|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 9:30:20 GMT -5
Post by brewha on Dec 18, 2010 9:30:20 GMT -5
unvote
Vote CrazyPunker
I just don't believe that there is a scotsman in this game. Or if there is, it would have a more Tarot-esque sounding name. Maybe have an explanation in the PM how the role is like that of a scotsman, but I just don't think he'd outright be called one.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 10:21:08 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 18, 2010 10:21:08 GMT -5
Scotsman would make sense as a scum claim to try to ward off a lynch. A thought that, while perhaps paranoid, has only been underscored by what he's said since claiming, at least for me. How does a scotsman claim make sense for avoiding a lynch? It seems like it would do the opposite to me. It would make it a safer lynch because you could test the claim without killing the player.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 10:29:33 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 18, 2010 10:29:33 GMT -5
I think he's likely scum. OK, Bill made the case very early in the Day but you still voted Special afterwards. See my previous comment on liking Bill's case. The claim is (and IMO should be) irrelevant. Though I note that you've offered a false dilemma. He could be scotsman *and* mafia. You're correct. What? No she isn't. I wouldn't be voting for him if the case wasn't compelling to begin with, but at least part of my vote is testing his claim. The scotsman claim has everything to do with it. Had he claimed cop or doc or some other role I would likely have not voted for him, but scotsman is testable. It isn't either/or...it's both. What are you trying to accomplish here guiri?
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 11:10:04 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 18, 2010 11:10:04 GMT -5
Vote Stickler
Story outlined what I think is a pretty good case against him. First off, he hasn't participated much, especially toDay. Second, he voted for Rysto for using the same argument against Pleo that he had used earlier. Third, he said he likes to lynch people that lurk in the shadows later in the game. That's basically what he is doing now.
The vote against Rysto also came before we knew Rysto was third party and because he had a few votes already on him it was very possible he could have been lynched that day.
Looking again at the votes on Rysto in Day 1 you have Hockey who needed Rysto dead for the win condition, Charr who said he voted him for no reason, CIAS, and Stickler. I find CIAS and Stickler both likely to be scum.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 11:46:54 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 18, 2010 11:46:54 GMT -5
I'm leaving my vote on crazypunker for Today. It does seem odd that he'd make up being a Scotsman, but it wouldn't be odd at all for a Scum Scotsman to claim to be Town.
Yes, it's unlikely that we'll discover his alignment unless he's flat-out lying and we kill him. But if we lynch him Today, then we definitely avoid mislynching someone else, and perhaps we'll have enough new information to make a more informed decision Tomorrow. Worst case, we buy ourselves another Day, which is sort of the whole point of having the Role, isn't it?
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 11:53:04 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Dec 18, 2010 11:53:04 GMT -5
OK, Bill made the case very early in the Day but you still voted Special afterwards. You're correct. What? No she isn't. I wouldn't be voting for him if the case wasn't compelling to begin with, but at least part of my vote is testing his claim. The scotsman claim has everything to do with it. Had he claimed cop or doc or some other role I would likely have not voted for him, but scotsman is testable. It isn't either/or...it's both. What are you trying to accomplish here guiri? The "you're correct" was in reference to the fact that crazypunker could be scum and honestly claiming scotsman.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 12:23:11 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 18, 2010 12:23:11 GMT -5
I'm leaving my vote on crazypunker for Today. It does seem odd that he'd make up being a Scotsman, but it wouldn't be odd at all for a Scum Scotsman to claim to be Town. Yes, it's unlikely that we'll discover his alignment unless he's flat-out lying and we kill him. But if we lynch him Today, then we definitely avoid mislynching someone else, and perhaps we'll have enough new information to make a more informed decision Tomorrow. Worst case, we buy ourselves another Day, which is sort of the whole point of having the Role, isn't it? buy us another day? I flat out disagree with this. I won't die (unless scum also night kill me which is extremely unlikely if they know I am likely to be lynched again tomorrow) but the scum will still get their night kill. We waste a chance to get scum while the scum still get their chance to reduce our numbers. I don't think that's helpful to town at all. If I get lynched twice in a row and die I want everyone to take a close look at this statement.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 12:43:32 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 18, 2010 12:43:32 GMT -5
I think he's likely scum. OK, Bill made the case very early in the Day but you still voted Special afterwards. I know. I think Special Ed is very likely scum. But I think the case against crazypunker is a strong one, and in the absence of any momentum toward Special Ed I see no reason not to put my money where my mouth is on crazypunker as well.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 12:46:24 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Dec 18, 2010 12:46:24 GMT -5
