|
Post by harmless little bunny on Feb 12, 2011 4:39:39 GMT -5
I'm here checking in. It's been an unusually busy week for me, but I have tomorrow off work, so I will be here with an analysis of the Day.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 12, 2011 7:44:51 GMT -5
Suburban Plankton, who do you think is scummy today and why?
I went back and looked over CIAS' wall of words on you, and the thing that jumps out to me is the sheer number of times that you make a post with no other purpose than to say something is not scummy, or a null tell (I counted about five of them.) But you're not turning around to try to make an issue of it with the people who do, right? It all feels very safe, very neutral in tone. And you've been unusually quiet today, too.
I'm not comfortable with the cases on either SisC or Cookies right at the moment -- for both of them (for me), their scumminess boils down to fairly weak votes on day one (applies to about 75% of us) and one instance each of a "scum sometimes do this when pressured" sort of comment. It's there, but it's not much. I'd rather focus on a pattern of behavior where possible, and SP's so far intrigues me.
vote: Suburban Plankton[/color]
(Plus there was whatever ping I had on SP from day one, which I can't remember and don't have time to go find, but it's there somewhere if anyone wants to figure out if it's even worth mentioning.)
I'd like to let the Mahaloth/bunny issues ride for another night.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Feb 12, 2011 9:11:14 GMT -5
Vote count:
Mahaloth (1) - harmless little bunny #3
Sister Coyote (1) - romanic #20 ComeToCamelotWeHaveCoconuts-cookies (1) - CatInASuit #41 Bobarrgh - SisterCoyote #97 Suburban Plankton (1) - Renata #121
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 12, 2011 10:07:04 GMT -5
Sorry, I was rushing to get that thought down before I left. Now I'm temporarily back. I play that way, unless there's a counter-claim between two players (and by that, I mean an exact "you can't be an alignment cop because I'm an alignment cop" counter-claim, not "this game can't have two investigators"). At that point, one of them is going to get my vote, and that's going to be based on play and other statements rather than the claimed role. rut roh. romanic you need to go see a doctor asap. i mean dial 911 immediately if you don't feel well enough to drive yourself. i mean we are kind of one the same wave length here and that can't be a good sign for you. sis maybe you can help me out here. yesterDay you vote bunny because you think he is being scummy regarding the whole early niller claim nonsense. you think it's a null tell and bunny thinks it's something. so you vote for him for not agreeing that it's a null tell. now how something can be a null tell for you while not being a null tell for someone else ends up being a scum tell to you is probably a discussion for a philosophy class. but, whatever. then bunny claims and says it's self preservation. there are some random votes for timmy and i think another one for bob. so, of course, you unvote. no reason, just unvote. the very next post is by cookies arguing for a kidv lynch. so you follow that up with me too. now you don't get back to unvote kidv after his claim although you assure us toDay that if you had you would have unvoted him (ifs and buts - candy and nuts). so i guess i am just curious. was the unvote of bunny just because of the claim (it was not an exact duplicate so that at least is consistent with the above statement)? but we are getting into various flavors of investigator types at this pont so that is marginally inconsistent (what with maha's claim already out there). or is the ass saving nature of bunny's vote that convinces you of his non scumitude (see, that is really a null tell to me). and really your final vote of the Day is best predicated on "me too"? really? i mean really? especially since the "me too" was for an "inconsistent" vote on someone you previously found to be sufficiently scummy to warrant your vote. and this may not be fair sis but if you were a greenhorn i might give you a pass on a "me too". but, shit you are a better fucking player than that.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 12, 2011 11:39:56 GMT -5
Suburban Plankton, who do you think is scummy today and why? I went back and looked over CIAS' wall of words on you, and the thing that jumps out to me is the sheer number of times that you make a post with no other purpose than to say something is not scummy, or a null tell (I counted about five of them.) But you're not turning around to try to make an issue of it with the people who do, right? It all feels very safe, very neutral in tone. And you've been unusually quiet today, too. I'm not comfortable with the cases on either SisC or Cookies right at the moment -- for both of them (for me), their scumminess boils down to fairly weak votes on day one (applies to about 75% of us) and one instance each of a "scum sometimes do this when pressured" sort of comment. It's there, but it's not much. I'd rather focus on a pattern of behavior where possible, and SP's so far intrigues me. vote: Suburban Plankton[/color] (Plus there was whatever ping I had on SP from day one, which I can't remember and don't have time to go find, but it's there somewhere if anyone wants to figure out if it's even worth mentioning.) I'd like to let the Mahaloth/bunny issues ride for another night.[/quote] It was a busy week and I've been paying more attention to the other 2 games I'm currently playing than to this one. I plan to go back through the entire Day now that it's the weekend and see if I can figure out what's going on. Right now, I'm confused over Cookies and SisC (in part because they are now both being called Brian who is called Brian), and I keep mixing up romanic and renata, so I'm not sure who is making what argument against who right now. MY participation has been on the light side, but I hope to correct that now that it's the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 12, 2011 12:20:08 GMT -5
