Crikey, I hadn’t even noticed the votes were so spread out.
TIES ARE BAD!
But this response doesn’t encourage me in any way to put my vote elsewhere. You’ve even admitted you slipped when you said wolves!!!
And between peek and Hero I was having more trouble parsing what Hero was rabbiting on about till he eventually explained himself.
Put your toys back in the pram boys.
At least I explained myself. Peeker still seems to be voting on me because he thinks I have a vendetta against him for asking him to do the same.
Peeker, I defended you earlier this game. I have not voted on you. I did wonder why you didn’t actually vote for Oredigger, and you turned around and started tossing insults my way. You apparently have no reason for voting me other than a) misunderstanding or b) serious OMGUS.
Please re-read today’s events.
–
Personally I’m still suspicious of Ichini. Seeker was suspicious, and Ichini didn’t do any real work yesterday. She dropped an OMGUS vote than skittered off, and hasn’t even posted today. It seems to be the trend to drop out when one is taking heat.
I was waiting for her to actually post to this thread to see if she had anything new to say. However, I think three days is enough time. And as AH pointed out, the five way tie is crazy.
Vote Ichini Sanshigo.
Yes, ‘scum wouldn’t do that’ applies, but it isn’t black and white:
-
Pleonast created a tie between two non werewolves, picking straggler because he found him more suspicious. So his tie was pretty save with both players looking suspicious. And when kitten would turn up town, his tie can’t be explained as trying to save scum. Assumptions are that wolves knew each other and they didn’t know kitten was part of a not-town faction.
Little risk (you mentioned this as well) with the gain of a tie between non-wolves. -
I created a tie between two Cabalists and a very likely not Cabal player.
That is much higher risk as Cabal trying to save fellow Cabalists, but the gain seems greater, so you say scum would do that. While I agree that scum can’t just sit back and win, they also only need to control the vote to win (equal numbers to the rest). So with two of them tied, would it really worth for a third to risk his neck voting like I did?
Yes, you can see the point like that: it reduces the danger with the argument ‘it probably wouldn’t work anyway’, but also makes it less likely to save a fellow Cabalist, so why risk it at all?
Lurking might be useful advice normally, but I disagree that it was good advice for kitten, especially not with the votes he got both Days.
Why I voted Sitnam, was not because I thought straggler and kitten were town or wanted to save them, but because I thought Sitnam was a more likely scum trying to fly below the radar. With the possibility of scum Day talking and thus newbie scum players able to get advice, I found the others more likely to be newbie town. The latter was wrong, so I now think the first assumption is as well.
Recap why I voted Sitnam Day One:
-Sitnam placed a random vote to spur discussion and was about as effective as peekers Today: not much, except make me wonder why would you think random vote or vote/unvote helps discussion?
-Sitnam next vote was for peeker for posting like he does, but peeker had also some lucid posts Day One (compared to not so much Today imo).
-When Almost Human pointed out that vote and mentioned much better things discussed, he reduced it to just the post that started those discussions.
This now seems more his style to me, as made some more snippy comments like that.
Nanook voted Sitnam for not trusting out-of-game messages, I stayed clear of that, because I didn’t want to get into a discussion about that. So that was a null tell for me.
Almost Human also voted him because he posted a suspicion list like straggler, with the obvious difference that he posted why he suspected them. That was for me a reason to not revote him Day Two. I guess AH came to the same conclusion Today after reading this response by Sitnam.
Day Two, Mr. Svinlesha did spark another thought against him, that Pleonast signaled him to post more, which fitted my conclusion Sitnam is probably not Cabal, but could still be wolf. As said, scum Day talk might be out, but it is kind stretchy argument, in that you could probably explain a lot of statements in such a way.
So I can agree with Almost Human not voting him as well, though I would first reread before voting.
Brought to your attention? Do you mean you weren’t paying attention when you made the comment in your post summary of Hero?
This really gives me the feeling you just posted the ‘random player post summary’ to be seen posting something.
