My real problem is that I’m bouncing between the following votes: NAF1138, for the issues discussed earlier concerning his list. Pleonast, for RAPIDLY fading into the background, surfacing only to vote for Mal twice and post about MonkeyMensch fading into the background. Hockey Monkey, for his suspicion of sachertorte, whom I and IIRC at least two others find one of the most pro-town players on the thread to date. Not to mention his pooh-poohing of the post summaries, which I personally found helpful for organizing my own thoughts as well as helpful for, as SCL said, finding people who’ll summarize unfairly or deceptively to tilt suspicion.
Personally, I think Hockey Monkey’s grounds for his two strongest FOS are ridiculous–scum vote for a lot of reasons, one of which is to confuse analysis. If I were scum, I’d spread my scum attacks on townies out over a few days of random votes too–so that you couldn’t link up scum bandwagons easily, but you could still form 'em in just this manner. It also happens to look a hell of a lot like innocuous one-off voting until someone gets rightly lynched.
So far your only stated suspicion of the people you’re considering is “Kat/AZTeach unvoted them at some point” which strikes me as really poor. You got any other reasons for voting for me, or should I just put up my retaliatory vote now for pushing me over the one-off vote threshold for no good reason?
Meh. Then don’t do it. I posted post numbers because I had the information and felt it could be useful for people interested in investigating others. There was no homework. Nava summarized her contributions before I even posted the post number list. The phrase ‘homework’ is just something someone cooked up. You have your own way of investigating others. Fine. But just because you don’t find the information useful, doesn’t mean everyone will feel the same way.
Also, I’d like to point out that my motivation for wanting summaries was to get people who weren’t posting enough a look at their posting history. Hopefully, some players will look at their day two summary and think, ‘Gee, I really didn’t say much. Half my posts were pretty useless. I should contribute more.’ We also can look at the summaries and call players out for being to fluffy or silent.
The utility of such summaries (even individual) is not going to help today, but could be a useful record in September when half of us are dead. I post my summary for review after I’m dead. Linkage goodness only helps more. Four weeks from now, when I’m wondering what it was that happened early in the game, a summary is a very good place to start.
Alright, Queueing, you’ve said you have a gut feeling about me. Care to explain beyond that? It seems to me that you started this Day by taking offense to what little technique ideas I had, and you won’t let go. I’ve freely (and possibly excessively) admitted that this is my rookie game, and I’m probably making most of the rookie mistakes. Beyond that, why have you made me your designated target du Jour?
It’s one thing to show how my attempts at analysis are not good ideas, and show what’s better. It’s another thing to keep coming after someone. For that persistence, Vote Queueing.
Meanwhile I’m continuing to work through the whole thread and see who else has an unrelenting persistence in pursuit of whom.
I dunno, but methinks this whole placement and order of votes is starting to get a bit out there. I have no doubt that given enough patterns that a viable one can be established and found over time given human nature and all that but the thing is, you and others are talking about it and all of putting it out there with how it works. So what makes you think that any scum (in this game and after) will follow and hold true to these theories? It just seems like it’s a reach.
Spacebar not working there?
Yeah, that’s my thoughts a bit. Like I said earlier when people were talking about the difference between “suspicion” and “FOS”, I see things being two ways. Saying who you’re suspicious of and voting for them (often based on those suspicions–so really they go hand in hand as one usually leads to the other in most cases).
24 hours? I’d say that was being very generous. MM hasn’t said a thing in here since the start-middle of Day Two.
Aside from being a way to seemingly cheat a bit, another flaw here is “what if Auto now Diggit is scum?” I’m sure, if he could answer those questions, the answers would be remarkably different depending on what team he was playing for.
Huh. Go figure.
While I questioned it myself, I certainly don’t see what it hurts or what anyone has to lose with it. But seriously? Questioning someone who just asks everyone to do something based on a spreadsheet? As long as I’ve played this game, people have done a summeration of other’s posts to help them get a better understanding with them all there in one place, especially dead players.
I dunno, I can only speak for myself, but like you said, if anyone wants to do it, they could just look it up themselves…so in EITHER case, the info is there and public for those who want it. Therefore each person doing it doesn’t give anything away that couldn’t already be found.
