<snipped>
yaknow bessie i really wanted you to have a proper burial. but some folks just can’ let you be. so i am sorry, old friend but i just don’t have the energy to keep you hauling back in that durn hole.
Okay, let me rephrase. Town doesn’t. Remember when you thought special ed was voting you last time because he was scum, and he wasn’t?
About one hour to go…
storyteller (0): [del]peekercpa 116 201[/del]
peekercpa (4): [del]Zeriel 151 190[/del], [del]TexCat 314 356[/del], Chronos 360, Meeko 383, Freudian Slit 478, Mahaloth 482
NAF1138 (0): [del]One And Only Wanderers 179 288[/del], [del]KellyCriterion 242 244[/del]
One And Only Wanderers (0): [del]Chronos 180 360[/del], [del]Jimmy Chitwood 184[/del], [del]Meeko 220 291[/del]
Mahaloth (0): [del]Meeko 291 298[/del]
KellyCriterion (3): NAF1138 313, Jimmy Chitwood 484, Tom Scud 571
TexCat (1): Red Skeezix 316, [del]Tom Scud 328 571[/del], [del]peekercpa 346 450[/del]
Oredigger77 (1): Drain Bead 347
Red Skeezix (1): TexCat 356, [del]Freudian Slit 364 478[/del]
Chronos (1): [del]storyteller0910 416 564[/del], peekercpa 450
Drain Bead (2): Zeriel 560, special ed 565
Zeriel (1): [del]storyteller0910 564 567[/del], One And Only Wanderers 570
Rysto (1): GuiriEnEspaña 576
Freudian Slit (1): Rysto 577
What about a FOS is NOT a smudge, OaOW?
What about her saying “everyone” to describe a group that only contains me isn’t a hidden agenda?
And clearly, **peeker’s **jokes aren’t exactly the most obvious things that have ever been put out there. The discussion on his “claim” is my cite.
How can she be scary?! She did a great social service enlightening the world to the perils that is caffeine addiction.
I bleached it.
We’re under an hour now (under two when you posted it), and you can see the vote counts.
Would it be fair, do you think, if one was to interpret this vote as only barely better than no vote at all? You don’t think it’s a good vote, you know it won’t affect the outcome, and you also posted in defense of a vote against Drain Bead, which vote could potentially affect the outcome, but didn’t vote in that direction. Is it unfair to look at this as a very cautious hedging of your bets?
ah it looks like the typical dope agenda claims another peekie townie on Day one. take care and no hard feelings especially to the dead horse beaters. i do actually get the feeling that you are just mis guided town as opposed to active scum. course, i did nail chronos on this nonsense a game or so ago, so who knows.
see you on the flip side, or at poker tonight. off to giraffe where there are scum waiting to get caught.
and skeez if you ever vote me for low participation again i swear, well i will just absolutely and forever … remember sussing drain and the yuckcles we had on the mason board.
ciao.
Afternoon all.
I’ve not long got back from my voluntary job. Catching up as I write.
Vote soon.
Jimmy, it is fair to say that I have not used my vote to influence the outcome of toDay’s lynch as it currently stands. 6 other players have one-off votes toDay which will not affect the lynch. Obviously there isn’t a strong feeling for lynching Peeker but there also doesn’t appear to be a strong desire to save him. I’ve been on the fence about Peeker for some time and am not sufficiently convinced of his scumminess to vote him nor sufficiently convinced of his towniness to vote someone else strategically in order to save him. I don’t have a strong alternative.
I thought Zeriel’s vote on Drain was OMGUS motivated but he was correct in interpreting her FOS as a personal smudge.
I sort of understand where you’re going with this in context: you’re saying that you saw peeker as scummiest, but were hesitant to vote for him because he always seems scummy to you, so you’re trying to account for your own preconceptions of peeker as scummy. Does that accurately capture your intent?
The problem arises, though, when peeker’s own scumminess, or lack thereof, becomes a plank in your own case against a third player. I don’t think it’s going to be particularly relevant toDay, but toMorrow I’d like to look at your vote and its origins more carefully, and encourage someone else to do so in my place if I am unalive at the time.
