No, brewha is not lying. sachertorte is confused.
The traits came from two threads. The 2 truths and a lie thread and the controversial beliefs thread. I knew about one - not the other. Most of the traits came from the one I knew about. I was surprised to find out about the other.
Interesting that you would state so strongly that I am lying - especially when you are wrong. Only a sith deals in absolutes.
What **sach ** is saying is that I revealed a trait that was in the Controversial beliefs thread before **zuma ** revealed. You should have had an issue with that, yet you did not. I think you are lying too brewha. I think maybe you didn’t call me out because you knew it was a real trait because either you or another scum have the same one. I also think you are reaching really far out there to accuse **Pleonast ** of stealing your public trait. Because **Pleo ** revealed his dossier first, he’s way down at the bottom of my suspicion list. You brewha, on the other hand are at the top.
Vote Brewha
I have explained my motivation for voting Zuma before. I had a hunch - a bit of a suspicion. If Zuma was indeed scum and I said I just kinda sorta suspected him, he could talk his way out. I strongly called him out to see how he’d react.
If you recall, I never even voted for him. I just called him out and asked him to explain. Apparently to be a successful scum in this game, you just have to sit back and let the talkative people get lynched.
Yes, accusing Pleo of stealing my trait would be a reach. That’s why I DIDN’T do it. I proposed a situation where I could have a unique trait. I pointed out that only one other person shares my public trait and that it could have easily been stolen. Show me where I said that Pleo stole my trait.
Who cares if he revealed first? My trait was public and was seen from the begining.
Pleo had other shared traits besides your public trait. He was the first to reveal two other traits. Your theory doesn’t seem well thought out and only seems to include evidence as to how it relates to you.
Still short on time, but I wanted to check in. Is it too late to become vegetarian? Eating meat is too risky around here.
I quoted my Dossier exactly as it appeared in my PM. Yep, it has one repeat from the public lists, but that’s what was given me.
I don’t think we should lynch based on Dossier analysis. Two reasons: 1) if traits were assigned randomly, we should expect players to have varying levels of overlap with others. We should keep looking for patterns in the Dossiers, however. There may be some subtle way of distinguishing Town from Scum. I don’t think simple overlap counts will be it.
With luck, by the time we get to a lynch-or-lose situation, we’ll have enough confirmed Dossiers to do some actual analysis.
Is this thing on?
** I. Have. No. Reason. To. Suspect. Pleonast.**
I was pointing out that my public trait was shared by only one other person. I said that it’s possible that he stole it. I never accused him, FOS’d him, or voted for him. I’m stuck in a situation where I look guilty. I realize that. For some reason I have no unique traits. There’s nothing I can do about it at this point. Those are the traits I was given at the beginning of the game.
Maybe the game designers wanted to mess with us by giving two poeple no unique traits.
Maybe the game designers randomly assigned traits and didn’t figure out who shared which and how many traits.
Maybe someone else is lying and claimed traits that weren’t theirs.
I think that there’s way too much weight given to the uniqueness of the traits. If I get lynched this will be very apparent.
EBWOP
My previous post was in response to Hawkeye, not Pleo
This is going to be long.
First: there’s been an awful lot of dossier analysis so far in this game, enough so that direct examination of how people are acting has taken a backseat. I don’t think this is a good approach, because I really don’t think this game was created to reward obsessive focus on the dossiers. So for the moment, I’m going to mostly ignore them for now, except to discuss how people have behaved with respect to them.
I have a bunch of thoughts (surprise!). In order to give myself a bit of structure, I decided to concentrate this first run through the thread on the second half of Day One, and specifically on the passion of mhaye. How did he come to die? Who was involved? Let’s see (numbers are post numbers):
450 - Known scum OaoW kicked things off with vote #1, citing mhaye’s questioning of Hal briston as a possible way to set up a dossier lie.
