Oh, and by the way. While you guys decide between Hockey Monkey and Me, you should think about who took the items from the Hoard. Deciding whether or not to kill me is the priority, but other things are going on as well.
I’m obviously differentiating from 'What’s-her-nuts", aren’t I?
vote: sachetorte
Oh, I should add: when I kick it, the Cloak of Elvenkind is heading to the stash.
These are fair questions, and I will explain my thought process.
I have the Ring of Limited Wishes, which has numerous powers, the most important being a Good chance to Investigate someone’s full alignment. I felt (and feel still) that the most helpful thing I could do was to Investigate people, essentially making me a cop. Like a cop in a regular game, I did not want to reveal my information too early, because I didn’t want to get killed or have the ring stolen or nullified. Since the ring only has 2 charges, however, I planned to use both and then reveal. Also, this is a short game, and I didn’t want to wait too long. If I had found scum with my first investigation, I probably would have changed my mind.
I decided to reveal now for two reasons: first, I screwed up royally by not getting the second investigation in, and felt that if I said nothing and revealed next Turn, no one would believe me and the investigations would go to waste. Second, I think we are in dire straits - possibly at Lylo - and want to get all the information possible out there to make the right decision this Turn. I don’t want to waste time and energy arguing about Hawkeye.
I was very close to revealing last Turn since **Hawkeye **was garnering votes, but I was doing my damnedest to defend him against Hockey Monkey’s lame-ass “case,” and it didn’t get bad enough for me to pull the trigger. It was a judgment call.
On the HM and **sach **question, I am still torn. Right now my vote stands with **HM **from yesterday, and I’m going to leave it there for now. Half of me is completely dubious about how perfect his investigation is (see my earlier post on this topic), the other half of me doesn’t see any kind of compelling case against sach. Anyone who is voting for **sach **want to try to convince me? (With evidence, please, not “he seems the scummier of the two”).
Unvote Boozahol
Unvote sinjin
My evidence for who I will be voting for today, is a bit unorthodox for a “going with my gut”.
Going back through his posts, I cannot help but see many of what I’m going to call “Golly, gee” posts.
Imagine the Beaver…not that kind of beaver, you perverts…standing with incriminating melted chocolate all over his face, saying, “Golly, gee, Wally, I haven’t seen your hershey bar!” and you’ll get the gist of it.
[color=blue]Vote sachertorte
bah.
Unvote sinjin
Silence is killing this Town.
The big problem isn’t that you are going to kill me since I can’t expect you to know that I’m Good. But there is no discussion about it. None. Zero. Zip.
How the hell do you expect to root out who is Evil if you don’t discuss disintegrating me and why you are doing so?
Case One: Evil Knows I’m Good.
How will Evil react to this situation? How will they vote? How will they justify their vote? How will you discern Evil from Good based on how they vote?
Case Two: Evil Knows I’m Evil.
How will Evil react to this situation? How will they vote? How will they justify their vote? How will you discern Evil from Good based on how they vote?
Hey Look! They generate the same questions. And you all are generating zero data.
Someone (Good) should be looking at my posts and supposing what they would do in my place if they were Evil. That someone should not be me. But no one else seems to want to bother. Look at what I did when sinjin was under suspicion on Turn One. Do I know if sinjin is Good or Evil? No. But I put myself in her place and tried to make sense of her actions if she is Good and if she is Evil. Her actions made more sense to me coming from a Good sinjin. Am I right? am I wrong? I don’t know. But I stated my thoughts, because that’s what makes the game work. Sometimes I’m right and sometimes I’m wrong. But I can’t avoid posting simply because I’m afraid to be wrong. Being wrong is part of the game. Not posting kills the game.
Lesson One: Plausibility is not Proof
I accept that “sachertorte is Evil and he is trying to get Hockey Monkey killed” is a plausible situation. However, plausibility is not proof. If you suppose that I’m Evil, you must also open your mind to the possibility that I’m Good and that I reported Hockey Monkey is Evil, because I investigated her and that’s what I found. Your job is to determine which you believe to be true. That the possibility that I’m Evil exists is not sufficient. It’s not even Proof at all.
Lesson Two: The Disintegration of Blaster Master and zuma
Town needs to look at my actions and put themselves in my position. If you were Evil and saw the Blaster Master and zuma thing going down what would you do?
Would Evil try and save Blaster Master?
Would Evil try and get Blaster Master killed along with zuma?
Or Would Evil do nothing and let a Townie (or two) get disintegrated without exposing an opinion or position at all?
Put yourself in that situation and think. What would you do? Don’t suppose that “Maybe Evil is trying to achieve X or Y?” Think what would YOU do.
Answer: Read after I’m dead Nothing. The Evil move here is to do nothing. Defending Blaster Master runs the risk of Evil defending Good because Evil knows he is good, and Evil actually wants Blaster Master dead anyway. Attacking Blaster Master exposes Evil to scrutiny. Scrutiny that is wholly unnecessary. Evil will sit back and HOPE both get killed, but will not overtly push for it.
