|
Post by Romanic on Feb 16, 2011 18:36:13 GMT -5
I agree about Bob being a good suspect. I wouldn't be surprised if Mahaloth was bussed yesterday, after he took the lead, meaning it could be Guiri, Cookies and Bob, the latter being the best possibility because it was the last vote. Now if we look at Bob's votes yesterday: Basically, I didn't feel informed enough to vote when I had time, and I didn't have enough time to get informed before the end of the day. While some may think that any vote is better than no vote at all, I'd rather not be led around by the nose by scum, than simply not participate (did that make sense?). If I had to just go with my gut, I'd have probably voted for timmy. But that is literally nothing but gut. This is awesome. We have people saying that if they had voted, they would have voted for so-and-so, and we also have people saying that if they had unvoted, they would not have voted for so-and-so. Way to spread the WIFOM. @ Cookies/Coconuts: I've re-read Day 1 and I have to agree with texcat regarding your stated intention to unvote KidV but then not doing that. I've read your rebuttal, and I was almost convinced of your sincerity, but then you voted for texcat. Your vote seems to be so much OMGUS, rather than an honest effort to find Scum, and that seems pretty scummy to me. Vote Cookies/CoconutsAfter his vote, the tally was Cookies 3, Mahaloth 1 (Sister 1, Bob 1, Plankton 1, pedescribe 1), so this vote was helping Mahaloth. At this point, Cookies looks "pretty scummy" to him. None of Mahaloth's protestations toDay have done anything to convince me that he is Town. I still think that Cookies/Coconuts can't help but vote for someone who has voted for her, or at least that's what it looks like to me. But, Mahaloth has definitely pinged my Scumdar harder toDay than she has. Unvote Cookies/Coconuts Vote MahalothThen when the tally is Mahaloth 7, Cookies 4, he switched side, when it looks like Mahaloth is probably gonna be lynched. Not only this look like bussing, but I feel his reason is off. If I write his post differently, it could be: "I think Mahaloth is not Town. Cookies is still scummy and her vote on Mahaloth, to save herself makes her scummier, but I'm gonna vote Mahaloth instead." Also, Bob wasn't specially vocal against Mahaloth yesterday, in fact the only thing he said about Mahaloth was this answer to Guiri about how he was seeing bunny: He makes a few good points about Mahaloth, but they seem to be based on feeling and suppositions, rather than hard fact. So I get the feeling this accusation against Mahaloth comes out of nowhere, aka he bussed him. vote: BobArrgh
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 16, 2011 19:15:57 GMT -5
I endorse this reasoning.
vote: BobArrgh[/color]
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 16, 2011 21:27:08 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 4 days, 7 hours and 33 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] Bobarrgh (3) (3 31) Sister Coyote [12], Romanic [30], Renata [31] Captain Pinkies (1) (1 0) Not Voting (16) Merestil Haye, CatInASuit, peekercpa, Captain Pinkies, Romola, sinjin, Hockey Monkey, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts, bobarrgh, texcat, naturallylazy, guiri, pedescribe, harmless little bunny, Natlaw, Red Skeezix With these votes, Bobarrgh would be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 16, 2011 22:11:11 GMT -5
can I be spoiled please?
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 16, 2011 22:11:32 GMT -5
Something we should address at some point. Mahaloth claimed, on Day 2, that Natlaw and Timmy were of the same alignment (and thus, that Natlaw was town). Now that we know that Maha was scum, what does that say about Natlaw?
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Feb 16, 2011 22:32:41 GMT -5
Something we should address at some point. Mahaloth claimed, on Day 2, that Natlaw and Timmy were of the same alignment (and thus, that Natlaw was town). Now that we know that Maha was scum, what does that say about Natlaw? Slightly less than nothing. Either Maha was shoring up his own role by speaking the truth or shoring up Natlaws by speaking falsehood. There is also the possibility that Natlaw is a third party (are they in this game, i forget). So to summarize, mahaloth's actions tell us that Natlaw is either town, or scum or third party.
