Powers don’t always immediately coincide with known Mafia terms, but I can definitely do alignment from now on.
Fair enough, thanks! 
So I thought Wolverine was a bit of a surprising NK target: he only made two posts. One questioning Tom’s mass claim suggestion, and then one dropping a vote on special ed with some fairly dubious reasoning. Maybe scum thought he was a Town power trying to lay low? Could be a scum Tom or ed trying to remove those likely to buy a case against them down the road without drawing too much attention, or it could be WIFOM against Tom and/or ed. Puzzling.
ToDay I’ve got three people on my radar. Pleonast and Astral Rejection for being a bit too rah-rah “hey guys let’s all work together to get those bad scummies because I’m just so very Town you see!” And Normal Phase for the last minute posting frenzy – some of it felt like activity just for appearance’s sake. But part of this read may be biased by having played with her as scum before where she did the exact same thing – it may just be her posting style to put out all her thoughts on a variety of topics.
Of these three, Pleonast definitely pinged me the hardest yesterDay, so I’m going to start with a vote and see what happens:
vote Pleonast
I want to take a closer look at the votes on glowacks.
First, we have,
While this is mostly a good vote, it’s interesting that Red is making the same fault as glo–ignoring the most likely option that the player simply didn’t think it through. I don’t think that is a scum tell. Red’s vote is poor, but seems town-motivated.
Second vote:
I’ve already complained about this vote. Our discussion cumulated to this reply:
Apparently, Giraffe has no problem with players in general placing defensible votes, only with the particular defensible vote by glo. Why go to the trouble of talking about defensible votes, especially when the first paragraph makes fairly pro-town argument? I’m trying to decide if this is a poorly thought argument made by a townie or a pushing over the top by a scum.
Third vote:
Except for the questionable advice of staying silent about town slips, this is a townie point.
Fourth vote:
This vote troubles me greatly. First, jumping on a slip without even checking the context. Then, after reading the context, withdraws that reason, and puts out an admittedly weak one–maybe it wasn’t a slip, but simply scum subtly influencing us.
This looks like a lazy, scummy vote to me. There was no shortage of things to vote for YesterDay. This looks like scum trying to get something, anything to put a vote on.
vote special ed
- For a lazy reason for a vote (scum slip pointed out by someone else).
- For simply switching the reason to a weak reason. No apparent effort at all in actually looking for scum.
Final vote:
Solid pro-town reasoning. If this were earlier in the Day, I’d be giving pro-town credit. But as the last vote in a large pile-on, it looks a lot like scum trying to safely follow the crowd. However, I don’t think it likely that 2 of 5 votes on glo were scum (why push hard for a mislynch on Day One?), and ed looks like the one to me.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
On preview (work kept interrupting me :p), I see Giraffe has voted for me because I pinged them hard. Not much to respond to.
On Normal’s late-day filibuster plus vote, I’m inclined to cut her some slack because (1) it WAS a holiday weekend and (2) she mentioned before her absence that she wasn’t going to be available over the weekend.
More later; have to do work they pay me for now.
I think you’ll be able to make a better decision about whether it’s a poorly thought out argument if you actually read the argument I made instead of building a strawman. You’ve latched onto my complaint of glowacks’ vote seeming to me to be self-consciously defensible as a complaint of it being defensible at all, which is complete nonsense.
My case against him was largely based on insubstantial clues that I thought pointed to a scummy demeanor. I was well aware at the time that these clues were not conclusive, and that glowacks could be Town just trying to be Town – I never implied otherwise. Given the limited information, I simply went with the player I thought had the highest probability of flipping scum.
I also find it interesting that you’ve started out focusing on the mislynch voters: there’s no reason to assume a Day one mislynch was scum-driven. There could be a scum player among the voters, of course, but even then they can easily be shielded by their scumbuddies focusing attention onto one of the Town mislynch voters.
You seem to be misreading me. I’m not complaining about the first part of your reasoning. Note my comment “the first paragraph makes [a] fairly pro-town argument”. My complaint about your reasoning is why you even bothered to point out that glo’s vote was defensible. Why didn’t you simply stop with the explanation of why their vote seemed to have a scummy motivation? It looked like you were grasping for additional reasons to vote, but since you’re saying now that defensibility of the vote was not a factor at all, why bother mention it?
