it’s in sachertorte’s post, dude. Number 585 is your statement.
Ah, a new Day.
I’m still think Malacandra is scum. There’s been no reasonable defense. His voting record seems to indiciate he’s trying to lay low. Day 1: voted for zuma. No follow-up on that. Day 2: no vote at all.
But MonkeyMensch is also bothering me. His posts of substance:
639: about Priest strategy.
664: Vote for sachertorte on Day 1, based on power-role discussions.
666: Affirming that we should dunk. (Post of the Beast!!!)
854: Reaffirming Day 1 vote.
1190: Agreeing with others’ suspicions of tie-breaking votes on Mtgman.
Notice how there’s few to none new insights in his posts. While you can’t separate Cultist from Town based on the leader/follower axis, being a follower does help staying out of the hotseat easier. And no votes on Day 2. In fact, he playing very similar to Mal, which means my scumdar is consistent (and probably wrong :p). Between the two, I rank Mal higher the Mensch. So yet again:
Vote Malacandra
To those of you who complain about my vote for Mtgman: I switched my vote from my first-in-line candidate (Mal) to my second. I was the only one voting for Mal at the time, and Mtgman was already up 5-3 over the nearest competitor. So hardly an earth-shaking vote, especially on the Day 1 when information is sparse.
And, yes, I’ll switch my vote to Mensch, if near the end of the Day, Mensch is getting votes and Mal is not. I’m not so certain about my suspicion list that I’m not flexible.
:smack: :smack: :smack:
Ever have one of those moments where you just wish you could crawl into a hole and die?
Man I need to learn how to read.
oh, and I was so embarrased that I forgot to adress it the quote.
I think I was just being silly. A bad idea in this game, as it turns out, but there was a lot of talk about “the list” at the time and I was having a stressful day at work. I don’t really have a clear memory of my intention though.
Gah, submit too soon.
Anyway. It’s really suspicious to me that NAF1138 voted for AZ/Kat pretty strongly based on this false premise the first day, and then totally ignored the entire voting war on the second day–I mean, full disclosure, I ignored the Mal/Kat vote too but that’s because I hadn’t been suspicious of either of them prior and I didn’t want to make a snap decision that killed someone on a second day.
Wheras YOU, NAF1138, came out hardcore against AZ the first day, didn’t push it too hard when people followed your lead, and then dropped it entirely on day two–and this “let the sub play a day” doesn’t really ring true with me, because honestly scum is scum. I’m glad the town made the collective right decision on it, but where were YOU?
I’m suspicious that you were pushing out a list of townies-as-scum, using spurious anti-lurker “logic” to hide your lurking scum-buddies, voting for one to establish your anti-scum cred when I called you on the list (and trying to make it like you were citing your own list instead of mine), and then lying low when it turned out that your scumbuddy might actually get caught in a close voting race. Proof? No. Convinced? Not yet.
FOS NAF1138 (again)
This, btw, is how I tend to play messageboard mafia–I tend to do rereads of vote patterns and otherwise rely on other people’s research of posts to jog my memory of patterns I’d noted and then forgotten. I’m great at pattern recognition and poor at unjogged recall.
Fuck me!
Sorry for the spelling in my previous post. 
I swear, I am a collage graduate. From a good school and everything.
Zeriel, I was letting you slide with some of your comments earlier. But you slipped right here.
First off, my logic wasn’t spurious, your interpritation of it was. If you can’t understand that I wasn’t talking about lurkers that isn’t my fault, it’s yours. Below the radar isn’t the same as lurking.
Second, you have had an obsession with me since I put you on that list, and I have been trying to ignore it hoping that you would hang yourself on your own rope. BTW continued obsession with a player who has cast mild suspicion on you…that’s a scum tell. Town tends to let that shit go and move on.
Then:
townies? How do you know that the list only had townies on it? I don’t know if the list only had townies on it. But do you know who would know if the list only had townies on it? That’s right, scum!
Add this to your middle of the pack, and general scummy flying under the radar behavior, and the strange out of nowhere vote AZ placed on you then removed.
vote zeriel
You did say you suspected fluiddruid - “mildy suspicious” was the term you used. You did not go so far as to FOS her.
