and where would that be oh wise and all knowing calamari?
i purposely made my claim ambiguous so that would NOT happen. i did not say THE which a scum would make to flush a real doc. i said A which is what a townie would say in order to preclude some sort of counter claim. it also has a lot of side town benefits and you fucking know it.
sorry, booz. back to the drawing room with you.
Don’t be silly. You made the claim not only with “A” doc, but then specifically exaggerated that claim. You finished it off with a promise that wild and crazy things would happen, just like what would happen if there was a counter-claimed doc.
Tuesday for Wednesday sounds good. I don’t think it matters all that much which day it is as long as everyone knows well ahead.
Tuesday for Wednesday works for me.
OK, Boozahol and I simulposted before. I see now that he’s confirmed that he did get something from Gryff, which I think is a strong point in favor of Gryff’s claim. I would like Boozahol to confirm, though, that the object was something which could plausibly have come from a townsfolk, as opposed to a homicidal robot (I assume he’d say so if it weren’t, but I just want to be sure here).
peeker, I don’t think that I buy that a Scum would want a Doctor to counter-claim. If you were Scum and someone did counter-claim you, we’d probably end up believing the other person over you (since you were already under suspicion) and lynch you (probably instead of an innocent townsfolk), after which the Scum would, at worst, kill the now-revealed real Doctor (probably instead of a vanilla). So we’re looking at a tradeoff of something like (Scum - Townie) versus (Doctor - vanilla), a trade that, to me, looks pretty strongly to favor Town, not Scum. And it gets even worse when you consider that the Doctor wouldn’t have to counter-claim right away. Really, I can’t see why Scum would want to be counter-claimed, but rather just the reverse.
Or look at it another way: Supposedly, you discouraged a counter-claim because you thought it would be so bad for Scum to find out who a doctor was, right? And yet, that’s exactly what they did find out, if your claim was honest. How is that pro-Town?
not true at all. i claimed and said only that which i said. others started speculating about what that could mean. i merely re-iterated that which i had already said. its ambigous and you know it. or do you really want the session to run extra long tomorrow. remember meds are not passed out until such time that all issues are concluded.
whoo boy. don’t even know where to begin here.
boozy will confirm that what he got is not from scum. sheesh, pretty durn sure about alignments aren’t we.
on the counter claim: maybe so maybe no: ask boozy. he’s the one that advanced that suggestion.
and a scum counter claim on me would be great for town. a doc for a scum. boys, cash those chips all night long. and on the lynch me instead of innocent town folk argument. hey, we don’t have to lynch innocent town folks, we could like, yaknow, lynch scum.
and i didn’t claim to suppress any counter claim. matter of fact i would strongly suggest that as long as i am alive any other docs (if they may or may not exist) keep their yap shut unless in danger of being lynched. i claimed to keep from having you all lynch a town doc. and it’s really not that bad to be out in the open because scum now have to deal with a wild card. do they try to nk me? oops, i self protect no kill. do they try to nk someone else and i pop a protect? oops no night kill. they’ve got to press a lynch because otherwise they are just shooting in the dark at Night. that’s where i like the scum, in the fucking dark.
oh and just one other follow up since apparently your mind is closed to anything i would say
closed mindedness never wins these games.
neta: that didn’t parse exactly like i intended. i did not claim to suppress any other claim. in light of what is going on … matter of fact i have always been universal in letting power roles do what they will. second guessing on the part of folks that do not have the role completely is rife for poor guidance.
netata: that does not preclude displeasure with the way one plays it. merely using that as justification is very poor play.
Pretty much what **Chronos **said:
What the hell, worth a try…
**Hey Mods, was berynium found on **jpei’s **body?
If not, is it safe for us to assume that, if it existed, such berynium would have been found had his killer not specifically removed it?**
a.) Yes.
Vote Count:
Gryff (1)
Well, now that you mention it, I’ve looked at your own behavior on Day One.
You first voted when peeker went up 4-3 over jpei; you cast the tying 4th vote on the Drain Bead bandwagon.
You subsequently moved back a few times between jpei and Drain Bead.
When the four-way 3-3 tie was reached, just after Boozy made the statements that many seem to think semi-confirmed him as Town, basically saying that elements of jpei’s PM resembled his own, you switched from jpei to the new Bill bandwagon that Jimmy had started, moving Bill into the lead.
It could all be perfectly innocent, but it also fits with the hypothesis that you were trying to save peeker, looking for whatever wagon seemed hottest when he got into trouble, and not worried about whether jpei, Drain Bead or BillMC wound up getting lynched. In this case, Boozy’s comments would indeed have been very helpful to you. I will file this away pending revelations about peeker.
There is nothing to stop a leader placing an unofficial provisional vote at any time, like AllWalker did yesterday.
@ColdPhoenix - please be more specific, which of Tom’s analysis posts have impressed you in this game?
This caught my eye (from post 835):
@Peeker - What do you think of Daphne’s play in this game?
I don’t think Gryff had a choice about claiming, the tiara was bound to draw scum attention.
Hmm - on preview, this is reiterating Thing Fish’s point, but I’ve typed it now so suck it up…
Only *partially *ignoring Jimmy’s oh-so-helpful advice during the Night, the obvious first step in the voting analysis is to look at *all *the various bandwagons that built up. Initially I counted bandwagon votes only as those who contributed to that player’s highest vote-tally. On second thoughts, I’ve added in italics players who voted for someone after their vote count had begun to reduce, but while they were still in contention of the lynch. This is particularly relevant for both peeker and Drain Bead, either of whom were in a position to lose the vote right until the BillMC wagon kicked off.