The rest of the quoted post is not unbelievable, but still you first make the post analysis with comments about interesting things that end up nothing. Why they are nothing, I have to drag out.
And than you post the following:
To me it seems that is what you are doing: seeing things, not sharing what you think that could imply about the players involved and ending with ‘it was simple observation’.
Vote special ed
And yes, I know that spreads out the vote even more, at least I didn’t make a six way tie :rolleyes:. But I find him behaving the most scummiest.
He voted kitten first Day One (some not-Cabal points) and as very last Day Two (null tell imo), so that doesn’t help build a case.
I do not find most other cases Today more convincing:
Almost Human - similar case as against me: Cabal voting to save Cabal. Her Sitnam (un)vote reasons I find credible, voting MentalGuy for the wolves/Day talk slip not so much.
The case against Ichini is based mostly on Seekers vote and now lurking. He is on my list to look at for a for not voting in the tie Day One, both Seeker (got banned) and Ichini (only in the game after Dusk) couldn’t do much about it. So I’ll need to re-read Day Two of him.
On lurkers, reading the rules: Batman Jenkems won’t be replaced anymore and might get mod killed at Dusk. paulwhoisaghost hasn’t posted Today and not much Yesterday either.
peekers vote for Hero is an OMGUS one in my opinion.
Short post for peeker, this quote is closest you came to writing down a real suspicion:
So what are the reason you are suspicious of Oredigger or thought he needed your (ineffective poke)?
Or do I need to read that as the unvote was to make clear it was just a poke and for the real vote you had already decide on Hero?
Do you have other reasons to suspect him other than him pointing out your weak poke vote?
Did you not see the ‘again’?
Yes, it had my attention when I posted it, then other things got my attention. Then you brought it back to my attention, and as I have time now, I thought I’d look at it.
I did share my ideas, maybe they weren’t earth shatteringly brilliant or even mildly useful, but they were shared. If I said something was interesting, that meant I found it interesting. Notice I didn’t say ‘scummy’ or ‘suspicious’ or ‘funny’ or ‘hypnotic’ or ‘icteric’ or any other adjective. I used ‘interesting’. If you read more into than I intended, that’s not my fault.
This may not completely follow my original reason for reviewing these posts, and my less than sincere apologies to Natlaw if everything I say isn’t of the utmost importance or if I find things interesting that aren’t useful. 
In looking at the events that occurred after post 221, where **Hero **reposted the rules about potential Scum talk during the Day:
Most of the conversation immediately after that dealt with straggler’s suggestion that we wait until the final 24 hours of the Day to vote and then not change our votes no matter what. Many people, myself included, chimed in as to why this was a very anti-town idea. In fact, this suggestion and straggler’s defense of it is what started suspicion against him.
At 229, Almost vote for mental guy. Her reason being that he’s assuming Day talkig Scum and the fact that it’s already been discussed.
Post 230 is **Almost **discussing with straggler comments about his idea and other things.
Post 231 is **Adrian **voting for **Almost **with the reason: “Therefore I’m voting for the last to pile on:”
IOn 232, Bill chimes in with a vote for straggler. Her’s a snippet:
What I’m wondering is, since **straggler **brought up the wolves first, Did the Cabal somehow know of the existence of wolves? Or was it just a newbie error and a coincidence? Note to Natlaw: I’m only bringing up thoughts, I’m not making accusations.
Post 235, **rexnervous **brings up the thought that **Adrian **seems to be defending mental guy
Post 238, **Adrian **responds, saying that he wasn’t defending mental guy as much as attack the reasoning for attacking mental guy.
Post 240. **rex **responds with the idea that the suspicion on mental guy is for PIS about Scum Day talk and not for bringing up wolves.
Post 241 by ok11 says this:
I think he assumes the color would let us in on the type of Scum. For me, I wouldn’t be sure until we had a dead Scum.
In this post, ok11, also asks **Hero **about post 221, "This doesn’t actually say what he thinks the rule change implies. So Hero, what were you trying to say in that post? "
Post 248, **Adrian **defends mental guy’s assumption of Scum Day talk again.
