|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 9:41:04 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on May 30, 2007 9:41:04 GMT -5
I really don't feel like arguing the same points repeatedly. We clearly disagree on what is scummy and what isn't, and that's fine. To address your points: 1 - I've voted for capy (BEFORE ANYONE ELSE DID) and briefly, Autolycus. I don't remember a third. I've been suspicious of other people, true, but it's nothing like M2, where I jumped on several bandwagons (I was inexperienced). I suppose it could be said that I jumped on the Autolycus bandwagon, but that's a pretty weak argument for a scum tell giving my quick retraction. We all sometimes make mistakes in haste.3 2 - I haven't backpedaled at all. At the beginning of the day I stated my opinion and cast my vote. I didn't attempt to influence anyone else to vote for anyone. All I've done since then is defend my position. I've yet to hear specifically what I've done that is "backpedaling". 3 - I didn't intentionally mischaracterize my role in the last game. I really didn't feel it was relevant within the context of my post. I was trying to make a point that it's dangerous to make assumptions on flawed memories. Since then, NAF has clarified that he was making a joke, and I retracted my response to him. This forum is not good at conveying the emotion with which words are said, and we must allow the opportunity to clarify and restate ourselves if there are any misunderstandings of intention. Do you feel otherwise? 4 - Look, we're all paranoid here. What cowgirl said to me initially I thought was logically flawed, hence suspicious. After she and I both clarified our positions, we didn't find each other to be as suspicious, and we both backed off. You and NAF both suspected me because of reasoning that I find, frankly, to be illogical. That's what makes me nervous. And my implications aren't veiled. Whenever I've found someone to be suspicious, I come out and say it. What I said to cowgirl wasn't very similar to "I find it suspicious that you would even think of voting for me, clearly you're out to get me." The actual quote was, "I thought it was obvious that I felt that way, and I find it suspicious that you'd ask a question like that. It makes me feel like you're trying very hard to discredit me." Once she clarified her question, I was no longer suspicious. Again, on this medium, we must allow for clarifications. You're twisting my words around again. 5 - See my explanation for #4, plus I tried to use a little humor to break the tension. 6 - As I've said, I don't agree with you as to what is scummy. To me, it feels like you're twisting my words around to change their meaning, and that's what I mean by fabricating evidence. When I vote for someone based on my gut, I fully expect them to get nervous and try to defend themselves. Of course I don't think everyone will think it's fine and dandy. Do you seriously think I should expect them to just roll over and say, "Well, FCOD has a gut feeling, I guess I'd better give up." Come on! What would the point of my announcing my suspicion be if I didn't expect to evoke a response? Likewise, do you expect me to not get nervous when two relatively strong players come at me with both guns? Especially when I don't agree with the logic behind their accusation? That's not a double standard, and yet again you're twisting my words to make me seem scummy. On preview, I see something that make me VERY nervous: People who are giving me a crew vibe right now are capybara, Gadarene, and Blaster Master. capy for her sheer volume of posts and enthusiasm for the game, and Gad and BM, for both the quantity and quality of their posts. Did we learn nothing from M2? It could be argued that the player with the highest quality of posts was the GODFATHER! Enthusiasm for the game has nothing to do with being a crewman. I'm not trying to direct suspicion at these players, I'm just saying we really need to be careful about accepting people as crew simply because they post frequently and/or helpfully. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 10:05:21 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 30, 2007 10:05:21 GMT -5
Gad, I am actually a bit hurt that you put me in the low content catagory. I guess I brought that one on myself with my most recent dialogue, but still I try hard not to ever make fluff posts.
Anyway, I re read. I re thought. I come back refreshed and with a few new ideas.
So everyone knows where I am coming from at this stage I thinik it is in the scums best interest to be invisible. That means not lurking (Auto, Zuma, Lakai) and not posting prolificlly (Gad, Idle, Cappy) but posting just enough to keep from being forgotten.
FCoD falls into this catagory, panamajack does also, and so does Hockey Monkey. So I went back and started looking at what people were saying, not just the posts but the context too.
Hockey Monkey has only 17 posts in this game, and has almost as many votes. (An exageration, but I believe she has voted something like 6 times.) She never comes up with her own reasons for voting, but will flit from bandwagon to bandwagon trying to blend in, trying to not rock the boat.
