NETA
*Oredigger should read OAOW
Wow.
Wow wow.
You don’t touch the game for nearly a day, and stuff happens.
Hrm.
Still seems we have late stragglers coming in.
Gonna stay put until we get more voices coming in.
I was going to put off voting until after I had gotten caught up in my notes, but that hasn’t happened yet, and it’s Tuesday. So I’m just going to put a vote in now, and possibly change it later.
Vote GuiriEnEspana
For post 345, where he claims that peeker was the second to claim. I maintain that it was impossible for anybody other than peeker himself to actually know at the time that that was a claim, and that it looks to me like Guiri said that just to have a pretext for defending peeker. He later tries to backpedal that, after I expressed suspicion over it, saying that he thought it was a breadcrumb at first, but I don’t think it’s possible to see it as a breadcrumb, either, until peeker made his actual claim.
I’m also suspicious of Tom Scud, since that “overnight thread” thing really does look like it might have been a Scum slip, and I may well end up switching to him, but in the meanwhile, I want to get a little more daylight on Guiri.
First of all, I’m suspicious that you’ve chosen to focus on my Day One vote, and in particular the peeker train. This was the kind of thing that I did as scum in Cecil Pond to deflect heat. Focus on a single part of the case against you, and a weak part of it. If you can manage to frame the debate to be around that point, then you stand a much better chance of talking your way out of trouble.
To answer your question, Chronos actually developed a case, whereas you bandwagoned, so even on that particular data point I find you more suspicious than him. I’m not saying that scum won’t develop cases and lead bandwagons(heck, I did it twice in Cecil Pond), but I do find followers more suspicious than leaders. And I’m not just voting you because you voted for peeker. I’m voting for you because you have a history in this game of going after easy targets(whether they be vote leaders or players who tend to attract a lot of negative attention). There was also my Day One reasoning, which I’ll get into in the morning because it’s well past midnight.
One more quick thought before I go to bed: Does Freudian seem unusually defensive in this game to anybody else? She kind of does to me, but I worry that I’m seeing all of her posts through a “she’s scummy” lens right now.
I’m not focusing on your day one vote. I’m focusing on MY day one votes. Yes, peeker happened to be an easy target, but there was also a good reason for voting for him.
I also didn’t bandwagon on Meeko–I built that case, and quite a few others thought that what he was doing was scummy. I don’t think you can have it both ways–that I band wagon on easy targets and that I try to deflect suspicion to poor targets with my own, albeit poor, reasoning.
Obviously, I’m biased, but I see your voting for me as a bit of a stretch. And arguably, am I not an easy target, garnering votes typically early on?
@ Chronos, I was absent for 2 days and read the thread before posting. Peeker had made the case that his first post was his “claim” and that his second post was a clarification that the first post referred to his character in this game as it became apparent no-one had understood this was his intention. My point in #345 was that at the time of Peeker’s first post, call it a claim, a “claim”, a breadcrumb or a random youtube video, there was no standard format for name claiming, Special Ed had posted his PM and Meeko had earlier hinted that he was a “surreal artist” but not given his name. In light of these two precedents, I could understand Peeker being imaginative (and yes, quite unclear) about how he intended to communicate his character and, with his follow-up clarification post, I accepted this as his claim. At the specific time of his first post, I agree that no-one, except possibly a player expecting someone else to claim “Wicked Witch of the West” could possibly have interpreted the first post as a claim but the second post made it clear that this was Peeker’s intention. To put it simply, I understood and accepted Peeker’s explanation, did not see it as helping scum in any way, and said this in the thread when giving my opinion on the case against him. I’m not sure what’s scummy or suspicious about this.
When you clarified Special Ed’s case you introduced a new scenario and additional theories on why Peeker may have claimed in the manner he did. I found your theory plausible but offered a counter theory, again in light of further discussion, further explanations from Peeker and further developments in the game. My premise was the same, I could not see a pro-scum motivation for claiming in the manner he did based on my interpretation but I could understand your alternative case. I also gave an example from a previous game where Peeker attempted to communicate that he’d been blocked through a SpongeBob video. Again, I’m not sure what’s scummy about giving alternative readings. I believe Storyteller had pretty much the same idea that I had and even Special Ed had agreed that his play could be interpreted as a breadcrumb follow-up with a clarification - although there was no obvious reason why Peeker would feel the need to breadcrumb his role, especially as we now know he was Town.
I hope this clarifies my stance on the issue.
