I listed my suspicions at the end of Day 1 in post 874. What’s happened to that group of players?
Well, the two on the top of the list are dead, and cleared by their deaths. Of the remaining four, I’m less suspicious of Malacandra, mostly because of post 1111 (although the suspicion refuses to go away, mostly because he was so quick to make the argument floated in post 989) and Pasta (who’s response to my post 1258 cleared up something that was making my scumdar ping). I remain slightly suspicious of Storyteller0910 as well – it’s not that he’s done much to deserve it, more his track record and general helpfulness. As for Sachertorte, I found post 1129 a bit suspicious. His argument that Queueing cannot be suspicious of DiggitCamara on the grounds of the latter’s “throw-out-votes” plan because Queueing supported it at first really rubbed me the wrong way. He just seems to be going out of his way to attack Queueing on these grounds. I note that the last such incident was actually a reply to someone else about his suspicions though, or I’d have mentioned that too.
So it seems that the only one from Yesterday still causing me much suspicion is Sachertorte. Was there anyone else who’s behaviour raised flags?
DarkCookies voted for Kat in post 1154, basing her vote in part on Mtgman’s arguments for lynching ArizonaTeach, which did not ring true with me. Nothing else struck me about her Today though. (I hope you don’t mind the abbreviation of your name?) Then Idle Thoughts raised my eyebrows in post 1167 by asking why people were talking about “Third vote is scum tell.” That just seems disingenuous to me. Finally, USCDiver failed to produce reasoning for a conclusion (post 1108, claiming that he did not keep notes. That felt to me that it might be just a useful excuse – ie that he may have failed to keep notes to have an excuse for not being able to produce working. There were other little flags, but they were either adequately explained or are too slender a twig to hang a suspicion on, let alone a full-blown accusation
(I’m also gradually growing more concerned about those who are flying under the radar, so to speak. There are five or six players on the list - still too many for me to think about moving towards a lurker lynching. It’s not until we have exhausted possibilities among the more active players that we should think about lynching lurkers. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were one Cultist in those players – it’s just that with little or no information, picking a name would be a random selection. And we all know what I think of those, right?)
So that leaves me with Sachertorte, DarkCookies, Idle Thoughts and USCDiver. Of these, Sachertorte is the person I am most suspicious of, although that’s not saying much.
There’s one more thing I need to think about before voting. Therefore that’s where I’ll leave the discussion. However, I’ll be back quite soon.
Sorry for the multiple posts; I just wanted to consider two issues.
The first was whether I am suspicious enough of Sachertorte to place a vote for him. I’ll admit to being horribly uncertain in my suspicions, and wanted to consider the possibility of making a “no vote” vote.
The second is, given that Sachertorte is not likely to be dunked, whether my vote would be better placed in the frontrunning group in order to help ensure a player of whom I was genuinely suspicious was lynched. Right at this minute the choice is between Kat, who I am not suspicious of (either for her actions or those of ArizonaTeach) and Malacandra who I have less suspicions of than I currently do of Sachertorte - and I’m having a hard enough job persuading myself that that lynch is justified.
The more I type the less happy I feel about voting at all. And yet, not voting does not help. We need records of suspicion and voting.
So with some reluctance, I vote Sachertorte.
It looks like I’ll be going out about 5pm my time, which means that unless something comes up soon to change my mind then this will be my last post of the Day.
First, the Malacandra thing (yes, that post again). I’ve tried looking at it from the point of view as 1. Mal is scum and 2. Mal is town.
Mal said to the effect of " … if X turns out to be scum then I’ll look better …"
Mal is scum
[ul]
[li]If he chooses an X who turns out to be scum then he must know that his statement will actually end up making him look worse. He therefore chooses a town X.[/li][li]He now finds he has garnered lots of suspicion, so he tries to allay that by persuading his fellow scum to off zuma, thinking this will then clear him[/li][li]The next morning (post 989) he immediately points out zuma’s innocence and suggests that this clears him as well [/li][/ul]
This gives some explanation as to why the scum chose zuma (yes, I am assuming it was a scum kill).
Now consider if Mal is town:
[ul]
[li]He chooses X more-or-less at random, the post possibly being intended as a random vote with a joking justification (although as a joke it went over like a lead balloon)[/li][li]Seeing all the suspicion on Mal, the scum targeted zuma to call attention to Mal. Or possibly, after zuma’s happy acceptance of the vote, the scum may have thought they were masons. [/li][li]After zuma’s death, Mal apparently thinks that zuma’s innocence clears him as well[/li][/ul]
Mal’s post was ill advised in either case, but I believe it makes more sense (or less non sense) to come from a town Mal. In particular, if Mal is scum I can’t see how a group of scum would agree that killing zuma would somehow exonerate Mal, but if Mal is town then there are some plausible reasons for the scum to target zuma.
