Sorry guys, catching up from the happenings of late Tuesday and all day yesterday… may take a bit, but I saw this just now so I’m going to comment on it
I agree that there is almost certainly one or more veterans amongst the scum based upon the death of Queen, that said, that’s pretty much expected based upon pure random chance, so I’m not sure that limiting yourself to veteran players.
I say this, not to discourage votes for veteran players, but simply because I think it’s more important that we find A scum, so we can start going back and seeing what kinds of clues we can dig up, versus necessarily finding the most experienced scum. So I’d encourage you, and whomever else, to vote for the scummiest player and not necessarily for the scummiest amongst those who would be most dangerous as scum.
First off, I disagree with your assessment that I’m skimming. I read every single post, and I’d think the fact that I do post a lot and respond directly to a lot of posts sort of makes it difficult qualify that. Now, what I DO do, is tend to read things once, respond to them in the moment. I don’t tend to do much rereading, unless it’s directly relevant to a point, or I’m trying to substantiate a suspicion. And, quite honestly, since I’m also involved in the off-board Batman game, I’m not paying as much attention to this game as I may otherwise (imagine that, me posting even MORE ).
Second, this is a sentiment I don’t really understand. I see people qualify skimming as a scum tell, but I don’t really get it. It’s hard to give 100% focus when one is a fair amount behind (for instance, I didn’t have a choice BUT to do a lot of skimming in the Batman game, subbing in with about 70-80 pages to read). I think skimming is more a testament to the laziness of an individual player than to his towniness or scumminess.
As for the assessments of the other players, I’ll wait until I catch up to see if I have anything to add there.
Okay, seriously, I’m not seeing the votes against Mad, the case against him seems to be more one of style than one of scumminess. The only reasonably compelling piece I’ve seen was with regard to him bringing up discussion about the detective. Is it fishing? Possibly, or it could be an attempt to spark discussion about it and see how people respond to help get some reads. It really looks more to me like this train is being pushed by scum, but I’ll have to go back and look at the votes themselves to see if I can substantiate that suspicion.
Ok, see what you are doing here is saying you were originally suspicious of Mad for behaving in a way you yourself admit was not scummy, but later you base it on something “more”. What is more? If you mentioned this more in the paragaph I am quoting I didn’t catch it. Because right now it looks to me like you are voting for Mad because you don’t know what else to do, which is fine, as long as you actually say that.
I don’t follow this sentence at all. Please rephrase.
I did, you hadn’t said anything to make me think you were anywhere near that certain that Mad was scum before your post that confused me, and which you refused to explaine. If you think you had, please post up a link. I have been wrong before.
Well, I happen to think you are proably not scum, but I don’t think you are helping town right now. You are “antagonizing players” but failing to share any usefull information, and at the same time not giving us any information about yourself.
I will be more suspicious of you if he turns up town actually.
Show me where I did this. I haven’t said anything in Mad’s defense. All I did was question your being dead certain that he is scum. Anyone being dead certain of anything this early in the game is strange. You then refused to follow it up with an explination. You do see how not expaining coments like that hurts the town more than it helps don’t you?
fluiddruid, I don’t buy your explanation. You haven’t just thought Mad had a scummy "vibe” or was “somewhat” anti-town. This is what you’ve said about MadTheSwine today (all bolding mine):
Post 470 (to MadTheSwine)
“…this is the scummiest post I’ve seen all game.”
Post 577 (to MadTheSwine)
“You suggested we all discuss the Detective stepping forward. This is frankly more scummy than saying it outwards - hedging away from an idea is scum behavior, typically, in the same way hedging away from someone you’re voting for is scummy.”
Post 580 (to Ice Cream Man)
“That said, Mad has really pinged me through the whole game and I don’t have a better option at this point. I’ve read through several times and I haven’t seen anything more voteworthy.”
Post 603 (to Sitnam, re: MadTheSwine)
“Even if he’s not, it’s becoming aggravating that he refuses to explain himself. Either play or don’t, but don’t get all huffy when you’re expected to answer why you’re advocating a position. Giving me a
when asking for an explanation is simply bullshit.”
So, after re-reading the thread several times, you’ve decided that Mad is the scummiest. Then you decided to do a review of pedescribe and come up with this summary:
Post 606 (re: pedescribe)
“Anyway, to summarize, I read him as scummy at first but I think it’s just newbie play in force.”