OK, Bill made the case very early in the Day but you still voted Special afterwards. You're correct. What? No she isn't. I wouldn't be voting for him if the case wasn't compelling to begin with, but at least part of my vote is testing his claim. The scotsman claim has everything to do with it. Had he claimed cop or doc or some other role I would likely have not voted for him, but scotsman is testable. And proves nothing about crazypunker's alignment if proven correct, but only if it's proven wrong. And if it's proven wrong, then he's a liar and we should be voting for him anyway, to get him dead. Voting to test his claim should not be a factor, IMO.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 13:30:46 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 18, 2010 13:30:46 GMT -5
Sorry. This stuff takes time, you know. Anyway... CatinaSuit Like Stickler, not a wildly active player. Like Stickler, votes for Rysto early (Day One), thusly: I don’t understand what Cat doesn’t understand – if Pleonast is Scum, then he’s self-evidently not a power role, and Scum would self-evidently know this. That said, I think this is just confusion of terms, and it doesn’t bother me much. Ah – I see. A few posts later, Rysto clarifies that he meant “Town power role,” and Cat says that if Rysto had included “Town,” he would have been OK with it… I get where Rysto was coming from here – I tend to think of the term “power role” as referring to Town, and would typically use the modifier only for Scum (ie, “power role” versus “Scum power role”). But I get where Cat is coming from, too. So this whole thing is not really a sign of much to me. Since then, he’s done very little other than pop up to throw stones at my claims. His argument has been – and he can feel free to correct me if I’m misrepresenting – that I’m either lying or misinformed, and he’s leaning toward lying. So my follow-up question is this: why? What about the nature of what has happened makes it more likely that I have told a really stupid and pointless lie that gains me nothing and risks me everything than that (as actually happened) the moderator made a minor error of wording in a PM? Even in the absence of the knowledge that I actually have, the second scenario seems considerably more likely than the first. I’ve already reviewed my problems with Cat’s most recent post, to which he has not responded. --- Meh. I have less conviction than I did with Stickler, because there’s very little to go on, but in the end Cat’s attack on me seems lazy and opportunistic, consistent with Scum who thinks if they just keep repeating that something seems off, that others will conclude it must be off. If I could vote for CatinaSuit, I probably would at this point, but would vote for Stickler first-- Ed next, hopefully before Day's end.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 17:19:50 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 18, 2010 17:19:50 GMT -5
Dammit, I have not had the time this week to play. Normally, I'd vote Charr, but I've been so absent this game that it would seem rather hypocritical. Lemmee see if I've got this right:
Claims: metallicsquink-roleblocker crazypunker-scotsman
Were there more claims than this? I thought there were more but I can't think of them right now.
I will join the group wishing to test crazypunker's scotsman ability. Vote: crazypunker
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 17:32:46 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 18, 2010 17:32:46 GMT -5
Since then, he’s done very little other than pop up to throw stones at my claims. His argument has been – and he can feel free to correct me if I’m misrepresenting – that I’m either lying or misinformed, and he’s leaning toward lying. So my follow-up question is this: why? What about the nature of what has happened makes it more likely that I have told a really stupid and pointless lie that gains me nothing and risks me everything than that (as actually happened) the moderator made a minor error of wording in a PM? Even in the absence of the knowledge that I actually have, the second scenario seems considerably more likely than the first. This may not have been directed at me, but I can think of secveral reasons why you might lie about your power, and I'm sure there are several others: 1. You wanted to set-up just such a 'why would I do this' scenario 2. You are a non-Town with a Day power, however, you cannot use your Day power and vote in the same Day. 3. Same as 2, but maybe your power is at Night. 4. You have a power that you can only use on someone who is voting for you. You chosen this approach to get some votes while hopefully avoid a lynch. This has no bearing on your alignment, however, if you were Town, you might have been more upfront about it, perhaps? I'm not sure. 5. You have a power which needs votes to be activated. (I would find this fitting since I have gotten 2 such roles from you, one as Town and one as Scum.) Again, this doesn't indicate anything about alignment. 6. You have a mutated Mad Bomber role where you win if every living player has, at some point, cast a vote for you. Again, this is a situation where you would want votes but want to avoid a lynch. 7. You are a double voter and want to save your power until later in the game where it is more useful. If I spent more than 5 minutes, I could come up with more scenarios. Now, am I to believe that none of this occurred to you, and as an innocent Townie you think that anyone questioning your motives is truly suspect?