I’m thinking I could be a good lynch for today guys. A quick wagon built up on me spuriously yesterday, and here we are again today. A lynch will nail down my alignment conclusively and you can then work with the info you have.
Jimmy - just because I didn’t notice a smudge on me until the next day does not absolve you of said smudge. As far as I can see, you still haven’t addressed it…
um…what?
My thoughts on the OaOW bandwagon:
- Jimmy’s vote seems an appropriate reaction to OaOW’s vote
- Freudian and Zeriel both comment on the weakness of OaOW’s vote but don’t vote him. Zeriel adds to the case against him by reminding OaOW that in post #401 he said he was going to re-read. Why didn’t he catch Jimmy’s supposed smudge then and not 350 posts later.
- Oredigger’s finds two solid data points make a good case and votes
- Zeriel notes that OaOW seems to have opportunistically used the smudge as a motivation to vote Jimmy as a response to the pressure received - but no vote
- Freudian then votes for voting NAF’s typo and the weak vote on Jimmy
- Special Ed is pinged by Jimmy’s vote on OaOW which started the bandwagon
- MHaye thinks OaOW’s vote on NAF is an indication of his towniness
- Special Ed understands Jimmy’s case against OaOW but doesn’t see the scum motivation. Asks other voters to explain their reasoning.
I don’t find either the vote on NAF for the typo, the theory on why NAF was killed or the vote on Jimmy as particularly indicative of scummy behavior. Of all his posts (see spoilered Wow), only the latest one pings me somewhat:
As Zeriel mentioned, in post #401 OaOW said he was doing a re-read, didn’t he notice the smudge then? It seems convenient that he just happened to find that smudge when under pressure from Jimmy. Of course he may not have got around to doing the re-read… I don’t know if his offer of self-sacrifice in the name of gaining information is pro or anti-town. I don’t know.
#126 Confirms PM, notes that he doesn’t have a profession but a description
#179 Notes the typo in NAF’s claim, votes him. Quotes own PM (Fu Mingxia (Olympic Gold Medalist)
#181 Asks Chronos why he hasn’t quoted his PM.
#186 In response to vote from Jimmy, defends that Chronos simply stood out from the crowd by not quoting, accepts it is not a strong case.
#222 In response to second vote from Meeko, expects to be lynched on Day1, curious about attention he’s got for his admittedly weak vote.
#226 In response to Chronos, suspects a bandwagon is building up against him.
#288 Unvotes as the typos appears to be a null tell.
#326 In response to Peeker, alignment in previous games has no effect on current game, states that he is town.
#401 Admits being lost and needs to re-read.
#404 Agrees with NAF about little information to be gained from a Peeker lynch. Admits his playstlye makes the game hard to follow but he adds value.
#490 To Meeko, explains reasons for initial vote on NAF and that his usual MO is agressively going after slips. Comments on Meeko’s fallacy about vote transfer.
#570 In response to Zeriel’s vote on Drain, does not see smudge or hidden agenda and proceeds to vote Zeriel.
#643 Fluff about companion thread.
#682 Wonders why scum killed NAF, suggests theory on clearing “misspelled brotherhood” from suspicion.
#684 In response to poke from me about being sure NAF was the scum-kill, explains that it was an assumption.
#714 To Jimmy about interpretation of NAF’s death, didn’t go back to check who the brotherhood was. Is still interested in the choice of NAF on night 1.
#722 Comment on Meeko sounding like Elmo. Re-explains theory on choice of NAF to Freudian.
#751 Votes Jimmy based on smudge from Day1.
(#757 Jimmy votes OaOW)
(#760 OreDigger votes OaOW - for vote on Jimmy)
(#763 Freudian votes OaOW - OMGUS vote for OMGUS vote)
#807 OaOW Similar to #222 above, expects to be lynched. Thinks his lynch could generate information. Responds to Jimmy about delay in picking up on smudge, hadn’t noticed it before.
As for the case on Freudian, I am really quite pinged by her change from defending OaOW for voting NAF for the typo to then voting OaOW for voting NAF for the typo, admittedly among other things but she gave the mispelling quite a lot of emphasis is all posts related to her Day2 vote on OaOW. To go from “I thought that pointing out the typos didn’t seem scummy”" to “But honestly, I do think that trying to go down the misspelling path again is very anti town.” is weird.
