Telcontar (5): Mahaloth, Justin Credible, Jimmy Chitwood, Zeriel, Oredigger77
Oredigger77 (5): Telcontar, Allwalker, Fluiddruid, DaphneBlack, Elendil’s Heir
Elendil’s Heir (1): rexnervous
Zeriel (1): MHaye
Telcontar (3): Mahaloth, Justin Credible, Jimmy Chitwood
Justin Credible (1): DaphneBlack
Oredigger77 (1): Fluiddruid
MHaye (1): Zeriel
Elendil’s Heir (1): rexnervous
DaphneBlack (1): Elendil’s Heir
:smack:
:D:D:D
Don’t see how my shift in vote is any different from what other players are doing to avert a tie, or why it would draw this snide remark. Whatever, dude. :rolleyes:
OK, then.
Rex and MHaye, if either of you suspect Telcontar or Oredigger, would you be willing to switch your test vote to one of them?
Ugh, I don’t like this at all, but since it looks like we need it I will
untest Elendil’s Heir
test Telcontar
I wouldn’t (clearly) have voted for either of them - I think there are far more suspicious people (at least a couple) that we should have gone for.
But of the two, **Telcontar **has been more suspicious - the problem is that he’s become less so over past Day or so in my mind.
I don’t have any kind of read on Oredigger.
On second thought, I probably should’ve left it up to the coin flip. But I don’t want to upset the moderator…he’s got all kinds of special powers.
To review:
Seeker, ordinary rancher: BLACK then PURPLE
Freudian Slit, ordinary rancher: AQUA then TEAL
November, ordinary farmer: GREEN then RED
Test is noon right? Is that EST?
Seeker was a farmer, I believe
Ah yes, quite right.
Seeker, ordinary farmer: BLACK then PURPLE
Freudian Slit, ordinary rancher: AQUA then TEAL
November, ordinary farmer: GREEN then RED
So, no one ever bothered to articulate a case against me and I’m the vote leader? Most strange. I’m sure it was a nice herd…
I decided to take a different track on this then I previously stated. I wanted to gather the whole argument against me instead of just focusing on AllWalker. So What I’m going to do is group the voting and explanation posts based on their argument and then try and argue them. Let’s see how this goes.
1st: The not reason given votes;
To be fair this was later explained but I’ll get to that.
2nd: I don’t like my choises but since someone’s got to go;
3rd: Now we come to the posts with reasons, bad strategy.
Well there all agree that my strategy is bad but they all point out different strategies, first off is that dividing the town is bad, the second is that I am defending townies looking to build cred (which I’ll admit is horrible strategy), and then the third is over all.
I think that unless the town narrows the pool for the scum to hide in we will never catch them, at least not based on how we’ve done so far. Until we get to the end game the farmer/rancher divide doesn’t matter and since only one investigator remains (I’m guessing because the other hasn’t come forwards after repeated requests) whatever side Z is on is probably going to win if we ever get down to one wolf remaining. I don’t see someone who wants to win saying that they would rather lynch a member of the opposite faction then someone of their own that they think is a wolf. It might be used as a tie breaker but the rest of the town is still there to decided overall so one person’s tie breaker doesn’t matter. But besides thinking that my reasons are correct Fluid’s accusations are right on.
AllWalker’s argument is a little bit more interesting. I went back a read Day 2 to look for me defending FS, which I didn’t remember doing. I started off say that the testerizer was complicated and we needed to ignore it and then proposed the mass claim. For the next three posts I debated the mass claim and then voted for Seeker based on Day 1 suspicions, which we WAY off base apparently. Then I defend my vote on Seeker and clarify my vote to Pede in the next two. So finally I get to my defending FS because in the space of 4 posts FS picked up 2 votes from a three-way tie. A little fluff. Then I clarify why I think the way FS was bandwagoned was suspicious, rereading it, it still looks contrived. I had to post again to correct my vote. Just before the test results I questions Telcontar’s random unvoting of FS. So I spent two posts saying that it looked like FS had been bandwagoned and I am defending a townie when the lynch count it so high that its guaranteed? FS was in the lead by two votes above a two way tie for second you’ve got to be kidding, because you wouldn’t exaggerate for effect would you?