496 - zuma votes mhaye, (vote #2) becoming the first (of many) players to cite a supposed delay in mhaye’s dossier reveal. The delay in question was awfully modest to warrant a lynching. But at the time zuma employs this reasoning, he’s employing it as a reason to cast only a second vote - early votes based on tenuous reasoning, especially very early in the game, are a little less scummy than later votes. See below.
510 - brewha - the legendary third vote, which piggybacks zuma’s reasoning entirely. This is the vote that gets the bandwagon rolling, so it’s worth examining a bit. Now, brewha brings no new reasoning to the table. He’s casting the third vote - the one that takes mhaye from just another player with a few votes to a candidate for death - based on someone else’s reasoning. And it’s reasoning that is frankly tenuous even if it’s true, which it kind of isn’t - mhaye’s delay, in the context of a game where a “Day” lasts more than a week, wasn’t really even that long. Wouldn’t someone genuinely interested in casting a useful vote at least look to determine whether the argument he’s aping was true before aping it? And then…
511 - brewha proposes a “let’s all investigate people” plan, based on a list which just happens to allow him to investigate his preferred target (mhaye).
517 - Quoth brewha:
Reading these sentences together, do they actually make sense to you as a line of reasoning? So mhaye, who revealed very late in the game, had traits in common with people who revealed before him, except for one, which was unique to mhaye. This translates to “pretty confident he lied” in what way? That sounds to me like the argument of someone who knew what his conclusion would be in advance of obtaining the evidence.
544 - Freudian Slit casts vote #4, for the same reasons as those who preceeded her. Sketchy, but without the exacerbating factors, not as much so as brewha.
549 - Hockey Monkey notes the following:
This was extremely interesting, although not pertaining to mhaye in particular, in light of my growing suspicion of brewha. What makes it interesting is that brewha was pretty enthusiastic about what he saw as a pattern in the dossiers early in the game - he felt he had figured it out, and said so publically, at post #400. It is certainly possible that brewha saw that other thread and faked his own dossier from it while eliminating unique info. This is minor, but worth mentioning in the context of the larger discussion.
558 - Diomedes casts vote #5, providing literally no reasoning at all. Five is halfway to a lynch, and a “just because” vote at this stage smells funny.
The next sequence of posts are all from Hawkeyeop. The first is a digression; it concerns Hal’s claimed ability/extra info, and it is as follows:
This is an exceedingly good point. And it leads me down the ugly path of meta-gaming. I think that this bit of information strongly implies that faithfool is probably not scum (if Hal is being truthful). The moderators chose to give Hal information about a player - a particular player, chosen by the moderators, not one selected blindly by Hal. So it’s worth asking - would the mods choose to give him info on scum or town? To give him info on scum would be, I think, too powerful. If faitfool lied about her dossier - and it is clear that at least some scum might do so - we’d have been handed a free lynch. Plus, just giving Hal information about her, even if she told the truth but was scum, was the equivalent of putting a red arrow over her head - Hal would be watching her extra carefully. This info was basically saying - “hey, keep an eye on faithfool,” which is pretty unfair if she’s scum.
But to give him info on a townie is much more balanced. Basically, it allows him to confirm her, and to a lesser degree her to confirm him, as truthful. It’s less powerful, and thus more in keeping with the way this game seems to be structured.
OK, end of digression. More from Hawkeyeop:
572 - votes mhaye, and says:
I don’t understand this. Does anyone else? Isn’t everyone’s dossier basically a copy of all the others except one that is unique (well, other than brewha’s)? How is this the profile of a scum?
575 -
I don’t agree with the assumption. Scum could very easily have told the truth about their dossiers, especially given our collective focus on analyzing them and the presence of Hal. But it’s not so much the assumption itself that makes me look askance at hawkeyeop, it’s the juxtaposition of the assumption with his post #680, when he joined quickly in the voting for OaoW.
Now, wait. According to hawkeyeop, we should be assuming that scum will lie about their dossiers. OK. But then, when bits and pieces of information about a murderer match what a current player said was in his dossier, “[he does] not see any alternative possibilities?” So hawkeyeop thinks scum will lie, except OaoW, who hawkeyeop assumed was telling the truth about his own dossier, and all of the other scum, who hawkeyeop assumed were not lying in this case? Does the inconsistency I am trying to highlight come across here? I think it’s pretty significant.
