:rolleyes:
Obviously I need to use shorter sentences, or something.
No…because…if you play while tired, you might say silly things and then we can laugh! Heheheheh…
shut up
–FCOD
And THIS little bit of condescension is enough to make me suspicious.
Official FOS Malacandra
Seriously, dude. Don’t dig so hard when you’re that far in the hole.
Okay, picking up where I left off yesterday, I’ve finished re-reading the thread.
In addition to my previous FOS’s I’m going to add:
FOS DiggitCamera. The early vote/unvote for Cookies bothers me a bit, and if the game had had a night start where it might have been set up in advance, I might have seen that by itself as scum voting for scum (to set up a “Hey, I voted for Cookies”/“Hey Diggit voted for me” situation when one of them was found out), but that’s not what made me want to FOS him. It’s the “Apprentice should random vote for Oracle” suggestion in post 342 that bugs me more.
And then vote sachertorte for the following reasons:
(1) the continued, repeated, incessant harping on the Oracle/Apprentice division plan. Even after supposedly “dropping” it, in almost every post there seem to be a comment about how it’s a good plan, but because everyone else thought it wasn’t, he was gonna stop talking about it.
(2) sachertorte repeated twice that I noticed that the Priest is unkillable, then when called on it, posted that the Priest should be unkillable in practice due to self-protection, because the Priest would and should unquestionably always self-protect, unless maybe s/he protected an outed Oracle. It could be honest newbie error, except that (a) he chided Idle Thoughts later, in post 782 (“Why would you post this without checking?”) for posting that the Apprentice was not recruitable (pot, kettle) and (b) see point #4 (not to mention that that’s not such great strategy for the Priest anyway)
(3) the reasoning behind his vote for Queuing: which appears to be ignoring that DiggitCamera did originally suggest the plan and Queuing did revoke his support of that plan 100 posts prior to voting for Diggit
(4) In post 638, sachertorte says the following:
Well, okay, I have considered your suggestion. And also considered that the fact that you suggested this might make people dismiss it further with the thought “scum wouldn’t be so bold as to make such a suggestion”. But if you’re clever enough to draw the attention in the first place, then you’re clever enough to use the suggestion as further misdirection.
And finally (5) in post 643, he says:
Doesn’t that rather contradict your point in 638? Or is Mal not bold enough to draw such attention to himself if he were scum?
Happy 4th of July peoples! (even though it’s the 5th now)
Ah, this is one of these “Only the true Messiah denies his divinity!” things, isn’t it? Only a witch would take such offence at being called a witch.
'Dever. Dunk me, already, and then let me have the customary crocodile tears. :rolleyes:
Break’s over, town. Back to work!
So, I took a look at the Mtgman bandwagon. The name that I felt the least familiar with was MHaye, so I decided to do a complete workup on him. I’ll share the research for your use. (Others should share their research, too! It’s slow work, so we townies should spread the load.)
Complete post history of MHaye:
Post number and content given. Things in quotation marks are my own paraphrasings which are subject to correction by MHaye (though I tried to be careful.) My own comments are in {curly brackets}.
210: “grudges from old games are bad”
258: “random voting is bad”
309: rules clarif.
452: “sachertorte’s O/A plan is bad”
473: non-post, repeat of 452
709: rules clarif.
778: rules clarif.
787: “here’s why I’ve been gone; should become active soon”
851: first big content post; mostly “random voting is bad”, plus the zuma thing
859: non-post
865: non-post, non-vote zuma
874: second big content post, after “bandwagon” {see below}; lot’s of FoS reasons given {good!} but {4-of-7 of the accused are people I feel are likely town!}
877: non-post
890: night {see below}
901: night
950: night
953: night
988: non-post
996: vague suspicion-y words re: Mal, but no actual FoS
998: “I would’ve voted for zuma if Mtgman wasn’t there”
So, here are my comments on the history. Y(comments)MV. Townies (and scum 
) – let us know what you think!