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 17:36:18 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 18, 2010 17:36:18 GMT -5
Scotsman would make sense as a scum claim to try to ward off a lynch. A thought that, while perhaps paranoid, has only been underscored by what he's said since claiming, at least for me. How does a scotsman claim make sense for avoiding a lynch? It seems like it would do the opposite to me. It would make it a safer lynch because you could test the claim without killing the player. A cornered scum has few ways to try to (believably) attempt to side-step a lynch with a claim. Vanilla claims are probably the most common, but others can work too. The trick is whether or not a fake claim is provided or whether they have to come up with something on their own, or decide to forgo the mod-supplied fake claim and come up with something else instead. Anyway, despite how we have reacted (most of us not unvoting you) and assuming your scum, you wouldn't know how we'd react, maybe it would be enough to help us change our minds. In fact most of the posts you've made since claiming are pointing out reasons why we shouldn't lynch you because you're a Scotsman. Not trying to convince us not to lynch you because you're misunderstood Town, but trying to convince us not to lynch you because you're a Scotsman. All of this is not insignificant to paranoid minds, and when you combine it with a mechanism by which we can test even just a part of your claim without mislynching someone with the possible icing on the cake being that if you are lying about the ability to survive, we'd be lynching a liar, there you have it. However, I do think that the people who are citing 'test his claim' as their sole reason for voting for crazy are doing the Town a disservice and if he ever dies and flips as Town, they will be getting hairy eyeballs from me.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 17:43:59 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 18, 2010 17:43:59 GMT -5
More comments: So are you saying you agree with the people voting Pleonast? If yes, why didn't you vote him yourself? If no, why did you imply that you wanted him lynched? Did you read the post Story did about your posts at that time? I understand why people would want to lynch Pleonast, given that I usually want to do it, but I know from previous games that it's not very effective. But what are we to do when faced with behavior that is if not anti-town, town neutral or even a distraction, if we can't lynch the player? I also understand that it's one thing to tell someone, "Don't do that, the result will not be helpful," compared to letting them do it and finding out that the result is unhelpful. As for implying I wanted him lynched, I really would like him to stop this magic bagging and vanilla claiming all the time and i harbor a deep and secret hope that if it gets him lynched some magical number of times, he'll stop. Crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result but I can't seem to help it. I did see Story's post. I don't know what to say other than he'll be frustrated if I get lynched or nightkilled. So sorry to disappoint. Okay, I'm not a lurker. I haven't been on for a while, and quite honestly, being new and all, I don't really have much to contribute, but I guess I could observe for a while. I mean, if I voted for someone, which is all I can do assuming I'm not a power role, I wouldn't be able to sum up the reasons, and would just rack up votes against me, so >.> Sorry, that's pretty much what being a lurker is. If you're voting for someone, you must have a reason, unless you're printing out the signup list and throwing darts. What is that reason? If it's some sort of gut urge, explore it. Reread their posts, ask them questions. And rest secure in the knowledge that you can't play more poorly than me.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 18:08:16 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 18, 2010 18:08:16 GMT -5