So, my hypothesis:
hawkeyeop wants us to assume scum will lie, because in large measure, they are not lying. But when he saw that his fellow scum OaoW was the only player with both revealed murderer traits, he assumed OaoW was doomed without thinking, because he knew OaoW had been truthful about his dossier and was the murderer. The other possible explanations - and there were other possible explanations - didn’t occur because hawkeyeop already knew the truth.
The rest of the mhaye lynch was uneventful. Kat and Cookies and really even Pleonast and definitely Hockey Monkey all cast votes best described as utilitarian; by that point, it was mhaye or no one, so they all picked mhaye. I draw no particular conclusions in either direction from this.
One last point. At post 599:
Please note that Diomedes has still provided no reasoning, strong and clear or otherwise, to justify his vote for mhaye. He didn’t have a perfect case. He didn’t have a case at all. But unlike some others, who just flat admitted that they didn’t really have any reason for their vote, Dio is trying above to justify his vote with vagueness (“he seems scummer than most?” Why? Give us a reason!).
So, to sum up this, my magnum opus:
Weak confidence in: Hal, faithfool
Fairly strong suspicion of: brewha, Diomedes
But a pretty confident vote for Hawkeyeop, for the reasons outlined above.
And your Day One accusation of zuma was what? warm and fuzzy?
I’ve explained the inconsistency in your story. I will continue to say you are lying until you adequately explain why you didn’t accuse HockeyMonkey when you accused zuma, and why you said you knew about the other thread after stating that you didn’t.
I’ve been saying this since Day One, and I agree that we shouldn’t lynch brewha based on his not having any unique traits. I’ve outlined my reasoning for my vote and my reasons are not dossier-based.
Uh, storyteller?
Hawkeyeop knew that OAOW didn’t lie about the Washington Mall trait because it is his public trait. OAOW couldn’t lie about it.
We didn’t indict OAOW on the basis of his public trait alone.
And even leaving aside that part of the equation, the following remains: hawkeyeop was promulgating the assumption that scum will lie, then helped bus OAOW on the basis of the fact that two of his traits matched those of the killer - without even considering the possibility that someone else might have been lying and also shared those two traits. Perfect Knowledge Syndrome.
Well I Did.
Fuck.
I thought I was onto something.
Well… well… <raspberry sound>
unvote Hawkeyeop
Okay as soon as I look up promulgating I’ll be right with you…
I mentioned those assumptions as the basis for voting for Mhaye. As in, these are the things that I believe would be true if Mhaye was scum. If you recall correctly Mhaye turned out not to be scum. Therefore the assumptions are either incorrect or something else not considered (scum copied off each other?) is in play. Do you want me not to learn from mistakes?
Regardless I voted for OAOW purely for the revealed trait. Sure it is possible that he wasn’t scum, but the odds were certainly better on him then anyone else.
Well from preview looks like you dropped your case so I can stop writing.
It is alright. I was kind of excited for my first vote
I am an idiot. I will blame yesterday being my first day back at work and throwing my internal clock off for this one. This Day lasts 5 Days. Yesterday was Wednesday making the Day end on Sunday at 9:30 am pacific, not Friday.
Once again I am an idiot.
That is all.
At least you have editing ability. And I was wondering what time of the day 89:30 was. 
Point taken. If you were just rufflin’ my feathers to see what would happen I have no problem with that.
I didn’t analyze every single trait. That’s why I didn’t notice HockeyMonkey’s inconsistencies. I noticed Zuma’s first and used it as a basis to throw an FOS’s at him to see what would happen.
Can you please show me where I said I knew about the other thread then said that I didn’t? The only thread I knew about was the 2 truths and a lie thread. That was the only thread I ever said I knew anything about. I didn’t know about the ‘beliefs’ thread until someone else brought it up. Any of my posts that suggest anything else are being misinterpretted.