A. In 210, we (I) learn that MHaye is experienced. Good to know.
B. Consistent on opinion that random voting is bad (consistency is good, but note (A).)
C. Most posts are non-posts or near-non-posts.
D. Big content post (874) came after the bandwagon, which he joined. No vote was cast before then. (I believe no mention of Mtgman was made before the vote, but I can’t stomach another full sweep to verify this. MHaye should correct this if untrue.)
E. Many FoS’s were pointed in 874, with stated reasons (good!). Unfortunately, I disagreed with most of the stated reasons (bad!). 4 out of 7 of the FoS recipients were on my none-too-lengthy list of quasi-trusted people. Part of this has to do with the following:
Some folks (including MHaye) have FoS’d all strategy ideas as scum-like because of flaws (real or misunderstood) in the strategy proposed. However, I tend to see a strong divide between (1) strategy ideas which seem to have had a lot of energy put into them and which seem well-intensioned despite flaws which may surface, and (2) strategy which is suggested in a throw-away fashion or which is silently dropped when a flaw is pointed out.
The vehemence of sachertorte and Mtgman with their strategies made me just think “they really believe in these ideas”, which makes me think town. Point is, that’s a big part of why 4/7ths of his FoS list is on my low-suspicion list.
F. Four night posts. Increasing the post count?
G. The 996/998 combo rubs me the wrong way. In 996 he all but refuses to finger Mal. That then makes 998 look like a too-obvious attempt at distancing himself from Mal, especially important since Mal is under the looking glass right now.
Well, I didn’t know what to expect when I started this analysis nearly an hour and a half ago. In summary, MHaye has many posts which are ignorable and many which are just sort of statement-y (rules or “random voting is bad, guys” which is a conversation whose conclusion he is already familiar with due to his experience, so he wasn’t going out on any limbs there.) There were 1.5 fresh content posts. I didn’t buy much of the eventual finger pointing, and his only vote came at the 11th hour and was mixed in with the noise of the bandwagon (though he gave vote reasons which I probably should spend a moment tomorrow reviewing to be sure.) His recent comments about Mal make me suspect them together. Enough to change my vote? I think so. While the scum-like things are what they are, there’s nothing in his history that makes me really think “town”.
unvote SnakesCatLady
vote MHaye
FoS SnakesCatLady
Before I forget: fluiddruid, you still have an outstanding question I’d be curious to hear the answer of at the bottom of 833.
I also never said: penis owner.
Well, that’s a small fraction of what I had hoped to accomplish. (I wanted to profile three names.) But, I’ve got a meeting to be at in about six hours, so it’s time to sleep.
Back from 4th-related excitement; sorry for my absence during the past real life day, and did Blaster Master ever formally announce whether or not this game Day would be extended?
OK, lots of thoughts, but as I’m at work and actually have a crapload of stuff to do today, I’m going to have to break them up a bit and focus on one person at a time. Right now, I want to focus on Malacandra.
His work so far has been very, very odd.
Leaving aside color posts and content-free posts (eg, “this thread is moving too fast,”) here is a summary of his contribution to date:
-
1 modest speculation on the priest (#305)
-
1 bit of math commentary succinctly describing the benefit (which he described as small but present) of sachertorte’s idea to split the town for the purposes of Oracle/Apprentice investigation. (#485)
-
This post, at #546:
-
A complaint that he feels like right now we have zero information, and a bit of discussion about how his comment at 546 could be read as too obvious for scum, but maybe scum would do it for that reason, but maybe… (#652)
-
An unprompted post saying:
- When others respond to this, he says (#1027) that he wasn’t trying to do anything with that remark, just commenting on how the logic people were using to indict him yesterday would (by their way of thinking) clear him today. Then he says:
-
Post #1033 - a quick dismissal of fluiddruid’s mild attack on him.