Since then, he’s done very little other than pop up to throw stones at my claims. His argument has been – and he can feel free to correct me if I’m misrepresenting – that I’m either lying or misinformed, and he’s leaning toward lying. So my follow-up question is this: why? What about the nature of what has happened makes it more likely that I have told a really stupid and pointless lie that gains me nothing and risks me everything than that (as actually happened) the moderator made a minor error of wording in a PM? Even in the absence of the knowledge that I actually have, the second scenario seems considerably more likely than the first. This may not have been directed at me, but I can think of secveral reasons why you might lie about your power, and I'm sure there are several others: I'm leaving my own words in there so that this will make sense: all of your reasons are dismissed as irrelevant. It is not sufficient to imagine that there is NO reason I would lie about this, because that's not what I asked. I did not say that there is no reason - just that there is no good reason to conclude that it is more likely that I am lying, in the absence of any other evidence of any kind, than that the moderator made a simple mistake. Oh, and I have claimed no power. Just a limitation. Been trying to figure out with some friends whether the one implies the other, have you? To what end? I have not argued - and would not argue - that I should get any Town cred for my limitation - only that the limitation is a null tell. In which case I have a voting restriction and am telling the truth. In which case I have a voting restriction and am telling the truth. That's... very complicated, but the first valid reason you've proposed. That's the second. That's the third. This is a wildly unlikely and crappy role, and your suggestion would be a terrible way to play it - better to do absolutely nothing and try to survive until very near endgame, and draw votes then. Why would I make up a post restriction to explain this? Sure! And if I spent five minutes, I could come up with fifty scenarios in which your behavior marks you as Scum, and 50 scenarios where your behavior marks you as Town. My point is that my restriction, and my decisions to claim it, tells you nothing whatsoever about my alignment. Cat has leaped to the assumption that one of the (comparatively Byzantine and elaborate and rare) scenarios in which I am lying about my post restriction is more likely than one of the (comparatively straightforward and simple) scenarios in which I am telling the truth about it (whether I am Town or Scum). I would like to know why.See above. I think anyone using this and this alone as the sole basis on which to build an argument is suspect. I also think putting mischaracterized words in my mouth, as you've done above, is suspect. --- I haven't had time to go into Ed in detail yet; I will do so during Night, and post results first thing toMorrow if I have not been killed.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 18:59:59 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 18, 2010 18:59:59 GMT -5
I would like to note that minecraft is a horrible gift to give someone who has other obligations to fulfill.
At this point - Regarding what CP is iscritical - and while the case against him is good, I don't feel the need to throw my vote behind something that's already pretty much decided - I would rather bring to attention one person in particular. And I shall be cross indeed if we lynch Crazypunker twice in a row only to learn he's telling the truth. Point is - if he survives today, unless it's some uber pressing deal, I'd rather not waste an execution on him.
As it isssss, there's plenty of votes on him and since it's near day end I want to bring peoples attention towards a few things I find reasonably attention grabbing.
Namely - I was in a tight position yesterday, nearly getting lynched for not being here for most of the beginning half of the day - Flying Under the Radar, as How Someone would put it. Then for the latter half of the day, I would be posting big huge posts that took forever to read or digest. THis was also flying under the radar.
I apparently never offered anything new. This too, was under the radar.
Then suddenly early today I'm Slight Town, despite only throwing slight suspicion on a few people, including Maha, and then the fact I wrote a big long post attacking NAF (Well, post and a half) that got boiled down to omgus (which, honestly, partially it was. The other part somethings managed to tick me off more than others.).
What slight town, I think, means in this instance is a willingness to vote for me if he absolutely must, but rather wouldn't if he could avoid it thanks. Combined in with the fact I apparently say nothing that I'd have to come back and defend later (much to my pleasure I would not have outstanding questions from Renata, (Regarding Mr. Ed - I think it's mostly because with Maha flipping scum I feel that I was completely wrong on the whole deal), and MetalicSquink (IN that I would question you regardless of alignment for who you blocked and why - and I still hold that randomly N1 or N2 blocking without regards to who you hit is very much anti-town play regardless of alignment), would, I think, qualify as flying under the radar.
