You seem very concerned that people think you are smudging. And a lot of your remaining posts are short ones pointing out smudges.
Actually, it think it has been brought up a while ago:
Ah it was you! That was on Saturday and if you have time to do a quick search for ‘several’, why haven’t you taken a quick look at the ‘wolves’ slip post by MentalGuy to confirm or deny your ping?
I mean, why not follow your own advice (my underline)?
Vote special ed
For telling what to do, but not doing it himself. For seeing smudges, but telling others his aren’t.
That said, if kitten keeps silent, she is dead weight and should be lynched.
Actually, listing his reasons why he suspects people is a good thing (and he voted straggler for not doing it). That is is main reason I didn’t revote Sitnam Today. Yet, because you Pleonast link is convincing and doesn’t clash with my reasoning he is probably-not-Cabal.
Are you missing a ‘estimate better’ in the last part? I mean, the Cabal and Werewolves are separate factions, so I don’t think they would know for sure how many members the other factions got.
I missed that vote for sachertorte in my count, but it wasn’t valid in the Night I think :p.
Personally, I don’t think anyone should take a vote personally. It is a game after all, so the comment seems a bit redundant (though doesn’t hurt of course).
I have, however, taken a look at the ping I have on the ‘wolves’ thing. And it remains just a meaningless ping.
To be honest (is that phrase allowed on this board), aside from kitten, who I made a case against yesterDay, I’m not really getting much of a read on anyone.
As much as I’d like to be able to make something out of the ‘wolves’ or ‘several’ posts, there’s just not a lot there. I want to be sure I’m not coming across as smudging is just for that reason.
We’re getting close to the end of the Day, so I’m going to turn my FOS into a vote. Vote Sitnam
Also, I disagree that Sitnam’s vote for straggler makes it unlikely that he’s a Cabalist. It could have been a bussing. As Sitnam mentioned himself, his vote came within 16 hours of Day End. Even though straggler was only one vote ahead at the time, it was unlikely that someone else would get lynched, because changing votes so close to the deadline could have led to a tie. So Sitnam’s vote didn’t really change the outcome, but had the benefit of giving him townie points once it was revealed that straggler is scum. In any case, it doesn’t matter to me whether Sitnam is a Cabalist or a werewolf, as long as he’s scum
1 - Ichini Sanshigo (Hero From Sector 7G)
3 - Sitnam (Almost Human, Mr. Svinlesha, ok11)
4 - willthekittensurvive? (Oredigger77, Nanook of the North Shore, [Undecided] Adrian, MentalGuy)
1 - special ed (Natlaw)
I want to address your concerns, but I don’t feel like it right now. Seriously, I’ve been a bit busy, but I hope to be able to give this full attention tomorrow evening. If I may ask, what exactly is it that had you suspicious of Seeker? I mean, there’s strategy and there’s play-style, and if your suspicions are based on play-styl, there’s not much I can do at this point, simply b/c you haven’t had much time to see my style. I’m not even sure what my style is (this is my 2nd game, after dying Day 2 in the Split).
If it’s strategy in question, that’s different. Wait.
Okay, so basically pedescribe was the first person to vote for Seeker for using specious reasoning in his vote for Oredigger based on Oredigger’s alleged “eagerness” to begin being a scum tell. Well, bad logic and the fact that is was a me-too echo of Pleonast (now confirmed to be a wolf). Ped later dropped this vote in favor of MentalGuy for his slip/assumption about wolves being the scum of choice and communicating during the day.
In Post 252 Seeker says peeker has posted a lot of fluff and FOS’s our strange little accountant. (Peeker-CPA, get it? HA! I crack me up, yuk yuk yuk). In #330ok11 FOS’s Seeker on his inaccurate/shallow analysis of post count vs. post content, and later Hero votes for Seeker based on this.
Rest assured that I despise voting based solely on post count. That was the big fad over in the Split for a minute, and that’s probably where Seeker got it from, but I’ve always hated voting for the quietest/lurkiest poster, as it’s little more than a random vote, and voting for the most frequent posters suffers the same weakness: even with an analysis of the vote content, it’s more likely that vote count is a reflection of personality/off-board preoccupation/etc, than a reflection of scummitude.
Um, more tomorrow evening. The friggin’ day is over Thursday. Thursday people! I’m dead tired and I’ve got to get up at like, friggin’ 5AM tomorrow. Screw the hair, it’s going into another ponytail.
What I mean is, if Sitnam is a werewolf, he at least knows how many wolves there are, vs. how many non-wolves (townspeople+cabal). His post indicates to me that he finds the number of non-wolves daunting. He might know how many wolves+cabal there are, vs. town, if the wolves and cabal are working together. Either way, he seems to feel outnumbered.
