Posting spreadsheet for researching player history:
i hope this works
I didn’t do Day One. I can if people think it will be helpful. On the spreadsheet you can see three columns of numbers for each player. The columns are labeled Day Two, Day Three, Day Four. Post numbers should be in the correct column.
Hope this helps.
That’s cool. FOS away. Perhaps I should’ve said “vote now explain/re-explain later”. The point I’m raising is this: in a game with 42 pages of context to sift through, after a largely wasted multi-page Day that contained an early and consistent bandwagon consensus against now-confirmed town, two back-to-back votes at dawn with little more than a couple of sentences referring to earlier analysis or (promising to follow-up with analysis) is a situation that I do not read as good for town.
What? You couldn’t make the links active? Geez… 
I don’t see what my vote toDay has to do with what happened yesterDay. I’ve consistently voted early on for the person I find the most suspicious. I don’t see the point in waiting until the end of the Day. If everyone waited until the end of the Day to cast their votes, there wouldn’t be much to discuss, would there? This way, everyone knows my intentions and my suspicions and they can be addressed by the town. I see no reason to panic over two votes that were both “announced” long in advance. What I consider to be damaging to the town is information that is misleading. Sure, you’ve corrected yourself, but I still consider you to be suspicious for what you said.
–FCOD
Based on a quick look at the posting spreadsheet. I’d like to point out that **Nava **had 3 posts during Day Three and 2 posts during Day Four.
Blaster Master, could you have a talk with Nava? Or get a replacement?
Of lesser note, but still concern. **zumav2 **hasn’t been too chatty lately either, and **Malacandra **remains rather quiet.
Anyone want to broach the subject of MHaye’s vote to abstain? I think it is pretty terrible and quite vexing. Before the vote I was already irritated by MHaye for his Day Two vote and Day Three driveby on me. Even then (Day Two) he was overly concerned with being wrong. And here on Day Four he still is; so much so he’s paralyzed from doing or saying anything. At best useless, at worst scummy. I don’t want to dunk MHaye just for that, but I’m very much tempted to.
I have no idea what that means.
Mal
Started off looking very suspcious with the clearly misjudged zuma vote. Since Day 2, he has been posting very little, presumably running an “IF location = hole THEN stop digging” subroutine. Flying below the radar in these circumstances is understandable, but looks a little scummy. For all the attention he’s attracted, Mal’s contributed very little for the town.
For me, one of the most interesting things is that Kat voted for him at the point where they were tied - a wretched attempt to save her own Sekhamite neck, no doubt. But we have to ask: if they were both scum, would she have bothered? What difference would it have made to the game? More valuable for her to pull that sort of stunt if she knew he were town. One alternative (WIFOM coming up) is that she realised that and thought to sacrifice herself with an obvious scum tell in order to hand Mal an alibi. If not, she wanted to keep playing, and knifed a fellow-scum to do it.
Mal’s voting record is easily summarised:
Day 1: zuma ver 1 - Town
Day 2: None
Day 3: None
Day 4: MTS - Town. This was the second vote of the day, merely agreeing with Queueing’s argument.
Right now, I’m inclined to grant Mal the benefit of the doubt* on balance*, simply because there’s not enough evidence. But the longer that remains true, the more suspicious he becomes.
Pleonast
I laid out my reasons for FOS’ing him here. Reading back through earlier today, something else struck me.
This is wrong. Here is the vote action for Mtgman and ArizonaTeach
NAF1138 - Vote - ArizonaTeach - 585 (AzT 1, Mtgman 0)
Autolycus - Vote - ArizonaTeach - 767 (AzT 2, Mtgman 0)
Scuba_Ben - Vote - Mtgman - 783 (AzT 2, Mtgman 1)
Mtgman - Vote - ArizonaTeach - 808 (AzT 3, Mtgman 1)
storyteller0910 - Vote - Mtgman - 824 (AzT 3, Mtgman 2)
Kyrie Eleison - Vote - ArizonaTeach - 847 (AzT 4, Mtgman 2)
Hal Briston - Vote - Mtgman - 856 (AzT 4, Mtgman 3)
DiggitCamara - Vote - Mtgman - 867 (AzT 4, Mtgman 4)
Zeriel - Vote - Mtgman - 870 (AzT 4, Mtgman 5)
Pleonast - Vote - Mtgman - 871 (AzT 4, Mtgman 6)
Pleonast misrepresented his voting history, in such a way that it made him look better than the actual record does.
