I was sincerely hurt when Peeker preemptively called my comments “lame-butt.” Saying someone’s arguments are “unfuckingbeleivable” and “total crap” also seem beyond the language necessary in this game. I admit I’m new here and not fully aware of the subtleties.
I have tried to keep my tone as neutral as possible, but understand that perhaps read in a different way one might interpret it differently. My sincere apologies to ShadowFacts if I have crossed a line.
Why certainly.
Day 1 timeline:
Post 355
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10401863&postcount=355
Total Lost voted for Hero partially for advocating for a mason claim (my paraphrase of **TL[/n]’s reasoning, read the post for the TL’s actual words). (Included for continuity purposes, see the post quotes below from Rapier42.)
Post 361
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10402239&postcount=361
Zeriel voted for Hero for advocating against a mason claim.
Post 428
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10407476&postcount=428
Post 433:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10407657&postcount=433
Zeriel makes a post, doesn’t comment on Rapier’s comment abouot Hero.
Post 435:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10407772&postcount=435
Hero makes a post asserting that zeriel is misrepresenting Hero’s stance, and asks for a cite.
Post 462:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10409727&postcount=462
I vote for zeriel for misrepresenting Hero’s stance, and for not clarifying when Rapier calls the issue into question.
Post 472:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10411361&postcount=472
Post 474:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10411520&postcount=474
Zeriel unvotes Hero, without making any reference to any of the posts between his vote and his unvote. Just because “I’m still reading through to catch up, but Hero’s dropped enough on my suspicion list that it’s not worth keeping a vote on him.” But what was it that caused him to drop on the suspicion list? Since he didn’t specify, it was entirely possible that he was just backing off because the heat was on him.
Post 596
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10418023&postcount=596
amrussell votes for zeriel asking for details on the unvote, along with posting other reasons for finding zeriel suspicious at that point.
Partial quote (click the link for the whole post):
Day 2 timeline:
Post 649
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10424983&postcount=649
I vote Zeriel to see if he will actually address my issue of his misrepresentation of Hero’s stance, since he hadn’t done so when he unvoted.
Post 663
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10427103&postcount=663
amrussell votes zeriel, linking to his Day 1 post, and giving a shortlist of the reasons.
Post 667
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10427462&postcount=667
Could be true, could be an after-the-fact justification. The fact that he makes no effort to address amrussell’s other issues leads me to suspect he’s making an after-the-fact justification, but he could have an excuse for not elaborating, so…
Post 763
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10430862&postcount=763
I ask him why he didn’t just give that reason in his unvote post, instead of the vague “he’s dropped on my suspicion list” (which zeriel now seems to be asserting is me demanding an apology?)
Post 764, 765, 766
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10430882&postcount=764
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10430888&postcount=765
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10430892&postcount=766
Three posts in a row by zeriel, no response to my question, but perhaps he didn’t get a chance to read it yet, as those are all within 10 minutes of my post.
Post 779, 780
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10431373&postcount=779
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10431377&postcount=780
Still no answer to my question (or response to any of amrussell’s suspicions).
Post 809, 810, 821, 838, 888
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10433180&postcount=809
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10433186&postcount=810
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10433663&postcount=821
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10434258&postcount=838
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10435566&postcount=888
Same
I’m’a stop linking Day 2 posts about here, but if zeriel did answer my specific question, he can surely reply and link.
Day 3 timeline:
Post 1060:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10451504&postcount=1060
I vote for zeriel, in a somewhat frustrated attempt to get an answer to the question. (And really, at this point, I feel like Mad.)
Post 1120
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10456749&postcount=1120
So, really, at this point, I’m leaning so far towards “justification for backing off under pressure” that I’ve fallen over. Because I’ve already read that he unvoted because he’d misunderstood Hero’s position. My question was why he didn’t make the effort to explain at the time of the unvote what made Hero less suspicious.
And now,
Post 1220
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10469876&postcount=1220
zeriel is misrepresenting my position as (paraphrased ) “suspecting him for voting, realizing he was wrong, unvoting and not offering an apology”, when it’s really for voting using an accusation completely the opposite of the accused actual position, not responding to suspicions on himself for same, unvoting without reason under pressure, not responding to questions about his belated unvote reasoning, with a side of also not responding to at least one other person’s suspicions not related to the voting/unvoting. And the reluctance to acknowledge the questions and suspicions are what’s weighing heavily on me, not the original alleged misunderstanding.
