|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:52:00 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 10, 2010 13:52:00 GMT -5
I can either claim vanilla (and reduce the pool of unknowns for scum which is what got Pleo lynched yesterDay) or claim town power which will likely get me killed toNight. I would think this warrants some input from others even though I do agree that ultimately it is up to me to claim or not. Wait...what? Oh stop it! You know what I mean. I really don't want to do this all day. From my PM: You are Temperance by nature, and a roleblocker by destiny. You are of The Light, and will achieve glory when the all threats to The Light have been vanquished. And that's word-for-word, even with the grammatical error.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:52:25 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 10, 2010 13:52:25 GMT -5
I can either claim vanilla (and reduce the pool of unknowns for scum which is what got Pleo lynched yesterDay) or claim town power which will likely get me killed toNight. I would think this warrants some input from others even though I do agree that ultimately it is up to me to claim or not. If you're going to claim, then you should claim truthfully. Why would you consider doing otherwise, unless a truthful claim would get you lynched?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 13:58:27 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Dec 10, 2010 13:58:27 GMT -5
I can either claim vanilla (and reduce the pool of unknowns for scum which is what got Pleo lynched yesterDay) or claim town power which will likely get me killed toNight. I would think this warrants some input from others even though I do agree that ultimately it is up to me to claim or not. Case and point of why I really don't like this defence.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 14:07:48 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 10, 2010 14:07:48 GMT -5
I can either claim vanilla (and reduce the pool of unknowns for scum which is what got Pleo lynched yesterDay) or claim town power which will likely get me killed toNight. I would think this warrants some input from others even though I do agree that ultimately it is up to me to claim or not. If you're going to claim, then you should claim truthfully. Why would you consider doing otherwise, unless a truthful claim would get you lynched? That was phrased poorly. It wasn't so much a matter of what I would claim but what I actually am (either vanilla or not).
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 14:08:34 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 10, 2010 14:08:34 GMT -5
Bleached for the mods. Okay - this is partly said tongue in cheek: Where you expecting me to make a list of lurkers? I don't know about texcat, but I was -- what's the point of calling out a suspicious behavior without any names? Other than to make yourself look useful, that is. I might have made a case on a lurker Day 1. But time ran out and so I didn't vote. For that I am sorry, but it can't be re-done. The list-comment was a joke. My first game here I made a (I thought) wonderful list of lurkers, only to be told of because once way back in the history of mafia NAF made a list of lurkers and was told of by... I'm not sure. Rysto? RoOsh? So the list was a joke - but not a very good one, I guess. That said, I like your case against Metallic Squink well enough, I only want to know why you went with Squink over HM given that I see it the other way around. No offense. You always see HM as scummy. As much as I disagree with HM here, I read most of her posts as her saying Brewha displayed PIS. My case on metallic was more the subtle push without saying it "out loud". It was her comment as "you are defensive, but not overly defensive" and "I implied you were scum but that will happen to everyone in this game, so why the fuss". Now she has claimed a Town power-role and I'll have to re-think this.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 14:10:47 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 10, 2010 14:10:47 GMT -5
God this has got to be the strangest early Day in the history of our mafia group.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 14:21:32 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 10, 2010 14:21:32 GMT -5
Firstly, I did not use his defensiveness as a reason to push the conversation. I was simply making an observation on his initial reaction (which I explained) and yes, I did say that as a scum, he could have more reason to be defensive. But note that I did not say that his defensiveness makes him scum (if so, I would have voted for him). I think you're missing a bit of my point. What I wanted to point out is exactly that you didn't say his defensiveness (if any) was scummy. However you pointed it out. You commented on his post and went on discussing it. You used subtle phrases as "defensive" and "implied he was scum". Yet you didn't vote (before). I do feel like the conversation went a bit too long but in the end, I think it was a good way to generate discussion. I didn't vote for brewha because in the end, as I said, I think his comment and the resulting conversation is a null tell. I'm not really sure what made you change your mind. So I'll have to re-read a bit to comment on