Really? Best vote you can come up with halfway through the game is an “I’ve got nothing on them, so they’re worth a vote?”
You’ve been pinging me for many reasons throughout the last Day (pointing out that Meeko may have potentially outed the Masons through his vote record was something that has absolutely NO pro-Town benefit to say in this thread, for one, but potentially a lot of pro-Scum benefit if you’re right), trying to push a Cop counterclaim of Kelly, suggesting that story vig someone…all of this adds up to a pretty Scummy agenda.
I do think it’s not a great thing that USCDiver has been light on the posting this game. But that seems kind of like a weak reason to vote, sacher. Weren’t you on about me for what you called weak voting on day one?
Do you know WHY I’m pinging you? Because I actually say stuff. I tell you what I’m thinking. You know why USCDiver isn’t pinging you? Because he says very little.
You know why I said Meeko has probably given away who the Masons are? Because it’s True.
Did I say a cop should claim? If a cop were to claim I think it would be justified. While I think there is a strong reason for a cop to claim at this point, I accept that there are possible circumstances that prevent it. My whole point, is that at this juncture I’m treating KellyCriterion as having an un-counter-claimed detective claim: which is also true (okay, I’m treating it as a de facto detective claim, but I’ve been upfront about this).
And I specifically said I did not think storyteller should kill when we have a probable hidden Doctor. Jesus Christ, read all I have to say! I often include my thought processes… try and make it to the conclusion please.
If I recall correctly, my reason for voting you was less to do with the weak reasoning and more to do with your shadowing Zeriel (Opportunistic, I believe we like to call it). If I attacked anyone’s “case” for being weak it was Zeriel’s (et al.) vote on peeker, which was less of an indictment on Zeriel and more of an attack on the reasoning.
Also, that was Day One. You will notice that I’ve moved onto other topics as the game has progressed.
Also, also, I’m not voting for USCDiver for “weak voting.” If anything, I should be accused of advocating “lynch the lurker.” My view is that USCDiver has kept himself out of the discussion, and I’m quite happy to shine a light on that and poke him.
OK, fair enough, and that is something I can grok. But you yourself said you had nothing on USCDiver. You didn’t say anything about lurking when you voted for him.
Also, USCDiver has posted fairly recently so I’m inclined to think that even though he should have posted more and could stand to post a lot more that going after him isn’t all that great an idea.
But to be fair, I really have no idea. No one pings me anymore. The last person I thought was scum was Kelly and I’m leaning towards thinking that Kelly is being truthful. At any rate, I don’t think killing him off makes sense at this stage in the game.
Sorry. I see that now. By “nothing” I meant lack of data, good or bad… which in my twisted mind is translating to “bad” if that makes sense (Which I acknowledge is confusing).
When I’m an advocate of lynch the lurker I feel it’s most effective when they are checking in on the game but not posting in it or relevantly. Diver certainly meets these criteria, an active lurker if you will.
I don’t think that this is the time to go looking for lurkers because there are a couple of improbable role claims and a ton of scummy late Day voting yesterDay all of which I think will be much more fruitful ground to find scum.
Yeah, I know. I intended to look more closely at Cookies today, too, but of course she being dead put a crimp in the plan.
The fact that Cookies did something as Town does not mean that someone who does something similar is also Town. You know this, and basically say as much in this post, so I’m kind of just repeating myself, but there you go.
But even still, the substance of Rysto’s vote is different from Cookies. Cookies seemed suspicious of Kelly, to some extent, for a long period of time. Rysto kind of jumped out of nowhere and said, “hey, I’ve been ignoring Kelly so far, but he’s Scummy, here’s my vote,” and that was more or less it. It’s this that leads me to be suspicious. If you’re going to put an unclaimed player in the lead over claimed vanilla, and if you’re Town, you’re going to have some trepidation about the vote in case your preferred target is non-vanilla. This is not to say that you won’t vote for the unclaimed player - but I think generally you’d want a better reason than what Rysto offered in voting.
Why? You yourself are expressing interest in lynching (or at least pressuring) “clean nosers.” In a closely contested vote, players with one-off votes are practically the definition of clean nosers, aren’t they?
I don’t know. Has suspicion fallen on either me or Alka Seltzer precisely for our late votes?
When you’re Scum, a lynch of a Town power role tastes like love, is all I’m saying.
Sure. Why not? If Kelly turns out to be Scum, Rysto gets at least some pro-Town cred. Although I will concede that my position is more tenuous if Kelly turns out to be Scum - I just think that’s the less likely possibility right now.
Not the point. The Day wasn’t over. If Kelly turns out to be Town, a tie is at worst indifferent to the Scum, and (if Kelly is, as he has now suggested, a power role) potentially great, depending on how the dice fall.
Here (at last!) we agree. After seeing what happened with absent players in the game I just moderated, I am inclined to reverse my previously held feelings about lurkers.
I like you just fine. I was a douche yesterDay, and oversensitive, and I hope we’re past it now. Doesn’t mean I don’t continue to be suspicious of you, though.