For my part, I’m going to reinstitute my vote for Chronos, and summarize my reasons as quickly as possible. He has been “pinging” me in a variety of ways, beginning all the way back during the run-up to the name claim. In one post during that period (#120), he argued that “doing a name-claim toDay will prevent the Scum from saying ‘OK, I’m planning on claiming Doctor, so I’m going to take the name Clara Barton. Don’t anybody pick Jonas Salk’ (or whatever).” Almost immediately afterward, he suggested that the Townie playing a Doctor (specifically) lie about his/her name in order to protect him/herself. A bit of a closer look reveals that these two ideas are sort of mutually contradictory, as if we allowed Town to lie about their role names it gives the Scum cover to claim whatever they want and then just claim Clara Barton/Jonas Salk later.
In the same post, he included a little disclaimer about how unlikely/impossible it is to catch Scum on the first Day, which is one of my pet Scum tells - I think Scum say things like this to make Town more accepting of a poorly-reasoned Day One lynch.
And then his behavior wrt peeker, which I have found to be manipulative and opportunistic. See my previous voting post for details.
vote Chronos
I retain modest suspicion of Zeriel, although his clarification was interesting and makes me want to look more closely at Drain Bead.
Regarding the two primary candidates, I don’t buy the case against peeker, and have run out of time to consider the case against Kelly. I am not unwilling to change my vote if there is a reason to do so, but as I see nothing particularly Town about peeker (I don’t agree with the case against him, but that doesn’t mean he’s any less likely to be Scum than Kelly), so saving him over Kelly is sort of pointless. Can any of the Kelly voters offer a quick-and-dirty summary of their reasons?
Vote Chronos
Why Chronos?
I did not like his vote for OAOW. I’ve presented my views on OAOW’s vote (see post [post=12263327]550[/post]). It should have been obvious to everyone that the particular misspellings were not indicative of any particular author, so the conclusions he drew were totally unsupported. Someone trying to build a case on that reason is either extremely foolish or has an ulterior motive.
I reject the hypothesis that Chronos is that foolish. So he had a reason.
I considered voting Meeko, but I suspect he was in part influenced by their knowledge of Chronos as a clear thinker. I think Kelly Criterion may also have been so influenced. Hence my choice of Chronos over Meeko or Kelly.
Yes, that is in fact my reasoning.
Anyway, I did in fact go with peeker but not for the “same old reasons.”
What kind of case are you talking about here, specifically? That is, are you referring to my vote on any other player?
You can complain all you want, but considering obfuscatory, twee, or ambiguous postings as anti-town has always been a feature of Dope Mafia games. I don’t see why it’s coming as a surprise to you.
story quote the post where you voted for Red, so presumably that’s the case he’s talking about.
The skeezix vote referred to by Rysto, above. As I say, I’m not real clear on the sequence of events yet; a re-read with that in mind is necessary.
NETA: Oops, no he didn’t. But that was the context of the discussion.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks like we can discuss strategy during the Night, right? Or is it fluff only?
That’s three on Chronos, right? peeker and two new ones? Huh.
story – Kelly voted quick-bang for NAF based on the spelling mistake, then unvoted a couple hours later, then disappeared and has only posted once, which was the post that I objected to where he said “I can’t believe the heat OaOW is getting for pointing out a TYPO” or whatever. The NAF vote is http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12248143&postcount=241
This game has enough problems without discussing a currently ongoing game in it:D.
At this point I don’t think moving my vote would make too much of a difference. The only other thing that is really pinging me is Drain’s comments about the peeker train. When I initially read it, I was confused because I didn’t assume that was why anyone was voting him. The problem is, I think Tex’s vote on spurious reasoning, and her avoidance to come up with any explanation of her justification is scummier than Drain’s smudge. Which I’m not even sure is a smudge or just someone skimming. Well, skimming alot considering the amount of posts in this thread have been about the peeker case.
On preview: I disagree with some of the reasoning in story’s case against Chronos. Chronos presented a flawed, not particularly well thought idea that involved town players lying. Having a bad idea isn’t scummy, supporting a bad idea once it’s been shown to be bad is. I see him doing the former and not the latter.
Storyteller
I believe the case against Kelly Criterion is based on posts [post=12248132]240[/post] to [post=12248226]243[/post] inclusove. In particular, that he “latched on” to a feeble case, then jumped off the bandwagon when he found it had no traction.