Why didn’t you follow through with your suspicion of Hal’s scum tell, then? Why only CJ?
I find it odd that you rate an implied FOS the same as a vote.
So now that I’ve had some sleep, I actually can’t remember why I wasn’t satisfied with your response. At the time I think I found your reasons for why “voting for effect” is sometimes a scum tell and sometimes isn’t rather vague. Now I’m thinking it must have been the lack of sleep that clouded my brain.
So I’ll concede that point. I still stand by my other two, although I’m far from ready to cast a vote or point a finger at anyone as of yet.
BLASTER CAN YOU POKE MONKEY, AND MAYBE GET US A SUB IF HE DOESN’T RESPOND?
I would say give him 24 hours? Seems fair to me.
Interesting. While it’s highly likely that the Crusader killed storyteller, I suppose that DiggitCamara [ver. 2] is not allowed to tell us why DiggitCamara [ver. 1] targetted storyteller (or even if he did).
I’m going to overlook any and all speculation regarding my former role.
Though I would consider it somewhat poor form, DiggitCamara is at liberty to discuss his previous role; however, you will receive no guarantee one way or the other as to it’s accuracy from me. As much as I’d like to work out the possibilities, I’ll leave that up to you all.
I will say that he (or any other sub that may have read the Forbidden Thread) does not have any knowledge that I think will give an unfair advantage to his team.
I have poked him again. I will start looking for a sub if I don’t hear back from him by tomorrow.
I can’t vote for both of them Nut.Call it meta-gaming if ya want,but the reason I picked CJ over Hal on that very early Day1 vote was that I had been responsible for Hals death twice previously,don’t wanna seem like I am picking on him(yet).Besides Day1’s are hard to judge and I meant to get some discussion flowing,which I did obviously.
I rate FOS’s, implied or straight up,as important as a vote.They can be very revealing.
Blaster,could you also note on the living players list who was subbed in and who they replaced?
Righto, forgot they could still read the scum board during the day.
Indeed, I’m kind of embarasssed it took me reading that quote 4 times before it made sense. I’ve still got my eye on you though.
unvote MHaye
FOS MHaye
Sure, I have been maintaining a substitution list, but with the exception of DiggitCamara [Ver. 2], the rest didn’t seem worth noting because they barely had a contribution and it was making the player list sloppy. Anyway, FWIW here’s the Substition list below, and I’ll post it at the end of the next update to the player list (as opposed to combining it like I was before).
Substitutions
** Kyrie Eleison **(Repl. ** Clockwork Jackal **)
** Nava **(Repl. ** Captain Carrot **)
** Kat **(Repl. ** ArizonaTeach **)
** DiggitCamara [Ver. 2] **(Repl. ** Autolycus **)
DAY ONE
Post 285: Response to sacher, re: lack of consensus
Post 459: FOS FlyingCowOfDoom, re: accusing NAF based on defending another player
Post 469: Withdraw FOS based on clarification of argument
Post 491: Response to storyteller, re: defense of NAF / mafia tells
Post 702: Vote sacher, Apprentice/Oracle extended discussion
DAY TWO
Post 924: Re: lower post count
Post 992: Zuma night kill
Post 1031: Vote Malancdra, overly defensive play style
Post 1039: Re: FCOD / mafia bandwagon refutation
Post 1041: Re: Malacandra’s defense
Post 1078: Re: Fretful, Mafia voting pattern in Mtgman / Arizona Teach vote totals
Post 1222: Long catch up post, responding to Idle, Hockey, Queuing, Pasta, and NAF, re: accusations of me, optimal scum strategy discussion, strategy discussion
Post 1224: Clarification of post
Post 1227: Re: Mhaye, Mafia targeted randomly refutation
Post 1250: Re: Hockey Monkey’s snarky response to post 1222
Post 1251: Re: day extension
Post 1266: Re: Pasta’s accusation and vote for me
Post 1291: Re: Pasta’s accusation that I “did not address [his] concerns and has actually increased her scum-dar reading for me” being wrong
No problem. I welcome scrutiny. After all, if I’m not making sense then any point I may have is getting lost.
