Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 23, 2011 14:14:16 GMT -5
On the one hand, Bob is a newish player and thus I could see offering him advice when he's said he's not sure what to do. On the other hand...if Bob was in danger, and he was a Town Power, why discourage him from claiming? As I said Yesterday when he asked the question (in reponse to a question from me) he was in the lead. When I answered I unvoted him (putting KidV in the lead) and said: That puts KidV in the lead so I (imo) that means you don't have to claim. Please note different between an unprovoked claim like BillMc did and the later claim because the player were in the lead for the lynch close to Dusk. The latter is expected at least on this board. But only you know your role so only you can reason when it's best to claim before your lynched or not. I'll go ahead and make the case against myself: why is answering his question I prompted more remarkable (to you and Cat) than me unvoting him and putting a town player in the lead? To answer your question with a question: why would I encourage a player I just unvoted to claim? That's the same statement without answer both pedescribe and peeker (x2) made before. Don't remeber what pedescribe (eventual) answer was, peeker gave it a bit town to me (since if I flipped that would have exposed Mahaloth). So how does it factor in? Why make that statement when it was discussed before without actually saying how you think about it?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 23, 2011 14:27:46 GMT -5
For sure look at all those people including me, but your choice to look only at final votes is, I can already tell, misleading. But the first two votes on Mahaloth were Red Skeezix and me. Similarly I (along with someone else who I need to look up) was one of the early voters on BobArrgh following after an original vote from (again IIRC) Guiri. And then I argued that the typo thing was really a typo and eventually everyone unvoted, go me. I used the final votes (which are the ones that count) to narrow down the players to look at. Those 'someone else' were me, guiri and you. sinjin pushed the case before any of those votes and kept her vote on him together with texcat and crazybunny.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 23, 2011 14:35:21 GMT -5
So although those votes were against players other than bob, I think we'd need to look at the rationale each of us gave for voting who we voted for before assuming we were trying to "save" anyone. I mean saving in the simple terms of causing another player than bob getting lynched (he peaked at four with KidV/Timmy ending up tied at five). Yes, town would not vote with a particular interested of 'saving him' as motivation but scum definitely would especially since we now know both timmy and KidV were town.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 23, 2011 14:57:53 GMT -5
Natlaw, did you forget to review my Day 1 play as well? This Day by Day perspective is crap and anti-town. My suspicions of Mahaloth were documented, restated, and defended on Day 1, yet somehow the motivation for voting for him on Day 2 is spun as OMGUS by a known scum, and now as self-preservation. No, I didn't a complete review of you nor of anyway I mentioned. I analysed the votes to narrow down who I wanted to look at Today. I just did't give you as much credit as the others based on you final vote Day Two. I remembered your vote being as a 'should have voted him earlier' (it was 'I should have just stuck with my vote on Mahaloth yesterday and avoided a lot of distraction.'). You made it 7-4 so not as much credit as those we voted him earlier and started the wagon. I'm not sure how it's anti-town to analyse votes. Note that I didn't say your vote was bad or scummy because it was self-preserving. Anyway it seems to draw a quite some people to the party - even if it's just to decline the invitation .