She outwardly calls out people she believes not to be scum (again a trust building mechanism Storyteller developed.)
I call her scum.
Vote Hockey Monkey
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 10:24:20 GMT -5
Post by auntbeast on May 30, 2007 10:24:20 GMT -5
Since the folks that know how this thing goes, repeatedly tell us that with two townie kills and no pirate kills, that we are making assumptions that at this point we have no way to prove or disprove, makes me very leery of casting suspicion on anyone in any concrete way. In other words, even at this point, if I think someone is pirate scum, the evidence we are looking at is circumstantial at best, makes me doubt any theories I have. That being said, I also know that there be pirates among us and while townies like me are grasping at straws, those dang nabbed pirates are not. Logically, that should tell us that scummy behavior falls under a few categories. A. They are purposefully trying to fly under the radar, scum-wise, if not post-wise. B. While not rabidly defending themselves, they would be far more likely to be steering our clueless behavior towards their own goals. C. Since they know who THEY are, they know who WE are, so throwing out a low-threat level pirate for FOS or other esoteric consideration can actually advance their cause towards picking off a townie. At this point, I am deeply suspicious of anyone who feels absolutely certain about anything, because as far as I can tell, the only ones that know a damn thing are pirates. Given the day one bandwagony feel of this place (which admittedly, may be common) I get the feeling some folks are hoping the same thing happens on day two, most especially if they know the person being bandwagonned is crew. I know we will look back on this Day and reread a lot into a lot of posts, and evidently that is all we can do. But my suspicion is that the old saying "Point one finger at me and you have 4 pointing back at yourself." will hold to be true. I understand that when someone is accused the natural instinct is to defend yourself. I fell in to that on Day one. Heck, it is hard not to, especially when you are crew and you know it. Therefore, I do not necessarily see post count being a reflection on someone's pirateyness when the vast majority of them have been defensive posts, which I very easily separate from offensive posts. As for you MadTheSwine? I'll give you a nice ear scratch for that, and will call dibs on your bbq'd hide when your day comes. I'll bring the sauce.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 10:26:12 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 30, 2007 10:26:12 GMT -5
So everyone knows where I am coming from at this stage I thinik it is in the scums best interest to be invisible. That means not lurking (Auto, Zuma, Lakai) and not posting prolificlly (Gad, Idle, Cappy) but posting just enough to keep from being forgotten. For what it's worth, I disagree with this contention. I rather agree with Gadarene in the assumption that the scum will be tremendously varied in their posting frequency and style. FCoD - elements of your defense are plausible; others do not strike me so. I will maintain a healthy skepticism as regards your alignment, and my vote for you, at least for now, but I agree that rehashing the same points over and over is pointless. Of whom are you currently suspicious?
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 10:28:44 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on May 30, 2007 10:28:44 GMT -5
I haven't reread everyone's posts, but I've yet to find anyone more suspicious than my current votee, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies. There's been no defense, and no comment from others. Am I barking up the wrong tree?
And while the accusations against FCoD are substantive, I'm not really buying it. His defense seems reasonable to me.
When does this Day end, anyway?
By the way, players who've made minimal contributions to Day 2: auntbeast, autolycus, CaerieD, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies. I suggest Malacandra do some friendly poking to least get a few more posts out of them.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 10:33:33 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 30, 2007 10:33:33 GMT -5
[quote author=storyteller0910 board=general thread=1180304936 post=1180538772 For what it's worth, I disagree with this contention. I rather agree with Gadarene in the assumption that the scum will be tremendously varied in their posting frequency and style.
[/quote]
Well we can agree to disagree on that. Gad is playing with more experienced players than I did so if he wants to correct me with new knowledge I will gladly accept it, but in M2 and in WW1 that is exactly what the scum did. And I think it is a difficult pattern to break. The scum have too much to lose to just come out and post on the first few days. Maybe not all of the scum will be hiding in the shadows, but I guarantee you that at least a couple of our (I don't want to call them lurkers) under the radar posters will turn out scum.
