Sorry Pede. Even if, I’m not switching it. Too convenient for me.
NETA: That is, your reason is too convenient.
**Alka Seltzer, called USCDiver **: care to comment on if you will change your vote?
If Alka left you one, that would be a valid point. I see that he did not. :smack:
Look. I posted this July 30th, 1:29 AM, a full 12 hours before this thread even went up. Unless you’re asserting I’m a future psychic, there’s no way that could have been a planned alibi.
#93: Confirmation post. There’s not much to say about this one.
#139: She talks about Alka’s edit and vig strategy. Not much interesting about the editing; since that’s what pretty much everyone says, but the vig thing was more interesting. This comment:
in particular, is rather odd: it’s an odd thing to bring up, since it’s not typically done, and it’s an odd objection, since blockers don’t work that way, the word she was looking for was ‘doctor’–not something that most people would mix up. To me, it kinda looks like she’s trying to provoke people into discussing who the vig should kill, something which tends to substantially weaken their accuracy, since one of the major benefits of a vig is that the scum can’t directly influence a vig’s kill; and if the town discusses who the vig kills, they can.
#149: More on the editing. This kinda looks like she’s trying to give Alka an out. The question could be answered by looking at the edit line. But I don’t think that’s what it is. If it was a scum maneuver, it was a ham-handed one. And rather pointless, as well. I’m inclined to think this was just regular interaction–indicative of neither towniness nor scuminess.
#150: More on the editing. Note that this post immediately follows the above one, which looks like she’s catching up–again, not indicative.
#154: Yet more on the editing. Here, she has officially declared her stance as anti-editing, something noncontroversial. It is rather strongly worded, coming off as her trying to make it clear so she doesn’t get questioned on it later. However, both townies and scum have ample reason to clearly state noncontroversial positions, especially when there’s data to infer the opposite. This is mostly neutral again, with a slight–very slight–scum leaning.
#156: More on the editing. She’s explaining post #154 here; I’d say the explanation puts #154 squarely into the ‘neutral’ box.
#160: Here’s the first post on the main controversy. This is interesting, since it seems to indicate caution: no vote, just a request for explanation. Also, note that Boozy explains in the next post.
#164: Here’s the one she’s getting most of the votes for. Because it’s being focused on, I’m going to quote it directly:
Bleached.
Alright: as has been pointed out, it’s odd that a vote one someone is defined as “eager to lynch” someone, it’s odd that being eager to lynch is considered bad, and it’s odd becuase she’s doing the same thing she’s accusing Boozy of. It’s been said, I’m not going to rehash it.
What interests me is the assertion that “Anyone who’s had even a limited experience might think of supernatural roles”. But why, necessarily? Plenty of the games that were run in this five-board complex had no supernatural elements at all–just an evil mafia and the good innocent townies trying to kill them all.
But what motivation would be for this statement? If she’s a supernatural town power role, I don’t see the motivation, since there wouldn’t be undue flak at this point if a supernatural town power role were to claim. I can see the scum motivation, regardless of Tom’s power role–try to downplay Tom’s guess, because it hits too close to home (unless there aren’t supernatural scum power roles, in which case there’s no scum motivation). I can also see the town motivation if she hasn’t seen any no-tech games–but I’m pretty sure she played in Recruitment, a no-fantasy game.
In other words, the only motivation I can see is if she’s scum, and Tom was right. So I’m thinking this is pretty scummy.
#169: More explanation on her vote, and a typical line, at that. A ‘stifle the stiflers’ approach. Rather odd, since it doesn’t jibe with her first reasoning–is she voting for Boozy because Tom’s line of reasoning was expected, or because it was unique?
Comes off as scummy because of post #164.
#213: This one is just odd. Here, she’s talking about mixing up the blocker and the doctor, an odd mix-up I haven’t seen in…ever. I dunno. If this is sincere, it means #139 isn’t particularly scummy. If she was backpedaling, #139 comes off as extremely scummy.
The question is, is it sincere? Personally, my gut says no.
At this point, barring some major explanations that cast her posts in a different light, I’m comfortable voting:
Vote Freudian Slit
#226: This is just hemming and hawing. In particular, the phrase “voting to lynch” comes off as pointless filler dramatization–all voting is voting to lynch, and if she had said “He’s voting”, that sentence would have sounded much less dramatic. Also, notice at the end how she’s trying to get someone else to build a case–the way it’s phrased sounds to me like an attempt to distract. Scummy.
#233: This post is basically #164, rephrased. Again with the comment about supernatural roles, which strikes me as just as scummy this time around.
#286: Starts off with a typical no-posting reason–nonindicative.
The rest of it is all hemming and hawing again. This would be much more believable if she actually unvoted; as it is, it just looks like she wants people to stop paying attention to her. If she unvoted, I could see the townie motivation, but as it is, it looks like she’s trying to get her lynch and get off without suspicion–a very scummy attitude.
#392: This is the sort of post that every vote leader will do sooner or later–complaining about being in front, but no actual argument. Nonindicitave. It does seem to indicate that she has no town power role, or she probably would have claimed by now. So that’s good.