so i guess i am just curious. was the unvote of bunny just because of the claim (it was not an exact duplicate so that at least is consistent with the above statement)? but we are getting into various flavors of investigator types at this pont so that is marginally inconsistent (what with maha's claim already out there). or is the botty* saving nature of bunny's vote that convinces you of his non scumitude (see, that is really a null tell to me). and really your final vote of the Day is best predicated on "me too"? really? i mean really? especially since the "me too" was for an "inconsistent" vote on someone you previously found to be sufficiently scummy to warrant your vote. Yes, the unvote of Bunny was solely about his claim and NOT about his butt-saving vote; anyone would make a butt-saving vote and Scum especially would Absolutely Do That. Something else about KidV was pinging me at the time, from earlier in the day, but I had exactly five minutes to figure out who I was going to vote/not vote and I needed to get something down because that's how I roll -- which you damn well know, Peek. So I posted that it was "largely" about the double-standard he was applying but I could swear I noted that wasn't everything. I can certainly see where it looked like a "me, too" vote, but it wasn't and there's no way for me to prove that now. and this may not be fair sis but if you were a greenhorn i might give you a pass on a "me too". but, bugger* you are a better tinny* player than that. Thanks, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 12, 2011 14:54:49 GMT -5
So I've reread the Day, and I'm still confused about the interactions between Sister Coyote, Cookies, Romanic, and Renata...but I do have a few things to comment on...
I don't see the case against Cookies...it seems to be based almost entirely on the specific words she used to refer to KidV's vote.
I do share Romanic's comments regarding Sister Coyote's last few posts on Day 1, but I'm not sure whether or not they're enough to warrant a vote.
I am still suspicious of Mahaloth, for reasons I mentioned in Post 43, and because his role does seem to overlap with Paranoia's.
I'm having a hard time with all of the people that 'didn't have a chance' to vote or unvote at the end of Day 1. Apparently the scheduled end of the Day caught a bunch of people by surprise? At the moment I'm particularly suspicious of the people who said "well, of course I would have unvoted, but..."
And of course most of the people that 'missed the deadline' would have voted for timmy...it's really too bad that they didn't, because we would have lynched a Vanilla instead of a Power...but it's good to know that they all had good intentions.
At the moment, I'm most suspicious of Mahaloth, but I need to take a closer look at Sister Coyote before I place a vote. And I also want to take another look at the folks who missed Yesterday's deadline.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Feb 12, 2011 15:12:49 GMT -5
Doing my best to catch up! Gut feeling, I guess. I have/had no idea who scum is, so picked them and just went with it. I considered other options, but went with them. That's it. This pinged me. Why does Mahaloth find the need to tell us that he as no idea who scum is? Regardless of whether he actually has an idea or not, I am just pinged that he finds it necessary to tell us. Not worthy of a vote, but a data point for me. Yesterday's vote was just too strange. KidV, a town role, is lynched because he didn't place a self-defense vote. How many times do you think you are going to see that happen? I agree that Suburban and Cookies/Coconuts are both suspect for leaving their vote on KidV when they were there to comment on his claim, and both had unvoted previous claimers. I am willing to take Renata, Guiri, and SisC at face value for the moment and trust their saying that they would have unvoted had there been time. I do not think that you should automatically unvote a power role claim. But Suburban and Cookies had already set the precedent that they would unvote claims, and I do like to see consistency. No, Mahaloth is the most suspect person I've seen all day, but you're a close second, and it is not that far of a reach. This comment made sense when Mahaloth had claimed and KidV had not yet. Cookies unvoted the person she though most suspect because of a claim and voted KidV who was a close second. But after the KidV claim, does she go back to her most suspect or does she move along to her third suspect? Seems a little too inconsistent for me. Vote Cookies/Coconuts
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 12, 2011 15:12:44 GMT -5
I'm having a hard time with all of the people that 'didn't have a chance' to vote or unvote at the end of Day 1. Apparently the scheduled end of the Day caught a bunch of people by surprise? At the moment I'm particularly suspicious of the people who said "well, of course I would have unvoted, but..." I realize I'm on your short list of "scum", but I want to reiterate -- The game started just as things started to suck hardcore in meatspace, and yeah. I wasn't caught off-guard by the End of Day so much as I literally was not able to get on the board becasue of things going on in "real" life. I also missed a deadline in the game I'm running because things were that bad. I'm not Scum. I'm Town, I'm just Town who happened to get overwhelmed at just the wrong moment.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 12, 2011 16:20:45 GMT -5
