Sorry to hear that fubbleskag, thanks for letting us know.
Over the course of a long game, it’s unrealistic to expect everyone to be active all the time. However, with Mahaloth and KellyCriterion showing no evidence of wanting to play, and Visorslash’s sad news, I’m wondering if we have enough active players to make the game worth continuing with.
Full disclosure - I sounded out storyteller overnight about the possibility of finding a sub for myself. I am prepared to keep playing for the rest of the Day, but only if we have enough participants.
Here’s how things stood at post 403:
It’s tight, with three contenders for top spot (TexCat having only just bumped Inner into the lead). I’m going to look strictly at the effect of people’s votes now, not their justifications.
What happens next:
Inner votes TexCat:
SP votes TexCat.
Inner obviously had a self-defence motive. SP’s vote has the effect of making TexCat leader. Potentially saving Inner.
Ender votes TexCat
(Babale votes TexCat, but misformats)
Alka votes TexCat.
Hal unvotes Inner, votes gnarlycharlie.
Babale correctly votes TexCat.
The effect of these votes is to pretty much put the nail in TexCat’s coffin, giving her a five vote lead.
Then TexCat votes her suspicions, and Tengu votes MHaye - a late throwaway vote which has no effect on the result.
The pileup of votes on TexCat is suggestive of scum activity, especially as we know that of the first three voters on her, visorslash was definitely Town and Mosier (IMO) probably is.
Looking now at people’s justifications, I note that:
Ender’s case against TexCat has 6 arguments, only one of which has any bearing on whether she was likely to be Scum. It’s a weak case that’s been made to look bigger than it is.
Both Alka and SP say they’re pretty suspicious of Inner, but swung for TexCat. Aside from apologising about making a decision, it’s a rotten bit of luck that they both fell off the fence on the same side.
Babale’s case is almost non-existent. The only reason given is TexCat’s self-defence - which was clearly the right thing for her to do in the circumstances.
This all smacks of scum ensuring a Town lynch to defend their own. So in order to kick things off a bit:
vote Inner Stickler
vote Enderw24
vote Babale
Finally
vote gnarlylcharlie
both for the PM discrepancy (only his refers to a loss of power) and for the smudge of “I wonder why TexCat hasn’t claimed, it’s the Town thing to do”. Especially given he admitted it would have meant nothing if she had.
Very interested to hear people’s thoughts on this.
The cases on Snickers.
(NB: I said I would do this. It’s a bit late, but better late than never, right?)
Gnarlycharlie votes Snickers in [post]=15230222]post 324[/post], fundamentally for discouraging alignment investigators from acting on Night 1.
Enderw24 votes in [post=15230487]post 330[/post] for the same reason as his D1 vote found in [post=15202128]post 140[/post], which was because he claimed Snickers was trying to get us to hold off on investigations and that pinged him.
MentalGuy votes in [post=15231834]post 340[/post]. He votes because he accuses Snickers of trying to defend against a case by misdirection rather than refutation.
In order to properly judge these votes I need to review Snickers’ posting history, at least up to the point where these votes are placed…
Her early posts were dominated by the theme of the investigators and how she believes they shouldn’t all act on Night 1. Out of 26 posts in Day 1, she talked about the investigators and why they should not investigate in 16; [post=15191984]63[/post], [post=15192187]65[/post], [post=15193823]82[/post], [post=15193827]83[/post], [post=15193843]84[/post], [post=15193872]88[/post], [post=15193883]90[/post], [post=15194713]105[/post], [post=15205261]157[/post], [post=15205281]158[/post], [post=15205422]160[/post]. [post=15205515]163[/post], [post=15206978]176[/post], [post=15206996]177[/post], [post=15207024]179[/post] and [post=15210212]207[/post].
She made another ten posts that Day; [post=15192328]68[/post], [post=15191940]61[/post], [post=15207151]182[/post], [post=15208920]195[/post] [post]=15210435]211[/post], [post]=15213384]232[/post], [post=15216494]247[/post], [post=15216607]248[/post], [post=15218406]263[/post], [post=15218508]266[/post].
That looks to me like someone who raised a viewpoint that drew some critical responses, which she attempted to rebut. Raising a somewhat unorthodox opinion then defending it from responses isn’t necessarily suspicious; indeed, I rather felt that the defence Snickers put up was further than most Brotherhood members would be likely to go, and gives me a slight Town lean on her from Day 1. However, she did not start to diversify until quite late in the Day, so I can see where the opinion that power use was all she was talking about came from.
MentalGuy’s vote in [post=15231834]post 340[/post] was based on his D1 vote, which you can find in [post=15215792]post 239[/post]. It’s based on Snickers’ response to Stanislaus’s case against her. The case (complete with vote) is found in [post=15212368]post 226[/post]. I don’t agree with Stanislaus’s saying \Snickers wqas rying to be uncontroversial; her topic was inherently controversial.
Nevertheless, the criticism that Snickers failed to refer to the meat of Stanislaus’s case, referring only to the paranthetical not about her vote being the third on Hal, is well-grounded.
In summary, while I don’t agree with the votes, I can agree that one wsa validly grounded and the others would have had some justification on Day 1.
As you can see, much earlier, I looked at the three people who either pinged me or seemed to be pinged by others. At that time, the three were you, Mosier, and TexCat. I voted for Mosier because, as I later revealed, I wanted to pressure him so as to see if his story would hold, and what others would say. When that pressure vote had served its purpose, I moved to TexCat. You were the other person I mentioned, but as I said I didn’t suspect you at the time. So I went back to my real suspicion, namely, TexCat.
