Vote Diggit
Vote Spawn
You’re not even making an attempt to disguise your votes now. Seriously? “This is WIFOM, but I’m going to choose one of the two possible interpretations and vote based on it.” That is your reasoning? I’ve been making the case for Days now that your votes are inconsistent, but this votes just takes the cake. You start with the assumption that I’ve scum, and use that to prove that I’m scum?
With five scum to start it would now be: 7-3 assuming no more Third Party/PFK. So far we haven’t seen anything to indicate scum power roles and the more common ones (godfather, role blocker or redirector) don’t seem likely with no known cop or other town powers to block or redirect.
That would leave four masons and a flawed vigilante against five scum. So six scum looks more likely unless they got some serious power hidden (extra kill or perhaps extra spawn).
This ties into the Rysto case - I don’t think that a scum must have voted Kelly Summer Three but if there were six of them around, it makes it more likely at least one went for the bus (and that would then be Rysto).
On the other hand, it would also mean there where four unknown others not voting Kelly.
Not voting Kelly:
-amrussell, Natlaw, sachertorte (voting for Mahaloth)
-DiggitCamara, TexCat, Oredigger77, USCDiver (voting for others)
Not voting Alka Seltzer:
-Natlaw, DiggitCamara, TexCat, Rysto, sachertorte
(note: My earlier vote count missed amrussell voting Alka Summer Five although I mentioned it in my second post)
If I leave out Rysto (tied scum) and Oredigger (second vote on scum) for at least also voting scum, but not USCDiver or amrussell since their scum votes were less critical. The former still can be scum but that would still means between one and three scum in the rest of the players:
amrussell, Natlawx2, sachertortex2 (Mahaloth voters)
DiggitCamarax2, TexCatx2, USCDiver (other voters)
I think it’s not unlikely either group has a scum, which from my viewpoint would be either amrussell or sachertorte and one from the last group. It would mean three scum voting on Mahaloth but that isn’t that unlikely.
Both TexCat and USCDiver are more unknowns (to me at least) at this point though while Diggit has been more in the spot light.
Note on lynch or lose: if we are at 6-4 we are save this Summer unless the scum have an extra kill or can generate another spawn.
Dual player lynch is game over worst case (3-5 in the morning), lynch of Pond/Scum would be 4-4 Tomorrow which gives the same numbers as Pond/Spawn lynch (except a plotting Scum is replaced by a mindless Spawn).
A Scum/Spawn lynch would give us 5-3: another Day of not at lynch or lose. So my conclusion is that a dual player lynch is not good this Summer.
Vote Spawn
My quick summary of summer voting:
Summer 1 peeker is lysed; scuba_ben has some votes
Summer 2 fluiddruid is lysed; storyteller claims to escape the lyse; mahaloth picks up a few votes
Summer 3 mahaloth is lysed; Kelly is a very close second
Summer 4 Kelly is lysed
Summer 5 Alka is lysed; Oredigger is a distant second
Until summer 3, all the scum had to do was sit back and watch us mislynch. Summer 3 is a key vote, and they managed to save Kelly for a year, but then we had the flawed claim and Kelly can’t be saved. Summer 5 is interesting because we managed again to find a scum. I am guessing that the scum tried to promote Oredigger as the alternate to Alka, but couldn’t quite find enough votes.
The votes for Mahaloth Summer 3:
story, alka, natlaw, amrussel, kelly, sache
The votes for Oredigger Summer 5:
meeko, alka, natlaw, and not sache (who unvoted ore late and voted diggit)
Natlaw and sachertorte both have suspicious votes here. Mahaloth calls out Natlaw before his lyse:
vote Natlaw
Hi folks,
Just wanted to say that I am absolutely stacked at work, but that should be over by this evening so I’ll be able to play substantively then.
Did you read my response? **Mahaloth **calls my vote which put him in the lead as ‘sneaking it in’ and that I voted him for voting early voting while I for his easy early votes and not contributing much else.
My vote wasn’t any weirder than any other, but perhaps it was the bandwagon comment. I did explain why I didn’t want the other vote leaders to be lynched and voting Mahaloth made that more likely.
