Man, I hear ya. yawns
Have a nice night everyone. I’ll go back to post 1491 or so and start from there tomorrow. My eyelids feel like they have weights on them.
What happened is:
#536 is my post where I gave some rather minimal minimal requirements
#549 by Zeriel included a response to my post.
#555 by ArizonaTeach, where he took issue with Zeriel’s interpretation and then voted for him. I thought this vote was a bit of an overreaction on AzTeach’s part (as did several others) and his susbsequent quick unvoting is what led to him attracting some suspicion.
Incidentally, I didn’t immediately respond to Zeriel’s post, as I explained in #671
When it came to yesterday’s vote I didn’t want to vote for Malacandra (as I explained in my vote post#1264 ) and I didn’t want to vote for a just subbed in player. Basically, the evidence in favour of AzTeach/Kat’s scumminess was not great enough to override my feeling that a sub should be given a chance to play.
The remark may be intended as inocuous and out-of-game, but when someone basically says “I’m not doing anything in this game during the Night phase”, they can expect some comment.
Note that I accepted Idle Thought’s explanation in #1419
One person who comes out of that with increased credibility (at least in my eyes) is sachertorte. Going back to M3, it was noted that known scum had twice “suspected” the same player on their “suspicion” lists, and in both cases, that player appeared in the third position on the list. That third position is a classic psychological hiding spot (it doesn’t even have to be done consciously).
If you look at the scum board in M4, there was active discussion about creating these lists, but special mention was made not to put fellow scum in the third slot. I’d say there is an excellent chance that same strategy carried over here, thus acquitting sachertorte.
She may not have been a part of the formulation of a plan, but she still would have been aware of it. She would’ve been given access to the scum board and been able to read back and see what her fellow scum would’ve been concocting.
I still hope there was some other reason AZ left the game, because a flameout like that being used as strategy is not a valid style of play, IMHO.
Can’t agree more. I know I’m personally making a conscious decision to accept all real-life excuses for lurking or for substitutions at face value, and I’d be disappointed to find out people were using things like “oh, work was hell this week” as a contrived excuse not to post.
I’ve spent the last two days trying to come up with a response to Queueing’s hostility that could not possibly be seen as retaliatory.
I got nothing. So I’m going to let it go for now.
I’ve been doing my best to follow the rest of the discussions in the meantime. I’m fairly sure that some of the active posters are scum, but for the life of me I can’t figure out who. What I definitely want to cross-check is who storyteller discussed and why, following up on an idea I touched on briefly during (I think) Day one.
sachertorte Day Two Summary
994 puzzled by scum kill of zuma; reminder that Blaster Master’s death scenes mean nothing regarding who did the night kill; agree that zuma’s could have been picked to reveal little information; confused that zuma was picked despite getting three votes for dunking.
1048 response to **Queuing **response of my day one accusations; statement that understanding ‘who killed’ zuma is an important step towards understanding ‘why zuma’
1051 note that **Nava **was the only player not to vote on day one; supposition that Nava is in Europe; note suspicion in Nava including herself on a list of players she’s noticed
1085 Support for storyteller’s notion that **Mtgman **vote pile helps AZTeach, Autolycus, and Kyrie; note that **DiggitCamara **shifted from Autolycus; note that **Zeriel **shifted from Kyrie; List of singleton votes; Note that Fretful’s singleton on **Nava **looks most suspicious
1086 identity correction; clarification on the current argument against Malacandra
1119 accusations for Malacandra; vote for Malacandra
1129 rebuttal of Kat’s reasons for voting for me
1158 statement that a replacement sooner rather than later is preferred
1162 observation that if Mad doesn’t rejoin until Sunday, he will have missed yet another dunking; ask for extension of day
1177 response to Kat’s response to my rebuttal of her vote for me; clarification that my suspicion of **Queuing **is due to the inconsistent application of standards between him and DiggitCamara, not for support of the idea itself; statement that **Kat **quoted my statement of reasoning on **Malacandra ** so she shouldn’t have missed it.
1182 Explain to **Queuing **that I’m not continuing to accuse him at this point; my posts are in response to Kat. (I’m still suspicious, but not actively pursing BTW)
1265 response to **Nava **and **MHaye **votes for me; observation that reasoning is lacking so I can’t respond; offer to answer any direct questions or reasonings.
