You say “One thing I have learned in this game is that there is no predicting what scum will do.” By that argument, you can take absolutely any comment or action and call it a scum tell. Take another look at my post 1264 and see if you can come up with a scenario which explains why scum would do that, rather than taking the easy out of simply voting Malacandra.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is true. That is also why I didn’t do a lot of posting on the first Day of this game or the other game I played.
I don’t have any explanation for the actions of Cult members. I do know their job is to try not to look scummy! So I can imagine they would go out of their way to do things - such as votes that don’t really matter - so they can call attention to them later and say “why would scum do that?”.
[QUOTE=Captain Klutz]
You say “One thing I have learned in this game is that there is no predicting what scum will do.” By that argument, you can take absolutely any comment or action and call it a scum tell.
[/QUOTE]
In reply,
[QUOTE=SnakesCatLady]
Yes, that is true. That is also why I didn’t do a lot of posting on the first Day of this game or the other game I played.
[/QUOTE]
Do you mean you were afraid of leaving scum tells, or were you afraid that your words would be interpreted as scum tells?
[QUOTE=SnakesCatLady]
I don’t have any explanation for the actions of Cult members. I do know their job is to try not to look scummy! So I can imagine they would go out of their way to do things - such as votes that don’t really matter - so they can call attention to them later and say “why would scum do that?”.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, their job is to not look scummy. But now I’m curious as to what you would regard as not looking scummy.
Also, you say “So I can imagine they would go out of their way to do things - such as votes that don’t really matter…” (bolding added).
Note that the thing I went out of my way to do was not voting for Malacandra.
Although I don’t think that anything I say will help. It seems you have decided that I am scum and nothing will change your mind, as you can always simply say “Well, of course a scum would say that”. Note that an innocent will also say that…
[QUOTE=HazelNutCoffee]
Hmm. I wasn’t trying to nudge anyone. I was just saying that there could be circumstances where early role-claims could be helpful. I also finished off that post by saying that such discussion was premmature anyway.
I find it suspicious that you would find this scummy, since Diggit, a confirmed townie, was the first one to suggest that power-roles should out themselves after a few Days. I was responding to his idea. Why don’t you think his suggestion is scummy yet mine is? Is it simply because he’s been confirmed town? Shouldn’t that prove that the suggestion of an early role-claim being possibly pro-town isn’t necessarily a scum tell?
Hockey was calling Diggit out for the very same reason you are now calling me out. You cited her suspicions of Diggit as justification for your FOS. I am not sure what to make of this.
[/QUOTE]
I have a very different take on the primary and secondary speakers on a ‘controversial’ topic. I think scum would be more inclined to be the secondary than the primary. Sort of a, ‘thanks town for bringing it up, I can support it and hide behind you.’ At the very least, I don’t think we can use Diggitv1’s confirmed town status to absolve anyone’s participation. Furthermore, the use of dead townies to defend something in this manner strikes me as slightly scummy; mainly because I find the logic lacking.
Anyway, my vote is for Scuba_Ben. His posting style has been overly crafted and lacking in content. His promises to do pro-town actions are not followed through.
Also largely because my other candidates NAF and Hockey Monkey are participating the most of my three dunkables. I will try and check the game again tonight (Saturday), but will most likely be unavailable on Sunday. Please everyone get your votes in soon; right now we have no clear leader and very little chatter. This is why I had been trying so hard to get the end of day to fall on a weekday! My big fear is we end up with a roleclaim and no time and/or no people to react to it. (I’m not advocating a roleclaim right now, I’m just afraid that with no indication of the specific individual who will get dunked today, none of the many candidates can’t roleclaim now, and may end up with little time to save themselves should it prove necessary, so vote!)
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey]
**Hal ** thought I was trying to out the secret role, and I explained that I only wanted clarification because there were so many nuances to the rules and roles that confusion was easy. I was satisfied by **Scuba’s ** answer and **Hal ** said he was satisfied with mine.
[/QUOTE]
Heh…there I was, sleeping soundly at 4:00 this morning, when I awoke with a start and realized “Oh, wait, Hockey Monkey explained that whole bit I FOS’d her for”. Damn game, interrupting my sleep…
Anyway, I still have my suspicions, and don’t find Cookies’ arguements as weak as you’re making them out to be, but I still feel stronger about Mad right now. My vote will stay for toDay.
Incidentally, I’m visiting family for the weekend, so I won’t be able to update the spreadsheet until tomorrow evening.
I am not using the fact that DiggitCamera was a townie to support my position. I am saying that Cookies is contradicting herself.
DiggitCamera suggests power-roles should role-claim after 4-5 Days.
Hockey FOSes him for saying this.
DiggitCamera explains his position more clearly.
I comment that it COULD be helpful but is not really relevant at this point.
