A total of 6 votes out of 21 have been cast. The Day will end in less than three days.
** Pleonast ** (2) - Idle Thoughts, FlyingCowOfDoom
** Malacandra ** (1) - Pleonast
** NAF1138 ** (1) - Zeriel
** Nava ** (1) - Queuing
** Zeriel ** (1) - NAF1138
I didn’t have a chance to get caught up yesterday, so the first thing I’ve done today is the same thing you did, look over SCL’s posts. I hate to just say “I agree”, but you reached the same conclusions I did. If we’re to assume that her suspicions played any part in her death, Captain Klutz, Nava, and MHaye were the ones she was most recently targetting, although Nava and MHaye were getting called out for non-voting/lack of participation. She also continued to voice suspicion of Hockey Monkey.
Unfortunately, it’s a pretty weak case, as it supposes that scum either thought she was the apprentice AND thought she had investigated Captain Klutz or Hockey Monkey, or were uncomfortable with her keeping the heat on them (“them” in this case would also include Nava and MHaye. And HM really isn’t worth considering at this point as there is no reason not to disbelieve her until there is a counter-claim.
Sure there is. It is called a healthy dose of skepticism with a dash of acknowledgement that the true Alchemist is choosing not to counter-claim. Then there’s the whole tangential possibility that there could be more than one Alchemist, but the role as described (imho) indicates that they would be blind to eachother if that were the case.
Unless you were trying to be tricky with that triple negative…
I see that my name has come up in the ‘not participating’ lists of late. I want to apologize for that, but in my defense I did make this post before the Game began.
And so it has been. I have been able to catch up on reading the thread each day this week between shifts and sleeping, but haven’t had the time or energy to do a workup of any one particular poster. I read y’all’s analyses with interest but with skepticism because much of what you see as obviously scummy isn’t so obvious to me.
I will have an abundance of free time over the next 2-3 game Days and hopefully will be able to amp up my participation. In particular I hope my scumdar is getting honed a little bit more.
If anyone has a suggestion for a particular player they would like me to analyse in detail, please let me know. Otherwise I will look at the list of players who haven’t been looked at in detail and see if there are any that have seemed scummy to me. Probably tomorrow or the next day. Ugh this thread is huge…
Malacandra continued.
NAF summary of Malacandra through 1577
1786/1787:First post of day, speculates Hal may have investigated HM night 3. Suggests that the apprentice to the same?
Votes MadTheSwine
1820 Delenda est Carthago response to Pleonast vote
1825 Apologies for making NAF google and lack of participation
1837: Response to me calling him on “oracle/apprentice should investigate alchemist” argument.
2078 Why was SCL killed?
2084 Good that only 1 role outed, bad we’ve lost so many townies
Sorry, screwed up one of the links.
OK, I wanted to look at Mal because of something that bothered me at the beginning of Day 4; Four hasty votes right off the bat on MadTheSwine before MtS had posted and started running off the rails by Queuing, Malacandra, fluiddruid, and FlyingCowOfDoom.
Queuing’s doesnt bother me too much as he provided analysis and reasoning and suggests MTS was the breadcrumb. fluiddruid’s doesn’t bother me too much either as she provides a reason. Malacandra and FlyingCowOfDoom do bother me as they seem rather hasty “looks good to me!” votes.
These alone might rate a minor FOS, or a raised eyebrow, but taken in totality it’s just another thing I’m noticing about Malacandra. While obviously his day 1 vote on Zuma1 didn’t bother me too much with so little to go on day 1, his continued contributions seem to be really bad logic or spectacularly bad advice for the town, such as Day 4’s seemingly suggesting that the apprentice investigate Hockey Monkey! (I think that post was aimed at the apprentice).
I need to re-read Hal’s posts before I vote, just to make sure I’m comfortable enough that Malacandra wasn’t a likely investigatee.
FOS: Malacandra
Nice piece of reading between the lines there, zuma. Many people might have been swayed into a plain reading of the text: “Now that the Oracle’s gone, I guess the Apprentice is going to have to play extra well.”
Admittedly I was overlooking that the Oracle and Apprentice can’t find out anything very useful about the Alchemist, but you can hardly spin that into me giving bad advice deliberately - obviously they’d have considered their own roles a lot more carefully than I evidently did.
Father Brown devotees may remember The Blast of the Book - the moral of which is, when you got nothing, getting it five times over doesn’t magically make something out of it. Read and learn.
Zeriel on fluiddruid:Post 1200: votes fluid for voting for Mal with “precious little reason”. Here is fluid’s vote. She gives reasons - she believes Mal is too keen to protect himself/win brownie points.
Here, by contrast, is Zeriel 's FOS of Mal: “and this little bit of condescension is enough to make me suspicious”
I wouldn’t have noticed if it hadn’t been the same player, but criticising someone (IMHO wrongly) for unsupported voting after FOS’ing the same player based on tone of voice seems a little inconsistent.
Thanks for that, BM. I’ll refrain from any metagame analysis and focus on the content of his post prior to the substitution notice.
A FOS is not a vote. They’re as different as “I’m going to watch you and poke you and see if you slip up” and “I’ve seen enough, you probably ought to dunk”.
I will vote DiggitCamara.v2, for the reasons in #2119 (flimsy reasoning for various votes/suspicions)
So no mod kill as of yet? This is what Day 5? IMO it is worthwhile to start thinking about a modkill. Subs can really mess up the game.