That’s a pretty nice house of cards you have there, Kat. Your suspicions are so pointless they don’t merit a response–I’m not the only one who misinterpreted Hero’s position.
Have you contributed ANYTHING memorable except this witch hunt?
As usual, the town is wasting a lot of time on the early few days “hunting scum” based on minutiae. I don’t have any suggestions for what to do differently except to point out that it almost never works–there are a lot of early lynches based on “scummy behavior” that really isn’t, and we end up with three-four days of lynched townies before something breaks the game out of it.
(Resizing mine)
It’s no problem at all, because I don’t even consider it a smudge. AFAIK, there’s nothing wrong with doing that. But if there is, I owe several people an apology as well.
I just wish toDay would end already, because it looks like everyone could use a break from the game.
The absolute latest the game can last is 2 AM friday right?
3AM, I think. We started at 3AM Saturday.
I’d be in favor of an early sunset. It doesn’t feel like we’re making a lot of positive headway.
I did find a post by pedescribe that looks like he interpreted Hero as being anti-Mason-claim, but then again, ped didn’t vote for him over it.
Post 357
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10402054&postcount=357
On the other hand, both Boozy and JSexton were anti-Mason-claim (and more explicitly so than Hero) and you didn’t FOS, question or even make a comment to them about it. Hmmm…even pedescribe was for holding off the claim a bit. Obviously, ped was a claimed Mason at the time, but why did Boozy and JSexton get a pass for the same behavior?
Well, I remember most of what I posted. As for if any of it was memorable to other people, you’ll have to ask them.
Protecting Hal, maybe? It seems scummy as **peeker’**s gym socks, on the surface, but I’m wondering if he’s really just freaking out, or trying to pull a zuma?
Well, I mentioned above, but I didn’t find anything worth writing home about. I agree that there may be pointers there, but I don’t feel there’s enough there to act on by itself. If one of Hal or Zeriel was being protected, that’ll be apparent enough, maybe as soon as Tonight.
I appreciate that, ma’am. Things get lost in my head when stretched out over a couple weeks like this.
Explanation: No one interpreted their posts as being pro-Mason-claim (although Boozy’s wasn’t explicitly anti-Mason-claim, but more (paraphrase) “anti-Mason-claim != anti-Town”) that I saw, whereas several people interpreted Hero’s as being pro-Mason-claim, and he agreed with that interpretation.
What is a zuma??
I think it’s a reference to the Top Dog thing (see NAF, I’m using the Wiki). When people figured out he’s scum, he started voting for different players.
In the early-morning lull, I’m going to take a look at Fretful Porpentine. The first point, and a large factor in choosing her, is that she’s got only a few posts to review. She has mentioned that RL family stuff is intruding (on Day One).
Day One
Voted for peeker, giving the following reasons and response to challenges:
As an admitted weak Day One vote, there’s not much to look at here. The justification of the vote does seem to shift in favour of peeker’s roleclaim under challenging, but I see that as a null tell. (I.e., a town player irked by peeker would have just as much reason to emphasise the more rational part of the case)
More dog in the night stuff - these were the last posts in Day One, so no comment on the main suspects.
Day Two
Votes **Blam **on the grounds that he’s in danger of getting mod-killed for absence and it’d be better not to risk losing info. In the same post, defends JSexton as probably town, because his gambit is too attention-grabbing for scum.
Unvotes Blam, with no new vote. Admits she has no idea who to vote for. This could be signficiant. We’ve made a lot of play about who voted for who yesterDay: leaving a vote off the table at at crucial time (votes between Zeriel and JSexton were tied at this point) can have just as great an influence on the outcome/ Obviously we can’t read anything into this now, but it may become worth looking at.
Other Day 2 posts mainly concerned Nanook: Fretful was in favour of keeping him alive, as she thought town would be more likely to out themselves than scum or PFK. Again, I’m mildly suspicous of posters who talked more about Nanook than they did about voting, because it strikes me as a safer conversation for scum to get involved in.
Day Three
Reviews **JSextons **posts; mentionsthat she finds Hal and Pleonast’s votes suspicious. Later votes Pleo, then unvotes in favour of Hal, in order to make her vote effective.
If we disregard the fact that there’s very little to go on, there’s very little to go on. However, I’m not sure how far we can disregard that. Day Two showed some definite anti-town behaviour as a direct consequence of low posting levels. By contrast Day 3’s contributions are more on point, with votes and reasons.
FWIW, I’m leaning slightly town, mainly based on Day Three, but eyebrows raised maybe half a notch by Day Two.