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 16, 2011 22:35:45 GMT -5
No, but thanks for asking nicely.
|
|
|
Post by BobArrgh on Feb 16, 2011 22:53:49 GMT -5
@ SisCoyote: Sigh. Your argument was weak yesterDay. Letting it sit overnight has not made it any better. I couldn't find where you explained why you consider it weak. The only response you made was: <snipped> And you didn't answer my question from yesterDay about your reasons for keeping your vote on Harmless despite the claim but not even mentioning your suspicions of him(?) when voting or when directly asked for your thoughts of him on Day 2. @ Burby: I'm sorry to see you go. I was hoping to ask you some questions toDay. What did you want to ask him? @ guiri: First off, I never made any argument against SisCoyote yesterDay, because I didn't find anything substantive in her WoW. Most of her case against me goes back to a mistype I made, which I am not going to waste any more time rehashing. Secondly, I'm sorry, but I never saw where you directly questioned me about Harmless yesterDay; I went back and found it on a re-read this evening. Anyway, this was all from Day 1, so the information is somewhat stale given the knowledge we got when we lynched Mahaloth. I voted for Harmless on post #286 on Day 1. She didn't post her role until #330, which was quite some time after Mahaloth's claim. I had put my vote on Harmless because I thought her vote for Mahaloth was fishy (at the time). Immediately after her claim, she voted for me in what totally I thought totally smacked of OMGUS, and even said she was trying to save her skin. I commented on it in #339, complete with the "rolling eyes" I thought it deserved. She was questioned about that by Captain Pinkies and responded with this in #342: "I know for a fact that I am town and there is a chance that bob isn't, so by saving myself and hanging him I am more likely to help town. Didn't think I would ever have to explain that really." KidV chided her for this because he didn't think she was actually going after someone scummy. What we have there is pretty much a "Mexican standoff" (and I apologize if that phrase offends anyone). She "knows she's Town and there might be a chance that I'm not". At the same time, I know I'm Town and there might be a chance that she is not. On Day 1, I found both Mahaloth's and Harmless' claims to be suspicious, but of the two claims, I found Harmless's claim to be fishier. I didn't renew my case on Harmless on Day 2 because I thought that Coconut Cookies was acting more scummy than Harmless.
Now that Mahaloth flipped as scum, Harmless' claim looks more plausible, so she is pretty much off my scumdar right now.
I had 2 questions for Burby, but they will have to remain unanswered.
A) On Day 1 (#358), he said he thought that sinjin's reasoning for her vote on me felt "off". I didn't pursue any line-of-questioning on sinjin yesterDay because I could sense her frustration and stress over her husband's departure. I really didn't want to pile on sinjin. That is probably a very naive attitude on my part, and I probably won't be making that mistake again.
B) I'm a little curious about why Burby got a pass on a fairly major typo in post #141 on Day 2: "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."
In fact, I'm more than a "little curious" ... I'm quite a bit aggravated that my mistype got me all sorts of grief and hassle and yet Burby's typo was greeted with absolutely nothing. I was going to ask him about that.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 16, 2011 23:18:15 GMT -5
Typos happen. A lot. Do you have any evidence that what he actually typed had nefarious scum implications? Evidence that is more compelling than the occam's razor idea that two characters were just mistyped?
|
|
|
Post by BobArrgh on Feb 16, 2011 23:21:37 GMT -5
@ romanic: I didn't realize we were allowed to re-write what other people say. That's a neat trick. I might have to remember that some time. So, if, during a mass claim, you were to say, "I'm a vanilla Townie", I'm sure you won't have any problem whatsoever if someone else were to post something to the effect of "I feel Romanic's statement is a bit off. If I write his post differently, it might look like, 'I'm a lying, scummy Scum.'"
I wasn't trying to bus Mahaloth. I had voted for Coconut Cookies because of her pattern of voting for people who had voted for her first. Mahaloth spent the Day sounding increasingly desperate. By the end of the Day, I felt that he was giving off bad vibes that overcame my initial suspicion of Coconut Cookies.
|
|
|
Post by BobArrgh on Feb 16, 2011 23:22:28 GMT -5
@ Coconut Cookies: This is in reply to your post #195 on Day 2. You said, "I've voted for someone who voted for me first exactly once. I've voted a total of 4 times. How does this add up to evidence of this compulsion that you seem to think I have?"
According to Mr. Ed's vote count in post #193 on Day 2, here is the timeline of votes against you and your votes:
#128: texcat votes for Cookies #131: Cookies votes for texcat #178: Mahaloth votes for Cookies #187: Cookies votes for Mahaloth
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 16, 2011 23:46:47 GMT -5
Perhaps this is another semantics issue, but I voted for Mahaloth first, back on Day 1. I then resisted moving my vote off of him even after he claimed, continued to voice my suspicion of him across the span of two Days, and then put my vote back on him, and you see that vote as OMGUS.
It doesn't hold any water with me. You don't seem to want me to share in any of the cred for lynching Mahaloth, nor have Mahaloth's flipping as scum cast any sort of townie light on me. But is it OMGUS voting or scum bussing that you're accusing me of again?
