So do you then subscribe to the Pleonast “the secret is the source of the dossier traits” school of thought, or do you think there’s a different secret, yet unrevealed?
I was wondering that myself. The only explanation I can come up with is a) it’s not a clue, or b) it points towards a dossier trait that hasn’t been revealed yet (because the scum took it off their dossier and replaced it with something else before posting).
I agree. If the “Thanks!” clue had been relevant to the languages thing, wouldn’t it have been made clearer? Like stating the voice said “Thanks!” in Urdu, or something?
I also agree on the overdependence on the dossier thing. The only dossiers we can be sure of are those of dead Associates.
sachertorte asked me somewhere back there about what I thought regarding faithfool. At the moment, I am inclined to believe that Hal is telling the truth, which means that I am tentatively going to assume faithfool is not scum. I’m more inclined to suspect Diomedes for constantly harping on her supposed “slip.”
I would rather base my vote on behavior rather than dossiers, given the unreliability of the information, so I’m going to try and read the thread again with more of a focus on reactions and stuff rather than picking at traits.
Because I’ve explained myself, to the best of my ability. IF you don’t think I’ve made an argument, that’s fine by me. I take responsibility for making my own decisions, which is why I haven’t been after anyone to prove their cases so that I’ll know how to vote. I read what they put forth and then go from there. If I don’t buy it (like the day that just passed in a no-lynch), then I assume there’s just not enough information. I don’t pressure others to convince me. I figure I have to do that for myself. So finally, if what I’ve said isn’t good for anyone else, than so be it, I suppose. I feel the evidence that some have gone on hasn’t been enough for the conclusions that they have reached, but then that’s not up to me either.
I’m not sure yet. I’m leaning towards a different secret. I just feel like…this…would be too much of a let down. And it seems like we’ve spent the thread poring over the dossiers. I just feel maybe we need to think bigger. But I have no idea how so.
Also think that the “Thank you” thing seems like it’s a bit of a reach as well. Sure, the person said thank you in English but not in any other languages. We’d better stick with the VW bug/seven eleven trait.
Based on Hockey Monkey’s spreadsheet I saw that a player doesn’t share two traits with another very often. I noticed that I share two with Hockey Monkey, so I considered that it does happen, but not everyone shares two traits with someone else. I didn’t consider the possibility that lying scum would alter the statistics. So that assumption could be inaccurate.
sachertorte, I apologize for having missed your post earlier. Somehow my eyes begin to gloss over after a while. 
You are correct though, I simply hadn’t thought of it like that. Most of the time whenever I play a game I try to ferret out one clue (person) at a time and venture forth. I never stopped to realize that for this, it would mean I’d be skipping over others. I’ll try to do better in the future. Sorry again y’all.
Oh, and about the “thank you” business, I don’t think it means anything either. Sometimes that’s just how the writing goes.
I feel that the entirety of your first day actions, combined with your pre-night slip-up, is was good as running up the scum flag. I don’t need more than that.
You’ve got the fact that I’m coming after you. Well, in these games, people go after other people, (townies go after townies all the time, as well), and try to get them lynched. It’s just how the game goes.
I went over Hockey Monkey’s spreadsheet… I didn’t see any mistakes. Then again, I also went over Brewha’s, and didn’t catch his until it was pointed out that he had eight down for Shadow. it might be helpful it someone else with a spreadsheet of traits went over Hockey’s once again, just to make sure she isn’t trying to hornswaggle us with tricksy spreadsheet manipulations.
I think dismissing out of hand any information that we get is going to bite us in the ass. The clues aren’t supposed to be obvious. I have the good fortune of knowing that the VW thing does not pertain to me. What I am seeing is that **OAOW ** is sharing a whole lot of the revealed traits. I don’t think it’s an accident anymore. I fully expect the next trait to be revealed to be shared by him as well. The scum had the advantage of being able to discuss the dossiers on their night start, figure out where they came from, and how to manipulate them. I think **OAOW ** was their fall guy.
Dio, you are doing a terrific job of smudging me today. You jumped without hesitation to point out that I’m the only living player to have the VW trait, and now you are casting doubt on the integrity of my data.