I think Mal was just having a bad day so I will not be voting for Malacandra.
Of other players:
Sachertorte feels like town: he put forth various ideas that he thought were good for the town and stuck with them even when they resulted in earning him lots of suspicion. I believe if he were scum he would have backed off much earlier.
Autolycus - come out and play (please).
ArizonaTeach/Kat - I have doubts but I’m in the camp that wants to give the replacement a chance to play (at least this early in the game).
**Idle Thoughts ** I’m wondering a bit about, as he is trying to tell us that he is not doing anything during game Nights (#902).
And now to find a vote. Unfortunately, the one I’m most suspicious of is AzTeach/Kat, and since I really want to give Kat a chance to play I will instead give it to the village idiot and vote Autolycus. If that looks like a throwaway vote then so be it.
(color removed)
Okay, I think I’ve been pretty good about responding to votes, but this one leaves me with absolutely nothing to go on. “whole discussion” ?? What is that supposed to mean? “several shots…(snipped)… which got responses but he never acknowledged the responses.” Huh? I believe I received one other vote today, which I responded to on a point by point basis. I believe the voter is satisfied by my response because the vote was withdrawn. Does anyone else feel that I’ve been delinquent in responding to posts about me? Because if no one else feels the same way as Nava, I’ll be quite happy ignoring this vote.
Nava, if you have something specific you’d like me to addess, I will. Otherwise, maybe you should post more before accusing others of being unresponsive.
I’m also going to ignore this vote as well since there is nothing here except general suspicion which I can’t address directly. Specific questions or reasons will get real responses.
No, I wouldn’t. But, often the most ardent self-defenders are scum. This isn’t to say that it’s always true, but, scum definitely doesn’t want to go early. From the perspective of previous games, scum is more likely to panic. This isn’t to say that Town can’t.
Of course, nobody wants to be shuffled out. I’m not saying “never defend”, I’m saying the manner in which Malacandra defended itself appeared to me as scummy. Do I have a rock solid case? No, of course not. At this stage of the game, no one does. But, I voted with my gut and I have not seen a whole lot more that’s ssuspicious.
Female, FYI.
I can say that because it doesn’t make sense. Sure, there might be one or two - especially given that it’s Day One, and there could be some newbie scum that haven’t had a chance to discuss strategy. However, game after game, what happens? We lynch lynchers. That’s just how Town seems to operate. We used it to success in the early game by just staying out of it.
There’s absolutely NO incentive, and a strong disincentive, for scum to vote for town that is likely to be lynched if the fore-runners are all town.
No, I have no “special information”. But this is pretty spurious reasoning. I have been scum in a prior game, and that was the only game where I was in for any length of time (killed on Night One in MIV). And, as such, most of my game experience has been from scum. And it just doesn’t make sense.
If you disagree, tell me why. Tell me why scum would vote for a townie who is getting lynched in Day One. Because, so far, you’ve tried to attack me rather than attack my argument.
It is possible. But it is improbable, given the fact that a) scum are far in the minority, so based on numbers, it is highly likely that we will kill a townie on the first day in any case and b) it’s simply not a reliable means of targeting scum. Could there be scum in that pile? Sure. But I don’t think it’s any more likely than targeting scum based on alphabetical order or who prefers full milk over skim.
We all do, but the point is, not for that reason.
Actually, I did.
How is that not an answer? I said I couldn’t argue that I wasn’t following that pattern. Do I need to say “we should dunk the most likely scum?” Would that have been clearer? I then explained why I followed that same pattern, though it was not a “strategy”, as I mentioned. It just occurred.
Yes. As I said, it’s coincidental. Really, why would I lay out a potential scum strategy and then follow it for any other reason?
Well at this point, frankly, I think I should just in case I garner a few more votes.
Unfortunately, due to my activity level, I still don’t have a lot of leads. I will say that I’m a bit puzzled by your aggressiveness, and, I’m not particularly impressed by your arguments. You seem to reach too much. I’d give you about a 75% percent chance of being enthusiastic town and 25% chance scum.
Otherwise, I don’t have much. I’ll say that NAF is on my trusted list. His voting pattern (of course knowing I’m town, which you don’t agree with) doesn’t make sense if he’s scum - why vote for a townie, unvote, then revote, especially since there is increasing support for my death?
Other than that, being on the chopping block I’m extremely hesistant to give a trusted/suspect list out of the air because it’s based on nearly nothing at all. Death brings a huge amount of legitimacy to someone’s opinion and frankly I want to be on the record for what I really think. I’m not going to post potential scum as trusted or potential town as suspect without a real reason. It’s destructive.