Pleonast
221: Asks about Day 1 dunking. Says to dunk. Votes USCDiver to kickstart discussion
234: Replies to NAF re. random voting.
240: More on random voting. Believes searching for tells is just as vulnerable to scum manipulation. Anyone can disagree about strategy. Random votes provoke reactions, give us something to work with.
248: More of same discussion with NAF. Unvotes USCDiver
249: D’oh! on diver confusion
303: Total randomized voting is worse than no vote. His random votes are to start discussion - final votes need to be accountable.
387: More discussion about his vote/unvote for USCDiver. Says he doesn’t think the thread needs another random vote, as discussion is happening. Then votes for Mad, for “shaky reasoning”. “I’m not gung-ho about dunking Mad, but he’s highest on my likely scum list.” This looks contradictory. It’s not a random vote. It’s not an accountable final vote. So why make it?
392 . Threaten to vote anyone who continues O/A discussion.
400: The distinction between poke-votes and random votes.
405: Carries out threat, votes sachertorte
415: Further attempts to stop sach and FCOD discussing O/A
421: More on O/A discussion - suggest other topics. States that votes are cheap to give or take, but analysis of votes is valuable
447: Reasons not to discuss Oracle.
573: FOS’s sach and FCOD for O/A chat. FOS’s story for “being too clean”. Unvotes sach, votes Mal for zuma thing.
588 : Cookies voted for Pleonast here (581). She feels Pleonast’s strategy of voting early and often muddies the water, and provides opportunities for manipulation later. Also concerned that he’s trying to force an early vote. Pleonast’s defence: Labels this an over-reaction. Townies should feel free to vote often - only scum strategize votes. Better to vote early rather than rush at the end. Consensus is important - better than power in hands of few voters. He votes for people he thinks are scum, to show what he thinks. Claims to always show his working. Accuses Cookies of wanting to discourage voting.
I think there’s a lot of merit in Cookies’ accusation. Reading through again, there is a high level of voting, not all of which are backed up with arguments. In particular, having spent a long time attacking O/A discussion, he switches his vote off sach to go for Mal based on one post. If he felt so strongly about sach, why not stick with him and keep and eye on Mal. His defence doesn’t ring true generally - two attacks on Cookies and seems to miss the point of the accusation
I’m going to break off here and actually, you know, do some work. More to follow in c. 4 hours.
I’m going to concur with Queuing for purely practical reasons–I’m having a hard time keeping track of subs without a literal program (I have the player/sub list opened in another file every time I read now).
ESPECIALLY with the sub-deaders-back-in policy it’s hard to follow the game sometimes.
Thirding.
–FCOD
I like Kyrie Eleison. He has the uncanny ability to explain things to me in ways I understand. If he turns out to be scum, I’ll be very much put out.
I appreciate this point of view, and I hadn’t considered it as a reason for the pile-on to be non-scum. ArizonaTeach’s departure still leaves me with questions though.
The term “meta-game” keeps being thrown about. In my view, I think the term is being abused. There are clear meta-game things like voting alphabetically or voting for someone based on a different game, but I feel that things like ArizonaTeach’s asking for substitution is an ‘in-game’ action. So trying to understand that action isn’t meta-gaming at all. Others are free to disagree, but that is my point of view.
Good point. But I’m going to have to put more credence in Mtgman’s point of view on ArizonaTeach. He pretty much nailed ArizonaTeach, so I’m going to trust Mtgman’s (confirmed town) analysis of ArizonaTeach until there’s a strong case otherwise.
This is how I see the **NAF/Zeriel **spat. I draw these views from my interactions with SnakesCatLady on Day One.
On Day One **SnakesCatLady **posted a fluff post and nothing else. I called her on it, and she flipped out – super-overreaction in my opinion. This reaction made me very wary of SnakesCatLady, and I remained so until she was killed. Also, my drawing attention to SnakesCatLady made her suspicious of me. Ultimately SnakesCatLady voted for me on Day One for you-know-what reasons, but to me, my calling her out for not posting content was the driving force.
Sound familiar?
From my point of view Zeriel is acting very similarly to SnakesCatLady, and NAF is reacting as I did.
I like this point as well.
Basically, all I need are plausible alternatives to let this go. I may revisit this later, but my theory is there should additional evidence arise.
I think this is consistent with what I’ve been trying to do. ArizonaTeach left in frustration; I am trying to find out why. I interpret Blaster Master’s statement that there was no meta-gaming as meaning, Blaster Master wouldn’t allow ArizonaTeach to leave simply because he played a bad game or to purposefully confuse the town. Thus the search for the real reason.
Hmmm. I still think something is fishy.
Well, he SAID that my list only contains townies. Although that seems to have since been corrected as a misinterpritation on my part. Still I would be surprised if my list only contained townies. The odds of that happening would be very small. I would be just as surprised if my list named off all the scum in the game. And once again, it *wasn’t * a list of accusation, it was simply a list of people I wanted to hear more from.
Notice that I didn’t say all three (Kyrie, Idle and ** Zeriel**) are Cultists. As of now, there are three points that lead me to believe Zeriel is scum:
- His first Day vote that helped (in part) to save AzTeach
- His involvement in the “Crusader’s demise”
- His curious “let’s lynch HockeyMonkey” move at the end of the Day where she claimed being the Alchemist
Granted: it’s not evidence that would get you convicted in court, but since we are a lynch mob, my standards are far lower 
Vote Zeriel