It’s worth noting that Sitnam is the only player who associated sachertorte’s remarks to a lament over game imbalance. It’s far from definitive proof, but a brother does have to wonder what would lead him to make that association: and it seems to me that an awareness of the actual number of wolves (few) is a good explanation. He’s worried that he’s outnumbered, quite simply, and accidentally let that worry slip out by interpreting sach’s statement the way he did.
Sitnam’s comments about one faction targeting the other bugs me - as previously pointed out, it implies a lot of prior knowledge - scummy or just a poor idea…hmm
However, Mental Guy’s discussion with Straggler on day 1 around wolves really bugs me - not that Straggler mentioned wolves (which was probably an innocent mistake) but that MG didn’t correct him and accepted Wolves.
Because I looked through the thread like 3 times between Seeker’s last post (252) and a page or so past ok11’s post, and I didn’t see your vote. Apparently you voted for Seeker even before (way before) his lame post against peeker. And, ironically, or maybe coincidentally, I see you made a “me-too” vote for Seeker because he made a me-too vote for Oredigger. If that’s a good enough justification for voting for someone, maybe I should just
I’m not sure if you’re fishing or if I should be insulted because you think I’m this stupid.
In the Infamous straggler Indictment I mentioned I didn’t have enough to vote for willthekittensurvive? that day, but I warned him I still wasn’t sure he was clean.
Above all I said what you shouldn’t do is hide once accused. So far I don’t want to say he’s hiding (life could have gotten in the way) but toDay his incredibly rare fragment sentence posts keep me from getting any kind of a better read and it’s making me more and more nervous.
I don’t feel like you are reading my posts in good faith anymore. This is the third time.
Seeker was inventing reasons out of the nothing and sitting on them. He actually accused Oredigger of using the board outage as some kind of subterfuge.
I asked if Seeker’s vote was a “me too” vote. Obviously it wasn’t, in the same way that the post he was attacking wasn’t a “me too” vote. I thought maybe he would make the connection.
I’m trying to figure out why you are reading this game way differently than I would expect, so much so you are wildly mis-reading posts.
If you sincerely think I am scum now is a good time to lay out your case. This OMGUS stuff doesn’t reflect well on you. Remember, I thought Seeker was scum long before you joined this game. I’m sorry you took my skepticism of you personally, and I do appreciate you replacing into this game.
But I assume you also took a closer look at MentalGuy in general, since he something he said pings you. Yet you haven’t commented on the other part of his supposed PIS slip (‘since [wolves] can talk during the Day’) or his defense post except for a ‘huge block of text batman’ when pedescribe quoted it.
Well, to be honest, I only included that in the quote because you also were in the SSBM! game where it was coined a scum tell. I don’t honestly think it is one, if it helps :p.
About the ‘several’ I can see why you don’t think there is a lot about it, since you yourself mentioned you thought about the possibility.
Looking for PIS is fine, but somehow that turned into a ‘A couple people implying’, well, smudge.
For the record, in my re-read I found: my ‘that means we got (at least) three factions: Town, Cabal and Wolf’, Adrians ‘With several scum factions’ and your ‘As a member of a potential 3rd, as of yet undiscovered, anti-town faction’. Is keeping the possibility open like you and I did also PIS or only when it is a statement like Adrian did (ignoring if it was a possible language misuse)?
I can think of an explanation, but now that I’ve actually typed it up, I see that the odds of it being right are pretty slim. I had a theory that straggler put one Cabalist on his list of suspicions, to distance himself from that player in case one of them got caught. Considering straggler’s weak justification for putting him on the list, I thought Sitnam was that Cabalist. I figured the vote for Sitnam could have been done for the same reason (distancing). There was still plenty of time for straggler to change his vote to kitten if Sitnam was in real danger later on. But now that I look at it, Occam’s razor suggests that Sitnam isn’t a Cabalist.
Didn’t you look at the vote counts? We had 9 of them on Day 1, and in the first 6, Hero is the only one voting for Seeker. And yet you noticed pedescribe’s vote, which came only a few posts before Hero’s (on the same page), but wasn’t on any of the vote counts.
You’re right. I made the accusation about the ‘several’ comment. Looked into it further, and really found nothing. Language or not, it was a reasonable assumption. What I didn’t like about Adrian is that he just used ‘several’ without applying a condition, such as “If there are several…” or “Assuming several…”
In the end, it was my assumption that this might potentially be a scum tale that I found lacking.