Hell Storyteller, even you lurked for the first several Days of M2 and Kat made it to the end by playing just the way HM is playing now.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 10:35:20 GMT -5
Post by auntbeast on May 30, 2007 10:35:20 GMT -5
Pleonast: Today is my first day back on normal schedule, I'm probably not the only one. I'd expect things to get back to normal now. Up thread someone mentioned they didn't even know day two had started and there were already 3 pages.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 10:36:04 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on May 30, 2007 10:36:04 GMT -5
When does this Day end, anyway? From the opening post of this Day, we learn that sunset is at 9pm BST on Friday 1st June 2007.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 10:46:35 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on May 30, 2007 10:46:35 GMT -5
Currently, I'm suspicious of everybody ;D I've still not changed my mind about capybara, but I've started to get more suspicous of hockeymonkey and auntbeast. Mad the Swine made some interesting observations in this post, and I agree with NAF's reasoning in this post. The accusations made by MTS and NAF make sense to me and are more substantive than my gut feeling of capybara. At this point, I'm not sure who I find more scummy, so I will unvote capybara until I have more time to re-read auntbeast and hockeymonkey's posts. FYI, I created a separate thread for the day ending times. --FCOD [game off]Why the hell do the links keep getting spaces added to them?[/game off]
|
|
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 Two
May 30, 2007 11:21:26 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on May 30, 2007 11:21:26 GMT -5
You're seeing it too, FCOD! I thought I was the only one. One thing about the 'quality of post' issue is that the Pirates are preternaturally accurate. They know exactly what to say, and often when to say it. They're going to be more correct about their "suspicions" because they know who's who (aside from the power roles). In my quest to figure just what little information I do have, I realized one thing any crewman knows : I know the Pirates know I'm crew. Experienced players probably already knew that (and have gone beyond that to, "I know the Pirates know I know the Pirates know I'm crew"), but I was sort of happy to at least have something to hold on to. Statements like "I think so-and-so is crew" are probably too easy for the Pirates to take advantage of. If I or someone else says it, you have absolutely no reason to trust us on it. I don't trust it when anyone else says it, I just disregard it generally. I'd suggest we do the same. That said, it's fair to point out pro-crew and crew-like behavior (which may come from a Pirate but less frequently as the game goes on). Gadarene's post seems pretty pro-crew not for what it says, but because of the research. In my opinion, crew are more likely to do a lot of research looking for general answers because they lack knowledge. Pirates are more likely to be analytical, trying to figure out what someone else has said that they can use to 'support' what they already know to be true. As an aside, I also found it a fair assessment of me. Reading the top, I thought "I'll bet I'm medium-post, medium content". Then I saw that there is no 'medium', and I thought, "well, I don't think I have enough to be high-content, so I probably ended up in low-content". Which is pretty much exactly how it happened.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 11:33:42 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on May 30, 2007 11:33:42 GMT -5
Well we can agree to disagree on that. Gad is playing with more experienced players than I did so if he wants to correct me with new knowledge I will gladly accept it, but in M2 and in WW1 that is exactly what the scum did. And I think it is a difficult pattern to break. The scum have too much to lose to just come out and post on the first few days. Actually, fluiddruid and Lemur866 (which are the only identified scum so far) were rather prolific posters in MIII.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 11:44:31 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 30, 2007 11:44:31 GMT -5
Actually, fluiddruid and Lemur866 (which are the only identified scum so far) were rather prolific posters in MIII. Ah, well then. Guess I should have continued to follow that game a bit more closely. It doesn't change my main point though; that flying under the radar and hopping onto others ideas is scum behavior.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 11:46:10 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 30, 2007 11:46:10 GMT -5
I re read that post and it didn't say what I meant it to say.
I mean that flying under the radar is scum behavior too. Not just one or the other. Which is what storyteller was saying. So I am just wrong.
But not about Hockey Monkey.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 12:37:23 GMT -5
Post by auntbeast on May 30, 2007 12:37:23 GMT -5
Ok, I've gone over this days thread a bit more. <dork> I've even made a spreadsheet! </dork>
There was previous analysis discussing the issue of pure randomness versus directed randomness. This peaked my interest because it does serve the pirates well to NOT do what we think they will do. (And what my understanding about the glass of wine in front of me stuff is) and since they get to chit chat with each other and develop a strategy, I do think it is valid to think that the pirates are trying to look as town as possible either by the shotgun method or the sniper method and by mixing those up. I think that we have more to look at than just the kills so far, since they essentially, don't tell us much at this point.
