[QUOTE=Queuing]
If something smells scummy to you then say why you think it is scummy. Don’t wait for someone else to validate your opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Just out of curiosity, Queuing…
What are your thoughts on the benefits of trying to build consensus in this game? If your thoughts are favorable, how do you reconcile them with the above statement?
[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]
Ooooh, that’s nasty! I like it! Keep him in
Regarding “scum tells,” I agree with Hal that “third vote is scum” is like “there’s clouds, gonna rain today” - maybe, maybe not, and I’ll believe it when it rains. Also, once people are familiar with it, we’re back into having wine in front of us. I mean, if I was a floppy-wristed and very touchy-feely man (straight or gay) going to visit a country where gays are stoned to death, I’d do my best to contain my natural exuberance! So scum may be voting third… or second, or first.
And as for “defending someone is a scum tell” - SCL, it’s true that initially only people who are part of a “special faction” would know who belongs to that side, but we’ve already had a night and there’s researcher roles. And well, same as we have FOS’s, it’s possible to say “hm… this person’s analysis sounds solid to me, so I think we’re on the same side,” no?
Let’s not let “scum tells” do our thinking, please.
What are you talking about, Hal Briston? My establishment is properly licensed!
I have scattershot responses to a bunch of things that have come up since I last posted; some of these are old, but I can think of no better way to format this. If I break it up into a bunch of little posts, it adds no additional content and clutters the board.
So, zooming back a half dozen or so pages:
[QUOTE=Hal Briston]
On the flip side, I find Queuing’s shotgun approach to casting suspicion to be a bit scummy in itself. Four FOS’s and a vote in two sentences? It all seems like a very convenient way for scum to keep everyone’s eyes on as many targets as possible. Not nearly enough for a vote, but certainly enough to FOS Queuing.
[/QUOTE]
Really? On the second Day of a game in which the majority of us have no good information at all yet, you think that it’s potentially scummy for a given player to express active suspicion of four other players? This makes no sense to me, and sounds like an effort to make up a scum tell where none exists - the only people who can be narrow and focused in their suspicion right now are the people with good information (ie, the scum, and - if they were lucky last night - the investigative roles). Everyone else must take the shotgun approach to suspecting, to avoid getting stuck in one rut for half the game.
On page 24:
[QUOTE=Kyrie Eleison]
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.
[/QUOTE]
This struck me as soon as I read it as interesting. This vote for Kat is predicated on the assertion that she (in her former incarnation as AZTeach) is “voting for effect.” OK, fine. The problem that I have with this is that two other players have explicitly “voted for effect” in this game: DiggitCamera with his “poke-the-lurker” votes, and Pleonast, who voted yesterday specifically to punish players who continued to discuss A/O strategy. Yet Kyrie has never called either of these players out on “voting for effect.” Why not?
Finally, regarding Queuing’s list of voters for Mtgman:
Of the voters, I’m not totally clear on DiggitCamera’s reasons for his/her vote. Diggit, why did you vote for Mtgman? If the answer involves restating something I or someone else has already said, I’m OK with that.
[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
Just out of curiosity, Queuing…
What are your thoughts on the benefits of trying to build consensus in this game? If your thoughts are favorable, how do you reconcile them with the above statement?
[/QUOTE]
A consensus?
If you mean some sort of collective plan that everyone should follow no.
If you mean waiting for others to validate your opinion on something you don’t like by straight out asking without going back and seeing if there is anything else you don’t like about said player all in the name of “I am a n00b”, then no.
If by consensus you mean looking back at posts, reading them in context, finding something you don’t like (be it a vote, a FOS or a statement), following that trail, building a case with active links and statements, presenting the case and waiting for an answer, replying to said answer and laying down a vote, then sure.
I don’t try to build a consensus. I try to find scum. I do this by looking for inconsistencies and actions taken with no reason given. I then present my case for all the players to see. I invite others to openly question my case, giving reasons against not blanket statements such as “its crap”. I want the person I am going after to answer me. I want them to give me reasons to remove my vote. I want them to convince me they are believers. If they do not do so, I will leave my vote where ever it happens to lie.