Lesson Three: storyteller says, “KILL SACHERTORTE”
Ah, storyteller. Why is it, when I was killed in Cecilvania no one listened to me when I said HEY KILL storyteller, he’s SCUM? The answer is because storyteller was SCUM in that game. Counter-intuitive? Not really. Storyteller has asked you to kill me. You (Good guys) don’t know that storyteller is wrong, but Evil knows that storyteller is wrong. This creates the perfect cover for Evil to vote for me, because storyteller said so. In Cecilvania, Town didn’t listen to me because they had no way of knowing I was right. Scum didn’t listen to me because* I was right*. In other words, if storyteller was correct and I was Evil, then Good players would be hesitant to take storyteller’s OMGUS vote for me seriously, and evil would ignore storyteller because he was right and they don’t want to kill a teammate. But since I’m Good, Evil has motivation to point to storyteller’s “case.” When I’m dead and found to be Good, does this mean Zsofia is Evil? No. Not necessarily. Though, if Good, I think she would really learn her lesson if you kill her simply because I told you to.
Lesson Four: Disintegration of storyteller
storyteller died from a measly four votes. 4 of 13 players determined the outcome of the Turn. This is not acceptable.
I was one of the four votes that led to storyteller’s death. I was also the first vote. Storyteller charges that I was trying to get him killed because he was “lurky.”
Okay, put yourselves into Evil shoes again and think this through as yourself, but EVIL. Do you, as Evil, want to shift the vote to a lurky Townie, or do you as Evil Scum want to keep the lurky townie around?
Again, you’ll give more credence to my words after I’m dead: The answer is keep lurkers around. Lurkers allow Evil to post less. Less posting leaves less for Town to analyze and catch scum. Storyteller had zero votes and no discussion about him. It’s insane for Evil to expect to lynch storyteller. I stated my suspicion of storyteller, because that is what Good players should do.
Shifting the vote is risky for Evil in the first place. In order for a shift by Evil to be plausible, it needs to be an “Evil in jeopardy” situation (Otherwise, you are attributing my “going after storyteller” as sticking my neck out when a Townie is already most likely to die. Would you do that as Evil?) When I voted for storyteller, do you think we were in an “Evil in jeopardy” situation? Furthermore, in this theoretical world, where I’m Evil trying to save Evil, why wouldn’t I push more aggressively for disintegrating Hockey Monkey? If I’m Evil, Hockey Monkey is Good right? And Hockey Monkey had one vote on her already. I voted for Hockey Monkey, but why bother with storyteller at all? If you were Evil and in my situation, what would you have done?
Scum avoid dramatic shifts in the vote count. Any offering of kill candidate is subtle. No position is far more preferable than taking a stand on someone. Furthermore, the notion that scum will risk exposure to lynch a specific townie is ludicrous. Scum are content with any Townie dying. storyteller’s assertion that I wanted him and specifically him dead is self-centered. If I were Evil, I would be happy with any Good player getting disintegrated. And since we now have a dichotomy between Hockey Monkey and me, an Evil Me would happily push for Hockey Monkey’s death over storyteller’s.
Summary: There is a persistent habit of Townies supposing what Evil would do without actually thinking through what they themselves would do if they were Evil. You must do this! Think through a situation and really be honest with yourself as to whether or not you would do what you are supposing Evil would do. Lynch me, don’t lynch me; it is of lesser importance than opening your eyes and looking at the game. Look at the points I’ve outlined above, and if you honestly and thoughtfully conclude that I’m Evil, then that is fine, I will accept that. But if you are going to kill me off based on laziness, then I’m not fine with that at all.
Now someone (preferably Good, well preferably all of you), needs to do the same with Hockey Monkey.
I will repost this message shortly before my death. READ IT AGAIN!
Well, I don’t think i have better than 50% chance of finding scum on my own, so it is a choice between Sach and HM.
I find Sach to be more credible. I’ll try to express why in a bit, but for now
vote Hockey Monkey
You know, I find it humorous - in a mordant, head-smacking kind of way - that you posted this vote for sach with this reasoning after what I said in the post immediately above yours. Do you think I could trouble you to link to one or two of these “many” posts by sach that you find suspicious? Apparently you’ve just gone back through them, so it shouldn’t be that big of a deal to actually identify a few specific instances, yes?
Thanks so much.
There isn’t a silver bullet zinger, or even three or 4 lead bullet zingers, and since you all can do a “find all posts by sachertorte” in this thread and read through them yourselves, which you would all have to do anyway if you were going to truly try and see if my observation resonates with you personally, I don’t really see the point.
He’s been participating a lot, but I don’t believe him. I don’t have any perfect info to offer that contradicts him. If I’m wrong, and the others who are voting for him are wrong or setting him up, it’ll suck for trying to do vote analysis. If I’m right, and the others who are voting for him are right, it’ll again suck for trying to figure out if any of us are trying to bus him. Me pulling quotes that probably aren’t going to convince you anyway, since you’re looking for a compelling case that I can’t make, isn’t going to change any of that.
This really, really frustrates me. I didn’t ask you for a silver bullet, and I didn’t ask you for a compelling case. All I asked for is evidence. You said you just reviewed sach’s posts, you said you found “many” examples of what you called “golly, gee” posts. All I want you to do is give me some examples of what you’re talking about. That’s it.