His voting history is also very straightforward:
Day 1: USCDiver, MTS, sachertorte, Malacandra, mtgman
Day 2: Malacandra
Day 3: Malacandra
Day 4: Malacandra, MTS
Day 5: Malacandra.
There’s something of a pattern there. Given that Mal raised his head above the parapet early in the game, repeated voting is understandable - but it’s also a good way to create an image of concerned townie gunning for a scum.
sachertorte
As the Oracle clearly didn’t breadcrumb MTS, I’m increasingly inclined to believe that sach was investigated and is town. He drew a lot of suspicion early on for harping on about the Oracle/Apprentice, but to me that level of enthusiasm and detail looks pro-town, and I think the “at least in my eyes” was a breadcrumb. Actually this is important: if we can get a consensus on Hal’s breadcrumbs, we’ll have something semi-solid to work on.
Despite the horrifice murder rate in this village, we’ve still got a lot of people to cover. This will have to do for me for now, however.
I like this point. I will have to stew on it and decide what I think of this. Nice though.
I agree about sach being the likely breadcrumb. Not something I will trust 100% since we can’t really know, but with so many others acting scummy it is enough to back burner him.
Ok, time for a long soapbox post:
I feel that we are starting to get a bit short sighted as a group. I know that this isn’t true for everyone, but we need to start looking at long term posting histories of players when we are making cases now. Everyone will act scummy at some point.
Cookies, for example (and this is JUST an example), did something seemingly scummy earlier today. I haven’t had a chance to look at her record yet, but we shouldn’t go bandwagoning her based on just that one tidbit. I chose Cookies because the bandwagon hasn’t started yet, but I can easily see the town swinging in that direction as the day grows long. It has happened before, in this game and in others, that we have lynched town based on a single action during a single Day.
We should also remember that the scum are just as smart as we are, and have more to lose from a lynching than we do. I am not saying ignore great big flashing neon scum tells, all I am saying is take a moment and think if you would have posted something so obviously scummy if you were scum. This has been the whole of my argument against the Mal dunking, and had I not let my emotions overtake my logic it SHOULD have been my argument against the dunking of Mad.
I think I have laid out my case against Zeriel several times, but will go back and put it together again. I think his collection of small scum tells is far more damming than Cookies one larger tell is currently. But I am willing to admit tunnel vision is a possibility. Someone else make a case based on the whole of a persons posting history.
It worries me that Pleonast, Mal, and in my case Zeriel are the only people who are seeming to be seriously considered at this point. We should be investigating LOTS of people, not focusing on a small handful. It worries me that not many people are actively building cases, but rather are simply voting with a small explanation or a simple “I agree.”
I don’t know what to do about this other than make the soapbox post. And I won’t harp on the subject anymore.
Next up I will re-present my case against Zeriel. Forgive me if it takes a few hours or IRL days to get it together. I will post it before the end of the Day though.
Really, it’s like this. Pleonast was a late voter in the Mtgman dunk…and although he always said that his vote didn’t make any difference in that as it was already beyond the three way tie (at the time between AZteach. Kyrie and Auto) by two votes…my personal feeling is that scum wouldn’t be likely to make any life deciding votes but instead cast one that was just in there and didn’t matter at the time.
Like I said to Scuba Ben here, on Day Two: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8740496&postcount=1023
And later, on the same Day, when Pleonast retorted with his “my vote didn’t matter” post: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8742880&highlight=Pleonast#post8742880
…which is basically what I said above in this post.
Moving on…nearing the end of that Day (Day Two), I again stated my reasons for finding him shady at the the time: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8749060&postcount=1167
By Day Three, Pleonast kept popping up in my eyes it seemed: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8765809&postcount=1404
And I’d really like you to look at this post, also from Day Three: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8770074&postcount=1480
In it I say again what I was suspicious of, thus far, and noted that FCoD, at the time, was apparently seeing what I was.
