Hi guys, just wanted to say I’m sorry for being unavailable and I’m catching up on the game now. I’ll post substantially shortly.
it does seem too obvious a play for scum to make so i’ll say Svejk is leaning town.
what bothers me is Hirka’s vote on Svejk. i understand that lynching Svejk can give us answers but Hirka’s reason is off. he’s willing to risk lynching a possible townie Svejk to prove he should be voting for scathach who he already suspects.
Mahaloth and Special Ed will have to wait for now.
Vote Hirka
I’m going to ** vote fubbleskag ** in the hope that he’ll come back and explain his weird Septimus vote.
At least someone agrees with me on this. I also don’t like how people are relying on “known townie” Astral’s stated intention to vote, since simply being town doesn’t necessarily mean he was right and it smacks of responsibility shifting
Some WIFOM here but would a scum fubbles be so quick to say that the subject of his PM was “Role PM (mafia)” if claimed doc Septimus had one saying “Role PM (town)”? I didn’t say what I thought Septimus had edited, just that I suspected he’d edited his claim and therefore it could be false. I realise this is metagaming and known Town Astral had something completely different but if I were scum, I don’t think I’d accuse a Townie on the basis of their role PM indicating that they are town. And if Septimus is scum, I’m still not seeing another scum taking that risk without seeing the subject of a role PM sent to a Townie - it wasn’t part of the sample PM.
@ fluiddruid, welcome back, did you see that Septimus has claimed to be the doc?
Okay. I’ve been through the thread since the end of Day One now once, and I’d like to get some things down on record. I’d like to refine these further but I’d like to spur some conversation since lurking is definitely killing Town this game (and I do feel bad for going missing, truly).
First off, there are some people who came through to me as being suspicious. I’m going to just list out what I’ve got so far.
I think I’m most comfortable saying: uh, what the hell, fubbleskag? I don’t at all get the vote that you laid here. Septimus was at lynch risk and claimed Doctor, and also proposed being targeted by the presumed Vig; you didn’t address this at all, and even after everyone unvoted, you placed what seemed to be an incredibly spurious vote not even mentioning the claim. This is so odd that the only thing that holds me back is that it seems too weird even for scum. The only thing I can think of, short of that you’re just being deliberately vague for some reason I don’t get, is that you were skimming or something and missed the claim. However, given that you weren’t called on this, maybe it’s just me, but it just seems so incredibly bizarre a vote that I just have to call it out. Note: I see later that other people are keying on this too, so I’m not trying to claim this is an original idea, but it definitely pinged me on my first readthrough.
The next person I have odd feelings about is Svejk. This is primarily based on post #373 – Svejk turns up just prior to the lynch to not do anything, and defend not breaking the tie due to lack of time. That felt really odd to me since Svejk had posted just 12 hours before then, and since then the situation hadn’t really changed – yet at that time, he seemingly had the time to post too, but still didn’t address the tie. I just don’t get on the one hand thinking it’s important enough to address the lack of movement here – so obviously the tie was on his mind as a concern – but at the same time, seemingly having had ample opportunity to do something about it. There didn’t seem to be any indication in Svejk’s earlier posts that he had wanted to affect this but was short on time. This just feels weird to me.
After this, in post 517, Sjevk addresses me personally. It’s certainly a reasonable criticism that I hadn’t participated, but the way that it’s phrased kind of ticked me off. Really, you’re considering it suspicious that I was last to confirm? Also, I really don’t think it’s fair to sum up that my point was to pursue lurkers – what I was arguing was, specifically, while lynching a lurker may be good for Town, it’s not a good strategy to be reliant on it. We do want the threat of force to discourage lurkers, especially scum lurkers, but I really don’t like to see “well, I don’t know who to vote for so I’m voting so-and-so because they’re lurking!” That’s what I was talking about, I was explictly espousing not lynching lurkers on Day One and you missed (or twisted) the point. I’m sorry I didn’t respond to you (it was unrelated to your argument). Sure, I wasn’t active, and that’s a fair criticism, but I was hardly the least participatory person on Day One. I also really hate posts that say “Well, you posted X times, and it was basically about Y. I don’t like that you didn’t post more!” I’m sorry, but I spent a lot of time on my posts late in the day – I felt I participated, you yourself admitted I had a decent argument for my vote – why the smear?
Adding to the case on Sjevk, choie’s post is the same explanation I had for the vote switch. I don’t think Sjevk expected to be a part of a bandwagon – after all, he was the second vote. I think it seemed like the safe choice at the time.
Ergh, so I’ve written this post off an on for a couple hours, so it’s a little scattered, but I really want to get on the record here. In any case, I feel like there’s a decent case on Svejk (and if it comes down to a couple of candidates closer to dusk, I’ll switch my vote to get Svejk over someone I don’t suspect) but I really want to hear what’s going on with fubbleskag’s vote. (As I see on preview that Scathach agrees with, btw.) So:
vote fubbleskag
Writing up a post next on power roles.