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 23, 2011 15:05:23 GMT -5
On the one hand, Bob is a newish player and thus I could see offering him advice when he's said he's not sure what to do. On the other hand...if Bob was in danger, and he was a Town Power, why discourage him from claiming? As I said Yesterday when he asked the question (in reponse to a question from me) he was in the lead. When I answered I unvoted him (putting KidV in the lead) and said: I'll go ahead and make the case against myself: why is answering his question I prompted more remarkable (to you and Cat) than me unvoting him and putting a town player in the lead? To answer your question with a question: why would I encourage a player I just unvoted to claim? I just think your answer to Bob was a little simplistic, and you're a better player than that, and I think that's what's bothering me about the whole exchange. I can't decide how I'm coming down on it, to be perfectly honest, and pede and peeker and me is a very small percentage (at this point) of players. There's a part of me that wants to snarkily suggest that we should lynch you just to be sure, but you're really not my primary candidate at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 23, 2011 15:06:47 GMT -5
So although those votes were against players other than bob, I think we'd need to look at the rationale each of us gave for voting who we voted for before assuming we were trying to "save" anyone. I mean saving in the simple terms of causing another player than bob getting lynched (he peaked at four with KidV/Timmy ending up tied at five). Yes, town would not vote with a particular interested of 'saving him' as motivation but scum definitely would especially since we now know both timmy and KidV were town. As I thought I acknowledged, I knew what you meant, but I think there is definitely something that can be read in to your suggesting the group of us were trying to "save" Bob. "Save" is kind of a loaded word in these games, I think.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 23, 2011 15:09:25 GMT -5
Cookies had two scum voting her D2. [nitpick]Bob had his vote on Cookies at one time, but I thought he ended D2 with his vote on Mahaloth.[/nitpick] Yes (and to add some pre-emptive defense that I didn't just defend bob), I noted that in this post early Day Three: Of course no idea how bold scum were with bussing but considering the dead investigator they might have felt Mahaloth a lost cause. bobarrgh jumps out because both times he was on the oppsoing lynch candidate (with a late switch Day Two), so I think I'll review him. His final vote to Mahaloth made it 8-3 so I didn't find that too significant a vote as giving town credit (same as with the 7-4 from Cookies mentioned in my previous post), which left me wanting to look at him for voting twice for 'saving scum' (his Cookies vote D2 and voting crazybunny D1 just before Mahaloth claimed). I ended up not reviewing bob much because basically everyone else did.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 23, 2011 15:31:40 GMT -5
Ped, for you to characterize what Romanic did regarding BobArggh's statement as "forging evidence" is AT LEAST as misleading as what he himself did. He quoted the statement and then paraphrased it in such a way as to exaggerate its scumminess. I will give you that, despite that the overall impression left from Bob's statement hit me the exact same way as it hit Romanic.
But the original quote was right there for everyone to read and make their own judgments on. He forged nothing; he put the evidence right out there for people to agree with or disagree with. In addition, I do have a smallish pure-town reading from Romanic just for getting that right about Bob -- I know from experience that being a third party can shortcircuit your scum-finding skills sometimes, whether it logically should or not. And Romanic got it right. I'm not ruling him out as a potential third party, but I see no reason from this incident alone to suspect that he is, not at all.
In other words, you're not helping yourself with me.
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 23, 2011 16:45:28 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 3 days, 22 hours and 14 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] Captain Pinkies (1) (1 0) Romanic (1) (1 17) pedescribe [17] pedescribe (1) (1 22) Renata [22] Not Voting (16) Merestil Haye, CatInASuit, peekercpa, Sister Coyote, Captain Pinkies, Romola, sinjin, Hockey Monkey, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts, texcat, Romanic, naturallylazy, guiri, harmless little bunny, Natlaw, Red Skeezix With these votes, Captain Pinkies would be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 23, 2011 17:27:59 GMT -5
I think Natlaw's use of final votes as a method of focusing his scum-hunting efforts is a valid starting point but alone should not form the basis for determining a player's likelihood of being Town or scum. Natlaw, or anyone else, I will be away this weekend so, if you have any questions for me, please ask by Friday as I'm unsure of my ability to get online while away. 1. Texcat - If Mahaloth was on the block, then bandwagonning the case against Cookies would have been one way to do it. There are already two scum on there, the only other likely scum would be texcat as by the time sinjin voted, Mahaloth's fate was pretty sealed barring a mass exodus, which was unlikely. As a side note to bobarrgh's side reveal, I think it is much more likely Cookies is town. I consider her reasons for voting Cookies flawed, she also omitted to vote Bob, her Day 1 suspect, on Day 3 and she's been keeping a very low profile but she did vote Bob (4th) on Day 1, after he explained the "do/don't" typo-thing, and she maintained that vote on him till the end of the Day putting him at risk of lynch after Harmless claimed (she posted when it was 6-4 to Harmless who had just claimed, and didn't post again that Day) - that's why I'd like to hear more from TexCat and get a clearer read.
|
|
Romola
Mome Rath
One of them saw two words of the joke and spent several weeks in hospital.
