I’d like to meta-echo what Hockey said: If you’re getting mad because of the game, or getting upset at someone, or about a vacation…take a deep breath, and try to keep having fun.
Rip on each other in character all you want, but do like NAF and I did a Day or so ago and touch base as Dopers and human beings once in a while, too.
[off-game]I’m quite amused to find that I’ve generated more discussion and controversy by posting a dumbass mistake about subs than any of my actual analysis.[/off-game]
I’m going to follow Idle’s lead and post my assessment of players. I’m not including myself, because it’s meaningless to you to do so:
probably town
sachertorte
Zeriel
Strong Suspicion
Pygmy Rugger
DiggitCamara
fluiddruid
MHaye
Suspicion
zuma
ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
NAF
Pleonast
Malacandra
USCDiver
Can’t get a read
Hockey Monkey
Queuing
FlyingCowOfDoom
Fretful Porpentine
Idle Thoughts
Kyrie Eleison
Probably town: Either a role claim I believe or general feeling backed up by possible Oracle crumb.
Strong suspicion: PR and fluid for lack of constructive input/lurking. DC for unconvincing votes + asking us to believe he’s town; MHaye for SCL kill.
Mere Suspicion is either based on light pinging on scumdar, or on long-term lurking.
I’m considering changing my vote to DiggitCamara - not because I’m any less suspicious of Pygmy Rugger, but because DC has started to ping me more.
[off-game] I’d just like to add that I am having fun with this, I’m grateful to BM for letting me sub in and well, hell - I love you guys[/off-game]
Well so far my research experiment isn’t yeilding any results, so I am going to vote fluiddruid.
amrussel is also high on my suspicion list. Queuing has been talking about his vote for Pygmy and that vote frankly isn’t pinging me, but am has yet to actually support his vote with anything other than piggyback logic. The phrasing of his post where he voted just strikes me as very me tooish.
Apologies to everyone. I was not able to catch up on the game yesterday. I will be posting an updated vote count and my ruling on sachetorte’s vacation when I catch up.
I’m not sure why you think it’s me-tooish. I first raised my suspicion of Pygmy Rugger in this post: 2481, because while doing a work-up of zuma I’d noticed the link between that role and [b[SCL**'s murder. This happened before **Queuing’s ** vote. When he (PR) challenged me, I backed it up with a summary of his posts - again, posted *before * **Queuing ** responded to the same challenge.
I freely admit that there are a number of players of whom I have strong suspicion, but no one person stands out from that group. Under those circumstances, if I see what I think is a good argument for one of those players being scum, it might well push them to the top of the stack. **Queuing’s ** point that the same role had attracted three quiet players was such an argument, and I voted accordingly.
If you think I’m wrong to be voting Pygmy Rugger, tell me why. If I think you’ve got a good case, I’ll reconsider my vote. I might even change it. Hell, I’'m already suspicious of fluid - lay out the case against her, why not?
Bottom line is, I’m not going to pretend certainty where I don’t have it, even at the expense of appearing to agree with other people.
Well my thinking is that Pygmy hasn’t actually been quiet. Now Queuing’s argument seems to really be that Pygmy has been posting but not saying anything. Which I think is a fair argument. I still think that fluid’s continued passive play is much more suspicious, but the Queuing’s revised argument against Pygmy isn’t a bad one.
On the other hand, your support of said argument seems to be missing the nuance and it makes me feel like you saw Queuing make a decent argument thought “gee that almost makes sense, but it will never get Pygmy lynched, this will be a good place for me to hide.” And voted on Queuings coat tails.
I could be wrong, but it does feel me tooish.
The problem with the subs is that they are almost all replacing people who have almost no posts so even if they are posting, there isn’t enough history on any of them for me to make a decent judgment about them yet. So I am sticking with fluid who I am fairly certain is scum, but keeping my eye on both amrussel and Pygmy (because he really *has * been posting a lot, but *hasn’t * really said anything.)
Did you read this post? It’s the one where I summarise Pygmy’s recent posts and say that they don’t count as substantive play. How does that differ from “been posting but hasn’t said anything”?
Just to clarify: **Queuing **thinks **Pygmy’s **been posting but not saying anything - and that’s OK. That’s made you think **Pygmy’s **been posting but not saying anything, and that’s OK. I think **Pygmy’s **been posting but not saying anything - but that’s not OK, because I agree with **Queuing ** (even though you agree with Queuing, and that’s OK) and even though I FOS’d **Pygmy ** for a separate reason much earlier, my only reasons for voting are less nuanced versions of **Queuing’s **.