Still on a semi-vacation, I’m reading along but haven’t had much time to think. Malacandra’s statements haven’t convinced me to change my vote, and no one else seems more scummy to me. My vote stands for now.
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
(snip)
Finally, regarding Queuing’s list of voters for Mtgman:
Of the voters, I’m not totally clear on DiggitCamera’s reasons for his/her vote. Diggit, why did you vote for Mtgman? If the answer involves restating something I or someone else has already said, I’m OK with that.
[/QUOTE]
Like Queuing remarked, my first vote for Mad the Swine and subsequent rectification were rather confusing.
And, actually I even managed to confuse myself. In this post I already had presented my list of current “main suspects”.
and when I unvoted Autolycus I wanted to vote for one of the “top suspects” on my list. Your vote for MtgMan was fairly recent your reasoning had convinced me to put him in as my top suspect.
However, when I voted I managed to commingle Mad The Swine’s actions (leave of absence) and MtgMan’s scummy appearance and rendered a confusing vote.
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
This struck me as soon as I read it as interesting. This vote for Kat is predicated on the assertion that she (in her former incarnation as AZTeach) is “voting for effect.” OK, fine. The problem that I have with this is that two other players have explicitly “voted for effect” in this game: DiggitCamera with his “poke-the-lurker” votes, and Pleonast, who voted yesterday specifically to punish players who continued to discuss A/O strategy. Yet Kyrie has never called either of these players out on “voting for effect.” Why not?
[/QUOTE]
That’s a fair question, although I suspect you know the answer I’m going to give. As you note, both Diggit and Pleonast have voted for effect. However, also as you note, both did so explicitly. I’m not such an idealist that I believe that voting for effect never happens, or is even always inappropriate. Folks who move their votes from small vote-getters to one of the leading vote-getters at the end of the day are often doing so for effect – they want to have some influence over who gets dunked. Some of these folks may be townies looking to ensure that we make the right choice; some of them may be scum, looking to influence the selection for more nefarious reasons.
So what factors determine whether a vote-for-effect is scummy in my opinion? I’m not sure I can come up with an exhaustive list – I’m not even sure I should, lacking a specific incident that needs to be discussed: there’s little sense in posting a recipe for scum to avoid suspicion, after all. Nonetheless: Is it acknowledged? Is there a stated goal? Is it a laudable one? Those have to be considered.
And, to be clear, I didn’t vote for AZTeach for only this reason, or even mainly this reason. Rather, I cited it as an example of the kind of thing that I found in AZTeach’s posts that I thought had contributed to my all-too-subjective impression of his posts. I went back and reviewed AZTeach’s posts because you had posted something that caused me to question my conclusion yesterday, looking to see if I still had the same impression. I did. I then tried to identify elements that were responsible for giving me that impression. This was the most prominent one I found.
You can safely bet that this approach was subject to confirmation bias. And it’s not entirely fair to Kat, who can’t effectively respond to it, which makes me a big meanie. But it’s what I’ve got at the moment, and I’m going with it for now.
Wow, we are swingin today aren’t we.
I have been over the thread and over the thread, and I am not comming up with anything that I am too comfortable with. I don’t like the Malacandra wagon at all, SCL and Fluid are seeming scummy to me, but they have both posted so little…
I am going to go ahead and put my vote back on fluiddruid. I have nothing but my gut and my WIFOM argument. But my when my gut tells me something, it is usually a good idea for me to listen.
Vote fluiddruid
I wonder if it’s the 4th that has slowed this thread down or the general slowdown due to the first-day excitement wearing off.
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
I wonder if it’s the 4th that has slowed this thread down or the general slowdown due to the first-day excitement wearing off.
[/QUOTE]
Good question. People may be out of town. I am also thinking that 5 days is a long time for a Day. I think a lot of people just don’t have much to say anymore now that the Day is almost over.
