Let him do his thing. I’m interested to see what happens.
This is a valid point and I will not ding you for night-posts in the future.
However, you’ve only responded to the part of my case which is the easiest to respond to, which leads me to believe you have no defense for the more pertinent and accurate parts of my accusation.
So, the only thing that interests you so far in the discussion today is that I made a case on you and voted you?
I know you’re busy and such, but it strikes me as a bit nervous that you’d feel the need to defend yourself against my lone vote so late in the day with a big wagon on someone else.
I’m going to be pushing for you in the next game day. I have a habit of biting and not letting go, as some here can already attest to, so keep that it mind if you’re scum.
Late in the day? Aren’t there almost two days left?
You people and your crazy 4-5 day deadlines. I’m still not used to this.
are you a 2p2er?
2 plus 2’er? No, never been to that site.
I am first and foremost from forums.totalwar.org and their gameroom section for mafia.
Then I went to Total War Center, and they have a Mafia section there.
Then I went to Civilization Fantatics Forums, and they now have a dedicated Mafia/Werewolf section in small part thanks to some campaigning I did. They played before I arrived but now they have a dedicated section.
Then I came here to see what the fuss was all about, and now I’m also at Giraffe Boards.
Careful not to ask me too many questions, I’ll talk your ear off.
It wasn’t my intent to get my start in this game so late, but I will say it’s given me a pretty unique place to start analyzing folks. For me, my Day 1 is now, and reading the entire thread from the beginning while knowing the roles of Krayz, Mahaloth, Guiri, and Silman has been helpful.
I’m going to spoiler my thoughts on two potential wolves to help make this post a little more manageable.
Giraffe:
[spoiler]Giraffe pegged me early with post 34, which defended Mykbot. He called out a fair number of people, but never mentioned specifics. No names, no specific actions, no direct accusations. It’s a particularly strong defense of Mykbot (he underlines the “at all” when saying he doesn’t get it), and concludes by saying he’s “a lot” more suspicious of people eager to jump on an easy vote. This pegged me early, and I’d like to suggest an interesting contrast to this claim: Giraffe ended the day having voted for Peeker, as easy a vote as someone could make.
The next post that caught my eye was the way Giraffe snuggled his way up to Idle Thoughts in 107. I don’t like this post. He agrees with Idle Thoughts, who said NAF’s concept was a misthought idea. He suggests wolves wouldn’t be bold enough to “stick their necks out with a proposal like that right off the bat” which is a fair enough idea, and then adds that part of NAF’s proposal pings him anyway. Talk about burying the lead. He concludes that he’s “giving it a null tell with just a whiff of town…” I’m giving this post a whiff of waffling plus some cuddling of Idle Thoughts. He goes from discussing town NAF’s idea, to proposing scum NAF’s plot, to concluding it’s town. That’s fine - he’s working it out in his head, and decided on a conclusion. If this was all I had, it wouldn’t be a case at all. But it strikes me as a bit off.
In post 250, Giraffe votes for Dancecat for fitting his pattern of typical scum on Day one. Dancebot is not one of the people who were “jumping on an easy vote” for Mykbot, so I’m forced to conclude that Giraffe has lost interest in something he described as “a lot more suspicious.”
272, he agrees that his reasoning for voting for Dancecat may have been flawed, but likes his vote anyway after rereading her posts. His vote is, as far as I can, for exactly the same reasons as he just agreed were bad. He says “if a brash player were to find themselves Wolf on an unfamiliar board, this is kind of the by-the-book style I’d expect.” He suggests Dancecat is posting a lot about strategy and other safe targets and voting early for spurious reasons. I can kind of see his reasoning, but there appears to be a bit of a disconnect between saying “you’re right, that case was wrong” and “I’m voting you for these reasons, which are very, very similar to the first reasons.” This is perhaps the weakest of the connections I’ve drawn, because I’ve seen town players do this just as often. Still a weird post to me.
296: This post was surprising, not least because I was surprised nobody else thought this was worth mentioning (unless I missed it… I read 1400 posts in a few hours). Giraffe says “It’s lazy to jump on me for my vote. Opportunistic.” Why? It’s day 1, and Giraffe has already admitted in 272 that he misspoke and that his original case might not be correct. How is it lazy or opportunistic to vote for someone because of this? Unless he straight up knows his vote for Dancecat was a bad vote, what exactly is opportunistic about this? If I had caught Dancecat in an apparent scum tell, I wouldn’t characterize someone’s attack on me as “opportunistic” unless I knew my case was dishonest. It seems off in so many ways. Do you get what I’m saying? I feel like I haven’t explained this as well as I could, even though it makes sense to me.
