As promised. I hope these links work. I’ve mostly straight quoted and I apologize for the length, but I don’t want to put any mistaken (or perceived scummy) analysis out there in the summary, since most of it pertains to me. Decide for yourselves.
Post 1593 Reason for skimming over posts not directly related to people who have pinged his radar.
Post 1594 Replys to Hockey Monkey (attributed to Scuba_Ben)
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
I make very few apologies for the on-again off-again nature of my suspicions. First of all, the NAF and you things are just as you said–I’m going to be super-sensitive about attacks on myself, and I’m not exactly alone in that. After all, if someone knows they themselves are a townie, it’s in their best interest to at least consider why they’re being targeted. I’m also admittedly prone to following along on other people’s logic–if I like what someone says in an analysis post, I’m likely to take their suspicion as my own.
Offtopically, I’m used to smaller games by a factor of 3+ and despite having joined in 2005 I’m not QUITE all the way adept at dealing with the type of fast-paced threads one sees on the dope–probably half my total posts are from this thread! That’s really the other reason I’m not always 100% fully on board with my posts from a few days or Days ago.
[/QUOTE]
Post 1615
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
Cookie’s analysis crystallizes stuff a lot for me, especially since she cites posts and reveals things that I can then catch.
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]
Post 1629 Replys to Hockey Monkey
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
Welcome to my own personal world.
[/QUOTE]
Post 1632
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
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?
Updated unofficial vote count: snipped out vote count
[/QUOTE]
Post 1633 – high five for simulpost
Post 1634 – correction to vote count
Post 1646
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
I gotta admit, I’m feeling some remorse over my Hockey Monkey vote, for precisely the reasons articulated by Idle Thoughts.
However, I’m not really sure that Scuba_Ben looks any more scummy. I’ll leave my vote where it is to keep it tied up, and encourage others to come and vote for whoever they think most scummy–the tie is at FOUR votes, after all, with several others at two and one. Any number of absentees to the thread could come in and dunk literally anyone.
Also, in the future, I’m personally going to avoid setting up this kind of last-minute pick-a-frontrunner thing, since really it seems to be limiting the town’s thinking unnecessarily.
To close, I plead again to my fellow townies: Don’t feel compelled to pick one of the frontrunners in a tie situation. Especially when the vote counts are so low that literally anyone could end up dunked if enough of the non-voting people suspect them.
[/QUOTE]
Post 1647 – Get your butts in here and vote.
Post 1662
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
Wonderful, a roleclaim that can’t be proven in any way. Still.
If voting stays the way it is, I’ll come back in at 12:45 and remove my Hockey Monkey vote so that we go into overtime and have at least part of a weekday to think it through. If I cannot push us into overtime, my suspicion and vote will stand.
[/QUOTE]
Post 1670
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
I’d like to go on the record as not liking the speed at which Hockey Monkey is being believed. I have no reason not to accept the roleclaim, but I’d really like to force a tie–I’d hate to see any other claimants to the Alchemist title do so after the 1pm deadline.
[/QUOTE]
Post 1683
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
I’m just sayin’, there’s no particular way to verify an Alchemist claim, is there? If I wasn’t suspicious of her, I wouldn’t have voted in the first place, and there’s no guarantee that the Alchemist is going to be pro-town. Hell, the only way to really differentiate between multiple alchemist claims would be kill 'em all, so I doubt the scum will try it. By the same token, it’d be pretty easy for the scum to role-claim the alchemist specifically to get the real alchemist to out themselves.
I just wanted a few more hours to think about it and get some other missing opinions in here.
Also, nice poorly-supported vote. I know who I’m giving the eye to now. :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
6 night posts
Post 1871
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
So…tired…
I’m on the side of “I don’t think that’s a breadcrumb” on the MadtheSwine issue. I think it’s more likely he checked sachertorte.
I’m suspicious right now of the following:
MadtheSwine, for the ridiculous last-minute (literally) vote and analysis. Like Queuing, I say “Give us a good reason not to vote”.
Captain Klutz, for post 1666 in which he unvotes fluiddruid and pushes Scuba_Ben over the top based on his desire to pick one of the frontrunners to lynch–that’s how I interpret so soon after SnakesCatLady and I both expressed the desire to tie it up and go to overtime for a more useful discussion. Then he obliquely questioned Hockey’s claim just before the deadline.
DiggitCamera, for cementing a Scuba_Ben dunking by unvoting Hockey, and then voting for me based on a clear misunderstanding of my intent–I was obviously interested in a tie and more discussion, NOT in dunking Hockey , and saying otherwise won’t make it so. And furthermore, Autolycus (who he subbed) had been acting suspicious earlier too.
fluiddruid, weakly, for her blase reaction to CaptainKlutz’s vote and for being generically lurky.
For now, to put a vote on someone I think is way more likely scum than mad , I’d like to vote Captain Klutz based on his scummy moves in the closing hours of Day 3.
People I’m almost sure are town:
SnakesCatLady , for being with me on a lot of issues, especially the attempt to hold Hockey and Ben at a tie to give us some discussion room.
Queuing and sachertorte , for ongoing insightful analysis and an apparent committment to rational thought.
[/QUOTE]
Post 1878 Reply to Mad
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
That’s the most messed up crap I’ve ever heard. Hell, this little song and dance makes you look even more scummy, you realize that?
[/QUOTE]
Post 1901 – agrees with Friday dunking to force schedule change
Post 1915
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
Captain Klutz, in addition to my irritation with him for pushing us out of a tie yesterDay, has now brought us perilously close to a quick lynch today–seemingly voting for Mad solely to do so while keeping his own hands clean. I don’t like this any more than I like the previous behavior that led to the vote.
[/QUOTE]
) That is no reason for not voting at all.