Just taking this game days postings into account, I do see a pretty interesting pattern.
A. Those who take the shotgun effect, throwing a buncha names out and hope something sticks. (easier to claim "see? I was right!" later) B. Those who are more precision noticers, mention one or two names negatively. This serves to either highlight those players in peoples minds or make their opinions seem more valid. C. Those who don't really say anything negative about anyone, but cast positive statements. (which could either indicate crew members being safe, or pirates deflecting negative statements by others) D. Those who don't actually say anything positive OR negative in their posts. (which could either indicate general cluelessness about the game or an attempt to fly under the radar (by posting, but making the posts be essentially contentless))
Now by posting this, and knowing that I have not cast suspicion on anyone on this game day, I know that I am effectively drawing attention to myself, which if I'm a pirate, is stupid, and if I'm town, is stupid. However, if taken as merely an analysis, can be construed as neutral.
I have suspicions. And questions. I hope that this Days postings will help clarify where I stand, I'm still trying to figure out what other peoples motives are. I know mine are to figure out WTF the pirates are doing and why they are doing it. That being said, I am naturally more suspicious of those in my previous categories of A and B because I think overall, those are the most likely strategies for pirates to make.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 12:46:33 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on May 30, 2007 12:46:33 GMT -5
Actually, fluiddruid and Lemur866 (which are the only identified scum so far) were rather prolific posters in MIII. Ah, well then. Guess I should have continued to follow that game a bit more closely. (scum) This day (the one that is about to start over there in MIII) should be interesting. And you definitely should take a look, if only to avoid some pitfalls we found (for instance, take a look how 2 scum managed to kill a townie by pointing at her on their respective deathbeds)
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 12:52:19 GMT -5
Post by auntbeast on May 30, 2007 12:52:19 GMT -5
FYI: I'm going through my chart again to make sure I didn't miss anything, once I do, I'll post my findings. I've got a toddler running around so my attention isn't what it should be. Pray for naptime!
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 12:55:09 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on May 30, 2007 12:55:09 GMT -5
Ok, I've gone over this days thread a bit more. <dork> I've even made a spreadsheet! </dork> (snip) I do think it is valid to think that the pirates are trying to look as town as possible either by the shotgun method or the sniper method and by mixing those up. I think that we have more to look at than just the kills so far, since they essentially, don't tell us much at this point. (snip) A. Those who take the shotgun effect, throwing a buncha names out and hope something sticks. (easier to claim "see? I was right!" later) B. Those who are more precision noticers, mention one or two names negatively. This serves to either highlight those players in peoples minds or make their opinions seem more valid. C. Those who don't really say anything negative about anyone, but cast positive statements. (which could either indicate crew members being safe, or pirates deflecting negative statements by others) D. Those who don't actually say anything positive OR negative in their posts. (which could either indicate general cluelessness about the game or an attempt to fly under the radar (by posting, but making the posts be essentially contentless)) Now by posting this, and knowing that I have not cast suspicion on anyone on this game day, I know that I am effectively drawing attention to myself, which if I'm a pirate, is stupid, and if I'm town, is stupid. However, if taken as merely an analysis, can be construed as neutral. (snip) (concerning the spreadsheet, you'd be surprised how many of us have our own somewhere around) Actually, your observations are not far off the mark at all. As far as I can tell, scurvy tend to try to remain away from heated discussions in general. And the best way to avoid a heated discussion is by not starting it. They may start a vote on someone (anyone, really) but they won't try to convince anyone to vote with them. At least not as first. However, if they see that on day one they were able to generate suspicion, on the next day they might continue feeding that suspicion.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 12:56:19 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 30, 2007 12:56:19 GMT -5