Cookies cited #2 as a reason to suspect Hockey, since she is casting suspicion on a “known townie role.” I feel this is a poor reason to suspect anyone, particularly since I think Hockey’s FOS at the time was justified. And by this logic, anyone supporting the known townie should be exonerated (which is equally silly). Or is it a double-edged sword - FOS the townie and you’re scum; support the townie and you’re scum as well?
I’m going to stop rehashing this unless someone brings it up again, but below is the entire exchange:
PS - I am aware that I haven’t posted a vote yet. I promise I’ll do that by the end of today.
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
For example, Hockey Monkey in two consecutive lines in post 1215 both says to suspect one-off votes the most and that the bandwagon (of which he is a part) potentially hides scum. Following that, he’s basing all the substantiative parts of his Day 3 analysis (I continue to be irritated by the spurious reasoning on the vote/unvote patterns of AZTeach/Kat) on my supposedly bandwagon-starting vote after agreeing in 1215 that the one-offs are what’s highly suspicious to him.
vote Hockey Monkey
[/QUOTE]
I admit I don’t follow the reasoning of “bandwagon-starting” (re: Klutz’s vote for me, also). Basically, using this type of argument, you’re screwed no matter what:
If you fail to vote, you’re scum
If you vote a one-off, you’re scum
If you vote early for someone who gets votes, you’re “starting a bandwagon”
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey]
I have been sticking my neck out and calling people on what I think is odd behavior and I’m catching a lot of flak for it. I really went out on a limb with my vote for **Fretful ** on day two. I’m just town trying to do what I think is right, and unfortunately for a lot of townies it comes off as scummy.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
Welcome to my own personal world.
[/QUOTE]
This is actually making me think some more. Townies do tend to act reactionary when a vote comes their way, and tend to point the finger back. For now I will withdraw my vote. Unvote Zeriel. I still hold a FOS on you though.
Something that stood out to me on my last re-read is that **Queuing ** said he was going to do a workup on Scuba_Ben. **Scuba ** very shortly after that voted for Queuing. Now if you do a quick skim through, **Queuing’s ** vote for **Scuba ** looks like an OMGUS vote, when in fact it is not. I don’t know if that was the purpose, but that along with the suspicion raised by **Queuing ** on this one makes me want to vote for Scuba_Ben.
I will likely not have much time after 6pm eastern today to check the thread. I will try to check it when I get up in the morning and if I need to make a defense post, I’ll do it then. Although it won’t be much of one.
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey]
This is actually making me think some more. Townies do tend to act reactionary when a vote comes their way, and tend to point the finger back. For now I will withdraw my vote. Unvote Zeriel. I still hold a FOS on you though.
Something that stood out to me on my last re-read is that **Queuing ** said he was going to do a workup on Scuba_Ben. **Scuba ** very shortly after that voted for Queuing. Now if you do a quick skim through, **Queuing’s ** vote for **Scuba ** looks like an OMGUS vote, when in fact it is not. I don’t know if that was the purpose, but that along with the suspicion raised by **Queuing ** on this one makes me want to vote for Scuba_Ben.
I will likely not have much time after 6pm eastern today to check the thread. I will try to check it when I get up in the morning and if I need to make a defense post, I’ll do it then. Although it won’t be much of one.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting. Very interesting. Hockey Monkey decides to change her vote from Zeriel, and of the 8 other players who already have votes she decides to vote for Scuba Ben, who just happens to be the only player tied with her in number of votes. Of course, the matter of breaking the tie is not mentioned in the vote post. Haven’t we already seen scum do this once in this game?
Since my suspicions of Hockey Monkey are already on record, I am going to even things back up. It doesn’t look as if my suspicions of Captain Klutz are getting any attention, so unvote Captain Klutz. Vote Hockey Monkey.
And now we’re back to two frontrunners again. I’d just like to point out that Hockey Monkey, in the guise of being reasonable and unvoting me, has just broken a tie involving herself by voting Scuba_Ben into the lead. More to the point, she didn’t acknowledge when voting that she’d pushed her opponent to the lead with less than 24 hours to go in the vote.
Now, where have we seen THIS behavior before, recently?
[QUOTE=SnakesCatLady]
Interesting. Very interesting. Hockey Monkey decides to change her vote from Zeriel, and of the 8 other players who already have votes she decides to vote for Scuba Ben, who just happens to be the only player tied with her in number of votes. Of course, the matter of breaking the tie is not mentioned in the vote post. Haven’t we already seen scum do this once in this game?
[/QUOTE]
Good catch, SCL. We have indeed, as Zeriel also noted.
There are two things that make me hesitate to vote for HM; firstly I don’t see a Cultist would necessarily jump on an already successful bandwagon and secondly, surely they’d be aware that not acknowledging the self-interest in the vote was something one Cultist has already done, and want to avoid it?
Nevertheless, it is suspicious, and if I cannot find a better candidate for dunking by midnight (just under 2 hours 40 minutes from now) my vote will go to Hockey Monkey.