The second part of AllWalker’s case is that I was defending Seeker, I wasn’t. I thought Seeker was a wolf, I simply thought that we should have used him as an insurance policy. It’s a good thing we didn’t because lynching a townie is a horrible insurance policy. Not much I can say on this one I was wrong, but only because Seeker was town.
Telcontar just thinks I’ve had some bad ideas over the last two Days and that is enough to vote for me but his bad idea isn’t enough to vote for him. I guess one is Ok but two makes you scum. That consistency of logic is why I’m voting for him.
4th: Hey, let’s throw it at the wall and see if it sticks:
Basically this is the category for the rest of their posts that didn’t have to do with the main accusation. AllWalker goes after the fact that I haven’t drawn suspicion as a reason to be suspicious and thinks that I’m posting a high ratio of fluff to information and talking about the testerizer too much. I spent the first Day and a half talking about the testerizer like everyone else because there wasn’t much else to talk about and I don’t think that that is in anyway a scum tell or he must have everyone not lurking on his suspect list. As for the Fluff, I don’t think that has been my issue and would like to see him back that up with some data instead of baseless accusation.
I think I answered Fluid’s questions about my bringing up farmer/rancher status but if she wants I’d be happy to keep going on.
This is a bit water under the bridge at this point, but did you miss the case I made for him earlier, when I voted to test him? Or does that not count for some reason?
Re: one-off votes. I agree they aren’t terribly helpful late in the day, but early on I don’t see them as a harm, if you are trying to get people to consider an alternative.
And this is why I was trying to get the town to consider everyone, or at least some people we haven’t looked at.
Oh, as i argued many days ago it makes sense to have a role claim immediately prior to testing: Ordinary Rancher.
Ok so you decided to vote to avert a tie, I get that. Any reason how you decided to break that tie?
As for the snide remark you’re the only tie breaker that went my direction without a reason so I wanted a case I could rebut. I got a response from you with the remake but nothing that I can argue.
I’ve just got online, even though I should be jobsearching right now. Bother you putting your clocks forward!
Telcontar, that is a prime example of the case that has been made against you, which is that you ignore cases made against you.
Unvote testing Zeriel.
I make the test vote 6/5. I’m the only one without a vote right now.
I don’t mind which of the candidates goes into the Testerizer; I do mind a tie.
I’m not going to place a vote so (a) we don’t tie and (b) if I were to vote for Telcontar, that somone cannot force a tie by switching.
Telcontar (6): Mahaloth, Justin Credible, Jimmy Chitwood, Zeriel, Oredigger77, rexnervous
Oredigger77 (5): Telcontar, Allwalker, Fluiddruid, DaphneBlack, Elendil’s Heir
Telcontar (3): Mahaloth, Justin Credible, Jimmy Chitwood
Justin Credible (1): DaphneBlack
Oredigger77 (1): Fluiddruid
MHaye (1): Zeriel
Elendil’s Heir (1): rexnervous
DaphneBlack (1): Elendil’s Heir
The testerizer made a bunch of random noises, then turned
Brown
then
Green
.
Good day.
Hey, a second green. Oh wait you’re an ordinary rancher not a farmer. Yep the machine is busted. Now comes the fun part of arguing if we want to lynch you. Personally I’m against it.
I think we need to lynch the scummiest and to me that is EH. I voted for Tel because he is my number two and that way if the town does lynch him because of being tested I’m not upset. Not to mention that my case for not lynching the testee is much stronger if I’m not the testee.
Vote EH
Which were? Where are these cases I keep hearing about? What is the argument to lynch me, really?
1.) I went after Daphne with very little reason
Response: It was the first day, we all had very little reason. My case amounted to being uncomfortable with her dominating the discussion. People are still making the case against her even now. Should I be penalized for getting their first? Wild accusations are the norm in mafia. The game gets serious close to lynchings and close to the end, but that’s it.
2.) I was defending seeker on days two and three (pre claim). this clearly shows we’re working together.