Speaking as one of those who didn’t embed links to the posts, this WOULD be and take too long, at least for me whose computer is often as slow as molasses. The posts are all there. They are named. If anyone wishes to go back and take a look at a specific one, it will take considerably less time to look for and over that one post then it will for me to link to them. Sorry if you think it’s/I’m not being helpful in that regard or that mine (and other’s like it) is thus pointless, but when you’re on a computer as slow as this one, the frustration and time one saves is more than worth it.
Anyway, to sum up: I’m suspicious of Hockey Monkey now. At least she’s certainly raised her head on my radar. It just seems, even though Queuing and FCOD agreed with her, that she’s subtly showing casting of suspicion by question why sach would ask for everyone to do that. This boggles my mind since, as I said above, the info is all already out there. What more could someone gain from it? And this is coming from someone who had some pretty strong suspicions of sach himself for a long time. My two cents? I just don’t see it. And while I don’t regard you as suspicious for not wanting to do a list, I do for seemingly coloring those who have asked for it or think it would help as shadylike.
Regarding Zeriel/NAF I have no idea what to think there. I’ve had early suspicions of NAF on Day One and say it here and there but it’s since faded. Zeriel on the other hand, I haven’t really noticed much, although it’s been pointed out he’s casted death blows in the past. I’ve tried rereading his posts but nothing really jumps out at me.
Mal isn’t completely clear either in my book; I had just noticed/was tripped by someone more so than him at the end of Day Two.
But no matter how I look at it, there is only one person who, not only have I been suspicious of from Day One but who has always stayed at the top of the list and nay, even has done nothing but keep growing more and more suspicious as time went by as seen in many, many, many of my other posts (which I just did a recap of in post 1500. See? Not entirely unhelpful having to do it after all).
So for all of those past stated and explained reasons, I’m going to cast a vote for Pleonast
The bolded part of your statement is flat out wrong. I didn’t make a list of my suspicions, but they were in this post. The reason I am considering and now voting for you are two-fold - the AZTeach vote/unvote, AND the timing of your vote for Mtgman that saved his heiney. Since AZTeach/Kat did not vote for Pleonast, I can’t be suspicious of him for that reason. :rolleyes: I am suspicious of him for the timing of his vote for Mtgman, and because he came right out of the gate on day two with a vote for Mal, (you know the one who was tied with Kat for a dunking). Sorry you don’t like my reasons, but I don’t think they are either poor or ridiculous. I acknowledge that I could be wrong, but the logic is sound. If you wish to place a retalitory vote (your words) for me, I can’t stop you, but you would be wrong.
Hockey Monkey
987 - fluff
1003 - list of night kill possibilities
1016 - night kill list clarification
1195 - been busy; not feeling the **Mal **thing; reasons for voting mtgman
1215 - suspicious of people asking ‘why zuma’ (fluiddruid, sachertorte, Fretful); does not suspect Malacandra; supports FCOD’s suspicion of Pleonast; ‘highly suspicious’ of one-off votes; suspicious of **Cookies **for not thinking there was a scum driven **Mtgman **bandwagon; suspicions of one-off voting and ‘why zuma’ to narrow list to **sachertorte **and Fretful; quotes Fretful supporting sachertorte; votes Fretful Porpentine.
1220 - defends her one-off vote in response to storyteller
1221 - disagrees with Scuba_Ben regarding the existence of a **Queuing **meltdown
1234 - defends her ‘why zuma’ theory in response to fluiddruid; defends his one-off vote in response to SnakesCatLady
1253 - defends her ‘why zuma’ theory again in response to fluiddruid; Explains her vote for Fretful Porpentine; disagrees with the **Malacandra **vote; concerned that **Kat **inherited a scum role from ArizonaTeach; adopts the give the sub a day technique; states that she doesn’t think other players with votes are scum so won’t vote for them.
Sorry, no linkage goodness. But I am more suspicious of Hockey Monkey now. Post 1253 is most troubling to me:
Her “concern” that **Kat **inherited a scum role from **ArizonaTeach **strikes me as having a bit too much extra knowledge.