So, after reviewing ALL of his posts, you decide that what you thought might have been scummy was not, just newbie play. Then you ask him to explain why he has posted much less today, and he answers you (quickly). To which you respond:
Post 619 (to pedescribe)
“Uh, hmm. I find it a little peculiar that you’ve been too busy to post much for the rest of the day… but when specifically called out by me, you answered in less than 10 minutes. That to me says intentional lurkdom.”
That’s it - you change your vote. Your vote on him is based on the fact that he responded to you quickly when you specifically addressed him, which you find intentionally lurky. That is apparently enough to change your vote from Mad, on whom you made all those posts I quoted above. Seriously? That one post and its timing?
I am tempted to change my vote to fluiddruid based on this. However, this sequence is making me think that the whole Mad vs. fluid argument might have been manufactured, i.e. they are both scum. The only other motivation I can surmise for fluid to switch like that and to downplay her previous attacks on Mad is that she knows Mad is town and doesn’t want to get backlash when that is revealed, but there are plenty of other people going after Mad, so that doesn’t really ring true to me. With that in mind, I am going to stick with my Mad vote, and fluid is next in line.
Sorry I disappeared for a while. I’m back in it now.
I think I know why discussion is centering around you. As useful as it sounds to “analyze why Queen may have been killed”, there’s really not much to analyze. You pretty much laid it out in a single post a while back–they either killed her at random (unlikely), they killed her because they suspected she was a power role (quite possible), or they killed her because they thought she was onto something (I doubt it). What more is there to say? There’s not much of substance to discuss in this game, so people focus on whoever is making himself most visible.
A lot of people are bothered by the fact that there hasn’t been much posting today, but I’d like to know what exactly people should all be talking about that they haven’t been talking about. I read most of the Day’s discussion for the first time just now, and I just don’t see much to discuss.
If some random townie had been killed last night, there would be plenty to talk about.
As far as “determining motivation” goes, I could probably come up with a plausible scum motivation for every single one of you. In fact, I think I’ll start working on it, and maybe I’ll start posting them. I need to post something.
I feel like we’re all trying to squeeze a solid conclusion out of a single data point. Blaster Master, I was suspicious of you yesterday, and I remain so today, but I’m going to stick with my vote for now.
WF Tomba, I think you’ve slightly misunderstood my intentions. I laid out, what I thought, were all the possible reasons, and I expressed where I thought the highest probability was, but very few other people (I think two, maybe three) weighed in with their thoughts on it. We gain information by assigning a likelihood to scenarios, then we can start connecting the dots. I was soliciting people to tell me what they thought was most likely so that we could discuss why (possibly exposing motives behind why scum might have done it) and also started drawing conclusions.
For instance, if we decide the scum were most likely to have killed her for a read, then we can conclude they probably had a read. Based on the subtlety of the read, we can make conclusions about risk factor (they’re going for high risk/reward) and also determine that at least one scum has a fairly reasonable degree of experience. If we think it was completely random, then we can conclude they’re going for a lower risk/reward scenario.
The whole point is, if we all completely disagree one the premise of an argument, then any conclusions I draw from it will be useless.
I agree. I think there’s not a whole lot to discuss. The focus of suspicion has gone to MTS for bringing up the question of who QoT was protecting if anyone. And like many have hashed and rehashed, its irrelevant and even hurtful to discuss that. It seems like people are just talking for the sake of talking. If not QoT or Menocchio voting patterns, what else can be discuss.
Actually, that makes me realize, very little discussion has been had about the people who started Menocchio’s dogpile, because the MTS discussion has pretty much changed everyone’s focus. I think I will go through the original voting and discussion there.
Now that I think about what I’ve said the past two days, I have to admit that even if peekercpa is scum, there’s not enough of a case for it. Most of my argument relied on activity and suspicions. A lot of my argument was just my intuition, and I think its not really been strengthened today, but weakened by peekercpa’s continued fairly normal posting (although active, but there’s nothing wrong with being an active poster, I kinda forgot that)
Unvote peekercpa
I don’t have a replacement vote yet, but I will read through Yesterday’s voting and figure out what went on with Menocchio.