301: 9 minutes later, Giraffe decides Peeker’s vote was vote worthy itself. He describes Peeker’s actions as “jumping on an easy vote.” Again, WHY? What is so easy about Peeker’s vote?
824: More Idle Thoughts cuddling. “But Astral!” You’ll say. “Giraffe doesn’t even mention Idle Thoughts in this post!” How right you are, and that’s what’s so weird about it. In post 321, Idle Thoughts cheerleads the town and wants more conversation. Giraffe calls out crackedquads in 824, saying he has been “pinging the bejeezus” out of him, and derisively characterizes cracked’s words as “c’mon Town, let’s all pull together and choose one of these vote leaders!” Idle has struck me as a calm, well-reasoned poster thus far, and I’m positing that a scum Giraffe isn’t interested in crossing him. Hence the bizarre disconnect between calling out cracked’s “cheerleading” (which didn’t seem all that bad to me) and ignoring Idle’s far more egregious cheerleading earlier.
What’s more, Giraffe’s suggested scenario makes no sense to me. He says a scum cracked wants people to switch their votes from scum buddies peeker and maybe Krayz, so that cracked can… vote for peeker himself for town cred? Also, to finish out this post, he calls crackedquads “naive,” which is something I didn’t pull from his quoted post at all.
I’ll note that askthepizzaguy has also posted some suspicions of Giraffe in post 1341. I don’t agree with everything pizza posted, but as far as I can tell he hasn’t made any mistakes. I just don’t agree with him about the severity of some of his scum tells.[/spoiler]
Episkey
[spoiler]To start with, Episkey suggests that Krayz is town. I’ve noticed a pattern among POGers, where they’ll announce they’ve seen “one thing” about someone, and then suggest they’ll clear the person if they can say what it is. Episkey doesn’t do that here, he just idly mentions he’ll see if Krayz can figure it out, but this seems as good a place to ask why you guys do that as any. Anyway, to make a point, this could be a scum Episkey looking for town cred. Or not. Either side could have made this post.
617: Episkey drops a quote, says “me too!”, and adds that “the fact Jan ignores Peeker’s stated reasons for posting differently and then votes him isn’t good.” Silver Jan seems to be going with the flow, and her vote seemed weak to me, but Episkey’s vote here seems just as weak.
645: Drops a quote of lilflower, adds a single question, and calls out TexCat. Similar to 617, just kinda seems weak.
664: He wants to clear Dancecat for a post, and asks her if she knows why. Either do it or don’t, dude. I find this kind of thing frustrating, although I’m not gonna call it scummy. We as a town gain information from discussion, and we learn nothing from a stream of posts like this. I have yet to see anyone answer that question, regardless of who asks, so what is gained here?
689: Yet more defense of Krayz. I’m noticing a pattern here. He also defended Krayz in 638.
844: Suggests not discussing crackedquad’s “valid point” because EOD is in 40 mninutes. There’s no pro-town reason for shutting down conversation. However, as I’ve seen many times, anti-town is not necessarily scum, so this isn’t exactly the scum tell of the century.
1140: One of Episkey’s most decisive posts. Calls out Precambrianmollusc for voting Krayz, stating that Precam’s vote was “the worst of the worst imo.” He concludes, in all caps, that “HE KNOWS IT FOR HORRIBLE REASONS YET HE VOTES FOR HIM ANYWAYS.” He then votes Precambrian for it. Wait, no he doesn’t. No vote at all. Why not?
1150: He’s glad to see his read of Dancecat was correct. He’s basing this on Idle’s say-so. I currently have no reason beyond crazy speculation to suspect Idle is lying, and plenty of other people have gone over the various ifs and so on, but Episkey seems to be just blindly trusting Idle here. He has a good defense against lilflower’s question in 1174, and he explains why Idle would be honest either way. However, he’s missing a key point: Idle himself doesn’t actually know if it’s an honest result or not. Idle clearly believes it’s true, but Episkey seems to be accepting it far too easily.[/spoiler]
Ultimately, I find Giraffe far more scummy than Episkey.
Vote Giraffe.
That does it for now. I want to see this day play out a little more before I post some of my lesser cases.
