|
Post by brewha on Jan 20, 2011 17:36:27 GMT -5
[quote author=peekercpa board=aaaa thread=1544 post=73240 time=1295368154
i picked ulla over cp on a gut feel. she's been middle of the road most of the game which is where i would expect scum to hide, especially ulla. not really leading the charge but also not coming in at the end with some sort of lame "me too" kind of reasoning.[/quote]
I kinda agree with this. Except, it seems to me she has somehow been leading the town around. I can't quote a specific instance, it's just the feeling I've been getting. I've been unquestioningly been following her without reason to trust her.
This is far from a well thought out case. In fact, I doubt very much I could make a case against Ulla based on what she's posted. But, I get the feeling she's been guiding the votes and we've been lynching alot of town lately.
So, since there's no sense in wasting yet another vote on Crazypunker - though I would vote for her in a heartbeat if it looks like we could get a consensus there. And, I do believe that Peeker's vote is not scum motivated.
Vote Total Ullz
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 20, 2011 18:03:27 GMT -5
As someone who has voted peeker on Day 1 numerous times, it just struck me as unusual. Not meaningful in the context of this game, just unusual. most Masons don't get lynched.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 20, 2011 18:03:56 GMT -5
[quote author=peekercpa board=aaaa thread=1544 post=73240 time=1295368154 i picked ulla over cp on a gut feel. she's been middle of the road most of the game which is where i would expect scum to hide, especially ulla. not really leading the charge but also not coming in at the end with some sort of lame "me too" kind of reasoning. I kinda agree with this. Except, it seems to me she has somehow been leading the town around. I can't quote a specific instance, it's just the feeling I've been getting. I've been unquestioningly been following her without reason to trust her. This is far from a well thought out case. In fact, I doubt very much I could make a case against Ulla based on what she's posted. But, I get the feeling she's been guiding the votes and we've been lynching alot of town lately. So, since there's no sense in wasting yet another vote on Crazypunker - though I would vote for her in a heartbeat if it looks like we could get a consensus there. And, I do believe that Peeker's vote is not scum motivated. Vote Total Ullz[/quote] quick! look over there!
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 20, 2011 20:33:47 GMT -5
I kinda agree with this. Except, it seems to me she has somehow been leading the town around. I can't quote a specific instance, it's just the feeling I've been getting. I've been unquestioningly been following her without reason to trust her. This is far from a well thought out case. In fact, I doubt very much I could make a case against Ulla based on what she's posted. But, I get the feeling she's been guiding the votes and we've been lynching alot of town lately. So, since there's no sense in wasting yet another vote on Crazypunker - though I would vote for her in a heartbeat if it looks like we could get a consensus there. And, I do believe that Peeker's vote is not scum motivated. Vote Total UllzI'm not sure what Ed meant by look over there, but my reaction was huh, wtf? With the vote standing at four people tied at one: storyteller (1): hockey monkey [6] crazypunker (1): texcat [8] hockey monkey (1): metallic squink [10] total ullz (1): peekercpa [12] you suddenly decide that crazypunker is a wasted vote, after voting for him 4 days in a row? And now you tell us that you were voting for him because you were following Total? But have decided now that Total is scum? Does that mean you now think that crazypunker is town? You said you'd vote him in a heartbeat? Something here just does not hang together for me.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 20, 2011 20:39:27 GMT -5
most Masons don't get lynched. Yes, but we didn't know that peeker was a mason until Day II.
|
|
|
Post by brewha on Jan 20, 2011 22:41:15 GMT -5
What is a vote for a person that doesn't get lynched? I say it's a wasted vote. I could vote for CP again today, but apparently no one else thinks she's scummy enough to be lynched - at least not enough to make a difference. What's the old definition of insanity? repeating the same actions and expecting different results. Well, I"m ready to try a different action. Suddenly decide? Hardly. It's been 4 attempts. 4 wasted votes.