If I am not mistaken, we now have a 5 (Mad) - 4 (pedescribe) vote with just a couple hours to go. And Mad and fluid, who have been at each other all Day, are both voting for pedescribe. I wonder why that is?
I think it’s pretty obvious that Mad is voting for pedescribe because he doesn’t want to get lynched and pedescribe seems the most likely person to get lynched after him. Can’t speak for fluid though.
I don’t know what else I can say to convince you. What is so hard to believe about
I thought one person was scummy than another person
I received new, and in my opinion, very pertinent information
I now think the other person is more scummy
You have not addressed at any time my core argument, which is specifically that claiming lurkerdom is due to real-life factors 7 minutes after being specifically asked is a good sign that this is a lie. Do you argue with this?
Yes, and I stand by it. I think pedescribe’s later behavior was scummier, hence why I changed my vote, of course.
You’ve then cherry-picked a lot of quotes from me to make it seem that I was absolutely sure MadTheSwine was scum. Fine. But nonetheless I did say the following:
(Emphasis new in this post, of course)
So I’m really not going to play semantic games with you. To sum up:
I still think that (even though I was wrong about the details) that a modkill of MadTheSwine would have been a near-equivalent to an extra town lynch
I think MadTheSwine’s vote for me based on the above was anti-Town and an OMGUS vote, though he won’t admit it
I think MadTheSwine’s behavior has been anti-town and frankly frustrating, hence my “bullshit” comment when he mockingly changed his position to avoid explaining it (which is, frankly, bullshit)
The best evidence against MadTheSwine is his quickness to bring up the Detective exposing him/herself. I haven’t forgotten this but it is a bit ham-handed for an experienced player (as I have repeatedly explained)
Notwithstanding, I think pedescribe is a better candidate. Both could conceivably be scum, and (in my opinion, less likely) both could be town since we have limited information.
Yes. If I’m right, he’s lying. Lynch liars.
Very well. Frankly I don’t know how to respond to this other than to say that if it’s scummy to change your position based on new information, then color me scum. But it isn’t - it’s the opposite. Holding a position and contributing little to the dialogue is scummy. I’ll tell you when I think I’ve made a mistake but I don’t consider putting suspicion on Mad a mistake. If he turns up Town, then I’m sorry, since I’ve definitely been the one leaning on him toDay. Them’s the breaks of this game. You don’t learn anything as Town without people dead, and it may as well be Mad, or pedescribe, or me if the time comes. I’m sticking with my vote of pedescribe for now.
Okay, time for a vote change, I’m much more suspicious of fluiddruid at this point than I am of Koldanar/NAF. So…
Unvote KoldaNAF
Vote fluiddruid
First off, I think the point that Mad raised against her is valid. She claimed that a mod-kill was like a second lynch; this just isn’t true. A lynch carries information because there’s reasoning attached both to those who vote FOR it and those who DON’T vote for it. When someone is mod-killed, sure, we gain information about their role, but if they’re killed for not posting, we get no idea why they did what they did (if they even did anything) and, even if they’re scum, we have no way to connect them to anything. In essence, a mod-kill tends to be not much different from a random lynch, which will tend to target townies and tend to garner little information.
Second, the first point here isn’t even against Mad, it’s a defense of yourself. And I’ve already addressed why it’s a bad idea. The second point is simply wrong. The number of scum is ALWAYS relevant, it effects how they play and it effects how we should go about looking for them. And the detective talk is, most likely fairly neutral, because, seriously, would scum be so bold and would the Detective, after seeing the Doctor die, to just come out and claim? Frankly, I think it IS an OMGUS vote.
Third, NAF mentions pedescribe, and explains why he’s suspicious of him, to which you respond with:
and
So, at first, you seem to think he’s posting a lot, then you sort of adopt NAF’s accusation, after just having finished saying he WASN’T. Also, NAF specifically said he WASN’T lurking, but was under the radar; he was very careful to differentiate. But, when he comes in to explain why he wasn’t posting much, you jump all over him and vote.
You specifically make a point of taking credit for calling him out, even though it was NAF who put the initial vote, and you essentially went, in three posts, from disagreeing with NAF to taking credit for his idea.
