i obviously don’t have any cards left to play.
therefore
unvote all
vote spawn
vote spawn
and don’t get all epileptic. i don’t know shit. so i just want to make sure i don’t take any collateral town damage out like in colorless.
and seriously, ed while i can understand what you are posting from a scum standpoint when i flip town you will look kind of silly.
can you at least put a whirly on your head and a tutu while you dance on my townie grave?
yes, that would look silly.
yeh, and i meant to add that for the fluid’s and freud’s of the world. apparently i don’t need to play this game anymore. when i create such a consternation that folks vote me just because i am me i become a liability to the game. i’ve enjoyed this too much to take that fun away from others. and just because i have fucking potty mouth and accuse folks of stuff makes me undesirable. ahh well.
Point by point–special ed’s post on peeker.
Dude, you’ve been called on this before. We can’t all just say we play scummily. That attitude gets us nowhere.
How is it mischaracterization?
That’s something you said. You offer little explanation–just say that people who vote for you are lazy, that they’re scum. OK, whatever, “that’s how you play”–badly, apparently.
Wait, so it’s OK for you to vote lamely, but anyone else reading stuff into it is crazy or scummy? OK…
And Zeriel pointed out that you said voting for a totally unknown player would be bad. Agreed, it’s ambiguous, but I don’t see how he was out of line for interpreting it as such.
Again, don’t see how Z is full of it. You make up a stupid reason for voting, someone sees this as scummy on it. Either apologize/take it back or come up with a good reason for why you did it. All your defense hinges on is, “Yeah, but HE said…” Stop trying to throw suspicion off something you did. Take responsibility for your statements.
You said it was a pseudo random vote based on policy. If anything, that’s even dumber than what special ed said you said.
We won’t see it’s the truth unless you die. If you are genuinely town, wouldn’t you rather stay in the game and help us, or would you rather cackle “I told you so” from beyond the grave?
I don’t see how. You said you were stirring the pot and if you are town, you basically just wasted our time. And if you ARE scum, you get yourself killed. I don’t see how playing this way could possibly be to your benefit–I mean, you saw how well it worked last time. If you hadn’t been vig, you’d be dead.
Sarcasm, dude.
I’m inclined to take his “scum trap” as seriously as you, considering his previous track record for finding scum (see last game).
Yeah, I don’t see the lying either, sorry.
So what are we supposed to do when you accuse people of stuff? Just smile and nod? It’s a GAME. We respond to people’s statements and actions. You accuse people of things all the time–are you only happy playing this game if everyone but you gets voted on or lynched?
Except you can’t vote this way Peeker. I already asked.
Vote total:
Spawn 19
peekercpa 7
Scuba_Ben 6
Freudian Slit 2
Zeriel 1
fluiddruid 1
DiggitCamara 1
storyteller0910 1
special ed 1
1: special ed – peeker (353), Spawn (353)
2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies – Spawn (193), Scuba_Ben (549)
3: Drain Bead – Spawn (191), fluiddruid (316)
4: Oredigger77 – Spawn (194), Scuba_Ben (482)
5: storyteller0910
6: Meeko – Spawn (182), [del]fluiddruid[/del] (334-386), [del]peeker[/del] (386-507), Scuba_Ben (507)
7: Mahaloth – Spawn (209), peeker (209)
8: Freudian Slit – Spawn (183-314, 441), peeker (282), [del]sachertorte[/del] (314-441)
9: USCDiver – Spawn (246), peeker (509)
10: Alka Seltzer – [del]Spawn[/del] (249-470), DiggitCamara (419), storyteller (470)
11: peekercpa – Spawn (186), [del]story[/del] (186-229), [del]Zeriel[/del] (229-601)
12: Natlaw – Scuba_Ben (460)
13: Zeriel – Spawn (204-277, 345), peeker (204), [del]sachertorte[/del] (277-345)
14: DiggitCamara – Spawn (285), Freudian (326)
15: amrussell – Spawn (247), Scuba_Ben (428)
16: KellyCriterion – Spawn (374), Scuba_Ben (529)
17: Scuba_Ben – Spawn (225)
18: sachertorte – Spawn (202), Freudian (489)
19: fluiddruid – Spawn (296), peeker (296)
20: TexCat – Spawn (198), peeker (488)
21: Rysto – special ed (595), spawn (595)
I’m counting peeker’s post 601 as “unvote Zeriel”, since that’s the only non-Spawn vote he had in place. He currently has one vote in place, for Spawn. You cannot place two votes for the same organism.
