i truly look forward to your input. not fracking yacking your chain either (chronos’s maybe a bit).
as i just posted when you get a role that looks for something specific you start jumping at shadows. so i know that i am looking for an insane survivalist. i also reached a bad conclusion that this person would most likely be a town niller other than knowing that someone was looking for them (or however the color might read). so when fishy started positing about no killing me until mid game where i might be able to be confirmed it was like small flame. but then, boozy and i go down our little back and forth where i ultimately became convinced that he was in everyone’s facing it - much like i was doing. yasee boozy and i have played a LOT of games together and i got the read off of him that he was the nut case. his statement along the lines of we would talk after the game was like huh. but still in the background their keeps being these nuts comments. I know daphne used it once. and still fishy is going on and on about not lynching me while the rest of the mouth breathers are continuing my pursuit. i finally asked him specifically about a 46C texas determination. but i didn’t get a response that i felt specific enough to warrant conclusion because i was still focused on boozy. so, no there was not one specific breadcrumb. seriously re-read 274 onward with the knowledge of fishy being who he is and me thinking boozy is my path to full docdom. also, there’s enough other static going on that i make the haldol conclusion. maybe there are a bunch of insane folks wandering around each looking to power up a town half ass role.
and i know for some of you this will sound odd but it is truly how my mind works in these games. i mean i finally figured out quantom, just too late to do any good. i didn’t want to chance that again.
i don’t know if that helps or hurts but that is no shit fracking where i was coming from. if you have any questions of me ask now because i honestly don’t expect to survive this Night cycle.
Scary. Peeker is making perfect sense.
and the final act to the drama.
fishy claims a doc.
looks familiar don’t it.
i post that i will in no way vote fishy.
some back and forth.
i go to bed and fishy makes his final plea.
then there is one more vote. limpy off in left field. continuing to espouse no multiple town power role possibilities. and of course we have our other favorite allw chiming in needlessly.
and then right at lynch time our objective friend chimes in again.
originally posted by chronos
Tom, I’m voting for the person I think is most likely to be Scum. If I knew that Thing Fish were innocent, then I would vote strategically to save him, but there’s a big difference between thinking that the case against someone is weak, and knowing that they’re innocent.
end of post
interesting. he thinks him most likely scum but … if he knew his innocence he would unvote but …
he’ll vote becauce he doesn’t know that he is innocent but it’s alright because “the case against him is weak”.
hey, chronos can you not be on my jury if i get tried for anything. chronos: well i am not sure about his innocence, but the case against him is weak. i have decided to convict.
yeeps and peeps. those are your statements.
and seriously, the next leader that has a day end at this time should be voted for on principle. cripes on a hand stick, boozy what were you thinking?
Days need to end noonish in san antonio. that gives the folks on the other side of the lake the possibility of contributing while ensuring the states players are all around and have no excuse. for the folks westward, well fuck you already get to live in a nice place so deal with it.
shit neta:
it wasn’t supposed to be fuck. i forgot there is no c. fuk.
Preface: So the big news from yesterday is obviously that Thing Fish, a Town Bodyguard, is dead; time to focus on the people who got him that way. I figure there are five people who look pretty bad out of the Thing Fish lynch:
amrussell, who started the wagon
Tom Scud, who gave it its first shove
Boozahol Squid, who voted at a very bad time and also put the third vote on Thing. In Boozy’s defense, he had to vote somewhere, and chose to support an existing case instead of throwing out a pointless singleton.
CatinaSuit, who piled on and pretty much turned the Thing Fish wagon into the premiere wagon out there
and
Chronos, about whom more later.
Of those five, Boozy is somewhat confirmed as town by his role and the Brotherhood of Bling; I’m going to do Walls of Words on the other three aside from myself. I think someone should give me a good looking-over: here’s a link for the brave soul who wants to go over a 200+ post record with a fine-toothed comb. I know I’m Town, but I don’t expect you lot to believe me.
Wow on amrussell:
(leaving out leadership stuff, fwiw she voted for me as day 1 leader)
On preview: well, damn, i tried to do little links to each post but apparently didn’t get the urls right. Do not follow the links; they all point to amrussell’s first post in this WoW. I’d strip them all out, but I don’t have time to do that and post everything before Dawn.
230: OaOW shouldn’t claim
255: Advises OaOW on what to consider when thinking about claiming (or not).
