I am equally non committal. Whatever you think is best Blaster.
Doesn’t matter to me.
Sorry for being so quiet this second Day. I’ve just had a lot more going on this week than I did last week. I will post more thoughts and a vote before the day is out.
Well, since I probably won’t be checking in 'til tomorrow afternoon, a few final thoughts for this Day are in order. First, my FOS list:
- MonkeyMensch–didn’t show up until I placed my vote on him. Didn’t say much then, either.
- Autolycus–didn’t show his face around here. Since his presence yesterDay left much to be desired, until he was called out by then ArizonaTeach (now Kat), I have the lingering feeling he’s trying to stay out of sight, out of mind. Like in M4 where he was scum.
- Kyrie Eleison–had my FOS on him late yesterDay, my suspicions haven’t been really renewed… but then they haven’t been allayed either.
I don’t think the current vote leaders(**Kat **and Malacandra) are scum because:
- Kat inherited ArizonaTeach’s role and his “breakdown” yesterday seemed quite genuine. And, like I said yesterDay, I have yet to see scum having a “breakdown”. (I don’t think ArizonaTeach would be the first one to have a convincing one)
-
Malacandra’s bizarre vote-comment exchange with zuma (see one of my previous posts during toDay) both explains zuma’s Night death (yes, I think the Cultists killed zuma. All other scenarios are too implausible) and, by implication, makes him anything but a Cultist.
And I, too, think you should use your discretion to keep the Day as it is or change it as you see fit.
(Did not edit to change the last sentence to:
I, too, think Blaster Master should use his discretion to keep the Day as it is or change it as he sees fit
:smack: )
I say leave it the same. This game will already be long enough. People just need to come in and vote. They have had 5 days, what is to say another day will spur them on? I think the upcoming deadline may do that.
I say leave the current deadline.
–FCOD
Another vote for leaving the deadline as it is, 'cos I’m impatient that way
To SCL:
Because of the four who voted, three had already pinged my radar. Fretful strikes me as a pretty non-scummy person all around. I’m not sure of the rest of y’all
To MHaye:
You’re now on my list. I disagree with you sufficiently strongly on the potential for analysis of the zuma killing–mostly because I don’t think the scum have any incentive to kill randomly when they could be killing semi-randomly or killing directly and having someone claim they might be being random.
I did read it, and I snipped it for the sake of brevity, not to misquote you.
Here is your quote again:
Yes, you did explain it. I still do not agree with it. Why is why I said:
I did not say that you did not give a reason, I said I was puzzled by what you said, not because you left anything out – because, to clarify, it is counterintuitive (and counter-Town if you get right down to it). It is counterintuitive to cast suspicion on people for discussing the reasons behind a night kill.
To be extra clear, this is because casting suspicion on players for trying to establish motives and patterns behind scum is far more beneficial to scum than it is to town. Again, it makes absolutely no sense for scum to pick someone at random. It may not be determinable by the information we have, but there is always a reason - even if it is a weak or poorly chosen reason.
As for the day, I’m neutral. I’m impatient and I don’t think we can discover that more today, but, if people haven’t had chances to contribute, by all means hold it off. Either way.
So here’s the thing: having read this response, my first instinct was to check and find out whether or not Fretful, for whom you voted, actually did place her “one-off” vote at the end of the Day. She did. But looking closer at the details of Fretful’s Day 1 activity shows how easy it is for theories like this “one-off vote” hypothesis to be misused - either by overeager townies or maliciously, by scum - to distort events and make them harder to analyze.
Consider, first, the spirit of the “one-off voting” theory as posted by sachertorte.
Put less succinctly, a one-off vote can be scummy because it allows a player to make a vote that has zero chance of affecting the game - he or she is thus on the record as having voted, but will not be noticed in the fallout that inevitably accompanies a lynch of any kind. If done at the end of the day, it’s particularly likely to be forgotten even by the subject of the vote, allowing the one-off voter to slip even further beneath the radar.
It’s a fair enough theory. I don’t particularly subscribe to it - I have always said that everyone should vote for the person they think most likely to be scum, whether or not the bandwagon has other riders, and this theory would keep people from doing that - but it is not at all unreasonable.
But.
Let’s take a look at Fretful’s actual voting behavior from Day 1, shall we?
She first voted for Autolycus, citing his typically maddening pseudo-participation, in post #677, at 11:15PM on 6.28. Although hers was the first vote for Auto, this was about 2 and a half days from the end of the Day, hardly a last minute vote. It was also hardly a “safe” vote, in the end - it seems to me that Auto is pretty much always in danger of being lynched, so placing a vote for him that early in the Day is taking a chance that you will be in on the lynch in the end.
