|
Post by Renata on Feb 4, 2011 16:44:01 GMT -5
Posts 153 and 156. <-- is helpful.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 4, 2011 16:54:05 GMT -5
Posts 153 and 156. <-- is helpful. Gracias. So, that's interesting. Skeezix noted that he felt Mahaloth was trying to get in early on a bandwagon. I didn't really get that vibe at the time. However, Mahaloth is being awfully quiet for a guy tied for the lead with ~48 hours to go. That smells like he's laying low and waiting for Town to find something else shiny to look at. Town would normally be defending themselves at this point, IME, and laying low is something I've successfully done as Scum several times. Mahaloth[/color], here's a fish to yer noggin.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 4, 2011 16:58:06 GMT -5
I'm almost up to date with Second Read.
The only firm conclusion I have come to is that aat this point I am not going to vote for BillMc.
Bill's been in a frustrating position recently; he wants to play, but keeps getting offed early by the Mafia. This happened to me early in my career (not here) - I became the first player to be N0-killed twice in the place I used to play some years ago. If it had kept on, it would have been frustrating; fortunately it did not. But I know how Bill feels when he's Town.
I suspected that Bill's opening claim was driven by the desire to play for more than a Day or two. It's not indicative of alignment, because a Mafia-aligned Bill can spin the claim as an explanation of why the Mafia did not kill Bill. His abrupt departure was, I believe, also an outgrowth of this frustration - his plan to get a few Days play in resulted in him getting the early lynch lead and he just gave up. At least, that's how I read the departure.
I'm also against (as a general rule) killing nonparticipants on Day 1, because I've seen what happens when you do. If it hadn't been for the Werewolf Testing Machine, we'd never have recovered from the information loss. This isn't wholly comparable, because Bill has participated and will leave some data behind.
The only reservation I have about Final Votes is that Bill, having participated Today, won't get one at Dusk Tonight (unless the Mods exercise their right to be arbitrary and capricious).
But if Bill decides to return, I for one will be glad to see him back.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Feb 4, 2011 18:17:34 GMT -5
{oog}Hi, sorry for the recent non-participation. My real life conflict has heated up again. And I just got an e-mail saying my new computer has been recalled. So I have to transfer all my data again, then wipe this computer clean, then take it back, then buy a new one and transfer all my stuff again. Arrrrrrrghhhhhh. I will try to participate as much as possible. God I'm sorry Ulla [/oog] Trying to keep up. I was already to unvote Bill and vote bobarrgh yesterday but got distracted in the first case and wanted to think about the secon. I totally understand Bill's frustration on getting voted off early because he's such a good player. But dang I did and still do hate his claim and even more his explanation for his claim. All he did was introduce a shit-storm of wifom into the game 10 seconds after the ball was snapped. And sorry folks, the Bill I know is a tricksy Bill. I could totally see him doing this as scum (hahahahaha scum would never do that). *If after all this you turn up scum you tricksy bastard you owe me a beer for this unvote.* unvote Bill for nowOn to bobarrgh. I didn't vote him yesterday because I wanted to let the do=don't explanation simmer for awhile. Sorry, bobarrgh, I'm not buying it. If you didn't understand my post why didn't you ask me for a clarification? Why just say I do{'nt} like it. That's completely unproductive. When I specifically asked what you liked about my post, at least twice, you never bothered to respond. If someone did that to me I would be all "WTF! I didn't say I liked it." And then I'd trot off and quote my post and find out to my chagrin that I typoed my response. By the same token if you actually thought I was in reality asking what you didn't like about my post you could have responded to that as well but you didn't. Again totally unproductive. vote bobarrgh