At the end of Day Three, it wae enough to vote for him, at least for me: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8773623&postcount=1544
And later, right before Day Three ended: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8777493&postcount=1591
This was made because above, back up three self-quotes, I said at the end of one “I’d like to hear from him”. To my knowledge, he never replied to it or any of the points I brought up in that post, although he did reply again after it and on the same Day. Really, all he said was what I said in the above quote… that he didn’t feel he had anything to say, that he already voted…and, in a nutshell, that he didn’t want to repeat anything else and was therefore going to keep mostly quiet.
As I’ve said before, I just don’t believe this is helpful to town when one is dead. It doesn’t leave much to look over other than just votes for the most part.
Anyway, moving on to Day Four, it really seems like many others are finally seeing him in a weird light. The thing that captured it for me was part of Mad’s plan, which I didn’t know what to think of, at first, but that suddenly sounded and seemed so incredible odd and nay even threatening. And now that he’s dead and we know his true colors, I tend to think his plan outline was true
First he points out, himself, to look at everyone casting one off votes. At the time Pleonast was one of them.
However AFTER Mad says his plan, later on that Day, Pleo switches his vote to Mad. And yeah, he (Pleo) DID say he would earlier when he voted for Mal, but still, it just read to me like he got his hand caught in the cookie jar and thus gave himself that out to switch his vote.
That being said, I pointed all this out and more in this post: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8801478&postcount=2045
…which I invite you to look at because it has other links in it.
It was, to me, enough to make me switch my vote,…and even though it wouldn’t have made a difference, something in Mad’s posts not only gave me doubt, but also sounded like he was playing a dangerous game, and if he was a trigger of some sort, I admit I, personally, didn’t want to be around when it was pulled. If this makes me scummy in your or anyone’s eyes, well, so be it. At least it’s understandable. But yeah, suspicions based on just “no explanation” when I’ve been explaining it all through the game is weird.
So there it all is for you and anyone else who wanted to be reminded.
By this time, like I said, he’s the top one on my list with a bullet and I honestly don’t think I’d change my vote anything short of someone saying “HEY, I’M SCUM!” in big, multicolored letters and size 24 font. Although like FCOD I will unvote if need be if it’s looking like a speed lynch, if only so we have enough Day to talk things out. I feel we could use all the Day we can get, because it is 8-1 right now, as pointed out.
Actually, I just had a thought. Would you mind doing D1 for the dead players at least? I am working on a theory, and being able to quickly find the dead players posts would be very helpfull.
If not I will do it myself, what is here already is very helpful. Thanks for putting this up.
Eh, I miscounted. It’s not like I voted for him because he was in the lead. From 871: “Since it looks like no one is interested in voting for Mal other than myself (although many people have voiced a similar suspicion), I’ll switch my vote to my number two”. I don’t think switching one’s vote from your first to second suspect is especially scummy.
It bothers me, too. I’ve been trying to encourage others to write summaries and analyses of players they find suspicious. Not much luck. So I’ve kept my vote on Mal, since no one has put up enough to convince me another is a better choice.
What did you want to hear from me? Why I switched my vote to Mtgman? I answered that when I voted for him. Why I vote quickly for Mal? I’ve stated my reasons for my vote many times, and also why I vote quickly (which is apparently the same reason you’re voting quickly for me). Why I don’t make posts when I have nothing to say? I answered that back in 1568 Other players have agreed with me that it’s counter-productive to fill up the thread with fluff posts. And I’m definitely not laying low compared to certain others.
And about Mad’s trap: why use it against me when I already have a stated policy of switching my vote to my second spot when the first is going no where. I did that Day 1, and stated I’d do it again Day 4. Then Mad reveals his plan. Well, since everyone knew what I was going to do anyway, his tactic didn’t really help one way or another concerning me. I followed the policy I said I would. Do you honestly believe you wouldn’t have held it against me if I did not change my vote?
All the suspicious against me seem very flimsy. I’ve openly stated my votes and reasons. If you don’t like my tactics or thinking, fine. But Townies will disagree and pursuing noisy players makes it that much easier for Cultists to hide in the shade while Townies attack each other. Wouldn’t it be better to focus on the many players who have contributed little and are keeping a low profile? I think Mal fits that quite well, but he’s not the only one.