Posts: 107
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Romola on Feb 23, 2011 18:37:12 GMT -5
WARNING: Long post may be long. Right now, I'm struggling with Romola's play.. It was the timing that I didn't like, rather than finding the stated role unbelievable. I dithered as long as I did because I wasn't convinced by most of the other cases against him. It was the investigation choices that swung it, and that post about wanting to question Sinjin despite having already apparently investigated her does seem like a major slip. Doesn't help my suspicions, although the argument against Bob's investigation choices and the statement about him pursuing Sinjin is sound. (biab with pede and Natlaw, sorry, meatspace is calling.) Basically, I was questioning you for two reasons. The first was because i thought you might be scum. The second, as the post you quoted suggests, was that I just wasn't seeing the case against Bob at that point. Singling you out was less about you being the ringleader than about your vote being 'for the same reasons as yesterDay'. i also wanted to hear what i was missing about Bob, who I was characterising at that time as a new Townie who had made a couple of mistakes . Then when you DID comment on that Day's cases, although you said you agreed with the other cases, your comments came over more as mitigating and softening them. I can't castigate you for missing what became, to me, the killer argument, Bob's double justification for backing off Sinjin, as I had not tumbled to it myself at that point, but if all I had to go on had been your own case, I would have stubbornly held my vote off Bob to the last.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 23, 2011 18:59:17 GMT -5
And yet my case was far from the only case, but you didn't question any of the others as extensively, and there was plenty of other evidence being offered. The reason I finally gave up on answering your questions (other than the feeling you were looking to poke holes) is because I wasn't going to sway your opinion one way or another.
The sinjin thing wouldn't even have been a blip on my radar until Bob actually flipped Scum.
A side note: I will admit that I tend to get my teeth into a player and not let go (cf Elizabeth Bathory in the Halloween Game), but once I'm sure I'm right I put my vote down and don't move it. If you see that sort of behavior from me, as opposed to my usual vote-hopping or waiting until the last minute voting style, then I'm confident in my case, whether you are or not, and I'm watching other players for their behavior because I'm confident I've got at least one Scum in the bag; at that point, it's time to go looking for someone else.
And I defend people all the time against arguments that I think are either poorly thought out or aren't taking into account all the facts on the table; Bob is a new player, and even though I thought he was Scum and wanted him to go down for it, letting an argument about something someone did that they either didn't do (e.g., pede describing what romanic did as "forging evidence) or was misunderstood (e.g., me misunderstanding your vote on Bill) isn't something that should be allowed to stand, lest someone come to think of it as a Scum Tell.
Those things catch on quick around here, you know.
And, speaking of pede:
Vote: Pedescribe
I understand that you think Romanic went too far in his paraphrase, pede -- so do I, but I don't think it was so much malicious as it was a different interpretation (I read it as "well, [bob thinks] cookies can't seem to help OMGUS* voting, so that's a null tell, and [bob] thinks Mahaloth is acting weird so I'll put my vote there." Now, obviously my reading doesn't work given the facts, but.)
But he didn't forge evidence -- there's no outright lie there.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 23, 2011 19:03:25 GMT -5
That paraphrase makes even less sense on the page than it did in my preview box, and I also forgot my footnote.
Bob seemed to me to be saying: "Well, I think cookies can't help OMGUS voting, and I understand that, so I think her behavior is a null tell. I think Mahaloth, on the other hand, has been acting a little squirrely, so I'm going to change my vote."
In hindsight this was a failed play for Town cred, of course. So Romanic was closer to right in his reading than I was in mine.