I’m not convinced the PM differences are necessarily indicative of one of the two claimed investigators being Brotherhood, as it could be Storyteller varying things to stop this sort of discussion. Assuming it is significant, to my mind it could be fubbleskag just as easily as gnarlycharlie that is Brotherhood.
Also, it’s only worth a person claiming if they will reveal more than Storyteller does on death - namely, the results of a power use. In Texcat’s position her claim (when it came) told us nothing that couldn’t wait for the death reveal.
I usually hate when people quote an entire long text, but I can’t pick just a single thing to comment on, since it’s more about the general tone than specific points.
I don’t think a late-day pileup on the vote leader necessarily indicates scumminess. Isn’t that normally how votes go?
Of the four votes you cast, the only one who even kind of pinged me is Babale. Probably because he’s the only one who called me out, and on what I consider an extremely shaky premise. First, it was “I think you’re scummy and here’s why,” which turned into “I didn’t really think you were scummy, I just wanted to pressure you to see how other people would react,” after the argument failed to get any traction. It reeks of “of course that’s what I meant all along!” to me.
Part of my problem this game is that I can’t get good reads on ANYONE, partly due to lack of participation from a few people. I actually think that’s what Babale’s problem with me yesterday was, too. He was fishing. I feel like that’s all I’m doing too, which is why I’m hesitant to put a vote on him. We need more reveals, especially best-case-scenario of an investigator finding a scum, before we can start making real progress.
On the investigator claims:
Regardless of whether gnarlycharlie’s claim is fake or not, his decision to target Stanislaus was made during the Night cycle. Early in the Day, he reverses his previous position to vote Snickers, a player Stanislaus was showing suspicion of. In contrast, fubbleskag doesn’t buddy up to Stanislaus until just before he claims.
I wouldn’t have investigated Stanislaus myself, for the following reasons:
Playing the game differently from how I would is not a reliable indicator of scummyness. However, much like the Mosier claim, it doesn’t give me any confidence that they are town.
“The brotherhood of the rose” could have come from the scum role PMs or the investigators’ role PMs, I see no reason to assume one over the other.
Vote fubbleskag
I’ll try and write up the full case against him tomorrow. Some things that caught my attention on Day 1:
Fubbleskag and Babale are good targets for me.
Vote: Fubbleskag
Vote: Babale
vote InnerStickler
vote KellyCriterion
So I’m going to role claim. I’ll tell you upfront that it didn’t do anything.
During N0, I chose Watch.
I felt that either power was slightly underpowered in that not learning what was done could lead to huge confusion should I actually catch anyone.
Last Night, I chose to watch Visorslash.
I chose him specifically because he’s the only one alive that’s 100% confirmed Town. This means no one’s investigating him. I also think the protector power’s been used but there’s no guarantee. So given his known town status he’s got a better than average chance of being killed at Night. So what it came down to for me is picking the most likely Scum target that wouldn’t also be targetted by Town to muddy things up. That was Visorslash.
Alas, what happened was this:
So…nothing useful that I can see. Bleh.
But I’m guessing this is still a better result than leading us to lynch another Townie based upon my investigation.
Oh and
Vote Mahaloth
Vote KellyCriterion
I have almost no information in this game to support my vote. But:
Storyteller, can you tell us if you have any kind of mod-kill policy please?
Regarding your role claim, Enderw24, I noticed something about the way the Nun’s Priest is written up (#17 here). Maybe I’m putting a bit too much rules-lawyering thought into this, but it seems to me that the way this role is written, your claimed power can be used multiple times:
Note that this does not say “…on any one Night…” – something that is clear on all other roles.
Whaddayasay, storyteller? Is the Nun’s Priest a one-off power, or a permanent semi-watcher?
I asked Storyteller this specifically when I was assigned, because it seemed to me to be written that way too. He told me, no. It’s a one shot, one Night deal.
I’d like it a heck of a lot more if it were the way you suggested, and I probably wouldn’t have role claimed today.
Definitely - but it’s not a hard-and-fast policy. Nonparticipatory players will be modkilled if no willing substitute can be found, or if it’s too late in the game for a sub. However, I won’t discuss individual cases in the public thread, and the definition of what constitutes “non participatory” is left deliberately to moderator discretion.
I feel as though I harp on this every game but players like Kelly and Mahaloth are prime targets for the Shipman. They’re not contributing, so their presence won’t be missed, we eliminate dead weight without burning a lynch and we alert scum to the fact that we won’t tolerate lurking of that nature. Just my two cents.
please be consistent. you didn’t vote Texcat for smudging me. furthermore do you agree that she should have claimed? at any rate, wouldn’t it have been easier for me to vote for Texcat since she was an easy target?
by the way, look at the four you voted for. does that seem like a likely scum team? who would have chosen who?
and i was consistent and used my investigation on N1.
if you had read my reasons for investigating Stanislaus, you would have seen that i choose him because he also plays the same way as scum.
i’ll do a reread. in the meantime,
Vote Snickers
Thanks, that gives us a better idea of where we stand.
I’m inclined to ignore Mahaloth and KellyCriterion for the time being, rather than have an unproductive discussion about what to do about them. If they do turn up and start playing, then good. If they don’t, it seems they will be mod-killed at some point. That would be better for town than burning two lynches on them.
@Inner Stickler - You were rightly called out for active lurking. Who do you suspect?
@Tengu - If you are town, you should start taking responsibility for your vote. No-lynch (Day 1) and placing a meaningless vote after the first deadline (Day 2) is anti-town.