Ok, I've gone over this days thread a bit more. <dork> I've even made a spreadsheet! </dork> There was previous analysis discussing the issue of pure randomness versus directed randomness. This peaked my interest because it does serve the pirates well to NOT do what we think they will do. (And what my understanding about the glass of wine in front of me stuff is) and since they get to chit chat with each other and develop a strategy, I do think it is valid to think that the pirates are trying to look as town as possible either by the shotgun method or the sniper method and by mixing those up. I think that we have more to look at than just the kills so far, since they essentially, don't tell us much at this point. Just taking this game days postings into account, I do see a pretty interesting pattern. A. Those who take the shotgun effect, throwing a buncha names out and hope something sticks. (easier to claim "see? I was right!" later) B. Those who are more precision noticers, mention one or two names negatively. This serves to either highlight those players in peoples minds or make their opinions seem more valid. C. Those who don't really say anything negative about anyone, but cast positive statements. (which could either indicate crew members being safe, or pirates deflecting negative statements by others) D. Those who don't actually say anything positive OR negative in their posts. (which could either indicate general cluelessness about the game or an attempt to fly under the radar (by posting, but making the posts be essentially contentless)) Now by posting this, and knowing that I have not cast suspicion on anyone on this game day, I know that I am effectively drawing attention to myself, which if I'm a pirate, is stupid, and if I'm town, is stupid. However, if taken as merely an analysis, can be construed as neutral. I have suspicions. And questions. I hope that this Days postings will help clarify where I stand, I'm still trying to figure out what other peoples motives are. I know mine are to figure out WTF the pirates are doing and why they are doing it. That being said, I am naturally more suspicious of those in my previous categories of A and B because I think overall, those are the most likely strategies for pirates to make. I may be misreading, but my understanding of your last sentence is that you are naturally more suspicious of anyone who expresses suspicion than of people who say nothing at all, or focus on the positive. Is this a correct reading, and if so, why? It seems so counterintuitive as to be honestly bizarre.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 13:13:40 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on May 30, 2007 13:13:40 GMT -5
I've compiled a list of hockeymonkey's Day posts. If anyone feels I've poorly represented the spirit of any of her posts, please correct me. Day One Posts: Nothing relevant.Votes for Idle Thoughts because she feels he's too agreeable.Explains the reasoning behind her vote for Idle Thoughts: he has posts that are all over the place.Says she's starting to think Idle Thoughts is more of a "confused deckhand" than a pirate because his posts are all over the place.Says she doesn't think capybara is a pirate, agrees with MtS about auntbeast and votes for her.Says she thinks Autolycus should be subbed out rather than lynched.When asked why she thinks auntbeast is a pirate instead of inexperienced town, she says "Because her posts don't read as crew to me. Her posts seem more like an inexperienced player with a scum role."In response to storyteller's KatiRoo vote, she jumps right on the bandwagon, agreeing completely with him.Says she played last game stupidly, and she's trying to post enough to avoid being "under the radar".Nothing relevant.Day Two Posts: Acknowledges her reasoning is thin, and says that she can't argue with Lakai's vote for her based on her posting record."Gad, I'm confused on how last night's kill pointed at capybara. In a good way? In a bad way? Could you please elaborate?"Worries about wasting too much time figuring out who killed whom, wants to avoid a speed lynch. Also thanks Gad for answering her question. Says capybara talks too much to be a pirate.Says that she thinks the exchange between me and cowgirl has a contrived, piratey vibe.Agrees with NAF's reasoning for voting for me and votes for me.Says she missed reading some pages, but will leave her vote where it is for the time being.Thanks Gadarene for the analysis. Unvotes me, but says I'm still scummy. Says mhaye's slipup sounds like bona fide pirate. Says she thinks capybara, Gadarene, and Blaster Master all give her a crew vibe. Says she doesn't like the idea of directing Deadeye.---------- Here what I see: Day One. She votes for Idle Thoughts on thin reasoning. That's fine, I did the same thing. Then, she unvotes him, citing the same reason she based her vote on. She defends capybara. Votes for auntbeast based upon MtS's conclusions. When storyteller makes a good case for KatiRoo, she jumps on that bandwagon. Day Two. Defends capybara again. When NAF makes a reasonable argument to suspect me, she agrees and votes for me. She says she missed some pages, but leaves her vote on me. Then, she defends capybara again, along with Gadarene and BM. Here's my opinion: she's and capybara are both pirates. Why would she keep defending her? She's also very quick to vote for crewmates that are falling under suspicion. I mean that she was quick to vote for KatiRoo (confirmed crew) and me (I know I'm crew.) Maybe I'm wrong, but there's certainly enough suspicious behavior here for me to Vote hockeymonkey. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 13:26:19 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 30, 2007 13:26:19 GMT -5