Which leads me to another problem. Are you still inclined to think that I’m lying? I get the feeling that you unvoted me for out-of-game reasons more than in-game reasons, and I appreciate that from an out-of-game perspective but at this point, it’s a problem because I can’t really analyze it - it would be uncharitable to view an out-of-game action as an in-game act. Where do you currently stand on the subject of me, and why?
I can appreciate the ‘poke the lurker’ strategy, but I don’t think ‘lynch the lurker’ is a good idea unless you (generic) are completely in the dark as to a better candidate. I won’t make excuses for my low post numbers because that’s how I always play this game. I don’t post unless I have something to say that I think will be constructive to the Town. It seems like whenever I see something I really want to comment on, someone else has always made my points for me by the time I get to the end of the thread.
I forgot to respond to storyteller after this Kelly thing. I’ll admit that wasn’t a well-supported vote, but unfortunately I was a victim of the timing. I was at my parents’ from the start of the Day until I flew home Tuesday night, I was at work all day Wednesday and out past midnight on my monthly poker game. I did my best to get a case together and a vote early because I knew that my participation would be uneven. So then on Thursday it became clear that my vote for Diggit was going no where and I needed to move my vote. Unfortunately while I can monitor the thread and put in a quick response here and there I really don’t have the time to do full analysis of players. I saw that maybe Mahaloth was going to make a claim so I held off voting. Analyzing claims is one of the things that I think that I’m pretty good at in this game
I did take a close look at Mahaloth Summer 2 but I just didn’t see anything there at all. Unfortunately I never took any notes from that look, but basically there was just nothing scummy. His arguments looked above board to me and he was consistent in his positions.
On the other hand, I’m not sure if Kelly has ever given any kind of reasoning for his votes. He outright stated that his Day One vote for Red Scuba was purely to put pressure on him, and he OMGUSed Mahaloth Days Two and Three. story, if this wasn’t Kelly’s first game, wouldn’t you want to lynch him for this? In the absence of a good alternative(and I didn’t consider the Mahaloth bandwagon to be a good one), I went with Kelly.
I am in favor of Kelly telling all, or at least most of it.
If Kelly is pond, then it seems like he has info that he doesn’t know the significance or importance of. I think it’s important that town get this info. Sure, it means that the scum also get it, but I’m thinking that unless somehow it’s a list of power roles that it won’t give much info to scum. Scum already know who’s who; it’s the pond that’s trying to figure out who’s who and info is the key.
If Kelly is scum, then getting the info is even more important. Perhaps, we can see the flaw in the claim and lyse a scum.
And certainly having more info will help us make the decision about whether we think Kelly’s pond or scum.
Alright, I’ve just realised another inconsistency… so rather than continuing to dance around like this, I’m going full disclosure.
Here is my role PM, in its full unadulterated glory:
Some quick homework for you, this is who the spawn voted for at the end of summers 1, 2, 3, resulting in my subsequent PM’s at the beginning of summers 2, 3, 4:
Spawn votes:
Summer 1: DiggitCamara and Zeriel
Summer 2: fluiddruid and Oredigger77
Summer 3: Meeko and amrussell
PM names:
Summer 2: Zeriel
Summer 3: Oredigger77
Summer 4: KellyCriterion <-- ?!? Importantly, this is not one of the players the spawn voted for, the name should have come from Meeko or amrussell, so perhaps we can begin our public investigation here.
As already stated, the PMs contain just the name, no role, no alignment, nothing else.
The alleged “slip” when I said I’d received two names when I’ve actually received three should now be obvious… this summer I received my own name (even though I was not one of the players who the spawn voted for last summer).
I know that I may have botched it for town already by leaving this claim (potentially) so late, and I know I have clumsily handled the role claim as well, but there it is. I fully understand the scrutiny. I am hoping that now I’ve published my role PM and names from my PMs, someone might figure out what my role does, perhaps establish some kind of consistency, thereby confirming my claim as genuine. Have at it.
So, you’re endorsing every post that everyone’s ever made? Or some of them, but we don’t get to know which? Even a “me too” post would be better than you silently nodding along at your computer. How can we possibly know what you think about the game?Looking through your posts, the one thing you’ve consistently done is challenge Meeko. Now that he’s out as a mason, where does that leave you? More to the point, where does it leave us?
It’s one thing to make infrequent posts. It’s quite another to have a policy of withholding your thoughts because they agree with some unkown other person’s. You are keeping yourself completely unaccountable. Even “poked” you apparently have nothing to say about the actual game.
Your play is definitely anti-town. Is it pro-scum? Certainly, leaving no trail has big advantages for scum in a) avoiding attention and b) reducing the info town gains from role reveal. Your voting pattern looks somewhat odd: a bandwagon vote on peeker (the last one, if I’m counting right), no vote on Summer 2 (although you announced in advance you’d have little online access that week) and a one-off vote on Meeko for Summer 3. Discounting the Summer 2 absence, I find the move from a town-lyse bandwagon to a one-off vote somewhat suspicious - possibly a conscious attempt to withdraw from the attention that comes with being on a townie bandwagon.
All in all, at least until Kelly shows up with more info, I’m happy to
But how could the spawn be voting in winter? We have killed the only spawn every summer. The new spawn does not show up until the start of the subsequent summer?