Note that Kelly had only one vote at that point so my vote wasn’t a direct save (although me not unvoting did have effect in the end). I assume you also read the conversation between **sachertorte **and me last Summer about that? Any comments on that or just going with Mahaloth’s (incorrect in my opinion) representation of my vote? Why am I more suspicious than sachertorte or amrussell?
Natlaw – I did read your response. I am not sure that you are any more suspicious than sachertorte. Amrussel is slightly less suspicious because of his vote for Alka.
I do think both of you are more suspicious than Rysto. I disagree that there had to have been a scum vote on Kelly summer 3. It looks to me like the scum were scrambling trying to save Kelly – hence Alka’s unvote and vote of Mahaloth. If the scum had a vote on Kelly, wouldn’t it have been easier just to move it off Kelly, rather than move Alka’s vote onto Mahaloth – especially since that move was part of what got him lysed?
Why did you think you would be killed over two masons by scum? Or since you were convinced Storyteller wasn’t a vigilante, why would he follow you suggestion from two Summers back (which was a bad plan so a scum wouldn’t really get town credit from it) - that’s assuming you missed Red Skeezix claim and general agreement to have Story kill him.
Or did you think you would have been lynched last Summer?
Reading your posts you being focused on Storyteller is definitely true - except for Summer One and some questions about Kelly’s claim it makes up most of your posts.
OK, I’m not sure I get the Rysto case. It doesn’t seem to be based on much more than the fact that when we make our pretty lists, he’s the only monochrome name in the Kelly Day 3 votes. Somehow, we’re going from that to the conclusion that he’s scum.
Vote analysis is a great tool. But we can’t just look for the odd one out and throw a vote. Would anyone who thinks Rysto is scum like to produce any other evidence (suspicious posts, other votes etc.) which would provide some kind of independent corroboration? I’d be a lot more convinced if you could demonstrate some sort of pattern of plausibly scummy behaviour.
One point to note about the Rysto case is that it’s made by a mason, which gives it a strong townie odour. So I’m intrigued that Diver and Diggit have been quick to follow that lead, especially as I don’t find the case convincing. Diver I looked at yesterDay and as I don’t want to end up going round in circles, I’m going to look at Diggit.
Point 1: Very few posts. (34 at time of writing). This makes analysis difficult and is therefore somewhat anti-town.
Day One: The vote is for Freudian, because of her vote on peeker - Diggit thinks it’s a poorly reasoned vote. I won’t disagree with that. This could be exactly what it seems, or it could be an attempt to gain cred by defending a townie. A null tell.
What’s more interesting about this day is that Alka picks a fight with Diggit - asking him his opinion on Vigging early, then trying to trap him in a contradiction. At the same time, Diggit reverses his position on double-lysing, persuaded by Meeko that the risk of Spawn building up numbers is too great. The exact sequence is:
Post 245: Diggit in favour of double-lysing.
Post 259: Alka asks about Vig kills.
Post 270: Diggit replies, saying he thinks it’s a bad idea, unless the Vig can kill spawn.
Post 285: Diggit reverses his position on double-lysing, quoting Meeko.
Now, looking back at that, I don’t understand what Diggit did to provoke Alka’s questioning. He was far from the only, or the most vociferous, person to argue for double-lysing. But he’s the one who gets the loaded questions and the gotcha. This might be a scum v scum show for our benefit. Furthermore, the fact that it co-incides with Diggit’s U-turn on double-lysing seems a bit weird. Could this have been some sort of coded warning? By trying to make Diggit’s position on double-lysing look contradictory, could Alka be trying to discourage him from taking a strong pro-double-lyse position? On Day One, a nervous scum might try to communicate with team mates.
In fact, at this point, I went back to look at Alka’s posts. On Day 5, as the votes mount up, he posts three WOWs on the players he says are pinging him: story, oredigger and Diggit. story obviously is town, so this is an attempt to blow smoke. But I can believe that one of the people he attacked is fellow scum, whom he’s trying to distance himself from.
Alka’s WOW on Diggit comes after he’s acknowledged he’s going to die. So why bother smearing a townie? But bother he does, dredging up the Day One argument I’ve just reviewed, and attacking his votes on Freudian and Drain.
