Alka Seltzer: I disagree with you. You are going to have to get it through your head that sometimes, people have strategic ideas that differ from yours. There is not one correct way to play this or any game. I disagree with you on the correct way to play this one. I don’t apologize for my position on this nor do I back down from it one bit. However, I do decline to continue to discuss it, because it’s a line of discussion leading nowhere. I get the feeling that this drives you crazy, that you need everyone to agree with your strategic opinions and if they don’t, they must be Scum, but you’re not getting the first or the second, at least as far as I’m concerned. Sorry.
Your vote for me is silly and baseless. And it’s comical - comical - that you actually unvoted Spawn in order to place it.
I don’t want to keep waiting for you to come back with this info since you’ve already said that you’re having a busy week at work. I also don’t like the Peeker case and think that we’re being led to lynch the outspoken townie in his case. In general I’d prefer to lynch the quite townie because at least we’re getting information. I’m going to
Vote Scuba
to give you a bit more incentive to explain what’s going on and if no explanation is forth coming I’m content to fall back on a lynch the slightly scummy looking lurker.
You are either evading or missing the point Story. In many cases, strategy is genuinely subjective, and there is no right way to play. At other times, one strategy is better than another. I’m strongly of the opinion that the spawn mechanism/double lyse is in the second camp.
You aren’t addressing the meat of my arguments. Earlier, you said you expected players to justify their positions. Well, guess what, I think the same thing.
This is nonsense. As I said to Ed, there is no risk that spawn won’t be lysed toDay, and if there was I could always move my vote back. If I can find a better use for my vote, why shouldn’t I use it?
I don’t agree with you. I am never going to agree with you. Whether you wish to continue to argue about it is your call, but I will not continue to engage you on this subject.
Are you think that misguided Town and/or Scum are lynching him because of his ideas? Do you think it’s better to have his ideas around longer in the game? Is he coming up with some insight that’s advancing the Scum hunt?
And how exactly does lynching a quiet Townie generate more information? You say it’s useful to lynch a lurker, but you’re unclear on how this benefits Town. Can you be more clear?
So, off through the record so far. Right now, pursuant to my previously-described hypothesis, I am going to focus mainly on votes for peekercpa or sachertorte. Given the way the Day is developing, I will also look a bit at votes for Scuba Ben. I realize this will involve leaving out a few things.
So we start on Page 4. There’s an early rush of Spawn votes, about which I don’t think we can realistically say much, mixed with **peeker’[s/b] initial vote for me.
As I said at the time, if peeker didn’t vote for me in a Mafia game, I’d be surprised and a little sad. Pseudo-random votes on Day One seem to be de rigeur in these games, particularly from certain players, and so I thought very little about this vote when it happened. Zeriel disagreed, and used it as the basis of his own vote for peeker. Mahaloth follows almost immediately thereon (209).
Lots of Spawn chatter. sach, me, Rysto, Cookies, Scuba_Ben.
Now, Zeriel says, as a follow-up to his vote:
Two things: (1) thanks, Z, for the implied compliment; I take it you didn’t watch me play in Ed’s game, huh?; (2) peeker never said what’s quoted, nor anything like it. peeker never even discussed the possibility. This motive – this entire line of thought – is completely manufactured by Zeriel. peeker sort of mentioned strong players, once prodded to do so by Zeriel, but he certainly never said anything like “let’s kill the good players because we can’t risk that they’re scum.” peeker agrees, and votes Zeriel.
At #277, Zeriel also votes sach, on account of sach is pushing what Zeriel perceives to be a limitation of Town options. Behind him (279), Freudian feels both peeker and sach are suspicious, but won’t vote for either yet. To quote a great thinker: hrm.
Shortly thereafter, there is this (bleached):
Let’s parse this. “For this” (for what?) “and for his random voting” (we vote for people for random voting now? When did that happen?) “and not really defending his actions” (how exactly does one ‘defend one’s actions’ when one’s actions consisted of a silly random vote?) “except for accusing those who vote him of being anti town for no real reason” (OK). I don’t like this vote.
fluiddruid (296) places what I can only describe as a personal vote against peeker. Unfortunately, this is problematic because it cannot be evaluated in an in-game sense. “Being pissed off at Player X” isn’t really a Scum or a Town tell, and while fluid’s vote is remarkably undermotivated for a fourth vote, the fact that she is admitting to personal reasons underlying the vote make it harder to see clearly. I suggest the following: peeker and fluid are unlikely to both be Scum. I kind of think it’s unlikely that fluid is Scum and peeker is Town; if that’s the case, then fluid’s vote here and her explanation for it is kind of a low blow. Thus I consider fluiddruid more likely to be Town or third-party than Scum.