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 4, 2011 19:45:57 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 2 days, 8 hours and 14 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] harmless little bunny (4)(4) Renata [141 156], Romanic [164], Suburban Plankton [186], Sister Coyote [260], peekercpa [263] Mahaloth (4)(4) Red Skeezix [153], Renata [ 156 241 256], harmless little bunny [168], KidVermicious [271] bobarrgh (4)(4) Natlaw [213], guiri [238], Renata [241 256], texcat [247], sinjin [273] BillMc (1)(4) Romola [113], sinjin [128 273], harmless little bunny [131 168], Mahaloth [139 160]sinjin (1)(1) Paranoia [174] Captain Pinkies (1)(1) timmy (2520 Hockey Monkey (0)(1) Renata [140,141]Not voting (9) Mahaloth, Merestil Haye, BillMc, Captain Pinkies, Hockey Monkey, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, bobarrgh, naturallylazy, pedescribe With these votes, harmless little bunny will be lynched
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 4, 2011 21:36:56 GMT -5
Thoughts on Mahaloth. This is the first thing that catches my eye: oh frak this - do what you you like. lynch me, end the day early, dont care. I hate these kind of posts and following one that asks to be subbed out. It's a game, you got a couple early votes for reasons you don't like, and now you want to whine about it and ask to be removed? 1. That's lame and I didn't think it was like you. 2. I think it could be a scum tactic to convince us that you are town. I mean, a scum wouldn't ask to be removed or tell us to lynch him. Or would they. It's WIFOM I know, but it doesn't seem like you to do this. It's enough for me to put my early vote on you, too. Vote BillPlenty of time to move my vote if a better case arrives. The justification makes no mention of what the majority of people seem to be using to justify their votes for Bill: a) the unprompted vanilla claim b) Bill's objection to the role PM rule and any past changes in this perspective that may or may not have been different in the past. I agree that this does smack a bit of trying to find a novel reason to jump on an existing wagon, but that is a motivation that can be shared by both Town and not-Town especially early in the game. Then there's this one: My interpretation of Mahaloth's post was that he was basically saying to Bill, "You want to leave? Fine...there's the door...don't let it hit you on your way out!" In other words, purely a meta-vote based on an emotional reaction to an emotional reaction. Not a 'good' vote, but not a 'Scummy' one either. 1. It was a Day One vote and I like the policy of "vote early, vote often". I was actually surprised how much crap I caught for it. Still am, actually. 2. I initially thought it could be a scum tactic, like "only Town would ask to be removed," but I really think it's a null tell now. Hence, my unvote. Attracting votes the way I did practically makes me want to just shut up and fly under the radar, but I won't shut up because that it anti-Town. Still, I hope we don't just lynch the loud. I don't know that I'd categorize Mahaloth as qualifying for 'lynch the loud', and this parses to me as trying to manufacture some sense of credibility out of whole cloth both by trying to suggest that he's only catching heat because he's participating, and that while he initially suspected Bill for making a defensive post that was somewhat similar in many ways, he sets up a contrast to Bill as Mahaloth is instead willing to transcend his desire to defensively adjust his play by trying not to participate to avoid heat, because it is pro-town to keep the participation up. I could comfortably vote for Mahaloth at this point, but I'm going to examine the other front-runners first.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 4, 2011 23:18:05 GMT -5
Having completed my reread, I have this to say on the bobarrgh situation. For me it can all be summed up by these two posts: I see now where the confusion has come in about my exchange with sinjin. I had to re-read all my posts 3 times before I saw what I had done. I know this is going to come across as scummy, but it is the truth. Here is what I said to her in post #129: "I do like your second-to-last comment on Bill's posting." What I meant to say is "I do n't like your second-to-last comment on Bill's posting." This is what I was explaining in post #149. This explains why I was bamfoozled by Natlaw's statements to me in his #231 and the tenor of my response in #234. Anyway, that's how it is. Sorry for the confusion. The spreading of the WIFOM was completely unintentional. If I get lynched for it, well, then I will have learned an important lesson. I know people have been lynched for less. [slightly_oog] For the record, I've been having a hard time adjusting to the edit mechanism on this board. I just now realized the difference between the "Quick Post Reply" and the "Full Reply". All of my editing to date has been in the "Quick Post Reply", which only gave me about 8-10 lines of text, which made it really difficult to proof. [/slightly_oog] @ sinjin ... I wasn't really trying to "drive-by smudge" Romola. I was reacting more to the early vote rather than the vote itself. As far as I can see, there really isn't much to go on at this point, other than what appears to be a few null tells. I realize the voting needs to start somewhere. I do like your second-to-last comment on Bill's posting. And now we are to believe that should read "I don't like your.."