Oh, one last thing and then I will stop posting in your game.
It was pointed out to the mods that we never actually explicitly mentioned Sachertorte’s alignment. We assumed you knew, but we should not assume.
Sach was a cultist and therefore a third party alignment. But his official alignment should have read (cult) after his role description.
Some people are really pedantic when it comes to details.
The dead speak! Through advertisements! That’s surely a sign of…something…?
Dammit! You’re right. And somewhere in my brain I even knew that when I posted, though I failed to recall it and was working off only toDay and didn’t review the previous vote records before posting even though they’re easy enough to find.
So, yeah. Mea culpa and such.
Sorry to miss so much time over the past few days. Valentine’s Day hell.
Zeriel, did you ever figure out why you voted for** Professor Pepperwinkle** on Day 4?
Day 4, Post 453: **Zeriel **votes for Professor P, saying he is happy with the **Professor **as a Scum candidate.
Day 4, Post 575: Day 4 ends and Pleonast is revealed as Seer.
Day 5,Post #257: After spending three hours on a spreadsheet analyzing votes, **Zeriel **finds nothing to hang his hat on, and votes for Professor P because it is a case he liked before, but he now has the **Pleonast **reveal to add to that case.
Day 5, Post# 379: Paul does a WOW on Zeriel. The report is mostly positive, but Paul asks **Zeriel **to explain his feelings about the case against Professor Pepperwinkle. Zeriel has voted for Pepperwinkle on Day 4 without giving a reason, only saying he is happy with the multilynch and the case on Professor P.
Day 5, Post #406: Zeriel responds saying he thought the original case against** Professor Pepperwinkle** for posting fluff was a “null tell” and that PP’s going after the cult was not necessarily “fully pro-Scum.” He says he decided to vote for** Professor Pepperwinkle** after the Pleonast reveal.
Day 5, Post #410: Paul is confused because Zeriel actually voted for Professor Pepperwinkle on Day 4 prior to the Pleonast reveal. This does not mesh with Zeriel’s explanation as to why he first voted for the** Professor**.
Day 5, Post #423: Zeriel says he doesn’t remember why he voted for Professor Pepperwinkle (despite 3 hours of analyzing a spreadsheet to look at the votes), but will have to go back and look.
I would like to be able to let this go, so Zeriel can you kindly explain why you voted for Professor Pepperwinkle on Day 4 when your stated reason for that vote had not occurred yet?
I’ll put my vote here while waiting for an answer.
Vote Zeriel
Biotop, your light’s on so I figured I’d ask while I’m still on a real keyboard. What’s your take on Khameleon, Texcat, Inner Stickler so far this fine Day? My case on Khameleon is outlined in post #6.
Texcat and Inner both have seemed lurkery to me, but looking at the vote counts, they’re consistently in the middle, except for D1 with Inner.
Looking at votes:
Both parked an early vote on a town on D1.
D2 Inner put the final vote on Brewha. Texcat voted crys about the same time I did.
D3 They were both on Prof
D4 They were both correctly on Boozy Squid
D5 They were both on one-offs (as was I). Texcat on town Paul. Inner on J. Bravo.
I’m not too sure I see much useful information here pointing to either of them being scum, but they are still giving me the creeps…
I think the case on **Khameleon ** is a good one. She responded to Johnny Bravo’s Day 3 case by waiting until Day 4 and claiming she wanted the response to be in the new thread. I think it is easier to believe she hoped JB’s case might be ignored/overrun by the whole **Idle **meltdown at the end of Day 3 and perhaps forgotten or buried under new events.
**TexCat **has seemingly been more concerned with third party and defense than Scum hunting after finding the supposed **Colby **slip on Day 1. The early vote against **Captain Klutz **toDay seemed overreactive, almost knee-jerk. Usually I try and identify with other posters’ feelings and thoughts in the game. If they are thinking along the lines I am thinking, then maybe their motivations are the same as mine. I don’t recall having much identification with **TexCat **this game at all.
Barring new information, I would endorse a lynch of either of the above toDay.
I don’t have an opinion on Inner Stickler one way or the other at this time, but that’s on me to try and get caught up. I’ll see if can give you a better answer tomorrow.