Okay, to make my vote more effective, since even peeker isn’t following me on Brewha (or even Giraffe anymore, his own suspect?) I suppose I’ll put my vote to better use pressuring Giraffe and see if anyone flinches.
**unvote: Brewha **
For lack of lynch supporters, NOT because I think he’s townie
vote: Giraffe
Case against isn’t nothing, which is something this early, and for *votes are only useful if they have teeth *reasons.
I dont think anyone is being narrow minded or discounting the possibility of multiple town roles. It is a discussion about the number of pro town kills against the total number of kills. In the last day/night cycle we had 5 kills ( 1 lynch, 2 redundant on the same person, obviously I am assuming the poisoning and shooting of malahoth were independent actions, and the two colourless kills on guiri (vig) and silman (reporter)
We have a lynch, we used to have a vig, if we had a 3rd killer that would give us a 3 to 2 kill ratio against scum / independents. ( assuming there was not a 6th killer who was blocked)
As for balance , the last big game I played in ( conspiracy II ) had one town lynch, one town vig, 2 uncordinated undead kills , one wolf kill and a one off Cabal kill. That was a 4 faction game with large number of players. How that relates to this game with the only knowns being our alingments and the fact we have a night power, not sure, my gut feel is 3 pro town killers is a lot. Our Dearest Mod Gaderene did mention in the day opening colour that the amount of blood was not as much as some may have hoped, not sure if that means a blocked kill or the double tap on Malahoth. I am concerned that the second hit on Malahoth is not a town aligned role.
Ahh you must be Captain Smudgicus “smudger” McSmudging, Smudge Company of the Royal Smudgaliers. ( S.M.U. D.G.) ret. Esq.
With that, good night.
Astral, your mention of episkey’s 844 post peeked my interest.
Here is Episkey’s vote of Silver Jan - He simply sponges (essentially copies) the reasoning of another player.
These are the points I was making around this time, with regards to vote wagons.
Episkey makes this post which stands out:
All of this post is replying to me, naf, and dancecat. He ignores providing any sort of discussion about all of the leading wagons, which were:
Then some more of my posts which I’ll spoiler to save room because they don’t really make my point but rather provide the context of the discussion that was occuring:
After this, he makes two more posts before night falls:
So Episkey, who can be a great villager, decides to simply sponge the reasoning of a doper to help vote for another doper, ignores discussing the leading vote wagons at all during this time (krayz, texcat, peeker) and tries to divert away from my conversation about making the throwaway voters change their vote to a lead wagon. Episkey is a 2p2’er and understands and plays by vote wagoning theories to some degree, so for him to unaddress my argument completely except to say we should probably start talking about it is suspect. To his credit, he does bring vote wagons back up 5 hours after night.
He finally pipes up about krayz (the lead wagon) 14 minutes before end of day just to express how much he dislikes a krayz lynch, but doesn’t express this argument at all after voting for silver jan hours earlier. It appears he was trying to voice his expression after wagons were finalized just so he could go on record as having not liked a villager lynch, which is what a scum would have the need to do to help clear himself.
Vote Episkey
How do you know that we each gave the Mod exactly one target?
@ Peeker I can’t remember what you asked me and I can’t find it at the moment.
I’m leaning scum on Episkey myself, but that’s not a fair point. He didn’t wait until 14 minutes before the end of day to talk about Krayz; instead, he defends Krayz in 613, 638, and 689, at least. Those are the three big ones I noted, and there could be more.
Regardless of anything else going on with him, he’s been very consistent on Krayz’s innocence.
Astral, I recognize that you’re trying to catch up all at once, but I think your case against me contains some pretty dramatic errors/misrepresentations.
[QUOTE=Astral Rejection]
Giraffe pegged me early with post 34, which defended Mykbot. He called out a fair number of people, but never mentioned specifics. No names, no specific actions, no direct accusations. It’s a particularly strong defense of Mykbot (he underlines the “at all” when saying he doesn’t get it), and concludes by saying he’s “a lot” more suspicious of people eager to jump on an easy vote. This pegged me early, and I’d like to suggest an interesting contrast to this claim: Giraffe ended the day having voted for Peeker, as easy a vote as someone could make.
[/QUOTE]
No offense, but this entire paragraph is kind of stupid. Go back and reread posts 1-33. Two players who I didn’t know immediately dropped a vote on another player I didn’t know with little to no explanation. I wasn’t “strongly defending” Mykbot, I was legitimately confused whether they thought he was actually scum or they were just fucking around. I also disagree with your characterization of my vote on peeker as an easy vote – I’ve played with peeker enough times that I know not to vote for him simply for being abrasive and weird. My vote was based on realizing that I don’t believe a Town peeker would go after me in the way that peeker went after me this game.