Then she all but vanishes. For a while.
At 9:37AM on 7.1, she changes her vote from Autolycus to Nava, for the stated reason that she wants to “poke” Nava a bit. The day ends about six hours later, with her vote hanging on Nava.
Now, technically, this was a solo vote, for a player in no danger of being lynched, and therefore qualifies as a “one-off” vote under the above definition. But at the same time - it clearly doesn’t fit the criteria according to which we’ve theorized that a one-off vote could be scummy.
See, thing is, by July 1 at 9:37AM, Fretful’s was one of only two votes for Auto. By that point in the Day, momentum had started to build on Mtgman’s wagon, and AzTeach and sachertorte had both drawn more interest than Auto, as well. Auto was, at that moment, in no more danger of being lynched than was Nava.
Had Fretful been scummily trying to float under the radar with a safe vote, she could have very easily left her vote on Auto. Now she has a vote that can be easily justified if she’s called on it, a vote that she shares with another player who is more suspected than she and is thus likely to take the heat if there is any, and a vote that will have no effect on the Day’s lynch.
Changing votes as she did so close to the deadline, far from directing attention away from Fretful, could only have made her more noticeable. Thus, the stated reason for thinking “one-off” votes might be scummy simply does not apply in this case.
And yet HockeyMonkey uses it as the foundation for an attack on Fretful.. This seems to me to be a pretty scum-tastic maneuver, if well-executed. Take a theory advanced by two other players (in this case, sachertorte and fluiddruid). Tell everyone you like it. Then find someone to whom it technically applies - trust that no one will do the research to see how well it really applies - and fire off a vote that: (1) probably won’t actually get her lynched; but (2) makes you look like you’re voting for a carefully thought-out reason.
I make no particular representation as to the alignment of Fretful in this scenario - if Hockey Monkey is scum, using this gambit to push suspicion (though likely not lynching-level suspicion) onto one of her fellows would be a brilliant move, allowing her to point out later in the game that she was on to scum all along. But for her twisting of the facts to make an invented scum tell seem to fit Fretful when it did not, I’m going to
vote Hockey Monkey
FAIR WARNING: I am highly unlikely to post again until Sunday morning. I have to attend a picnic at my boss’s beach house tomorrow, and then have my anniversary dinner in the evening, so I’ll be away from the computer. It’s possible I may sneak in one post early tomorrow, if developments warrant.
I’m sorry Fluiddruid, but I think we are misunderstanding each other. My suspicion is not because people are/were discussing the night kill and the motives. It was specifically because often the first people to chime in after dawn and say “Huh, wonder why the scum killed ____?” are scum. I’ve seen this before in several games. I don’t have any real suspicion of you at the moment because I felt that at least one of the people asking the question was genuine. Like I said, I don’t think the discussion in and of itself is bad, but I have seen scum use this tactic to direct the discussion away from themselves and guide the town into a debate that has nothing to do with finding the bad guys. Is it a true scum tell? I don’t know, but it’s the best lead I have at the moment.
Fretful Porpentine did this, and coupled not only the one-off vote, but the very strangeness of that vote is why I believe he is scum. He unvoted one player and voted for **Nava ** with about 4 hours to go in the game in order to “poke” her. This was a throw away vote with no accountablility behind it. I’m hoping that others will look into it and perhaps agree with me, but if mine becomes a one-off, at least it has some logic and reason and I will stand behind it.
I’m not agreeing with the votes for Malacandra, and although I have some concern that **Kat ** inherited a scum role from AZTeach, I personally like to give a subbed in player a game Day to establish their own identity in the role. I think **SnakesCatLady ** asked why I didn’t choose one of the other players who already had votes and vote for one of them. Well, because I don’t want to vote for someone I don’t think is scum. Damned if you bandwagon and damned if you don’t, I always say. 
So I hope this clears up any confusion over my action.
I’ll probably check the thread tomorrow before work, but I am expecting a big day a the Chariot Dealership, so I may not get to post again till nightfall. If we are slow in the morning, I’ll see if there is anything else that I need to do.
Ow. My eyes. Sore. Can’t. See. Too. Much. Text!
Well, at this point I’m torn. I see the votes are concentrated around two players, while the rest are scattered. I have several suspicions but I’m not sure whether I want to act on the one I feel strongest about or the one that will make more of a difference.