Her stance on Malacandra strikes me as someone who knows Malacandra’s alignment
Her adoption of the give the sub a day policy conveniently lets him off the hook for voting for Kat (confirmed scum).
This part makes sense, and I can see where that would be helpful to some. As far as using it as a record weeks from now…well maybe, but finding it could be a bitch. You still have to do a search. The summaries themselves are still not going to be a useful tool for me later because of the question of validity of the summary.
Oh for God’s sake! I don’t know shit! My concern that Kat inherited a scum role was because ArizonaTeach was acting scummy. I don’ t know if Mal is cult or non-cult, but I explained that if both Mal and Kat were scum, I thought that she would have just let the vote go to a tie and let the chips fall where they may. I ALWAYS want a sub-in to have a chance to play. I’m a nice person like that.
Here’s my posting list. I’ve split it into Days. I have not included pregame posts (all one of it) or Night posts (four in Night 1 and 1 in Night 2).
Day 1.
[post=8718858]210[/post] : My trademark opening post.
[post=8719311]258[/post] : In which I express my dislike of the tactic of pressure voting.
[post=8719746]309[/post] : In which I answer a rule question.
[post=8722413]452[/post] : In which I discuss my main objection to Sachertorte’s plan.
[post=8722770]473[/post] : In which I acknowledge that my objections have logical holes the size of a Challenger II.
[post=8722878]477[/post] : In which I further expound on my dislike of pressure voting.
[post=8729244]709[/post] : In which I answer a rule question.
[post=8729308]713[/post] : In which I respond to a supplementary.
[post=8730638]778[/post] : In which I answer a rule question.
[post=8730698]787[/post] : In which I expound on my rl limitations.
[post=8732260]851[/post] : In which I discuss what has made me suspicious in the first half of Day 1.
[post=8733180]859[/post] : In which I acknowledge not having placed a vote.
[post=8733685]865[/post] : In which I choose sleep over incoherent posting.
[post=8734743]874[/post] : In which I discuss my suspicions from the second half of Day 1.
[post=8734898]877[/post] : In which I raise a point with Fretful Porpentine about her vote for ArizonaTeach.
Day 2.
[post=8739108]988[/post] : Fluff.
[post=8739198]996[/post] : In which I explain to Malacandra why my suspicion of him has not wholly disappeared.
[post=8739225]998[/post] : In which I explain why I put zuma above Malacandra on my suspect list.
[post=8748519]1156[/post] : In which I am prepared to wait for MadTheSwine to return.
[post=8752755]1225[/post] : In which I upset a lot of people.
[post=8752836]1232[/post] : In which I defend the unpopular assertion.
[post=8752966]1238[/post] : In which I am not keen on extending the Day by 24 hours because of 4th July.
[post=8754041]1258[/post] : In which I defend myself from Pasta’s vote.
[post=8754090]1260[/post] : In which I acknowledge Pasta’s response.
[post=8754123]1261[/post] : In which I discuss the evolution of my suspicions on Day 2.
[post=8754126]1262[/post] : In which I correct an omission in my suspicion list.
[post=8754209]1263[/post] : In which I reluctantly vote.
[post=8755527]1277[/post] : In which I respond to a few points.
[post=8757144]1300[/post] : In which I try to answer a question, and learn a new technique.
Day 3.
[post=8764762]1378[/post] : In which I answer a rule question. After some others, but hopefully in more detail.
[post=8765691]1402[/post] : In which I give my opinion on shifting Day endings.
[post=8765715]1403[/post] : In which I promise a breakdown of posts by period. (An idea now on hold until Nightfall, as it’s more important to spend the next day or so analysing and voting.)
[post=8770104]1481[/post] : In which I respond to USCDiver.
[post=8771203]1500[/post] : In which I confirm a statement by USCDiver.
[post=8773049]1534[/post] : In which I promise to do this post.
That pretty much covers my participation up to now. In the next day or so I’ll reread the thread (again) and maybe research a poster or two.
