Oh and I come back my usual time in the day and find only ONE extra page added? Come on people, you’re slacking. 
I want game. I want conspiracy theories. I want to have to catch up on 30 some odd pages upon coming on.
Ah well, getting close to the weekend so I guess that explains it. Curses to not having a life (me).
It’s getting nearer to crunch time and I feel like I should start to rethink my vote. **Pleonast ** still seems scummy to me, but not as much now that more has transpired. I am sorry to see **ArizonaTeach ** leave us. I have really enjoyed playing with him in previous games. AZTeach, please reconsider.
It’s really easy to forget that this is a game, and get your panties in a bunch. In past experience, I’ve seen townies react that way moreso than scum. You know you are town and feel you have to shout it and it hurts when people don’t believe you. This is a game of deceit and bullshit. Don’t take it personally folks. If I say you are a liar, it’s not that I think YOU are a liar, but that whatever role you are playing in this game is a liar. See the difference? Some of the people in this game are playing as liars and we have to find them, root them out, and submerge them in the cold waters of truth.
Now that I’ve got that out of the way, I’m going to unvote Pleonast because I think there are scummier scum to drown today. Highest on my list is Mtgman, but I am going to withhold my vote for just right now because I don’t have time to build a case post. Suffice to say that I think **storyteller’s ** argument against him is sound, but I want to be able to put forth my own argument with my vote. There are others that are pinging my cult-o-mometer, but just not as hard…Pasta, zuma, and **ArizonaTeach ** too.
In my second paragraph, I want to make it clearer that it wasn’t a defense of AZTeach in any way, and then me saying he’s scummy at the end. After I re-read it for the 5th time, I thought it might need clarification.
Well, less than 24 hours until sunset and things haven’t changed too much. I’m happy with my vote and suspicion right now. They’re pretty much baseless, but what’re you gonna do? 
A word usage question, though: What does the term “break the game” refer to? Is it like “break the game wide open” for one side another, or more like “break the game” and make it unplayable and void? Just wondering.
I’ve finished my reading and have a nice mess of data to assimilate and present in coherent form. Which is beyond me as my eyelids are closing again.
The general overview is that there are a lot of rule misreadings and some arguments that (to me) made no sense. Whether they are more scummy than the stuff I already laid out I’m not sure.
If I had to vote right now y vote would go to zuma. As it is I still have 18 hours to get that post written.
See you tomorrow, with a vote.
I hope your count is right, Hal, ex-pal!
'cause of this:
a.) Lightnin’s several meltdowns were for real
b.) Omi no Kumi’s meltdown was for real (and earned me added scum-points in M3 because I called him out for them
c.) SnakeCatLady’s response to Omi was genuine and for-real. Her current reaction seems similar to the last one and I’d bet she’s as innocent as in that game
d.) Idle Thought’s two (count them! two!) meltdowns were for real
e.) tirial’s end-game meltdown was really real (she subbed out of the Pirate’s game because of it)
… need I go on?
From that, I take ArizonaTeacher is genuinely annoyed because he’s the center of several people’s attention. And since my vote for Autolycus is partially substantiated because I saw a “false” discussion amongst them, I’ll have to unvote Autolycus.
And since I see some scummy behavior in Mad The Swine’s statements very early on and a fade-out of Autolycus’ in Pirate’s game’s proportions vote Mad The Swine
Unbelievable.
I meant MtgMan instead of Mad The Swine…
I’ll therefore unvote Mad The Swine.
And vote MtgMan
:smack: :smack: :smack:
tears out hair Ack! I hate first Days.
unvote MadTheSwine
vote zuma
I have already voiced my suspicions, and the more I read the thread the more EVERYONE starts looking suspcious (I find myself stuck in the loop of “that’s a scum tell! but would scum be that obvious? wait, maybe it’s too obvious! gah…”) so I’ve decided to switch my vote to reflect my initial doubts and agonize over my vaguer suspcions after the first Day is over.
Ok, I’m making my vote just in case I can’t get back to the thread again tomorrow. And I don’t want this to seem as though I’m jumping on him for our little tiff, but more for his preponderance of analytical posts with little substantial character eval, I’m getting the ‘reverse lurker’ vibe which may be a new cult strategy.
vote sachertorte
And whoa, Mtgman just jumped to the top of my list with a waaay over the top attempt to portray storyteller0910 as unbalanced in the face of a perfectly reasonable response.
By contrast, Kyrie Eleison’s looking less scummy with every post, so I’m comfortable removing a vote that’s really based on some stupid comments by the person who subbed out in his/her stead and a possible misspeak…but the FOS remains.
unvote Kyrie Eleison
vote Mtgman
The FOS currently rests on Kyrie, NAF1138, and provisionally the list of unmentioned lurkers in post 565 (pending NAF1138 being scum, which is in doubt until/unless a dunking).
