[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
FTR, I just received a response from him and he expects to be back on Sunday. If you all want, I can still forcibly replace him; otherwise, I’m content to let him come pick up where he left off… after reading a 20 pages of new content. 
[/QUOTE]
This is fine by me. IMO the swine can play. I would rather keep the player so we can point at the totality of their posts with having the caveat of “but that wasn’t me who said that”
[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
FTR, I just received a response from him and he expects to be back on Sunday. If you all want, I can still forcibly replace him; otherwise, I’m content to let him come pick up where he left off… after reading a 20 pages of new content.
[/QUOTE]
Ooops. Sorry, split pages and stuff.
My only concern is the DAY ends on Saturday. Perhaps, maybe, the day could be extended to account for both July 4 and Mad the Swine’s absence, so that MtS could actually participate in a dunking selection before day 3? (Mad the Swine, did vote on day one, but I don’t think anyone is putting much weight on it).
[QUOTE=NAF1138]
Since I was riding AZ hard yesterDay I just wanted to throw 2 cents in on the kat/AZ thing.
I am not going to vote for Kat, because I think it is inherantly unfair to the new player to vote them out on the first day they are in the game based on the previous players postings. At least it is when we still clearly have more than one scum to chase down. My feeling is they should all get a 1 Day period to make their own mark. That being said, AZ was at the top of my scum list and so far Kat hasn’t been doing anything to change my mind. So I shall not be adding my vote toDay but if Kat hasn’t changed my mind by tomorrow I will gladly join this wagon.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll have to disagree completely on that note.
Thing is: the player may have changed, but the role remains the same. So, if an unexperienced player is substituted by a more experienced one, the first one might have made some mistakes in their posts which I, for one, am not willing to erase from my mind.
It’s a handicap for the substituting player. But well within the game.
YMMV
[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
I’ll have to disagree completely on that note.
Thing is: the player may have changed, but the role remains the same. So, if an unexperienced player is substituted by a more experienced one, the first one might have made some mistakes in their posts which I, for one, am not willing to erase from my mind.
It’s a handicap for the substituting player. But well within the game.
YMMV
[/QUOTE]
You misunderstand me. I am not saying erase them from your mind, and frankly if you don’t think there is someone who is an equally viable dunking candidate, go for it. I am just saying that this is a game, and it sucks a lot to sub into a game and then get kicked out immediatly. It just goes against my sense of fair play (to the person) to vote Kat off without giving her the benefit of one full Day of play. This changes the later we get into the game and the fewer scum we have left. And if we were on day 9 and had dunked 4 scum I might feel differently. I figure one Day isn’t really much this early. But this is just me, I am not asking anyone to follow me on this one.
I guess I feel for this topic in particular because I have been the subbed in one before (not on the dope).
FWIW, I agree with NAF on this. I think it is unfair to sub, as well as causing a problem later one where that person could say “it wasn’t me so x”. Plus I remember in M2 the first sub we had was for chrisk who was close to getting killed and turned out to be the doctor. Perhaps one of the reasons there was a sub in this game was because of nervousness of playing a power role. I don’t know if there were subs in M3 and M4, so I can’t comment on that history.
I’ve reviewed all of ArizonaTeach’s posts, and discovered that I’m still very suspicious. I don’t think he was desperate to avoid getting dunked, but he does seem not to tolerate inspection of his positions very well. He struck me as anxious to avoid having to discuss them. I think that was what I picked up on yesterday.
There was also this, in post #821, that struck me as odd:
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
Now, I have explained the zeuriel vote. I thought he meant something in his statement. He explained it. The guy I thought he was smearing didn’t make an issue of it. So why should I not retract my vote? That’s more of a reason half a dozen other people have given for their vote changes. People have been voting and unvoting for no stated reason, and I stated a reason, and that’s apparently not good enough. And now people who have votes on them are turning to me. I just find that discomforting. (emphasis mine, and formatting fixed)
[/QUOTE]
If AZTeach thought he had reason to think that Zeriel’s vote was suspicious, what difference does Captain Klutz’s reaction make? Why is it relevant? Little things like this make me think that AZTeach was voting for effect, and not for the purpose of uncovering scum. Vote Kat.
Reading and catching up, what is this “third vote is a scum” thing? This is new. Me, I usually keep the possibility that anyone on a lynch train could be scum, regardless of where and in what order they vote. I don’t know if this has been a thing in previous games but it really makes me give an eyebrow raise to Queuing. Mind explaining a bit more?
And DiggitCamera raises a good point in trying to think how scum would think. I still don’t totally see it, though, and will keep my book open on Mal. Maybe this is just my own experience and opinion talking but if someone is town and they’re accused, I never understood the whole resignation thing. I’d fight tooth and nail to convince everyone I was town and telling the truth…because if everyone who was accused just laid down and took it, who would we have left?