But now, I begin to wonder. From what desperation does Peeker attempt his double Spawn vote?
Peeker has made comments about flipping to be plankton, which, aside from a character that offers his fair share of great lines in Spongebob, means that he is essentially claiming VT for this game.
Does he claim VT because he is VT, or because it is freely given by the Mod?
1.Peeker is VT. Peeker Claims VT. His desperation is from a Townie that has no other play. [And likewise, his math on making the best last play (double spawn vote) that he can, would make sense. Even if it doesn’t quite work that way.]
2.Peeker is Power Role Town.
Why peeker would not claim this is beyond me, – if indeed he was aligned with Pond, and is not VT.
3.Peeker is Scum. Peeker claims VT because it was freely given. This would click in with his attempt at a double spawn vote. But then again, if he knows he is scum, and it looks like he is on his way out, what better last ditch effort to gain Town cred than this?
4.Peeker is Power Scum.
I’m not sure we would know how to deduce this. I mean, for day one, I don’t see how Peeker could leave a scum tell that differintiates from Power Scum, or Goon Scum.
Thinking about Power Scum, I have to ask::
**
Can Scum players create Spawn in addition to the one spawn per Summer? Is there a power role, [either side] that produces Spawn as a side effect, or is the direct end result?
**
You think you’re going to get an answer to that in a semi-closed setup?
Ok, a couple of people have asked me to give further info on why I voted to lynch Scuba_Ben, specifically wanting to know what my case is against him.
I have no case at all against him.
I was also asked who my “top pick” is for scum at the moment.
I don’t have one.
The vote for Scuba_Ben was purely for provocation, we might be able to glean more info on Day 1 if two people feel at genuine risk of getting lynched, instead of just one.
That’s all I’ve got to run with right now… I haven’t been convinced by any of the reasoning put forth so far as to why people are suspecting others of being scum.
Won’t know until I ask.
Not like Meeko hasn’t gotten an "“F4"” before.
I would like to know. What is it going to cost me? I thought you would like to know as well Cookies, being that, IIRC, you asked about Pond needing Spawn to stay alive.
NETA : That is to say, you could argue that my question a natural extension of your original quesiton, Cookies.
Holy crap, Scuba is picking up a lot of heat for really nothing and I say that as someone who currently has a vote on him. Originally I was thinking to put a vote on him and when he came back with a reasonable explanation move on to someone who looks scummy.
Unfortunately, there are two problems with this one he hasn’t come back; he said he had some RL stuff come up, and a bunch of people have piled on him to the point where he could be lysed. The second is a problem for me because Peeker is strongly giving me a reading of frustrated townie and I’d rather have him around then a silent no one.
The scummiest thing I’ve seen toDay is everyone piling on Scuba I’m not sure if my read on Peeker is wrong and his teammates are trying to save him or if the scum are trying to motivate us to double lyse toDay, either way it’s enough that I want to pull off my vote just to screw up their plan.
I also don’t like one off votes because they really don’t count for the vote record until the end of the game because it takes a while for a one off to be killed so we don’t know if that person was voting for scum or not. Since we only have a couple of hours left in the Summer I think I’m going to leave my vote where it is because I think in the long run it will be better to eliminate the quiet people so at least we will have a post record to evaluate the players later in the game.
I’m also going to take a look at the other cases and hopefully I’ll find something that looks good.
It’s not personal. Whether or not people agree with my vote, it’s not personal: I have no personal bias against Peeker. I honestly really don’t know Peeker outside of this game. I’m simply responding to the manner in which he has conducted himself, which I find destructive to town interests and, frankly, pretty unpleasant to deal with. If I do have a bias, it’s against people flipping out and attempting to cow others with profanity and screaming (though admittedly he has simmered down a bit for now).