And yeah, I'm equally confused by Ed's post.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 20, 2011 22:49:08 GMT -5
And yeah, I'm equally confused by Ed's post. I was waiting for your promised vote analysis and the end to your quietness. (after responding to texcat) Normal made a comment about you driving her crazy (not sure what that meant myself) So, after a couple of comments, you sudden;y pop in and have a case against Ulla. No vote analysis. nothing much of anything actually. It just looked like an attempt to distract us from something....like you.. that's all.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 20, 2011 22:49:52 GMT -5
and by "Normal" I mean "Renata"
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 20, 2011 23:39:10 GMT -5
[...] I could vote for CP again today, but apparently no one else thinks she's scummy enough to be lynched - at least not enough to make a difference.[...] I guess that means I am no one. If you had voted CP today, it would have put him in the lead, but instead you voted Total to put her in the lead? And I'm still unclear on how you think a scummy Total led you into voting for a scummy CP? If your case on Total is that she is leading the vote, and she led you onto CP, then I can't reconcile that with them both being scum now.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 21, 2011 7:23:42 GMT -5
[quote author=peekercpa board=aaaa thread=1544 post=73240 time=1295368154 i picked ulla over cp on a gut feel. she's been middle of the road most of the game which is where i would expect scum to hide, especially ulla. not really leading the charge but also not coming in at the end with some sort of lame "me too" kind of reasoning. I kinda agree with this. Except, it seems to me she has somehow been leading the town around. I can't quote a specific instance, it's just the feeling I've been getting. I've been unquestioningly been following her without reason to trust her. This is far from a well thought out case. In fact, I doubt very much I could make a case against Ulla based on what she's posted. But, I get the feeling she's been guiding the votes and we've been lynching alot of town lately. So, since there's no sense in wasting yet another vote on Crazypunker - though I would vote for her in a heartbeat if it looks like we could get a consensus there. And, I do believe that Peeker's vote is not scum motivated. Vote Total Ullz[/quote] W. T. F? Can't think of any specific things, and can't make a case, but you have a feeling. And you toss down a vote based on nothing when you could put the person you've voted for all game in the lead. Good to know that you also think the mason's vote is not scum motivated. Jebus. As much as I want to lynch storyteller today, this cannot pass without scrutiny. unvote storyteller
[color-blue]vote brewha[/color][/b]
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 21, 2011 7:25:24 GMT -5
vote brewha
that's what I get for typing in the dark and before 10am.
|
|
|
Post by brewha on Jan 21, 2011 8:55:12 GMT -5
And yeah, I'm equally confused by Ed's post. I was waiting for your promised vote analysis and the end to your quietness. (after responding to texcat) Normal made a comment about you driving her crazy (not sure what that meant myself) So, after a couple of comments, you sudden;y pop in and have a case against Ulla. No vote analysis. nothing much of anything actually. It just looked like an attempt to distract us from something....like you.. that's all. Yeah, Renata's (Normal's) post confused me too. She was responding to Story's question: "What am I missing?" with the person whom he didn't address - me. The statement about play style driving her crazy was directed at story - not me. I was hardly in the spotlight. I don't know why I'd be trying to distract from myself. Doesn't much matter to me anyway. At least people are talking. It sucks that the conversation has been refocused on me - but at least there's some data points. [oog] Truth is, I just started going back to school pursuing my Master's degree in Engineering. I was hoping this game would be wrapped up by now, when I joined up. I'll do my best to keep up, but I've going to have very little free time in the foreseeable future. [/oog]
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Jan 21, 2011 9:30:24 GMT -5
That's correct, I was referring to Storyteller when I said he was driving me crazy. He still feels like scummy-scum with scum sauce, but TWO known scum voted him on day two.