I think Alka and Diggit are/were scum buddies. I think Alka, throughout the game, made a point of attacking Diggit, without ever actually voting for him. I think the last thing he did before he was lysed was to position himself in opposition to Diggit.
vote Diggit.
Meh. I could go the other way on that one. A scummy amrussell would know that scummy alka seltzer was going down. I believe the timing of the vote happened when it was clear that alka seltzer was getting killed rather definitively (I didn’t check). Therefore, it is an easy vote for scum to make.
As for me, no I didn’t vote for alka seltzer, but I also didn’t know he was scum. That is, I didn’t buy into the case against him and therefore didn’t vote for him. My lack of vote for alka seltzer did little to save him. If I were scum, I think the temptation to join the alka seltzer vote would be quite strong; especially when it was clear that alka seltzer was going to die. If I recall correctly, alka seltzer was ahead and the only real contender. I briefly flirted with voting for Oredigger based on his bizarre reasoning regarding KellyCriterion’s alignment. I removed that vote immediately after when a brief walk for coffee showed me a flaw in my logic. At that point Oredigger was the only viable alternative to alka seltzer. I did not vote for alka selter, and I was fully expecting him to turn up Town.
I still don’t like the inconsistency in DiggitCamara’s story. It’s not something that I can hang a big “Look Scum!” sign on, but it still bothers me. On the flip-side I don’t see how scum would be so clumsy. I think it is easier to believe that Town would be less aware of when scum voted and when than scum. That is, scum would be hyper-aware of what his teammates were doing. I really wish storyteller had eaten a few more people before he left us. I didn’t realize (and I’m assuming he didn’t realize) that the contents of his meals would be returned to us after he died. We also didn’t realize that we are detective-less, which was a strong deterrent to testing storyteller’s claim earlier.
On Rysto, I get the reasoning. I also get the absurdity of the situation. But the situation does lend itself to a decent case against Rysto. The day is dwindling down, Mahaloth (Town) is set to die. No one on the KC side is scum. What is a scum to do?
Choice one would be to do nothing. In my opinion, doing nothing is generally the smart scum move. So why shift to KellyCriterion? We’ve heard the ‘townie cred’ angle and that makes sense. But what does not make sense is why scum then killed Cookies? I guess scum would not have known that Meeko and Freudian Slit would wind up being masons and that Red Skeezix would claim 3rd Party and die. In other words the fact that Rysto stands alone as the sole unknown voter of KC probably was not expected by scum. So if I were scum and in Rysto’s position what would I have done? And that is the problem. Doing nothing is nearly always the better move. Leaving all the voters on KC as Town would have been brilliant. Yet I also see the draw of shifting to KC, knowing that Mahaloth is more likely to die. Heck, if KC died on Day 3 Rysto would have garnered greater laurels.
I’m going to vote for either DiggitCamara or Rysto. I just haven’t decided which yet.
Well, that’s kind of the point right? Why would scum assert “plausibly scummy behaviour” (with a ‘u’ even)? Scum are going to actively avoid anything that could possibly be construed as ‘scummy.’ We should be looking at the things scum aren’t doing, rather than what they overtly demonstrate. In other words, what things has anyone failed to do that we would expect a Townie to have done? This is of course much more difficult and time consuming – something that I don’t have time for, so I won’t begrudge anyone else who doesn’t either.
So overt things are all I have for now:
For Rysto, the only thing I can remember is the whole PIS thing that got swept under the rug. Despite storyteller’s protestations, I feel the assertion has merit. In other words, Rysto’s pressing of Ed’s ‘slip’ was more likely something scum would do than Town. For some reason this incensed storyteller. I still don’t understand why.
Ironically storyteller pursued Rysto on Day 3 and Day 4. I don’t remember his reasoning.
For DiggitCamara, it is mainly his lack of participation. (And that weird statement about the timing of Rysto’s vote). It is very difficult to ascertain or “catch” a player when they aren’t participating as much. Seriously, peekercpa, Special Ed, and Zeriel all have more posts than DiggitCamara, USCDiver, and TexCat despite having died on Day 1, Night 1, and Night 2. amrussell isn’t too much better. On the flip-side, I also feel that non-participating scum are an anathema to the game in a “What’s the point” sort of deal. The flip-side to the flip-side is if we start issuing passes to non-participating Town, then we really shouldn’t complain when scum stop participating. What’s my point? I don’t always have one. Anyway, in other set-ups these things work out because Vigs tend to kill off the non-participants, which was not an option here. Boo.