Or, it could be for exactly the reasons I specified: I’ve had real-life issues going on and it’s hard to get a feel for a thread while skimming through for highlights. Instead I’m trying to offer general strategy because that’s the best I’ve got.
[qupte]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.”
[/quote]
Oh. Well, that’s not the intention, though there’s no real way I can disprove it. Discussing the actions of scum always has that potential on Day One. But I don’t think I said anything that would help scum particularly on Day One at all. Frankly I find this silly. I’d think I would have been too nervous to be as plain as you think I seem to be if I was intending to “train” scum.
If I don’t vote now, I probably wouldn’t get a chance to get one in by the end of the Day. So, even though I only managed to skim the last several dozen posts enough to update the spreadsheet, I’m going to vote Malacandra for the exceptionally odd zuma bit.
No idea if I’ll be back on at all today, but I’ll certainly try.
Sorry for my prolonged absence. Sunny California has been keeping me busy for the last several days. I’ve managed to read through the thread and I want to make my vote before the end of the Day.
My biggest suspicion right now is for MHaye.
For Post 1225 in which he argues we should consider the Cultists are making random kills. This goes against everything we know about how Cultists operate. They have information, we have none. They make kills based on knowledge, we lynch based on suspicions.
Also he was already on my list for his late bandwagoning of Mtgman. When I did my initial read through the voting history I didn’t find anything overtly scummy and I said so. I didn’t take notes because I didn’t find anything. Not because it was a convenient excuse.
Now I do find MHaye to be Culty.
For Nairu has spoken in The Book of Sayings, 3:12, that one shall make their words count, lest they suffer the wrath of fools.
Mine eyes have been watching today’s current progress, and nothing has changed my mind on my vote. But rest assured, that the judgment will fall soon on the non-believers, and there will be much rejoicing.
Where the heck is everyone? Shouldn’t Day be ending today? I would have thought I’d come on to see a lot more posts than this.
Anyway, just a few things:
Dunno why. It was a geninue question that I had never heard of before.
Dunno if you saw it or not but I replied to you regarding this back in reply #1118. If you’re already aware of this, though, or have seen it but still suspicious, well, I don’t know what else I can say.
We’ve had a tie going for about 4 hours. Not much time, I admit, but it makes me think that both of the vote leaders are town. If one was town and one was scum, surely some cultist would throw in another vote for the townie. Ten people have voted for the top two, so it’s not like the voter would need to reach deep looking for reasons.
I think the Cult is happy to sit back and watch either one of the top two vote getters get dunked.
I don’t have time before the 5pm bell to reply to fluiddruid’s response, but I encourage other townies to read my arguments and her response carefully, because while she said a lot of words, she did not address my concerns and has actually increased her scum-dar reading for me. I’d love to at least see fluiddruid make the tie-break round with a couple late votes so that I may respond before Day’s end.
Just a few thoughts before the end of day. I counted today’s posts. Some of the things I thought were interesting is people I thought weren’t posting enough actually had decent post counts (I haven’t checked for post fluffiness yet). And some people have nearly stopped posting all together that I hadn’t noticed were slacking. I don’t know if this means anything or is helpful. At the very least it points to people who need to be poked, and poked often tomorrow. I offer the following without further comment:
Day Two Vote counts up to post #1273 (approx 4:30PM EDT)
Not edited to add: Based on posts 1255 and 1266, I’m tempted to change my vote to grant Pasta’s request, but one vote isn’t enough to pull fluiddruid into the tie and there’s only 9 minutes left based on my clock.
USCDiver. I get the feeling I’ve offended you. I apologise for my poor wording. I really should have made it a hypothetical, or not said it at all.
Idle Thoughts : If memory serves this business of “the third vote is a scum tell” was hashed over in previous games. That’s why I was surprised you hadn’t seen it.
Sachertorte my suspicions were outlined in the post I made before voting you.
So he just so happens to be the “only” player you’re suspicious enough to vote for and, by sheer coincidence, be the one who is tied with you for most votes?
Crap, if you’re going to vote for him because you want to see him hang instead of you and don’t want to risk your head being in the noose, just be honest and say so.
I actually find this shady a bit. Just saying that he happens to be the only one you have enough suspicions to vote for (and do so) but make no mention of the fact that you and him are currently tied and this is the killer vote. If anything, that’s at least a bit understandable. That you’d vote for him to save your own neck. But you make no mention of that here in your post and, instead, make it sound like you just “happen” to be voting for him because he “happens” to be the “only” person you have suspicions over. :dubious:
You might be right, but in the only game of Mafia I have played the town got into a lot of trouble by last minute vote swings. I will not do it again, and find it suspicious you want us to.