character
303 - too much talk about pizza’s plan
330 - defends ‘wishy washy’ accusation from USCDiver
439 - comments on ‘in-fighting’; VOTE FUBBLESKAG (overly defensive v. Guiri)
522 - pressures ATPG for “except Cookies” statement
541 - clarifies 522 pressure to Cookies
546 - VOTE ATPG (“the more I read, the more he pings me” + “except Cookies” statement)
675 - fluff
697 - fluff
703 - fluff
706 - fluff
737 - agrees with barn discussion thus far; discourages author from claiming
765 - VOTE DIGGIT (encouraging masons to claim; vote on Burby)
838 - UNVOTE DIGGIT (mason claim)
845 - pizza is noisy
918 - VOTE CHUCARA (vote on choie; previous vote leader)
942 - fluff
946 - fluff
967 - VOTE STAN (to see if barn writing is true)
986 - condones cop’s use of barn
1094 - defends vote from charlie
vote Dizzymrslizzy
it does seem pretty clear that Stan’s posted role PM has been edited. I can’t think of any reason why he would have removed the part about being town unless it was inadvertent while editing something else; I can’t think of any reason that he would have been editing unless he’s scum or a third-party. if the barn message about scum being third-party is true, it’s in our interest to lynch him either way - particularly considering that, if he is third-party, his attempt to conceal it is probably indicative that the “only kill scum” agreement present in other games mentioned up-thread is an unlikely option. in any case, I expect there will be much to be gleaned from an analysis of the (non|un)votes of Stan toDay.
vote Stanislaus
(if you flip town you’re going to have some serious explaining/apologizing to do regarding your role pm)
That’s precisely my point. You can call it “a dog with a bone” if you would like. I would prefer “the only sane player, acting as the glue to anchor the rest of the players within the realm of everything possible in Mafia.”
Yours is more circular than mine. Mine is simply showing the flaw in yours. Again, you prove mine more than yours.
My point derives from what is mod revealed. Truth, coming from THE WORD OF MOD himself.
Tell me, how certain you are of where your derives from? How inherently true is yours? And who was the author, again?
VOTE COOKIES
You are pulling confidence from a place that is not town.
it might be because it’s late, or I’m stupid, or both, but I am seriously not understanding the reasoning behind your vote on Cookies, Meeko - can you put it in small simple words for me?
Good luck with that, fubbs. I’ve written him off at this point. Crackpot Meeko is usually Town, so I’m going to ignore him until there is some evidence to the contrary or he starts making sense.
notes on Babale:
161 - against cop using barn; mistake re: barn mechanic
180 - fluff
196 - defends 161 mistake; defends skimming as a null tell; claims to be both new and busy
240 - defends vote by Stanislaus for 196; endorses pizza plan as a ‘guideline’
242 - question for ATPG re: pizza plan
367 - disapproves of pizza plan; questions ortho’s vote (misses joke?); VOTE CHUCARA (pancakes); disapproves of multi-vote; VOTE ATPG
368 - fluff
418 - defends vote on Chucara
424 - same
426 - UNVOTE ATPG
453 - UNVOTE CHUCARA
762 - fluff
I’m 50/50 here between ‘busy newbie town who can’t make up their mind’ and ‘busy newbie scum trying to fly under the radar, unsucessfully’ - I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment, but can certainly understand others leaning the other way
sigh. on preview I realize I had intended to review TexCat next, not Babale, but since it’s done anyway, here it is.
The comment below doesn’t help.
It’s a simple word, but not small;
Cookies is being over the top arrogant.
A “fast and lose” that a town player would not have