Yes, that’s fine and pro-town, which is why I’m not complaining about that. It makes your second paragraph about glo look like scum pushing too hard.
Did you miss the part where I said “I don’t think it likely that 2 of 5 votes on glo were scum”? I’m working from the premise that the mislynch was not scum driven (I also said “why push hard for a mislynch on Day One?”), but likely to have at least one scum on it.
We have two solid pieces of information: glowacks’ and Wolverine’s alignments. I’m making use of the first, by looking at the reasons for the votes on glo, given that we now know they were town.
Less certain about Wolv, since there’s fewer interactions with them. They did vote for special ed, and despite some saying it was a scummy vote, we now know the motivation was not.
You should maybe witness how I play as town once or twice, Giraffe, before drawing comparisons to how I play as scum. I don’t think you ever have. In the meantime I’d like you to specify: what of that felt like posting “for appearances’ sake” to you? You’re casting doubt on me for superficial reasons (oh my goodness she posts a lot, that MUST be scum-motivated). Hyperbole out of irritation, I’ve been getting too much of this crap lately, and it gets old.
Pleonast, you should know better than this:
Who someone votes for at the end of the day in a situation like this (no chance to influence the outcome, only to comment on it) can in no way be considered a scum tell. There are plausible scum motivations for voting for the vote leader as well as for choosing someone else. For your part, you’re trying to have it both ways on me, there’s no real analysis here, just words.
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, here.
Fair enough, I should have given at least some specifics. The part that pinged me about your posts was the content that felt a bit like filler. For example, post #109: it doesn’t read as a substantial contribution, but mostly just quibbling with Red Skeezix over phrasing and details. Same with the first parts of post #111: lots of quoting of early-in-the-Day statements with corrections to assumptions that don’t have any impact on the resulting votes. Had much of this happened throughout the Day, I probably wouldn’t have even noticed it. But piling it all on at the end looks a bit like trying to make sure you get Town credit for all the pro-Town analysis you’d done.
I think of players with limited time to post as having a greater incentive to be seen to be working hard for Town when they’re scum. In my experience, busy Town players tend to focus on reading and then placing a good vote with a quick explanation, not logging a Day’s worth of discussion at the end. But as you say, though, part of this may come from having played with you twice where you were both busy and scum.
That was kind of my point. A solid pro-town analysis mid-Day or earlier is especially pro-town because it has time to influence votes. One put in at the very end of the Day, when the lynch is already set is not as helpful. It’s safe. It’s especially safe when it’s on the uncontested vote leader–then it’s following a large group of other players. The very essence of a band-wagon vote.
So while the reasoning of your vote was pro-town, the timing of it means I don’t give you any town credit for it.
I state my reasoning for discounting the towniness of your vote. I state my opinion on how scum-motivated the mislynch was. I state the one player I think stands out as a scummy voter.
Nope, nothing to see there. :rolleyes:
Let me elaborate.
Wolverine placed one vote and had no votes on them, so there’s not much to analyze, in terms of votes.
Their vote was on special ed. I haven’t checked who all commented on the vote, but this one sticks in my mind:
We now know for a fact it wasn’t a scum tell.
I didn’t act remotely like Monday morning in either of those games. In one, I was too busy and distracted on a consistent basis to post remotely as I’d have liked to (whether town or scum). In the second, I got hammered on day one due to an ill-advised post that was supposed to come off as a quick-and-easy day one gut instinct vote and completely failed to. You’re setting up this picture of what scum might do and showing how I fit into that picture, but it’s unsupported by my past actions and superficial as regards this one.
I never said I was any good at this game. 
Well that much I have no problem with. The problem is that’s not what you said. You said there was a specific scum motivation for voting for glowacks in that situation (following the crowd, blending in). Never mind that there’s just as specific a motivation for not voting glowacks, even irrespective of where the hypothetical other scum might be hiding out. But you’re sure to mention I might really, seriously, be a scummy scum, here.
So to sum up your reasoning as regards me:
– pro-town
– but I won’t give her any credit due to the timing
– actually it might have been scum motivated due to the timing
Which brings me right back to where I started. You have me as looking townie, neutral and scummy all in the space of a couple of sentences. If that’s not trying to have it both ways/saying nothing with many words, I don’t know what is. That you happen to be voting Ed at the time is irrelevant.
