I don’t think this should be dismissed out of hand just because kat and santo didn’t share traits with their fellow victims. I think townies will be scattered all over the share/no share spectrum (altho by elimination they’d be somewhat more likely to be in the shared). I think the important thing is the motivation scum have for night kills. With no power roles to shoot for, what else will they look for?
If a whole bunch of townies share a particular trait that they have or claim, they’ll keep them around. However, if a townie has a bunch of traits that NONE of them have or claim, and is under no particular suspicion, I think they are a likely choice to kill. They’d never be under suspicion based on traits. They’ll want to keep people around who share their actual or claimed traits. The fact that santo and kat share no other claimed traits really doesn’t matter… the important thing is that they wouldn’t share traits with scum either.
I think it’s possible that those that share few traits with the people scum killed are more likely to be scum than the balance of players. It’s not a reason alone to vote for someone, but another data point. Next post will be the shared trait list.
Here is a list of the number of shared traits of all players with the four night-kill victims (santo, cookies, shadowfacts, and kat
3 shared traits:
brewha rysto hawkeye faithfool mhaye
2 shared traits:
shadow zuma (yes yes it’s convenient I have 2 shared traits) hal cookies
1 shared trait:
story freudian diomedes hazel
0 shared traits:
Pleonast Hockey Monkey sachertorte kat santo
I’ve kind of defended Pleo for now (I originally defended Pleo on my belief that scum would never campaign for dossier reveals… but OAOW expressed support too), and also Hockey Monkey (based on the fact I don’t think she’s kat’s killer, altho she may likely be scum nonetheless).
I still, really, don’t know how much weight to give this, but I’m just putting it out there. If anything it’s something that makes me just a little bit more comfortable with my sachertorte vote.
And also (I feel I must always make disclaimers), faithfool still bothers me, yet has 3 shared traits. Like I said, I really don’t know how much weight to give this theory, and it conflicts in several cases with what I see posted (and agrees a few times too), but I thought I’d just throw it out there. Like I said, just another data point to consider.
I also want to look at what the night kills said or accused before they died.
I don’t conclude that faithfool is Town because she didn’t lie about her dossier. I conclude faithfool is town because from a game construction point of view, giving a pro-town Hal Briston a scum’s dossier would be game-breakingly powerful. Giving Hal Briston a townie’s dossier is mildly helpful, but not game-breakingly so.
Other than the fact that you are voting for me, I’m okay with using the dossier as supplementary reasoning. I outline my specific objection to the nightkill analysis below. I also disagree with your primary reasoning too: I’ve explained why I think brewha is scum. Convince me otherwise and I’ll move my vote. Simply stating that I’m wrong doesn’t help.
refutation of zuma’s nightkill matching analysis:
In zuma’s original explanation of the nightkill analysis theory, he said that scum would kill people who didn’t share traits with scum’s actual or revealed dossiers. On the surface this makes sense, but which of the two really makes sense. Why would scum kill townies that don’t match their false dossiers? I don’t see any solid reason for it. I think only killing based on scum’s real dossiers makes sense; we can’t equate ‘actual’ and ‘revealed’ simply by hand-waving. Scum would only be interested in keeping around townies who match their real dossiers. Isn’t it plausible that scum would steal a town attribute and kill the townie from whom they stole it? While there isn’t necessarily a strong reason to do so explicitly, there is no reason not to do so.
Scum have no reason to avoid killing townies from whom they stole a trait. Therefore, it is entirely plausible that Kat, ShadowFacts, and Cookies have traits matching scum false dossiers.
I’m curious why Santo Rugger has been included in the analysis. Santo Rugger was killed on Night Zero, before he had revealed his dossier. Why is zuma (and Hockey Monkey?*) assuming that scum knew Santo Rugger’s dossier before he was killed?
Supposition: Scum was given some or all of the dossiers at the beginning of the game.
would explain why scum dossiers contain lies, but are not easily discernible from town.
does not explain why OAOW’s was truthful about the VWBug trait.
would explain why zuma included Santo Rugger in the nightkill analysis, which makes me slightly more suspicious of zuma.
*Hockey Monkey’s post is not clear as to whether or not she included Santo Rugger as a scum killed Townie or not. I also note that excluding Santo Rugger does not change who has zero connections, but Santo Rugger’s matches ALL of the players listed under having three connections to murdered Townies. Removing Santo Rugger makes the max connections 2, which makes a difference, I think. (i.e. everyone has either 0, 1, or 2 connections, which I find within expectations).
I’ve been trying to say less on here, because it seems that my talking is one of the biggest reasons everyone is getting all stabby at me.
But, here’s the deal. I’m not scum. We’ve already wasted all of yesterday discussing it and lynched no one. Last night the silent pigs took out one of us and tonight they will again. We really need to chuck one of them off a cliff today.
I see I’m up on the vote count again. If we spend today pointing the finger at me, yesterday’s no lynch will be a complete waste. I would rather my lynch happened yesterday, than wasting a no lynch and then just turning around and lynching me today.
I’m not sure who I think is most guilty at this time, but we really need to get some discussion going instead of waiting until the last minute and making a rash decision (or non at all).