? Hmmm..not sure I buy that. Seems a very strange thing to say: I don't like your comment. Period. No explanation of why I disagree with it or what I don't like about it. On the other hand, a statement of I like your comment does not really require an explanation. vote: bobarrghEverything that bob said actually makes sense if his 'original' post had actually said 'I do like your second-to-last comment'. texcat may have a point that it would seem strange to just say "I don't like your comment", without giving an explanation. But I think it's also strange to say "I do like your comment" without explanation. It seems more natural to simply say "I like your comment". To me, the addition of the word 'do' for emphasis wuld require the same sort of qualifier that the word 'don't' would. I'm inclined to dismiss texcat's argument here, and believe bob's statement that he made a faux pas and has been trying to make up for it all Day.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 4, 2011 23:24:51 GMT -5
On Captain Pinkies:
I've only played one other game with him (Halloween, I think?), so I'm not terribly familiar with his style. Apparently it involves doing very little on Day 1 except posting drink recipes. And when he picks up a vote Today for it, what's his response? Another drink recipe...
I really don't like the excuse "oh, that's just the way <player> is, so it's a null tell", but I've come to realize that's just the way it is sometimes, whether I like it or not. So apparently I have to give Pinkies a pass Today.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 4, 2011 23:55:42 GMT -5
On Mahaloth: I said earlier that I didn't think there was anything Scummy when he voted for Bill, or when he unvoted. I am a bit bothered by this post though: My interpretation of Mahaloth's post was that he was basically saying to Bill, "You want to leave? Fine...there's the door...don't let it hit you on your way out!" In other words, purely a meta-vote based on an emotional reaction to an emotional reaction. Not a 'good' vote, but not a 'Scummy' one either. 1. It was a Day One vote and I like the policy of "vote early, vote often". I was actually surprised how much crap I caught for it. Still am, actually. 2. I initially thought it could be a scum tactic, like "only Town would ask to be removed," but I really think it's a null tell now. Hence, my unvote. Attracting votes the way I did practically makes me want to just shut up and fly under the radar, but I won't shut up because that it anti-Town. Still, I hope we don't just lynch the loud. It didn't really bother me at the time, but now that it's 36 hours later, there are a couple things that do bug me about it. "1. It was a Day One vote and I like the policy of "vote early, vote often" - He did vote (relatively) early, then unvoted not long thereafter, and hasn't voted again since. That's not exactly "voting often" "Attracting votes the way I did practically makes me want to just shut up and fly under the radar, but I won't shut up because that it anti-Town." - He's made exactly one post since then. I also notice on reread that the only contribution Mahaloth has made to this game was his vote, and subsequent unvote, of Bill. Every other post he has made has either been discussing his vote (and other's reactions to it), or fluff.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 5, 2011 4:35:51 GMT -5
The more I review Bob's posts, the more confused he looks.Here's a timeline of events (no links as I'm posting from my phone):