Spawn spawn spawn and then Freudian, who last followed Zeriel onto the peeker train, now also follows Zeriel onto the Sachertorte train (314).
I agree with the substance – that unanimity is a bad idea and shouldn’t be attempted. I don’t agree with the inference – that’s sach’s disagreement marks him as likely Scum. I don’t like this vote either.
(In here, Meeko and Drain both vote for fluiddruid. I look carefully at these votes, because I think fluid looks Townie on the basis of her stated reasoning for voting peeker, but I can see nothing in particular to find suspicious about them).
So anyway, peeker has four votes for him. Ultimately, the arguments seem to be: (1) he made a random, baseless vote at the beginning of the game; and (2) when he was poked about it he responded aggressively. I’m not sure that reads like a four-vote case.
At 345 Zeriel withdraws his vote on Sachertorte but restates his suspicion of peeker. The post is quoted below:
Once again, I need to mention that peeker never mentioned “strong players” until Zeriel did. Anyway, peeker addresses, this, pretty reasonably, in 346
AS peeker says, it’s one vote. It’s basically “challenge someone I know and see what they do,” not “let’s lynch strong players on principle” as Zeriel is attempting to suggest.
At 353, special ed buys Zeriel’s peeker narrative (or appears to) and votes peeker.
Peeker gets ridden endlessly, mostly it’s Zeriel and Ed, and eventually Meeko votes for peeker. Everyone is talking as if peeker’s approach is riddled with confusion and inconsistency.
Finally, something I can wholeheartedly agree with.
vote peeker
This vote is because of his reactions to Ed. I did not like the way peeker called Ed a liar but would not explain what exactly he thought Ed was lieing about. peeker says that when he flips town, we’ll all know that Ed is scum, but has not explained. I am guessing that peeker is a scum, throwing anything possible at the fire in hopes it will cause enough smoke to distract. With anyone else, I would be convinced that this was scummy behavior. With peeker, who knows?
Interesting. Thanks for pulling out Freudian’s quote regarding me. I can’t believe I didn’t read it closer before. Freudian says:
Which doesn’t even make sense.
(1) if Freudian agrees that unanimity isn’t going to happen, then why the ire at me?
(2) How would unanimity hamper voting for spawn? It would do the opposite, it would encourage unanimous voting for spawn.
Beyond the terrible vote for me, these are terrible reasons to vote for me (or anyone). I don’t think Freudian’s heart really was in it.
I see a wild inconsistency here. I’m a big fan of pointing out that inconsistency doesn’t necessarily mean scum, but inconsistency in the same post? Terrible and contradictory reasons for a vote? Something funky is happening there.
Denizens of the Pond:
Most denizens of the Pond are Plankton, and have no particular powers. The Plankton PM is as follows:
Quote:
You are Plankton. You are a part of the delicate ecological balance of the Pond, but there are many more like you. Aside from voting for the Lyse, you have no powers. You win or lose when the Pond does.
I guess this means we can’t handshake.
Not that pond life has hands in the first place, but you know.
A lot has been added to the game since I touched it last. Will get back later with more.
Storyteller, Rysto, and Natlaw, forgive me if you explicitly stated it earlier(I think I rememeber it…maybe), but do you have any reason for not voting to kill our only Spawn on Summer One?
No, not at all. I’m aware of the vanilla role PM. I’ll explain fully when peeker has responded to my question about why he chose to claim this early (I think I know what he is going to say, but I’m not making any assumptions).
@Town - Be very careful here. Any slips will help the scum to role-fish.
I’ve gone back and looked at Alka’s posts in light of what he posted. He’s riding story pretty hard for the double lysing thing. I agree we shouldn’t double lyse a player, still, he does seem pretty adamant and story doesn’t look all THAT scummy to me. I’m not sure if this is a strong power role Townie player trying to get rid of what he sees as scummy or as scum making a case to off a 'nilla.
I didn’t mention it but since the Spawn has a big vote lead so I don’t see the need. I’ll put it in at the end of the Day or if someone else would get close to make sure it is lynched.
If you feel me not voting Spawn robs you of your second vote like sachertorte/special ed think it does, let me know and I’ll put it on immediately to free yours.