FCOD:Not to quibble with the rest of your analysis (I could go either way right now on hockeymonkey), but it's perfectly possible to keep defending someone without either you or them being pirates. Or hell, it's possible to be crew and to be unknowingly defending a pirate! I understand that we should be careful who we speak out in support of, but I've been defending capy at least as much as hockeymonkey has, not because I'm in cahoots with either of them (I'm not) or because one or more of us are pirates (we're not...well, I'm not), but simply because I get a strong town vibe from her and don't want to see her get lynched if there are other, better candidates available. As I said on Day One, I liken this to Queuing and me defending each other on the second day of Mafia II: our analysis, perspective, and approach to the game was so self-evidently similar that each of us (knowing that we were personally town) found it incredible that the other one could be scum. And we were right. It's certainly dangerous to defend someone whose legitimacy and crewiness you don't know for sure (which is the case for all of us, except the officers and the pirates), and I definitely risk getting burned if capy turns out to be a pirate (as does hockeymonkey, although I care less about her ). But that being said, it doesn't mean that any defense (or even any sustained defense) of another poster is suspicious, nor does it mean that we should abjure from expressing the town vibes we feel (any more than we should stop stating that someone feels scurvy on the off-chance that they'll turn out to be crew). As for me, I'm still looking askance at cowgirl for the reason I stated previously (namely, that if fluiddruid was chosen for some reason, cowgirl would be an interesting strategic beneficiary). But if I had to vote right this second, I think I'd opt for mhaye...he's been on my radar since Day One, and that slip of his put my hackles up.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 13:27:04 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 30, 2007 13:27:04 GMT -5
Oh, and you're not smelling particularly rosy either, FCOD, but I'm mostly (and admittedly) echoing other people's reasoning in that regard.
|
|
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 Two
May 30, 2007 13:29:56 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on May 30, 2007 13:29:56 GMT -5
On preview, I see something that make me VERY nervous: People who are giving me a crew vibe right now are capybara, Gadarene, and Blaster Master. capy for her sheer volume of posts and enthusiasm for the game, and Gad and BM, for both the quantity and quality of their posts. Did we learn nothing from M2? It could be argued that the player with the highest quality of posts was the GODFATHER! Enthusiasm for the game has nothing to do with being a crewman. I'm not trying to direct suspicion at these players, I'm just saying we really need to be careful about accepting people as crew simply because they post frequently and/or helpfully. --FCOD I said I get a crew VIBE from them, not that I accept them as crew. That's a bit of a jump.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 13:33:47 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 30, 2007 13:33:47 GMT -5
While I'm here, I'd like to talk about zuma. Something about his posts so far have seemed odd to me, so I decided to research his history. It didn't take long; he has nine posts. They are summarized below:
1 - Greeting post
2 - Test post
3 - Leaps off by saying that his initial impression of NAF, Pleonast, and CaerieD is that they are town. As I said earlier, I think suggesting that another player is town for no good reason is just as potentially scummy - maybe more so - than suggesting that another player is scum for no good reason. It's safer, creates allies, and raises fewer eyebrows. Suppose that zuma had come out of the gate stating, on the basis of general feeling, that the three players named above seemed like pirates to him. We'd all be freaking out calling zuma a pirate, right? So why does doing the opposite for just as little reason get a pass?
Also in this post, he accuses and votes for ArizonaTeach, for three reasons. One is flimsy - an "aversion to early votes" is scummy? Really? - one is fair enough - he thinks AZ's attack on capybara was questionable - and one was outright misattributed.
4 - Acknowledges this misattribution, and retracts his vote.
5 - Votes KatiRoo. No reasoning is provided. Explicitly a bandwagon vote.
6 - Weird, weird post in re: Autolycus. Because the syntax of the post is so important, I'll reproduce it directly here:
I don't understand this post at all. His final line suggests that he thinks Auto is clueless - ie, innocently misunderstanding the game. But he would be OK with an Autolycus lynch? Why? Because he is fucking with us, as he did last game, when he was town? Because he is clueless? I've read this post a dozen times, and can't make sense of it. It could make sense if zuma is scum, and was going back and forth on whether or not he wanted to try to back an Auto lynch, then got confused halfway through the post.
I called him on this post, asked for clarification almost immediately after it appeared, but was never given an answer at all.
