:Tips hat:: See you over in the Forbidden Thread.
[Had to set this post aside mid-composition and finish it later, so apologies if these points are already made by others]
Exactly the issue I was wrestling with. There were much less showy ways to take the heat off of either JSexton or TexCat, and I don’t think anyone could have predicted the septimus lynch gaining the kind of traction it did.
If we’re entertaining the idea that scum colluded to spare JSexton by piling on septimus, it’s not much more of a stretch to imagine scum making a then-safe vote for Sexton knowing they could switch to TexCat if shit got too real. Cygnus’ reasons were vague, but at least he had them. Pepperwinkle basically rubber-stamped Bayard’s vote.
This is the part that I have a hard time embracing — maybe just because I want to at least be able to pull some valid evidence out of that disaster. If we killed our Guardian because we all collectively lost our heads, that’s a) depressing, and b) ultimately not very revealing.
If Bayard managed to pinch a Wolf AND the Alpha on his only two tries, that’s pretty incredible. But it’s the only explanation for the septimus play that makes sense to me, apart from the town-on-town bloodbath described above.
Good enough place to start. We’ve got a lot of time until Monday.
I agree with this. There could have been a possibility of sussing out a little bit more information out of this, but good work Bayard! Are we finally gonna see red?
Evil twin scumBayard have no motivation for claiming this early. There is no pressure on him and there’s a whole day of discussion where a counter may turn up.
I’ve been wary of **Precambrianmollusc **the whole game, and I continue to be.
But I’m gonna go ahead and change my vote.
[COLOR=“Blue”]Vote JSexton
Some thoughts on TexCat:
I’m still unsure about her. She might be the alpha, which would explain her tight-lippedness early Day One and the **Septimus **wagon. Remember, **Septimus **became a target after his self-vote ploy and he didn’t do the greatest job of explaining himself. TexCat rolled underneath the self-voting business, then hurriedly voted Septimus and pointed at Johnny Bravo and “Septimus’s first reaction to the scheme was to work out how scum could overcome it” as reasons for the vote.
But I need to go back and read, read, read. I’ll try to be as active as possible toDay, hopefully I’ll have time. Arrivederci.
On further thinking, I guess this more or less cements Bayard’s claim. I think such a sure claim would be harder further into the day. Claiming a bit later could have opened up possibilities for saving Bayard from being NK’d, though, but that would have been a difficult gambit to pull off.
How do you figure?
ToMorrow perhaps we should implement Biotop’s plan from Day One, if the tiebreaker mechanism still works to Town’s advantage. Thing Fish suggested (124) that we use the mechanism once the roles have been mostly revealed, which is now. I also note that 'Mollusc was immediately adverse to it (99), as was JSexton.
[QUOTE=Prof. Pepperwinkle]
ToMorrow perhaps we should implement Biotop’s plan from Day One, if the tiebreaker mechanism still works to Town’s advantage. Thing Fish suggested (124) that we use the mechanism once the roles have been mostly revealed, which is now. I also note that 'Mollusc was immediately adverse to it (99), as was JSexton.
[/QUOTE]
Well, remember this:
?
Okay, I see. To me that looks as if it would not make sense for Town to use the tie-breaking mechanism as it stands, but I’m not sure if I missed something, OR if the plan could be altered so that it works for us again.
I thought we were past this. The tie-breaking mechanism is no longer transparent. There’s no way to interpret a tie with certainty anymore. In fact, given that there’s a chance a tie would be resolved randomly, it seems sensible to avoid them.
Go town!
I think this is bad and potentially scummy thinking.
I am somewhat torn between the fact that it is just very unlikely statistically that Bayard could have happened to investigate the Alpha Wolf and the fact that, as you say, assuming that makes a “coherent narrative” out of an otherwise bizarre series of events. I think that in general, humans tend to err on the side of making coherent narratives out of what may actually just be shit happening.
But either way, there is no way in hell we should lynch TexCat toMorrow. We can only afford two more mislynches before we lose. If we blow one of them, I will reconsider the possibility of voting for** TexCat.**. But before we are at lynch or lose, we shouldn’t lynch her because if we don’t, we have at least a chance of lynching the Alpha Wolf and confirming her.
This seems like it could be an effort to lead town down a bad road.
Also, in the voting analysis, he seems to think that it is unlikely that the scum weren’t actively intervening in the TexCat/Septimus vote because, if so, “almost all” the* four* scum other than** JSexton** would have been in the “relatively small number of spots” represented by the nine living players of unknown alignment who weren’t voting for** JSexton** when he was tied for the lead on Day One. That doesn’t seem to add up. He would say that it is seven, rather than nine, because he is assuming for the sake of argument that Sario and Diggit are town, since scum wading into the fray at that point would have likely voted for TexCat if she is town. I don’t think we can assume that, but even four out of seven isn’t “almost all”. It certainly doesn’t seem implausible to me that four of the scum could be in that group, or that scum Cygnus and/or Pepperwinkle might have parked early votes on their colleague.
For such a careful-seeming analysis, it’s odd that he didn’t bother to do the basic arithmetic required to figure out how many people weren’t voting at that point (four, including Dante and three unknowns). Maybe because this would undercut his point and not support the idea of a premature TexCat lynch?
It could be. It makes sense. I have another possible scenario which assumes **TexCat **is town. I’m not saying I think it’s what happened, but it seems to make at least as much sense to me.