Persistence? In not voting for you? Ok, for your sake I hope that kind of persistence continues :). As I said, I will look over your posts, in context, and see if anything jumps out at me. I do not think that I have taken any offense at what you have done what-so-ever, but if you feel that way, meh not much I can do about it. Hard to be a target when I haven’t even voted for you isn’t it?
For the record I see nothing wrong in asking people to do so. I see nothing wrong in people doing so. I just see little benefit in doing yourself, hence I will not do so. Personally I would rather not do so, and will instead dedicate my time to looking at others.
I had no suspicions of Kat/AZTeach at that point, because the only thing I had to go on was their bizarre behavior with me. If I may offer an alternate explanation of my vote for mtgman, it was actually the following–at the time I voted, the vote leaders were Kat/ArizonaTeach 4 Mtgman 4 sachertorte 3 zuma 3 Kyrie Eleison 3
As I said when I placed my vote, **Kyrie **was looking less scummy than the **Jackal **he replaced. The voting against **zuma **was all pretty throwaway. That left me with looking at, realistically, deciding between Mtgman, AZTeach, and sachertorte. I’ve gone on the record already about how I thought sachertorte has been getting a bad rap for analysis that helped the game whereas I’ve been getting a huge town vibe from the discussion, and so I wanted to cast a vote for either AZTeach or Mtgman to push him further behind the pack. Furthermore, the other people voting for AZTeach were (and mostly are) all on my suspicion list–Kyrie, NAF1138, Autolycus, and **Mtgman **himself; while by contrast the people voting for **mtgman **didn’t seem scummy at all.
At the time, I think it made perfect sense. Of course, a scum would also say that, so take it as you will.
I’m not going to vote until tomorrow. I need to step back from the impulse to counter-vote from a solely retaliatory standpoint and reevaluate/re-read the thread.
not edited to add: Hell, at the time you thought Mtgman was suspicious enough to put a capstone vote on him when he was already three votes in the lead.
Oh, no worries, I didn’t get a read from your post at least, that you were questioning people doing it and actually trying to convince real town not to…that’s why I was saying “while [you guys] were agreeing with her”, I didn’t see you taking concern and shady behavior painting over it like she appeared to.
Haha, thought that I was being clear in my post, but I guess not…
…unless, you HAVE something to be defensive over? Heh.
Well, having re-read the thread, and noticing precious little new I can call anyone out for, I’m going to hold off on my vote.
I WANT to suspect Hockey Monkey but I can’t rationalize it in the face of his bandwagon-following but game-unaffecting mtgman vote–if he were scum, he’d KNOW mtgman wasn’t, and was going to die anyway, so why would he attach his name to a townie lynch unnecessarily?
Same with NAF1138 – there’s part of me that wants to suspect him, but really, I can’t at this time. If he’s scum he’s playing it very cool with the first-day ArizonaTeach vote. I’m going to wait and see if the lists turn up anything when we get more information on their members.
Dammit. This is going to be a hard day to pick someone.
207 talks about non-believers going for a win, this is during day 1 when so much discussion of rules was happening 229 suspects pleonast for voting for USC diver as both Diver and Scuba enjoy water. That is the only reason given (day1 vote) 243 Mentions M3, talking about how many bad guys there were. 250 unsuspects Pleonast, thanks for advice as he is a noob 380 talks about first day voting options and what he sees as the option (joining a bandwagon/random/none) 426 I had called pleonast on his quick vote/unvote on day 1 of USC Diver. Pleonast had said that he got scuba and diver confused. I did not (and still do not) buy this as an answer (further reasons are in this linked post). USC had said that I misinterpreted what pleonast had said. Scuba quotes me for unknown reasons here as far as I can tell. Perhaps its because both Scuba and Diver are noobs? so Scuba says at least 516 quotes fretful about sachertorte, scuba expresses some suspicion of sach, and worries about auto, mentions M3 and the forbidden thread 561 mentions me again, says something stinks about my analysis re: O/A but never says what, and makes rule correction point 615 worries about the NAF/AZ argument says he thinks one is scum, but doesn’t know what one, mentions checking out other top targets 617 mentions Mal, why all know why 623 quotes AZ, and talks about dust ups being the problem, also mentions sach and USCDiver as a “concern” 625 quotes sachertorte, who asked why is a dustup a bad thing, says its because they became personal, mentions the problem is how to read it, and how many confrontations in M3 were town v town 674 mentions he will give his analysis, but all it is is a rehash of what the roles are and discussion of the role, including what the secret role might be. Not exactly analysis. First mention (I believe) of secret role being an attack role 699Quotes hockeymonkey who had asked him why he believed the secret role is an attack one. Scuba says he didn’t say that, even though he clearly did. Also admits that he thinks this is useless. So why post about it? 706 Corrects himself, that he did write the secret role may be an attack role, and says it was just a mistake between the psychopath and the secret role, also talks about apprentice/avatar 751 quotes BM vote count, and says he will have to vote. has some inclinations:
Autolycus hasn’t said anything useful that I’m aware of.