I think this is a whole lot of nothing, but I don’t have any specific argument against it. I put a fair amount of stock in vibes myself, so I can’t dispute yours.
I don’t get this at all. I explained my vote on Dancecat, which relied heavily on assumptions about his fellow players reporting him acting different. And the extreme interest you think I lost was never there in the first place, as I comment on above. You created that out of two underlined words.
I thought peeker’s vote was based on him seeing me having said something he could use against me and cast a defensible vote, not based on him actually thinking I was a wolf. Hence, the wolfish vibe and subsequent vote.
It seemed like an easy vote because it seemed more based on how he thought it would look to the other players than how I’ve seen him hunt scum in the past.
This is a ridiculous argument, particularly coming from someone who has made exactly one actual game post so far. (Sorry if I sound snippy, I’m actually a bit annoyed by this one.) I’ve kept up with the game as best I can and called out scummy things as I’ve noticed them. Calling me out for not going after a particular player with equal attention that I gave an earlier player is putting a much higher burden of posting and analytical responsibility on me than many other players are willing to carry, including yourself.
None taken. 
I understand that you think I’m making a mountain out of a molehill here, but this isn’t based on just two underlined words. You say you find those people “a lot” - your words - more suspicious. And then you never follow up on that suspicion in any way that I can see. Do you honestly believe that’s not somewhat suspicious?
If it helps you understand my thought process, let me explain how I caught up: as I read, I took copious notes on everything I saw in the thread. Every slight town or scum tell, every interesting post, every thing I thought might be useful. It’s seriously gargantuan.
Ultimately, I didn’t find Dancecat that suspicious, even before getting to the part where Idle cleared her. So naturally, you voting for her raised an eye brow or two. I thought it was definitely worth pointing out that you voiced some suspicion over a group of people, did not follow up on that suspicion, and then voted for someone I was leaning town on for nebulous reasons. You might disagree, but ultimately your vote relies on the trustworthiness of the person who reported her usual behavior and your ability to determine whether she’s acting different because she’s playing with a group of entirely new people on a new board, or if she’s playing different because she’s scum.
I may be wrong about you and peeker, as well. I really don’t have a lot of experience with peeker; I think I’ve played maybe two games with him. So far, I’m not buying him as scum either. So now I’ve got two people I’m leaning town, both of whom were voted for by you.
As a final note, I could be totally wrong about the Idle cuddling, too. However, I stand by my decision to include that in my case. Yes, you ignoring his cheerleading while calling out someone else’s could be totally innocent. I’m sure I missed plenty of details and facts while reading this 1400 post monster. However, given that I had already seen you be agreeable with Idle, I thought it was worth mentioning. As with anything in this game, it could be a scum tell… or it could be nothing.
I understand your frustration. Some of my case perhaps is a little unfair if you’re an honest townie. However, I can’t know that at this point.
Well, I’ve read everything. I don’t know how much I’ve retained, but at least I’m caught up.
pizzaguy, you’re baffling. In the same post you chastise me for defending myself against a single vote and complain that I didn’t defend myself fully. It’s like the whole “this food is terrible, and the portion size is tiny!” kind of reasoning.
I didn’t address the rest of your case against me because I didn’t find it necessary. What is the rest of your case, really?
You have a ‘creeped out’ feeling about my vote? I’m not sure I can do anything about that.
You think that my other posts sound like scum trying to sound like town? Well, any town post could be scum trying to sound like town – if it sounds like town.
That’s not the point though. The point of that post wasn’t to defend myself. The point was to call you out on your dishonest representation of my posts. It looked more to me that you were trying to make a case that just isn’t there – if you fling enough poo, something is going to stick, right?
BTW, how does a post “sound nervous”? Do I need more smilies or something?
Back from the weekend. I have 400+ posts to go through.
Because that’s what the mod said to do, in the very first post:
Every time. “Target”. “[T]he same player”. Every single reference to the night action target is singular.
VERY comfortable with my vote on you, after that little attempted smudge.
<snipped>
i am about sure that it was texcat. matter of fact i was going to bring it up because those back to backs that were made just seemed off. but i couldn’t really get any traction in my brain so just kind of stuck it aside. but since you mention i thought i’d chip in.