The vote analysis that brewha promised isn't exactly hard; I was looking at the summary posted in day five yesterday and could probably do that much in fifteen minutes. Back in a moment.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 21, 2011 9:33:06 GMT -5
most Masons don't get lynched. Yes, but we didn't know that peeker was a mason until Day II. add to the fact that cookies admitted to almost town vigging me as a mason last game just from an annoyance factor. and i truly am voting for ulla at this point more on a gut feel than anything. story makes a compelling argument for cp possibly being a scum scotsman. but i would expect this from him whether he be town or scum. but i couple h cp's power with ed's claim and just think that another scum power role coupled with a anti town power role coupled with an admitted 3rd party and it just seems wonky to say the least. additionally, although we did have a three person masonry we didn't have an outside board where we could communicate. so to some extent the masons were underpowered as current game set ups are typically written.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Jan 21, 2011 10:08:17 GMT -5
Posted in Day Six, rather. Summary (stolen from Mr Ed) through day five, which will include all votes by or on known scum. I'm certain that there are errors. I did this once and didn't double check at all Please feel free to post corrections. Vote history total ullz sistercoyote peekerhockey monkey texcat paranoia renata storyteller guiri brewha mister blockey crazypunker metallic squink special ed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Day 1pleonast (5): crazypunker [103-207], mahaloth [104-236], metallicsquink [165], darksidecookies [169], brewha [213], peekercpa [216], rysto [238] rysto (4): hockey monkey [164], catinasuit [176], inner stickler [221], charr [230] mahaloth (3): guiri [113], mhaye [225], sistercoyote [240] mr ed (2): renata [200], texcat [224] paranoia (1): peekercpa [143-216], mr ed [199-227], naf1138 [202] suburban plankton (1): pleonast [17], rysto [142-238]naf1138 (1): suburban plankton [133] texcat (1): mr ed [227] charr (1): mahaloth [236] sister coyote (0): brewha [212-213]catinasuit (0): guiri [94-113]storyteller (0): peekercpa [93-143]Not voting: total ullz billmcparanoia storyteller mister blockey crazypunker ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Day 2mahaloth (5): guiri [109], texcat [248], sistercoyote [266], mister blockey [300], billmc [301] hockey monkey (4): renata [160], total ullz [256], billmc [264-301], mahaloth [270], crazypunker [276] storyteller (3): peekercpa [115], catinasuit [124], mr ed [242], mahaloth [269-270]paranoia (2): naf1138 [23], suburban plankton [100], metallicsquink [108-199]metallic squink (2): total ullz [176-223], mr ed [188-242], brewha [194], rysto [286] rysto (1): hockey monkey [101] total ullz (1): texcat [16] catinasuit (1): cookies [169] naf1138 (1): paranoia [177] brewha (1): metallic squink [199] cometothedarksidewehavecookies (0): crazypunker [244-255]
charr (0): mr blockey [27-140], billmc [31-264], mahaloth [178-269]Not voting: storyteller inner sticklerchar~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Day 3crazypunker (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]Not voting: sistercoyote storyteller mister blockey ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Day 4inner stickler (9): mr ed [12], guiri [13], total ullz [15], crazypunker [18], texcat [44], cookies [56], renata [66], blockey [70], sister coyote [72] crazypunker (4): hockey monkey [27], brewha [32], catinasuit [49], suburban plankton [88] charr (2): peekercpa [99], paranoia [106] suburban plankton (0): paranoia [33-106]storyteller (0): peekercpa [39-99]Not Voting: storyteller inner sticklercharmetallic squink ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Day 5charr (6): peekercpa [11], paranoia [42], cookies [86], hockey monkey [97], ullz [99], crazypunker [110] crazypunker (4): brewha [44], catinasuit [102], sister coyote [103], mr ed [104] catinasuit (2): guiri [41], texcat [133] storyteller (1): mr ed [21-104], renata [54] Not voting: storyteller mister blockey charmetallic squink Summary, day one: SisC is the only living player to vote a known scum, third vote on Mahaloth. (post 240 of that day) Pleonast already had five at the time. Known scum's votees are all dead. Summary, day two: texcat, SisC and MisterBlockey all vote Mahaloth (2nd, 3rd and 4th, posts 248, 266 and 300). Texcat brought Mahaloth to 2, with 3 already on Storyteller. SisC