387: Case on Drain Bead, for contradicting herself re: whether OaOW should claim, and for Lie Detector issues.
446: Reply to Drain Bead: “None of this [various posts on Lie Detector idea] sounds like encouragement. It sounds like someone who instinctively didn’t like the idea of us setting up an LD with testable statements, and who’s evolved her position from rejection to reluctant acceptance while doing her best to attack the idea. That doesn’t, by itself, mean you are scum, of course. But it’s easy to see a scum motivation for what you’ve done.”
657: Reviews cases. Still suspicious of Drain Bead, though acknowledges that apparent contradiction noted in 446 probably isn’t. Isn’t willing to lynch a doc. Doesn’t see much of a case on jpei.
659: Case on CiaS, thinks CiaS is too concerned with getting a vote out there & saving own reputation, less concerned with finding scum.
681: Responds to ColdPhoenix, who had voted peeker for not giving role title: “Sorry, what? If we assume that there is more than one doctor, why do we need to assume that they’ll have the same title or role profile?”
684: Responds to CiaS, still thinks CiaS is showing too much concern for own reputation.
693,728: Fluff, complaining about jpei extending day.
863: “What a monster of a Day. At this point, I’m sufficiently happy with where my vote is that I’m unlikely to move it… I’m intrigued by the Bling Collective - there clearly does seem to be some commonality of shininess across role PMs, which has me leaning town for jpei and Boozy… On peeker, I have to be honest with myself and say that it’s less a question of believing his Doc claim than of not wanting to risk it.”
908: voting chronology
1046: “Thinking about the necessary qualifications for leader, all I really want is someone who can commit to voting at a pre-established time.” (oops) Elects Boozy
1098: Analyzes bandwagons, focuses on DaphneBlack and her reason for voting BillMC: "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. "
1099: On Jimmy/peeker fight, thinks Jimmy was smudging peeker after unvoting. “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.”
1112: “To clarify - I should have said, after the doc claim, Jimmy never actually votes peeker etc.” Also says this makes her think peeker is town.
1354: “One theory seems to be that: peeker’s scum; Daphne, who tried to protect him, is also scum; Daphne lied about blocking Freudian, making Freudian also scum. It would be great if this theory were true, because scum would have implicated three of their members.” But doesn’t believe it, because thinks peeker is town (due to Jimmy). "I’m more inclined to think that Daphne’s following of the crowd yesterday had as much to do with Day One uncertainty as with subterfuge. "
1363: accusation of Thing Fish for (1) switching from thinking DB wagon was okay to thinking being on the DB wagon was scummy; (2) arguing that AllWalker was scummy for saying it was okay to lose a doc if there was more than one; (3) encouraging a vote on BillMC while also voting Boozy on thin grounds. Thing Fish had defended himself from (1) earlier, though I haven’t been able to find the post so I’m not surprised amrussell overlooked it.
1463: "Last minute claims of vital roles are a scum tactic. I’m going to take a deep breath, and stick to my guns. "
1527: apologizes to Thing Fish.
See also: Thing Fish’s too-late counterblast to amrussll’s post 1363
Ok, the case against amrussell is obvious: made the case against Thing Fish, and then didn’t back down when Thing claimed doc.
I’d love it to be an open-and-shut case, especially because it would take me off the hook for jumping on the wagon and really getting it rolling, but I’m not sure I see anything but an overzealous prosecution. In particular, lacking the extra information from Thing Fish’s fuller role claim, the self-protect turn 1 thing looked pretty shaky: why self-protect when there pretty much had to be at least one town power role out in the open?
The other thing that makes me wonder is amrussell’s role in prosecuting Drain Bead on turn 1. I’m trying to figure out what the interaction between scum-amrussell and Jimmy would have been.
Possibilities:
1 - Peeker is scum and Drain Bead is town (or third party). Peeker and Jimmy get into a show-fight, which draws more votes than they thought. So amrussell finds a hook to hang DB on, thereby saving peeker. But then why in the world would Jimmy rip apart half of amrussell’s case?
2 - Peeker is town (or 3p) and DB is scum. Um. With a wagon already rolling on peeker, why would amrussell make that kind of case against a fellow scum? If she needed/wanted to have a vote not on peeker, why not just justify it with a “I’m not comfortable with DB’s approach to the lie detector issue”.