So now I'm getting a vote because I don't toe the line of policy-unvoting claims? That is a massive pile of metagame crap. Everything in this game is situational and should be analyzed on a case by case basis. Anyone who automatically unvotes no matter what just because there is a claim is a fool. I am not a fool, but I am wrong sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 12, 2011 16:36:36 GMT -5
And again, a glaring facet of the situation allowing a few people being wrong about KidV to bring about his mislynch was because 4 people were not voting at all. Remind me of how that is at all pro-town again?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 12, 2011 17:02:02 GMT -5
Doing my best to catch up! I do not think that you should automatically unvote a power role claim. But Suburban and Cookies had already set the precedent that they would unvote claims, and I do like to see consistency. Which is it? You don't think that people should automatically unvote until you think they should automatically unvote. You support the idea of looking at things on a case-by-case basis, but players only get one chance to decide what side of some n00b-training-wheels policy they come down on, and are then expected to hold to that unwaveringly. Again, which is it? It is enough contradictory reasoning to get my vote at this point. Vote texcat[/color]
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 12, 2011 17:57:45 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 1 days, 9 hours and 2 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts (2)(2 128) CatInASuit [41], texcat [128] Mahaloth (1)(1 3) harmless little bunny [3] Sister Coyote (1)(1 20) romanic [20] Bobarrgh (1)(1 97) Sister Coyote [97] Suburban Plankton (1)(1 121) Renata [121] texcat (1)(1 131) ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [131] sinjin (0)(1 36) romola [36 111]Romanic (0)(1 47) Renata [47 72]Not Voting (14) Merestil Haye, peekercpa, Captain Pinkies, sinjin, Hockey Monkey, bobarrgh, Mahaloth, Suburban Plankton, naturallylazy, guiri, pedescribe, Natlaw, Red Skeezix, romola With these votes, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts would be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 12, 2011 18:14:18 GMT -5
I'm having a hard time with all of the people that 'didn't have a chance' to vote or unvote at the end of Day 1. Apparently the scheduled end of the Day caught a bunch of people by surprise? At the moment I'm particularly suspicious of the people who said "well, of course I would have unvoted, but..." I realize I'm on your short list of "scum", but I want to reiterate -- The game started just as things started to suck hardcore in meatspace, and yeah. I wasn't caught off-guard by the End of Day so much as I literally was not able to get on the board becasue of things going on in "real" life. I also missed a deadline in the game I'm running because things were that bad. I'm not Scum. I'm Town, I'm just Town who happened to get overwhelmed at just the wrong moment. I was thinking about my last post, and I may have come off a bit harsh. I'm not saying that all of the people who didn't unvote KidV must be Scum, and I understand that real life has a nasty habit of intruding at the most inopportune times. But when you have three people who say "I really meant to unvote the Town Power and vote for the Vanilla Town instead, but I didn't get a chance to", it's hard to believe that they are all on the level.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 12, 2011 18:16:45 GMT -5
I'm having a hard time with all of the people that 'didn't have a chance' to vote or unvote at the end of Day 1. Apparently the scheduled end of the Day caught a bunch of people by surprise? At the moment I'm particularly suspicious of the people who said "well, of course I would have unvoted, but..." [...] And of course most of the people that 'missed the deadline' would have voted for timmy...it's really too bad that they didn't, because we would have lynched a Vanilla instead of a Power...but it's good to know that they all had good intentions. I strongly object to your use of inverted commas. Suspect me, question me, vote me, kill me, for what I've said and done in the game but when I say I managed to read the end of the Day but was in no state of mind to react or comment, please do not doubt my honesty. I imagine the same goes for the other players who you have not named.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 12, 2011 18:22:02 GMT -5
I agree that Suburban and Cookies/Coconuts are both suspect for leaving their vote on KidV when they were there to comment on his claim, and both had unvoted previous claimers. I am willing to take Renata, Guiri, and SisC at face value for the moment and trust their saying that they would have unvoted had there been time. I do not think that you should automatically unvote a power role claim. But Suburban and Cookies had already set the precedent that they would unvote claims, and I do like to see consistency. I was unaware that every vote and unvote I make 'sets a precedent'. I unvoted HLB because I found his claim believable. I didn't unvote KidV because I didn't find his claim believable. It's as simple as that. I was wrong about KidV, but that makes me 'wrong', not 'Scum'. And please explain to me why it's more Scummy to vote for someone and then say "this is why I'm not changing my vote" after they claim, than to vote for someone and say nothing after they claim, but still vote for them. At least Cookies and I gave a reason for our continued votes.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 12, 2011 18:28:27 GMT -5