brought him to 3, with Storyteller at 4 and HM at 3. Blockey brought him to 4 with HM already at 4 and Story at 3. Mahaloth voted for Storyteller, then Hockey Monkey (switching the lead from Storyteller to her in the process. posts 260 and 270); CIAS voted Storyteller (2nd vote, post 124). Summary, day three: Nobody votes known scum. NAF votes in the latter part of the large crazypunker bandwagon (post 163). CIAS votes 2nd on Storyteller again (post 99). Summary, day four: CIAS votes third on crazypunker (post 49) with the Inner Stickler bandwagon already at five. Nobody votes for known scum. Summary, day five: CIAS votes second on crazypunker (post 102), with five votes already on Charr. Nobody votes for known scum. Conclusions: Texcat, SisC and Mr Blockey have voted scum. All their votes on day two fall in the risky (if bussing) category, but none were guaranteed to cause a lynch. The votes themselves should probably be looked at also. HockeyMonkey, Storyteller and crazypunker have been voted BY scum. crazypunker has never remotely been put in danger by them; the other two have. Special Ed, Total Ulla, brewha, Squink, peeker, and I have been both off the mark as regards to and untargeted by the three known scum. I'd put both HM and Story in the probably-not-scum category based on this alone (along with Squink and peeker). Everybody else needs analysis that doesn't come from votes alone.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Jan 21, 2011 10:08:46 GMT -5
NETA: From vote connections to scum alone, that is.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Jan 21, 2011 10:22:35 GMT -5
Yes, but we didn't know that peeker was a mason until Day II. add to the fact that cookies admitted to almost town vigging me as a mason last game just from an annoyance factor. and i truly am voting for ulla at this point more on a gut feel than anything. story makes a compelling argument for cp possibly being a scum scotsman. but i would expect this from him whether he be town or scum. but i couple h cp's power with ed's claim and just think that another scum power role coupled with a anti town power role coupled with an admitted 3rd party and it just seems wonky to say the least. additionally, although we did have a three person masonry we didn't have an outside board where we could communicate. so to some extent the masons were underpowered as current game set ups are typically written. I would not characterize Special Ed's claimed role as anti-town but rather as useless. Choosing ahead of time who to save, and only one shot at it? If I had that role myself, I can't imagine ever even using it.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 21, 2011 10:49:22 GMT -5
I would not characterize Special Ed's claimed role as anti-town but rather as useless. Choosing ahead of time who to save, and only one shot at it? If I had that role myself, I can't imagine ever even using it. ture. I've basically considered myself vanilla from the get-go. The odds of my power being used successfully is slim. The successful use of my power is likely anti-Town. (The only possible pro-Town use I can see is playing if Scum get an advantage in numbers of active players and can control the lynch despite being outnumbered or if they have some sort of vote controlling power.) My power, if used successfully is confirmable, but it doesn't reveal my alignment (as far as I know)
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 21, 2011 10:53:46 GMT -5
Brewha. Your gameplay is really driving me crazy, you know. You want to vague that up for me a little? Honestly, how long do you plan to keep tossing vague and insubstantial barbs in my direction, hoping something sticks? I know, I know, I just kind of feel like Scum to you (with Scum sauce), and that's fine as far as it goes, but how about you give me something to which I can actually answer. In this particular case, I missed brewha. Correct. Do you know that I can't find a player list anywhere? I was relying on my own memory to assemble a player list. I figured someone would let me know if I missed someone. Which I did, and which someone did. How is this Scummy? How is this anything?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 21, 2011 10:58:39 GMT -5
For the rest... sigh. I know I'm not exactly covering myself with glory in this game. My role makes things extremely frustrating, to be honest; I suppose it plays a role in the balance of the game, but it's not fun to play this way and I feel like without voting, I'm barely in the game at all.