3 - Neither Peeker nor DB are scum. Jimmy throws down a case against peeker; though it seems to be making headway, amrussell throws down a case against DB as a back-up plan. With the peeker wagon rolling nicely, Jimmy decides to earn some townie cred (and snuggle DB) by derailing am’s case. Then, horrors, peeker claims doc. All is in ruins; jimmy unvotes peeker but keeps poking at him, then starts the billmc wagon; am searches around for someone else to go after, picks on CiaS. (CiaS could be either town or scum by this conjecture, though probably town).
This one, from a pure Turn 1 perspective, looks plausible. But if so, why in the world did am spend several posts on Turn 2 arguing that (1) jimmy was smudging peeker and (2) therefore peeker is probably town? There were other people making that argument, true, but it was hardly a consensus at the time am was arguing it.
Oh, I guess for the sake of completeness: 4 - Peeker and DB are both scum. Why in the world would scum start not 1, but 2 bandwagons on their own early in the day?
Anyway, I cannot justify a vote on amrussell, and I will be very suspicious of anyone who does so without a very good argument about how her behavior outside of the Thing Fish lynch is scummy.
WoW on CatInASuit:
(Again, don’t follow the links; the coding is all messed up. Should have test-fired earlier).
161: elects AllWalker
228: posts leadership vote count, asks OaOW why he’s ineligible.
232: advises OaOW not to claim
249: Suggests ending day on Wednesday
381: Queries AllWalker over why he chose less popular option; says OaOW can’t be considered soft claim; peeker/tom: “this looks more like harrassment of Tom Scud than anything else”; queries jpei on not voting for leader; is town aligned.
432: Leader role is anti-Town because it fixes one vote in place, unable to respond to late claim, and helps one person hide their voting record.
509: comments on claims, disagrees with trial-by-vig idea, asks when peeker claimed multiple docs.
514: On peeker: “I took this to mean he was claiming Doc, but because it is closed setup he can’t comment on any other roles that may or may not exist.”
581: Votes DB for making false blanket statement
679: vote count/state of play
682: defends vs. amrussell’s case, asks if he should have just left the misstatement out there. Asks jpei if she will vote tomorrow.
683: Asks ColdPhoenix if he wants other docs to counterclaim
709: state of play after jpei’s coup
711: asks jpei again, in light of new info, why she didn’t vote for leaders
929: fluff
1028: Elects Boozy, doesn’t think he’s confirmed, but more townie than others
1029: Asks for a poll on day’s end
1048: WoW on Jimmy.
Thinks it makes peeker look scummy for (1) “on my team” comment by jimmy and (2) inconsistency between saying he thinks peeker is scum and not wanting to trial-by-vig. Also notes that Jimmy pointed at 2 groups of 3 people (in 463 and 917) as scummy, and that DaphneBlack and Alka Seltzer were in both groups.
1110: Asks why amrussell said Jimmy never voted peeker.
1111: NETA typo correction
1113: Further on the “why would jimmy try and stop a town peeker from being vigged” question
1126: State of the game. Left out OaOW’s claim (as did earlier states) FWIW.
1224: response to Tom Scud’s vote: “I mentioned the passage about JC’s team once in the original WoW. After that I was concentrating more on JC’s change of heart about peekercpa later on. Nice of you to get it wrong. You really look as though you are grasping around for a vote and it looks scummy.”
1225 & 1226: asks mods about berynium on other dead people’s bodies
1245: WoW on Freudian Slit; finds her bandwagony, bad in explaining her votes, and odd in her focus on breadcrumbs and asking town blockers not to act.
1359: Where’s FS?
1360: Uncertain about DB; agrees that JC probably wasn’t trying to save peeker with his anti-vig post.
1424: Thinks Bling Collective are town, thinks FS looks suspicious, but case against Thing Fish is good; votes Thing Fish.
1530: “Oh Crap. That was not a good end to the Day.”
1569:<oog> Just a note that I have lost internet access at home, engineer not due until tuesday.
Right, getting the OMGUS out of the way first: He in fact mentioned the “not helping my team” thing twice in his WoW, once in the body of the WoW, and once (among a total of 3 points) in his summation at the bottom. Also, though I focused on that one, I did mention the overall argument looked slanted to me.