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 16, 2011 23:48:03 GMT -5
@ romanic: I didn't realize we were allowed to re-write what other people say. That's a neat trick. I might have to remember that some time. So, if, during a mass claim, you were to say, "I'm a vanilla Townie", I'm sure you won't have any problem whatsoever if someone else were to post something to the effect of "I feel Romanic's statement is a bit off. If I write his post differently, it might look like, 'I'm a lying, scummy Scum.'" Of course, the million-dollar question is always "was it an accurate paraphrase." It does seem that Romanic took some liberties with your post, particularly in the first sentence, which strips out the reasoning Bob supplies, and the last sentence, which strips the reason as well, and the one in the middle, which destroys some critical nuance. That is to say, every sentence of the paraphrase was meaning-destructive. This does not not absolve Bob, but It is enough for me to Vote: Vote Romanic for now.
|
|
|
Post by BobArrgh on Feb 16, 2011 23:53:02 GMT -5
@ Coconut Cookies: YesterDay I was accusing you of OMGUS voting. I didn't go back and examine your record on Day 1. As you pointed out, you had voted for him on Day 1, so I retract my accusation. At the time, it looked suspicious to me.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 17, 2011 0:08:04 GMT -5
@ guiri: First off, I never made any argument against SisCoyote yesterDay, because I didn't find anything substantive in her WoW. Most of her case against me goes back to a mistype I made, which I am not going to waste any more time rehashing. This is lovely, Bob, except for the part where I specifically didn't focus on that typo because it had nothing to do with my argument.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 17, 2011 0:18:52 GMT -5
@ romanic: I didn't realize we were allowed to re-write what other people say. That's a neat trick. I might have to remember that some time. So, if, during a mass claim, you were to say, "I'm a vanilla Townie", I'm sure you won't have any problem whatsoever if someone else were to post something to the effect of "I feel Romanic's statement is a bit off. If I write his post differently, it might look like, 'I'm a lying, scummy Scum.'" <snip> What kind of comparison is that? My rewriting was a rephrasing and simplification of what you wrote to emphasize that you were seeing Cookies scummier, but were still changing your vote on Mahaloth. Here's the breakdown of it: 1) became "I think Mahaloth is not Town." 2) became "Cookies is still scummy and her vote on Mahaloth, to save herself makes her scummier" 3) became "but I'm gonna vote Mahaloth instead." Feel free to point which part is not closely accurate to what you wrote. Of course it's a simplication, but the overall meaning is still there. But your example: "I'm a vanilla Townie" -> "I'm a lying, scummy Scum." is a gross parody of what I did.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 17, 2011 0:32:50 GMT -5
Of course, the million-dollar question is always "was it an accurate paraphrase." It does seem that Romanic took some liberties with your post, particularly in the first sentence, which strips out the reasoning Bob supplies, and the last sentence, which strips the reason as well, and the one in the middle, which destroys some critical nuance. That is to say, every sentence of the paraphrase was meaning-destructive. This does not not absolve Bob, but It is enough for me to Vote: Vote Romanic for now. The first sentence was stripped of the "why", but not its meaning. Big deal, I removed it for simplification. I don't think Mahaloth is Town because his protestation toDay did not convince me. I don't think Mahaloth is Town. Same thing, simplified. How does it make me Scum in your eyes? What about the rest of my case? Are you dismissing it because I skipped a few words?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 17, 2011 4:36:11 GMT -5
Hmm, time for a read through again.