Fourth, as ShadowFacts laid out, most of your case against Mad has been smudging by classifying his posts as scummy, but not really justifying why effectively. This strikes me as a scum driven lynch, and it also explains why you’re changing your vote, because if/when Mad comes up as town, YOU were the one who was most heavily pushing his lynch, and you’d want to distance yourself from him, and what more convenient way, than to try to qualify a vote elsewhere, where you can make it look like it was your reasoning now, but can ultimately blame on someone else (NAF) if it turns up badly.
I think you deliberately pushed a wagon against Mad because he’s pro-town (because I don’t think he can be scum along with you), experienced, and made himself an easy target.
Well, that’s what he said. I would love to hear if he actually thinks my case against pedescribe is warranted or not - if not it looks like simply dodging the noose, which while I wouldn’t say is a scum tell, townies shouldn’t worry too much if they end up dead. (I temper my opinion about this knowing that the impulse of every player is to stay alive, and nobody likes to die a relatively meaningless death.)
True, to a point, but recall that MadTheSwine had garnered votes and attention on Day 1 (as he continues to). Coupled with the absence of a corresponding night kill, I believe that a modkill in this specific case would have been Town-advantaged.
I liked this point a lot better when I made it myself, upthread.
You’re confusing the days. I only did an assessment of Day 1’s posts. He posted an awful lot on Day One, and it was relatively substantive (especially for a newbie) - a lot of suspicion was cast at different players, and he voted/unvoted several times. This didn’t jibe with NAF’s assessment of him lacking posts all game, so I said so. But, again as I’ve mentioned upthread, there was a change and I thought it was worth asking (basically I was fishing for him to post). When he posted so fast, but yet saying he was so busy - I find this suspicious enough to change my vote. His response on the topic was weak. Again, as I asked - do you think it is not so? Does nobody else think that posting about how horribly busy you are 7 minutes after being asked is really most likely to be a coincidence?!
Frankly I could give less than half a damn about who gets credit. But while it’s admittedly most important that we’re voting for the right players, it’s also extremely important that we’re voting for the right reasons. I don’t think NAF’s reasoning on his vote was good and that’s something that should be considered as the game proceeds. It’s very easy to make a statement that turns out not to be true and people quote it (heck, I did it myself Day 1 regarding Mad’s posting record). Pedescribe deserved to be defended about his accused lack of posting on day 1. That doesn’t mean he’s not scum and defending a player that something lobbed at them was untrue doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a vote based on different criteria.
It’s very difficult to enumerate in the first few days why someone is scummy. I’m doing the best I can to give specifics, though frankly it seems like most of that is being ignored.
So, if Mad is town and I’m scum - why distance myself from the kill? Doesn’t it make more sense NOT to change my vote in this case? I think it would make a lot more sense that we were both scum or something like that, but why waffle on a vote that I started? Of course I’m perfectly aware that swapping votes after pushing for a vote for one player is going to generate interest. It always does - active players always get votes, and I’m sure I’ll get votes. I don’t think I’ll even live past Day 3 (I never have, frankly). But I’m going to push as hard as I can for Town until that time, and that means pointing out the truth of the matter even if it doesn’t always support my position (as with pedescribe’s defense yet vote).
Fine, but if I show up dead I hope you’ll reconsider. Not that I think I’m a likely night-kill (there are better candidates) but still.
“Dodging the Noose” is a null tell. There’s an equal amount of self-preservation in play for both scum and town. For scum, it’s obvious, they want to live because that’s how they win. For town, even if he’s vanilla town, he KNOWS that he’s town, but the other person he doesn’t. Even if he’s 99% sure the other person is town, it’s still a good move to vote for someone else to save yourself. The only time this doesn’t apply is when the other person has made a role claim. This has not occured, so making any sort of statement that equates Mad’s vote for pedescribe as scummy, is a blatant misrepresentation.
You know, Blaster, you’re starting to ping me. Calling my post “blatant misrepresentation” even though our reasoning is nearly identical is bullshit and either you’re just trying to convince yourself that I’m the right votee or there’s something else going on. It’s not “blatant misrepresentation”. Scum will and should try harder to get off the hook than townies,and that should always be considered - but this was a pretty mild case. I specifically said that I wasn’t calling it a scum tell, but what I do think is scummy or at least anti-town is that he voted without weighing in at all. Hence, why I asked him to defend his vote, just as everyone else should. It’s the voting record that’s our most important evidence here.
).