I actually have a (admittedly somewhat irrational) suspicion of DiggitCamera. His vote on the Mtgman bandwagon, as others have pointed out, seems somewhat questionable in terms of timing. His vote is currently still on Monkey Mensch, with the ostensible claim of wanting to prod him into action. My tired mind is suggesting to me that this could be the move of a scum who hopped onto a bandwagon on the first Day, then casts an off-vote on the second to deflect suspicion. In post 1012, he asks for a comprehensive list of night kill possibilities, which to me seems like an attempt to generate fruitless speculation on something that will not end up helping town very much.
It’s all very vague and haphazard. But I’m going to stick to it. My initial suspicion of Mal has faded for the moment, and while I agree that both Kat and fluidruid seem suspicious, I can’t make up my mind as to which is more so. I suppose we still have some time before the end of the Day, but for the moment I’m going to
vote DiggitCamera
Well, about 14 hours left. (Unless BM extended the day?)
I find myself where I did at the end of Day 1 – with my vote not counting for squat. It has not escaped my attention that MHaye (my current votee) never got around to responding to my singleton vote. Perhaps that’s because he is assuming it will vanish into the night.
He may be right, alas. Because unlike yesterDay, I feel I can contribute a meaningful vote here. But first:
Oh, but I agree – I certainly don’t expect any trust to be extended while I still breathe. My point was that eventually (in all likelihood) I will die, and then the votes I cast in the past (such as yesterDay’s SCL vote) will stand out for the remaining townies. Indeed, I plan to go back and re-read the voting arguments delivered by each deceased townie when their day comes. I’ll then know I can trust their motives (though their arguments must still past muster.)
Onward, to the vote leaders.
Today has not offered up many strong reads. Malacandra’s original Day 2 post came off to me as purely tongue-in-cheek.(*) The noise that has followed it is consistent with this impression, but the noise is also a good way to find “reasons” to vote for someone. That leads me to a Malacandra voter, fluiddruid, for whom I will be voting at the end of this post for the reasons that follow (And, yes I know it’s the third vote. Come on, folks! Should I just not vote?)
(*) (save the possible MHaye-Mal connection I mentioned in (1127).)
fluiddruid, in reference to Malacandra in 1031, writes
I agree: self-preservation is not the goal. But, it is very much a means to the goal. Quoting Malacandra:
fluiddruid, you found this statement “no less troubling”. I’d say Malacandra makes an important, solid point. Would you have only scum defend themselves?
In response to FCoD saying that there is likely at least one scum in the Mtgman 'wagon, fluiddruid says (1039)
I’d agree that throwaway votes are certainly suspicious. But, fluiddruid seems to be disuading someone from suspecting a group of people because “scum probably wouldn’t act that way.” Of course, no one can say they would act that way. But at the same time, how can he say they wouldn’t? If he had said, “I don’t think it was a bandwagon because I looked at the late voters and here are the reasons they all seem kosher,” then okay. But saying, “scum wouldn’t pile on like that, so… umm… look elsewhere” – I can’t see a townie saying that. A townie has no special information that would warrant such a dissuasion of suspicion. (And the original statement was simply that “there’s likely a scumbag in there.” Yeah, I’d say there could be.)
Fretful Porpentine countered fluiddruid, prompting the reply in 1078:
fluiddruid, do you think it impossible that there’s some scum in the pile? Could there not easily be some (perhaps newbie) scum trying to protect their partner AT? Admittedly, the list is probably not crawling with scum, and the one-off voters certaintly deserve their turn under the viewing glass. But, fluiddruid (it seems) is discouraging people from investigating the list because “scum wouldn’t act that way.” I’m not the first to say: scum won’t all act the same way, but more than that: fluiddruid knows this, which makes his “nah, no scum in there, don’t bother” statements seem even more manipulative.
Moving on: there’s the “why zuma?” post. I agree that scum have reason to try that as a ploy, but then town also has reason to inquire, so I can’t make much hay there.
Then, fluiddruid has a large post in 1222 regarding the following sequence (469, 833) :
The most damning thing is that in your long follow-up post (1222) you never actually answered the question! How do you think town should handle such players? You danced around for 478 words on the topic (not even counting the NAF quote), but you never managed to answer. To go along with this, you are acting exactly as you said scum should and how you wished you had played in a past life. I’ll add to my question: fluiddruid, could you please point out to the rest of town who you see acting in this scum-tastic way, so that our eyes may be drawn? That’s partly rhetorical, since I certaintly wouldn’t expect scum to go pointing out scum, but I’d be curious who you point out. Since you think it’s the best strategy, you’ve surely been looking for players playing that way, no?