I strongly object to your use of inverted commas. Suspect me, question me, vote me, kill me, for what I've said and done in the game but when I say I managed to read the end of the Day but was in no state of mind to react or comment, please do not doubt my honesty. I imagine the same goes for the other players who you have not named. You're right, and I addressed that in the post immediately above yours.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 12, 2011 18:46:05 GMT -5
I strongly object to your use of inverted commas. Suspect me, question me, vote me, kill me, for what I've said and done in the game but when I say I managed to read the end of the Day but was in no state of mind to react or comment, please do not doubt my honesty. I imagine the same goes for the other players who you have not named. You're right, and I addressed that in the post immediately above yours. OK. This happened to me in my first game, I re-voted(!) a partially claimed Doc as there were several holes in the claim, he fully claimed bodyguard in the twilight hours when almost no-one was around to change their vote.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 12, 2011 18:46:17 GMT -5
But when you have three people who say "I really meant to unvote the Town Power and vote for the Vanilla Town instead, but I didn't get a chance to", it's hard to believe that they are all on the level. But that's not what I said. I said if I'd come back in time to see KidV's claim and unvote him, I probably would have had no vote at the end of the Day.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 12, 2011 19:03:32 GMT -5
Doing my best to catch up! What are your thoughts on Bob toDay? I agree with what Cookies and Suburban have said. Every claim needs to be evaluated and a player's reaction to one claim does not automatically define the player's reaction to a second claim.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 12, 2011 19:12:17 GMT -5
And please explain to me why it's more Scummy to vote for someone and then say "this is why I'm not changing my vote" after they claim, than to vote for someone and say nothing after they claim, but still vote for them. At least Cookies and I gave a reason for our continued votes. Who are you referring to in the "say nothing after they claim, but still vote for them"? Or is this just a generalization?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 12, 2011 19:31:33 GMT -5
And please explain to me why it's more Scummy to vote for someone and then say "this is why I'm not changing my vote" after they claim, than to vote for someone and say nothing after they claim, but still vote for them. At least Cookies and I gave a reason for our continued votes. Who are you referring to in the "say nothing after they claim, but still vote for them"? Or is this just a generalization? That was a typo. Two actually. Both instances of 'after they claim' should say 'after the claim', referring to KidV's claim in Post 415 Yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Feb 12, 2011 20:01:18 GMT -5
Doing my best to catch up! What are your thoughts on Bob toDay? I agree with what Cookies and Suburban have said. Every claim needs to be evaluated and a player's reaction to one claim does not automatically define the player's reaction to a second claim. I am still keeping my eye on Bob. But thought that Cookies looked scummier today. Yes, of course, every claim has to be evaluated individually. But Cookies had already unvoted the person that she found scummiest, Mahaloth, because of his claim. Clearly in that case it was the claim itself that made her unvote. And I find it strange that she didn't go back to the person she found scummiest.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 12, 2011 20:12:05 GMT -5
I strongly object to your use of inverted commas. Suspect me, question me, vote me, kill me, for what I've said and done in the game but when I say I managed to read the end of the Day but was in no state of mind to react or comment, please do not doubt my honesty. I imagine the same goes for the other players who you have not named. Woah, what's this? An attempt to gain a "lie free" sticker? If you choose to bring real life arguments in the game, they should be open for doubt. Of course some arguments shouldn't be argued on (the bad stuff) but petty arguments such as I was inactive because I was asleep, away from home or renovating my kitchen ( ;D) are fair game. The Scums will use them, happened before, will happen again. In this case, I'd say that "being able to read the thread, but not being in the mood to react" falls into the 2nd category, the one we may distrust. Also, as you said, we can suspect people for what they do in game, but also for what they didn't do, such as not unvoting a power role. That's not to say that I don't believe what you are saying, but you ain't getting a free pass for not unvoting KidV. And I don't understand how Plankton can agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 12, 2011 20:33:08 GMT -5
I think plankton was agreeing that his tone in the post with the inverted commas could have been misread, based on referring to the previous post where he explicitly said as much to me, not with guiri's specific argument.