So what do we do? Leave DiggitCamara (and USCDiver) alive for wont of additional info? Or kill them? What about amrussell and TexCat? Damned if we do, damned if we don’t I believe.
I have wondered more than once about DiggitCamara’s sudden reversal on double-lysing. I certainly was in the camp that thought double-lysing was advantageous to scum – which, of course, was part of my suspicions of storyteller. It would make sense that scum who thought that it was originally a good position to take, saw the heat that story was taking and decided to back off and let story lead the charge on double-lysing. I had not considered that Alka’s questioning was a message to Diggit, but that also makes sense. It certainly seems more reasonable than Diggit’s explanation that Meeko’s argument was what changed his mind.
I am still not feeling the Rysto lyse at all, but would certainly consider moving my vote to Diggit or Sache, who both are looking suspicious to me.
OK, there’s been a few mutterings about this, so I want to bring it out into the open. Have you actually *read *my posts, or have you just *counted *them? I don’t like to think that I’m not contributing: I may not have a huge volume of posts unlike, say, Meeko but what I do post is always an attempt at a constructive contribution to the game. But if they get ignored, it’s easy to think that I haven’t been participating. For example, just before you posted, I put together a case against Diggit, based on his interactions with one of our known scum. I know you read that post, because you quoted part of it. But my actual scum-hunting attempt doesn’t rate a mention, even when you sum up the case against Diggit. Is it convincing? Balderdash? Plausible? Ridiculous? I’ll never know, evidently. Ditto my case about USCDiver yesterDay, which as I recall you had nothing to say about until after I unvoted, at which point you announced that you would have been willing to vote for him but now wouldn’t. So am I really not contributing, or are you just not engaging with my posts?
I agree with you to a point, but the truth is that Alka was caught for a positive action - his vote to save Kelly - and Kelly first got suspicion for things he did (overplayed Newbieness). So scum will take action to advance their win condition (even if they’d be better not doing so) and we can catch them for doing so. More to the point, by this stage in the game, votes should have more than one data point in their favour. Especially if it’s an ambiguous data point.
I have both read your posts and counted them or at least had the webpage count them for me. I appreciate your irritation, and to be honest, I included you in my previous post to be fair to DiggitCamara, USCDiver, and TexCat. Hence the phrase “amrussell isn’t too much better.” Which, by the numbers, is true.
Stating that the substance of your posts should count for something is valid, but comparing yourself to Meeko is not. I stated my basis of comparison was peekercpa (dead on Day 1), Special Ed (dead on Night 1), and Zeriel (dead on Night 2) – NOT MEEKO. I make no mention of Meeko, who is still alive by the way. I do not accept that your postings over 5 Days are more substantive than Special Ed’s, peeker’s or Zeriel’s (Your count exceeds Zeriel’s at this point, but he has been dead for quite a while).
Are you saying that Zeriel Ed and peekercpa were particularly fluffy in this game? That is not my recollection. I might be able to give you peeker, since he was lynched and therefore would have posted more. But Ed and Zeriel were both nightkilled.
The following is mainly a philosophical look at gameplay that is semi-irrelevant and can be skipped by those that don’t care:
I realize that this how things went down, but it doesn’t prove cause and effect. It could be that KellyCriterion intentionally tried to play newbie and got caught, or it could be that KellyCriterion was actually a newbie and coincidentally happened to get caught. We don’t know (at least I don’t) whether KellyCriterion was falsely playing newbie. I realize the accusation is there and that was the basis for many votes, but the bottom line is we don’t know this to be the case. From my perspective I find the idea of a player intentionally pretending to be new and confused to be a dishonorable act. I think we all agree that making up real-life lies as a cover for scum is terrible for the game and not ‘fair play.’ I acknowledge that ‘pretending to be new’ is not as egregiously bad as making up a health crisis or workload, but to me it falls under the same umbrella of ‘real-life lie.’ Others may disagree, but that’s how I feel.