How is it not OK for me to vote for this reason, but for some reason the case against peeker is trumped up despite his being aggressive and unpleasant, voting for strong players just because (which he did do, and basically admitted to, no matter how much hand-wringing we do to try to justify otherwise), telling people to lynch his accusers without any case against them, changing his story repeatedly, and then ripping his votes away to double-vote spawn (rather than working on finding real scum players as he claims to want to do) in a “I’m going to take my ball and go home” move? He feels that it’s OK to not justify or explain his own actions, even when repeatedly questioned, even when the vote leader… why? Even if he’s some kind of power role (which I don’t believe), I sincerely doubt he has different information than any of us on the first day of the game. He needs to participate and get involved in a positive way, including being rational and straightforward.
I stand by what I’ve said: peeker seems like a good vote because he is either scum, or a valueless-but-for-headcount townie with zero credibility and a disruptive, discouraging, anti-Town playstyle. I’m open to considering a better candidate; in particular, I’ll review the case against Scuba Ben in more detail as I have time today, and go back and read all of his posts again, to see if he’s a better candidate at this point. Failing being convinced of a good scum candidate, I plan to leave my vote with peeker. Yes, accusing and provoking others is a part of this game, but as I’ve previously repeatedly stated, I don’t think peeker is constructive for Town.
This makes me want to gouge my eyes out.
It’s like that experiment they do on kids, telling them they can have one marshmallow now, or if they wait 15 minutes they can have two.
(1) storyteller, you actually haven’t been posting a whole lot on this topic. Most recently you have been pushing the ‘agree to disagree’ angle. It is only now, that additional players are poking you that you respond with a possibly reasonable answer.
(2) For someone who feels strongly about this, you haven’t been trying very hard to convince others that you are correct.
(3) You are still wrong. 
(4) Why would the second choice necessarily ‘hang on for Days?’ If you are so concerned about the second choice hanging on, why not just lynch that second choice on the Second Day? What is preventing you from doing so?
(5) The ‘we have a better chance of catching scum by double lysing’ is a false promise. storyteller seems to think that since double lysing today has a better chance of netting scum than lysing one player today, that somehow proves that double lysing is superior to lysing one today and one tomorrow. This notion is totally false. Guess what? Our chances of catching scum after the second lyse Tomorrow is at the very least as good as double lysing today.
(6) storyteller continues to count Days instead of Lynch opportunities. Which is demonstrably wrong. Double lyse brings the endgame closer (fewer Days)!
(7) Town needs to be patient. I think we have established in previous games that longer games (more Days) favor Town. Double lyse shortens the game (fewer Days).
No. Not really. My concern isn’t that scum will use the extra vote to manipulate the vote, but to cover their tracks. In your view, you think giving scum more options exposes them some how. In my view, giving scum more options GIVES SCUM MORE OPTIONS.
Obviously, I need to place a vote. It’s been difficult, principally because I think the subject that has eaten up the most space this Summer - to double-lyse or not to double-lyse - is essentially a null tell with regard to the alignment of the participants. So, to organize:
I don’t plan to vote for either vote leader at this time. I think the peeker case is problematic in a number of ways. I don’t have enough time to respond to every single point made on this subject, but I do think fluiddruid’s most recent post is a pretty clean summary of how I understand the case against peeker, so I’m going to respond to it.
“Personal” is not really the right word. Your vote is for reasons that are at least in part not having to do with your opinion of peeker’s likely alignment. This makes it a point we can’t really debate. The problem is that even if his playstyle is “destructive to Town interests” (and I’ll politely disagree that it is), a mislynch would be more destructive to Town interests. If we start lynching people because we don’t like their tone, rather than because we think they’re likely to be Scum: (1) we will have a lot more mislynches; and (2) we will make analyzing the vote record next to impossible.
A lot of quoting is coming now:
See above. Note that I don’t think it’s necessarily (or even likely) scummy of you to vote for this reason - I just think it’s counterproductive.
“Aggressive” is not Scummy nor even a bad thing; “unpleasant” is subjective (peeker has used curse words and strong language, but he hasn’t that I’ve noticed actually been insulting or mean) and regardless, “unpleasant” does not mean “Scummy.” Not even a little bit.