Kyrie Eleison subbed in mid-Day, I don’t have an opinion on him or Clockwork Jackal. So I’m unlikely to vote for him.
Hal, Mad, and NAF I need to review.
Zuma took a vote and I don’t think has defended emself. I think I should be concerned about that
is from the linked post. 783 Now decides to vote for mtgman
Where did this vote come from? he was not mentioned by Scuba prior. However this was the dust-up between mtgman and storyteller. Scuba was the 1st person to vote for mtgman.
796 says at least he didn’t join a bandwagon—he did start it though 1014 Finds pleonast jumping on Mal right off teh bat suspicious but does say it is for good reasons. Huh? He goes on, but I still say huh. Ends up FOSing them both. 1030 quotes story, and says analysis is good. Talks about looking at people who post more fluff then content, mentions getting post counts again 1040 a post count, suspects both low and high posters as well as the ones in the middle. Basically everyone I suppose is what he means post 1042 Un-FOS pleonast as pleonast had answered him, and said aggressive play is not a tell either way. Also says must consider FCOD’s point 1053 quotes sach, who had thought it was odd that Nava had included herself, says why yes we should keep an eye on her. AS well cookies needs discussing 1058 says auto hasn’t been around, but said he was drunk, says Idle thoughts is off his list for now, and then there is the Nava thing, makes a joke about BM 1066 says he is wary of Fretful for not wanting to go after Kat basically 1067 clarifies his post as saying he wants to hear more from Kat before FOSing her 1071 Fretful had FOS’s diggit camara for his apparent bandwagoning to death mtgman. He completely neglects to mention who voted first for mtgman (it was scuba) 1073 says he needs to go back and look AZ 1083 removes all FOSes as he admits to being all over the place. He does FOS Kat though, for AZ’s work. Also mentions Mal in connection with Mtgman. Huh? It was with Zuma. NO correction is made. Uses it to try say Mal is clean. 1197 -defends Mal once again. Threatens me with a vote as I had called him out for his weak reasoning of mtgman. Also says that me saying to Hal that I had no idea if he is scum is in itself a scum tell. Also brings up post counts and stats again. 1198 correct his logic, but still thinks what I said to Hal was a scum tell. 1216 I get another mention, comparing me to AZ’s freakout. I have no idea where he gets this from. He says I was drawing fire, but I don’t recall this at all. The only thing that was happening was Hal did not like my vote for him. 1233 Votes for Kat due to AZ’s defensiveness 1364 says its time to figure out who paid attention to diggitcamara (it was me btw) and find the scum in the kat/Mal mob. Says its should be 40% of the mob due to stats. 1372 quotes fretful who had said the 40% was not even close to the truth, mentions he has read the thread again. Also says lets see who goes after Mal today. 1386 quotes me, re:stas and his list. As well doesn’t like that I said he was threatening people with any discussion of mal. I stand by this. Why would you say what he said previously? It can only poison any discussion with fear at best, at worse end all discussion of the topic. 1507 talks about my so-called hostility, and threatens me with a vote again. Also says he wants to see what storteller had to say. 1543 Drops his retaliatory vote against me. Says it is my “unrelentless persistence”.
That is all his posts.
Here is what I think.