#40/44/89/110 Romola questioned Bill about his objection to the fake PMs in this game but not previous games and then cited the same reason in her vote #111/114 Bob posted two times after her vote with no comment on the vote except to joke about her format issues and to comment on Bill's post with "I do like the points you raised with regards to the possible presence of Watchers." (/bolding added) #117 Sister Coyote says she doesn't know what to think of Romola's vote as Bill's early claim is a null-tell (which was not part of Romola's vote reasoning) #118 Bob makes his comment on Romola's vote being strange #121/122 Romola and I refer Bob and Sister to Romola's actual vote reasoning #125 Bob responds "You do make a good point" (bolding added) #128 Sinjin accuses Bob of smudging Romola #129 Bob defends his comment with: "I was reacting more to the early vote rather than the vote itself. As far as I can see, there really isn't much to go on at this point, other than what appears to be a few null tells. I realize the voting needs to start somewhere." and adds his "I do like your comment..." (Bolding added) which contrasts to his liking Bill's earlier comment on the same topic of watchers #137 I ask about the apparent contradiction #144 Bob says he doesn't understand Sinjin's comment #146 Sinjin asks again about the apparent contradiction #149 Bob responds but doesn't answer the specific question #181 Sinjin mentions Bob's smudge of Romola
(Continued in next post)
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 5, 2011 4:47:21 GMT -5
#183 Bob responds: "I made that comment before she had clarified that she was talking about Bill's objection to the fake role PMs and not the vanilla claim." (Bolding added). He goes on to explain his reasoning for the comment: "The comment that it was "a little strange this early in the game" referred to the fact that both Romola and Bill were both just in a game where there was a vanilla town claim right out of the gate (by someone else), and Romola didn't kick up about it." #231 Then the "I do(n't) like(understand) discussion starts with a vote from Natlaw
So, in summary we have: - He seems to have missed all Romola's posts building up to her voting Bill, saw Sister Coyote's inaccurate comment and added that Romola's vote looked strange without saying why - a smudge - Later he gave an explanation for the smudge and then, even later, gave a completely different explanation - He misrepresented the timing of events surrounding his smudge - He liked two contrasting opinions on the same subject without giving any reasons for liking the second comment. When questioned, he explained that he didn't understand part of the comment, then he claimed to have said "I don't understand" and not "I do like", then he claimed to have made a typo and intended to say "I don't like" (see his use of "do" for emphasis in previous posts)
That's a load of confusion, misunderstandings and backtracks. All on Day 1.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 5, 2011 5:19:55 GMT -5
All of the Bob stuff is boiling down to a null tell for me, and that is still how I feel about Bill too, though it will be nice to know how the substitution/participation level stuff is going to work out with respect to Bill.
So that leaves Mahaloth for me at this point.
Vote: Mahaloth
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 5, 2011 5:40:58 GMT -5
That's where I'm leaning with Bob. I'm not seeing a strong scum motivation for such obvious contradictions and the more I read, the less I'm convinced he's a scheming scum and the more plausible the confused townie scenario is becoming. At least compared to the other two lynch leaders: I suspect an element of OMGUS in Harmless Little Bunny's vote change to Mahaloth but there's a clear inconsistency in his own vote on Bill and his criticism of Mahaloth's.
Mahaloth's vote was weak and, as has been pointed out, poorly reasoned but he does appear to be trying to fly under the radar since getting a little heat and there's a clear scum motivation both for his bandwagon vote and his subsequent play.
Unvote Vote Mahaloth
|
|
Romola
Mome Rath
One of them saw two words of the joke and spent several weeks in hospital.
Posts: 107
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Romola on Feb 5, 2011 5:44:43 GMT -5
Unvote BillMc
I don't see any usefulness in leaving it on at this point. I'm still hacked off at the flouncing, especially as it doesn't look as if he's coming back. Perversely, the sincere flounce makes him look to me like genuinely aggrieved Town rather than tricky scum. It's probably not right to think this way, but I do.
I'm re-reading the Day and will be back to vote in a bit.
|
|
|
Post by naturallylazy on Feb 5, 2011 8:39:39 GMT -5
Dropping in quickly:
My Apologies to the mods and everybody for not participating much, if this weekend goes much more crazier I might smack a few people.
I should be more open either tonight or tomorrow, which is cutting it close, I know, but I want to make sure I have really caught up on things properly before I post further thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 5, 2011 11:16:44 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 1 days, 16 hours and 43 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] Mahaloth (6)(6) Red Skeezix [153], Renata [ 156 241 256], harmless little bunny [168], KidVermicious [271], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies [281], guiri [282] harmless little bunny (4)(4) Renata [141 156], Romanic [164], Suburban Plankton [186], Sister Coyote [260], peekercpa [263] bobarrgh (3)(4) Natlaw [213], guiri [238 282], Renata [241 256], texcat [247], sinjin [273] sinjin (1)(1) Paranoia [174] Captain Pinkies (1)(1) timmy (2520 BillMc (0)(4) Romola [113 283], sinjin [128 273], harmless little bunny [131 168], Mahaloth [139 160]Hockey Monkey (0)(1) Renata [140,141]Not voting (9) Mahaloth, Merestil Haye, BillMc, Captain Pinkies, Hockey Monkey, bobarrgh, naturallylazy, pedescribe, Romola With these votes, Mahaloth will be lynched
|
|
|
Post by BobArrgh on Feb 5, 2011 11:24:12 GMT -5
I think that Mahaloth's vote on Bill was a gut-level reaction to the crap that has gone on in the current game over on the SDMB. Burby called it a "statement vote", which I think is an accurate assessment. Mahaloth as much as acknowledged it by unvoting Bill within a short time period.
However, harmless little bunny's vote on Mahaloth seems to be a reaction to Mahaloth's reaction.
Both votes seem to have been made based on emotion, rather than any rational thought. But, one player has already rescinded his vote, leaving the other one still looking irrational.
Vote harmless little bunny
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 5, 2011 11:43:56 GMT -5
Though he may not be aware of it yet, CatInASuit is replacing BillMc at this point.Vote Countwith approximately 1 days, 16 hours and 16 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] Mahaloth (6)(6) Red Skeezix [153], Renata [ 156 241 256], harmless little bunny [168], KidVermicious [271], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies [281], guiri [282] harmless little bunny (5)(5) Renata [141 156], Romanic [164], Suburban Plankton [186], Sister Coyote [260], peekercpa [263], bobarrgh [286] bobarrgh (3)(4) Natlaw [213], guiri [238 282], Renata [241 256], texcat [247], sinjin [273] sinjin (1)(1) Paranoia [174] Captain Pinkies (1)(1) timmy (2520 CatInASuit (0)(4) Romola [113 283], sinjin [128 273], harmless little bunny [131 168], Mahaloth [139 160]Hockey Monkey (0)(1) Renata [140,141]Not voting (8) Mahaloth, Merestil Haye, CatInASuit, Captain Pinkies, Hockey Monkey, naturallylazy, pedescribe, Romola With these votes, Mahaloth will be lynched
|
|
|
Post by harmless little bunny on Feb 5, 2011 11:57:09 GMT -5
I think that Mahaloth's vote on Bill was a gut-level reaction to the crap that has gone on in the current game over on the SDMB. Burby called it a "statement vote", which I think is an accurate assessment. Mahaloth as much as acknowledged it by unvoting Bill within a short time period. However, harmless little bunny's vote on Mahaloth seems to be a reaction to Mahaloth's reaction. Both votes seem to have been made based on emotion, rather than any rational thought. But, one player has already rescinded his vote, leaving the other one still looking irrational. Vote harmless little bunny[/color][/quote] I already said I have found consistencies between this game and the last game when Malhaloth was scum. He seems to be a bandwagon player and he changed his vote quickly as soon as there was any suspicion of his vote. He is playing it too safe and trying hard not to get lynched. He is not playing as town. Now you want me to change my vote? That seems like the safe move; not the town move. Town would vote for who they believe to be scum and keep it there even if people (who could be scum, by the way) disagree with their vote. But now if I don't change my vote I am irrational. <font style="font-size: 12px; ">That's where I'm leaning with Bob. I'm not seeing a strong scum motivation for such obvious contradictions and the more I read, the less I'm convinced he's a scheming scum and the more plausible the confused townie scenario is becoming. At least compared to the other two lynch leaders: I suspect an element of OMGUS in Harmless Little Bunny's vote change to Mahaloth but there's a clear inconsistency in his own vote on Bill and his criticism of Mahaloth's. Mahaloth's vote was weak and, as has been pointed out, poorly reasoned but he does appear to be trying to fly under the radar since getting a little heat and there's a clear scum motivation both for his bandwagon vote and his subsequent play. UnvoteVote Mahaloth[/color][/b][/quote] Where do you get the OMGUS sense from? Neither of the players I've voted for had even mentioned me before I voted them. Are you referring to last game? I mentioned last game was because I see Malhaloth acting the same way this game as he was last game when he was scum. Now I feel like he is acting even more like scum since the vote on BillMC, reinforcing my decision to vote for him. How does this make me more scummy than Bob? Especially since he wants me to play the same way as Malhaloth now and be wishy washy with my votes to avoid attention.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 5, 2011 12:22:46 GMT -5
I suspect an element of OMGUS based on your comments about him from a previous game, maybe the better term is metagame but it read like you were irritated by him. Your reasoning that he voted Bill without giving reasons why he thought Bill was scummy matches the reasons you gave for your vote on Bill so seems to be a dual standard.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Feb 5, 2011 12:39:40 GMT -5
I resent being called a "bandwagon player", which I think is unfair and untrue to my game history.
Vote guiri
Guiri votes on me despite not liking the case against me. Did it occur to you that I might be playing it careful because I think it is important to survive? It is.
Not because I'm scum. Because I am town with a power role.
I didn't want to claim on Day One, but I feel I should. Scold me if you must, but I think it's the right move. I still don't get how I pulled so many votes. It really discourages me from every following a "vote early, vote often" policy. Gee, you think people might just be happy it isn't them that is getting killed?
I am a shrubbery. Below is the text of my role PM from my inbox. There was a "winky" face after the "welcome the game" part that didn't copy.
« Message sent on Jan 31, 2011, 5:08am » ________________________________________ Hi Mahaloth - welcome to the game
England, 932 A.D.
You are a... shrubbery!!! Made by the famous ROGER THE SHRUBBER!!
These are sad time when passing ruffians can 'ni' at will to old ladies. And being a shrubbery in sad times can be... well... sad!
So you're kind of sad and when a shrubbery is feeling sad like you it sometimes wither away. We don't want that to happen to you. So now it's time to fight back and overcome the sad, sad, sad, sad times!!
Alignment: Town
Role: Vote-investigator
Power: Every Night (as long as you are alive in the game) you may target a player that voted the previous Day. You may ask the Moderators about one and only one of that players voted the previous Day only. You will then before next Day begins be informed by the Moderators if the target-player and the player voted for have the same alignment or not.
Wincon: You win with your team of fellow Townies. This will happen when all threats to Town have been vanquished or withered away from the game.
Even plants has to follow rules. You better as the well. The Moderators might invent shrubbery-shredding if you don't read, understand and follow the rules provided in the Thread of Rules.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Feb 5, 2011 13:31:28 GMT -5
I apologize for not being as active today as I would have liked. My boss had a death in the family and is out of town and I'm been running the dealership by myself bell to bell since Thursday. He's on his way back now so my time should free back up somewhat. I've been paying more attention to the game on Giraffe too, and for that I apologize as well.
I've read through and I agree that the scummiest playing players right now are Mahaloth and the crazybunny. I'm a little surprised that Mahaloth hasn't voted yet, at least in an effort to save himself.
I know it's early to try to do a vote analysis, but the one off votes bother me. I know from experience that some scum will try to hide their votes amongst folks who are not in danger of getting lynched, just so they aren't on a town lynch bandwagon. Timmy's vote for Captain Pinkies is sticking out to me. It's placed later in the day when there has been plenty of discussion about other players and a couple of wagons are rolling on other people.
I would like to vote for Timmy, but my own vote would then be what I classify as a one off. I hate that! Can we have some discussion about Timmy's vote? I think there may be something there, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. I will be able to vote before the deadline unless something drastic happens. My top choices right now are Mahaloth, crazybunny and Timmy, with a leaning toward Timmy at the moment.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Feb 5, 2011 13:33:28 GMT -5
NETA: I was in the process of writing my post when Mahaloth claimed. Please redact my comments about Mahaloth from the record. :-P
|
|
Romola
Mome Rath
One of them saw two words of the joke and spent several weeks in hospital.
Posts: 107
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Romola on Feb 5, 2011 13:59:37 GMT -5
Mahaloth, does it read to you that you submit the name of a voter and you get back whether their alignment is the same as that of a single named votee of theirs? Or do you just get it from their final votee?
I suspect there may be a typo in the PM as posted which may explain this:
I suspect that 'voted' in this instance may mean 'votes', which would clear it up.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 5, 2011 14:00:36 GMT -5
That's an extremely powerful claim. Like, astonishingly powerful. He can do two for one in many circumstances, make a chain of "same alignment" until it breaks, and so on. I can't believe I'm going down the road of doubting Mahaloth-as-investigator again, but I do. I'm not sure what to do, and wish it wasn't the weekend so I could think properly.
|
|
Romola
Mome Rath
One of them saw two words of the joke and spent several weeks in hospital.
Posts: 107
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Romola on Feb 5, 2011 14:28:30 GMT -5
I don't like the case against BobArgh at all. His posts make far more sense if read in the context of his post 129 to Sinjin saying what he claims to have meant to say, rather than what he actually did say. I do think this is a typing slip, pure and simple.
I thought that Mahaloth's timing of his Bill vote, as well as his reasoning and his rapid withdrawal were suspicious. However, in the light of his claim and in light of what others have said about putting it into the context of other games, I don't want to drop a vote on him toDay.
I made a note early in the Day to take a look at Sinjin if Bill turned up Town. I know there can be no confirmation on that, and that a sub has been found. However, I thought Sinjin was quick to drop a vote on BillMc in post 128. This was the 2nd Bill vote, following mine - but not referencing it at all. Sinjin concentrates on the early vanilla claim and says she had been waiting for more info from Bill before voting. However, the timing does look a little like someone waiting for another person to vote to hide behind, if you get me. Sinjin's also made a lot of what i see as BobArgh's skimming and typing mistakes. It just looks too much like someone looking out for an easy target to drop an explainable vote on rather than looking for actual scum.
Vote Sinjin
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 5, 2011 14:32:48 GMT -5
I know it's early to try to do a vote analysis, but the one off votes bother me. I know from experience that some scum will try to hide their votes amongst folks who are not in danger of getting lynched, just so they aren't on a town lynch bandwagon. Timmy's vote for Captain Pinkies is sticking out to me. It's placed later in the day when there has been plenty of discussion about other players and a couple of wagons are rolling on other people. I would like to vote for Timmy, but my own vote would then be what I classify as a one off. I hate that! Can we have some discussion about Timmy's vote? I think there may be something there, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. I will be able to vote before the deadline unless something drastic happens. My top choices right now are Mahaloth, crazybunny and Timmy, with a leaning toward Timmy at the moment. The bold part looks like scum thinking out loud. If you are Town, you shouldn't worry about being the only one player voting for someone as long as you have a good reason to make that vote. Someone's gotta cast the first vote, and it should be you if you are the first to spot a scummy behavior. Waiting for support feels like you want to blend in the crowd, or is it that you don't have confidence in your scum hunting skills? You want to talk about timmy's vote, let's see it again: I've played in just one game with Captain, and he was voted for lack of participation on Day One (might have been the Halloween). You and maybe others seem familiar and--- dare I say--- approve--- of his non-participation in Day One. He's being active and responding but there's no substance behind his posts. I think he's laying low for a reason. vote Captain Pinkies<bleached> I remember my reaction when I saw the post, I thought : Lynch a lurker?! Don't tease me!!!! ;D I'm a big fan of lynching lurkers early on other sites where I play because lurking is rampant, unfortunately it's hard to accomplish. So anyway, I understand timmy's vote, and although it's easy to place a vote on a lurker, it's one reason that I don't condone given my experience on other sites. However I will not support it here and now because activity is good, and we have good cases, thus there's no need to lynch someone for inactivity (yet) I also disagree with your above statement that scum will hide in one off situation, I think they will generally mix it up, and being the only one voting for someone is, by itself, a non factor. For this reason I don't see timmy's "one off" vote as scummy. Also, looking at the games I've completed with this group doesn't show evidence that scum will hide in such a way (ref/ Evil Dead & International Mafia on the Dope, Batman on Giraffe).
|
|
Romola
Mome Rath
One of them saw two words of the joke and spent several weeks in hospital.
Posts: 107
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Romola on Feb 5, 2011 14:33:52 GMT -5
Mahaloth, your PM doesn't say if you can submit your own name as the voter. Did you seek clarification on that? Just, that would make it even more uber powerful than it seems already.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 5, 2011 14:43:06 GMT -5
That's an extremely powerful claim. Like, astonishingly powerful. He can do two for one in many circumstances, make a chain of "same alignment" until it breaks, and so on. I can't believe I'm going down the road of doubting Mahaloth-as-investigator again, but I do. I'm not sure what to do, and wish it wasn't the weekend so I could think properly. Dunno what you are referring to by doubting Mahaloth again, can you explain? Anyway a scanner claim, and one powerful like this one (if I read it right), should be taken seriously and I think Mahaloth should be given the benefit of doubt at least one day. It's the classic situation where the scum will have to decide if they want to kill him or let us wonder if he was telling the truth, but the threat is very real to them if they let him live. I don't think we have much to lose by letting Mahaloth live, at least one day, and see what night result he gives us tomorrow, if he's still alive. However we obviously have much to lose if he's telling the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Pinkies on Feb 5, 2011 14:59:40 GMT -5
I know it's early to try to do a vote analysis, but the one off votes bother me. I know from experience that some scum will try to hide their votes amongst folks who are not in danger of getting lynched, just so they aren't on a town lynch bandwagon. Timmy's vote for Captain Pinkies is sticking out to me. It's placed later in the day when there has been plenty of discussion about other players and a couple of wagons are rolling on other people. I would like to vote for Timmy, but my own vote would then be what I classify as a one off. I hate that! Can we have some discussion about Timmy's vote? I think there may be something there, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. I will be able to vote before the deadline unless something drastic happens. My top choices right now are Mahaloth, crazybunny and Timmy, with a leaning toward Timmy at the moment. The bold part looks like scum thinking out loud. If you are Town, you shouldn't worry about being the only one player voting for someone as long as you have a good reason to make that vote. Someone's gotta cast the first vote, and it should be you if you are the first to spot a scummy behavior. Waiting for support feels like you want to blend in the crowd, or is it that you don't have confidence in your scum hunting skills? You want to talk about timmy's vote, let's see it again: I've played in just one game with Captain, and he was voted for lack of participation on Day One (might have been the Halloween). You and maybe others seem familiar and--- dare I say--- approve--- of his non-participation in Day One. He's being active and responding but there's no substance behind his posts. I think he's laying low for a reason. vote Captain Pinkies<bleached> I remember my reaction when I saw the post, I thought : Lynch a lurker?! Don't tease me!!!! ;D I'm a big fan of lynching lurkers early on other sites where I play because lurking is rampant, unfortunately it's hard to accomplish. So anyway, I understand timmy's vote, and although it's easy to place a vote on a lurker, it's one reason that I don't condone given my experience on other sites. However I will not support it here and now because activity is good, and we have good cases, thus there's no need to lynch someone for inactivity (yet) I also disagree with your above statement that scum will hide in one off situation, I think they will generally mix it up, and being the only one voting for someone is, by itself, a non factor. For this reason I don't see timmy's "one off" vote as scummy. Also, looking at the games I've completed with this group doesn't show evidence that scum will hide in such a way (ref/ Evil Dead & International Mafia on the Dope, Batman on Giraffe). I don't feel that I have been lurking... I thought I was actaully participating.. So I am finding this post a bit misrepresentive of my actions. <== passes a [hicup] of Say What??? Ingredients to use: 2oz expresso Coffee 4oz Brisk Lemonade in a can 2oz 100 proof Vodka Directions: Put everything in a coffe mug, or other opaque container (you don't want to see what color this is), and mix it up. This one's for sippin'
|
|