Response: My defense of seeker was that he was innocent but playing wildly because he was new. Both his innocence and his wild play style were proven yesterday. Perhaps I should have claimed farmer, then I could say that we were on the same team after all 
(was tempted to just to see what Zeriel would say, but this game is crazy enough).
3.) I didn’t want to lynch the first day.
Response: Covered ad nausem.
4.) Various people linked to me have died.
Response: They said the same about Clinton :-P.
Oredigger77 posted something about an hour ago saying that it was odd that I was blaming him for his bad ideas but expecting people not to hold my one bad idea against me. Eh. I still maintain that we shouldn’t have lynched the first day; killing november was useless and it was pretty clear it was going to be useless even before we did it. We certainly shouldn’t lynch tomorrow unless we kill a wolf today. So I’m not conceding my idea was bad. On the other hand I think Oredigger77’s discussion yesterday was pretty clearly horribly wrong. I also think that defending seeker at that point would be a great way for a wolf to establish town cred; there was no danger of it working.
That’s anti town (also wrong for obvious reasons). Not casting a vote is utterly useless to the town.
Note:
Townspeople: 8
Wolves: 4
You don’t need many confused townspeople to let the wolves pick the winner (two, in fact, for a tie). This is why I’m going to sit on a lynch vote for a bit. Not voting is almost worse than stupid voting because stupid voting at least has a chance to be right.
I have to say, EH is not in my top 4(that’s about all I have for suspects), yet I keep hearing that people suspect him/her.
I’m sure it’s in the previous 23 pages, but would someone summarize for me?
Zeriel is still suspicious to me, by the way(my vote is currently for Telcontar). Back when he revealed he was a cop/investigator, I could have sworn he said he was positive that the wolves have farmer/rancher roles. I feel like I haven’t heard this from him since.
Is this right, Zeriel? Were you told this for sure?
I’ll look for the post where he said this.
At this point I really think lynching Telcontar would be a mistake. Oredigger has been pretty anti-town all along, but I’ve never been able to see any scummy motivation that would make his anti-townness a good scum play. I don’t see his defence of Seeker that way, perhaps because I seem to have thought along the same lines. Nothing Seeker did made sense, but it made even less sense for a wolf. I can’t fault anyone on how they handled that situation, really, though.
Can I interest anybody in discussing lynching a candidate from the semi-lurking pool? In a game where the town has shown a propensity for going after each other (this one def. fits that), I see no reason for the scum to stick their neck out and post a lot. But we’ve pretty consistently ignored as a serious candidate anyone who posts less than Oredigger.
Anyone? Counterarguments welcome.
This is simple bad analysis. It’s not reading what I actually wrote.
I had no particular opinion, one way or another, about whether to test you or Oredigger. Either was fine with me.
At the time I’d caught up with the voting everyone but me had voted for one of the two of you, and the voting stood at 6/5.
My options.[ol][li]Keep my vote where it stood.[/li][li]Vote for Oredigger.[/li][li]Vote for Telcontar (ie you).[/li][li]Not vote.[/ol]Keeping my vote would have been silly. The test vote was there to be seen. If Zeriel had been a realistic candidate for testing, I’d happily have left my vote on him, but he was not so I did not.[/li]
Voting for Oredigger would have led to a tie. One of the things I had caught in my pass through today’s posts is that Pedescribe had no plan for resolving ties for testing. Allowing a tie is, therefore, fundamentally anti-Town. Random choice is never a good thing for Town-aligned players. I wanted the choice to be a choice, and not the result of a coinflip by the Mod. So, as things stood when I started typing, there was no chance of a vote for Oredigger.
Vote for you. That would have had the advantage of opening the gap to 7/5. The downside (and this is what I think you are missing) is that, by doing so I would create a condition whereby anyone with an interest in chaos could unvote you and vote Oredigger. Bingo! Instant tie!
I wanted to make the gap a an odd number of votes so that anyone actually interested in forcing a tie would have to unvote you without revoting. The best tool I had to do that was not to vote for either you or Oredigger.
Had I made that post a couple of minutes earlier, I would have been watching li,e a hawk with a vote post ready to go and break ties should someone have tried it. No-one did.
Considered in the light of the need to avoid ties, I don’t agree that my non-vote was anti-Town.