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:
unvote Malacandra
vote Mtgman
Same reasons I stated earlier–his accusations are flaky. His complaints against others are very similar to his own actions.
I have some computer problems at home (PC keeps crashing) so I may be limited to accessing from work for a while. Which is unfortunate as after next week I’ll be going on a months leave.
It looks like I’ll be needing a new computer. Until then my ability to contribute outside work hours will be limited.
My vote is already in.
See you Monday
Since I’m bored again and refreshing this topic over and over I think I’ll take the time to a vote count update since I think BM said he wouldn’t be able to again until tomorrow about when Day ends.
** Mtgman ** (6) - Scuba_Ben, storyteller0910, Hal Briston, DiggitCamera, Zeriel, Pleonast
** ArizonaTeach ** (4) - NAF1138, Autolycus, Mtgman, Kyrie Eleison
** Zuma ** (3) - Malacandra, Captain Klutz, HazelNutCoffe
** sachertorte ** (3) - MonkeyMensch, fluiddruid, USCDiver
** Clockwork Jackal / Kyrie Eleison** (2) - MadTheSwine, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
** Autolycus ** (2) - Fretful Porpentine, ArizonaTeach
** Pasta ** (2) - Idle Thoughts, SnakesCatLady
** Hal Briston ** (1) - zuma
** DiggitCamara ** (1) - Queuing
** Idle Thoughts ** (1) - Pasta
** NAF1138 ** (1) - FlyingCowOfDoom
** Queuing ** (1) - sachertorte
I think that’s right. I’m sure someone will yell at me if it’s not.
And, Diggit, two meltdowns? 
I’d say MAYBE one a half…as in MIII there wasn’t too much of one, haha. Well not until I was out of the game and posting in the forbidden thread…and it was more of a burn out then a meltdown, doesn’t that count for something?
But anyway, back to the game, Mad the Swine’s vanishing is odd. I hope he’s all right.
And what’s the story with Nava? He/She hasn’t made a post in here yet. Same there.
So, having read the thread and taken some time to reinvigorate my brain (aka sleeping on the problem) I come back to what almost looks like a bandwagon on Mtgman. The number of votes he’s carrying doubled in four hours or so.
The thing is, I’ve grown increasingly suspicious of him as well. From my notes, he’s :- [ul]li Seriously argued that pursuing a strategy that forces cult and town power roles into the open isn’t a problem.[/li]li proposed a strategy that relies on the investigators being able to distinguish between nonbelievers and Cult, which incidentally also incorporates the suggestion that we give up two dunkings, while also claiming (760) to be aware of the fact that the investigator results don’t distinguish between them.[/li]li Voted for ArizonaTeach on grounds that his cites do not support.[/li]li Targeted Storyteller0910, MadTheSwine and Pleonast for engaging in exactly the opposite behaviour that he voted ArizonaTeach for – not always accurately, as Storyteller showed.[/li]li His explanation of why Storyteller is scummy for keeping his vote on a person who is absent from the boards (and he’s probably right that MadTheSwine is dealing with rl affairs, since he hasn’t logged on to the dope for nearly 3½ days, at the time of writing) ignores Storyteller’s stated philosophy of “place your vote for the person you really think is scummy, don’t vote for metagame reasons,” something Storyteller has said in this thread. I’d have considered it scummy if Storyteller had shifted his vote away because Mad wasn’t here to defend himself.[/ul]That makes Mtgman the top of my list of suspicious players.[/li]
Of course he’s not the only player who caught my eye. The others were Sachertorte and Storyteller0910. They’re minor by comparison to the above, but let’s go through them now.
Sachertorte voted Queueing on the grounds of the reason for the latter’s vote. Sachertorte’s main argument was that Queueing had voted for the proponent of a plan that he had originally supported, but failed to mention that fact. Sachertorte seemed to overlook that Queueing had revoked his support for the plan in the course of composing one post on the subject (570), ironically because of points made by Sachertorte.
Then, Storyteller0910 came to my attention when Mtgman challenged him (in 760) about an inconsistency between his claim that he was slow realising the results returned to the investigators and a previous post which implied he did know. His explanation (that he thought the Apprentice couldn’t tell but the Oracle could) sounds very fuzzy to me.
Nobody else really drew my suspicions. I have several other pointers but they’re nebulous at this stage, and not worth discussion.
The question of who to vote for boils down to one of the above, Malacandra or zuma (for posts 546 and 547) or Pasta for his lynch lurkers idea. (See also post 665, which I didn’t discuss in my earlier post). There may be a time and a place for lynching lurkers, but at this point doing so is equivalent to randomly lynching from a significant subgroup of the main player list.