Anyway, there’s a lot of procedural stuff - what day will we end the Day on; what are the ramifications of the Leader role; the state of play posts (which were helpful). I don’t think the OaOW omission was intentional; it’s hard to catch everything in those kinds of posts.
I think the Drain Bead vote was hair-trigger; he could easily have corrected without voting; it doesn’t seem like a malicious lie or an attempt to smudge.
The two-player list was potentially useful and interesting, and argues for CiaS’s townieness. (OTOH, it’s possible that the overlap was a “whoops” on Jimmy’s part that was noted on the scum board. If CiaS DOES flip scum at some point, another look at Daphne, in particular, would definitely be in order).
The peeker prosecution by way of Jimmy’s WoW looks at the least overeager to me; however, it did take some extra reading to find the flaw in the apparent contradiction he found in finding peeker scummy but also arguing against his vig.
I don’t find the WoW on FS inherently scummy; I also was wondering about her. Another reason I really wish we’d managed to swing the vote over to FS: if she flipped scum I’d be pretty sure CiaS wasn’t scum; if she flipped Town I’d find this somewhat suspicious as she made for a very easy case.
The jump on the Thing Fish wagon was a pretty explicit “me too”.
Conclusion: not certainly scum; hair-trigger on DB and peeker/Jimmy could both be overeager townieness. But I don’t see anything that powerfully argues “town” to me, either.
I was considering re-placing my vote here, and might yet, depending on the morning’s revelations.
WoW on Chronos:
Again, don’t follow the links. Also, I wrote this post at about 3 pm; there’s been a mini-pile onto Chronos since then. Frankly, I think he deserves it.
197: Asks mods why OaOW isn’t eligible.
318: Says we should wait 1 day before lynching (hypothetical) Miller; dislikes jpei not voting; fos’s peeker for his case against me; votes OaOW for not fully claiming.
319: starts “I am Town Aligned” thing
325: defends OaOW vote (“wanted to be emphatic”)
328: continues to defend OaOW vote
346: “Eh, my thinking was that it couldn’t hurt, and might help.” (to Drain Bead, on Lie Detector thing)
366: fluff
390: asks jpei to vote for leader next time
391: fluff
408: (to Drain): “Wait, so, “fishing” for PFKs or Scum is somehow a bad thing?”
420: (to Drain): “OK, even if we stipulate that [“i am town” makes it easier for scum to find other-faction scum] for the sake of argument, if there are two Scum factions in the game (another point we need to stipulate for the sake of argument, because I don’t think there’s any evidence yet for such), I’d rather have them fighting each other than fighting us.”
433: Doesn’t think serial killer can be found by vote analysis; notes that “i am town” helps potential lie detector find third parties who might be missed by more casual statements.
477: “Well, obviously not everyone who voted for Drain Bead is Scum (or at least, I certainly hope not). But it’s still possible that there are a few Town in there, and some Scum joined in to turn a small bandwagon into a big one.”
530: (to Alka) “Even if that is what Thing Fish is saying [that he’s suspicious of Drain Bead but expects her to flip town], it’s not necessarily unreasonable. Until we get more information, any given player is more likely to be Town than Scum, just by virtue of sheer numbers.”
540: “But it’s objectively known that there’s something special about Wanderers, and it’s also objectively true that he hasn’t told us what. I still think that the proper pro-Town play would be for Wanderers to tell us what he is, so I’m voting for what appears to me to be objectively anti-Town behavior.”
548:“I still haven’t seen an example of how full disclosure [by OaOW] could hurt Town. The Scum would find out he has a special role? They already know that. What other problems would there be?”
575: even if OaOW lies about role, could be caught in inconsistency.
1530: (in response to Normal Phase asking if he’ll acknowledge there are situations when a full claim might do Town more damage): “When compared with a partial claim? I can’t think of any offhand, honestly.” also “I would have thought my vote made that clear: I think that, given the information I have, Wanderers has a higher probability of being Scum than any other player (though still not all that high, this being Day 1). I also have suspicions of peeker and Drain Bead, for reasons elaborated by others, but those are based on subjective assessments, and I don’t trust myself on subjective decisions.”
674: "For one thing, because we’re trying to figure out if your [peeker’s] claim is genuine or not. Emphatically leaving open the possibility of more than one Doctor, like you did, could be a tactic to prepare against a counterclaim. Is it? Obviously, we don’t know. On the subject of vanilla claims, there’s probably not much point for a Scum on the chopping block to false-claim vanilla, because it probably won’t move any votes. "
752: “Honestly, I think we should just end this Day right away; it’s gone one well long enough.”