7 - Thinks the debate over who-killed-whom is pointless, but wants to discuss why fluiddruid was killed. Aside from the fact that trying to figure that out is (as I've said before) a fairly pointless exercise - how does zuma propose that we puzzle out why the kill happened without at least briefly considering who made the kill?
8 - Votes ArizonaTeach again, on the basis of the fact that Az was interested in discussing who killed fluid. He suggests that this discussion is a distraction. Which seems fine and dandy, until you consider that Az was not the only person to express interest in this question. Nor was he the first (that would be Gadarene), nor the one who devoted the most column inches to the subject (Gadarene again). If this is zuma's justification, why vote for Az and not Gadarene?
9 - Says that capybara talks too much to be a pirate.
So, in seven substantive posts, we have:
4 different townies called out as probably town (posts 3 and 9) for no real reason
1 bandwagon vote for a now-known townie with no justification provided
2 weakly justified votes for ArizonaTeach
and 1 seemingly self-contradictory post on Autolycus, coupled with a failure to defend that post when asked for clarification.
---------
I am still very strongly suspicious of FCoD, but eight actions that I consider scummy in seven substantive posts can't be ignored.
+++unvote FlyingCowofDoom+++ +++vote zuma+++
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 13:38:00 GMT -5
Post by auntbeast on May 30, 2007 13:38:00 GMT -5
Storyteller: I'm thinkin' you just might be on to something. I may very well be honestly bizarre.
My point is, the only people here who are even close to being random at this point is the crew. The pirates only have the desire to appear random. Which someone else pointed out earlier, would not be as random as random would truly be.
Everyone at this point has a strategy. What that strategy is and why is up for us to decide. From my perspective, strategies A and B seem to be the most likely tactic for a good percentage of pirates to take as they most effectively reach their goals, which is to kill off crew. The other two are less likely as they are more preservationist (I wanna live) rather than the other. While pirates DO want to live, they want us (crew) dead more. And at this point, they hold all the cards, so it is safest for them to be A or B rather than the rather neutral positions of C and D at this particular point in the game. As the game progresses, I absolutely think that C and D will become more viable strategies.
Which is exactly why I'm trying to figure out what strategies people are using now, so that later on, I can tell if it is consistent with their behavior or a modification thereof.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 13:38:08 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 30, 2007 13:38:08 GMT -5
Here's my opinion: she's and capybara are both pirates. Why would she keep defending her? --FCOD I'll read through the hockeymonkey posts and your analysis thereof in a moment, but I just want to mention, in response to the above: In M2, I defended Queuing. Oh, how I defended him, any chance I got. It was a useful approach: as long as Queuing was alive, he trusted me, and if he was ever killed, I would look vindicated. I also defended Malacandra. The only scum I ever defended was Kat, and then only in the endgame. Scum will defend townies, gleefully and frequently.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 13:40:19 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 30, 2007 13:40:19 GMT -5
Here's my opinion: she's and capybara are both pirates. Why would she keep defending her? --FCOD A) Because she actually sincerely thinks I'm crew and that it would be bad for me to get strung up? Several people have defended me-- are they ALL pirates? B) Why bother moving your vote from me to her? Does her defense of me make her more suspicious to you than I already was? Or is it her actions and words that make you suspicious, as opposed to your gut feeling about me? Is your suspicion of her that is based on her defense of me ultimately (in part at least) then, based on your gut feeling about me? When you get back to first causes of this train of thought does it feel sound? I've been feeling iffy about some players defending me in fear that players who I really do think are crew will fall under suspicion because of it; I also am getting wary of defending others because I feel like the scum-suscpect accretion around me will rub off on other innocents.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 13:45:45 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 30, 2007 13:45:45 GMT -5
Everyone at this point has a strategy. What that strategy is and why is up for us to decide. From my perspective, strategies A and B seem to be the most likely tactic for a good percentage of pirates to take as they most effectively reach their goals, which is to kill off crew. The other two are less likely as they are more preservationist (I wanna live) rather than the other. While pirates DO want to live, they want us (crew) dead more. No! This is absolutely not true. The smart scum approach is absolutely preservationist; the smart town strategy is absolutely not. An individual townie has no reason to value his or her "life" above any other, because he or she can live through the end of the game and still lose. An individual pirate, however, can guarantee victory for his or her side by doing nothing more than staying alive for the entire game. He or she can't die at night (barring SK/Dick/Ben Gunn involvement), remember, and the townie can, so the winning strategy is the one that avoids lynching at all costs. Disagree. It is safest for them to be all over the map, so that the townies can't pinpoint one pattern of behavior and rip through the scum on that basis. Some will vote frequently and aggressively, some will post a lot but rarely attack anyone, discussing mostly strategy, some will lurk, some will be everyone's friend.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 13:48:05 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 30, 2007 13:48:05 GMT -5
Followup to simulpost-- Storyteller. Interesting alternate possibilty. Again, the longer you consider it, the more you wonder whether the pirates will not do the obvious things, unless it's a complete red herring. Either possibility is still open-- crew defending crew, or pirate defending crew for hoots. I, however, have certain information that assures me that it's NOT option #3, a pirate defending a pirate, of course.