-
Post #1111 - in which Mal notes again that the town is, essentially, was prepared to use his vote for zuma as evidence against him regardless of what zuma’s alignment turned out to be. This is an interesting point, and more on it presently.
-
Post #1121 - in which he gets testy with sachertorte. More presently.
-
Post #1126 - a resigned “fine, whatever, kill me” post
And that’s it.
EDITORIAL ANALYSIS:
About the controversy of the Day, I believe that Malacandra is right. It seems perfectly clear to me that his first post of toDay was designed *not * to suggest that he should be cleared of suspicion because zuma turned out to be town - quite the opposite. He thinks (I agree) there is no evidence about him either way, and that the effort to twist his brief comment about zuma into something definitive is over-reaching (and, I’ll add on my own accord, possibly but not surely scummy).
I think his first post of toDay was an attempt to illustrate how flimsy the evidence against him was in the first place. He was saying, “it would be ridiculous to clear me of suspicion based solely on the fact that zuma was town, right? So why was everyone in such a hurry to indict me if zuma turned out to be scum?” And he is right - somehow the town has created a situation where Malacandra is guilty no matter what: if zuma was scum, Mal was trying to create distance between them. If zuma was town, Mal is trying to deceive us in a different way. This is foolish.
But is it scummy? I don’t know. sachertorte has been particularly emphatic about trying to paint Malacandra’s comments as conflicting or contradictory, which as I’ve said I don’t believe they are. A somewhat hesitant FoS to sachertorte (and Pleonast, too) for what I see as an effort to find contradiction where none exists. Of course, they could just be townies trying to find a good reason to vote for someone in a situation where good reasons to vote are in short supply.
For the moment, then, I see no reason to vote for Malacandra on this basis. As I said, Pleo and sachertorte currently have a slightly-Culty texture in my mind, for their efforts to suggest inconsistency where none occurred.
fluiddruid, also voting for Mal, takes a different approach, accusing Mal of trying too hard to convince everyone that he’s town, of being defensive. Thing is, in the games I’ve played and watched, townies accused of scumminess have at times become far more defensive than Mal has in this thread. They’ve panicked, thrown around counter-accusations, posted page after page of theories trying to clear themselves (anyone remember brewha. In comparison to some of those folks, Mal’s defense looks positively desultory - passionless. So, fluid, why the ongoing effort to paint him as especially defensive?
BUT…
This doesn’t mean I consider Malacandra to be off the hook. Look at my summary, above. He has barely participated. If he hadn’t made a few attempts at defending himself, he’d have basically no posts. He hasn’t voted for anyone apart from his initial post voting for zuma. He’s never posted even a mild suspicion of anyone. Even his responses to the attacks against him seem more like annoyance than real defensiveness - it’s almost as if he’s trying his best to keep his head way, way down, and the accusatory posts are drawing attention to him in a way he’s trying to avoid. He has to respond - because to simply ignore the accusations would get him a lot of attention - but he doesn’t have to like it.
No vote from me, not yet.
(color removed)
Another vote gets another response post.
(1) I was trying to drop it. The combination of my belief in the idea and the appearance of additional comments about it continued the discussion a bit longer, but it came to a natural end. And yes, I do continue to state my belief in the coordination plan. That is the **reason **I posted so much about it.
(2) I don’t understand your reasoning at all. The only ‘error’ I made was that I didn’t explicitly state why I was stating the Priest is un-nightkillable. Sure, there might be cases where the Priest might choose not to self-protect, but the role as written gives the Priest the power to be un-nightkillable. I don’t see how this relates to Idle Thoughts and his mistake regarding Apprentice recruitment. He made a simple rules interpretation error. It’s not like the Apprentice has the power to make himself un-recruitable or anything like that. He read the rules wrong.