No, he didn’t. He voted for me “just because.” Not “strong players.” The idea that I’m a “strong player” came from Zeriel (who apparently hasn’t watched me play much lately). peeker never said he was out to vote specifically for strong players; he said he was out to vote specifically for me and sachertorte (more on this below). Everything else is in the heads of those who have jumped off from this place.
How is this Scummy?
His story has only changed repeatedly if you fill in blanks in his story and then count the places where it differs from your fill-in as changes. Look, maybe it’s confusing because peeker speaks Texas or something, but it really isn’t all that unclear to me.
peeker voted for me because he figured an early vote on me would stir the pot and generate some kind of activity.
It did.
People started poking peeker, and he felt he saw evidence in opportunism in the attacks on him. He pointed them out. He was loud and he used a few potty words in so doing.
The poking got loud, pronounced, and vaguely personal (“I don’t like playing with you” would hurt my feelings, you know?). peeker got frustrated, because let’s face it, placing an early vote on a player that you know is likely to generate a response is not exactly a radical new approach to Mafia (it’s one I don’t favor, myself, but it’s one I’ve seen over and over), and it sure looks like he’s getting singled out here for doing something that if Generic Player A had done it would have earned relatively little mention. So he got pissed and the rest is history.
This is a pretty simple story, and in it I see no evidence of Scumminess. What has peeker says that deviates from this simple explanation?
While I disagree with his decision to do this, how is it Scummy? “I think it’s a bad move” and “I think it’s Scummy” are fundamentally different statements.
See above. I think he has explained his actions. It’s just that the explanations aren’t that complicated. Q: “Why did you place that one-off vote on storyteller?” A: “To stir the pot. It was only one vote. I wanted to see what would happen.” What more answer do you want? If you don’t like the answer, if you think the answer is Scummy, fine: make the case. But don’t pretend that no answer has been offered.
I strongly disagree with your characterization, by the way.
So anyway. All these words spilled on peeker and I really don’t have any read on him at all. He may well be Scum. But even if he is, the case against him is not a good one. Whether he’s Scum or Town or whatever, this is a bad case and I think there are Scum helping to promulgate it.
Scuba_Ben is a different kind of problem. The case against him seems kind of ephemeral - like the real underlying motivation behind his wagon is that a lot of people are uncomfortable with a peeker lynch for whatever reason, but the only way to avoid a peeker lynch would be to get votes on a second candidate, and hey, that guy Scuba_Ben has a few votes, let’s settle over there.
In general, I think I have a philosophical problem with having an otherwise active player state explicitly that they will be gone for a certain period of time, have them go away as planned and be in no real danger, and then basically lynch them while they’re gone. If Ben is not back in time to claim, we risk making a really, really stupid mistake by lynching him.
Thus, in spite of disliking the case against peeker, I would prefer to lynch peeker, who is at least here to discuss and defend, rather than Ben.
Fortunately, these are not my only choices. Right now, I will be placing votes (in my next post) for the players I find most suspicious. However, I’ll be around at the end of the Summer. I will switch votes to a vote leader, if necessary to avoid a tie, or to move peeker ahead of Ben if that seems warranted.
I addressed this long ago (It might have been pre-game. I don’t remember for sure, and I’m not looking it up).
Anyway, I hypothesized a Vigilante that could kill spawn. Obviously if we had a Vigilante that could kill spawn we should 100% double lyse players every day that the Vigilante is alive and leave the spawn for the Vig to kill during winter. (I know, I keep mixing Day/Summer/Winter… deal).
Anyway, my opinion is that such a setup is so incredibly unbalanced that I dismiss it as a possibility. If a Vigilante should exist in the game, my expectation is that the Vig cannot kill spawn. I don’t know this to be the case, but for game balance, it would have to be.
Actually yes. I think.
If everyone voted for peeker then we would have little to go on no matter what peeker’s alignment turns out to be. If we all pile on the same player then we can’t distinguish one from the other. Pushing Scuba_Ben to to forefront was a clumsy but somewhat understandable to try and create tension…a choice of some kind. Hopefully the choice is between Town and Scum, then when roles are revealed the vote split tells more information.