[Off-game] Oh, and it’s amrussell - 2 "l"s! [/o-g]
I have given much thought to how I will handle his absence with regard to the disruption of the game and his level of participation. So far, almost all of the subs (with the exception of amrussell) replaced players with little participation or so early that I felt the substitutions were minimally disruptive. FTR, I am highly in favor of substitutions, particularly in this game, because I was ambitious (perhaps overly so) in attempting to balance the roles in this game and I feel that a mod-kill will either unfairly punish or reward a team. That is, if he’s a pro-town role, it will reward the Cultists with what is essentially a free Night-kill. Similarly, if he’s a Cultist, it will reveal information to the town regarding his role, connections, etc. that the town hasn’t rightfully earned with a lynch. Further, I consider a mod-kill to be more of a tool when a player breaks the rules rather than simply admitting his absence.
However, I cannot simply substitute for sachetorte because he is one of the most active players (essentially tied with NAF1138 and Zeriel for most posts among players), thus, I believe any player who would replace him would invariably trample the play of sachetorte. Further, by the time anyone really started getting a reading on that player, sachetorte would be back from vacation anyway.
Thus, despite that I realize it will upset some of the players (if you are, please address me in PM or, God forbid, the Pit), I have decided that it will be least damaging to the game to leave him in. I think that if his level of participation has given virtually everyone in the game a strong read (accurately or not) on his alignment and role, thus I don’t think his absence will adversely impact the game too heavily.
In his absence he will be elligible for lynchings and Night kills (if he’s not a Cultist, of course); however, he will not be able to defend himself, vote, or role-claim (obviously). Further, if he has a role with a Night action that is optional, the target will default to no one; if he has a role with a mandatory Night action, the target will be selected at random.
Until he departs, he is welcome to vote (for Today’s lynch), and offer any defense that he feels necessary to ward off either a lynch or Night kill (if he’s not a Cultist).
I’m sorry for the unnecessary disruption and stress this has caused and for my contribution to that. An updated vote count is upcoming.
Well, I don’t have Internet connectivity in my new place yet and I’ve only had time to give this thread a brief read-through, so I am going to abstain from toDay’s voting. Sorry, folks, but I have access for only one hour, and there are several more pressing things I need to do besides playing Mafia.
[off game]Sorry about the name thing. :o [/off game]
I think you misunderstand me, but only a little. Seems to happen to me a lot when I post first thing in the mornings. 2 points, I am not saying that it is ok that Pygmy is posting much and saying little, I said I am undecided as to how I feel about that because he hasn’t been here all that long yet and the person he is replacing gave us nothing.
Point two, you seem to have voted for Pygmy for not posting, not for not posting content. There is a difference. I will need to see more from you also before I know how I feel about you as well. This late in the game, there are other people that I feel I can get a stronger read on, so I am taking a wait and see approach to the newer subs.
Thanks for taking the time to come and tell us that, Fretful. I, at least, appreciate it.
shoot. Forgot one point.
Yes, I did see that post. BUT that post suggests a very different reason for voting than your vote post. Why is this different than Queuing, you may ask. Because you seem to be following Queuings vote and logic. It’s just a timing thing. If you had voted first and Queuing had done this I would be on his ass and not yours.
And now I start another hell day at work, so I am probably not going to get to post again for a while.
I will keep the window open and follow along. If things are happening when I go to lunch I will try and work in a post or two, otherwise I am looking like I am going to just work through lunch today. 
There are currently 13 out of 19 votes cast. There are about 23 hours left in the Day.
** fluiddruid ** (4) - Zeriel, Pleonast, Hockey Monkey, NAF1138
** DiggitCamara ** (2) - Kyrie Eleison, Idle Thoughts
** Kyrie Eleison ** (2) - DiggitCamara, fluiddruid
** Pygmy Rugger ** (2) - Queuing, amrussell
** Malacandra ** (1) - zuma
** sachertorte ** (1) - FlyingCowOfDoom
** abstain ** (1) - Fretful Porpentine
Well, since I’m not dead or on vacation yet. I will re-issue my vote for fluiddruid. I voted for fluiddruid the previous Day and my suspicions are essentially the same.
In summary: I looked at fluiddruid’s voting style and noted that she consistently quotes someone else’s reasoning for voting. I didn’t like that.
vote fluiddruid
As for my absence, I will leave it to the rest of you to look at my record and decide for yourself if I’m worth dunking in the next two game Days. I should be back before Day 9 ends.
Well, this game has become quite a clusterfuck if you ask me. I felt like I had a good grasp on most of the players toward the end of yesterDay and had my strategy all planned out after dunking a player I was sure was Cult in Captain Klutz. Next on my list after him was going to be Malacandra due to Klutz’s frequent defense of him. But with Klutz a proven non-Cult, that makes things harder.