this. Sometimes you have to actually have those conversations before making a vote (or not). What you see as me "trying to push a case" is me just trying to figure out if a need to push a case. As for smudge, I've had this conversation in other games and I just don't get the use of that term. With the exception of myself, peeker and BillMc, I am suspicious of every other player still alive - that's the nature of the game. What you are calling a "smudge" I call "asking questions and making comments to see if someone reacts in a scummy way." Well, we'll need to have a wiki-article for this. I wanted to write one for a long time, but not sure if I can phrase it right. However I'll give it a try. I say you smudge someone and it's only fair I explain what I mean by the term: A smudge is implying something about Player X without actually saying it. It's leaving small footprints in the minds of the other players, but never really committing to a balled statement like "I think you are scum". So saying "what you did was so scummy" isn't a smudge. However (IMO) saying "there is so much scum-motivation behind what you just did, I don't know where to begin" without even beginning - that would be a smudge to me. I hope others will help explain it a bit better
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 14:37:30 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 10, 2010 14:37:30 GMT -5
Firstly, I did not use his defensiveness as a reason to push the conversation. I was simply making an observation on his initial reaction (which I explained) and yes, I did say that as a scum, he could have more reason to be defensive. But note that I did not say that his defensiveness makes him scum (if so, I would have voted for him). I think you're missing a bit of my point. What I wanted to point out is exactly that you didn't say his defensiveness (if any) was scummy. However you pointed it out. You commented on his post and went on discussing it. You used subtle phrases as "defensive" and "implied he was scum". Yet you didn't vote (before). I'm not really sure what made you change your mind. So I'll have to re-read a bit to comment on this. Sometimes you have to actually have those conversations before making a vote (or not). What you see as me "trying to push a case" is me just trying to figure out if a need to push a case. As for smudge, I've had this conversation in other games and I just don't get the use of that term. With the exception of myself, peeker and BillMc, I am suspicious of every other player still alive - that's the nature of the game. What you are calling a "smudge" I call "asking questions and making comments to see if someone reacts in a scummy way." Well, we'll need to have a wiki-article for this. I wanted to write one for a long time, but not sure if I can phrase it right. However I'll give it a try. I say you smudge someone and it's only fair I explain what I mean by the term: A smudge is implying something about Player X without actually saying it. It's leaving small footprints in the minds of the other players, but never really committing to a balled statement like "I think you are scum". So saying "what you did was so scummy" isn't a smudge. However (IMO) saying "there is so much scum-motivation behind what you just did, I don't know where to begin" without even beginning - that would be a smudge to me. I hope others will help explain it a bit better Understood. I also want to clarify that I didn't vote for him because of the conversation between the two of us or any perception of defensiveness or even the assumption in the first place. I voted for him because I feel his vote on me was opportunistic and he used the excuse that he was thinking of doing it before but hadn't because of how it would look.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 14:40:39 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 10, 2010 14:40:39 GMT -5
A smudge is implying something about Player X without actually saying it. It's leaving small footprints in the minds of the other players, but never really committing to a balled statement like "I think you are scum". So saying "what you did was so scummy" isn't a smudge. However (IMO) saying "there is so much scum-motivation behind what you just did, I don't know where to begin" without even beginning - that would be a smudge to me. I hope others will help explain it a bit better For when you finally do write that wiki article. Here is the origin of the term: psychopathgame.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=14&page=9#963It's not the first time she used it, but it's where she explained what she meant. The meaning may have shifted a bit, but I actually think it's an interesting approach to scum hunting and one that has been warped a bit. Take a read.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 14:43:42 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 10, 2010 14:43:42 GMT -5
OK. The Lynching of Pleonast: A Comic Opera in Two Acts
So the overture lasts about three and a half pages. We get our first vote for Pleonast at #103, by crazypunker. The vote is based principally on the claiming vanilla and refusing to explain the decision to do same, with a bit of a digression discussing the mass claim. This is not a great vote, but on Day One it’s not a terrible vote either.