The fact you dropped all pretense of attacking me today to go after someone else (Say Crazy punker) really speaks Ill of you to me - I'd much rather have you consistent and attacking me based on supposed scum tells I committed yesterday than having you chase after someone else because I assume I'm just not worth the effort at the moment to try getting lynched, Suburban Plankton.
Vote: Suburban Plankton
So yeah, while I like the case on CP, I see no reason to cast a vote his way when I can just as easily draw attention to someone else for later.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 19:00:38 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 18, 2010 19:00:38 GMT -5
B leajfpwjwf.
Vote: Suburban Plankton
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 19:30:43 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 18, 2010 19:30:43 GMT -5
Oh hey triple decker.
On one more note that I wasn't able to squeeze into the post above :
Anti-Town does not necessarily denote scumminess. One may still perform anti-town actions yet still not commit scummy ones - distinction lies in what you believe the intent was.
So when I say anti-town I do not necessarily mean (i.e. you squink) that I think you are scum; it just means I believe your actions are harmful to the town.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 19:49:24 GMT -5
Post by charr on Dec 18, 2010 19:49:24 GMT -5
I don't really know what to say about Charr, other than I hope he starts actually playing or he's probably going to get lynched for half-assedly playing, and that will suck if he's Town. Oh yes. That would be oh so terrible indeed.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 19:55:13 GMT -5
Post by charr on Dec 18, 2010 19:55:13 GMT -5
Actually, it's been a couple of days since the ginormous stack on CrazyPunker began, and, seeing as he's not making any slapdash attempt to gain approval, this might be verification enough as it is.
I dunno. Maybe he's just given up, on the other hand.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 19:59:15 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 18, 2010 19:59:15 GMT -5
@storyteller But you're missing the key distinction. I am not suspicious of you for having or even claiming a voting restriction. What I find suspicious is that you claimed a posting restriction. Then when it was pointed out that a posting restriction is denied in the rules, your story changed. You've claimed it is moderator error. That is possible. I tend to believe that you had a reason for claiming a posting restriction, and when you discovered that it was impossible to have one, you came up with an alternate explanation. Had you been upfront from the start and stated thatn you were unable to vote, the situation would look very different to me. Sorry for the vagueness - I was posting from my phone, and further trying to be all clever and stuff. In plain terms: 1. I have a post restriction. It may or may not relate to voting, but I'd prefer not to say, because; 2. My restriction is one that could, if known, be manipulated under certain circumstances; further, 3. I have had this description since the game began (it was part of my role PM); but I didn't speak before I did because 4. The wording in my PM was vague enough that I needed to confirm that it was a post restriction rather than something else; I have since received confirmation of this, and will further aver that 5. I do not know of any connection between myself and Charr. As to why I mentioned it at all? Two reasons: 1. I think it's of value to know that there is at least one post restriction in this game (you don't know whether I'm truthful or not yet, but eventually, if/when I die or am investigated, you will); and 2. My own posting will involve a few quirks due to this restriction, and I figured it was best to disclose early rather than late. So, it's a posting restriction. I haven't seen any quirks other than not being able to vote. Does your post restriction only apply at Night? Actually, it applies only by Day. But I have just received clarification. The original response (to my question of whether this constitued a post restriction or something else) was: The follow-up, which just arrived, was this: So there you go.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 20:17:45 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 18, 2010 20:17:45 GMT -5
I don't really know what to say about Charr, other than I hope he starts actually playing or he's probably going to get lynched for half-assedly playing, and that will suck if he's Town. Oh yes. That would be oh so terrible indeed. Yes, it would be. It advances the Scum win condition and undermines the Town win condition. Any time things like play style or participation level result in Town lynching Town, it sucks for Town. Especially when the Scum can just sit back and let it happen, or when it gives the Scum a nice safe place to park a Town-lynching vote that will probably not get them much scrutiny because they're voting with a bunch of Town players.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 20:17:48 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 18, 2010 20:17:48 GMT -5