Wait - what? As far as we’ve been told, the scum don’t get to pick which of their traits are revealed to the person who is killed. If they don’t, then I don’t understand how this theory would work: the scum would have no way of knowing that the one of their traits that was revealed was one they shared with OaOW.
No, but they have the benefit of knowing what was on their teammate’s dossiers before the first Day. I don’t know how it could be manipulated that way, but then again I’m not scum.
Pleonast, I know you’ve been kind of vocal about not necessarily believing Hal’s claim, and you’ve stated that you think the 7% thing is the source of the dossiers… What exactly does that mean? Do you think it could be some sort of mechanic where dossiers are randomly given out to players, by mods or perhaps another player? I don’t remember you addressing this (although I might have missed it somewhere).
Personally, I think we need to try and vote off someone because we’ve only managed to get one scum and our numbers are dwindling. Are we all just going to go for brewha, or is it going to be someone else? The only other person I can think of is faithfool. I mean, we pretty much have to make a concerted effort because it’s the only way we can do it…
Hal’s high up enough on my suspicion list that I’d vote for him without any particular prodding. I’m still not seeing brewha’s big scumslip other than some confusion as to when he knew there were two threads being pulled from for the Dossiers.
Did I miss more?
(EBWOP: I, of course, am most strongly interested in a faithfool lynch, of course)
I think there was something up thread on brewha and the dossiers. I’m not sure if I’m really feeling anyone at this point. I did vote for faithfool along with you at one point, but I felt stupid doing so because no one else was agreeing–felt a bit like the odd duck out.
Back on page 16, Sach accused me of lying. I mentioned “the other thread”. He took that to mean the thread other than the ‘2 truths and one lie’ thread. I meant the thread other than this one - which was the ‘2 truths and one lie’ thread - which was the only one I knew about at the time.
Then HockeyMonkey made a case against me because I voted for Zuma based on dossier inconsistencies that I thought I had found. But, HockeyMonkey had similar inconsistencies, and since I didn’t vote for her, that makes me scummy.
Then in post 811 Hawkeyeop started twisting my words around. He claimed that I was willy nilly accusing ‘anyone and everyone’ of being scum. I had, at that point, voted for one person and FOS’d one person. Then he stated that I claimed I never pointed the finger at anyone. That is another false statement. The second part of his case was that my case against Pleonast was bogus. But, I never made a case against Pleonast. I did use him as an example of a way that my dossier traits would not implicate me. But, I was defending myself – not accusing him.
To me, Sach’s accusation makes sense if he misunderstood what I meant. That’s not scummy – that’s just playing the game.
HockeyMonkey’s accusation makes less sense to me. I missed an inconsistency while looking at over 100 data points on a spreadsheet. It’s not like I was being deliberately deceitful. And since I can only vote for one person at a time, there was no reason to make a case against two people on the same day.
But, Hawkeyeop’s case against me is just bogus. It is made up. He was either lying to get me lynched because he really thought I was scum and couldn’t come up with a better case against me or because he is scum and jumped on the opportunity to help get me dead. Either way, he was being deceitful and no way to play this game.
Vote Hawkeyeop
Sigh. You are almost as frustrating Brewha. Almost. So I’ll try one last time. Do you know why I don’t think you have made a convincing argument? Because I have no idea what the argument is. Do you not trust Diomedes because you don’t trust people with two consecutive letters? I don’t know. There have been nearly 1000 posts made this thread, a fair number by you, a good deal of those dealing with Diomedes. Most of those do not in any way deal with why you think Diomedes is scum. So, I’m asking you to summarize why you think he is scum. I don’t understand why you would rather spend 400 words explaining why you won’t explain your position then 200 words actually explaining it. How do you think this is helpful?
If you won’t do that can you at least point in the direction of when you made the argument. If any one else knows where the argument was made feel free to point me to it as well.
I have (I think) a fairly extensive case against Brewha that does not use Sach’s logic and only uses the dossier info as a starting point. I have avoided getting into it today to allow for other discussion, but I’d be happy to go through my case point by point if there is interest.