I don’t know about USCDiver but I think at least in my case I should disclose my (redacted) Role PM to give additional information:
The reason for redacting parts of my Role PM are simple: disclosing them will render my power completely useless.
And sacher? You really need to start accepting other people’s explanations for what they do. I have tried, about three times (on my count) to explain that the way I put my suspicions about Rysto were due to a mistake on my part. Simple: I phrased my suspicions wrongly.
By the way, your continuous waffling (aka smearing) before you actually vote gives me a strong suspicion about your role in this game. Rysto’s right on one account: if you have a strong WIFOM suspicion about one player and a strong suspicion about another, vote for the second one:
Unvote Rysto
Vote sachertorte
Just a quick point on this - the reason Zeriel, ed and peeker racked up posts so quickly is partly because the three of them got involved in a somewhat tempestuous discussion about peeker’s first vote. A discussion that, while not fluffy, generated a lot more heat than light. But my point is racking up vote counts is what happens when people disagree with each other. My Day One activity was to push a case against Scuba - who promptly disappeared from the game. By contrast, my posting average has shot up since we began this discussion, because you’re actually engaging me. But it takes two to tango - I sometimes feel that anything I post in my morning (e.g. middle of the night Eastern) is a waste of time, because it’ll gets overlooked in the conversations that happen when a bunch of people are online together.
Anyhow, this is descending into whining, and nobody likes a whiner. The job is still to catch scum. On which note…
Well OK, in this particular instance we don’t know the situation, but as a general rule Scum Do Stuff. They don’t just sit back, even if it seems they’d be better off doing so. So if you believe someone’s scum, you should be able to find some evidence for it in their posts.
OK. I appreciate that you wouldn’t want to throw away your power. But from our perspective, this is just a soft claim. A magic bag, even. Nothing you’ve quoted in your PM actually gives us a reason to believe you. You could equally well be town protecting their power, or scum wanting to make an unchallengeable claim.
So why claim?
I am getting a bit leery of the the entire “I would reveal everything, except that if the redacted part sees the light of day, I die immediately” trope. Much space for scum there, methinks.
However, I think the game has move to a point where I can :
Unvote All
**
Vote Sach
Vote Spawn
**
NETA: I Trust Diggit, having said that though.
Well that’s kind of ridiculous don’t you think? What do you expect me to say?
“Oh, you expressed yourself wrongly! Of course you’re not scum, how could I have been so mistaken. Obviously you wouldn’t lie about it.” :rolleyes:
Yes, you’ve given an explanation, but I don’t have to buy the explanation at face-value. In fact, I pretty much have to consider more nefarious possibilities. You put up this veneer that what you said is perfectly okay, but its absolutely fair game to question your motives. I’m trying to get into your head and figure out why you said it. Sure, it could be a Townie mistake, but it could also be a scum mistake. I’m trying to figure out which. Why does this bother you so? What would you have me do instead? You have clearly stated that at the time of Rysto’s vote all other known scum were already voting for Mahaloth, which from the public information perspective is wrong.
I’m trying to figure out if from a scummily-informed perspective that it does make sense. In other words, I’m wondering if other scum had already voted for Mahaloth which makes the mistake more understandable. Hence, I’m thinking that if DiggitCamara is scum, then the rest of the scum lie in the set of Natlaw, amrussell and me.
Do I know this? No. Of course not. So I poke you. And I poke you again.
Honestly, I could see plenty of good explanations for why you said what you said (for example, the vote counts by Red are not arranged in temporal order, so that would have been a clean explanation for the confusion) but I wanted to see what your explanation was.
Also, you seem to completely ignore the fact that in my internal debate about you, I also state reasons why I think the mistake points to your being town. e.g., that I feel scum would be hyper-aware of of the vote state and would be less likely to make such a mistake.
Bottom line is: you made a mistake. We need to figure out if it is innocent or not. Period.
As for the claim. I believe we call these ‘soft,’ as they don’t furnish anything other than “I’m not vanilla.” I don’t know what you expect us to do with it.
Do you feel that your role justifies your having been ‘laying low’ so to speak?