Chronos, what is a communal organism?
Vote spawn
Communal organism?!? I agree that it sounds like it might be a mason. Something to keep in mind for the future.
I know that examining scum motivation is not always productive, and can sometimes even be counter-productive, but I always do it anyway. Asking myself about the scum motivation for getting rid of Ed forced me to review Ed’s posts. Generally he seemed like a rational and mediating voice in the single/double lyse argument. I can’t see much motivation there. He was a primary advocate for the peeker case, but again I don’t see much scum motivation there. The only thing that stood out to me was his suspicion of Cookies, primarily post 596. Of course, it’s just as likely the scum motivation was to get rid of a strong player.
vote spawn
I’ll be voting spawn every summer, but will leave my options open to changing to two nonspawn in the unlikely event that I see two convincing cases.
How/why are you inferring that peeker flipping pond indicates that Scuba’s alignment is also pond?
This post does not jive. In a semi-closed game where most of the Pond are vanilla plankton, a speculating and communicative vanilla pool is much more powerful than a vanilla pool that just sits around not speculating, hoping for little crumbs of insight from the mod. You can bet that the Scum are speculating in their thread. Why exile the Pondies to each be islands of one in trying to deduce the game instead of pooling their collective deduction power?
Metagaming perhaps, but when Ed has suspicions I don’t think he minces words about them. He did accuse me of using a strawman argument while making a strawman argument that implicated him, and maybe I was making too much of those who seemed to be making too much of the split-lyse strategy, but I consider that whole exchange as healthy discussion as opposed to “suspicion”. The only player for whom I included his strawman statement as part of the justification for suspicion and a vote was Scuba, who I’m still very much wanting to hear more from toDay.
Vote total:
Spawn 5
[del]1: special ed[/del]
2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
3: Drain Bead
4: Oredigger77 – Spawn (717)
5: storyteller0910
6: Meeko – Spawn (715)
7: Mahaloth – Spawn (721)
8: Freudian Slit – Spawn (718)
9: USCDiver
10: Alka Seltzer
[del]11: peekercpa[/del]
12: Natlaw
13: Zeriel
14: DiggitCamara
15: amrussell
16: KellyCriterion
17: Scuba_Ben
18: sachertorte
19: fluiddruid
20: TexCat – Spawn (722)
21: Rysto
Assuming there are any communal organisms still alive, you can ask them.
And Vote Spawn too.
NETA: Sorry for not bleaching votes in my quotes. :smack:
Hm. That’s pretty unfortunate for us. Without this information, it makes it way more different to evaluate future claims. For all we know, ed was a doctor, which would be critical information to have down the road if we had a player claim doc.
I believe you misunderstood me. I think the wagons on Peeker and Scuba were scum motivated this is no reflection on the alignment of Scuba. Scum have been known to bus scum so I don’t think anything other then the people on the wagon might have been scum and I think those two are a good place to look.
But the flip side of a closed or semi-closed set up is that the Scum starts the game not knowing what power roles the Pond has either, or what behaviors might betray those roles.
I say this just as an explanation of implications of this particular set up, and acknowledge that sachertorte’s suggestion that we keep speculation at a minimum is to conserve that lack of information and keep the scum in the dark as much as possible, but that doesn’t change my opinion that keeping the vanilla players in the dark in order to try and keep the scum in the dark sacrifices too much deductive potential for the Pond as a whole.
Okay then, on what basis do you think the Scuba train was scum-motivated? Can you define how many scum on a train it takes to be ‘scum-motivated’?
Generally in a closed game we at least get some indication of what kind of powers the dead had.
That hasn’t been my experience and would be balanced toward Scum if that were the case.
I see. Well, I guess that’s all there is to that for now. 
How many if hard to say but since the max number on Scuba was 5 I would say the 4 is the max number is scum. As far as the minimum I guess the number could be zero if they were feeding a case to us and stayed off of the wagon.
The reason I think that peeker’s case was scum motivated was that it didn’t exist as was pointed out several times he may have been over reacting and acting without good reason but it never felt like a good case. Scuba’s case was basically him doing a little snuggling then coming back to say he was busy but would eventually return. It seemed to spring out of no where possibly to get us to not lynch spawn.
Either way given the number of people on both wagons I think it’s a safe bet to think some of them were scum just on a numbers basis. As was pointed out yesterDay 1 out of 5 of us is scum and any random group of 5 had an 80% chance of being scum so between the ~10 players on both of them I would assume there to be an 80% chance of two scum.
The color and the name makes me think Mason, but I guess the only way we’ll find out for certain is to watch the game unfold.
sachertorte’s post caused me to raise an eyebrow. I’m glad Cookies pointed it out as well. I think speculating as to what ed was is important. Remember, as Town we lack information. We should try our best to get more of it. If that involves speculating as to what Ed’s exact role is, so be it. The more we post, the more data points we get.
vote spawn
I have no issue with a WAG that the peeker lynch could have been driven/manipulated/encouraged/sit-back-and-let-it-happen by Scum, but I do not share your conclusions on the Scuba wagon and think they are dangerous conclusions to make at this point.
I also don’t follow what, beside your gut, would tell you that 3 people voting for both Spawn and Scuba (while not voting for a Pondie peeker) is actually a signs of a scum plan to get us not to lynch Spawn. I know that wasn’t my motivation, so we’re down to 2 others, as I didn’t count your Spawn/Scuba vote because I’m assuming you are not confessing your part in the alleged scum-motivated plan. You may be able to make that claim about Natlaw, but I still don’t find it compelling.
Scuba voters:
2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies – Spawn (193), Scuba_Ben (549)
4: Oredigger77 – Spawn (194), Scuba_Ben (482)
6: Meeko – Spawn (182), fluiddruid (334-386), peeker (386-507), Scuba_Ben (507)
12: Natlaw – Scuba_Ben (460)
16: KellyCriterion – Spawn (374), Scuba_Ben (529)
In short, I just don’t think you’re parsing the information available in a logical fashion with respect to the Scuba wagon.
There should be strike-through font on Meeko’s fluid and peeker votes. Sorry about that.
Can someone please give a quick explanation as to what a “mason” usually is?
vote Spawn