Those are good points about scum action, but in M2 what made me trust Storyteller, and hence lose the game, was his dogged pursuit of a scum (sorry can’t remember who) even when everyone else ignored it. He voted for a fellow scum early on, and then kept coming back to that scum. When it turned out that person was scum I thought “wow, storyteller must be on to something”. He did it again, and I was totally 100% convinced he was a good guy.
Yes. I worded that badly. Since returning to the game, DiggitCamara has been operating under the assumption that on Night One, the cultists devised a complicated stratagem to unmask the Crusader, and executed it flawlessly the next day. He compiled a list of those whom he thought were likely involved in this plot, and has been working through it since. I think I’m the last name on his list, and this pursuit of his has been less than fruitful.
I think that it’s unlikely that any such thing happened, and that the basis underlying Diggit’s current mode of investigation is flawed. Since Diggit previously played the role of the Crusader, his fascination with this line of reasoning is excused by his fixation on his former role. I think that he’s rather publicly wasting his time.
Well, as much as I hate to argue against the perception that I’ve been very helpful, the only two write-ups I’ve done were for myself and for FlyingCowOfDoom. The one for myself was limited to the posts that someone (sachertorte, I think,) had asked us to do, and FCoD one was a complete listing of his posts at the time. My conclusion for FCoD was that I could make no determination. The one I did for myself left me with the impression that I’m town-aligned. 
It was me. 
Because as much as people didn’t like the idea thereof, the non-believers are not compelled to act in the service of the town and can in fact go for a separate victory. Whether or not it’s a good idea, whether or not it’s likely, the fact is that, as the Alchemist, Hockey Monkey can go either way on helpfulness to the town.
True. But it’s a risky move, putting your own at risk, and Storyteller did have the advantage of being Godfather, with the reduced detection risk.
Ok, please excuse my inability to remember, but how was Diggit’s role revealed during the Day, and did he ever publish a list of who he thought was responsible. If not, can you kindly tell us who else is on this list of his?
I’ll cover this one: Diggitv1 got involved in a discussion very early on day 2 as to the possibilities of who caused the multiple kills. Said discussion involved myself, Kyrie Eleison, Hockey Monkey, and Idle Thoughts. His original contention was that the discussion stopped after he entered it, and this was somehow proof that it was a front to get the Crusader to talk about himself.
He then modified his thesis somehow to account for the fact Idle and Hockey kept talking about it after he posted.
I personally think the whole thing is suspicious as hell, and I’m somewhat antsy about this early bandwagon on Kyrie.
DiggitCamara, your statement makes me confused and a bit suspicious. Are you really trying to say that you are the first in this game to point to a statement and accuse someone of ‘knowing too much’?
I know I pointed something out about NAF quite a while ago regarding his statement that ArizonaTeach would somehow vindicate NAF’s lurker/invisible list from Day One.
I also recall pointing something out about Hockey Monkey that looked like too much information on her part (I don’t recall the details right now), and her reaction made it clear that she had been accused of knowing too much by someone else earlier.
Why do you say this is the first? Is it to gain greater traction on your accusation of Kyrie Eleison? Why does it matter to you to state this is the first?
I’m suspicious.
I stand corrected. It’s the first one I really noticed. :o
(Could you please provide links to those other instances, please? I think they might prove interesting later on…)
Ok, I’ll buy that Kyrie meant “those who may have caused the Crusader to expose himself”, rather than “the Crusader’s killers”.
Unvote Kyrie E
So people get called out when they don’t vote, and people get called out when they do vote? Its only what 3-4 people out of 19? Hardly enough to call a bandwagon yet
Re-stated: Diggitv2’s little witchhunt is suspicious as hell, and the Kyrie bandwagon that’s forming early makes me antsy but not suspicious of the involved parties except as otherwise stated.
After all, of the three relatively rapid votes for Kyrie, two of them (fluiddruid and DiggitCamara) are already on my suspicious list, and one of them (Pygmy Rugger) is a practical unknown.
Well, another down. And while it wasn’t a power role, it’s still one less town and never good.
R.I.P HazelNut
Playing devil’s advocate here for a bit…so, if you were Cult then, you would have killed her off?
Actually, CK was not a believer.
It’s funny though because in my work up the last Day on who to vote for, I was left with two names, his and yours as who to vote for. I thought you both were scummy for various and different reasons, which I had explained in that novel-sized post, athough he the more of the two of you.
With him gone though and his status confirmed, I turn my attention to you.
You were the only other one I was considering voting for. You’ve not said very much by way of who you’re suspicious of or of analysis since you’ve been back in the game…other than accuse three or four people of being scummy just on the basis of trying to figure out what may have transpired in the Nighttime. This is typical behavior that I’ve seen all throughout ALL of the games and why you’d paint it as suspicious behavior…and THEN go as far as to say it was digging for the Crusader when you chose to put yourself into that conversation, that just makes no sense at all. It’s very weak reasoning and reeks more of just trying to think of a reason to vote for new people. Being as how I was one of them, I find THAT shady.
Bwuh? Auto is now Diggit…
Speaking only for myself, Diggit, earlier, went back and looked at stuff about his previous role (he was actually the Crusader himself in this game before) and, at the time when there was only one death of zuma (and not two) a few people (myself included) started listing possible variations of what it could have been (as to who could have been the one to kill him (Cult or Crusader) and what it all could mean). A few others just rang in with opinions and thoughts.
Two of us forgot things (I and Hockey), though, and that made Diggit himself make a post to us pointing this out, …something he says NOW that (the listing and the drive by comments) was “fishing for the Crusader” and his reason why he was killed.
Me, I think it’s one of three things. Either A: He’s just biased toward it some because it was himself.
B: He’s Cult who is using something he feels is a good reason to go after others.
or C: Both A and B. Really B but making it seem like it’s A.
I feel it’s either A or C (but then again, that also might be MY biasness at being one of the ones pointed to on his list)
Time to go back in time and reread more.
You have to admit, Kyrie E bagging on the Crusader’s “killers” is pretty darn funky, without the back story you so kindly provided.
You know, here’s another thing that’s jumping out at me right now so strongly…Diggit has posted in this topic many, many times since amrussell made this mistake. Yet Diggit, thus far, hadn’t corrected him on it. :dubious:
You know, the post that you quoted from was a response to fluiddruid’s accusation that I had voted for her because she was, of those who currently had votes, the ideal candidate to vote for if I wanted to avoid getting townie blood on my hands – or that maybe I wanted to swing the voting to her to save my scummy friend, Captain Klutz. Regardless of the damned-if-he’s-town, damned-if-he’s-scum nature of fluid’s argument, your selective quotation fails to make it clear that this statement was offered in the context of the evaluation of the arguments that had been made against the vote leaders. Here’s the quote, with some additional context:
I’m not sure I see how I could have responded to fluiddruid without discussing the nature of the accusations that had been made against others, and I think I owed fluid a response. It’s not like I offered this opinion without first having been questioned on it, something you fail to mention.
Even so, I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate the expression of certainty of which you’ve accused me. How, exactly, have I demonstrated that I was more certain of anything than the Oracle? I know that “certain” is not the word I would have used to describe my state of mind when I was pondering my vote, and, consequently, I think it’s unlikely that I expressed any such certainty.
Yes I would have.
Did you?
No.