And by coincidence this speaks to the double lyse inanity.
Okay, “concrete” example time.
Let’s say we all vote for spawn then vote for one other player. Let’s also assume that we all vote for either peekercpa or Scuba_Ben in a close-ish vote. This result has divided the population into two groups, those that voted for peeker and those that voted for Scuba_Ben. If at some future date we learn the alignment of both, we then can start to piece together the motivations of the voters. This is how it has always been.
Now let’s consider storyteller’s double lyse for more information plan. How will that shake out? I’m not entirely sure since its never happened before, but isn’t it probable that a huge number of players will vote for BOTH peekercpa and Scuba_Ben? Maybe a handful will vote for one or the other then place their second vote somewhere else. This is supposed to net us MORE information? I don’t see it. I never saw it, and I’m shocked that storyteller thinks this way.
It seems to me that storyteller is confusing double vote double kill with two independent kills. They are not the same thing! A double lyse are dependent kills. He seems to think he will get the same information, just faster. This is NOT TRUE. There will be and there will always be ONE VOTE RECORD each day.
Maybe, possibly, teeny-tiny chance, I might see everyone somehow single voting and magically transforming that into a double kill. But even that is fraught with misdirection and general lack of feasibility and transparency. It could possibly work Today because most of the votes were made with the expectation that only ONE would die, but that is a very important distinction. Everyone would have to THINK one was dying in order for a double lyse to yield proper information, which is infeasible.
This is why I keep saying that one is a very special number. It forces each and every player to commit to backing one player for lynch. Spreading out votes dilutes the valuable information. Sure there is more information, but the additional information is crap, NOISE.
How is this situation any different from the Town holding an informal* vote for the Vig’s target? Town could do this in any game with a Vig, yet my impression is that the idea is thought to be poor strategy on the part of the Town.
sach, I like you, so I’m going to respond. I think it’s only fair to continue with my disclaimer, which I am going to attach to this every freaking time: I do understand your argument. I don’t agree with it. I am never going to agree with it. I am comfortable with my opinion on this.
I think at least 50% of my posting has been on this subject. Maybe even more. That is “a whole lot,” as far as I’m concerned.
I recognize that you have reasons underlying your opinions just as I have reasons underlying mine. They are compelling to you. I will not convince you. I have made my case as well as I know how. I do feel the issue is of relatively minor consequence, and that I’ve erred by spending so much time on it to begin with. I want to move on to other things. Who we lynch toDay, and why, is much more important than how many we lynch.
I disagree. 
Well, first of all, I did indicate that this was only one reason to do the Summer One double-lyse, and not nearly as important as the biggest reason (below). But yes, we could lynch the second choice on Day Two. And it’s another Day gone, and we’re in the same place at the end of Day Two as we could have been at the end of Day One (actually, in a slightly worse place, because the Scum et al will have had a chance to act; what if the second choice is a Scum role-blocker, or Scum with an extra kill, or Serial Killer?
Well… yes. That is true. Our chances of having killed at least one scum at the end of Day One (double-lyse) are approximately equal to our chances of having killed at least one scum at the end of Day Two (single lyse). Can you not understand why I don’t view that as an argument against my position? With the double-lyse, we still get a lynch on Day Two, so the chances we have found at least one Scum by the end of Day Two are greater with the double lyse than with the single lyse.
Bringing the endgame closer is only a problem if we are mislynching. Sooner or later, the endgame will come.
Again, we disagree. I think that’s reflective of our very different ways of approaching the game. I don’t expect to convince you that you’re wrong, but unlike the double-lyse issue I both feel strongly that enforced unanimity is a bad idea and am willing and able to unilaterally choose for myself that I will not go along with enforced unanimity.
Eh. This mainly comes from a previous game where Town did this and scum happened to win. Scum said this was a bad strategy for Town and there has been no discussion on this point since then. There is clearly some danger in publicly telling scum what the Vigilante intends to do (scum roleblocker) Personally, I think it is a viable option (hidden Vig), but not one that I’m especially passionate about.