Let's see if anyone is more scummy than Cookies given all the new info we have.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 17, 2011 4:46:50 GMT -5
Something we should address at some point. Mahaloth claimed, on Day 2, that Natlaw and Timmy were of the same alignment (and thus, that Natlaw was town). Now that we know that Maha was scum, what does that say about Natlaw? Despite what Red Skeezix says D3.035, I can think of one reason why this might be of interest and that is if the scum deliberately killed Timmy on Night 1 to give some possible cover to Natlaw, even though if discovered, most people will ignore it as it had come from a scum. But the only way we could determine that would be if we knew that Timmy was killed by the scum and with two deaths on Night 1, that is difficult to ascertain. Of course, if there are two deaths on Night 1 and only 1 death on Night 2, it means something changed, but there is no way for the town to determine whether a kill failed or perhaps was not even attemped. Dangargh. Either the scum got lucky, or we have a scum investigator. Neither possibility bodes well... Perhaps you can give the answer pedescribe, as to why you know that the Night 2 kill was a scum kill and not any of the myriad possibilities. It would also perhaps explain your interest in something that is effectively WIFOM.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 17, 2011 8:27:27 GMT -5
Something we should address at some point. Mahaloth claimed, on Day 2, that Natlaw and Timmy were of the same alignment (and thus, that Natlaw was town). Now that we know that Maha was scum, what does that say about Natlaw? Slightly less than nothing. Either Maha was shoring up his own role by speaking the truth or shoring up Natlaws by speaking falsehood. There is also the possibility that Natlaw is a third party (are they in this game, i forget). So to summarize, mahaloth's actions tell us that Natlaw is either town, or scum or third party. actually it's slightly more than nothing but not a preponderance. obviousy scum won't kill natty regardless of alignment but with multiple deaths on the first Night, unless attributable to a multiple scum kill Night, then there is the danger that the other killer takes out nat and depending on flip could condemn maha. and i have not run the numbers but anecdotally/metagamely it sure seems that the preponderance of reveals by scum fake claiming some sort of investigative power is overwhelmingly town that truly are town. so nat kind of moves a little more to the white in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 17, 2011 9:41:20 GMT -5
Looking over romanic's case against bobarrgh, and reading bobarrgh posts again, it does look fairly solid. It does look look as though there was a switch of targets to get some townie cred at the last moment without that much in the way of reasoning. On Day 1, the only time Mahaloth is mentioned, bobarrgh is fine with Mahaloth's actions and vote on BillMc On Day 2, there is an interesting interaction. #159: Guiri asks bobarrgh "What's your opinion on Harmless toDay?"#160: bobarrgh responds with a list of posts and "He makes a few good points about Mahaloth, but they seem to be based on feeling and suppositions, rather than hard fact. "#161 Guiri then asks: YesterDay you were sufficiently suspicious of Harmless as to keep your vote on her despite her claim of watcher. She's claimed to have been blocked and, apart from a few posts and a vote, has done little since the claim. How has Cookies' supposed omgus vote on TexCat pushed her to the top of your suspicion list? Or were you not suspicious of Harmless at all? The only response was bobarrgh unvoting Cookies and then voting Mahaloth. The changing suspicion from HLB to Cookies to Mahaloth doesn't have much explanation and the lack of suspicion for HLB goes from voting on Day 1 to them making good responses on Day 2 with no reason as to why there is a shift in trust for the better. I've read the Day 3 responses, but I'm left wondering how much they are written with hindsight. For now: vote bobarrghJust for note: I still don't trust Cookies, but if bobarrgh is scum it is likely he voted to push a Cookies lynch away from Mahaloth, making her far more likely to be town.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 17, 2011 9:56:12 GMT -5
I was suspicious of Bob on Day 1 but couldn't see a clear scum motivation for his play. Accepting his explanation for the "I do like" episode, I was still left with: - his response to Romola's vote without mentioning that it was strange - his comment on Romola's vote, in reaction to Sister Coyote's, based on an inaccurate reading of her vote - his change in reasoning for the comment, paraphrasing: "it was early" became "early VT claims weren't an issue for Romola in a previous game" - the way he tried to blame Romola for being unclear in her vote: claiming she had had to clarify her reasons for the vote after he made his comment
OK, so I was willing to chalk these up as a null-tell, I could see a scheming scum trying to rewrite the past or a confused Townie just trying to muddle through. Since then I've tried to get a better read on him and I'm not seeing Town: - his handwaving of the early case against Mahaloth (for his vote on Bill) as a gut-level reaction but then voting Harmless for a gut-level reaction to a gut-level reaction - his "I don't have anyone I can ask" comment looks like over-townifying himself - misrepresenting Cookies when voting her for omgus - seemingly forgetting his Day 1 suspicions of harmless, even when asked directly, despite being suspicious enough of harmless to keep his vote despite the claim - coming out of the blue with suspicions of Mahaloth while continuing to misrepresent Cookies - summarizing Sister Coyote's case as being about his mistype when, in fact, she explicitly excluded this - claiming on Day 3 to have found now known scum redirector's claim suspicious but never mentioning it before
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 17, 2011 10:00:53 GMT -5
Oh, and
Vote Bob
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 17, 2011 13:47:52 GMT -5
That's it? No one has anything else to say?