755: "Well, we’ve got to end the Day eventually. As it stands now, jpei is Leader, and we can’t do anything about that, so between his as-yet-uncast regular vote and his tiebreaker as Leader, he’s probably going to end up deciding the lynch, anyway, unless there’s a major shift of votes. "
805:"Since I’m catching some heat for what I said about ending the Day, I’d better defend myself: It’s inherent in the game that at some point votes are locked in. Everyone was expecting their votes to be locked in yesterday during the day, and so far as I can tell, most of us were OK with that possibility. " also votes Boozy for soft claim.
806: NETA to correct coding error
810: “jpei, you don’t know me very well. I approach everything objectively, and it’s my opinion that a lot of things people think can’t be done objectively actually can be.” (defending against charge that objectivity is a cop-out.)
846: minor berynium speculation
872:
Alka: jpei’s claim was a major piece of information for town, and we needed to re-evaluate. Your lack of interest makes me suspicious.
Chronos: And they had all day Friday to do that, which I thought would be enough time. And those folks who aren’t on on the weekend really haven’t had much more time to consider it than they would have with a weekend Dusk.
890: "So, Drain Bead, why did you think that Bill even had a role to claim, per post 873? "
895,897: fluff
919: “I don’t know, Drain Bead, that doesn’t look all that smudgy to me.” (USCDiver’s post that Tom Scud had quoted). Also suggests peeker say who he’s protecting just before dawn.
924: “Well, OK, but in this case, missing the timing just means that it works out the same as if you hadn’t tried.”
944:Alka: You ignored my question, what is your position on a day 1 Doctor lynch? Chronos: I thought I had answered that: I remain suspicious of peeker and don’t think that a doctor claim is a Get Out of Jail Free Forever card, but agree that it’s probably not worth the risk to lynch a claimed doctor on Day 1.
945:“Ah, yes, I had answered that. Post 652, last paragraph.”
(Day 2 starts)
957:“So we appear to have three killers. I’m guessing that that’s a Scum team of Screamers, a vigilante, and a serial killer”
959: Asks mods if vote on Gryff is lynch or leader vote
982: “OK, apparently I’m missing something. What did Boozahol do that confirmed him? "
988: “OK, I’ll grant that Boozahol has (or apparently, had) some berynium, but that doesn’t prove anything about his alignment.”
1014: Asks Tom Scud about peeker vote; asks Gryff for a claim; distrusts Boozy; elects Oredigger
1020: (responding to Allwalker speculation that TexCat was killed by trying to recruit a scum) “Hmm, that could be. It seems to me, though, that if I had such a role, I might want to announce it and whom I’m targeting in advance, just in case something like this happened. Or at the very least, I’d target the people I was least suspicious of, for the first few Nights. Which might mean that whomever TexCat trusted most turned out to be Scum. Did she give any indication as to who that might be? "
1021:”…And, to answer my own question, the only indication I can find of her trusting anyone in particular is jpei, whom we now know was Town. So, never mind then.”
1026: (peeker as leader, to Tom Scud) “I’m not referring to the powers; I’m referring to the limitations. Remember, we’re talking about someone who’s been known to vote for someone and then unvote later in the same post.”
1060: Gryff’s claim not what he was expecting
1068: “Wait, I thought the third vote was supposed to be the traditionally-scummy one” (in response to Tom Scud theory that Jimmy was subtly smudging Drain Bead)
1081: reiterates suspicions of peeker, says that he expects scum-peeker to be eventually discovered due to counterclaim, so other scum should be hunted.
1087: argues with peeker over whether scum would want to be counterclaimed for doc claim. Comments on Gryff giving something to Boozy.
1141: “Well, Boozahol claimed that his berynium was stolen, so if he’s telling the truth, then there’s someone out there stealing it.” Also questions the value of combing through Jimmy’s posts.
1167: still suspects boozy, but thinks gift partially confirms gryff
1168 - 1170: full 3 days’ notes. [This WoW writer is NOT going to comb through them for evidence of bias tyvm]
1172: fluff
1530: multi-part post.