I’m just not seeing what I said this morning as scummy. And yet there are now (at least) three people keying in on it. Did no one else have any problems with the way the first two votes of the day played out? I started to author my post when those were the only two votes in the Day, by the time I got around to actually posting, Pleonast had voted for Mal and a couple more people had posted. Even so, no one seemed to mind or notice anything about the two votes, so I decided to continue with my post my and FOSes. Not voting, mind you, but FOSes.
I followed up with narc’ing on myself because I had realized I had already inadvertently done exactly what I was speaking out against: voting without a cite to whatever analysis there was in support of that vote. Regardless of where my quotes of emphasis were, or what verb tense I was using, that is what I found fault with, especially considering how things had gone against Mad.
This is the second time in this game where I’ve made a statement akin to “x’s behavior in y post is scummy to me, for z reasons”, only to have x try and turn it around on me, saying that “Cookies’ z analysis sure smells scummy…” The first time, with Hockey, she was the only one doing the twisting, and I still suspect her. This time, there are potentially more. By my thinking, perhaps what I said this morning came off way scummier than I’m able to currently appreciate, or perhaps I underestimated the power of town paranoia, or perhaps a somewhat sloppy second-thought post is being opportunistically sized up as potential innocent blood in the (dunking) water.
Wheee, just back from vacation and two citizens slain. =(
I’ve got a few vague notions, but I’m not sure about them. I don’t know if NAF1138 is scummy or not, first of all. Normally, hanging onto someone like a pit bull is bad for scum, because they get suspected real hard when that person gets dunked and is then town. On the other hand, I’m in that zone where I’m suspected but not at a level where I’m at any real dunking risk, so I wonder if I’m a cover, especially given the idea that Teach’s breakdown might have been due to scum attacks prior to coordination. WIFOM.
Pleonast’s suspicion of Mal, same reasoning, same conclusion.
Gut feeling says NAF’s town and Pleo’s scum. No evidence.
Still excessively concerned about Captain Klutz. I’ll have a look at that and deliver something midweek after I’ve had time to re-read.
Four votes out of twenty-one cast. There are less than four days left until Nightfall.
** Malacandra ** (2) - Pleonast, Queuing
** Pleonast ** (2) - Idle Thoughts, FlyingCowOfDoom
I have poked Nava. I will start looking for a sub if I don’t hear back from her within a day or two.
ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies Summary
As far as I can see, Cookies is one of the few players without a post summary. So here we go:
Day 1
219 Comment about the expected volume of posts for the first few Days
253 Comments on random voting vs random FOS’ing. Thinks that the discussion of random voting is healthy
279 Light hearted reply to sachertorte, saying that we’re not going to get everyone agreeing on any point any time soon
348 Light hearted comment about the Oracle/Apprentice investigating strategy
364 Comment on the random vote that she “traditionally” gets at the start of every game
417 Give a list of things that might get you voted for, points out that this is likely to discourage discussion. Suggests that FOSing rather than voting will not be so discouraging
434 Reply to sachertorte about what “everyone” means
445 The Oracle/Apprentice list splitting strategy - points out the risk of exposure if the Apprentice tries to signal the Oracle. Concludes that the principal danger is to the Apprentice.
450 Reply to pleonast: Oracle/Apprentice discussion can occur if it is safe and careful. This may prevent the investigators from making mistakes. More people joining in will muddy the waters. Investigators should keep their intentions close to their vests.
460 Reply to SnakesCatLady, clarifying how the Oracle/Apprentice can secretly split the investigations. Says to disregard post #445
538 Reply to Kyrie Eleison clarifying random FOSing vs random voting
581 Rips into **Pleonast ** for his desire for everyone to quickly vote in order to build a consensus, his quick voting/unvoting, his desire to muzzle the Oracle/Apprentice discussion. Votes Pleonast