I really ought to list my posts - I’m sorry I haven’t tackled it. I’ve actually been home sick today. I lost the morning to a headache. Maybe I can stay awake enough to tackle it tonight.
Good thig Search works here… I’d never manage anything.
Back soon.
Regarding all the “Homework posts”. Personally, I don’t find these to be helpful in the least. They don’t hold any substance and for me contribute to the fluffiness of the thread. I’ve skipped right on over all of them, because a player that summarizes their own posts can paint them in any way they want. If you guys are going to be relying on these summaries there is no help for the town. I have to question why **sachertorte ** would want everyone wasting their time reading and summarizing their own posts rather than analyzing the posts of the other players. If I want to do a search for someone’s posts, it is easy enough to do with the board’s search function. Why would I want to skim through the thread looking for a post of post history for any single player? Especially since the summaries are being done by the poster themselves. Is anybody going to go back and check for accuracy? Gah, this seems like a giant time waster and wild goose chase of epic proportion. It seems like a good idea on the surface, but think about it townspeople! Why does he want everyone to do this? Has anyone found this to be a helpful excercise? I would much rather, if someone is going to assign homework, have everyone do a different player. Then at least there is some objectivity, and I have a chance to learn something about the game.
**SnakesCatLady ** said in post 1494
I guess this will be another reason for her to be suspicious of me. I’m not going to do one on myself. I’ll be happy to do any other player.
I’ve been debating all day over who to vote for between **Zeriel ** and Pleonast for the reasons I posted upthread. **Zeriel ** is edging out front in my mind, so I’ll go ahead and place my vote there, subject to change before the end of the day as events warrant.
Vote Zeriel
I agree with this, and don’t think I will be doing mine either. I agree with pretty much everything said. When I asked for, and assigned, players to do this in M2 it was people doing others. I don’t know how useful it was, but I do see a benefit. I for one found monkeymensch very suspicious from my review of his posts in M2.
I also notice one without active links. That is more then just useless, its completely useless.
I would rather dedicate my time to doing a review of another player, and I still hope to do so (scuba ben is my target).
Next week I will be in Vancouver setting up a server/office and therefore my participation may go down. I am also refinishing the floors in my GF house this weekend. Just so you all know.
Due to this I will do Scuba Ben before Friday evening, I promise.
I agree with this 110%. It’s a bad idea!
–FCOD
I found it helpful doing my own, if for no other reason than to review the thread and refresh my memory as to who I found suspicious before and why. I haven’t really looked at the others’ yet, but I agree that if there are no links it’s not very helpful. No one is going to represent their own posts completely objectively.
Yes, the “homework” was rather tedious, but it has already helped me. I probably wouldn’t have noticed if the post hadn’t been about me, but when NAF1138 posted his summary of his posts one of the entries jumped out at me. In the summary he reports having accused me of having a 1:27 content to fluff ratio. Interesting, but the post referenced accused me of a 1:25 content to fluff ratio. Only a slight difference, but I find it indicative of someone who might play just a bit fast and loose with the truth. It is intended to make me look bad, and I don’t like it. I don’t think he can blow it off as a mistake, because he had to be looking at the post in question to link to it.
So the “homework” might just come in handy to see how honest other players are being. Ar
Heavy suspicion on NAF1138.
I don’t know how to respond to this vote, but I do want to respond if only to note that I see your vote for me. *“I voted for Fretful and not for Fluiddruid because I suspected Fretful and not Fluiddruid”. * This is exactly what I meant. Sorry that it doesn’t explain anything for you. I had reasons to vote for **Fretful ** at the time, and not you. You were the lowest on my list. If I hadn’t voted for **Fretful ** at the time, it would have been for sachertorte. (I swear, in these games I get in trouble when I’m too succinct AND when I’m too verbose.) Am I getting a vote from you because I didn’t vote for you? 
That’s a first for me. 