But what the heck do I know?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 12, 2011 20:37:27 GMT -5
What are your thoughts on Bob toDay? I agree with what Cookies and Suburban have said. Every claim needs to be evaluated and a player's reaction to one claim does not automatically define the player's reaction to a second claim. I am still keeping my eye on Bob. But thought that Cookies looked scummier today. Yes, of course, every claim has to be evaluated individually. But Cookies had already unvoted the person that she found scummiest, Mahaloth, because of his claim. Clearly in that case it was the claim itself that made her unvote. And I find it strange that she didn't go back to the person she found scummiest. Clearly it was the claim itself? Couldn't possibly have involved analysis of the details of that claim? You say you understand the benefits individual evaluation, yet you continue to speak in generalities. And you seem to keep moving the goalposts. First I wasn't adhering to a policy to unvote power claims. Now it's 'strange' that a don't adhere to a policy of not (in the case of a power role claim) switching to someone I had previously described as most-suspicious, regardless of what might have been said to impact my opinion since classifying a player in the past as 'most-suspicious', regardless of my explaintions how my updated opinion was justified. Mahaloth was who I found the scummiest prior to KidV's claim and the things KidV said after his claim. After KidV claimed and said the things he did, I found my suspicion of him to be the strongest and voted accordingly. It was not simply the act of either of Mahaloth or KidV claiming that decided my behavior, but the specific and individual details of those claims and the specific things that they said after claiming that influenced my decisions. And just to be clear, I still have quite a high suspicion level for Mahaloth, but that doesn't change the fact that I thought KidV was a better lynch choice yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 12, 2011 21:29:59 GMT -5
[...] Something else about KidV was pinging me at the time, from earlier in the day, but I had exactly five minutes to figure out who I was going to vote/not vote and I needed to get something down because that's how I roll -- which you damn well know, Peek. So I posted that it was "largely" about the double-standard he was applying but I could swear I noted that wasn't everything. [...] @cookie: What "something else", about KidV pinging you, are you referring to here?
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 12, 2011 21:52:23 GMT -5
That was me, not cookies. I'd have to go back over Day One and see what it was, since I deleted that note as irrelevant when I came back and discovered he'd flipped not only Town but Archangel.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 12, 2011 21:55:03 GMT -5
Yes, my last post should have started with "@sister:". Sorry.
I'm curious to know what else pinged you about KidV on Day 1, if you can find it again.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 12, 2011 22:12:35 GMT -5
I think it was this exchange between KidV and Renata: You and everybody else know exactly what I meant. You played a game as scum and found the fake PMs helpful. Now here you are arguing strongly in favor of them. It's a minor point against you, and I wanted to note it. It's another minor point against you that you're redirecting. "Hey, look what KidV did, he's smudging too!". It's another minor point against you that you're classifying what I did as a smudge, when it wasn't. But lets get back to the discussion between you and Bob. That made you very defensive, I'd like to know why. O said: There's no retaining anything here, and there's no smudge. If you really thought this was an attempt at subtlety, you need to work on your reading comprehension. This was me pointing out that you claimed to have found the rule useful in a previous game as scum (and the implications for your defense of that rule here are obvious). If you didn't say that, exactly what did you say, please? And it IS a point against you, all your handwaving to the contrary. I can't tell if you're scum defending yourself poorly, or just an insecure player trying to win an argument. I will point out, if you are town, that this game is not about winning arguments. It's about finding scum. Whatever your alignment, the misdirection and mischaracterization you are engaging in with respect to me is anti-Town. You didn't answer my question about the redirection. (KidV came back and said he'd mistaken a conversation between her and Bob, which I didn't follow at the time, either.) Which of course reads as completely innocent now, knowing what we all know about KidV. At the time, though, I was bothered that he ignored the part of her post that seemed to me was most important -- what she was supposed to be redirecting from. And I'd have read his comment as a smudge if not an outright FOS as well, and that he was characterizing it as anything but also bothered me. But it wasn't anything solid and it wasn't anything other than Day One reasoning and running on my gut, so I'm not sure it means a damn thing at this point.
|
|