That said, I'm going to try to rally here and come up with something. I have one-hour meeting in two minutes and then some downtime from 12-2. More then.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Jan 21, 2011 11:07:35 GMT -5
Brewha. Your gameplay is really driving me crazy, you know. You want to vague that up for me a little? Honestly, how long do you plan to keep tossing vague and insubstantial barbs in my direction, hoping something sticks? I know, I know, I just kind of feel like Scum to you (with Scum sauce), and that's fine as far as it goes, but how about you give me something to which I can actually answer. In this particular case, I missed brewha. Correct. Do you know that I can't find a player list anywhere? I was relying on my own memory to assemble a player list. I figured someone would let me know if I missed someone. Which I did, and which someone did. How is this Scummy? How is this anything?It's not. The other comment was unrelated. I've explained it as best I can do it, it is and continues to be the tone of your comments as regards crazypunker and Hockey Monkey. But it's irrelevant right now. You are probably not scum. That's more than can be said for most of the rest of the players in the game. I should be listening to you and not arguing with you.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 21, 2011 13:26:46 GMT -5
We get a few lurker votes (on paranoia). If, in the fullness of time, paranoia turns out to be Scum, I will be inclined to grant modest pro-Town points to these two voters (NAF and mr. ed), because they helped introduce the possibility that paranoia, rather than Pleonast, will be the target. If paranoia is Scum, other Scum would have very little motivation to this, given the ease with which inaction would lead to a relaxed mislynch. If, however, paranoia turns out to be Town, I will grant modest pro-Scum points to those same players, as a late-Day move away from a claimed vanilla to an unclaimed Town player who is not currently participating would be exactly to the benefit of Scum: the have a chance of forcing a mislynch of a player who may or may not be a power role, and Pleonast is a free mislynch for a later Day. We now know that paranoia was town, and NAF was scum. I'd still like to know why you are leaning town on Ed.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 21, 2011 14:04:20 GMT -5
We now know that paranoia was town, and NAF was scum. I'd still like to know why you are leaning town on Ed. Preponderance of evidence. First of all, Ed and Cat, working in concert (de facto concert, not necessarily actual concert), were my primary non-peeker prosecutors during the time when I was under semi-serious lynch pressure. Is it possible that the Scum decided that my pathetic role and pitiful contributions so far were worth putting not one but two of their necks on the line in order to get me mislynched? Yes, it's possible. But I think it's not likely. Then there's the paragraph you quoted. If Ed is Scum, that means that he and NAF worked in concert to move the vote to paranoia, so he would twice have associated himself visibly and in a notable way with other Scum. Then there's Ed's quoted role, which blows so badly that it's hard to believe he'd make it up. It's just a leaning, nothing more. Should crazypunker ever die and be revealed as a Scum non-Scotsman, I'll be back on Ed like white on rice, that's for darn sure.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Jan 21, 2011 14:35:26 GMT -5
Then let's find out. The original reasons for voting her have not gone away, the meta argument that there should not be a scum scotsman is not compelling to me (for those who think it is, does Guiri's role change anything?), NAF made the argument that it would prove something that it didn't to lynch her the first time, and Storyteller is probably not scum.
vote: Crazypunker[/color]
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 21, 2011 14:46:27 GMT -5
So, hm.
I just spent some time playing around with game balance and possible set-ups. My working hypothesis was that there were so many claimed power roles that even with an overwhelming number of Scum, if all power roles were being truthful we'd still outpower the Scum by a considerable margin, and therefore surely at least some of the claimed power roles must be lying.
Except the numbers didn't really bear that out. I can generate scenarios where it makes sense that every single claim so far has been truthful, and scenarios where any number of players could be lying.
I think our last five unclaimeds should strongly consider claiming at this point. It will help us understand the setup much more.