Footnote: Peeker, it's OMGUS and not OMGYS because OMG is a standard text/internet abbreviation for "Oh My God" and U is the standard text/internet abbreviation for "you." Also, OMGUS is easier to type, despite the "Y" being right next to the U.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 23, 2011 19:04:24 GMT -5
Also, OMGUS is easier to type, despite the "Y" being right next to the U. Unless you're one of those freaks who uses a Dvorak keyboard, in which case I have no idea where the "Y" key lives.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 23, 2011 19:19:03 GMT -5
Natlaw, did you forget to review my Day 1 play as well? This Day by Day perspective is crap and anti-town. My suspicions of Mahaloth were documented, restated, and defended on Day 1, yet somehow the motivation for voting for him on Day 2 is spun as OMGUS by a known scum, and now as self-preservation. No, I didn't a complete review of you nor of anyway I mentioned. I analysed the votes to narrow down who I wanted to look at Today. I just did't give you as much credit as the others based on you final vote Day Two. I remembered your vote being as a 'should have voted him earlier' (it was 'I should have just stuck with my vote on Mahaloth yesterday and avoided a lot of distraction.'). You made it 7-4 so not as much credit as those we voted him earlier and started the wagon. I'm not sure how it's anti-town to analyse votes. Note that I didn't say your vote was bad or scummy because it was self-preserving. Anyway it seems to draw a quite some people to the party - even if it's just to decline the invitation . Only looking at a single Day for vote analysis is what I think is anti-town. It is how people get accused of OMGUS voting when that is not the case. It is how people get accused of self-preservation voting when that is not the case. The difference? Context. Also, "I should have voted for him earlier" is a very different statement than "I should have just stuck with my vote on Mahaloth yesterday and avoided a lot of distraction." The difference? Context. This game has a context that evolves from beginning to the end. It is not just a train of compartmentalized Days that don't impact on another and to suggest otherwise is either foolish or malicious. I spent a lot of time on Day 1 deflecting vote after vote after vote based on being one of the lynchers of KidV combined with spurious reasoning if not reasoning manufactured completely out of whole cloth by confirmed scum. That was the distraction that I was referring to.
|
|
Romola
Mome Rath
One of them saw two words of the joke and spent several weeks in hospital.
Posts: 107
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Romola on Feb 23, 2011 20:04:20 GMT -5
And yet my case was far from the only case, but you didn't question any of the others as extensively, and there was plenty of other evidence being offered. Exactly! They offered evidence. In your initial vote, you cited the reasons you'd given the Day before. I obviously hadn't been convinced of them at the time, so would need more than that to be convinced yesterDay. The other Bob voters at that point had given their up to date thoughts, I didn't feel that you had. It intrigued me.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 23, 2011 20:29:51 GMT -5
No, I didn't a complete review of you nor of anyway I mentioned. I analysed the votes to narrow down who I wanted to look at Today. I just did't give you as much credit as the others based on you final vote Day Two. I remembered your vote being as a 'should have voted him earlier' (it was 'I should have just stuck with my vote on Mahaloth yesterday and avoided a lot of distraction.'). You made it 7-4 so not as much credit as those we voted him earlier and started the wagon. I'm going to disagree again with you here, Natlaw, in that I don't believe that those who started the wagon on Mahaloth on day two deserve any particular townie cred as such. (The wording and context of specific votes might, but I haven't looked yet and don't know when I'll be able to.) Mahaloth was a fake-claiming detective, and there was a town investigator of some sort whose body was still cooling on the sidelines. Even for me, who was willing to give him one more night alive before deciding, it was quite clear that barring some pressing reason to believe in his innocence, Mahaloth's time alive was limited. The scum themselves must have been hyper-aware of this. It's a situation that all but demands aggressive bussing by at least some of the scum, particularly if they had not voted for him the previous day (and few people had). I won a game over on Giraffe not too long ago in part because people gave me credit for getting it right (post claim) on my scum partner who had done almost the same thing as Mahaloth did. Votes on a scum after a fake and dangerous and unsustainable claim are worth very little. (I will say that Mahaloth's status as redirector might alter this math just a little bit -- it's such a strong role -- but regardless no one player is worth taking down the whole team.) And as Cookies pointed out (who is also looking quite townie, I'll add, with two scum votes on her), the issue is not your choice to analyze votes, it's that the chosen analysis was shallow and lacked vital context. I'm going to drop pressing you on any of this for now, though, because I'd like you to have the space to actually do the analysis you say you intended.