For that reason, if any, it looks weird to me on Mal but I still hold out slightly equal suspicions of Pleonast. The consistancy and voting history of this game, so far (as it’s having people who I’m suspicious of both against each other), leads me to believe that the Cultists are doing a pretty good job of fighting against and within each other.
[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
On that note, let’s try one of those “poke the player”-votes.
Vote Mad The Swine
[/QUOTE]
It’s pretty obvious that he hasn’t been posting in the last three whole days or so, so what makes you think voting for him is going to do any more? :dubious: If anything describes a “throwaway” vote, I’d think this did. I would have thought he’d be subbed by now.
Just read BM’s update on him. While it’s a minor relief that nothing serious happened, my point still stands about your vote.
And THIS doesn’t make any sense at all:
[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
Fair enough. The first “poke-a-player”-vote worked.
[/QUOTE]
By what means? By BM remembering MtS PMed him? What if he MtS hadn’t, how long would you have held your vote there?
Same with MonkeyMensh, what if s/he never answers? Going to throw your vote away rather than ask about a sub? At least others did that.
Mind you this isn’t a cast of suspicion or anything (yet) but maybe you could clarify your thought process?
[QUOTE=Kyrie Eleison]
I found Fretful Porpentine’s late, seemingly throw-away vote for Nava odd;
[/QUOTE]
Snipped heavy.
Speaking of that, it reminds me on Day One, I found Pasta’s unvote of me and for SCL very odd. It was made within about three or four hours of Day ending, when Mtgman already had a full eight votes against him. Like Diggit’s votes up above for MtS and MM, what was the point of that? It obviously wasn’t going to make any difference and just seemed to be put in place to “show” you were starting another mini-project on someone else.
I dunno, just struck me as a very odd (read: pointless) un- and other-vote.
And I, too, am find with MtS still being allowed to play.
Anyway, after catching up and these observances, I’m still left with both Pleonast and Mal on my radar more heavily than anyone else, with Mal taking a slight lead due to the huge WTF vote yesterDay and the seemingly inconsistant posts since. I also, feel, based on my own sense, that it’s not totally off to keep the possibly open that scum MAY just do the most obvious thing some game (in this case it would be Mal, if he is scum, helping to vote for zuma, town, at Night). Pleonast is right behind him for the reasons I’ve stated befor (which I explained in my last really long post) and all he did/said on Day One.
And Pasta still hasn’t dropped off my list of “Shadiest players thus far” completely either, due to remembering about the unvote and new vote at the last second and going back and reading it (in fact, Pleonast did this too early on Day One).
And sachetorte was on it but more and more, at least to me, s/he’s starting to slide off. Either that or hiding it better. : p
So based on all this and my thoughts and feelings so far, along with reasons and things I pointed out in the beginning of this post, I’m going to vote Malacandra.
[QUOTE=Idle Thoughts]
(snip)
It’s pretty obvious that he hasn’t been posting in the last three whole days or so, so what makes you think voting for him is going to do any more? :dubious: If anything describes a “throwaway” vote, I’d think this did. I would have thought he’d be subbed by now.
Just read BM’s update on him. While it’s a minor relief that nothing serious happened, my point still stands about your vote.
And THIS doesn’t make any sense at all:
By what means? By BM remembering MtS PMed him? What if he MtS hadn’t, how long would you have held your vote there?
Same with MonkeyMensh, what if s/he never answers? Going to throw your vote away rather than ask about a sub? At least others did that.
Mind you this isn’t a cast of suspicion or anything (yet) but maybe you could clarify your thought process?
(snip)
[/QUOTE]
Well… the reason I said “it worked” is because Blaster Master quoted my post in his announcement about MadTheSwine. In other words:
And, though you obviously don’t think a “prodding” vote serves any purpose, I (and others) do. I might leave my vote there if the reasons behind the player’s absence don’t satisfy me, but I might change it if someone else draws heavier suspicion.
[QUOTE=Idle Thoughts]
Reading and catching up, what is this “third vote is a scum” thing? This is new. Me, I usually keep the possibility that anyone on a lynch train could be scum, regardless of where and in what order they vote. I don’t know if this has been a thing in previous games but it really makes me give an eyebrow raise to Queuing. Mind explaining a bit more?
[/QUOTE]
In the first game the first person killed happened to be the head werewolf. One of the more experienced players (perhaps JSexton? Not sure anymore) basically started the wagon that got the head wolf killed based on the 3rd vote. Apparently this is a well known scum tell on mafiascum.net and widely known throughout the game. That is what I meant by it.