Maybe Diggit and Sario are both Town, or maybe just one of them is scum, probably Sario. Diggit cast the third vote on septimus, and Sario (if scum) decided to confuse the situation by creating a three-way tie rather than piling on TexCat; plenty of time to switch later if necessary. Then Dante moved septimus into the lead, and suddenly scum had a golden opportunity.
Now we should be looking at **Chitwood **and Pepperwinkle, who at this point jumped on TexCat to move JSexton into third and pretty much end any threat to him. It seems unlikely that Pepperwinkle is scum, since he put the fourth vote on JSexton,, but certainly not impossible. Both these players were also involved in last-minute fireworks that made the whole vote look very suspicious and have kept us talking about TexCat ever since; if TexCat is town, there is clearly a scum motivation for that.
A point of view that one confirmed town came around to ( Septimus) , although he seams to have gotten lynched for it ( remember the whole ‘septimus is helping scum by pointing out flaws in the plan’ reasoning behind his lynch)
Because J sexton was against the plan is neither here nor there, he may well have seen the problems for town and was being a helpful townie, or indeed saw initial problems for scum with it, I suppose we could ask him, but asking an admitted scum is unlikely to help anyone. It is interesting though that he said
That’s enough of that. I’d rather go out gracefully.vote jsexton
That’s enough of what? Sounds like a coded message to his fellow scum to shut up for the rest of the day.
Day one often has a lot of discussion about game mechanics, the tie breaker was a good start, Chronos had an idea of how it could have worked , I countered with some risks, my logic may be flawed, but better to discuss than sit silent, and there was a long conversation involving quite a few different players on the pros and cons and dreaming up various scenarios. All good stuff, some well thought through , some not so much.
What that did produce is some people attacking each other, and a common scum technique is to label ideas as bad ideas, and then transfer that label to scum ideas. Which is pretty much what DiggitCamera is doing. Diggit Camera is also a voter who piled onto Septimus to possibly drag heat off of JSexton.
Looking back at the voting, we see Bayard and Prof pepperwinkle voted to bring Jsexton to 4 – it would seem unlikely that they did that to put a fellow wolf tied for a lynch. We know Mahaloth is town, doesn’t tell us much about Cygnus.
Why would scum pile onto septimus rather than Texcat who was in the lead – could be Texcat is the alpha, although why tie septimus, that still leaves their alpha at risk, would it be better to pile onto JSexton and get some potential bussing credit and save the Alpha? It also could be that both are town and scum knew that a direct pile onto Texcat would be obvious , and even more obvious if JSexton were ever outed down the line. Piling on Septimus to get to a tie of two people they know to be town ( if TC is town) gets the heat off JSexton and leaves a confusing mess for us to sort out, and it is possible scum wanted a tie anyway ( I don’t think Story had clarified the tiebreak rule at that point).
Anyway , I’ll be voting for Diggit tomorrow
Vote JSexton
Although given his certain lynch, I am half tempted to vote for Diggit now, it won’t change the outcome of today , but happy to put my vote where my mouth is.
“Careful-seeming” is a weird accusation. Can you maybe be more precise about what it is you think I’m doing and should not be doing?
Is the charge here that I’m trying to drum up support to lynch TexCat tomorrow (I’m not), or is it something else? If it’s something else, what is it, exactly; that I didn’t do the math? I am guilty of not doing the math. I didn’t know, while typing that paragraph, how many players there were at the time. That’s why I said “I don’t know how many.”
In the first place, that isn’t at all what I said, which isn’t surprising since Biotop didn’t propose his plan until post 325, which to refresh everyone’s memory said:
And on day one, maybe. But now, no.
We are currently at 10-5 town.
ToDay we lynch JSexton and they kill Bayard: 9-4
ToMorrow we try this plan. Rover switches his vote at the last minute and kills a townie. After Nightkill, 7-4.
The next Day we lynch Rover and they kill someone. 6-3.
The next Day we try the plan again and**** Fido**** jumps offside. 4-3.
The next Day we lynch Fido, rinse and repeat. 3-2.
And now we can’t risk it again, because one more mislynch screws us. Essentially this lets them trade three of us for one of them indefinitely, and we can’t afford that.
It seemed to me that you put some time and careful effort into that analysis, so it struck me as weird that you didn’t bother to do that trivially simple step to round it out.
And you said that
Doesn’t that suggest that you would currently regard** TexCat** as the top candidate for tomorrow, which as I explained is a bad idea? Of course, if you’re Town you are open to new information, and would be prepared to either renounce that idea or explain where my reasoning is mistaken. But if, hypothetically, you were trying to support this idea precisely because it was bad for Town, that would also explain the curious omission in the vote analysis. Not accusing you at this point, just making observations.
You may have also made the observation that there was a first half to that paragraph, where I literally exactly asked everyone else to check my thinking and give me some new information, since I was out of time to write Mafia posts.
Which makes your observation-in-the-form-of-a-questions about “curious omissions” that I fucking explicitly pointed out a little grating, since we’re just making observations.
This scenario also fits with the fact that JSexton praised my analysis of Day One, which (if this scenario is right, falsely) concluded that scum were probably overrepresented among the septimus**** voters.
Sorry to grate, Jimmy, but the fact that you pointed out that you might be wrong doesn’t mean that your post shouldn’t be examined critically.
It’s a fact that does rather bear on the accusation that I was trying to sneak it by the rest of the town, however.