1 - Normal: it only makes me even more curious why the best votes you could think to make for yourself yesterday were a pair of policy votes – why no analysis of all that data? Chronos: That’s not really “data”, that’s the plural of anecdote. That list only contains things that I thought were relevant, and if I didn’t notice the relevance of something, it wouldn’t end up on the list.
2 - votes Tom Scud because of phrasing & speed of berynium speculation post: “Plus, he says that “I came up with…”, rather than “I come up with…”, which seems to suggest that he was thinking about berynium thieves before Boozahol said his was stolen, which could mean that he (Tom) is the thief, or is in cahoots with them.” and because of peeker vote for leader. (is also suspicious of Boozy)
1197:“And of course there are more posts in the time that I take to write that. While instinct might be a good indicator for some folks, the problem with using it as the reason for a vote is that there’s no accountability to it: A Scum could use instinct to justify voting for whomever they wanted to, and there’s no real way to argue against it.”
1278: Notes Tom Scud could still be thief; unvotes Tom Scud, votes Daphne for (1) claiming to have made a suboptimal block on night 1, claiming a role that doesn’t make color sense (how do bartenders get robots drunk?), and withholding information about Freudian investigation.
Also, to Tom Scud: “(specifics later when I have more time), your play in the past couple of pages doesn’t look great, either.”
1292: "As I said, Drain Bead was the logical choice for a Town roleblocker. For a Scum roleblocker, I can think of several possibilities: They might have targeted peeker, for instance, if he isn’t Scum, to prevent him from stopping the kill. They might have targeted Boozahol or wanderers, again if they’re nott Scum, gambling on whether their unknown powers are worth more or less than a Doctor. They might have picked up on Freudian’s concern about a role-blocker, and figured she might be a power role. Jimmy might have been allowed to make an investigation on Night 0 (remember, the mods said that mostly nothing happened Night 0), and discovered that Freudian was a power role. They might have chosen their block target at random, in case a watcher-type role was watching the person they targeted. They might have targeted someone else entirely, and then lied about who they targeted in the hopes of being less conspicuous.
To sum up, I don’t see good Town play that leads to Daphne targeting Freudian, but (depending on a lot of things we don’t know) I can maybe see a few possible good Scum plays that lead to her targeting her (or at least, saying she’s doing so)."
1335: fluff
1386: Asks Alka what he does with berynium; “at least one of Daphne, Boozahol, or peeker is lying.” (because of blocks)
1392:To Boozy: “I know that you want to keep your claim soft (even though I think it was an anti-Town move), but will you at least say whether your wonderful mysterious power admits of some other explanation for why it might fail?”
1397: tells boozy alka’s claim is point in his favor; admits that one of three is lying thing above is not nec. true per boozy’s revelation.
1403: “On the topic of testing Daphne by having her block Drain Bead: Yes, if she’s a Scum roleblocker, it’ll potentially tie up her use of her power. But if she’s a Scum roleblocker, then I don’t just want her power tied up; I want her dead.”
1406: argues with peeker over peeker’s odd “what’s really happening” scenario
1413: continues arguing hypotheticals with peeker
1417: fluff
1446: “I don’t think we ought to put any particular weight at all, one way or the other, on vanilla claims … a point in Drain Bead’s favor, that I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet: She was the first to cast a vote toDay, after several days of nobody voting.”
1457: “I also doubt that we have two Doctors.” unvotes Daphne, says he will come back and vote either Thing or peeker.
1417: on Thing Fish case: “It seems like an awfully weak case, for having attracted so many votes.” revotes Daphne. Suspicious of peeker for changing story re: how many docs he thinks there is.
1503: “Tom, I’m voting for the person I think is most likely to be Scum. If I knew that Thing Fish were innocent, then I would vote strategically to save him, but there’s a big difference between thinking that the case against someone is weak, and knowing that they’re innocent.”
1505: “How do you get that? I said that I don’t know that he is innocent; not that I do know he’s not innocent.”
Remaining posts (up through thread post 1575) are basically fluff.
At this point, depending on what Dawn reveals, I’m probably going to vote for Chronos simply for refusing to vote strategically at the end of Day 2; if he’d put his vote on FS, and one of the Thing Fish voters had come back and switched, it would have been enough to change the result. At the time he voted, there was still better than an hour to go, and Scuba Ben had said he would try to come back; as it turned out, it made no difference, but Chronos couldn’t have known otherwise.
