Gladly. As I wrote earlier, Daphne has been accusing me and others with very little to go on. She has one of the highest postcounts and seems to constantly be stirring the pot, and not at all productively or helpfully to the town, that I have seen. I have never said she “just feels scummy,” or words to that effect (although she does). I have not taken the lead in accusing anyone before this; she has.
I’m a reasonable man, though, and if others’ arguments convince me that there are better suspects than her, or if a clear consensus develops, I certainly might change my votes. For now, though, they stand.
Elendil, for what it’s worth, that’s the towniest thing I think you’ve posted to the game so far. I take issue, though, with the idea that taking the lead on accusing someone is scummy.
I think we have different definitions of ‘stirring the pot’, as well, but I can accept that some people might see my style that way.
A Watcher is a subspecies of investigator, that much is true. A Watcher (whichever side they are aligned with) picks a player each Night, and Watches what happens to them. In this specific case, I was told who targeted the player I chose, and what happened to them. (I made a series of poor choices, except possibly for Night 1 when I targeted a player who died that Night, even though no-one targeted them).
I did not have any way of determining alignment, role or anything else; not directly anyway.
The “slip” Zeriel is claiming is that I asserted that Hal Briston, who had claimed Vanilla Town, was one particular variety of Vanilla Town, and got it right. However, he is claiming that I knew that because of my role.
This is a lie.
Not only that, but when I read the Forbidden Thread, I found that one of the spectators was also of the belief that Hal had claimed a specific flavour of Town, and even the same one. So my misapprehension was not unique.
For smearing me with what he should by now have known was a simple error, I want him tested.
Buhh?? In what way is being incorrect about a prior game, with information that likely wouldn’t have been obvious until later, a scum tell? This smacks of “you hit me, I hit back”.
Being incorrect about a game during that game is not a problem.
The problem is that you are saying now that I had extra knowledge in a previous game, when you know (or should know) that I did not, and using that to back your claim that I am doing the same thing in this game.
That claim is false, and therefore I have voted to test you.
If you want your post taken seriously you should:
1.) Provide a coherent argument. Stringing together a long list of quotes and adding some negative narration doesn’t amount to a “case.”
1a) This is especially true when your main point against me seems to be that I do things other than defend myself point by point against the 10 people attacking me. Way too time consuming. I’d like to actually kill some wolves and I can’t do that by devoting all my time to “why not to lynch me” discussion complete with footnotes and expert testimony. Also, I have a life.
2.) Not post it late at night the day before a noon lynching (and the end of discussion for 3 days). Some of us won’t be able to post to your schedule.
Now, back to serious business:
I think my vote has to stand, at least for now. I’m not sure what to make of the **Daphne, EH, Jimmy **triangle. Statistically at least one of them is likely to be a wolf, but I’ve no clear feeling about who.
The Zeriel-Mhaye thing doesn’t make any sense to me. There is a lurkerish case against Mhaye, but I don’t see any reason to focus on him per se. I also think we have good theoretical reasons not to lynch **Zeriel **(though I find his play style suspicious). I’m concerned that this duo is completely avoiding giving us useful information by latching on to each other and disregarding the broader game. Maybe that other game was especially bitter?
Important note: rexnervous you are currently voting to lynch EH, but not to test him. Is this an oversight, or a real move? if the latter, why?
I just realized I hadn’t ever voted for the Testerizer this Day. With some reason, actually, as I think we need to think Lynch and not Testing right now.
Just clarifying: do you mean Jimmy or Justin? I assume you mean Justin.
I’m also not sure how it’s a triangle exactly?
I agree that the Zeriel/MHaye thing is a bit odd, but I am at this moment thinking it sounds a lot like town-on-town. Zeriel’s behaviour today is making me feel like he’s town and MHaye’s lurking, sort of, but hasn’t pinged me, other than his error.
That’s interesting. I wasn’t addressing you, and yet suddenly now you’re offended about my post? For another, you just provided a perfect example of what I was complaining about.
You ignore the complaints and questions about you until a certain critical mass is reached, then you throw out an ad hominem and attack an argument nobody is making (viz. that the problem with you somehow is that you “can’t kill some wolves by devoting all your time to defending yourself with footnotes and expert testimony,” rather than, oh, I don’t know, answering a direct question now and then, or like the fact that you can’t post to my schedule as if my post had disappeared before you got to it, or you had been pressured to be more timely), and then you change the subject. Your post had very little to do with anything that I actually said. What was the point, to hurt my feelings?