Mahaloth is in thirteen minutes later with vote #2. His reasoning is quoted:
Which is, in fact, perfectly fair. Mahaloth is saying he’s either Scum (ie, non-Town – for the purposes of this analysis I will make no further distinction between these concepts unless necessary) or X, and it would be foolish to do X; as (implicit) Pleonast is not foolish, he is likely to be Scum. No problem with this vote. But the next post – “hey, crazypunker, nice timing,” which seems calculated to suggest that Mahaloth did not intentionally follow on crazypunker’s vote, seems… calculated. It is possible that Mahaloth actually took 13 minutes to compose the two sentences quoted above. But I have my doubts (note that guiri raises the same concern, at #113, while voting for Mahaloth.
At #142, Rysto votes for Plankton. It’s tangential to this analysis, but I just wanted to brush over it because it’s a pretty good argument.
At #165, metallicsquink casts the third vote (!) for Pleonast. He cites Pleo’s refusal to explain his actions, which… I can’t quibble with this. I just can’t. I agree with it. Players must be willing to account for their own behaviors, or the game breaks down altogether.
Cookies is vote #4, at #169. Saith she:
I’ll spare everyone another iteration of discussion regarding my in-principle disagreement with Cookies – I do agree that sometimes Town players can help Town by lying, but only if they understand that the likely consequence of being caught in that lie is being lynched and accept that as part of their calculus – but entirely apart from that, this is an interesting vote. The second half talks a lot about Pleo lying about being vanilla (which, as it turns out, he was not). I think, generally, the question of whether Pleo is a Town power role posing as a vanilla would be more likely to occur to Scum than to Town. On the other hand, publicly backing a “There are times when Town should like” stance like this is not something I think Scum would readily do in this way. I am diffident on Cookies at the moment.
On a related note, here’s Rysto at #177:
Taken independently, this seems like Town thinking to me. Scum would be more concerned with whether maybe Pleo is Town, but lying anyway. More at #193:
Tonally this is an extremelyTown-sounding post. When I first starting playing this game, I relied on reading tone like that and it produced good results, then we played a lot and I caught some grief for that approach so I started ignoring it and in my last five or six games as Town, I have totally sucked. So I’m going back to it. Rysto sounds like a Townie to me. I will definitely not vote for him toDay.
We get a few lurker votes (on paranoia). If, in the fullness of time, paranoia turns out to be Scum, I will be inclined to grant modest pro-Town points to these two voters (NAF and mr. ed), because they helped introduce the possibility that paranoia, rather than Pleonast, will be the target. If paranoia is Scum, other Scum would have very little motivation to this, given the ease with which inaction would lead to a relaxed mislynch. If, however, paranoia turns out to be Town, I will grant modest pro-Scum points to those same players, as a late-Day move away from a claimed vanilla to an unclaimed Town player who is not currently participating would be exactly to the benefit of Scum: the have a chance of forcing a mislynch of a player who may or may not be a power role, and Pleonast is a free mislynch for a later Day.
More to come in Part the Second.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 14:45:24 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 10, 2010 14:45:24 GMT -5
I don't know about texcat, but I was -- what's the point of calling out a suspicious behavior without any names? Other than to make yourself look useful, that is. I might have made a case on a lurker Day 1. But time ran out and so I didn't vote. For that I am sorry, but it can't be re-done. The list-comment was a joke. My first game here I made a (I thought) wonderful list of lurkers, only to be told of because once way back in the history of mafia NAF made a list of lurkers and was told of by... I'm not sure. Rysto? RoOsh? So the list was a joke - but not a very good one, I guess. That said, I like your case against Metallic Squink well enough, I only want to know why you went with Squink over HM given that I see it the other way around. No offense. You always see HM as scummy. Is that a reference to Halloween mafia? I have an astonishing blind spot for some of the players in that one. Others, of course, I will never forget. Zeddicus ....