That being said, there are a lot of people we haven’t really heard much from. And roughly half the people playing have yet to vote, so it has to be more than just slow down after the first day.
[QUOTE=NAF1138]
(snip)
And roughly half the people playing have yet to vote, so it has to be more than just slow down after the first day.
(snip)
[/QUOTE]
Speaking of which, could we have an official vote count, Blaster Master?
Speaking only for myself, I have not yet voted because I am struggling a good deal with how to proceed. The sheer number of players in this game makes it very, very difficult to get a bead on any one of them. I’ve tried poking at a few people, but I have nothing that I consider substantial enough to warrant a vote.
I’ll have to re-read again, but won’t have time enough to that until tomorrow.
I am not sure why people aren’t posting more, beyond it has been a holiday week for a number of people (every Canadian and American has had at least 1 holiday day). The day ends Saturday at 5pm. IMO we need everyone to come in and drop a reasoned vote well before that. I think we should try to get all of our votes in 24 hours ahead of time, allowing time for a defense/role claim/etc.
If people don’t think they have enough to vote on, well you should. A number of arguments have been made against various people and you yourself should have an idea or 2. Explain it, throw it out there, don’t be afraid. Yes chances are you will be wrong. That is part of the game.
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
I’ll have to re-read again, but won’t have time enough to that until tomorrow.
[/QUOTE]
Speaking of which, this is a nice slow time to remind everybody that weekends are really no good for me right now. I will be able to check the thread, and post to it maybe once between 6pm PDT today and Night.
This has been a tough day for me to get into the thread and really do some analysis. I’ll do the best I can here and try to make it as coherent as possible.
Starting back on my re-read of Day Two, I’m mildly suspicious of the people who very early after the break of dawn, said “Why zuma?” I feel like this is a tactic to deflect suspicion away from themselves. There may be some legitimate questions in there, but on the whole, asking that reeks of someone trying to convey the idea to others that “I’m not a Cultist so I have no possible idea why they might have killed him.”
The posters that did it were: Fluiddruid, sachertorte, and Fretful Porpentine.
Other than Pleonast’s post on Malacandra, I can’t see a whole lot more reason to be suspicious of Mal. **Pleonast ** makes the only valid point I have seen in the argument in that he linked himself to another player.
**FCOD ** presents a good theory against **Pleonast ** in post 1038.
[QUOTE=FlyingCowOfDoom]
**Mtgman **had three votes (IIRC) and was not the vote leader, and all of a sudden he got rushed. I’d bet good money that there’s at least one scum in this group of players. Personally, I think it’s Pleonast. When he kept trying to reprimand **sachertorte **and me for our discussion yesterDay I kept getting a weird feeling, and now I know why. I think that he’s trying to set himself up to be trustworthy. First, he made a huge point about how **sachertorte **and I were engaging in anti-town discussion, even threatening us with votes. ToDay, he’s voted for **Mal **right of the bat. I think that they’re both scum, and Pleonast’s activities are planned so he can later claim, “Look how pro-town I am!”. I will vote Pleonast for now, and I’d like to hear what other people think about this theory.
–FCOD
[/QUOTE]
And **Fluiddruid’s ** post addressing **FCOD’s ** bandwagon list on **Mtgman ** I totally agree with.
[QUOTE=fluiddruid]
I find throwaway (one-off) votes or no votes much more suspicious than anyone on that list, at least for solely the voting pattern.
[/QUOTE]
The one-off votes are highly suspicious to me.
[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
I’m not going to be looking too hard for scum in the mgtman bandwagon…at least not yet. I’d like to see a few more posts from some of the subs, and I need to re-read the weekends posts a bit more carefully before saying anything useful.
[/QUOTE]
It strikes me as very odd that **Cookies ** would pipe in just to say this. Is she scum trying to divert attention from someone in the bandwagon?