586 Saying that she doesn’t trust any maths-driven suggestion or analysis as she doesn’t understand them
602 Replies to **Pleonast ** regarding post 581, clarifying that the tone was intended to be light and humorous ribbing.
611 Responds to **HazelNutCoffee ** #609 about a unified town strategy. Points out that concensus will not be coming out of this group any Day soon
612 Unvotes Pleonast but FOS’s him
750 Points out that every game is a unique mix of rules, experience levels etc. Repeats that the investigators are not obliged to comply with any discussion/conclusion/debate regarding their roles. States that she has learned quite a bit about the nuances and limitations of these roles, due to all the discussion. Votes Kyrie Eleison for some out of context twisting of words regarding random voting vs random FOSing
770 Fluff reply to Zeriel about sharing the the recreational pharmaceuticals
818 Responds to Kyrie Eleison. Agrees that her vote was weak and points out that all Day 1 votes are weak
820 Advising of temporary absence
Day 2
983 “To zuma”
1049 Not looking for scum in the Mgtman bandwagon yet. Wants more posting from the subs and will do some re-reading
1055 Voluminous game, “read once and move on”. States the she is a conservative player
1143 Apologises for not posting enough, and "FOS on you all for not calling me more on it. 
". Inclined to vote for Kat but will first gather her justifications
1154 Gut reaction to Arizona’s posts (eg #807) is that it was hyper sensitive defensiveness of scummy origin. Finds Kat’s vote justification for sachertorte to be inconsistent (in regard to Diggit). The Oracle/Apprentice discussion is SO yesterDay. Votes Kat
1171 Replies to Kat (#1170) in regard to Diggit/sachertorte. Accepts that it was not what Kat said and unvotes Kat
1201 Questions Queuing, in regard to reconciling the benefits of trying to build consensus with “If something smells scummy to you then say why you think it is scummy. Don’t wait for someone else to validate your opinion.”
1229 Responds to Hockey Monkey in regard to #1049. Explains the hesitance for analysis of the Day 1 bandwagon as a) it’s only Day 1 and b) I have a bad track record for town-killing bandwagon analysis.
1237 Thanks for Queuing’s response to #1201)
1239 Happy either way with the possibility of extending Day 2 for July 4.
Day 3
1366 Curses the night kill of 2 power roles
1430 Some net conection problems. Responds to Hockey Monkey regarding scum voting/unvoting scum by pointing out that town will vote/unvote town. “Laying suspicion on both sides of votes/unvotes like this, at this stage of the game, carries a bit too much risk of false-positives for my comfort level, but then again I am a more conservative player.”
1452 Responds to Kyrie Eleison regarding the difference between “mildy suspicious” and “mildly FOS”.
1510 Fluff and internet problem
1610 Votes Hockey Monkey, FOS on Hal, HazelNutCoffee, and Scuba Ben. Supported by lots of analysis.
1611 Update re internet access
Day 4
1808 FOS still on Hockey Monkey. Further clarifies why the Day 1 bandwagon analysis is not a strong approach on its own. Is a little concerned about the rush of votes for MadTheSwine.
1824 Fluff
1840 Replies to Malacandra, regarding a potential Alchemist counterclaim
1882 Asks MadTheSwine why she (Cookies) is not on Mad’s FOS list
1899 Welcomes amrussell
1912 More concern about the MadTheSwine bandwagon. Asks everyone in the game “Are you really willing to let the momentum of the last 30 or so hours dictate the whole Day?”
1917 Asks if there is a way to change the relationship of Days/Nights to weekends without hurrying up and killing someone.
1944 Responds to Queuing’s suggestion about putting one player under the microscope to see if we can get some consensus on him/her. Cookies is concerned about outing town power roles as a result.
1945 Clarifies a point in #1944
1967 Asks for an official vote count. Is concerned that less than half the town has voted.
1969 Thanks Blaster Master for the psychic response to her vote count request
1975 Votes Hockey Monkey
2000 Observes that the player-summary posts are going to be god-awful to try and refer to as the game continues.
2016 Agrees that sachertorte was the most likely breadcrumb. Regarding the MadTheSwine bandwagon, “I think we’re running short on the luxury of being able to dunk a townie and then move on, especially for reasons that appear to boil down to differences of style and personality.”
2030 Fluff
2042 Fluff
2047 Fluff
The only slightly dodgy thing was the Day 2 unvote of Kat that made Malacandra the vote leader (4-3). However, her justification for this unvote looked reasonable.