|
|
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 23, 2011 21:12:22 GMT -5
Ped, for you to characterize what Romanic did regarding BobArggh's statement as "forging evidence" is AT LEAST as misleading as what he himself did. He quoted the statement and then paraphrased it in such a way as to exaggerate its scumminess. I will give you that, despite that the overall impression left from Bob's statement hit me the exact same way as it hit Romanic. But the original quote was right there for everyone to read and make their own judgments on. He forged nothing; he put the evidence right out there for people to agree with or disagree with. In addition, I do have a smallish pure-town reading from Romanic just for getting that right about Bob -- I know from experience that being a third party can shortcircuit your scum-finding skills sometimes, whether it logically should or not. And Romanic got it right. I'm not ruling him out as a potential third party, but I see no reason from this incident alone to suspect that he is, not at all. In other words, you're not helping yourself with me. His paraphrazisation said something completely different than what the quote said. Perhaps I was exaggerating for effect, but that's pretty close to forgery.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 23, 2011 23:28:43 GMT -5
Trepa MayfieldI didn't get your point yesterDay about why my paraphrasing is such a big deal to you, and I am still not getting it toDay. Unlike what you are saying, I did not give Bob's words a different meaning. Here's my post again: 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: 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. 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." 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: BobArrghMy points were: 1) I wouldn't be surprised if Mahaloth was bussed. 2) Bob was seeing Cookies scummy but he voted Mahaloth when it seemed that Maha would be lynch. This could be bussing. 3) His reason to switch his vote was suspicious. Here's how I paraphrase what he said. 4) Bob never seemed to suspect Mahaloth before he was about to be lynched. Conclusion: I think Bob bussed Mahaloth. You are contesting point #3, for being some kind of forgery, but what about the other points? Were they valid? Did they look valid to you yesterDay? I asked you this question yesterday, in post #46 What about the rest of my case? Are you dismissing it because I skipped a few words? ...but for some reason you chose not to answer it, removing it from the post when you quoted it. Why?? If I was in your shoes, seeing one point as weak, I would still look at the case as a whole, to evaluate its merit. Why are you so locked on that paraphrasing?
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Feb 24, 2011 0:19:37 GMT -5
1. Texcat - If Mahaloth was on the block, then bandwagonning the case against Cookies would have been one way to do it. There are already two scum on there, the only other likely scum would be texcat as by the time sinjin voted, Mahaloth's fate was pretty sealed barring a mass exodus, which was unlikely. As a side note to bobarrgh's side reveal, I think it is much more likely Cookies is town. I consider her reasons for voting Cookies flawed, she also omitted to vote Bob, her Day 1 suspect, on Day 3 and she's been keeping a very low profile but she did vote Bob (4th) on Day 1, after he explained the "do/don't" typo-thing, and she maintained that vote on him till the end of the Day putting him at risk of lynch after Harmless claimed (she posted when it was 6-4 to Harmless who had just claimed, and didn't post again that Day) - that's why I'd like to hear more from TexCat and get a clearer read. I was never convinced by the typo argument. And thought it was certainly good enough for a day one vote. I was hesitant to vote yesterday because of the claim, and saw that my vote would make no difference whatsoever. And apologies for not being as active as I would like.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Feb 24, 2011 0:26:44 GMT -5
Oh and to add... I'm still not sure about Cookies. Her vote for Bob yesterday is definitely a plus, and it was early enough to be a further plus.
Not be calling the kettle out, but we seem to have more than a few inactives. I'm inclined to vote NatLazy for not posting a vote at all yet.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 24, 2011 0:32:55 GMT -5
Would you care to comment on your justification for initially suspecting me being questioned? By myself and others?