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 17, 2011 14:23:20 GMT -5
Dangargh. Either the scum got lucky, or we have a scum investigator. Neither possibility bodes well... Perhaps you can give the answer pedescribe, as to why you know that the Night 2 kill was a scum kill and not any of the myriad possibilities. It would also perhaps explain your interest in something that is effectively WIFOM. Because it's the likeliest possibility? If there's a single nightkill, yeah, I'm going to assume the scum did it, not that a confluence of events prevented the scum kill and another killer killed instead.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 17, 2011 14:25:32 GMT -5
Of course, the million-dollar question is always "was it an accurate paraphrase." It does seem that Romanic took some liberties with your post, particularly in the first sentence, which strips out the reasoning Bob supplies, and the last sentence, which strips the reason as well, and the one in the middle, which destroys some critical nuance. That is to say, every sentence of the paraphrase was meaning-destructive. This does not not absolve Bob, but It is enough for me to Vote: Vote Romanic for now. The first sentence was stripped of the "why", but not its meaning. Big deal, I removed it for simplification. I don't think Mahaloth is Town because his protestation toDay did not convince me. I don't think Mahaloth is Town. Same thing, simplified. How does it make me Scum in your eyes? But that is a big deal. The first is a fairly common, unremarkable remark. The latter is commentary without justification, and should be jumped on. You changed BobArrgh's comment from something normal to something scummy, and then voted him for saying something scummy. You have effectively voted him based on your own words, yours and not BobArrgh's. In short, you invented your case out of whole cloth, which is a very scummy thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Feb 17, 2011 14:53:51 GMT -5
Ok, hi, I'm back. Sorry for the misplaced rage. Bygones. I've finally got a couple of hours to string together with no commitments and do a serious, instead of cursory re-read. *Gah, I hate it when people say that, but that's the way it is.* We still have several days before Day end and I'm not going to be rushed into voting/commenting.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 17, 2011 15:27:00 GMT -5
Putting them next to each other for my own convenience: None of Mahaloth's protestations toDay have done anything to convince me that he is Town. I still think that Cookies/Coconuts can't help but vote for someone who has voted for her, or at least that's what it looks like to me. But, Mahaloth has definitely pinged my Scumdar harder toDay than she has. Unvote Cookies/Coconuts Vote MahalothBecomes: Then when the tally is Mahaloth 7, Cookies 4, he switched side, when it looks like Mahaloth is probably gonna be lynched. Not only this look like bussing, but I feel his reason is off. If I write his post differently, it could be: "I think Mahaloth is not Town. Cookies is still scummy and her vote on Mahaloth, to save herself makes her scummier, but I'm gonna vote Mahaloth instead." Yes I agree with pedescribe that romanic left out too much. Simplified by me it becomes: "I still don't like Cookies voting but Mahaloth has done nothing to convince me he is town Today. I switch my vote to him." I don't see Cookies' votes as scummy but I remember Cookies being a defensive player who reacts strongly to people who vote her. Romanic "don't like her votes" -> "She still is her scummy and her last even scummier" that last part wasn't explicitly said by bob. It can infered from his Cookies vote but Mahaloth also placed a defensive vote which presumably falls under "Mahaloth's protestions" that didn't convince bob. (I've not reread on bob yet just commenting on the paraphrasing part)
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 17, 2011 15:39:57 GMT -5
Captain Pinkies (1) (1 0) Ah yes, that reminds me. It's day three, Captain Pinkies! Wake up! Which reminds me that I'm not sure I like these final mod votes. I suppose it's better than a no-reveal mod kill but worse than a mod kill with reveal since it eats a lynch. And the vote sticks around even if the player returns which could get ugly in a lynch or lose situation (but for who depends on the non participants alignment). With a town investigator dead it's doubtful we can confirm them (unless they are mason perhaps).
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 17, 2011 16:35:08 GMT -5
@ Coconut Cookies: YesterDay I was accusing you of OMGUS voting. I didn't go back and examine your record on Day 1. As you pointed out, you had voted for him on Day 1, so I retract my accusation. At the time, it looked suspicious to me. That explanation doesn't exactly fit with your reasoning for the other misinformation you were spreading about me yesterday: Basically, I didn't feel informed enough to vote when I had time, and I didn't have enough time to get informed before the end of the day. While some may think that any vote is better than no vote at all, I'd rather not be led around by the nose by scum, than simply not participate (did that make sense?). If I had to just go with my gut, I'd have probably voted for timmy. But that is literally nothing but gut. This is awesome. We have people saying that if they had voted, they would have voted for so-and-so, and we also have people saying that if they had unvoted, they would not have voted for so-and-so. Way to spread the WIFOM. @ Cookies/Coconuts: I've re-read Day 1 and I have to agree with texcat regarding your stated intention to unvote KidV but then not doing that. I've read your rebuttal, and I was almost convinced of your sincerity, but then you voted for texcat. Your vote seems to be so much OMGUS, rather than an honest effort to find Scum, and that seems pretty scummy to me. Vote Cookies/CoconutsIf you really did re-read Day 1, I just can't reconcile ignoring what actually happened (me voting Day 1 for Mahaloth) and inventing what didn't happen (me promising to unvote KidV) with pro-Town behavior. Vote: Bob
|
|