#81 Confirms PM
#108 Suspicious of anyone cagey about claiming as scum won’t have prepared fake roles
#123 In favor of mass claim, mentions her role shows race, not a profession
#128 Still in favor of claim, PM shows name and race
#154 Second to (explicitly) claim, claims Patroclus (Greek - fictional)
#172 To Meeko re: not claiming in last game
#210 To Peeker, questions use of “chose” for name claim
#214 To Peeker in response, defends right to analyze others’ posts. Wonders if the fictional charactes mean anything
#219 & #227 & #231 Asks Peeker for his “role”, gets poked by Special Ed for asking for “role” and not “name”
#259 Wonders how noobish Kelly really is. States “I thought that pointing out the typos didn’t seem scummy”
#262 Thinks OaOW’s voters are scummier than he is
#264 & #266 & #270 Defends OaOW: “Well, I don’t think the vote was unjustified when he first made it.”
#270 Another question about signification of fictional roles, claims that she has no additional roles or powers
#271 Changes point of view on OaOW, “he could be scum jumping on an easy reason to vote for a lynch”
#318 & #320 Peeker is being himself, anti-town play, easy for scum or town to vote him
#337 to Peeker, claim wasn’t clear
#364 Confirms vanilla claim. Votes Red for voting Tex for voting Peeker for being cagey about claim
#370 Doesn’t understand what’s bad about an unprovoked vanilla claim
#376 Now understands reasoning
#417 What’s FCS?
#433 To Peeker on use of videos for communication
#435 Best if Peeker stopped posting random crap
#457 Doesn’t understand Peeker
#473 Question to mod about day end
#478 Votes Peeker based on Chronos’ case
#492 To Peeker on claim of town, we’re all town
#499 To Meeko, why is Kelly more likely to be scum?
#501 Understands Meeko meant less likely
#513 To Peeker, playstyle draws votes from both town and scum
#514 Comment to Meeko on probabilities
#517 FOS on Meeko for defense of Kelly
#520 & #523 To Meeko re: pinging NAF
#558 To Story, clarifies reason for vote on Peeker - based on [B`]Chronos**’ case
#575 To Peeker, a vote on a town player doesn’t mean the voter is scum
#578 Re: OaOW, still doesn’t see vote on NAF as a scum tell
#585 Fluff
#592 to Story re-clarifing reason for voting Peeker
#603 Admits vote on Red was poor
#618-#639 fluff
#651 Votes Meeko for bad math
#654-#699 Defends vote
#708 & #720 Comments on Meeko’s use of 3rd person
#720 & #758 Leaning towards OaOW, “the fact that you keep harping on the misspelling is odd to me. "
#763 Votes OaOW " I thought the votes against you on day one were kind of misguided, but now I’m not so sure. This is weird.”
(got tired)
Assume Scud is Scum. Will you then vote Drain the next day? Given that he mentions her by name?
–
–
I don’t know, but as far as I can tell, I wouldn’t be able to point out a Scummy Ed from a Townie Ed, based on his interactions with me. If a Scummy Ed was attacking me, how exactly would I know it? Wouldn’t it look to me as Ed’s default?
My problem with a single data point suggestion for why scum would do something is twofold if other people take it and run with it is easy for the other options to be left behind and in this case it smudges another player without even naming them.
In general if someone mentions a reason for something to happen people will tend to comment on it if doesn’t seem to take much for that thought to become the town’s thoughts on why an action occurred. It also allows plausible deniability because it was only a thought of why something could happen. It seems to me like a good way to influence the towns thinking while keeping your hands clean. In this case Guri jumped in posted a more comprehensive list which I think mitigated this problem but it doesn’t alleviate OAOW’s attempt.
Secondly even is OAOW had been correct and there had been more people them Meeko in the ‘brotherhood of the misspelling’ it created a list of people who could be scum but didn’t bother to name them, which is pretty much a perfect smudge. In this case it was only on one person who was involved so people picked up on it. Again I see this as an attempt to direct the town’s thinking which tends to be something the scum want to do more than the town.
The vote on Jimmy is weak I found a reason to vote for Jimmy in his early analysis of OAOW’s because I thought it was mischaracterization, turns out it wasn’t, but going after Jimmy for things he has done toDay would at least have some basis. Going back on a second or third read through and looking for a single post to paint someone as scum is bad. I think it is pretty blatantly trying to get the data to fit a conclusion which is again an attempt to manipulate us.
While the FS case is looking like it may come together as a better case I think I’m comfortable voting for OAOW. I will review FS’s posts and see if I see what everyone else is looking at but I think two obvious attempts to manipulate the town are a good enough reason for a vote.
OK, that makes sense. After reading this, I would probably characterize the scum motivation as trying to appear as if they are participating. I really didn’t get all of that from your reasoning when you voted.