Hal Briston’s defense of irony in that he (apparently) talked a lot about the 3rd vote in M3 and/or M4 and it now being used on him, together with his “well I thought it was obvious why I was voting for x, it was for the same reason you said everyone else voted for him” just, IMO, lent more credence to my idea of his scuminess.
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
(color removed)
Another vote gets another response post.
(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.
[/quote]
I apologize for not being totally clear. It’s a combination of the post 300 flat out statement that the Priest is not night killable, and the post 339 statement that there is no reason for the Priest to protect other players (except “maybe” the Oracle). The first assertion is incomplete at best (and flat out wrong taken at face value), and the second is (IMO) really really bad advice. And I would possibly be inclined to dismiss it as honest error. But if it’s not honest error…it’s a pattern (see my answer to 3 below)
The relation to Idle Thoughts is that you both posted incorrect info on a power role, and it’s bugging me that you felt the need to call him to task for doing the same thing you did (yes, with different explanations behind it, I understand that, but the 2 posts had the same results: incorrect information on a power role). That part of it wasn’t a major factor in my suspicion, just a little bonus jump-up factor.
Yes, but in the post where you originally did so, you pointed out that Queuing supported that plan, and left out that he had already dropped his support and acknowledged that he’d missed the flaws, and accused him of “blaming” Diggit when Diggit was the one who’d actually suggested it. What you said was technically true but incomplete (like the info about the Priest being un-night-killable). It just feels like a pattern to me, of leaving out important supporting information.
About Diggit’s plan: did he just drop discussion of it, or did he actually post that he’d changed his mind? I suppose I can recheck the thread myself for that. Queuing’s acknowledgement that the plan was in error was enough to avoid a public FOS from me, but that doesn’t mean he’s off the hook, you know.
Okay, I think I understand. That you think the statement wasn’t scummy, not why you don’t think that, though.
[QUOTE=SnakesCatLady]
Then she came in yesterday and posted a very nice post defending my posting. A player defending another player is very worrisome to me; the only players who can know for sure if another player is worth defending are the ones with secret knowledge. In other words, Cult members. Also, defending a friendless player, as I seem to be, is a way to “make friends and influence people” - “SCL is getting picked on so if I defend her she won’t be suspicious of me”.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks very much for finding my post nice, but I wasn’t really defending you (sorry). I made neither an FOS nor an explicit defense in the post. I was actually kinda hoping for someone to say either “You’re crazy for missing those wonderful points by SCL and listening to a couple of players who are trying to smear her.” or “You’re out of your mind. Her ‘relevent’ posts aren’t nearly enough to justify the amount of defensiveness she’s exhibiting, considering [some high percentage] of her posts are pointless.” (Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.) Because it bothers me that the defensive posts completely overshadow the relevent posts, and I can’t figure out which way to jump over it. Are you being railroaded or are you covering something up? Or maybe neither? I can’t decide.
[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
For Kat, the first thing that strikes me on re-read of her vote-justification for sachertorte is placing a FOS on Diggit with one breath, and then citing something Diggit pointed out as reasoning to vote for sachetorte. I’m inclined to say: which is it? Are we supposed to trust Diggit or not trust him?
[/QUOTE]
I’m confused. Which “something Diggit pointed out” did I use to vote for sachertorte?
[QUOTE=Kat]
I’m confused. Which “something Diggit pointed out” did I use to vote for sachertorte?
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm…I seemed to (repeatedly) have difficulty parsing this line:
I kept interpreting that as you were saying that sachertorte’s reasoning was ignoring something that Diggit had suggested. As in something that Diggit had suggested that you agreed with and felt should have been heeded.
I see now that was very much not what you were saying. In light of this, I unvote Kat and re-apply my FOS on Kat while I think things over some more.
NAF1138, your point regarding fluiddruid is that she’s behaving in a way resembling what she’s described as the optimal scum strategy, and I agree that this is true. But then I quickly get into WIFOM territory when I try to resolve who is more likely to be scummy – someone who acts this way, and points out that it’s the optimal scum strategy, or someone who acts this way, and doesn’t. In other words, I’m not sure that fluid’s pointing it out makes her any more or less scummy than a host of people who also might fit into that category of play.
[QUOTE=NAF1138]
Then as I was looking back, Fluid hasn’t been involved in much of anything, but her vote against Mal seems to go against her own philosophy of how scum behave. (It goes against mine, and I think Fluid and I think similarly on this topic) Also she has said that she is deliberately staying out of controversial subjects (Day 1 p15 post702).
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that’s an accurate summary of post #702. She said that she was avoiding one particular controversial subject, not all controversial subjects, as you make it sound.
Yikes! Vacation’s over!