-I find it odd that mtgman was not mentioned at all by him until after/during the dustup between story and mtgman
-He placed the 1st vote on mtgman
-in later posted analysis of the voting pattern he neglects to mention this fact
-he mentions the secret role as an attack role, and gives lame excuse about it
-mentions numerous times that he has read the thread over and over
-never to rarely posts real analysis
-his analysis tends to revolve only around roles (not votes <except for that once where he didn’t mention himself> or actual content) with the occasional post count thrown in
-mentions over and over his noobness, yet did follow M3 at the very least
-is all over the place and suspects everyone (admits to this and it seems to have stopped, sort of)
-accuses me of going after him even though he has mentioned my name numerous times, including suggestions I flamed out, was drawing fire and I was always close to a vote from him. This vote never happened until I said I thought he was suspicious. I admit one of the reasons I might have found him suspicious is his constant mention of me.
-He says he will do things, but rarely to never does. I expect to see one of things you have promised us Scuba
A: Detailed analysis of storyteller, and who he mentioned
B: Unrelenting persistence of someone
C: you say you have read the thread many times, but never give proof or analysis, how about some?
-Shut-up about the n00b thing. This game cannot be won by some sort of formula or a magic bullet. It can only be won by intelligent believers or a great play by the oracle. Stop looking for said magic bullet
-unsubstantiated FOS frequently
Thats it. I can say the vibe I get and I will if the collective you want, but I would like to know what others think.
Queuing, that was extremely helpful. I would like to know what your conclusions from all your hard work are. I will work on one of these today as I have time through the workday…maybe even two!
I am leaning towards scum. I find it very suspicious that he has claimed to have read the thread numerous times, yet has shown very little for it. No links, no new theories, the only analysis is basically about roles. I think, but don’t know, that this is a scum tell. Reporting that you are putting a lot of work in but producing very little in the way of results seems to me to be a good way for scum to plant the idea of a useful hard working townie while actually doing very little.
One point of his analysis that was not role chat was about the votes that went toward mtgman. He neglected to mention that he himself had started the voting bandwagon by placing the first vote, and instead mentions Diggit Camara as the one who had started the bandwagon. This post of mine also outlines the voting pattern in regards to the mtgman kill. Diggit was the 4th person to vote for mtgman. We know storyteller was good guy, why are vote 1 and 3 ignored?
He claims that he will do such and such but rarely comes through with it. This is, IMO, another scum tell. Many things get lost in these kind of monster games. One of the ways to plant in other heads that you are a good guy is to repeat over and over that you will do something very townie, but actually do very little. I admit this is something of a repeat point.
His constant n00b card playing. Over and over he says he is inexperienced. We get it, we understand that this is probably your first game, however he also claims to have followed M3 closely which IMO would not make him much of a noob anymore. As well the constant reminders strikes me as a way to say “don’t look at me, I don’t know what I am doing”. This could go either way as a tell though.
He says that he finds persistence annoying and a scum tell, yet has mentioned me many times, over and over threatening me with a vote. When it comes the reasoning is very lame and is basically an OMGUS vote (assuming OMGUS stands for Oh my god you suck). A poor play at best, and one that has been mentioned as poor many times in this thread. You would think he would know this if he has read the thread as many times as he claimed.
He uses veiled threats of votes as a way to stop discussion. Saying things such as “lets see who mentions mal today”; “let us keep an eye on Nava” etc, with no further mention of these people or things. I don’t like this. It isn’t very subtle.
On the other hand, he could be a n00b player. He could just not have any faith is his own ideas about this game, and is scared to go out on a limb. A retaliatory vote is generally, IMO, a bad thing to do as a scum as it draws attention to yourself. This could be a wine thing though.
What it boils down to me is that on the scales of Nairu I see more scummy things then town things. As well, not to be mean, but he hasn’t provided much in the way of use to the town. This early in the game if you look scummy and haven’t done much to help the town (no matter how many times you say you are going to) I see no reason not to vote for you. On the 3rd hand I do worry that his mention of my name numerous times is clouding my judgment.
but the thing is, you and others are talking about it and all of putting it out there with how it works. So what makes you think that any scum (in this game and after) will follow and hold true to these theories? It just seems like it’s a reach.