The comment at the end is bewildering, though. You don’t understand how something can be full of substance and scummy at the same time? Really?
#395: Just a request for clarification. Nonindicitave.
Overall, what I’m seeing is FS trying to start a bandwagon on an aggressive player, while simultaneously trying to downplay the odds of supernatural scum. And backpedaling.
P.S. Sorry I didn’t bleach the quotes in my last post.
Nice WoW, pede. That has reassured me that my vote is where I want it to be.
But in the interests of contributing, I’ll go run a WoW on another player. Probably Squid.
Ignoring confirmations, fluff, etc:
Boozahol Squid:
#125
Takes a frim no-Day-1-vig opinion, backs it up with reasoning.
#135
As above, further reasoning
#148
Opposed to policy vote on Alka over editing, backs it up with reasoning.
#159
The famous “Good To Know” vote on Tom.
#161
Elaborates on his vote for Tomdue to FS prompting. This is posted a mere 6 minutes after the previous post - as has already been discussed, this seems like an elaboration on what the Squid thought was a clear vote reason rather than a hasty justification after the vote.
#221
Countering Meeko’s claim that he voted for no reason.
#223
A number of good thoughts in this post. He agreed with Tom that the voting seemed clique-ish. He proposed that Scum prefer not to draw attention to themselves like he did. Comments that Tom’s remark, if it is a Scum slip, is very subtle and thus far more likely for Day 1.
#232
Sarcasm at it’s finest. A counter to FS’s vote on him.
#253
Discussion with SpEd about Meeko. This was a clarification of points and so of no consequence.
#336
Defends Meeko against those who wanted him subbed out. Changes vote to FS, not out of lack of suspicion of Tom but out of a desire to not waste a vote on a cause which had no momentum.
Let me say this: BSPI drew attention to himself with the early Tom Scud vote, was questioned on it yet remained calm and persuasive. If he is Scum he is the smoothest Scum there is and we should kill him now ;). But, based on Day 1, I see nothing to suggest the Squid has Thorns.
**[COLOR=“DarkRed”]Day One ends at Noon Eastern tomorrow.
Vote Count:
Freudian(4): AllWalker, MentalGuy, Storyteller, Boozahol, Pedescribe
Boozahol(2): Freudian, JoeyP
NAF(2): CatinASuit, Oredigger
Meeko(2): Specialed, Nanook,
Tom Scud(1): Zeriel
Oredigger(1): NAF,
Zerie(1)l: Tom Scud
Pedescribe(1): Meeko
[/COLOR]**
Noon? That doesn’t leave me much time, as I have an appointment that requires I leave the house in an hour.
I’ll fit a vote in, but it will be tighter than I wanted it to be. Blame the nasty British weather that washed out yesterday afternoon and evening. (It was well over 30 Celsius here - nearly 90 Fahrenheit - and hot weather wreaks havoc on my ability to concentrate.)
Mahaloth, you forgot to change Freudian’s vote number to 5 after adding pedescribe
Everyone, I hate to do this, but for some reason I thought we had a couple more days left Today. I’m working nights the next few days (without SDMB access) and in fact I just walked in the door. So I’m going to be sleeping come noon and don’t have time to review the whole Day in detail. I’ve been following along enough to know who the main candidates for lynch are and what the cases against them are.
I’m not seeing anything at all in the Boozahol wagon and although Tom Scud’s post could be a PIS slip, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. As much as I hate to rely on other players’ cases, pedescribe does make a good one.
unvote (just in case)
vote Freudian Slit
Bolding mine. See, this - complaining about 30˚C being “hot” - is just one more reason why us Aussies laugh at the British.
It has been consistently over 90 here in Atlanta for like the past week.
So we are all clear ::
Mahaloth, what do you consider to be Fluff? / What can we NOT talk about tonight?
I might have done a good job on Night 0, but that was without any information at all.
Well, it’s been a weird Day 1. I don’t think I have seen one where the leading candidate has had a case like that created like this.
Any last words Freudian Slit?
Meeko, it’s been mentioned, but if you pull out one post like #408 every day, I’ll never say anything bad about you ever again.
While I can appreciate the case on Freudian, my vote will stay on Tom.
AllWalker + MentalGuy + Storyteller + Boozahol + Pedescribe = 5
This is why [In part] I am asking about what we and can not talk about at night.
I honestly think this is a situation where I need to be told to shut up, by force.
I mean, If I can have time away from actually playing, I would be forced to do something else. Which, I think would lead to a lot more 408s for the game.
Remember, I have yet to play a game where there was not talking at night.
At the same time, I do believe once I have solid information (A confirmed role at dusk) I can re-filter that back through.
I am not moving my vote from pede, either way. I believe the case to be solid, and again, I am not stating that it is correct. It is a guess at this point, but, an educated one. For day 1 , I don’t think it is that bad. [Besides, in spite of my other reasons, and frankly, half of other people’s reasons (Me too! votes) It is a good first step.
Any last minute Unvotes on my account?
pretty please?
NETA : I was watching some court show last night. The judge said **“You don’t talk when you are winning.”
**
If I could just be take that advice to heart.