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 15:02:59 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 10, 2010 15:02:59 GMT -5
Continuing… Vote Count as of #206 (single votes excluded)pleonast (4): crazypunker [103], mahaloth [104], metallicsquink [165], darksidecookies [169] paranoia (3): peekercpa [143], mr ed [199], naf1138 [202] suburban plankton (2): pleonast [17], rysto [142] rysto (2): hockey monkey [164], catinasuit [176] punker unvotes at #207. Paranoia comes in with a very nice post. brewha’s vote for Pleo is at #213. He feels that Sister Coyote is trying to deflect votes from Pleonast, so he votes for Pleonast. I… don’t entirely understand the logic here. But anyway, Pleo’s back in the saddle. peeker adds vote #5, at #216. Peeker is Town, so no analysis needed here. I do think, at this point, that Pleo’s lynch becomes close to inevitable. At #221, Stickler casts a weird vote for Rysto. I should say here that everyone voting for Rysto on Day One on the grounds that the latter is “defending” Pleonast is on my list. Rysto has not been defending Pleonast – he has rather been saying that the arguments against Pleonast are insatisfactory, that the evidence against Pleonast does not actually suggest anything about the player’s alignment (I’ll just go ahead and mention it – “defending” is really more what I’m doing in this post about Rysto – actively arguing that a particular player strikes me as more Town-y than not). At #230, Charr votes Rysto and frankly, I am torn. On the one hand, I simply cannot imagine Scum doing this. On the other hand, every fiber of my being says that we must lynch Charr for this for the inarguable reason that if this sort of vote is permitted without sanction, it will never be possible to find Scum. Can’t decide. Mahaloth unvotes Pleo and votes Charr. Rysto adds a self-preservation vote on Pleonast. And that’s all she wrote. ---- Question before I go much further, CatInASuit and @stickler: Each of you voted for Rysto yesterday, Stickler in particular at a sensitive time when it was entirely possible your votes might send him to the gallows; they were not throwaway votes. Neither of you has voted for him toDay. What has changed?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 15:04:06 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 10, 2010 15:04:06 GMT -5
If you're going to claim, then you should claim truthfully. Why would you consider doing otherwise, unless a truthful claim would get you lynched? That was phrased poorly. It wasn't so much a matter of what I would claim but what I actually am (either vanilla or not). Yes, it was. And trust me, I have experience with poor turns of phrase. Nevertheless, I'm inclined to believe it. Frankly, the whole thing between Rysto and metallicsquink strikes me as being a couple of Townies sniping away at each other.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 15:06:53 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 10, 2010 15:06:53 GMT -5
Is that a reference to Halloween mafia? I have an astonishing blind spot for some of the players in that one. Others, of course, I will never forget. Zeddicus .... Partly. It was more a reference to HM's reaction to you in that game. But I think that was the first time I played with you both and you both seemed to acknowledge the behavior. So when I read your posts in this game I saw reason in the arguments, but drew another conclusion. Kind of like when BillMc votes Story Where I saw metallic as the one pushing, you seemed to see HM. I have been back - and I still think HM stated her reasons more to the point. But with the claim of metallic I'm going to unvote for now. Day 2 is way to early for me to test a claim of a Town roleblocker. Unvote metallic
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 15:08:50 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 10, 2010 15:08:50 GMT -5
Quick summary of my findings so far:
- Rysto seems pro-Town to me. - I am ambivalent on Cookies. - I will lean either Town or Scum on NAF and/or Mr. Ed depending on paranoia's eventual alignment. - Charr's vote seems like it deserves a lynching on general principle. - I want very much to hear from Stickler and Catinasuit on Rysto.
---
About myself, as I have continued to be an occasional topic:
I don't really know what else to offer. My role is restricted. I explicitly asked the moderator if the restriction constituted a "post restriction" and was told that it did. I reported same in my explanatory post. I assume that buff read the exchange the followed, realized what had happened, and sent me the clarification that I subsequently posted.
Personally, I am of the opinion that my restriction does constitute a post restriction in the literal sense of that phrase, as it is a limit on what I am permitted to enter into a post (ah, why be coy? Unfortunately I'm sure it's obvious by now that it's a voting restriction. To me, a voting restriction IS a posting restriction - as posting is the mechanism by which we vote - but I understand our moderator's interpretation too).