Which brings me full circle. If you were town, you would be sharing your suspect list the whole time, and the list would certaintly not be empty since you have a good feel for a good scum strategy (according to none other than yourself) to keep a watch for. Ironically, your vote is sitting on a well-above-the-radar player for actions which, while possibly scummy, are also possibly unmalicious ramblings.
What I meant by “training the newbies”: You laid out the strategy that you thought scum should take, and it was Day 1. Scum hadn’t had a chance to pow-wow yet, so some of the newer players may not have realized that sitting back works so well for scum. But, they did after you posted, and they could see you (their fellow scum?) following that exact strategy. “Oh, I should maybe sit back for the rest of toDay. fluiddruid makes a good point.”
So, my vote will perhaps count this Day.
unvote MHaye
vote fluiddruid
There is only one person I really, really feel suspicious of. I realize that with the current vote count he’s unlikely to take a bath but well, he’s the one that gets me worked up.
For the whole discussion (which admittedly may be newbie eagerness),
but also and mainly because there’s been several shots (no I’m not going to dive around looking for the posts, leaving now to go spend the day in Geneva) which got responses but he never acknowledged the responses,
vote sachertorte
Also, I may as well post what I just counted.
(Unofficial) Vote Count ~ 1256
Kat (repl. ArizonaTeach) (5) - Fretful Porpentine, Autolycus, SnakesCatLady, Kyrie Eleison, Scuba_Ben
Malacandra (4) - Pleonast, fluiddruid, sachertorte, Idle Thoughts
fluiddruid (3) - Zeriel, NAF1138, Pasta
Fretful Porpentine (1) - Hockey Monkey
Hal Briston (1) - Queuing
MonkeyMensch (1) - DiggitCamara
Pleonast (1) - FlyingCowOfDoom
Hockey Monkey (1) - storyteller0910
DiggitCamara (1) - HazelNutCoffee
sachertorte (1) - Nava
I managed to get through the thread’s debates, and find myself at a loss about who to vote for. So I’ll tacke the other subject first.
Pasta, I was not ignoring your vote for me in post 1127 – I was holding off on tackling it until I got there on my reread (I think I said that earlier).
I think he’s mostly characterised my play style correctly. I don’t post much during a Day, but read and reread the thread trying to wring some sense out of what is going on, then make a post placing a vote and explaining my thinking.
It’s somewhat of a habit of mine, that posting “grudges are bad folks” at the beginning of every game. Because they are. It developed where I used to play, as I think some of the other players did need it. I’ve just kept it up. I doubt that I’ll give it up any time soon.
I feel he’s mischaracterised post 851. It’s not “mostly ‘random voting is bad’, plus the zuma thing.” The player I devoted most space to in that post was actually Pasta. Strange he didn’t at least acknowledge the fact I was critical of him. Yes, I felt then that zuma and Malacandra were more scummy at the time. But I find Pasta more suspicious now for trying to skate over a criticism.
He’s right in saying that I’d not voiced any suspicion of Mtgman before post 874. Looking at my file, maybe I should have done. The reason I did not was that he’d backed off the idea that first drew my eye to him. It really came to the fore with what I felt was voting backed by cites that (to my eyes) did not support his vote.
He also finds it bad that I am disagreeing with him over the list of possible Cult suspects. Disagreement between players is not evidence that either are Cult members. Really.
Finally, I may have posted four times at Night, and that did form a significant percentage of posts, because I am a quiet player. I plead posting under the influence of laughter. Personally, I don’t think Night posts should be considered at all – if you’re going to do postcount analysis, you should make the effort to exclude Night posts from everyone. You should also exclude posts prior to the start of the game.
So with that out of the way, I’m going to think about who to vote for. After some breakfast.
Thanks for your reply. I figured you were going to get back to it, but I thought it worth a poke, since I was posting. Regarding this:
Except that your criticism of me was that the list of lurkers “pretty much has to be random because you’ve got no basis for an informed selection. Thus we are back to a random vote but with a smaller field.” (Quotation from your post, 851.) I did not ignore your criticism of me. On the contrary, your criticism was part of the “random voting is bad” point of your post, which is what I cited. (This is, of course, ignoring the fact that my suggestion was never to kill random lurkers. My point was misinterpreted by a few, so no worries – that discussion has passed on.)
What’s for breakfast? (I hope to get some shut-eye now, myself.)
Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I’ll go and revise the draft post I’m working on now.
I only had some toast and butter, and a pint of coffee. It’ll keep me going until lunch.