When you made your vote, what is it you think he was trying to hide?
And I got even less from freudian’s vote. Which oddly, included this:
which was later followed up by her defending herself with this:
which is odd, since she “made a case against” Red and yet “Can’t be bothered to figure out” who was voting for him…
Sure I did, but I’ll do so again if you like. It wasn’t a “smudge” unless smudge is an accurate term to describe a direct criticism of a perceived anti-town behavior backed up by a vote. Chronos had already name claimed. You challenged him, asking why he hadn’t actually quoted his PM: “any reason you haven’t quoted yours? You just stated it.” I said at the time that it was anti-town to demand, in the context of a universal name claim, a copy and paste of something more than a player’s name, and voted based on it. I still believe that to be the case. We were claiming names, Chronos did so, and you implicitly accused him of withholding information even though nothing else had been requested.
When I referred back to it, I clarified that no, I hadn’t voted for you simply for pointing out the typo, but reiterated that I suspected you might have been fishing for information that wouldn’t hurt the scum and could hurt the town. And I had already voted you for it. If that’s a smudge, then guilty as charged.
Now you tell me - why didn’t you pick up on any of that during your re-read? What were you looking for that you were reading so closely that you picked up something on me that you consider vote-worthy, but that you had entirely missed previously? Did you find any of whatever you were looking for, provided that you were looking for something other than a reason to hang a vote on me? Because despite the apparent fine-toothedness of your review, you seem to have only come up with that one post and haven’t commented on anything else. I have to say, given my early suspicions, you’re making it way too easy to see everything you’re doing as over the top scummy.
Quoth Meeko:
I don’t see the reasoning there. How does a (hypothetically) proven Scum mentioning anyone by name imply anything about that person’s alignment?
Wow, really? You weren’t pinging me until you said this. Yeesh, that is a pretty bold scum move if you are scum and you are more or less challenging us to vote you out and hoping we won’t.
Hmm…
I’d feel to foolish to let you trick us with that move, so I’ll oblige you with my vote. If you are town, you have seriously made a ridiculously foolish move and have hurt the rest of us town(if you get yourself killed here).
:sigh:
Hoping you are a bold scum and not a foolish townie, I will:
Unvote Tom
Vote OneandOnly
Am I wrong here, everyone? I can’t believe I’m the first to call One on this move.
I don’t think I phrased “he has something to hide” the best I could have. What I was going for is that he was trying to cover up his actions.
Take the OMGUS on Jimmy. It wasn’t written as a straight OMGUS. OAOW went back and found a quote to justify his vote so he was hiding his OMGUS behind a justified vote. Same thing with the single reason for why the scum would kill NAF it looks like it’s helping out by presenting the town with a possible scenario but I think it was trying to lead us into a single line of reasoning.
IIRC, the “incriminating” evidendice by Scud was that he commented on Drain’s argument from the ““overnight thread””. The way I see it, you can’t call Scud guilty on this, without callind Drain guilty as well. – That is, if the ““overnight thread”” is the scum thread, then Drain must have argument in the scum thread.
Hence Drain has access to scum thread, hence Drain is scum.
Snipped. Maha, Help me out here, as a guy who has done his fair share of “last ditch” claiming, I don’t see how One and Only is that far gone.
Isn’t he basically pulling a Peeker here? Saying that ‘Seriously, once I flip [del]plankton[/del] town, you guys should look at the people who voted me.’
Right?
I don’t see how the “Once I am gone, then you guys will see!” angle is any different this time around, coming from OAOW.
This is more in-depth. By any chance, do you have popost numbers of things OAOW ignored when making the vote against you?
well, I did give him a “um…what?” when I read it, didn’t I?
That’s not the way I see it. The comment that Drain made that Tom was commenting on was from this thread, and it wouldn’t have made much sense for her to say it in the Scum thread even if she is Scum. The idea behind it being a “slip” would be that Scum Tom would be in the mindset of thinking of things that happened overnight being in the Scum overnight thread, even if they weren’t.
And I haven’t said anything about Wanderers’ “lynch me” bit because it doesn’t really have Town or Scum motivation. Whatever team he’s on, it hurts his team: It’s either an anti-Town move from a Townie, or a pro-town move from a Scum. It’s a frustration tell, not an alignment tell (though I’m not sure why anyone would be so frustrated with over a day to go yet in the Day), and I don’t see any way to tell whether he’s a frustrated Scum or a frustrated Town.