(3) I think my reasoning for voting for **Queuing **are clear. I simply don’t understand how changing his mind about DiggitCamara’s idea absolves him from his history of having originally thought the idea meritorious. (Let me be explicit here, I did not vote for Queuing for having supported the plan. I think the plan idea and any support for it was an honest mistake; but Queuing’s having supported it before, I don’t see how he can use the idea as a reason to vote for DiggitCamara. I don’t see how Queuing can look at his own support for the idea, dismiss it as a mistake, and yet hold DiggitCamara accountable for essentially the same mistake). I just don’t get your point here at all. So Queuing is allowed to say, ‘oops, sorry, my mistake,’ but DiggitCamara isn’t? Why?
(4) I don’t think a response here is warranted. You’re doing exactly what I think you should. Essentially we see eye-to-eye on this one.
(5) I don’t see the contradiction. This is what I see. I see several people note Malacandra’s post as scummy. I see others acknowledge Malacandra’s post as scummy-looking but not-scummy because scum wouldn’t be so bold. I state that, ‘scum wouldn’t do that because it’s too obvious’ isn’t really a great reason to justify letting Malacandra (or anyone) off the hook. At the time, I dismissed Malacandra’s post as not-scummy, because I didn’t find the content scummy. Do you see the difference? I was speaking against the case where people find behavior scummy, but dismiss it because ‘scum is not so bold or stupid.’
You’re the one who’s being a prat about it. Hell, I didn’t even vote for you yet.
I agree. I’m really, really not buying sachertorte as scum, because I can’t see scum taking the kind of risks he did on Day 1. I don’t have much of a read on MHaye as yet.
Since you’ve decided to do this, I’m going to go ahead and add it to my signature line as well with the caveat that I am going to be maintaining it, just making it easier for you all to find.
Since I called Pleonast and DiggitCamera to question about voting and subsequent unvoting I looked into a couple other incidents of this on the first day. Another person who did this was sachertorte.
He voted for FCOD in post 388 and unvoted in post 416 . In the first post sachertorte votes for him due to what he believes is contradictory statements about how the O/A should act, basically accusing **FCOD **of telling the power roles to do as they please and then offering a suggestion. This suggestion was for them to investigate people who are appear to be strong candidates for scum/town. Sachertorte disagrees with this idea because he thinks they should investigate non-strong people, and calls the idea non-town, hence the vote.
In between the vote and unvote sachertorte posts 4 times as does FCOD, a couple in answer to each other. I don’t want to rehash it as its all about the O/A and we all know how that went. Overall I think this vote/unvote means nothing. The vote getter answered to the satisfaction of the voter and the vote was withdrawn.
One thing that could be of interest is that during this exchange sachertorte garnered 2 votes from other people. One from SCL basically because sachertorte wouldn’t shut-up about his plan and she thinks its a bad plan; the other from pleonast (immediately after SCL’s vote) because he ignored the warning pleonast gave about talking about the plan. This warning was given at 10:49am, FCOD talked about it at 1056, pleonast posted again at 11:10, Sachertorte at 11:11, FCOD at 11:12, pleonast votes at 1120. The vote only goes to Sachertorte because Pleonast thinks FCOD might not have seen the warning, but Sachertorte had to have. No explanation is given for the post by FCOD at 11:12. I find that a little odd.
Arizona Teach also did the quick vote/unvote thing. He voted for Zeriel in post 555 and unvoted in post 580 His stated reason for the vote was that Zeriel had accused captain Klutz of using lurking as a strategy because klutz said he wasn’t posting due to having nothing to say. He unvotes because Klutz didn’t seem to care that one person had voted for him. Zeriel does answer the accusation in post 564 with quotes from Klutz who had stated the minimum necessary from every player was a vote and justification. Zeriel doesn’t like that and wants more. Zeriel’s next [EMAIL=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8725019&postcount=565]post is about NAF’s assertion about people who he had not noticed, Zeriel being on that list, and the people who were not included on the list who had posted very little. Zeriel’s next post is an answer to NAF about how Zeriel thinks it is odd that NAF didn’t notice him until he started questioning NAF’s statements.