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
<snipped>
Other voting peculiarities
A list of single vote getters:
Autolycus (1) - ArizonaTeach
DiggitCamara (1) - Queuing
Hal Briston (1) - zuma
NAF1138 (1) - FlyingCowOfDoom
Nava (1) - Fretful Porpentine
Queuing (1) - sachertorte
SnakesCatLady (1) - Pasta
My theory? This is a nice place for scum to hide. Some will hide in bandwagons, no doubt. But I think a throw-away vote makes sense for some scum.
I think most of these votes were explained sufficiently when made. The one that sticks out to me was Fretful Porpentine’s vote for **Nava **which occurred very late in the day (post 875) and shifted her vote from **Autolycus **to Nava. With the reasoning that the vote is a poke at Nava. A poke with four-and-a-half hours before the end of the day to someone who hadn’t posted at all to the thread. Justified? possibly during the day, but at the end of it? I don’t think so. To me this looks like scum tossing a vote somewhere to go unnoticed. This vote meant nothing.
[/QUOTE]
According to **sachertorte’s ** list here of one-offs, and coupled with my list of people who exclaimed “why zuma?”, I have narrowed down my FOS list to two: **sachertorte ** and Fretful Porpentine.
[QUOTE=Fretful Porpentine]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Here **Fretful Porpentine ** defends sachertorte. I’m gonna have a hard time deciding which one to vote for.
So now finished reading and catching up, and I am going to place my vote with Fretful Porpentine, for being among the first to exclaim “Why zuma?”, for having an one-off vote, and for the reason that others had mentioned, the timing of that vote.
I’m getting a strong hand-waving-freakoutery read on Queueing. This is somewhat like ArizonaTeach’s freaking out yesterDay that has led several people, me included, to vote or FOS Kat her sub. I think Queueing is drawing fire, but I don’t know if that counts as scummy.
I won’t be online tonight or much of tomorrow, so I’ll have to vote in the next hour or two.
Using the vote count from Blaster Masters sig which is from post 1191, here is a vote vote count:
Kat (repl. ArizonaTeach) (4) - Fretful Porpentine, Autolycus, SnakesCatLady, Kyrie Eleison
Malacandra (4) - Pleonast, fluiddruid, sachertorte, Idle Thoughts
FluidDruid (2) – Zeriel, NAF1138
Hal Briston (1) - Queuing
MHaye (1) - Pasta
MonkeyMensch (1) - DiggitCamara
Pleonast (1) – FlyingCowOfDoom
Kat (repl. ArizonaTeach) (4) - Fretful Porpentine, Autolycus, SnakesCatLady, Kyrie Eleison
**Malacandra **(4) - Pleonast, fluiddruid, sachertorte, Idle Thoughts
**FluidDruid **(2) – Zeriel, NAF1138
Hal Briston (1) - Queuing
MHaye (1) - Pasta
MonkeyMensch (1) - DiggitCamara
Pleonast (1) – FlyingCowOfDoom
Fretful Porpentine (1) - Hockey Monkey
15 out of 28 votes are in.
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey]
And **Fluiddruid’s ** post addressing **FCOD’s ** bandwagon list on **Mtgman ** I totally agree with. The one-off votes are highly suspicious to me.
[/QUOTE]
Not for nothing, but it seems to me that, having described one-off votes as “highly suspicious,” you have gone and delivered a vote that is the dictionary description of a one-off vote - a single vote for a player who isn’t much on the overall town radar, who is unlikely to be lynched at this stage of the game.
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
Not for nothing, but it seems to me that, having described one-off votes as “highly suspicious,” you have gone and delivered a vote that is the dictionary description of a one-off vote - a single vote for a player who isn’t much on the overall town radar, who is unlikely to be lynched at this stage of the game.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe some other people will agree with me and take a look at his posts. Maybe it won’t be a one-off at the end of the day. Maybe I’ll change my mind if something new comes to pass in the next 24 hours. It’s not a one-off until the end of the day. Right? :dubious: