|
Day One
May 25, 2007 9:40:48 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on May 25, 2007 9:40:48 GMT -5
I'm still happy with my vote for Cookies.
Between capybara and KatiRoo, while they're both giving me a scum vibe, I'm very hesitant to to vote for them. They're both players I picked at random while we were on Google (I also randomed Kyrie). It's too much of a coincidence they'd both be scum. Something about the votes going to them just doesn't smell right to me.
But I won't defend them otherwise.
[metagame] Oh, and fluiddruid, those long urls really mess up the margins on my browser. I'd prefer if people didn't post extra-wide words or urls, because this message board doesn't handle it well. [/metagame]
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 9:43:16 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2007 9:43:16 GMT -5
I still think Capybara is the better candidate. Capybara posts. A *lot*. But the sum total of those posts doesn't come to much. KatiRoo posts less, but reading the posts, she quotes more, refers to more posts and is more firm on issues. If you look at Capybara's posts, they come to nearly NOTHING until openly criticized for this by MadTheSwine. Then, the post style changes radically. Also, Capybara retreats as soon as is questioned. KatiRoo does not seem to fold easily. In fact, when voted for, KatiRoo explained the logic of the vote FOR her as acceptable, while Capybara shifted attention to Blaster Master. My vote remains for Capybara. Now, I'm not saying Capybara's 100% scum; just, to me, that the style of posting is far more scummy than KatiRoo. This is all fair. I agree with your characterizations of both posters, but I disagree with your assessment of what constitutes scummy. I'm not sure that's a problem, ultimately; it means we'll go down more than one investigational road, rather than getting stuck in a rut. Still, I will say that I can't understand why being defensive when attacked is so often viewed as a scummy trait. Townies, it seems to me, have more reason to be defensive when attacked, because they know they are townies and that the attack is unjustified. Scum can afford to sit back, relax, and stay calm if someone accuses them; after all, the person doing the accusing is right, so the accusation isn't a personal attack.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 9:49:41 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 25, 2007 9:49:41 GMT -5
Ok, I don't know what to make of the KatiRoo bandwagon-- I still don't have a feel for her. I also don't think chucking Auto off is a good idea-- perhaps sub him out but an absent crewmember (if he is) is still a number, and we can give him enough rope later on otherwise. FluidDruid's characterization of my posting is not generous-- his analysis of whether or not my posting before MadtheSwine amounted to anything completely ignored any contributions on the SS Google, among other things, and at the time of my MadTheSwine defense the character of the game was shifting largely because more people had started posting more. I also thought that "shifting the blame to Blaster Master" might have been a justified moment (as I explained then), and that blame came about as BM had shifted blame onto me in turn as apparently deflection, which seems to earn no comment.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 9:54:22 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 9:54:22 GMT -5
storyteller0910:
Excellent, excellent point, and something I've certainly noticed during previous games. This deserves emphasis.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 10:04:17 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on May 25, 2007 10:04:17 GMT -5
Well, it took me longer than I anticipated, but I did make it through everything. Something scummy is going on; I can see it, but it's much harder to unravel from this end than it was from the other end in the previous game. Still, I'll say what I'm thinking and see where it goes. To the people currently voting for Autolycus: what the heck? Look, I get that it stinks that he's not participating right now. But he said he would be occupied for a while (right?), and presumably he said so before roles were even assigned. To view his absence as some sort of a scum tell makes no sense, given that he'd told everyone he was to be absent before he ever knew if he was scum or not. And to the people noting that he's had activity on the Dope: it takes considerably less time to throw off a quick post to a two page thread than it does to read through all 14 pages of this thread and post a useful reply. I see no reason to suspect Autolycus - obviously no reason to exonerate him, but no reason to suspect him either - and lynching him at this point, for no reason - is incredibly anti-town. FoS - Gadarene, MadtheSwine, and Kyrie Eleison. Especially Kyrie, who went from "I don't like the Autolycus lynch at all" to "yeah, OK, I'm on board" pretty darn quickly. I do notice something else kind of weird, though. It concerns a player not much in the overall town eye - KatiRoo. Way back on pages 7-9, a bunch of folks - but notably MadtheSwine - were pointing fingers of suspicion (and casting votes) in the direction of Auntbeast. Their arguments were two - that she wasn't posting much and that she was playing the "I don't know what I'm doing" card too often. MadtheSwine, in particular, was concerned about the latter, noting that Auntbeast had done this three separate times by then. Well, on page 9, after Mad outlined this thinking, KatiRoo says that her "suspicions are still coalescing around Auntbeast, not so much because of her lack of posting, but her 'I'm stupid' claim." So here, at least, KatiRoo is directly echoing Mad's analysis, just one page later. Then, on page 13, she votes for Mad, accusing him of being the "person posting the highest number of posts without any real content - pure fluff." Does this sequence strike anyone else as bizarrely inconsistent? +++ vote KatiRoo +++ Good catch storyteller. unvote Auntbeastvote Kaitroo
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 10:07:37 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 25, 2007 10:07:37 GMT -5
Holy crap! I walk away from the game for one night and you guys post 3 1/2 pages.
Is the day over, I thought it was supposed to end at noon GMT?
Ok, well I am going to do a read through.
Freakin' last minute decision making, day might as well be 24 hours long for all the good...grumble.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 10:11:24 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on May 25, 2007 10:11:24 GMT -5
storyteller0910:Excellent, excellent point, and something I've certainly noticed during previous games. This deserves emphasis. It is a good point. However, one thing we have to keep in mind, is that it is counter-intuitive. Plus, we can't categorically say "people who get defensive are probably crew", because a smart pirate will deliberately act in a way that the concensus says is definitely pro-crew. Thus, I'd rather the point be more like "being defensive is not a scum tell in and of itself". That is, this is a game of logic, and not all of it is intuitive.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 10:13:13 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2007 10:13:13 GMT -5
storyteller0910:Excellent, excellent point, and something I've certainly noticed during previous games. This deserves emphasis. It is a good point. However, one thing we have to keep in mind, is that it is counter-intuitive. Plus, we can't categorically say "people who get defensive are probably crew", because a smart pirate will deliberately act in a way that the concensus says is definitely pro-crew. Thus, I'd rather the point be more like "being defensive is not a scum tell in and of itself". That is, this is a game of logic, and not all of it is intuitive. Well said.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 10:14:09 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on May 25, 2007 10:14:09 GMT -5
Holy crap! I walk away from the game for one night and you guys post 3 1/2 pages. Is the day over, I thought it was supposed to end at noon GMT? Ok, well I am going to do a read through. Freakin' last minute decision making, day might as well be 24 hours long for all the good...grumble.Ha, now you know how I feel after missing almost two days straight. The day isn't over, but it might as well be, because I don't think the KatiRoo wagon has any brakes.
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 10:18:41 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on May 25, 2007 10:18:41 GMT -5
I guess there's a little bit of a reprieve.
I realized something dumb I did in my last post - don't taunt someone who can kill you.
My switch last night was mainly to get someone other than Auto. We do seem to have gotten off that.
I'll admit capybara does smell a little. I can agree with some of the points made about her, and I think I'm okay with either of them going down. But with nothing really new, I'm going to leave my vote where it is.
I saw a 9-hour extension, which means it ends at 21:00 by Big Ben's chimes (in about 5 hours)?
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 10:22:29 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on May 25, 2007 10:22:29 GMT -5
Oh, right. We're on a boat. Many leagues away from Big Ben's chimes. (Nonetheless I think the time I posted was correct).
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 10:23:52 GMT -5
Post by Malacandra on May 25, 2007 10:23:52 GMT -5
Yes, you're right about the time. Not inconveniently late for me, not unfairly early for you Americans. I might make that the default day-end time in future.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 11:20:27 GMT -5
Post by fluiddruid on May 25, 2007 11:20:27 GMT -5
Still, I will say that I can't understand why being defensive when attacked is so often viewed as a scummy trait. Townies, it seems to me, have more reason to be defensive when attacked, because they know they are townies and that the attack is unjustified. Scum can afford to sit back, relax, and stay calm if someone accuses them; after all, the person doing the accusing is right, so the accusation isn't a personal attack. True, to a point. It depends a lot on the experience of the player, and whether they're responding emotionally (as you characterize). In my opinion, scum have more reason to be defensive: - There are, presumably, far fewer pirates than there are scum. Given the extra characters, I would presume 3-4 pirates at the most are in play right now. No pirate wants to be offed given such odds, unless it is to avoid more than one of their fellows getting the axe; as such, a pirate can be seen to lose their cool in the face of early scrutiny, though it's not a good play for them to do so. - Townies have less of a reason to fear death as, in death, there is truth. When a true role is revealed, crew benefits, pirates suffer. We can then make inferences from the *facts* that we discover. Only through death do vanilla crewmembers learn any real *facts*. - Pirates benefit through confusion; by pinpointing another in their defense, they have the chance of getting a crewmember killed based on their word; alternately, a pirate may target one of their own, if they are unlikely to be taken seriously in particular, to hope to make the ranks of "confirmed" crew. Just my opinion. Though most of the players I've seen go absolutely over the deep end being accused have been non-scum, neither of these players qualify in that regard.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 11:24:49 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 25, 2007 11:24:49 GMT -5
Wow - what a bandwagon! I had to make my vote early since i was out for (PDT) evening. That is only reason for not posting since I thought voting would end around 4:00 am PDT. OK, In post #396, storyteller says I do notice something else kind of weird, though. It concerns a player not much in the overall town eye - KatiRoo. Way back on pages 7-9, a bunch of folks - but notably MadtheSwine - were pointing fingers of suspicion (and casting votes) in the direction of Auntbeast. Their arguments were two - that she wasn't posting much and that she was playing the "I don't know what I'm doing" card too often. MadtheSwine, in particular, was concerned about the latter, noting that Auntbeast had done this three separate times by then. Well, on page 9, after Mad outlined this thinking, KatiRoo says that her "suspicions are still coalescing around Auntbeast, not so much because of her lack of posting, but her 'I'm stupid' claim." So here, at least, KatiRoo is directly echoing Mad's analysis, just one page later. Then, on page 13, she votes for Mad, accusing him of being the "person posting the highest number of posts without any real content - pure fluff." Does this sequence strike anyone else as bizarrely inconsistent? [ I guess the only thing I can say in my defense is that at that time, when I FOS’d Auntbeast, everybody was looking hard at Aunty too. Since some folks are posting a lot, and some hardly at all, I wasn’t willing to vote yet, but a FOS seemed called for. From panamajack KatiRoo was further down my list, but storyteller's observation is interesting. It feels to me about the same as what I've got now, but maybe we can get something going here. Yep, you and storyteller sure did. From ArizonaTeach Does this sequence strike anyone else as bizarrely inconsistent? ...yes...yes it does...especially (on preview) with what you just posted. … I don't think my NAF vote is going to click with anyone, and I really don't think capybara should go. God, I hope I'm right there. I see on preview that panamajack agrees with storyteller, too. ++ unvote NAF1138 ++++ vote KatiRoo ++Can I just say how agreeing with you makes me feel really, really dirty? ;D OK, so in post 92 she says she's suspicious of people who post light... ...in 103 she is suspicious of aggressive players...those are pretty two mutually exclusive ideas, right? She does address this in 111. ...she has four or five pointless posts (depending on how generous one is in defining pointless - more if you count the Day .5 posts)...I only point this out because this was her deciding reason for voting for Mad. I don’t see light posters and aggressive posters as being mutally exclusive – point in case being the current bandwagon jumping on me for my aggressive post on MtS – and also only having relatively few posts. From Cookies Upon review, KatiRoo sure has come flying out of left field. I saw that she had started posting again around the time of my spam-posting seizure, but I'd only skimmed her posts until now. Though she has agreed with me on a point or two here and there, she's also managed to contradict herself enough to negate that, which does not sit well with me at all. Vote KatiRoo.Same as above Finally, From CaerieD capybara has done some fishing, which could be very bad, but it didn't really strike me as being scummy enough to vote on. KatiRoo, on the other hand, seems to be holding some contradictory positions. Those could be new crew mistakes, but they seem a bit more likely to be new pirate trying to keep things straight. It was storyteller's interaction with her that drew my attention to her in the first place and his arguments that got me thinking, but it's what I'm seeing with my own eyes here that's making me suspicious. Vote KatiRoo Again, same as above Unfortunately, due to RL intervening, I probably won’t be able to post again until the voting is over (around 1 pm PST if I have the timing right. You’re going to lose a good deck hand is all I can say.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 11:29:14 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 25, 2007 11:29:14 GMT -5
I ahve to say, it's kind of exciting to go to bed thinking that when you get up Day One will be over, and a player will be lynched, and to wake up and find out it's you!
From zero to a gazillion votes overnight. Based on one post!
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 11:30:22 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 25, 2007 11:30:22 GMT -5
Unfortunately, KatiRoo, it looks like it's going to be one of us, and while I know I'm not a pirate, I suspect you're not either, so either way it goes it's bad. Let's have a drink over here on the hammocks and see how it turns out. I also have to get head out to work here, so I'm going to have to deal with suspense myself. Cheers!
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 11:34:25 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 25, 2007 11:34:25 GMT -5
Oy Vey.
Ok, three things and then I have to actually work for a bit.
One FCoD still looks tre scummy to me. Mostly it's just gut, but his posting history plus his post about storyteller and then his responces when storyteller called him on it...dunno, it just seems scummy. I remember clearly what FCoD said and did as scum, and this seems to be falling back in line with that behavior.
But the order of the day seems to be capybara or KatiRoo so
unvote FCoD
Two, I know I said that capybara was posting scummy, but I really do think that it is most likly newbieness. She is reminding me a lot of Lightnin' and Projammer from M3, and they both ended up as town. I do think that a lot of what she is being called on can be attributed to her being a new player.
Three I see a lot of defense for KatiRoo comming down to the fact that she is a newbie. She isn't. She said so herself. She is a mafiascum.net player, meaning she is better than we are giving her credit for. And because of that I don't think her being a newbie is a valid defense, and the case against her is fairly strong (for a first day lynch) so:
vote KatiRoo
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 11:34:56 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 11:34:56 GMT -5
Well, we've got a small amount of time. Do either of you have someone else to propose?
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 11:43:03 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2007 11:43:03 GMT -5
In post #396, storyteller says I do notice something else kind of weird, though. It concerns a player not much in the overall town eye - KatiRoo. Way back on pages 7-9, a bunch of folks - but notably MadtheSwine - were pointing fingers of suspicion (and casting votes) in the direction of Auntbeast. Their arguments were two - that she wasn't posting much and that she was playing the "I don't know what I'm doing" card too often. MadtheSwine, in particular, was concerned about the latter, noting that Auntbeast had done this three separate times by then. Well, on page 9, after Mad outlined this thinking, KatiRoo says that her "suspicions are still coalescing around Auntbeast, not so much because of her lack of posting, but her 'I'm stupid' claim." So here, at least, KatiRoo is directly echoing Mad's analysis, just one page later. Then, on page 13, she votes for Mad, accusing him of being the "person posting the highest number of posts without any real content - pure fluff." Does this sequence strike anyone else as bizarrely inconsistent? [ I guess the only thing I can say in my defense is that at that time, when I FOS’d Auntbeast, everybody was looking hard at Aunty too. Since some folks are posting a lot, and some hardly at all, I wasn’t willing to vote yet, but a FOS seemed called for. I know you said you wouldn't have time to respond, but on the off chance that you do - The problem is that the action I find suspicious is not that you FoSed Auntbeast. It is that you did so based on the same reasoning that MadtheSwine had used not a page before, then turned around and accused Mad of making insubstantial posts in basically your next substantive post. So the question(s) is (are): were Mad's posts regarding Auntbeast substantive or not? If so, why did you vote for him on the basis of his nonsubstantive participation? If not, then why did you base your own FoS entirely on his reasoning? And if his pursuit of Auntbeast was not substantial, then what can we say about your own posting, which echoed his reasoning without adding anything new?
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 12:04:48 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on May 25, 2007 12:04:48 GMT -5
Hey Mal, can we get a vote count over here?
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 12:28:30 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 12:28:30 GMT -5
KatiRoo:Dammit. One of the things I think Mafia III has given me a much better sense of is that there's a certain tone found in the posts of genuine townies that's really, really hard to fake. (Those of you who are able should take a look in the Forbidden Thread from that game for some of what I mean.) This post has it in spades. Which means, of course, that I've actually learned nothing from Mafia II and have been flying all over the place on gutshots and second-guessing. Let me see if I can work this through: As detailed here , the people I've felt iffy about today are Auto, Cookies, mhaye, KatiRoo, and hockeymonkey. It's hard to finger Auto after Mal's post, even though I think his play so far is either scummy or bush-league, I can't shake the tone of KatiRoo's post above, I suspect Cookies because of some random comment I may have misinterpreted, hockeymonkey appears to have submerged beneath the radar, and mhaye still twinges me with his/her calm aggression. I guess I don't have any better suspects---or, at least, I don't have the time at the moment, work-wise, to construct the argument necessary to support another suspect like mhaye or hockeymonkey---and yet I'm not really feeling KatiRoo. I'll second the call for a vote count, Mal. I need to see where we stand.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 12:32:53 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 25, 2007 12:32:53 GMT -5
We have what, 2.5ish hours left?
MAL VOTECOUNT PLEASE
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 12:33:50 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 12:33:50 GMT -5
I think I'm struggling with the inevitable randomness of first day votes and just need to take a couple deep breaths.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 12:44:13 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2007 12:44:13 GMT -5
I think I'm struggling with the inevitable randomness of first day votes and just need to take a couple deep breaths. Honestly, the massive creaking sound as half the ship ran over to vote for the person I voted for is making me feel a bit unsettled. Might not signify anything at all, but I'm not sure it's a good sign. The problem is, I'm emphatically not interested in voting for Autolycus and I'm not feeling the capybara thing - the arguments for her scumminess look like straw-grasping. I'd consider other candidates, but I don't see a strong argument for anyone else.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 12:46:43 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 25, 2007 12:46:43 GMT -5
storyteller:
Yup.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 12:50:13 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on May 25, 2007 12:50:13 GMT -5
KatiRoo:Dammit. One of the things I think Mafia III has given me a much better sense of is that there's a certain tone found in the posts of genuine townies that's really, really hard to fake. (Those of you who are able should take a look in the Forbidden Thread from that game for some of what I mean.) This post has it in spades. Which means, of course, that I've actually learned nothing from Mafia II and have been flying all over the place on gutshots and second-guessing. This is at least the second or third time you've mentioned this; can you elaborate? I think this is something one would only see when actually running the game, because your views of players never gets tainted with evidence that spring up later, like it does for those of us who have not run a game. So... can you explain a bit more about what this tone is? Is it present in all (or most) townies, or is it more of a like it's a tone that only shows up in townies and never shows up in scum? This would also seem to imply there's some kind of tone that's probably more specific to scum as well. I think anything you can share about it would be enlightening.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 12:58:41 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on May 25, 2007 12:58:41 GMT -5
I think I'm struggling with the inevitable randomness of first day votes and just need to take a couple deep breaths. Honestly, the massive creaking sound as half the ship ran over to vote for the person I voted for is making me feel a bit unsettled. Might not signify anything at all, but I'm not sure it's a good sign. The problem is, I'm emphatically not interested in voting for Autolycus and I'm not feeling the capybara thing - the arguments for her scumminess look like straw-grasping. I'd consider other candidates, but I don't see a strong argument for anyone else. Agreed, I had a similar feeling when my vote for capybara had a similar (though smaller) effect. I think it looks more symbolic of the idea that a lot of the crew are looking for leaders. I can't imagine the pirates would deliberately throw themselves on a wagon like that. Of course, all of this points to the idea that both of them are crew. Now I'm getting really uncomfortable about either of them. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any more compelling evidence for anyone else either. I WOULD like to hear more from, say, Hockey Monkey, as she does seem to be playing a bit differently than she did in M2; ditto to Zuma.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:02:29 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 25, 2007 13:02:29 GMT -5
Gad said: "Well, we've got a small amount of time. Do either of you have someone else to propose?" Well, not to beat an apparently impervious horse (and I don't think I have enough to go on for anyone to convince anyone (even myself) in the time we have left), but Blaster Master, despite his explanation as to his lurking (one can have a valid excuse and still be scum, no?), still never has responded to my questions of post #191 back on page 7 and the following discussion. I was subsequently just accused of "putting blame all over the place" and a strange boomerang effect, but never a response. (Plus his completely unnecessary post in the 'absences' thread (if it will be night why bother excusing yourself in advance?) seems calculated.) I don't know if any of this is really scummy, but I think it could use a look. If 'over-defensive' is crew-ey, what is a complete failure to bother addressing suspicion and mellowly brush it off on the questioner? And his most recent post sounds like the pirate equivalent of gormless crew fishing. In case I DO go today I wanted to bring attention to this before I have no voice. I've been trying not to see suspicion of me as suspicious, but the way in which this has unfolded to no attention has my hackles up. This thought may earn no vote at all except mine, but just so it's on the record, unvote idle thoughts, vote blaster master
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:04:54 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 25, 2007 13:04:54 GMT -5
"Most recent post" at the time (while composing) was #475. Now I really DO need to go to work. I place myself in the hands of Neptune.
|
|
|
Day One
May 25, 2007 13:05:46 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 25, 2007 13:05:46 GMT -5
Agreed, I had a similar feeling when my vote for capybara had a similar (though smaller) effect. I think it looks more symbolic of the idea that a lot of the crew are looking for leaders. I can't imagine the pirates would deliberately throw themselves on a wagon like that. Of course, all of this points to the idea that both of them are crew. Actually, I agree with everything here except for the last sentence. If the vote swing to KatiRoo is made up mostly of townies, as you suggest, then it is equally possible that she is crew or scum. If the vote swing has some scum on it, then she is probably town. I do think it likely that: (1) if KatiRoo is town, then scum will be found earlier on her vote list, if at all; and (2) if KatiRoo is a pirate, then scum will be found later on her vote list, as her mates bail out on what they see to be a sinking ship (no pun intended).
|
|