Yes, I could in fact go back and read **sach’s **8,765,533 posts in this thread and try to guess which ones you’re talking about. OR, you could throw me a couple post numbers and say “this is what I was referring to.” Is that really too much to ask?
I don’t have time to, and I don’t know when I’ll have time to. I’ll try, but I’m not very compelled to put a lot of time into justifying a gut vote. I’m much more inclined to devote time to a case when I actually have a case that can be argued and supported by evidence.
I wonder where the people who aren’t voting are… We are heading into a train wreck if everyone don’t start participating.
I’d also like to ask people to unvote those you don’t want to lynch today.
Hawkeyeop, Zsofia, Boozahol Squid, P.I., and Hockey Monkey are all still voting for people other than MH and sachertorte. If you still think these are good lynch candidates, by all means keep voting. Otherwise I don’t think we should risk a last minute scum vote rush as we are either at lylo or very close to, and a “rigged election” could lose the game for us.
Unless I am mistaken Darth Sensitive, MHaye, ShadowFacts, and sinjin haven’t chosen a side in the current vote.
In the time it took you to type this reply, you should have been able to come up with at least one of the “many” golly-gee posts you said you found upon reviewing **sach’s **posts. My conclusion: you did not actually do the review of **sach’s **posts you said you did and cannot back up your claim about the posts you said that caused your “gut” reaction. In other words, you lied and I caught you.
Vote ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
You are mistaken about me. I am currently voting for Hockey Monkey (carried over from yesterday). And now Cookies as well.
Indeed you are, my mistake.
Sorry for the delay, I am out of town and tried to keep up with the kiddies last night. Also sorry for the long post, first a couple of quotes by sachertorte:
@ post 572, sacher posts the vote count:
post 573 **Hawkeyeop **unvotes storyteller: 3 votes: chucara, 2 votes: hawkeyeop, Hockey Monkey
post 574 **Storyteller **unvotes **Chucara **and votes **Hawkeyop **and **sachertorte **(but doesn’t unvote me the meanie) 3 votes: hawkeyeop, 2 votes: Chucara, **Hockey Monkey **and Storyteller
post 582 with 25 minutes left to go **sachertorte **unvotes **Hockey Monkey **for no reason and presumably changes his investigation to her. Note at this point no one is talking about **Chucara **or **Hockey Monkey **anymore. As sachertorte says above it was a storytell/hawkeyeop show.
post 595 **Darth Sensitive **votes **storyteller **with 7 minutes remaining. 3 votes: storyteller, hawkeyeop, 2 votes: Chucara
post 597 **hawkeyeop **votes **storyteller **with 5 minutes remaining. 4 votes: storyteller, 3 votes hawkeyeop, 2 votes: Chucara
**Sachertorte **was active till the end of the day. He could have switched his investigation back to **Chucara **when it became clear that **storyteller **or **hawkeyeop **were neck and neck to go down. But he did not. He instead stuck with his investigation of Hockey Monkey.
I’ve been suspicious of **sachertorte **since Turn 1 and the “slip” which I think was genuine. The relentlessness with which he went after storyteller, some one he was sure was town on Turn 1, was perplexing and almost soley based mainly on the fact that **storyteller **was ‘lurking’ . His reason for investigating **Hockey Monkey **instead of **Chucara **seems lame. So:
vote sachertorte
I am also concerned about those who are voting for someone other than Hockey Monkey or **sachertorte **at this point. We don’t want a tie and we know that either one or both of them are Evil. Yes, I said both. The reptilian part of my brain keeps whispering in my ear “What if this is just a scum ploy to give one of them immense town cred when we may be close to lylo?” I know, I know “scum would never do that.”:dubious:
When I switched to Hockey Monkey Chucara was one vote below Hawkeyeop. One vote would be all it would take to kill Chucara too. I wasn’t going to risk it. When I changed to Hockey Monkey that was my THIRD PM to Pleonast. Forgive me for not sending a FOURTH. And what makes Hockey Monkey such a Bad Choice for me? Why is investigating Chucara okay but investigating Hockey Monkey demonstrably anti-Town?
Explain why you think so.
And why my choice of investigation makes me Evil.
Vote ShadowFacts too
Hmm…I wonder what’s going to happen when I post my exhaustive list? I’ll hazzard a guess that it will somehow conflict with what you would define as “Golly, gee” and your vote is going to stay on me, because your buddy sachertorte’s gambit isn’t going as well as was hoped over on the Evil boards.
If you can rally me into the noose with this charade, the game was already over.
No. The game was over when you decided its okay to vote for people without saying why.
It wasn’t your choice of **Hockey Monkey **that was lame it was the convoluted reason you gave that was lame. Your first choice was to investigate **chucara **which makes sense, especially since he was under suspicion. It also made sense to change to someone else if you thought he was going to get lynched. But then to switch to Hockey Monkey at a time that she was tied with **chucara ** AND decide to stick there when **chucara **could have been number one with a bullet this Turn does not make sense.
Are you really saying you didn’t change your investigation back to YOUR fisrt choice because you didn’t want to send **Pleo **another PM? Really?