OK, great, so what did you make of his unvote? First he says it was other players’ meta info on Pleo that convinced him that Pleo didn’t have an investigation result - and since that was the only reason he was voting Prof.P., he needed to unvote: “If you guys, with previous experience with Pleo, are saying that Pleo probably didn’t, then that makes my vote on Prof stupid.” But if you look at the posts he quoted, no-one said what Pleo would have done, they mentioned that they personally would not have investigated Prof.P. given the suspicion around him already, so this is a crappy reason for the unvote. Then he seems convinced that the investigation did not happen and, like fake-news, declares: “If the investigation didn’t happen, as some are saying, then I’d rather move my vote to someone who leans scum in my eyes.” Who exactly said it did not happen? Why is he trusting them so much? Who convinced him that it did happen in the first place? Why did he trust them to vote against someone he thought was town? When pressured again, he forgets who he listened to but has convinced himself that [del]millions of voters were bussed into New Hampshire[/del]a convincing analysis was done to prove Pleo never got a result: " Then others (not sure who exactly, maybe hooker? But several ppl. I’m on my phone and lazy) did a more in depth analysis that I admit I didn’t do myself, and it nurtured and cultivated the doubt and unease I had for my vote." feels like scum squirming.
Yeah, that about sums it up, except for the scum part. I looked at vote records, which by itself seemed to support pleo had a scum result on prof. So I voted. And it made me squirmy because it didn’t feel right (because I still leaned town on prof otherwise). Then the next day I get caught up and there was lots of chatter about said investigation, with the general take-away being that it might/probably didn’t happen, so I changed my vote.
You might say that I was happy for any reason to doubt an investigation.
Yes! Good phrasing! I said I was creeper out, but “not having much identification with” seems to potato my feelings better. Especially with someone I’ve played with a lot.
I have responded to these points as best as I could, and fully admitted that some of them can be attributed to lacking game play on my part.
I never really said, or at least meant to imply, that I wasn’t worried about being killed at night. I was referring to one particular post in which I was trying to defend myself from a lynch. I wanted to post it in the Day thread as it entirely pertained to a Day event (lynching). If Scum had decided to Night kill me then what I had to say would have been irrelevant. And yes, I neglected to consider the Vig.
And yup, my votes were bandwagon-y, but I felt they were legitimate cases at the time. When I didn’t know enough about the suspicions being presented I didn’t vote. If you want to use voting for what ended up being a mislynch to damn me then you better apply it to a lot of others as well.
Considering the fact that your first sentence above expresses your concern about Wolves lynching the loud, do you really want to accuse me of seeming Scummy because I think that sometimes staying quiet can keep you alive?
None of these reasons are solid and I don’t see how sticking together a bunch of weak accusations results in a strong one.
Potato = portray…I was gonna edit it, but I think I like potato better.
Ok, I’m on my phone and at the bar, I apologize for crazy autoincorrections and fucked up tags that I might have to (and will, if need be) edit.
First off, thank you for at least responding. Now, on to business…
I of course understand that life can get in the way of game. Especially this yuuuge. But can you see that your level of participation is indistinguishable from active lurking?
I see this as plausible…
While totally agree irl, I won’t vote if I don’t know the issues. However in this game, if you felt that way, why not just vote no lynch? SKipping a vote seems like you are trying to avoid scrutiny. And if you were completely/mostly absent, then I might believe that you forgot or were too busy irl.
You have never been in danger of being accused as one of the loud ones (in this game anyway) for my comment to be a worrisome issue for you. Plus, I don’t think town should censor themselves in fear of scum reprisal. Thats what scum wants.
I wouldn’t call them weak necessarily. But certainly they DO add up. A single twig is weak, but a bunch form a mighty faggot!
Your best defense so far is plausible on one point, but not convincing, especially in light of all the other points.
I forgot to address this point. I certainly factor in mislynches in all my cases. See my mini analysis of inner and texcat above.
I’ll admit to not being up on TexCat (or really anything from Days 1-3 that I wasn’t directly involved in). Could you post some links to anything that might summarize the case?
I see SNF replied after this post I’m quoting, so I’ll get to that next. I’ll admit at this point my eyes were glazing a bit, but I read this as a straight up meta post, which is null for me, as long as the person using meta isn’t telling all of us to use the meta, too.
I will re-read though.
I’m reading up other peoples WOWs on current players today - if I get to it today, I’ll post links to all I can find on active players.
I summed them up in post 53. Plumpudding did a couple of WOW’s where, if I recall correctly, he said I was really boring and I had said nothing of any interest and that was suspicious.
So, here’s my game so far.
Somewhere in there I’ve halfway given up on the game. It seems like it’s just too big to get a handle on, and that makes it easy for people to grab hold of a simple statement like Brewha “lied” and run with it. Or like Inner Stickler just did: JohnnyB talked about lynching LUTHA; he must be scum. And what’s worse, we’re letting them get away with it.
All this to say, that if you can’t identify with me, then good on you. Because I’m feeling a little bit hopeless this game.
I did a full reread of Inner Stickler because this is the second day in a row he’s put a crap vote on me.