1274Day Two Post Counts (up to post 1273)
Sure,the mistake I conceded was calling the FOS that CJ placed on me(or hinted at) a vote,in my eyes it is the same thing,I just misworded my post.CJ’s post was still a scum tell,no matter how boneheaded my response to it was.
Still no sign of the cat. 
We’re deflecting our grief into completely spoiling our newest kitten .
No improvement on the internet angle either. We may have blown the wireless antennae or our wireless router. It may be down through Saturday. I will try to summarize my Day 2 posts, but my success depends on whatever falls in my lap at work.
Feel free to be retaliatory :). Its just a gut feeling that I may or may not be able to back up with any sort of proof.
DiggitCamara has requested to take take Autolycus’s spot. On consideration, even though he was a power role, I don’t think his knowledge of his actions will damage the game in anyway.
In the player list, his previous incarnation will be listed as DiggitCamara [ver. 1]
Though, after pointing this out, it’s quite possible for the strategy to change.
I can see exactly why though. Post first or even second and you fear the risk of actually creating a bandwagon against the person. You want your “suspicion” noted but not pushed (unless the person is very safe or very likely to die).
I don’t believe NAF is scum, unless he’s playing way too brilliantly for me. Primarily this is coming from my perspective that I know I’m confirmed town, but suspecting me, withdrawing, then suspecting again strongly just doesn’t make sense otherwise – considering that on Day Two I was a significant suspect. Just my opinion. I also think sachertorte is contributing too much relevant suspicion, and is posting so clearly and concisely as to the reasons for suspicion that I’m willing to trust him/her. If these guys are scum, they’re playing incredibly aggressively. Worth watching but probably not our best option.
I tend to agree. As the day goes on I’m getting a scummy vibe from Hockey Monkey.
Further, see Hockey Monkey’s post #1405:
A list of 4, relatively early in the day. Curious. Pleonast is also on my scumdar list (felt like he jumped on my post re: Mal rather quickly, given that I was not the most credible figure at the time, and, I wonder about that) but given that sachertorte is among my more trusted, this looks to me like a scum list. In fact this post reminds me a great deal of my own “defense” posts from MIII. An attempt to provide lengthy commentary and then post a list of suspects without really taking a serious stand.
Plus, this:
The problem with this statement is that, honestly, Hockey Monkey gives no real reason for not suspecting me (remember, I got a fair amount of suspicion in Day Two but little so far in Day Three. Revisionist history?), no real reason for suspecting Fretful instead, and is a lengthy justification for a fairly common ‘scum tell’. (One of the things scum tries to avoid much is getting blood on their hands, and unless you hold your vote until the end of the day - which looks bad - you want to get some early low-hazard votes out most of the time.) This statement basically seems to me to say, boiled down: “I voted for Fretful and not for Fluiddruid because I suspected Fretful and not Fluiddruid”. Well, no kidding. It’s a lengthy “explanation” that doesn’t explain anything to me.
It’s not a smoking gun, but just my best feeling for this round at the present time.
vote Hockey Monkey
Alive
2 USCDiver
3 Idle Thoughts
5 Hockey Monkey
7 NAF1138
8 sachertorte
9 SnakesCatLady
10 Malacandra
12 Kyrie Eleison
13 Hal Briston
14 Pleonast
16 Fretful Porpentine
17 Nava
18 Pasta
19 FlyingCowOfDoom
20 Scuba_Ben
21 Queuing
22 Zeriel
23 MonkeyMensch
24 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
25 DiggitCamara [Ver. 2]
26 HazelNutCoffee
27 MHaye
28 fluiddruid
29 MadTheSwine
30 Captain Klutz
Dead
11 Mtgman - Non-Believer - Day One
4 zuma - Citizen - Night One
1 Kat - Cultist - Day Two
6 storyteller0910 - Monk - Night Two
15 DiggitCamara [Ver. 1] - Crusader - Night Two
A little over 3 days left. A total of 6 votes have been cast.
** Hockey Monkey ** (1) - fluiddruid
** Malacandra ** (1) - Pleonast
** MHaye ** (1) - USCDiver
** MonkeyMensch ** (1) - Queuing
** Pleonast ** (1) - FlyingCowOfDoom
** Zeriel ** (1) - NAF1138
Ok, here is my homework.