Yes. 
I find the claim most likely credible, especially given the timing, when I think it was a reasonable possibility we had a Vig. (I don’t think we do based on info since that time, see below, but it was a reasonable assumption given Night One.)
It’s a hell of a scum strategy to claim Doctor and invite a Vigilante kill. Not only is Doctor really hard to claim – it’s very easy to falsify in the long run – inviting the Vig to target them adds a lot to that. The only way a scum player would do this is if:
1 - For some reason, the scum team knows for sure that there’s no Vigilante. That seems unlikely. Scum generally don’t get investigator powers and it’s unlikely the mod would tip off if there was a serial killer (rather than a vig).
2 - It’s a scum player with some sort of revenge kill power, killing the attacker. Possible but unlikely. That’s a pretty uncommon power, this is a newbie-friendly game, and it’s a hella ballsy move to say “Hey! Please night kill me, guys!” if that’s your power. And it’d be a damn powerful role for Scum to get to kill the attacker AND live themselves.
3 - It’s a scum roleblocker. An unlikely power and I wouldn’t want to tip off the group with a Doc claim unless I was in a hell of a lot more danger than Septimus was.
I just don’t find any of these too likely. It seems most likely that what is apparent is what is true – Septimus, knowing he was the Doctor, decided to out himself because he really didn’t want to risk a lynch. Doctors tend to claim fairly early when pressed, in my experience. That seems fair enough.
What’s interesting is that the vig, if he exists, didn’t attempt to verify the claim since there are two dead. That’s why I’m at the point where I don’t think we have a Vig. The kills we’re getting don’t seem to indicate that. Instead, the extra night-killer seems to be targeting lurkers. This seems more likely a Serial Killer strategy. If I were serial killer, I’d be thinking:
1 - There’s probably some power role out there that is intended to counteract me.
2 - Power roles tend to lurk less; they have more to lose and, let’s face it, the game’s more interesting when you’ve got a power role.
3 - Since I just need to hit a numerical target, killing lurkers early in the game is the least risky route.
It’s very possible I’m wrong but if we have a Vig, he doesn’t seem to be a cooperative one – maybe it’s special ed, for example (no offense meant, but you have to admit you like to go your own way on things). It does make sense on some level to target lurkers as a Vig too of course, but with a claimed Doctor who’s asking to be confirmed, I’d sure as hell have tried to – even if I wasn’t willing to tip my hat to my identity just yet.
Anyway, just my thoughts but I wouldn’t count on assistance from our “vig” one way or the other.
I’m not sure if I agree with your reasoning here, MentalGuy, but it did bring up a point that I wanted to make and forgot to in my previous post about Svejk. I was troubled by this post.Specifically:
I can get if you’re lurking because of real-life commitments, or if you just don’t have much to say I could even understand that on some level, but intentionally lurking because you want to avoid suspicion is so far away from a Town motivation that I can’t help but be critical. Calculated lurking is a scum tactic in virtually all cases – and the only exceptions I can think of are for critical power roles. You’re not the Detective and you’re almost certainly not the Doctor, so that doesn’t make much sense to me either.
I get that morale is low right now for Town because of inactivity (not least of which is my own) and because we haven’t gotten a scum kill yet. Intentionally hanging back isn’t going to fix either of those issues and, to my mind, really makes them worse. Svejk, if you die, and you’re Town, that sucks – but suspicion’s not going to go away because you go silent, for goodness’ sake. If you’re Town, lead the charge on who’s scum. And further, what makes you think that if you’re Town, and you die, that leads to no useful information? A kill always leads to useful information. It sucks when it’s you, sure – and all things being equal, it’s better if it’s not you, if you’re Town – but opting out of participating to avoid it isn’t a preferable route.
Maybe it’s not fair because you’re already on my suspicion list for several reasons, and I don’t mean to pile on you unfairly, but this post just screamed scum vibe to me.
A fair point actually, I’d forgotten that. But then, this is the guy who misreported his results as Town Investigator in a different game, so really, I’d consider him pretty unpredictable.
When you say “Known town astral had something completely different”, do you have a link? I’m trying to find a post where he talks about his PM but failing:o
Really, post #373 is primarily the reason for your suspicions? Huh. Are you sure you read the entire thread?
Anyway - as my profile will indicate, I live in Montreal. I don’t know where you live, but that one post before #373 was at 12:30 AM my time. The 11 hours that followed before I posted again at 11:47 EST I mostly spent sleeping. I hope that this is acceptable. Then I had a meeting, and then I thought I’d look to see what happened. In fact, something had changed - a three way tie had been created by Astral’s vote on wevets. I thought I’d post.