---
I am concerned about Sister Coyote, for two major reasons:
1. She has claimed a restriction that is absolutely, unambiguously, a post restriction. I really, really feel that this is problematic. My own restriction - well, I disagree with the moderator's characterization of it as something other than a post restriction but I am able to see the wiggle room. The Sister Coyote restriction... well, if that's not a post restriction, then we cannot trust the rules. Someone once said, when arguing over the results of Arhkham, that a game can't stand on semantic sneakiness. The other is this:
2. Questions of balance aside, it would seem to be that Sister Coyote's claimed role and guiri's theorized one overlap considerably - essentially, guiri's role was (we theorize) the same as SC's, but much more powerful in that guiri didn't need to claim or do anything at all to act on his results.
---
Almost anyone left alive could be lying right now. I'm frustrated.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 21, 2011 14:47:47 GMT -5
Then let's find out. The original reasons for voting her have not gone away, the meta argument that there should not be a scum scotsman is not compelling to me (for those who think it is, does Guiri's role change anything?), NAF made the argument that it would prove something that it didn't to lynch her the first time, and Storyteller is probably not scum. vote: Crazypunker[/color][/quote] I fully support this action and the reasoning behind it. (P.S. We should still be killing hockey monkey. Just saying).
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 21, 2011 16:53:45 GMT -5
We now know that paranoia was town, and NAF was scum. I'd still like to know why you are leaning town on Ed. Preponderance of evidence. First of all, Ed and Cat, working in concert (de facto concert, not necessarily actual concert), were my primary non-peeker prosecutors during the time when I was under semi-serious lynch pressure. Is it possible that the Scum decided that my pathetic role and pitiful contributions so far were worth putting not one but two of their necks on the line in order to get me mislynched? Yes, it's possible. But I think it's not likely. Then there's the paragraph you quoted. If Ed is Scum, that means that he and NAF worked in concert to move the vote to paranoia, so he would twice have associated himself visibly and in a notable way with other Scum. Then there's Ed's quoted role, which blows so badly that it's hard to believe he'd make it up. It's just a leaning, nothing more. Should crazypunker ever die and be revealed as a Scum non-Scotsman, I'll be back on Ed like white on rice, that's for darn sure. So, basically you think I'm Town because I've played so poorly. (And you didn't even mention me leading the charge against inner stickler) Not only that, my role sucks
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 21, 2011 16:56:40 GMT -5
Vote: Hockey Monkey
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Jan 21, 2011 18:17:10 GMT -5
Vote Count
total ullz (2): peekercpa [12], brewha [30]
crazypunker (2): texcat [8], renata [53]
hockey monkey (2): metallic squink [10], mr ed [57]
brewha (1): hockey monkey [40]
storyteller (0): hockey monkey [6-39]
|
|
|
Post by brewha on Jan 21, 2011 21:54:03 GMT -5
[...] I could vote for CP again today, but apparently no one else thinks she's scummy enough to be lynched - at least not enough to make a difference.[...] I guess that means I am no one. If you had voted CP today, it would have put him in the lead, but instead you voted Total to put her in the lead? And I'm still unclear on how you think a scummy Total led you into voting for a scummy CP? If your case on Total is that she is leading the vote, and she led you onto CP, then I can't reconcile that with them both being scum now. Check out what I bolded. I know I wasn't the only one to vote CP. But, since she still hasn't had her second lynch, there haven't been enough people voting for her. Do try to read all the words. I never said that Total lead me to vote CP. I said that Total seems to be leading the general town consensus. I did say that I found myself not suspecting her - I never said that I was following her vote. That's why I've been voting CP and the lynching majority have been lynching town. My case is more that Ullz seems to be leading the town and that the town seems to be lynching town. The original case that caused me to look closer at CrazyPunker was put forth my Suburban Plankton - not Total Ullz. That's who I followed into the first vote.
|
|