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 15:22:18 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 10, 2010 15:22:18 GMT -5
Hey story, with no posting restriction, why not just tell us your vote restriction?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 15:23:07 GMT -5
Post by Rysto on Dec 10, 2010 15:23:07 GMT -5
Nevertheless, I'm inclined to believe it. Frankly, the whole thing between Rysto and metallicsquink strikes me as being a couple of Townies sniping away at each other. I wasn't aware that there was a thing between me and metallicsquink?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 15:27:05 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 10, 2010 15:27:05 GMT -5
Quick summary of my findings so far: - Rysto seems pro-Town to me. - I am ambivalent on Cookies. - I will lean either Town or Scum on NAF and/or Mr. Ed depending on paranoia's eventual alignment. - Charr's vote seems like it deserves a lynching on general principle. - I want very much to hear from Stickler and Catinasuit on Rysto. --- About myself, as I have continued to be an occasional topic: I don't really know what else to offer. My role is restricted. I explicitly asked the moderator if the restriction constituted a "post restriction" and was told that it did. I reported same in my explanatory post. I assume that buff read the exchange the followed, realized what had happened, and sent me the clarification that I subsequently posted. Personally, I am of the opinion that my restriction does constitute a post restriction in the literal sense of that phrase, as it is a limit on what I am permitted to enter into a post (ah, why be coy? Unfortunately I'm sure it's obvious by now that it's a voting restriction. To me, a voting restriction IS a posting restriction - as posting is the mechanism by which we vote - but I understand our moderator's interpretation too). If it's truly a vote restriction, and you can still post whatever you want (according to the rules) wouldn't that mean you could post your vote but that it wouldn't count?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 15:30:01 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 10, 2010 15:30:01 GMT -5
Nevertheless, I'm inclined to believe it. Frankly, the whole thing between Rysto and metallicsquink strikes me as being a couple of Townies sniping away at each other. I wasn't aware that there was a thing between me and metallicsquink? Ack! I meant brewha, of course. brewha and metallicsquink. Mea culpa
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 15:35:49 GMT -5
Post by Rysto on Dec 10, 2010 15:35:49 GMT -5
On the one hand, I simply cannot imagine Scum doing this. On the other hand, every fiber of my being says that we must lynch Charr for this for the inarguable reason that if this sort of vote is permitted without sanction, it will never be possible to find Scum.I understand your position, however I fear that if we lynch new players every time they put their foot in it we will just scare them off. Also, it occurs to me that nobody has really explained to Charr what he's done so wrong, and I seem to recall a post from him toDay that seemed to indicate that he didn't really understand. Charr, the scum end up winning this game by getting townies lynched. Really their entire goal during the Day is going to be trying to get some townie or another lynched. The trick for them is to place their votes for town players without making it obvious that they are trying to get town players lynched. This is why the town players need to insist that players provide reasoning behind their votes. One way that you can find the scum by looking at the reasoning and see who's been inconsistent or opportunistic in voting for townies. That's why people are objecting so strongly to you voting with no reasoning. If we allow people to vote with no reasoning it becomes impossible to differentiate opportunistic, scummy voting from honest votes from town.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 15:36:02 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 10, 2010 15:36:02 GMT -5
story,
You've gone from telling us you had a posting restriction, to telling us it's not really a posting restriction, to saying it really is a posting restriction because "it is a limit on what I am permitted to enter into a post", and then finally telling us it's actually a voting restriction.
Since you've finally spilled the beans, do you think it might be a good idea to give us the full details of this voting restriction? Otherwise we're going to spend the rest of the Day (and possibly longer) speculating on exactly what it is...