If you’re not a wolf, your hyper-reactivity and condescension is doing enough that you ought to know you’re coming off very badly, and you might want to think about a little of that super-painful, footnote-intensive self defense here. If I was the only one noticing the pattern maybe I’d think I just didn’t like you, but as it turns out I’m not the only one. You were the vote leader at one point. Obviously you’re served just fine by your strategy thus far, though, so more power to you. Continue to be too busy catching wolves to answer questions when you’re asked. It’s worked really well for us so far.
Ped, can we get a vote count update(especially testing)
After we get a vote count, would it be helpful to get an list of everyone’s top suspects, in numerical order? We’ve mostly made it clear why we are voting the way we are, but it might be helpful to see how people are thinking beyond tomorrow’s test.
Your original post was (largely) about how you thought i wasn’t responding to attacks (hence my reply). Now you’re attacking me for…responding to attacks? Rather awkward I think.
The intent was not to hurt your feelings but to suggest a more productive approach (in a somewhat biting way, though you are trying to get me killed after all). As best I can tell that’s the only question in your post so I think I’ll stop there :-P.
And yes Daphne, I meant to say Justin.Thanks for the correction. I used the term triangle because both of them are going after you and you are (mostly) going after both of them. not sure what to do with it yet. I’m also hesitantly agreeing with you on Zeriel-Mhaye. If they’re both town we’re going to start needing their votes real soon though.
I’m torn on this. On the face of it, the more info the better. It would also be a useful way to see the dynamics of the votes, such as the MHaye/**Zeriel **battle, or the **Daphne **triangle.
But…would this give the wolves more info than it would us? Were I a wolf, I could use this simplified data set to better manipulate the votes.
I think we should discuss this…hell, we have 2+ days to decide on this.
Also, pedescribe, can we get an updated vote list?
I’m really worried about the lack of voting - according to ped’s latest, we’re still missing quite a few votes. Unacceptable, IMHO.
Lastly, **Oredigger **- make sure your vote is counted - **ped **has been fairly strict on the vote counts and your vote for “EG” he might not count.
Actually, this is a good point. If I list my top 1-4 and it vibes with others, wolves could avoid eating those people(non-wolves I mean) because it’s clear we are going to take care of them soon.
For example, if everyone suspects me as their #2 suspect, the wolves could just avoid eating me toNight, since you guys might lynch me toMorrow.
Perhaps we shouldn’t release suspect lists.
After Pedescribe updates our vote totals, let’s see who hasn’t voted for a test yet. Waiting until Wednesday morning is not helpful and should be avoided unless one is* changing* their vote based on new evidence.
Waiting until wednesday morning is bad, though I would encourage everyone to switch their votes to the most suspicious person **who has a chance of getting tested **come tomorrow morning. There are still (most likely) 4 wolves. Plurality is not our friend if it leads to the tested having, say, only 5 votes against them (yes i know the wolves wouldn’t all vote together, but even two of them could be decisive).
Hmm, I can see the downside to talking about suspects. Maybe that’s not the best play at this time.
I agree that we are in a pickle with regard to the test – consensus by tomorrow morning seem remote. However (depending on the test results, of course), I think we need to be flexible about lynching the testee.
I agree with **Tel **(if I’m reading this right) that we need to focus on who is the most suspicious for lynching, and then vote them for testing (almost as an aside). To reiterate my point, **Daphne **- I can’t see how unless it’s blindingly obvious - how worrying about the test results matters at this point.
Even if a wolf comes up, for sake of argument, Yellow / Brown, it doesn’t help us until we get a confirmation on a second test. It might be the case that wolves come up with two identical colors (eg Yellow/Yellow) but that’d be too easy and run the risk of ruining the game if it were discovered too early.
Being flexible or not - doesn’t matter. We need to decide on likely wolf candidates now, pre-testing, and then just as an aside throw them to the Testerizer.
In fact, I’m so sold on this that people who are voting merely for Testing and not for Lynching are suspect in my mind - because it’s nothing more than a delay tactic.
But that’s my answer. Partial play, partial forgetfulness.