985 – Toast “to zuma”
995 - sachertorte’s logic is making me dizzy
997- typo correction post
1002 - Agree with Kyrie that the color from Blaster is meaningless
1077 (long) - Attempt an Idle thoughts style mega post because work had been keeping me from following along. Respond to HM’s possible death options. Say that I didn’t like the Mal/zuma situation. Something was off, but I still think it was too obviously scummy for Mal to be scum. Suspicious of SCL comments. Agree with Fretful about the likely mode of death for zuma, but am not sure what good it will do us. Scuba_Ben is trying to play both sides of the fence. SCL posts what looks like analysis, but doesn’t actually say much. Mention to Nava that we really don’t have much new information after zuma’s death. Nava’s list is unhelpful at best.
1098 – Based on my recap in 1077 SCL looks most suspicious to me.
1101- Respond to SCL that even though she may think she is not being fluffy, up to this point she has only posted 1 useful post out of 27 total posts.
1138 – Try once again to explain my list, this time to Queuing. Point out where Queuing is misrepresenting me and then note surprise at this “soft analysis”.
1148 – Started with the intention of posting about Mal, but in doing the research noticed fluid for the first time. Present my argument against her and vote.
1155 – Tell Blaster that I would like Mad subbed out if he hasn’t posted before the start of D3
1157- Talk about my not voting for subs on the first day because everyone should get the chance to play the game a little.
1164 – Explain to Diggit that I understand that Kat/AZ are the same person and that I am not saying we should judge them separately, but that we should let folks have the chance to play a full day before dunking them.
1175 – Respond to kyrie mentioning that my argument against fluid is still very WIFOM. I unvote her and put a “HUGE FREAKIN FOS” on her instead, because I didn’t have good evidence to dunk her and needed to reexamine my thought process.
1194 – Talk about my knowledge of the 3rd vote tell and mention that scum tells (in reference to the 3rd vote thing) are no good once the scum are aware of them.
1208 – SCL and fluid seem most scummy to me. My gut says fluid is scum. Vote fluid.
1210 – Comment about people not being around.
1214 – Reminder that I can’t really post much on the weekends.
1241 – I do not care if Blaster extends the day or not.
I gotta admit, I’ve got a lot of little suspicions but damn, I have no idea who I should be voting for here.
And lo! in a flash of blinding light Autolycus was transformed! And his visage changeth to resemble one of Nairu’s most ardent followers! Yet, his true substance remained unchanged!
And the village rejoyced!
…y’all are so wack, Diggit.
Pleonast’s Posts to date
Day 1
221: Advocates dunk on Day 1. Randomly votes for USCDiver.
234: Suggests hearing arguments against random votes. Says not convinced by them in the past.
240: Argues for random votes at beginning of Day 1.
248: More arguments for random votes. Unvotes USCDiver.
249: Realizes confusion between USCDiver and Scuba_Ben.
303: Criticizes Mtgman’s random vote strategy. Wonders about Autolycus’ absence.
387: Re-explains confusion between diving folk. Differentiates random vote from poke vote. Vote for MadTheSwine for being most suspicious at the moment.
392: Threatens anyone who keeps talking about power roles.
400: Explaining again the difference between a poke vote and a random vote.
405: Carries out threat by voting Sachertorte.
415: Tries to discourage continued discussion on power roles. Threatens FlyingCowOfDoom.
421: Defends voting to shut people up and to encourage discussion. 
Encourages easy voting.
447: Enumerates reasons to not discuss power roles.
573: Smudges storyteller for not telling suspicions. Calls out Malacandra’s strange zuma vote. List of Suspicion. Encourages more voting.
588: Rant/defense prompted by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies.
596: Defends easy votes.
605: Argues with Mtgman, defending dunking discussion as priority.
610: Brushes off reasons to not vote.
632: Questions Hockey Monkey’s vote for Pleonast.
764: Keeping vote on Malacandra but considers changing to another on List of Suspicion if Mal doesn’t get attention.
823: Calls out Mtgman’s statements. List of Suspicion.
871: Gives up on getting Mal lynched, switches to Mtgman.
Day 2
1004: Calls out and votes Malacandra for additional suspicious statements.
1036: Defends votes, suspicions and aggressive play as pro Town.
1205: Still voting Mal.
Day 3
1442: Still doesn’t like and votes Malacandra. Calls out MonkeyMensch for few posts, no initiative.
1457: Ignores FOS, looks at arguments.
1520: Helpfully summarizes posts to data.