I have no specific issue with your vote on Ed at this point (that may or may not chance as I get a better handle on things).
Yeah I got that, I’m just unclear why you bothered to mention it at all. Never mind, it’s not an important point.
Gah.
Yes, that is my analysis of your vote for glowacks. You’re giving mixed signals. Is it better that I ignore the scummy motivations you may have, or is it better that I ignore your pro-town argument? Giraffe complains that I’m too selective in my analysis and now you’re complaining that I’m too comprehensive. :shrug:
I’m caught up now and I hope you all won’t mind my weighing in on what’s happened so far.
I didn’t think Tom’s suggestion was particularly worrisome.
The first thing I really hated was Giraffe’s post 18. Not much to say about it, really, I just agree with Astral Rejection that the tone of the post came off as violently suspicious. “So hard to catch the bad guys in this game we’re playing where we have to catch the bad guys.” I wasn’t paying much attention to the game before subbing, but even on a quick breeze through the game at that point it stood out to me.
I thought Mahaloth’s vote for Tom was terrible, not because he voted for Tom but because he more or less fabricated the circumstances upon which he based the vote. Astral Rejection addressed that, too, and I agree with that part of that post as well. I’d also note that after that speciously reasoned post with the vote (#34), the entirety of Mahaloth’s contribution for the rest of the day (notwithstanding the aforementioned challenge of it) was to say first that it was “weird reasoning,” then that it seemed like he was backing off and encouraging people to move on, and that Mahaloth was leaving his vote for the moment, and then later then to say:
Which, contrary to what he says, and to the extent it even qualifies as a meaningful explanation, is the first time it’s been offered. Nothing else from Mahaloth on any other subject. So we got a quick-draw conclusory vote early on, a couple lukewarm affirmations of that vote, and curtain. I don’t like it at all, and I think his failure to weigh in on anything else at all tends to argue against the notion that he was playing a fast and open day 1 kind of style where a silly over-aggressive vote might make more sense.
Next, Pleonast. This is the first game I’ve been in where I’ve had the opportunity to say so, so I’ll just note in as few words as possible that I think intentionally casting votes some of which will absolutely not count is completely contrary to Town’s interests, and frankly contrary to everyone’s interests but Pleonast in the long run. There’s no justification for making things more complicated and introducing noise into the proceedings, and I’m not going to hesitate to lynch for it, and honestly that’s going to just have to be on you, Pleonast. Decide who to vote for, and cast as many legitimate votes as you’ve been granted, or you’re interfering with gameplay, not participating in it.
End of day one, I’m thinking that Giraffe, Pleonast, and Mahaloth look bad, and so does Astral Rejection’s switching from Giraffe to glowacks for reasons that don’t seem to me as weighty as the reasons he proffered against the others he mentioned in that big long post that I mostly agreed with.
I also think today’s criticisms of Normal Phase’s late analysis is really unfair and doesn’t seem very likely to be a winner in the long run. People post late in the day all the time. I think it’s much more important that the analysis was reasoned and transparent, which it was, than that it happened late in the day. In fact, on this particular day, I don’t see how it made any difference at all when it was posted. So why is it a problem, exactly? More specifically, Pleonast, why bother noting that you’re “discounting town credit” for Normal Phase based on her time of posting, if you weren’t trying to advance the argument that it was anti-town? Do you always mention things that you aren’t giving town credit for?
Most recently:
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
You’re giving mixed signals. Is it better that I ignore the scummy motivations you may have, or is it better that I ignore your pro-town argument?
[/QUOTE]
This is not a reasonable defense of what your original post actually said – it actually obscures what your point was further. You said
So, were there scum motivations there or not? Is there a pro-town argument or not? What you actually did in that post was say that neither was true, possibly because both could be true, which actually is pretty cool… it just isn’t helpful. It’s a little like reading Derrida.
No I didn’t.
Here is a post that bothers me. I’ve snipped it to the part that bugs me.
I do not know how you can just eliminate the idea that he could be a scum with power role just because it’s “too risky” for him to do.
Vanilla scum at worst? Dude, in a game this small, vanilla scum is bad enough. Heck, in any game, if you think someone is scum of any kind, they get your vote.
Very weird statement there.
Applying a lower weight to something is not the same as eliminating it. I had more than one person strike me as potential scum, and I voted based on the weight of those suspicions. Nothing weird about my statement at all.