My vote will happen today. However, I have a new case to build and it’s going to be a bit time-consuming; I may not do it until later tonight, but will do it before I go to sleep.
Hey guys, why’s it so dead in here? I mean It’s freaking Monday now, there shouldn’t be any excuse why players aren’t posting. Don’t you know what you are putting the people watching this through? It’s not pretty, so don’t make me bust out with the size 72 font because it ain’t gonna be pretty when I do. SO COME ON, WHERE’S ALL THE POSTING AND PLAYING AND STUFF. I’M GOING CRAZY HERE
Okay. I think at this point, we all have to ally ourselevs with someone. Five others of us HAVE to vote. I think not voting is almost worse than voting for someone for a stupid reason.
No, but I think it’s likely she’s town IF Hal is telling the truth, because giving him a scum’s dossier just seems like giving him too much. I suppose this is somewhat of a meta-game reason though.
And upon further reading, I see sacher has already made that point.
Augh. I’m so tired right now I can barely think. But I want to get in a vote.
Vote Diomedes
Something about the way he’s picking on faithfool just seems off to me. (I am still not sure about faithfool, but for the purposes of my vote her scumminess or lack thereof is irrelevant.) I don’t think his reasoning per se is scummy; more like the manner in which he voices them. **storyteller’s ** post somewhere back there states things more clearly than I can put them right now. Sorry, I just started teaching classes this week so I’ll be a little scarce until the weekend.
Well, HazelNut’s vote against me means that we won’t get 7 against faithfool today. I still don’t like the brewha lynch, it doesn’t look like the push against him is going away until he does. A no-lynch is the same as a townie lynch (according to someone’s logic a couple of pages back), so I’ll pull off faith and vote to lynch brewha, just to make a lynch happen today (and let us look at someone new tomorrow)
Yes, I do know that this will be inciting storyteller even further in his “Diomedes has crap reasons for voting” beliefs.
Folks, we are in deep doo-doo if we fail to lynch someone toDay. I suggest if you are town, you vote with the majority…whoever that happens to be for at the end of the day. And please take a good look at the people who brilliantly stalled the lynch yesterDay and so far toDay. I believe brewha is scum. I believe that other scum stalled his lynch.
We have five for brewha, but that’s not enough…more have to change their votes. And just vote to begin with. I’m not faulting brewha for not voting for himself, but I’m thinking either it is him or no one dies. And at this point, we’re at a serious disadvantage against scum who get to kill someone every night.
I really don’t like this line of thought. I do think it’s important, if at all possible, to lynch someone at the end of the day, but asking town to vote with the majority won’t achieve much other than giving scum a place to hide without having to be held accountable for their votes later on.
Having said that, I will glance back over the thread at yesterDay’s stalling.
If the town doesn’t vote as a block, we won’t get a lynch. Is that not clear? That means if you are town, you need to vote with the rest of the town. All the scum have to do is vote for someone else or no one at all, and Boom! no lynch! Then they get to kill at night! What part of this is not clear?
18 of us to start with.
13 of us left.
Out of 5 dead, only 1 was scum.
If the 7% secret equates to 1/14 of the town…then that means there were 4 scum to start with and 3 left. (I’m not dismissing the possibility of more.)
13 left minus 3 scum equals 10 town. 7 of those 10 need to agree.
3 misguided townies costs a lynch.
It is imperative that we stick together and take action…even if that action turns out to be wrong. But, if **brewha ** were town, the scum would have made sure he got lynched yesterDay.
I understand that we need to kill someone. Augh. I just don’t feel comfortable with voting for someone I don’t have strong feelings about just for the sake of having a lynch, any lynch.
I’m not seeing the “brilliantly” stalled lynch of yesterDay - unless the people who didn’t vote did so on purpose in order to stall the lynch. I was one of them, and I didn’t (do so on purpose, I mean).
I want to think about this a bit. We still have some time before Day’s end - it ends Wednesday, doesn’t it?
Sorry for the delay. I stayed with my family a bit longer than I thought I could stand. Anyway, I still don’t think this is right, but considering that I’ve pretty much given up any hope of understanding what I’m doing, I’ll change my vote to go with the majority (I so apologize brewha) because that appears to be what is expected if you want to show your town solidarity.
I know that regardless of why I do it, Dio will ignore it the next round that he campaigns for my termination. But no matter, 'tis done so that we won’t be intentionally making a town lynch by default. Hope that helps.
I don’t think I’ll be voting for brewha. My reasons probably only apply to me though, and here they are:
I know I am town
Scum know I am town.
If brewha were scum, he would know I had not lied about my dossiers on day 1
The premise he used with his day 1 attack on me was not seeing them in one of the threads
If he knew I was town, he would know the premise of his attack had to be false and would probably be proven false, and it would likely blow up in his face (which it did to an extent)
Hence, his day 1 attack on me makes no sense from a scum perspective
Like I said, this reasoning applies only to me. But I’ll put it out there before I decide to do with my final vote.
But no matter, 'tis done so that we won’t be intentionally making a town lynch by default. Hope that helps.