IIRC, I noted that you did not apologize for being late. I don’t really attach any conclusions to that.
I did not miss your point, nor did I even mean to sum up, I just quoted a direct quote from your post. Perhaps you were making some sort of point that may or may not be valid, I don’t really care - the reason I did that was to point out that the lurker was saying we should discourage lurking. It is what it is. Really I think that you just feel bad for being called out for not contributing more, and I don’t think I can help that, but it hardly constitutes a smear or something else that is nefarious on my part. I called out lurkers in general, and focused on you because 1) I had done so before and you had not replied; 2) one of the few posts you had contributed actually mentioned pursuing lurkers so I thought I’d just use your words against you. Now that you’re back and posting in full force, which I applaud, I have reached my goal, and it completely removes any complaints I had in the past.
Incidentally, you’ll notice that I never did vote for you, nor did I vote for anyone else on the basis of a reasoning that sounds like ‘I’m voting so-and-so because they’re lurking!’. Clearly, I was not arguing that lurkers should be lynched.
What is so decent about it? Surely not that I called you out on lurking? Did you read my post #595? What do you think of it? Why do you feel that scenarios in which I am scum are more likely than ones in which I’m town? Are you just pre-announcing that you are going to jump on the bandwagon later?
where did I ever say that I am trying to avoid suspicion? How does that even make any sense? When I last posted before today, I already had a bunch of pre-votes so suspicions were already firmly in place. In my post (here) I list three reasons for not posting: 1) morale is low - I was referring to my own morale, I simply did not really feel like posting in the thread; 2) I felt there was not a lot I could contribute to my own defence that I had not already said in post #595, and was uncertain how to avoid my own lynching which contributed to 1).
Now if that is not rational from the point of view of town as a collectivity, I’ll accept that readily, it’s a fair point. But ‘intentionally lurking becaue I want to avoid suspicion’ makes no sense and is miles away from the justification that I actually offered.
Sure, here it is:
And you still haven’t answered my question. To save you having to go searching for it on the previous page, I’ll just ask again as now it’s bugging me that you won’t answer.
Way back on Day 1, when Svejk suggested he may unvote you if someone more suspicious came along, you said:
“I find it very curious that a random vote has turned to a suspicious one, is it just semantics or does he know more than I do?”
What could Svejk possibly have known that made him suspicious of you after his vote?
Thanks for another smear. How about approaching my arguments rather than making dismissive comments, okay?
In any case, I get that you’re saying you had other commitments. That’s fine. But explanations are best made before suspicion arises. It just seems odd to me to have enough time to post to justify not breaking a tie, but not enough time to vote to break the tie. You said (at the time) you didn’t feel you could make a call. I don’t know if I agree with that or not, but it’s fairly immaterial. It just strikes me as trying to avoid being called on it, which is primarily a scum motivation, not a town one.
But that’s the whole point. I was arguing against lynching lurkers, and saying what I would do instead. You then phrase this here as “lurker was saying we should discourage lurking”. You keep doing this – you are trying to make a point by taking things out of context. It comes across as word-twisting. If you’re town, you have nothing to hide from. If you think I’m contradicting myself so much that you need to point it out, hell, at least quote me.
My lack of participation is a wholly different matter. I’m not trying to get people to vote for you out of some sense of guilt. I’m calling it a smear because it looks like a smear to me. Your behavior strikes me as smearing.
Smearing usually happens sans vote.
Never said you did. My original comments to that effect were not aimed at you and the only reason I brought this up is that you characterized my argument in a wholly different light.
Likewise, never said that you did. I said that you seem to be smearing me, which in Mafia terms is you’re casting suspicion on me without basis. Sure, you didn’t say you’d vote for me, and you didn’t explictly say that other people should, either. But, you keep bringing it up. Why wouldn’t you vote for me? If I’m contradicting myself, or whatever the point is in what you brought up, then why bring it up repeatedly if it amounts to nothing?
If you would like my full case against you so far, I would refer you to the whole of my two recent posts outlining them, excepting the information about fubbleskag. I won’t argue it’s rock-solid, but I consider it decent.
I think explanations of behavior made after suspicion is gathered are generally suspect. Explanations of what you’re doing and why are best made, on the record, when you’re doing them – not later, once people start voting for you or accusing you. Revisionist history is not good for Town. I’d like to address it in more detail in this post, but I need to go. I’m leaving a reminder here so I address this as soon as I can.
Why are you asking me what my case is when I explicitly laid it out? Why are you asking what my plans are when, likewise, I explicitly laid them out (that I was voting for fubbleskag because I felt it needed to be done – but if you’re a vote leader, I’m switching my vote to you)? If you need me to be explicit, you’re my second choice for a vote. If I had two votes, you’d get one. If it comes down to no likelihood that fubble will be lynched but you’re a top candidate, I’ll switch my vote because I consider you a top scum candidate. Am I clear enough?