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 15:36:23 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Dec 10, 2010 15:36:23 GMT -5
Is that a reference to Halloween mafia? I have an astonishing blind spot for some of the players in that one. Others, of course, I will never forget. Zeddicus .... Hmmm? Yes? You rang?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 16:57:08 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 10, 2010 16:57:08 GMT -5
At #230, Charr votes Rysto and frankly, I am torn. On the one hand, I simply cannot imagine Scum doing this. On the other hand, every fiber of my being says that we must lynch Charr for this for the inarguable reason that if this sort of vote is permitted without sanction, it will never be possible to find Scum. Can’t decide. I just want to point out that in the ongoing Giraffe game, Lucifer (scum) voted Romola's first incarnation (town) with reasoning that was based on something she had said in the signup thread. And he didn't get lynched for four days. Game's still ongoing with a few players alive in both places, including me, so I can't say any more, but scum do do "stupid" things like that. It's not a long-term survival gambit (hence why I can't get too worked up about it at this point), but it does happen. I think you dismiss the possibility a little too easily. On preview, I like Rysto's approach to the situation.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 17:00:06 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 10, 2010 17:00:06 GMT -5
Is that a reference to Halloween mafia? I have an astonishing blind spot for some of the players in that one. Others, of course, I will never forget. Zeddicus .... Partly. It was more a reference to HM's reaction to you in that game. But I think that was the first time I played with you both and you both seemed to acknowledge the behavior. Oh, no you are thinking of someone else, Drain Bead. I still can't remember who HM was in Halloween. All right.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 17:21:28 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 10, 2010 17:21:28 GMT -5
Oh, no you are thinking of someone else, Drain Bead. I still can't remember who HM was in Halloween. See - this is were I agree and start asking myself what kind of brain-fart that was
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 17:39:10 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 10, 2010 17:39:10 GMT -5
I just want to point out that in the ongoing Giraffe game, Lucifer (scum) voted Romola's first incarnation (town) with reasoning that was based on something she had said in the signup thread. And he didn't get lynched for four days. And that isn't wrong! What he did was not an indication of his being scum, it was an indication of not paying enough attention to the game. Charr's post is not an indication of his being scum, it is an indication of him not knowing what he is doing which in this case makes it more likely that he is town. I understand Story's objection, but you really have to take these things on a case by case basis. In this case it seems wrong to lynch someone when all the signposts point to them being a foolish townie, just on a matter of principle.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 18:26:54 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 10, 2010 18:26:54 GMT -5
I'f I've done all my math right, we've got just over 24 hours left until Dusk, and we currently have a 4-way tie between paranoia, storyteller, charr, and metallicsquink, all with 2 votes each. According to the tiebreaker rules ("Should a tie occur, the player who reached the maximum number of votes first will be lynched."), paranoia would be lynched if the Day ended now.
I count 14 active votes spread among 10 different players.
Are we as a whole just that unsure of things? My vote stands on paranoia at the moment. My argument against him is basically one of 'lynch the lurker' (not to be confused with 'lynch the non-participant'). His posts have been few and far between, and when he has posted he has contributed very little in the way of analysis. I will be content to leave my vote where it is, but I would rather have something just a little more concrete to base a vote on.
We've has one claim this afternoon (metallicsquink), and one 'partial reveal' (story). So I have a question for each of them.
metallicsquink, would you post your complete PM?
storyteller, would you tell us exactly what your voting restriction is?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 18:37:25 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 10, 2010 18:37:25 GMT -5
Actually, I have a question regarding who would 'win' the current voting tie. The rule states "Should a tie occur, the player who reached the maximum number of votes first will be lynched."
Unofficial Vote Count
paranoia (2): naf1138 [23], suburban plankton [100], metallicsquink [108-199]
storyteller (2): peekercpa [115], catinasuit [124]
charr (2): mr blockey [27-140], billmc [31], mahaloth [178]
metallic squink (1): total ullz [176-223], mr ed [188], brewha [194]
rysto (1): hockey monkey [101]
mahaloth (1): guiri [109]
hockey monkey (1): renata [160]
catinasuit (1): cookies [169]
naf1138 (1): paranoia [177]
brewha (1): metallicsquink [199]
total ullz (0): texcat [16-185]
charr was the first to receive 2 votes, in Posts 27 and 31
paranoia was second, getting votes Posts 23 and 100.
But then Blockey rescinded his vote on charr in Post 140, and Mahaloth voted for charr later in Post 178.
So charr was the first person to garner 2 votes, but of the people who currently stand tied at 2 votes, paranoia has the 'oldest' votes.
bufftabby, assuming the votes were to remain as they are now (and assuming by count is correct), who would be lynched Today?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 18:48:26 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 10, 2010 18:48:26 GMT -5
Paranoia would be lynched. Note that after blockey unvoted in Post 140, Charr's vote count went back down to 1 until mahaloth's vote in 178 which created the current tie.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 10, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
That's what I thought. thanks for the clarification.
|
|