I’ve started a post analysis of Autolycus because he was behaving the same way here as he was in M4; however, he’s subbed out (for honest reasons) which is somewhat different. I’ve started and I’ll finish (to quote the quizmaster).
[QUOTE=SnakesCatLady]
Interesting. Very interesting. Hockey Monkey decides to change her vote from Zeriel, and of the 8 other players who already have votes she decides to vote for Scuba Ben, who just happens to be the only player tied with her in number of votes. Of course, the matter of breaking the tie is not mentioned in the vote post. Haven’t we already seen scum do this once in this game?
Since my suspicions of Hockey Monkey are already on record, I am going to even things back up. It doesn’t look as if my suspicions of Captain Klutz are getting any attention, so unvote Captain Klutz. Vote Hockey Monkey.
[/QUOTE]
Actually I didn’t know the vote was tied. I haven’t been keeping a tally. Dammit, I can’t do anything that isn’t scummy.
[QUOTE=MHaye]
Good catch, SCL. We have indeed, as Zeriel also noted.
There are two things that make me hesitate to vote for HM; firstly I don’t see a Cultist would necessarily jump on an already successful bandwagon and secondly, surely they’d be aware that not acknowledging the self-interest in the vote was something one Cultist has already done, and want to avoid it?
Nevertheless, it is suspicious, and if I cannot find a better candidate for dunking by midnight (just under 2 hours 40 minutes from now) my vote will go to Hockey Monkey.
I’ve started a post analysis of Autolycus because he was behaving the same way here as he was in M4; however, he’s subbed out (for honest reasons) which is somewhat different. I’ve started and I’ll finish (to quote the quizmaster).
[/QUOTE]
Really, is there anything I can do at this point that won’t be deemed suspicious by someone? Should I put my vote back where it was? Not vote at all? No, that’s scummy…Vote for someone else? Vote for myself? Ack!
Autolycus made a total of 25 posts in this thread. Most of these (nearly one half) were in Day 1.
I won’t be linking to or providing a summary of either Night or pregame posts. I will say how many were made in each period, but that’s all.
The posts :
Pregame : 4 posts.
Day 1 : 12 posts.
Day 1 : 12 posts.
[post=8724413]541[/post]. Auto says he wants to roleplay and have fun without being a “detrimental aspect”.
[post=8728226]683[/post]. Vote for NAF1138. Seems groundless – no cite or other explanation.
[post=8728257]685[/post]. “We have beaten off MTGman’s plan.” (At least I think he meant MTGman.) No grounds for this, which followed 13 minutes after the above post.
[post=8728338]689[/post]. ArizonaTeach picks up on one of his obscure sayings and says it means nothing. This triggers the argument that lead to ArizonaTeach subbing out. This argument continues in post [post=8728438]697[/post], post [post=8730498]767[/post], post [post=8731962]841[/post], post [post=8731968]842[/post], [post=8731998]844[/post] and post [post=8732049]846[/post].
[post=8730712]792[/post]. Corrects a technical error.
[post=8731976]843[/post]. Points out to DiggitCamara[sub]1[/sub] that he is not lurking right now.
Night 1 : 1 post.
Day 2 : 6 posts.
[post=8740582]1024[/post]. Commits PUI.
[post=8744228]1110[/post]. Votes Kat.
[post=8745575]1120[/post]. Revotes.
[post=8747132]1125[/post]. Belated happy 4th July.
[post=8755427]1269[/post]. Isn’t going to change his vote.
[post=8756789]1296[/post]. Joking during the Day’s extended twilight.
Night 2 : 0 posts.
Day 3 : 2 posts.
Day 3 : 2 posts.
[post=8758692]1330[/post]. Urges the female residents to dance naked.
[post=8767269]1420[/post]. Requests being subbed out.
That’s it. Everything he did. Apart from voting Kat in Day 2, he did nothing of any substance after the fall of Day 1. As for Day 1, it was dominated by two things – him finding his “voice” and his argument with ArizonaTeach.
The timing of the spat is wrong for it to be staged between two Cultists, as the Cult had had no chance to meet and talk amongst each other. So if both are (or were) cultists, then it was improvised.
Draw your own conclusions. I can’t come to any right now. Maybe if I sleep on it?
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey]
Really, is there anything I can do at this point that won’t be deemed suspicious by someone? Should I put my vote back where it was? Not vote at all? No, that’s scummy…Vote for someone else? Vote for myself? Ack!
[/QUOTE] HM, what made my antennae twinge is that you didn’t flag up that you were breaking a tie for a dunking in your favour. Not that you switched your vote, not that you voted for someone tied with you, even. Just that you didn’t discuss the ramifications upfront. Any reason why?
I’ve elected to give the question of whether to vote for you some thought (insofar as I can with my eyes wanting to close). I’m not convinced of your Cult membership yet.