Of these choices, the player who has made me most suspicious is Mtgman. Therefore I will vote Mtgman.
I remain suspicious of the following players (roughly in descending order).
zuma
Malacandra
Pasta
Storyteller0910
Sachertorte
and then every other surviving player (apart from myself).
Caught up, finally. Sadly, I don’t know what to think – I’m tempted to take my vote off of Autolycus now that he’s started to talk, but on the other hand, I keep feeling like his posts sound a little … I dunno, calculated? More like the ones in M4 than M2, anyway.
On the third hand, an awful lot of players seem to be subbing out early, and I’m wondering if this might work as a calculated scum strategy, since people are often reluctant to vote for a player who’s just been subbed in. Also, playing scum presumably involves more pressure and time investment than some of the other roles, and I can see how someone who thought they had enough time to play as a Citizen might suddenly decide they can’t commit to the game once they find out they’re a Cultist.
For now, I’m going to unvote Autolycus and vote Nava in hopes of poking her a bit, but I want to take a close look at both ArizonaTeach and Clockwork Jackal / Kyrie Eleison’s posts.
:smack: Right, I’d totally forgotten why Clockwork Jackal asked to be subbed out. Never mind. Still leaning suspicious on AZTeach, though.
Who has also said he’s leaving the game. You do know that, right?
And Nava hasn’t read anything on the Dope in two days : in fact her last activity was just before BM posted telling us she’d joined the game.
Yes, that’s precisely why I’m suspicious of him; as I said a couple of posts up the thread, I think asking to be subbed out is a very good dodge that generally buys people more time.
This is my end of day post. I doubt I’ll be able to post again before 2PM today.
I don’t know what to say about the Mtgman and storyteller situation. I think I have difficulty viewing the situation objectively since on one hand I view Mtgman as a kindred spirit in an analytical view of games and puzzles. On the other hand I respect storyteller’s opinion; he’s disagreed with me, but was kind enough to not hound me about it. So for Mtgman/storyteller, I’m taking the cowardly way out with no real opinion. If that makes me scummy, well, bad on me.
ArizonaTeach/Autolycus: I can symphatize that this game gets pretty intense, so I understand anyone wanting off this, what’s the word? cluster****. But I completely missed what was said that made the whole situation so volitile. I guess it’s easy to overlook other people’s frustration. I’ll accept ArizonaTeach’s word, since I can’t know what he’s feeling. Personally, until ArizonaTeach quit, I thought it was just a regular run-of-the-mill discussion/arguement. I thought ArizonaTeach’s vote on Autolycus was as well founded as any other vote today.
I’ve tried to address each vote for me as general policy:
(color removed)
As I stated before, I think I’ve said all I can say regarding why I kept discussing you-know-what for as long as I did. The point I would like to address here is the notion that I’ve done “little substantial character eval.” To this I’d like to point out that there hasn’t exactly been a whole lot to go on. Furthermore, I’m not aware of any scintillating ‘substantial character evaluation’ from USCDiver either.
But I have discussed more than just you-know-what. I list these items here as a record of my thinking for posterity after I kick it:
SnakesCatLady
I pointed out that SnakeCatLady posted a fluff post and nothing else which I found suspicious post 354
SnakesCatLady reacts strongly, acccusing me of being “pissed” in post 403
Which I point out is an overreaction to an early day one FOS in a game of accusation and suspicition in post 408
(I have to go so I won’t be able to annotate the rest of the post)
Malacandra
I stated my point of view on Malacandra’s vote. At the time I could see the post as a stream-of-consciousness kind of thing. But now, (has Malacandra posted at all since then? I don’t have time to check right now) I’m concerned that Mal and many others haven’t posted anything in days. Could someone do a count on the number of MIA players? If it’s sufficiently high do you think that is grounds to ask Blaster Master to extend the day?
Queuing
I did an analysis of Queuing’s vote for DiggitCamara. Unfortunately, my sullied reputation is probably hindering my ability to gain traction on this topic. After I’m dead, take a look at Queuing’s posts and point of view toward DiggitCamara.
There might be others, but those are the salient ones I can remember right now. I think this amount of content is inline with other players, regardless of you-know-what.
So USCDiver, what did you contribute today?
I can’t, for the life of me, believe someone would leave the game just to buy an extra day without a scum tell. What’s more, if this is working the way you hypothesize, then we’d have to have multiple scum players all come up with this idea without discussing it first – I just can’t buy that.
However, let me just say that if, on the off chance that someone ever did try and pull this as a scum strategy, then please do the rest of us a favor and never sign up for another game, ok? That’d be beyond scummy even for the scummiest scum.