Trying to pre-accuse me of bandwagoning, again, comes across as a smear. It assumes my suspicion of you isn’t genuine, but without actually making a case against me. In case you’re really not sure, here’s what I’m trying to say: if you’re Town, I’m just asking for you to be forthright. Say what you think in clear language. Explain your actions and your motives at the appropriate time, not just when questioned. If you think I’m scum – great. Make a case for it. Stop using half-measures and suspicious wording while easing away from actually committing to it.
Well, you explictly said you were trying to avoid votes. That’s what I was referring to. Suspicion garners votes. You said, specifically:
“I’ve been away from the thread for a few days because, frankly, morale’s been low and I fear that I’ll be lynched”
This seems to be a pretty simple equation. You consciously decided not to participate because you think that participating will get you lynch votes. I don’t think that’s a good argument or a good Town strategy. Might it be your honest motivation? Sure, it’s possible. It’s just that, in combination with other things, it starts to become suspicious.
I don’t particularly care to be lynched myself, but I’m not tailoring my posts to avoid suspicion. Hell, you SHOULD suspect me. You should suspect everyone, and nobody should avoid getting the heat on them. It’s to Town’s advantage to turn up the heat and keep it there, to make the scum team sweat, to get people to post more and more content. The more that gets posted, the more information we have. The more scum have to defend themselves, the more they can slip up. Sitting back and avoiding discussion doesn’t help and I don’t understand why you think it’s a good idea for Townies to do it.
So what did you mean by this then?
/oog I can login with “n” instead of “ñ” without any problem, have you tried using “S”?
I was just pointing it out in case you were Doc… Given the continued lack of counter-claim, I’m starting to consider Septimus almost-possibly-confirmed-town-doc.
I mentioned some sort of bulletproof or scotsman role where he could survive a single attack as well as other scenarios where a scum could false claim Doc and invite a Vig attack - if they have a watcher, for example. But yeah, a Doc claim is a risk, slightly mitigated by the dead bodyguard.
I can’t think of any reason why you’d suggest Special Ed is the vig.
Posting as I catch up
You have a faulty assumption:
I do not vote for someone when I think it is more likely that they are Scum than that they are Town.
I vote for someone when I think it is more likely that they are scum than that any other person is Scum.
Does that make sense?
anti-bah!
What happened to dear sweet fubbles?
@FluidDruid
I brought up your lurkerdom twice, because you did not respond to me when I called you out on it the first time. The reason I did not vote for you or other lurkers is because I agree with the argument you put forward on how to deal with lurkers and lurking, not because I am trying to smear. If you can’t live with being called out for not contributing, I can’t help that, but that is all that I was doing, and I stand by the exhortation that I made when I called you out for the second time: it’s time you start practicing what you preach. That’s not a smear, and you’re blowing this thing way out of proportion.
As for your case against me being decent, the following. You mostly write about my posts 373 and 517. You state that your odd feelings about me are ‘primarily based’ on the former. It strikes me as odd (and I hate to bring this up myself but what the hell) that this would be the case given the entire vote-switch bruha. The only thing that you post about that is this
[QUOTE=FluidDruid]
Adding to the case on Sjevk, choie’s post is the same explanation I had for the vote switch. I don’t think Sjevk expected to be a part of a bandwagon – after all, he was the second vote. I think it seemed like the safe choice at the time.
[/QUOTE]
At a time when the votes that are out against me are justified on the basis of the particular issue of me switching votes, you have very little to say about it. Instead you harp on and on about the fact that I called you out on being a lurker and about how I am smearing you. No one else had any issues with me doing that at the time, and no one has said that I was smearing you or anyone else. If they did, or retrospectively do now, I’d like to hear it. In any event, this makes me think you are fighting your own private war because you feel wronged and/or that you are trying to get an easy vote in.
You are wrong. I fear that I’ll be lynched does not equate to me avoiding votes, I’m sorry. You may think that that is what it implies, and I’m sure I could have phrased it in a more eloquent and clear way, but it says just what I mean:
- my morale was low
- I fear that I’ll be lynched
- I’ve been away from the thread because of 1) and 2)
As a result of me fucking up, I might very well be lynched, which I think is a shame, so I’ve felt bad and have not felt like posting. Is that smart or advisable from a player or a town POV? I don’t know, maybe not, I just haven’t felt like it because I fucked up.
Yes it does. Still, on that assumption too I would still say that a justification of a vote would amount to making a reasoned claim that me being scum is more likely than others being scum - something that you have not done.
Yup, I’ve tried, but it does not work for me 