Sorry for the lack of posts this Day. It’s been a busy week for me IRL (midterm grades are due, doncha know).
I am still on the fence about Mal, although storyteller’s post does make a good case about the whole zuma/Mal thing being blown out of proportion. Zuma’s death doesn’t prove much about Mal either way, as I mused in one of my previous posts. Mal might have voted for zuma on a whim with no ulterior motives, but … I don’t know, it still bothers me that the only reason he gave was “if zuma turns out to be scum, yay for me.” As has already been hashed out, the mere fact that you voted for scum doesn’t mean anything in and of itself. So while Mal’s vote for zuma doesn’t prove anything either way, I still think his reasons were flimsy enough to make the whole thing a bit weird.
I have a few other suspicions, but no good case for them yet, so I’ll hold off posting till tonight or tomorrow, depending.
[QUOTE=Kyrie Eleison]
NAF1138, your point regarding fluiddruid is that she’s behaving in a way resembling what she’s described as the optimal scum strategy, and I agree that this is true. But then I quickly get into WIFOM territory when I try to resolve who is more likely to be scummy – someone who acts this way, and points out that it’s the optimal scum strategy, or someone who acts this way, and doesn’t. In other words, I’m not sure that fluid’s pointing it out makes her any more or less scummy than a host of people who also might fit into that category of play.
I don’t think that’s an accurate summary of post #702. She said that she was avoiding one particular controversial subject, not all controversial subjects, as you make it sound.
[/QUOTE]
She explicitly stated that she was avoiding one controversial subject, she seems to have managed to avoid all controversial subjects.
But you are right. It is very WIFOM.
There is something about staring at the same posts over and over again for a couple of hours that can make things seem so clear, when they might not actually be. Looking back on my posts I don’t think I really have enough evidence for a vote on fluid.
unvote fluiddruid
but still keep a HUGE FREAKIN’ FOS on FLUIDDRUID with the option to revote after further refletion.
There is still pleanty of time before a final vote needs to be put in.
[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
Hmmm…I seemed to (repeatedly) have difficulty parsing this line:
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s what happens when you post on drugs (me, not you). At least I’m less bizarre now than when they had me on morphine. My sister won’t tell me what I said that they were making fun of me for. 
Add one to Kat’s “fluff post” tally.
[QUOTE=Kat]
Yes, but in the post where you originally did so, you pointed out that Queuing supported that plan, and left out that he had already dropped his support and acknowledged that he’d missed the flaws, and accused him of “blaming” Diggit when Diggit was the one who’d actually suggested it. What you said was technically true but incomplete (like the info about the Priest being un-night-killable). It just feels like a pattern to me, of leaving out important supporting information.
[/QUOTE]
In my view, Queuing’s retraction of support neither increases nor decreases my suspicion of him. Support for the idea is a non-issue to me (Notice, I haven’t pointed a finger at **DiggitCamara **regarding the idea). Therefore, I didn’t mention it. I see now that I should have for completeness, as others do think that retracting support for an idea shown to be bad earns some sort of brownie-point/redemption thing. I don’t understand why the feeling is such, but it’s clear that Queuing did, and you (Kat) do too. It is the contradicting standard applied to DiggitCamara and Queuing (by Queuing) that raised my eyebrows, not the idea itself. I keep asking the question, Why is Queuing allowed to make a mistake, but DiggitCamara is not allowed to make the same mistake? Queuing’s retraction doesn’t address this issue either way.
[QUOTE=Kat]
Okay, I think I understand. That you think the statement wasn’t scummy, not why you don’t think that, though.
[/QUOTE]
I stated in post 643 that I viewed the statement as Malacandra’s stream-of-consciousness rambling and an addendum acknowledging that the rambling pretty much meant nothing. (**Kat **quoted this yourself in your post voting for me).
(I find it funny that I’m defending Malacandra’s post I originally thought innocuous, but no longer do.)
Oh, I realize I forgot to post this:
I have a penis. I am not sure if I own it or it owns me.
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
I keep asking the question, Why is Queuing allowed to make a mistake, but DiggitCamara is not allowed to make the same mistake? Queuing’s retraction doesn’t address this issue either way.
[/QUOTE]
I believe I answered this once but as I sense you are a pitbull and never let go of something, I will answer again.
I used the posting of the idea on Day 1 as PART of my reason to vote for Diggit Camara not because of the proposal of the idea but the TIMING of the proposal of the idea. Does that make it clear the difference I see between the 2? Regardless it was a Day 1 vote, and I personally no longer think it matters. If I did put a lot of stock into words only on Day 1, you would easily have my vote.
I, on the other hand, suffer from penis envy. According to Dr. Freud, anyway.
(In case it needs to be spelled out: I’m a gal.)