I still have low level suspicions on just about everyone and higher level suspicious on several others. Unfortunately even after reading through the last Day’s posts several times, I’m unable to make heads or tails out of the various arguments being bandied about.
This whole sachertorte business is even more consternating, especially given this post:
If a player is trying to get himself killed, I’m not sure why we shouldn’t oblige him. But at the same time, I’m leaning toward Town for sach. So despite all the snarky comments he’s made toward me in this game (and vice versa), I want to do what I think it best for the Town and not make an ‘Oh My God You’re Annoying’ (OMGYA) vote.
So I’m going to look through Malacandra’s post the last two Days and see if anything is there to allay my suspicions. If not, I’ll pull the trigger and make my vote.
Ok, that didn’t take too long, relatively. Beginning with zuma’s summary of Malacandra in Posts 2166-2168 and reading back through Day 5. Mal spent the last Day voting for Pleonast simply because he didn’t believe his role claim, but never seemed to look at any other players.
And he’s contributed even less than me toDay which is saying something
vote Malacandra
Why so it was. From what Diggit was saying in this post, he sounded like he was saying that you had posted at the time BETWEEN amrussell’s mistake and MY correct (like he did, himself) and didn’t correct it either. I took him at his word without going back to check since I remember you posting about near that time.
But you’re right. You didn’t post between his mistake and the correction at all, so you wouldn’t have had any time or a chance to possibly correct it before I did. I wonder why Diggit made it sound like you had the chance (before I pointed out the mistake) to do it but didn’t. :dubious: You didn’t even post in between there. But he did.
Not at all, I was just getting to the main point, which we had arrived at in the only post I answered, which is why I still felt you looked shady.
Well, apart from going back to the two games and checking, you might be right. I honestly don’t REMEMBER doing that, but it very well could be the case.
And fair enough.
About the sach situation. I feel it’s best handled that way too. God forbid another sub come in.
And who’s this abstain? I haven’t seen them make one post in here yet. :dubious:
Kidding, kidding.
Seriously though, while I CAN understand not voting a little, I just don’t see what good it does. It always struck me as giving up the town’s right to find scum on a Day and while it could be saving an innocent, too, from being dunked, I just don’t understand why people just wouldn’t vote for a or the person who is in the least amount of danger of being dunked…but at least to PUT A VOTE OUT THERE, so people can look it over when and if you’re ever dead and gone.
Apologies as this is not a post of analysis and a vote (that is still coming later today, promise), but I can at least address some facets of suspicions that have been raised about me. I can’t recall who or what post numbers, but I’ll follow up with them later as well.
Is it inherently suspicious to vote for someone who has role-claimed, as I voted previously for Hockey?
No. Especially in cases where it is risky or flat out impossible to confirm or disprove the claim.
I believe this has been brought up on two specific occasions, and possibly by two individuals. Sorry my memory is so bad and time is too short right now to dig up the specific posts. I don’t recall much discussion as to this reasoning being weak, which I think it is. More nuanced application of the reasoning is fine, but blanket statements like that are not fine, imho.
I can’t understand it all. This is Day 6. Are you (be this I mean Fretful) trying to tell me that you have no suspicions at all? Not a one? Every single person who is still alive is striking you as more believer then cult? I don’t buy that for a second.
Lets take a look at Fretful’s voting record so far:
Day 1 votes auto (DCv2), unvotes and votes for Nava (Pygmy).
Day 2 votes Kat all day (was the 1st person to lay down a vote for Kat)
Day 3 votes Scuba all day (again the 1st, but after I had laid out my case)
Day 4 votes Mad all day, but laterv(was the 15th about)
Day 5 votes Klutz all day (was the 1st person)
Day 6 abstains.
What the heck is that? 4 out of the 5 days completed he has voted for the person who has been dunked? And was 1st 3 times?
Anybody have any ideas about this?
As well, anybody else notice that once it was shown that Pygmy was really saying nothing he now said literally nothing? Blames me for an OMGUS then skedaddles? What is up with that role as well? Is it the real secret role? If you post more then X times you blow up or something?
Clearly, it is my natural leadership abilities at work. This abstain dude is SO going down once I summon my minions 
Seriously: it appears that I have access to an unsecured wireless connection in the new apartment; I’m not questioning where it’s coming from, I’m just enjoying it while it lasts. (I do intend to pay for my own, but it won’t be hooked up until the 13th.) So I’ve had time to read through the last few pages of posts, and I accordingly withdraw my abstention and vote Malacandra. I think the case zuma v.2 outlined against Malacandra is reasonably strong, and I’d also like to raise the possibility that Hal DID investigate him, rather than zuma v.1, on the first night, and the last-minute vote for him was in fact a breadcrumb.
I’m not totally sold on this, but I like him better than any of the other candidates.