|
|
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 Two
May 30, 2007 13:57:52 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on May 30, 2007 13:57:52 GMT -5
Gad, I am actually a bit hurt that you put me in the low content catagory. I guess I brought that one on myself with my most recent dialogue, but still I try hard not to ever make fluff posts. Anyway, I re read. I re thought. I come back refreshed and with a few new ideas. So everyone knows where I am coming from at this stage I thinik it is in the scums best interest to be invisible. That means not lurking (Auto, Zuma, Lakai) and not posting prolificlly (Gad, Idle, Cappy) but posting just enough to keep from being forgotten. FCoD falls into this catagory, panamajack does also, and so does Hockey Monkey. So I went back and started looking at what people were saying, not just the posts but the context too. Hockey Monkey has only 17 posts in this game, and has almost as many votes. (An exageration, but I believe she has voted something like 6 times.) She never comes up with her own reasons for voting, but will flit from bandwagon to bandwagon trying to blend in, trying to not rock the boat. She outwardly calls out people she believes not to be scum (again a trust building mechanism Storyteller developed.) I call her scum. Vote Hockey Monkey (bleached) <Kyle's mom>What what what? </KM> I'm trying to post as much as I can, and believe it or not, I am trying to do some analysis. Now that we are into day 2, there is a lot more to work with. An exaggeration? I'll say! I've voted where I thought my vote should go at the time, and I really put a lot of thought into it. I won't argue that I used other people's analysis to help me make those decisions. I'll lay it out for you... Day One -Voted for Idle Thoughts for agreeing with me then voting for me because of the same reasoning he was agreeing with. Thought that one up all by myself. -Unvoted IT, Voted Auntbeast because I thought MtS gave a good arguement and I agreed. -Unvoted Auntbeast, Voted Katiroo based on storyteller's arguement. Katiroo was lynched. 3 votes on Day One...not too unusual. There were others who voted and unvoted lots more. Day Two -Well into day two, I voted for FCOD. I had previously stated that he was twigging my radar, then you, NAF, laid out a good analysis. After reading some more posts, I unvoted him. That brings us to now. 3 votes day one and 1 vote today. I don't think that is 6 times, and certainly not 17! Shame on you for such a blatant mischaracterization/misrepresentation! Get your facts straight before you accuse me. FTR, you are wrong about my scumminess. I'm just a very busy crewman. You don't think the decks swab themselves do you?
|
|
|
Day Two
May 30, 2007 13:59:59 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on May 30, 2007 13:59:59 GMT -5
(snip) It's certainly dangerous to defend someone whose legitimacy and crewiness you don't know for sure (which is the case for all of us, except the officers and the pirates), and I definitely risk getting burned if capy turns out to be a pirate (as does hockeymonkey, although I care less about her ). (snip) (bolding mine) Actually, the statement I bolded, though it feels and sounds true is completely wrong. See: if you are crew, you don't have any way to know one's allegiance, one way or another. So if you attack crew (or defend scum, for that matter) it may reflect badly on your reasoning, but it won't tell other crew ANYthing about your allegiance. storyteller put it right in MII (after it finished, of course). You shouldn't be wary of someone who is mistaken once in a while but you should definitely be wary of someone who is ALWAYS RIGHT. (even worse when they stake their own reputation on someone's scumminess or crewitude. Scum KNOWS the outcome of that prediction beforehand).
|
|