I find some parts of this exchange interesting too. Why does Arizona care about Zeriel voting for Klutz? Why does he then use the fact that Klutz didn’t answer him as a good enough reason to unvote him? Particularly in the span of just 2 hours? As well what was up with that list of NAF’s? It seemed riddled with errors. An unusual mistake for an experienced player I would say.
Ok this post is long enough, and I have some work to do.
For the record I find the constant voting and unvoting by pleonast odd, but it is his stated method of playing so I will accept that for now. I wouldn’t bet on it or anything but sachertorte smells like town to me. His vote/unvote came quickly but with reason. I find his posts to be passionate but with an unwillingness to ever be wrong. I bet he is like that in real life as well, which to be honest is one of my least favourite “quirks” but I will try to not hold that against him. It is what annoyed me to no end about brewha in M2 as well.
Arizona teach’s defense of another (or at least using it as a reason to vote for someone) and then using the fact that that other did not seem to care about the vote I find suspicious as well. However it was the first day, so maybe I shouldn;t read much into it.
The mistake made by NAF was amateurish and I don’t know what to make out of it.
I’m assuming you intend this to be a vote? Can you try to be a little more careful with your voting, because otherwise it’ll get hard to keep track.
Fair enough. I guess I don’t need to panic yet.
I’m still catching up the thread (luckily it has slowed down a lot for 4 July). Just want to clear up one thing.
#848 highlighted an inconsistency from Storyteller in regard to the fact that Oracle investigations cannot distinguish between scum and non-believers.
#850 was storyteller’s response, saying it was a memory lapse.
#853 was my explanation of why I was suspicious.
Having re read the first day’s posts I accept that it was a simple memory lapse, so un FOS Storyteller.
However, I also believe that Storyteller is not a non-believer, as if he was he would have probably realised that he was investigated the same as scum. So if the Oracle eventually reports him as a non-believer I’ll be in here screaming SCUM!
I did not. I said I would extend it if it looked like it would be necessary, but I don’t think it will, so I’m probably not going to. However, if you think it should be extended by 24 hours, if enough people want it extended, I’ll do so.
Ok, I am going to make my next post a post about a theory I have been working on…but first I needed to address this.
STOP MISREPRESENTING MY LIST!
I stated at the time that it was subjective. There can be no errors on a subjective list.
I explained my list (IIRC) at least three other times.
IT WAS JUST A LIST OF PEOPLE I WANTED TO HEAR MORE FROM BECAUSE I DIDN"T FEEL THEY WERE CONTRIBUTING MEANINGFULLY! How can there be errors on such a list? It was my opinion. I was sharing it with the group, but it was still just my opinion.
Sorry to jump on you about this Queuing, I know you aren’t the only person to make this mistake. But here is the thing, I don’t make many hard data posts. Almost all my posts will be interpritations.
Also, at the time I posted this list you seemed to understand it because you said you didn’t think it was fair for me to post a list of suspicion (which isn’t really what it was) because I couldn’t remember the statments of the particular players involved.
I am not sure why this is so hard to understand.
Frankly I expect this kind of soft analysis from Auto, but not from you Queuing.
My two cents on this: I found Malacandra’s vote and zuma’s reaction to said vote yesterDay exceedingly odd.
However, it seems to me that it actually exonerates him. My reasoning:
- The exchange consisted of one vote and the comment of the receiver of the vote. It was, however, surprisingly… non belligerent
- Scum saw that exchange and thought:
- Scum killed zuma to try and find out if the theory was correct.
About 2 1/4 days left in the Day. There’s a total of 8 votes so far.
** Malacandra ** (3) - Pleonast, fluiddruid, sachertorte
** Kat (repl. ArizonaTeach) ** (2) - Fretful Porpentine, Autolycus
** MHaye ** (1) - Pasta
** Pleonast ** (1) - FlyingCowOfDoom
** sachertorte ** (1) - Kat