Besides that, I see nothing in his previous body of work that makes me think he’s particularly likely to be Town. A lot of policy votes, one jump on a bandwagon, and a whole lot of pushing for details of people’s roles. The Lie Detector thing was pro-Town, but low probability; I could see gambling on that for Townie cred. The notes were certainly impressive, but nothing that directly contributed to finding scum. His interaction with Jimmy was limited but somewhat hostile; nothing that makes it very unlikely that the two were on the same team.
oh fraCking hell. if you pulled the third vote not fraCking way i will be seriously chapped. you know i don’t even look at this kind of shit.
fucking kettle.
As far as I’m concerned, we’ve gotten basically 2 sets of semi-objective data on which players are scummy or towny: the Bling Brotherhood (which obviously can’t be 100% confirmed until someone dies or a cop confirms one of the three - more on this in my next post) and Jimmy’s interactions, some of which wouldn’t make sense directed towards a scum. Here’s my list:
Somewhat confirmed due to roles/objective knowledge:
Boozahol Squid, PI
Gryph
Alka Seltzer
Somewhat confirmed by Jimmy’s behavior:
peekercpa
Oredigger77
amrussell (see my wow post on her)
Chronos (less so; Jimmy sparred with him but didn’t do a quick drive-by smudge at any point that I can recall)
Weakly confirmed by Jimmy’s behavior (Cat’s double-list thing):
Daphne (also claimed town roleblocker)
Somewhat suspicious due to Jimmy’s behavior:
One and Only (also has a magic bag)
Totally skeevy-looking due to Jimmy’s behavior:
Drain Bead
Unconfirmed/suspect by either criterion:
Tom Scud (Does Jimmy’s obvious snuggling of me count as weak confirmation?)
tiltawhirl
Normal Phase
Freudian Slit
USCDiver
Allwalker
Scuba_Ben
GuirienEspana
CatInASuit
Boozy looked slightly suspect to me due to Jimmy’s behavior, but I feel that the Brotherhood of Bling outweighs that.
Last post: on the Bling Brothers (Alka, Boozy, and Gryph):
Gryph seems the most confirmed to me: he came out with his role neither voluntarily nor because he was taking heat, but because he’d been more or less mod-forced to do so. His abilities are somewhat confirmable, and have been confirmed. His role title was confirmed by Alka.
Boozy is #2 on the list, for the pattern-matching he engaged in with Alka. My only doubt is what I said before about a Head Screamer possibly knowing the roles as well; the only reason I haven’t completely dismissed that idea is that it’s a Godfather-like title, and what do Godfathers do? They fool cops, and Alka’s role is pretty cop-like.
I will consider Gryph to be confirmed, and Boozy to be nearly confirmed if Alka is confirmed by death or Cop. I will consider Boozy fully confirmed if the Head Screamer dies as well.
Alka, on the other hand, I can’t consider 100% confirmed by any confirmation by Boozy or Gryph; while his role claim is consistent and believable, I’m still hanging on to my third-party thief idea; the Corporate Espianoge Agent or some such could have been briefed on the probable possessors of berynium, and charged with getting ahold of it.
This post is the main reason I’m waiting until as late at Night as possible; I don’t want to dissuade scum from a night-kill of Alka if they decide on one, as I feel that would put Town in a stronger position than the night-kill of one of the other Bling Brothers or our other power roles.
I don’t think the vote #3 thing is a pure scum tell or anything, but I do think the bandwagon effect is real, and people who help get a bad bandwagon rolling deserve some scrutiny. There was a reason Chitwood was at #2 on two wagons on Day 1.
and i gotta say this. FRACKING HECK.
that’s a lot of effort Tom
can you guys, regardless of what happens tonight lynch chronos.
and for the scum, i can’t self protect so i have to go after someone else. eenie meenie minie mo.
but it’s late, let’s see what happens mofos.
or maybe it’s just me being me and i can self protect.
woot woot woot, let’s get ready to rumble.
I’m also kind of suspicious of OaOW, but there’s only so many wows you can do while avoiding work 
not you. but if a vig doesn’t take out one of the questionables i will regan it.
and if a town rb screws me i will forever not talk truthfully and clearly again.
Hm. Dawn is taking a while to arrive.
fucking nail biter ain’t it.
and i’ll give you this tom if you are not town, then meh. if you are then follow along with the bouncing balll.