D/N One (3 posts)
257: Votes lakai1.0 for a bandwagony vote on Colby11. Apologizes for being on vacation.
1414: Apologizes for not reading the thread, asks Pleo about multivoting.
1422: Another reference to being on vacation.
**D/N One analysis: **No contribution. Lurking, but he did say that he was on vacation (relatively) early in the thread.
D/N Two (27 posts)
109: More about Pleo. Reiterates that he did not like the Colby train. Says he always thinks Texcat is scummy. Wonders if Angel and Boozy are on the same scum team.
114: Asks for some clarification from Plumpudding.
125: Responses to Pleonast and Boozy. Some strategy talk.
130/134/136/138/142/166: Strategy talk.
219: Nuthin’
225/251: Brewha switch stuff.
302: Rules stuff.
550: Lynch strategy.
551: Question to Sunny Daze about a supposed CapKlutz slip.
1033: Vote for Brewha.
1163/1167: Vig strategy talk.
1303: Says he voted for brewha because he saw a “seemingly unmotivated” surge of votes for ToeJam.
1305: Link to EoD for Day 2.
1309/1312: Strategy.
1337: Switch stuff
1339/1345/1361: Irritation at Meeko for claiming VT.
D/N Two Analysis: Plenty of posts, but very little actual scumhunting. A lot of strategy talk. Some of it was meta, some of it was specific to our game.
I also notice that Idle edits his posts a lot. I have a feeling he will be unapologetic about it, but this is a scum tell in my book.
D/N Three (15 posts)
5: Comment on Dread Bead’s potential lean towards Prof. P.
347: Votes Prof. P. First comment about leaving 3P alone if they’re non-hostile.
353: More defense of 3P. Says that one should only advocate a lynch of sach or crys if “you 100% believe [they] are scum masquerading as third party.”
356/362: Inner Stickler does not like lean lists.
370: Doesn’t consider the cult cleared, but doesn’t want to pay attention to them right now. **Says he might be more amenable to seeing if sach is lying by killing him (that was my plan, remember) once we’ve eliminated a few scum. **
373: Would wager good money that a number of the lurkers are townies.
381: Is willing to wait and see if scum kill ToeJam (who has claimed Doc) by day 5.
504: After a sachertorte prod, needs to re-evaluate ToeJam because this isn’t a regular game. Perhaps the scum don’t care about killing the doc.
546/550/562/598: IdleGate stuff (IdleGate participation is a null tell)
1117/1119: Meta stuff.
**D/N Three Analysis: **Still not much scum-hunting, but more substantive posts than D/N2. Came out of the gate defending the cultists. I do not like him saying that the cultists should only be voted for if there is a 100% belief that they’re scum. Nobody in this game can have 100% belief that somebody is scum except scum. Not even investigative roles since we have a Patsy.
D/N Four (13 posts)
4: Strategy.
8: Repost of snfaulkner’s Day 3 votecount list.
10: Player list.
14: Notes that all of the Day 1 wagons were townies.
122/127/134: Thinks ProfP is being “super-scummy” for using meta-reasoning about who to look.
151: Update of Guiri’s vote counts.
155: Asks ProP about people who have made cases against Khameleon.
253: Strategy.
346: Votes for Boozy, claiming a scummy vibe for being “vaugue, smudgey, and wishy-washy.” Reiterates distate for ProfP.
657: Congratulates self for voting Boozy. Warns about going into the next Day with ProfP as the presumptive lynchee.
**D/N Four Analysis: **The vote for Boozy is kind of out of left field, but I’m not really getting a scummy vibe off of it. The rest of the day is fairly lackluster.
D/N Five (6 posts)
[spoiler]This is an easy one!
10: Congratulatory post for the previous night. Query about the vig switch.
314: Vote for Johnny Bravo. No reason given.
324: Response to Johnny Bravo poking for more detail. Says the vote is for “arguing incredibly vociferously for lynching claimed 3rd party players when that doesn’t look like it’s in town’s best interests.” Gives a ‘sorry not sorry’ for the lazy vote.
361: Now finds Johnny Bravo “incredibly scummy,” but says there is no reason to look through the rest of JB’s voting history.
365: Says the cultists have probably been handshaking with one another.
535: Asks Johnny Bravo why he thinks he’s a likely target for getting killed. (ed note: I did not answer because we were neither in day or night and, besides that, it was a bloody Futurama joke).[/spoiler]
**D/N Five analysis: **This is a really bad day for Inner Stickler, and not just for the low post count. He voted for me without any justification, then misrepresented my argument with sachertorte, and then said that he had no reason to read my posting history because he’d already found one scummy thing. This entire day is nothing but a series of pings.
Final analysis in next post.