Unfortunately, I obviously don’t have the time to follow up on my other suspicions today, but reading through, I’ve only grown more suspicious of fluiddruid…
[QUOTE=fluiddruid]
Yes, I do know it - heck, I posted it myself - but my point is, and was, that people shouldn’t be hounded to post 50 times a day! The cost to Town in trying to track what people have said is already staggering, and we don’t need to tell people to post fluff. We want people to come in, discuss who to vote for, and some strategy… but we don’t need to get bogged down in endless strategy discussions. I really don’t think they benefit Town.
Yes, in principle, ideally more posting means more information. But we’re all real people who need to process that information and actively punishing people who are medium to low (not lurking, as I specified) is self-defeating. You don’t need to be every other post to be a valid participant and, from an outside-of-the-game perspective, most players can’t keep up the furious pace of our top posters. This does not make them scum.
[/quote]
ShadowFacts was correct in labeling this a strawman. I never suggested that people post 50x a day, and I never suggested that people post fluff. In fact, I specifically stated that the concept of lynching lurkers is fundamentally flawed. I was not attacking you for lurking, I was attacking you for being self-contradictory.
What I found suspicious in this point was that you specifically posted a “I have nothing to say” post (which IS fluff, IMO) and then complain that people WANT participation from the lower posters. This entire argument is specious because more CONTENT is good, more POSTS is bad. What I do NOT want to see are a bunch of “I’m up to date, but don’t have anything to say” posts, but what I do want to see is “Here’s my thoughts…”.
IOW, what it appears to me is you’re throwing out comments that essentailly equate to “I don’t agree with the logic” under the cover of a “I don’t have anything to say”. Basically, this stinks of you wanting to have your cake and eat it too, because a post like that can be taken as fluff “oh, I didn’t really have anythign to say about the logic” or “what do you mean, I specifically stated I didn’t agree with the logic”. These sorts of vague comments are common scum strategy IME.
You specifically said “that analysis was circle jerking and burying people in volume”. Well, why don’t you back that up? If you think an argument is specious, make a case for it. You don’t have to give a point by point rebuttal. For instance, I don’t agree with the logic behind the votes for Diggit Camara, I gave my reasons, I didn’t need to do a point-by-point rebuttal.
As for my vote for Drain Bead, yes, that was a mistake on my part. As I realized after the fact, I’d mistaken some of my suspicions from the Firefly game (in which I was actively pursuing a lynch of her) with some suspicions here. However, with no real information to go on, I’m not upset with the fact that an unclaimed individual was lynched. Only under VERY specific circumstances can I ever see a no-lynch being a good idea, and these circumstances have yet to come together in any of the games I’ve played. Either way, we gain information, and information is helpful to the town.
This is precisely my point, and why I’m so suspicious of you. You slip in these comments, because it can be a “see, I thought he was town” but you don’t substantiate it. Now that you’re called on for not substantiating it, you go “oh, well I was going to do that later”. Really? When did you intend to do that? I saw no hint of intention to substantiate your assertion later.
Now, that in and of itself isn’t necessarily a scum tell, I’ll do that from time to time myself. But, what I’m seeing a preponderance of posts that lack accountability and/or can easily be taken post hoc to justify that you either supported a particular argument or had no opinion.
Oh, nice try. This is a point of timing. At the end of the day, yes, I voted for Drain Bead, but it was a choice between Diggit Camara and her, where Idle Thoughts had only just added some believability to his claim. Had I known what I know now (that I’d mixed up some of my tells), I’d probably have gone for Diggit Camara.
However, you had your vote on Diggit LONG before compelling evidence came forth to believe Idle Thoughts’ claim. You were pushing for his lynch and adding fuel to that fire while everyone else was busy trying to sort out that whole mess.
IOW, I would expect a townie to have been just as confused as the rest of us, and you weren’t. You were strangely calm about the whole thing when it was a big clusterfuck to the rest of us, and that’s why I found it suspicious.
On further reflection, it occurs to me that his “slip” doesn’t even preclude him from being a mason. It is entirely possible to be a mason and think certain other roles are, and simply not had the clarification on the matter.
That said, I am NOT a proponent of voting for people for making a mistake that can just as easily be made by a townie. Similarly, I’m not one to go “this slip COULD mean you’re scum” if it could just as reasonably have been made by town. OTOH, a vote for such a slip isn’t necessarily scummy in the absence of more compelling evidence. That is, if I were not suspicious of you now, and I were not suspicious of Idle at the time, I wouldn’t have a problem in voting for Diggit. But there was, at the time, a legitimate case against Idle, and there is a legitimate case, IMO, against you.
Odds are a good thing, and I love bringing math into mafia (as you’ve seen in most recently in Firefly), but it is not the end all, be all of tells. The thing is, however, that in the end, this is still a game of logic and reading people. We only get these numbers with which to theorize through our conversations. And that only adds so much to our total information. So if we lend credence to his slip, he eliminates a few roles making him, based solely on that, something like 80-85% as likely to be town as anyone else at random. However, IMO, he has given no other tells, which leaves his probability of being town reletively unchanged from those odds. OTOH, I have made several points against you, and at the time, Idle had several points against him, both of which I believe lend a MUCH lower probability of the individual being town.
In fact, I’m now all but convinced you’re scum, probably undead, since I think you’re on your own. So, without further ado…
Vote fluid druid
I will make an attempt to follow up on the other names I promised Tomorrow, which I should have more time for.