I don't really know what to say about Charr, other than I hope he starts actually playing or he's probably going to get lynched for half-assedly playing, and that will suck if he's Town. Oh yes. That would be oh so terrible indeed. What in the hell to make of this post. Just. I thought I was being passive aggressive but christ. Is he saying he isn't town? Is it supposed to be a defense? just a sarcastic statement out of no bleeding where to a post addressed primarily to him? Actually, it's been a couple of days since the ginormous stack on CrazyPunker began, and, seeing as he's not making any slapdash attempt to gain approval, this might be verification enough as it is. I dunno. Maybe he's just given up, on the other hand. Actually, he's been fighting it. You're just not paying attention - and it's at the point where I don't think anyone can realistically believe to be able to get out of their lynch without a christmas miracle like Santa pulling an investigation on you out of his nose proclaiming you in all it's crusty glory that you are town, innocent and true.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 20:20:23 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 18, 2010 20:20:23 GMT -5
Oh yes. That would be oh so terrible indeed. Yes, it would be. It advances the Scum win condition and undermines the Town win condition. Any time things like play style or participation level result in Town lynching Town, it sucks for Town. Especially when the Scum can just sit back and let it happen, or when it gives the Scum a nice safe place to park a Town-lynching vote that will probably not get them much scrutiny because they're voting with a bunch of Town players. Pretty much this, too. So seriously - if you are town, start playing to your win condition. If you're scum keep tap dancing to the gallows.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 20:35:34 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 18, 2010 20:35:34 GMT -5
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but shouldn't the Day have ended about 95 minutes ago?
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 20:55:18 GMT -5
Post by brewha on Dec 18, 2010 20:55:18 GMT -5
That's what I was thinking, SP.
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 18, 2010 20:56:59 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 18, 2010 20:56:59 GMT -5
Final Vote Count
crazypunker (11): hockey monkey [39], billmc [44], sister coyote [77-100], total ullz [127], cookies [130], texcat [138], suburban plankton [142], sister coyote [143-151], naff1138 [163], charr [166], renata [172], brewha [180], inner stickler [190]
storyteller (2): mr ed [91], catinasuit [99], suburban plankton [102-142]
catinasuit (1): guiri [71], cookies [112-130], brewha [131-180]
paranoia (1): metallic squink [69]
charr (1): peekercpa [132]
inner stickler (1): crazypunker [183]
suburban plankton (1): paranoia [196]
cometothedarksidewehavecookies (0): crazypunker [38-133]
mr ed (0): renata [78-172]
|
|
|
Day 3
Dec 22, 2010 10:12:07 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Dec 22, 2010 10:12:07 GMT -5
Ok catching up again. In that post, I asked Cat and Stickler a question, which follows: Each of you voted for Rysto yesterday, Stickler in particular at a sensitive time when it was entirely possible your votes might send him to the gallows; they were not throwaway votes. Neither of you has voted for him today [ie, Day Two]. What has changed?I thought I had answered this here. To those wondering why my vote switched, its simple, storyteller appeared scummier on Day 2 than rysto and I stated why. However, given Mahaloth's side, I'm going back to review again. No, I hadn't forgotten about rysto, but then I did get dragged into an argument with Cookies. Having thought about it, I'm not sure what to make of storyteller. Does he have a vote restriction, I don't know and I'm loathe to completely assume it. I still don't like the way the end of Day 2 voting went with Mahaloth though as to me it looks as though it tries to save both Mahaloth and storyteller from a lynch (even though it didn't) Looking at the reasoning for the crazypunker lynch, I can see that nothing has changed as to why he should not be lynched today. I agree with these reasons around the EOD2 lynch with his vote for Hockey Monkey. It also adds more to any saving of Mahaloth and storyteller or possibly just getting Mahaloth out of trouble. Looking through the details against Inner Stickler from this morning's reveal (Yay for dead NAF, boo for Dead BillMc), it does look like someone trying to show they were suspicious of someone which wasn't been mentioned before. the call out for a detective to possibly reveal is also slightly worrying as well. While I would like to see storyteller lynched, I'm not going ignore good cases which also make sense. I'm going to vote crazypunker, because I think his vote actions towards the end of Day 2 are likely scummy, as it certainly pushed a known scum further down the lynch list at EOD.
|
|