I stand by my suspicion. You’ll note my vote’s still on Hal.
I know I’m a townie, and I was on the list. I know AZ/Kat was scum, and she wasn’t on the list even though she easily could have been. My point has been from the get-go that your “subjective” list of people-you-don’t-notice has the potential to be carefully crafted to hide scum lurkers. So far, the only dead scum is from the list of lurkers you didn’t happen to notice lurking. Of COURSE I find that suspicious.
I may be fighting a losing battle here, but I continue not to see a distinction between saying “I’m mildly suspicious of X,” and “I mildly FOS X.” Either way, you’ve expressed suspicion, but come short of a vote. Is this a distinction without a difference, or am I failing to play according to well-established custom?
Kyrie, I’m pretty sure that a “suspicion” is ALWAYS expressing less suspicion than a FOS, by convention only. At least that’s how I use them.
I pretty much interpret them the same, but respect the right of the poster to have their own line in the sand. 
Having just read back, at least one of the names on NAF1138’s original list is confirmed town: zuma.
I don’t think I’m going to vote for NAF1138 today, unless he works for it, but I notice Malacandra and fluiddruid, both popular vote-getters on previous days, are on his and my lists respectively. If either of them gets lynched or nightkilled and is in the “correct” classification, we might start having a pattern strong enough to vote on.
You really aren’t big on context are you?
Did you ever think that maybe AZ wasn’t on the list becuase he and MgtMan had been having a vocal discussion and that AZ had in fact posted some content at the top of the page my list was posted on? Attention was being paid to AZ, there was no reason to put him on the list of people who were being ignored
Ignoring the context of the situation and twisting facts to make them fit your needs is also scummy.
Well the list had 8 names on it, they couldn’t all be scum or we would be screwed.
Your logic is lacking.
Also, what do you mean you won’t vote for me “unless he works for it?”
Kyrie, my post was in response to Hockey Monkey’s post where she says she doesn’t recall saying she was suspicious of fluiddruid. I was pointing out that in post 1412 she did say she was mildly suspicious, but went on to FOS two other players and vote for them.
I personally don’t tend to use FOSs, I state suspicions and I vote. I think it is just a matter of personal preference because FOSs don’t really count for anything.
I pretty much ignore FOS statements. They’re not accountable, unlike votes. I look at what the accusations are (or lack of them).
FOS/Suspicions mild or otherwise= same shit different pile.
Your contention is that, unbeknownst to you, your list has only townies on it, and that Zeriel knows this? On the surface, Zeriel’s contention that it’s a “townie-as-scum” list does look questionable. However, if he’s right, and your assumption seems to be that he is, I’ll FOS the both of you as scum staging a fight. My back of the envelope calculation of the probability of randomly constructing a list containing only townie players, assuming 30 players and 6 scum, is 0.57%. For 5 scum, it’s 0.84%.
Granted, that assumes that selecting eight players that have failed to come to NAF’s attention is equivalent to selecting eight players at random, which might be contested. Nonetheless, if that list proves to have only townies on it, you’ll both come up smelling funny to me.
Ok, Post #1369 has Zeriel voting for me based on what he refers to as my “throwaway based on the stupid zuma thing”. He then graciously lets me know he’ll remove the vote if I give an “intelligent response”. Ok, here ya go: <Gaaa…I can’t do it. I’ve edited this post a dozen times, each time revising the snarky phrase I use in this spot. So as tempting as it is to simply respond with “Pppfffttthhh”, I have no real truck with you…therefore, I’ll leave the rest of the post as-is, but at least I’ll be nice(r) about it>.
You’re voting for me, as you say in Post #1381, a “for making a poorly-supported vote that kept Kat within spitting distance of alive”? Huh…guess I should be thankful that it didn’t, you know, actually have an effect on the outcome of the voting.
Well, you can refer to it as “the stupid zuma thing” all you like…it was still a very odd couple of things for Mal to have said, and given the time restrictions I was under, I stand by it. Call it a throwaway all you like, it still won’t make it true. I love that you’re referring to my vote (that several others agreed with) as weak and using that as justification for your own voting. Alanis could take lessons.
And now, on to more reading…