Post 249, Hero responds to post 241 with:
Post 250, **Almost **chastises **Adrian **for faulty logic.
Post 255, Mental guy responds with a vote of **Almost **and a snuggle of ok11. He also makes the comment, “I realize that this makes it look like [Undecided] Adrian and I are working together” I’m hesitant to say this is interesting or will cause trouble for him later, for fear of reprisals from Natlaw…but, well…it did cause trouble for him
Post 256, **ok11 **criticizes **Hero **for post 221, stating that **ok11 **doesn’t like these types of posts because they don’t commit to anything, and a Scum can come back and say whatever they wnt them to mean later. I don’t get this, since it was just a copy/paste of the rules that were being discussed actively.
In this post, **ok11 **also quote **Hero **questioning Pleo’s 7 mislynch theory. *I think **ok11 *missed the point that Hero was questioning it and not espousing it.
However, in post 258, Hero seems to defend the thought that there could be 7 mislynches with 3 Scum and a 3rd party. I’m finding that a stretch unless it’s some odd serial killer who can’t kill Scum
OK, I’ve got to get my son to tennis practice and then go look at a house. I might come back to this later. Feel free to comment on it. And please do excuse my sarcasm, I mean it in only the friendliest of ways.
What I meant is, Hero wasn’t referring to Pleo’s tendancy to die early, so what was he referring to?
Night one scum died. Usually scum don’t die during nights. I imagined Pleo read the kill report and had a delightful expression of dismay on his face, one I would have liked to have seen.
Bad form to gloat, maybe.
Ok, crud. Apparently I am being mis interpreted. That’s ok, however. I get accused of this every game and apparently need to change or just take it. I fully intended to vote for digger. If there was confusion my apologies are again extended. Having played in and watched a numer of games his current behavior did not seem consistent. Hence the prod and then subsequent unvote.
I’ve got my vote on hero because of what I am going to call the pleo syndrome. I am unsure where my logic breaks down that causes folks to question me, not on their content but rather their style. Back in a second.
And for right now my vote stands. Residual Borda - fuck you very much Pede.
If it is true that BJ is potentially mod kill fodder I would strongly suggest that we talk about those implications.
And, gosh drat, just when I think I have a semi feeling. Holy crud. If you have a real good town alingned killer or an opposing faction he would be just the soul you want to take a whack at.
Referencing an undefined syndrome is logic? This is the fourth “reason” you’ve claimed for parking your vote on me. You didn’t substantiate any of the previous ones and simply moved on when no-one took the bait.
Now Ped stopped by and put out his argument from yesterday and suddenly you run with that…
Apologies for the low post count, RL is a little demanding at the moment - end of financial year.
Ed raises an interesting point in Post 729, did the Cabal know about the Wolves to start with, hence Straggler’s comment wasn’t innocent, and he could have been doggie baiting to see if any wolves would bite.
That’s the crux of it, do we believe it was an honest mistake.
The voting is all over the place, and I pretty much agree with the latter half of Nat’s 726 post
Nothing is particularly leaping out at me, so for the moment, I’m going to leave my vote on MG.
Vote MentalGuy
peekercpa still annoys me, but I’m starting to get from her very much the same vibe that I got when voting for willthekittensurvive?. peekercpa is a much more experienced player but her multitude of posts consist of fragment thoughts, cryptic ‘peekerspeek’ and a serious lack of rock solid support for her votes which convinces me for now it’s all just a much more elaborate attempt at hiding in plain site.
vote peekercpa
We do not have votes yet from Ichini Sanshigo, pedescribe, Mr. Svinlesha, special ed, paulwhoisaghost, or Batman Jenkems (who has withdrawn). I would like to see these before the end of the day in case I need to switch my vote.
Crap. When’s the end of the day?
Well, the end of the Day is Thursday at 4 EDT. I meant I would like to see votes by the end of the real-life day, just to give time for people to see everyone’s vote and switch if they feel it necessary. Obviously, this is just a request from me. If you want to place your vote at 3:58 tomorrow, I can’t stop you.