It’s that guy that did that thing in that game that time.
IIRC, he was left high and dry as exposed scum after a gambit didn’t come off. So he started throwing votes out everywhere mainly for fun but partly to spread confusion. I’m not sure what the exact parallel Santo sees is though - ShadowFacts is not busted, nor even vote-leader, and quite conceivably not scum. Santo?
Something I was looking for toDay, which may have been too obvious was another attempt to save one of our candidates. I really haven’t seen one. While there are several people who have jumped from the Jsexton lynch over to Z I don’t see them as trying to save Hal. This could be because we noticed it yerterDay and they don’t want to out more or it could be because they are happy with the two candidates.
I don’t understand all of the attention Shadow is getting while he may not have included every possible candidate into his analysis I mainly view it as looking at a small part trying to see a pattern. As he continues to garner suspicion I’m starting to wonder about the people hounding him but I don’t think that it will matter until toMarrow.
Well, now I see your point about people not answering for others. I was simply referring to, how when he was being voted for in Batman, he freaked out and we haven’t seen him since. ShadowFacts seems to be going a bit over the top with his replies, in a way that seems more extreme than I would generally expect from him.
Ha! That’s what I was aiming for all along. Honest.
Batman, eh? I don’t know if he’s going that OTT - I’m sure I’ve seen a few other players stamp their feet with a self-vote.
Once again, conversation seems to have stalled. Voting certainly has. I suppose in some ways it’s good that we’ve reached a consensus, although I do WIFOM on why scum are letting the status quo be.
Picking up from Oredigger: toDay’s voting and conversation have been largely driven by an analysis of yesterDay’s vote patterns. Whether this analysis is good or bad, we can expect scum to be cautious about voting now that we’ve drawn attention to it. That is, if we have accurately fingered scum (unpleasant though that sounds) , those self-same scum will respond to that toDay. So they are maybe a touch more likely to try to appear different. In this case, that would mean bussing scum rather than protecting them, or making throw-away votes. I am putting this hypothesis forwards as a) only a slight tendency, not a guarantee and b) predicated on our analysis being right.
If we’re wrong, scum will be still be alerted to the fact that we’re looking hard at votes (rather than, say, post analysis) and it will still affect their behaviour, but it’s harder to guess how. There’s probably a slightly greater incentive not to make stand out votes e.g. “tie-breaking” or lead-widening. Whether this helps us or not, I can’t say.
Lastly, it seemed very obvious to a lot of players that scum were in fact manipulating the vote yesterDay. Being that obvious clearly involves a risk - what made it worth it?
While Scum may try to keep a low a profile when voting, if the Town is doing anything close to a reasonable* job at hunting, Scum cannot simply vote as the Town would. That will lead to their loss. This is why I like to concentrate on the voting record. It’s what matters at the end of the Day.
But like any other approach, we should not be overly reliant on it. We need to keep diverse methods of seeking Scum. I enjoy doing a vote analysis, so I do it. Other players should do their own analyses, of votes, or posts, or whatever else. And I hope we have disagreements, because that’s more grist for the mills of analysis.
Oh, thank you amrussel for posting your thoughts, since it seems likely you or Oredigger are most likely to be targeted ToNight. I hope Ore can post something substantial before the Dusk, too.
*If Town is not doing a reasonable job, it hardly matters how Scum vote–we’re going to lose anyway.
Now that everyone has voted we seem set on our course so there is less talk. I do wonder why there aren’t any last minute vote changes but it is probably due to fear of vote analysis. I think that there is a good chance that the scum are happy with the way things are looking;
Zeriel : 5 (Kat, Boozahol Squid P.I., Pleonast, Amrussell, Blaster Master)
Hal Briston : 4 (ShadowFacts, Zsofia, Oredigger77, Fretful Porpentine)
ShadowFacts : 3 (Hero from Sector 7G, Hal Briston, Rapier42)
Boozahol Squid P.I. : 1 (Santo Rugger)
Hero from Sector 7G : 1 (Total Lost)
ok11 : 1 (One and Only Wanderers)
Blaster Master : 1 (Zeriel)
OAOW : 1 (Ok11)
After going back and looking over the voting I have to wonder why Santo is still voting for Boozy it was originally a vote due to the misconstruing of his role but seriously at this point I think there has been enough to at least see that nothing is going to be accomplished with that vote. But considering that Z can save himself by voting for Hal I think we need every vote on one of the leaders to ensure that the consensus candidate is lynched. Along with the fact that Z is not voting to save himself should be a question of why.