Overall impression is of a fairly conservative player, feels like town.
fluiddruid
I’ve not found a great deal to get a grip on here. There are some themes that emerge from her posts: 1) a general discouragment of “scum tells”; 2) belief that **NAF ** is town; 3) reluctance to put too much faith in bandwagoning.
“There are no absolute tells” This also includes a defence of NAF
A long post listing various scum tells which are too simplistic to work
I’ll say **NAF ** is on my trusted list (because he voted, unvoted then voted for her - and she knows she’s town.)
Above re-iterated (Also includes reasoned vote for HockeyMonkey)
There’s a difference between “bandwagoning” and being part of a crowd - late, unreasoned votes are a true bandwagon.
The voting record is very straightforward:
Day 1:**sachertorte ** (you know why. NB fluid now trusts sach)
Day 2: **Malacandra ** (you know why)
Day 3: Hockey Monkey
Day 4: **MTS ** (you know why)
The reasoning for the Day 3 **HM ** vote is linked to above: 1) HM FOS’d Zeriel, Pleonast, **Cookies ** and sachertorte. As **fluid ** trusts sach, this looks to her like a scum list - random accusations. (She admits she also suspects Pleonast). Furthermore, she feels **HM ** made a poor defence of **HM’s ** vote against Fretful Porpentine.
OK - one thing that stands out is the general discouragment of looking for “scum tells”. She does make good points about being too simplistic in our thinking about what scum do. But for me, the general tone is very negative - don’t look at bandwagons, don’t look at self-defence, don’t look at defence of others, etc. It’s more difficult to find what we should do. Her vote for Hockey Monkey is notable as the only time she laid out detailed reasons to vote for someone.
Impossible to make conclusions. While I appreciate a conservative voice trying to make us think twice, I’d like to see more scum-hunting.
Diggit.v2 summary
Day 3
1358 Diggit.v1 farewell
1518 Diggit.v2 begins
1525 Says he will ignore anything about his former role
1651 Says that HazelNutCoffee is defending Hockey Monkey in #1630 and #1627 . Votes Hockey Monkey
1673 Replies to MHaye, who thought the vote for Hockey Monkey looked suspicious. Unvotes Hockey Monkey on the basis of her Alchemist claim
1676 Replies to Zeriel, who wanted more time to allow for other claimants. Votes Zeriel
1682 Replies to Hockey Monkey, saying “You survived!”
Day 4
1804 R.I.P Hal
1819 His take on Hal’s probable investigations. Suggests a cause for Hal’s demise.
1919 Speculation on whether MadTheSwine is a Cultist or bizarre special role
1986 Votes MadTheSwine. Suggests that MadTheSwine is possibly a “sacrificial lamb” for the Cultists. Willing to believe that Hockey Monkey is the Alchemist in the absence of a counterclaim. Looks for events that he thinks lead to the Crusader’s demise and from this decides that the group Zeriel, Kyrie Eleison, Idle Thoughts contains at least one Cultist
1991 Responds to sachertorte’s doubts about Diggit.v2’s Crusader theory. Diggit.v2 explains that what drew his attention was the the discussion suddenly stopped after the Crusader entered the discussion
2012 Responds to Kyrie’s #2008 concerning Diggit.v2’s Crusader theory
Conclusions
1651 looks very odd, as explained by MHaye in #1657.
1676 was a very flimsy vote for Zeriel
1986 had a dubious argument for suspecting Zeriel, Kyrie Eleison, Idle Thoughts
Overall, I have some doubts over Diggit.v2’s towniness.
I’ll do all players. It’s easier that way.
On Pleonast:
I still don’t get it. I need to re-read the case against Pleonast, but if someone voting for him could do a quick numbered list, that would be helpful to me. So far the most salient point I’ve seen was Pleonast’s refusal to join in the discussion after posting a vote. While I can see myself supporting a Pleonast dunking based on this, I need to point out that Pleonast is not alone in this sort of behavior. Off the top of my head I would point to MHaye, USCDiver, Malacandra and possibly Fretful Porpentine as also voting without contribution. Then of course there is **Nava **who is in a class all to herself.
Upcoming from sachertorte: