[QUOTE=sachertorte]
Hockey Monkey, I wonder if you are seeing the same thing I’m seeing.
[QUOTE]
Not sure…care to elaborate?
Storyteller’s behavior on Day 3 indicated suspicion of brewha, he even lays out a case, but he never votes for brewha and conveniently misses the Day 3 deadline. To me it looks like storyteller was setting up to vote for fellow scum brewha, but when he saw that brewha didn’t have to swing, he “forgot” to vote. If he was against all the suspicion on brewha, I could understand his behavior better, but he laid out a case against brewha and called brewha suspicious, yet misses the vote entirely. I don’t see Town behaving the way storyteller did on Day 3.
That’s what I see. What do you see?
Thanks for the storyteller summary. I’ll read it to see if there is anything else.
Hey, there isn’t any convenient way to view one player’s posts in one thread only, is there? I’m writing out the Freudian Slit case, and since she’s an active poster elsewhere on the Dope I have to comb through all her posts to other threads to track her history here. It’s a pain in the ass - is there a better way?
And to Hockey Monkey: Having no idea what your case against me is, I’ll be unable to respond for the moment. Care to offer a preview? Your last post, to sachertorte, looks a bit like fishing to me - “hey, can somebody give me a hook here?”
It’s funny how this game works. Intellectually I know that when another player accuses me of being scum, that doesn’t make them more likely to be scum themselves. But then someone accuses me of being scum, and <bang> - emotionally, I start combing their posts for tells. It’s a tough mindset to fight, even when you know you need to.
There’s that, plus a lot of promises and excuses, and I can’t do it nows. He’s expressed suspicion of several people (including me) and comes out of nowhere today voting for someone completely different. “Missing” the vote because he didn’t know what time the day ended isn’t something a town **storyteller ** would do. I have a lot of re-reading to do to do a point by point case.
Well, this would be reasonable, but the actual explanation is that I missed the deadline. As I said. If you don’t believe that, there’s not much I can do about it. NAF’s post with the deadline in it was at the end of a page, and I was involved in another discussion when it happened.
The last part is not true, and you know it. I’m suspicious of everyone; Town ought to be. I outlined evidence against brewha; I’ve outlined evidence against others. But I wasn’t convinced he was the best candidate yesterDay, and I don’t apologize for it. I thought I had more time to make a final decision, and was wrong.
[ghostly voice] “Search this thread” for her screen name and just skip any posts made by others?[/ghostly voice]
Let me get this straight: you’re voting for me because I’m dubious of your power role? I like faithfool’s OMGUS vote much better, at least she was open about it.
You do realize that you’re using this as one of your arguments against me, while at exactly the same time engaging in identical behavior? You have a case against me, but you can’t post it right now. You have to wait. You have to re-read. A promise, and excuses.
That inconsistency on your part is worrisome, of course. And of course what you say is not true; I have delivered lengthy cases against Diomedes and (shortly) Freudian Slit, and shorter cases against brewha and sachertorte.
But even if it were true, as an argument against me, it kind of stinks, because it’s unanswerable. So tell me this: do you suspect that: (1) I did not have a technical rehearsal last night’ or (2) I did not have a work meeting this morning? Which real-life event do you suspect I am making up in order to avoid posting an argument that I could have avoided posting by not mentioning it at all?
Once again, I am suspicious of everyone. Perhaps it would be more convenient for the scum if I stuck rigidly to one avenue of investigation - as you would apparently prefer - but I’m not interested in doing that.
I’ve already responded to this. There’s really no way to satisfy this point, so I’m not going to address it further.
You asked for a preview! :mad:
Therein lies the rub – this is not a “power role”. This is a tiny bit of extra info. The logic of the “7%” in the setup makes it pretty clear it’s info supplied to a townie, and balance indicates that it would be info about a townie.
Trouble is, we already know all this. Continually trying to say it’s something else reeks of scum.
Sure enough. See above.
Well - the thing is, though, that you teased “being almost sure that I was scum” before I (or anyone) asked for a preview. Then you said you’d make your case later.
How does this differ substantially from what I’ve done with Freudian Slit in the last 24 hours?
OK. Freudian Slit. All quotes below are hers unless otherwise noted. The numbers in parenthesis at the end of some quotes are added by me and are the post numbers. Also, I’m not going to include every post she’s ever made here. I’ll attempt to be representative but I think the longer these things get, the more they get tuned out, and this thing is very, very long.
Her first substantive contribution is here:
Waffling early. Placing herself on both sides of the faithfool issue. This is an neutral tell in my mind, as it could mean scum positioning herself or cautious townie reserving judgment.
Still not really taking a position. This qualifies as a smudge of faithfool. I think, and the first appearance of Freudian Slit’s constant mentioning of needing to get an exact majority.
This is the classic “I’m voting for him, but it’s just a vote to get a vote out there, I don’t really mean it, I can pull it back at any time vote. When this is followed by elaboration, further investigation of the player in question or another player, it’s a pretty neutral thing. When it’s followed by sitting on that vote - which was made with a disclaimer and had little basis - right up through the lynch, it seems scummy. You get to be on the lynch wagon, but you set yourself up with an easy way to jump the wagon if you need to - or to dissociate yourself from your own vote later. Which does Freudian Slit do?
No additional analysis provided, and for someone who was so diffident about her initial vote, she sure is anxious to ensure a majority here. She will eventually state that faithfool reminds her of herself in the previous game, but she doesn’t want to switch her vote because she really wants to see mhaye dead.
mhaye dies, we go to Night, and suddenly Freudian Slit is a very prolific poster. Overall, I note, her fluff-to-content ratio is pretty high.
This one is a little tenuous, but the wording of this post, especially the last line, niggles. I’ve played this game a bunch of times now. Only once have I considered my role in it to be about “psyching each other out,” and that was the first time, when I was scum. Scum need to “psych out” the other players; townies need to do precisely the opposite. Could be just an unfortunate word choice, but I’m mentioning it anyway.
More waffling, over the same subject as on Day One. Still no evidence or analysis, but more importantly, still more careful backing away from her own opinion. “faithfool is giving me a weird vibe… but… um… not completely. Certainly not enough to vote for her yet… but… yeah… weird vibe. Everybody look at faithfool!”
“…or maybe brewha’s scum… lot of you seem to think so… or maybe he’s not… certainly don’t expect me to give an opinion with which you can ever connect me… Ooh, and somebody pass the maple syrup. Mmmm, waffles.
Finally, a firm vote.
In light of her behavior leading up to it, this post reads like more of an effort to divorce herself from her votes. “Hey, if I join a bandwagon and kill a townie, it wasn’t because I was actually believing they were scum - it was because I was trying to be pragmatic, and keep the town from failing to lynch. Really, don’t ask me for a defense of my vote - my defense is “we needed a majority.” Blame the system (As a side note, this is why forcing people to vote just to get a majority is problematic, because it allows for defenses like this).
Basically, this post is the outcome of the one before it. The next post is about Hal and faith. Once again, note how our narrator uses “maybes” and “on the other hands” to express suspicion without taking a firm stand on anything.
I ask her if she thinks Pleonast is right about the secret being the source of the dossiers, or if it’s something yet unrevealed. Shockingly, she’s not taking a stand:
Shortly thereafter - way back at the BEGINNING of the day:
Are we all just going to go for brewha? At the very beginning of a seven-day Day? Or if not, are we just going to go for faithfool? We’re just going to keep looking at the same two people, right, everybody? We’re not going to branch out in any crazy directions, right? We’re just going to vote as a big bloc and not think about it too much, right?
Next, in response to me. I had just posted a very long indictment of Diomedes. Very long, with multiple points. Here’s her response:
She dismisses one of my points with a non-sequitur, addresses one other point of mine that was literally made with one character, and ignores the rest of the argument but declares the case “weak?” Hey, a strong opinion from Freudian Slit. Cool!
“Let’s keep chasing these two, guys! They’re the only people in the game! brewha and faithfool, faithfool and brewha. One of them has to be scum, right? So if one of them isn’t, then we’ll just jump on over to the other. After all, we can afford more than two mislynches, right, guys?”
“Still not totally sure I trust faith.” Gosh, I hope so, since she’s been one of the people you’ve been talking about all game. Heck, just yesterDay you were telling us that you really wanted to lynch faith, but you just had to vote for brewha instead to ensure a majority. Now, suddenly, it’s back to “not totally sure I trust faith,” which is about the mildest expression of mistrust that’s possible. I’m not totally sure I trust ANYBODY. No town should be.
But the big problem for me is this phrase: “I’m more inclined to doubt Hal and faithfool and side with Dio as town..
What??
No explanation, either in this post, before it, or after it. She’s just inclined to side with Dio as town. It was this post that made me take a step backward pursuing Dio, and try to figure out who would benefit if I was wrong. Here Freudian Slit is aligning herself with Dio for no reason at all. This is the best trust-building strategy in the world for scum, because who doesn’t like it when someone else calls them town? Especially if they are?
Summary post to come under separate cover.
Jeez, that ended up being longer than I’d anticipated. That was the long version; here’s the synopsis:
The Case Against Freudian Slit, with Bullet Points
[ul]
[li]She has shown a consistent pattern of throwing opinions, ideas, suspicions, and even votes out for consideration - but hedging them and backing away from them to an extreme degree, usually in the same post. She consistently seeks to avoid responsibility for her own votes, casting votes to lynch mhaye and brewha while protesting her own uncertainty and citing the need to achieve majority as her primary justification. The only strong and unqualified opinion she’s had has been:[/li]
[li]Her utterly groundless expression of trust for Diomedes “as town.”[/li]
[li]Also concerning has been her constant and insistent effort to get people to focus on faithfool and brewha as the primary (even only reasonable lynching candidates), even going so far as to ask if we were all just going to lynch brewha before the current Day had even really begun. The fact that her myopia just so happens to concern two of the more popular targets over the past several Days appears to me to be further evidence of her effort to protect herself with a nice cozy cocoon of waffling and majority opinion. [/li]
[li]Finally, she used exactly the same phrase - “psyching [each other] out” - to describe her own perception of how the game should feel as she previously used to describe her own behavior as scum.[/li][/ul]
My vote, obviously, stands.
Based on my almost certainly flawed theory, I would say that the four most likely canidates for scumhood are
**Pleonast, Hal Briston, Fruedan Slit, **and Rysto
Hockey Monkey at least acknowledged my theory as a possibility and was the one who pointed out that if I were town, there’s no reason that one more scum wouldn’t jump on the wagon to lynch me.
I dont’ have much of a reason to believe sachertorte is scum. All I have is yesterday’s vote for me and is FOS at me based on him misinterpreting my words.
After four posts that implicated those six as possible scum, Hal and Pleonast didn’t even acknowledge that I had pointed the finger at them. Which very possibly means that my theory held some water and they just would rather not acknowledge it and bring more attention to it. Or, they missed it by skimming. Rysto has said nothing – which makes me lean more towards scum. And Slit’s voting just to ensure a lynch - any lynch - makes me lean scum as well.
This in particular bothered me:
It’s me or no one? We have time. I’m siding with Storytellor on this one. There’s no rush to switch votes to one person.
Vote Freudian Slit
Considering last day, we had no one to vote for and town is dropping like flies, yeah, I think we do need to rush a vote.
I have no idea why you think this is scummy in me, but not in Hockey Monkey.
- This was not the only reason I gave for finding you scummy; and
- I haven’t looked closely enough at Hockey Monkey to say whether her push, like yours, is representative of a pattern of dodging responsibility for her vote. Her arguments against me have been dodgy and inconsistent, but of course I would think that - I know them to be false.
I’ve been trying to spur discussion, not rush a vote. I’ve made my feelings perfectly clear - at the end of the day, regardless of who has the majority, every town member needs to be on that wagon. We have to make sure a lynch happens, but there is no need to start the clock early.
I’ve also made it perfectly clear who I’d like to toss over a cliff today, but **storyteller ** has a compelling case against you which I will be pondering further. Yes I know I just agreed with storyteller. I have an open mind.
Actually, I quite agree with this. This idea has been floated in previous “majority-required” games, but has never actually been used, but is there any reason we can’t set an advance deadline, with the period between the advance deadline and the real deadline essentially “not counting” for game purposes?
Here’s what I propose. Whatever the actual deadline is - it’s Wednesday, at what time? - we set our advance deadline six hours ahead of it. From now until the advance deadline, everyone votes as if a majority vote were not required - ie, vote for the person you think is most likely to be scum. Don’t worry about trying to secure a majority, just make your arguments and vote naturally.
When the advance deadline arrives, whoever is in the lead is the target of choice. From that point on, everyone changes their vote to that player, as a purely mechanical action to secure the lynch. Essentially, this would allow us to operate as if the majority requirement didn’t exist, in exchange for shortening the Day by six hours.
Is it just me, or is this the most paranoid game of Mafia yet? You just agreed with me, and it made me feel more suspicious. Ack.
While management appreciates your initiative, and innovative solution to the problem you’ve encountered, we regret to inform you it does not meet company requirements. Using external sources to house data creates several issues for corporate. Firstly, the integrity of the data. Since external data stores carry different rules about editing and updates, the management can not verify, without tedious oversight, the document’s integrity on an ongoing basis. Secondly, the channels of communication have been designed to flow organically among our staff. Branching off of these channels causes disruption and we can not guarantee all staff have access to said external data stores or can render them properly. Thirdly, the archival scheme of external data stores may vary from the company’s own. Future teams wishing to re-visit the experiences of this team during your team-building retreat may be unable to do so if the external data is no longer available and was never merged into the main documentation.
Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter.
Mgmt.
In case anyone missed any of that, here are the problems the mods have with using external docs, in English.
-
Having documents outside the thread, owned by individuals, could bypass the “no edits” rule. No edit timestamps or window for edits are imposed on outside documents.
-
Players, or spectators, may not be able to access google docs.
-
People wanting to re-read the thread in the future may find a broken link if whoever created the document deletes it later.
I’m not accusing Hockey Monkey of doing anything untoward, and I genuinely appreciate her initiative. I just think it’s too dangerous a precedent to allow. Instead of having a static, uneditable, single source to analyze for behavior or votes, both the players and mods have to go multiple places to get the whole picture, and that picture can change, be unaccessible, or disappear entirely. That wouldn’t be good.
Enjoy,
Steven
I am hereby shamed and chastized. I just copied and pasted all the posts into a word doc so I could read them better, and thought it would be helpful to share the info. (Instead of pasting a 26 page word doc into the thread.) 
Noted boss…won’t happen again.