Peeker: Tom Scud, Jimmy Chitwood, Gryff, [del]Nanook[/del] Guiri, Thing Fish, Oredigger, Boozahol, Cold Phoenix
Drain Bead: amrussell, Normal Phase, Alka Seltzer, DaphneBlack, Freudian Slit, Cold Phoenix, tiltawhirl, USCDiver, CatInASuit
jpei: OAoW, TexCat, Alka Seltzer, DaphneBlack, Guiri, Tom Scud, Freudian Slit, AllWalker
Bill MC: Jimmy Chitwood, Drain Bead, tiltawhirl, Alka Seltzer, Daphne Black, Allwalker, Texcat, jpei
Interestingly, Jimmy appears on two bandwagons, but does so in an early position. Whatever the motivations for that might have been, it’s difficult to characterise it as bandwagon voting - you can’t tell, as you place the first or second vote on someone, whether the case will bandwagon or fizzle out.
By contrast, there is one player who manages to appear on three of our four bandwagons - Daphne Black. Always as fourth vote or higher. Her vote on jpei is very “me too”; her vote on Drain Bead comes with reasons, but arguably only the ones others have already given. Note that she says she was intending to vote for DB, and is surprised that three people already are.
Her vote for Bill is I think worth quoting:
Bill is simultaneously the best candidate for scum, but with a case that may not be much more than lynch-the-lurker. Cake, it seems to me, is being both had and eaten here.
This could go either way - a townie being successively swayed by the arguments against the vote-leader of the moment, or a scum moving from wagon to wagon.
On a different note, looking back over Jimmy’s posts I’m increasingly convinced he was smudging to peek to keep that pot boiling, e.g.:
Jimmy never actually votes peeker, but goes out of his way to push the case against him. Now, this could be an attempt to earn town-cred down the line if peeker showed up scum, but I’m more inclined to think he was stirring the pot, and keeping the conversation on the wrong place.
i might actually have some time at work today to do more than just the casual glance at this thread so i am going to go back and do an entire re-read. one of the weaknesses that i have in this game and that has been made about me is that i tend to get myopic (others have characterized this in much less flattering terms). yesterday i got twigged early and then it seemed that every subsequent post was just additional evidence, to me, that i was on the right path. however, in just doing a real high level reread i do notice that this in fact could be confirmation bias kicking in. hence, the reread. i generally don’t spend a whole lot of time looking at votes but amr’s down and dirty does kind of beg further review.
and one further note on the day end. i think thursday is best but wednesday works as well. i just don’t think that having it too close to the weekend is good because of the posting habits of a lot of folks on this board. so i really believe that a friday through monday are poor choices being that we do have some say in this.
[egotistical post]
I fully admit to having been a bandwagon jumper on Day One – although in the case of Drain Bead, I really was planning on voting her for a long time but was AFK and came back to see the case had already been made, though I realise that’s a totally unverifiable statement. I eventually became less enamored with the case because her defense rang true to me, and in particular the lack of response to her more or less asking to be lynched was pretty key.
With regard to BillMC, as I said at the time, he was the best case for scum at the time, but it was basically only lynch-the-lurker, as I said – plus a weird vote, but it obviously wasn’t much. I’ve never tried to claim otherwise. The extra-long day was probably not good for town as a whole, and it definitely wasn’t good for me, time-wise.
I remain unconvinced by peeker’s supposedly huge scumminess. I do think he has not been very pro-town – in particular the timing of his claim, and I am increasingly wondering why he’s not giving a name – but a lot of what seems to be the case against him does not make sense to me (namely the business about ‘a’ doctor – I do not see the scumminess in that). I realise that staking out this position is me ‘defending’ him, and I also realise that I could be dead wrong here. Peeker’s a bold and confrontational player, and he might be just the sort of scum who would make this play. But I think that lynching him would be a mistake at this point in the game.
CatInASuit has noted that Jimmy was smudging me and AlkaSeltzer. I think it is a good scum tactic to try to get people to look at ‘bandwaggoners’ as scummy, as he seemed to be doing. When I played scum, I was desperate to avoid being on bandwagons – and this is what ultimately exposed me. In my experience, late-edition bandwaggoners are most often townies without good reads.
Sadly, that’s been me this game. I’ve not had much time to really develop my own cases (except in my own bloody head on Drain Bead), so I’ve been left to be somewhat reactionary.
AlkaSeltzer, why are you asking peeker specifically about my play?
Thing Fish, I’m not sure you answered my question exactly. Why does the willingness of three people to vote Boozy for leader have more relevance because we also voted lateish for BillMC?
[/egotistical post]
amrussell, where do you stand on the scumminess of peeker?
Drain Bead, what do you think about the development of your bandwagon? You may have said something about it today but I don’t see it right now.
Is instinct ever a good enough reason for a vote? You know, you get that feeling about someone based on a number of small things but not one major revelation or damning action. Is instinct enough in this game?
Following on from amrussel’s analysis, some other curious posts and comments from Daphne - just curious as all can be easily explained away…
People with incorrect names were just Daphne, Gryph, **One and Only **and **Nanook **(subbed by me). I wonder if she recognised some team mates in this group and thought something was up? The fact that she mentioned **Nanook **(the Townie, or at least Townie since I subbed in) and not the other two, who were immediately after her name in the list is curious.
And quickly rectifies her mistake:
I was also a little bothered by her questioning me (#1000) on something I’d answered previously and then not acknowledging my second response #1027, it seemed like an attempt to stir more than a genuine interest in my reasoning.
ETA I see Daphne’s just replied but as I’ve spent some time on this, I’ll post anyway and retract if needed later.