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 24, 2011 3:54:14 GMT -5
I agree that pedescribe's vote against me could have been an attempt to defuse the bandwagon on Bob. He made that vote when the tally was 3-0, attacking possibly the weakest argument in my case I don't agree that it's weak, but apparently a many players think that I took some liberties with paraphrasing. Anyway, it might have seemed a weak point to pedescribe, since he attacked only this part of my case, ignoring the other arguments. Thus possible scum motivation right here: Stop a lynch of Bob before it grows. However I wasn't ready to accuse him because of the timing of his Day 2 vote, on Mahaloth: --------- #3 bunny votes Mahaloth#20 Romanic votes Sister #36 Romola votes Sinjin #41 Catina votes Cookies #47 Renata votes Romanic #72 Renata unvotes Romanic #97 Sister votes Bob#111 Romola unvotes Sinjin #121 Renata votes Plankton#131 Cookies votes texcat #151 Bob votes Cookies At this point the tally is : Cookies 3, Mahaloth 1, Sister 1, Bob 1, Plankton 1, texcat 1 #163 peeker votes Mahaloth#167 Plankton votes Mahaloth (Now it's Cookies 3, Mahaloth 3) #169 Natlaw votes pedescribe #178 Mahaloth votes Cookies (Cookies 4, Mahaloth 3) #179 MHaye votes pedescribe (Cookies 4, Mahaloth 3, pedescribe 2) #180 pedescribe votes Mahaloth (now it's 4-4) #182 Romola votes Mahaloth (5-4) #184 Guiri votes Mahaloth (6-4) #187 Cookies votes Mahaloth (7-4) #188 Natlaw votes MHaye #192 Bob votes Mahaloth (8-4) #194 Sinjin votes Cookies (8-5) #201 Red votes natlazy #203 MHaye votes Cookies (8-6) --------- Vote #180 made the tally tied at 4 between Cookies and Mahaloth, but it's effectively Maha 5 Cookies 4, because Cookies isn't voting Mahaloth yet, and the scums would know she isn't going to die without a fight. If this is bussing, it looks huge. Then I considered the fact that pedescribe received two recent votes from Natlaw (#169) and Mhaye (#179), so he could have felt a need to distance himself from Mahaloth. Also, if you look at the thread, it's possible that the scums would think that Mahaloth was doomed, from people suspecting him, to his bizarre claim. Another reason to distance himself asap. Finally, if you look at pedescribe's posts that Day, he never mentioned anything about Mahaloth. Just like Bob, the accusation is completely unexpected. Well, at least we know what Timmy's alignment was. Nothing here really. Losing a cop role sucks. What is a "Questioner"? Is it a role where he gets to ask a question and the other person has to answer truthfully? (Sort of like Hypnagogic Bonafide in the Dr. Seuss game?) As funny as it would be to engender a hilarious series of misunderstandings, I feel I should inform you that I am Hypnagogic Bonafide over there (if you didn't know). 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. Why he didn't vote on D1. No mention of Mahaloth. Silly me, thinking that unvoting a claimed power role needed no comment. I think it needs comment. Anyone can claim a power role. In fact, our three lynch leaders Day 1 all did. Hmmm. Nothing here, interesting though. I can't quite figure why this comment was made, kinda stating the obvious. I am inclined to put a little trust in CtCwhC, as well, as she is making an unusually good counter-argument. His first commitment in the game: He trusts Cookies. Ayyiyiyiyi. It feels like every single post is out of context. You do realize, I hope, that a good half of the arguments today are over the tiniest minutiae that probably aren't either scum-inspired or town-inspired, but simply created out of a vacuum of thought. Alright. I said, earlier, that Cookies was arguing like a townie, and she still strikes me as such. So I'm going to Vote: Vote Mahaloth [/color][/quote] Boom his vote. Allow me to paraphrase what he said ;D : "blahblahblah... Cookies argues like a Townie.... vote: Mahaloth!!!" Why? Can't help but wonder where it comes from, and if it's fake. I also read his Day 1 posts. which I won't quote here, but it's mostly fluff, without mentioning Mahaloth, except some things like "I wonder if Mahaloth needs to be slapped with a trout [...]", which I brushed away as non-tells. *** So anyway, I am dismissing his Day 2 vote because of the other factors I've mentioned above. It could have been bussing, and his Day 3 vote (the first one), really looks scummy, considering the timing it was made. His first big commitment, if you don't count the "I trust Cookies" post, and his unexplained vote on Mahaloth, was to jump at my case, in an apparent attempt to break a starting bandwagon on a known Scum. vote: pedescribe
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 24, 2011 4:59:29 GMT -5
I am not convinced by CIAS' reasoning here, and I really don't understand how bob being a Toughguy indicates that Scum have all night Kills; could you clarify your thinking, Cat? Ok, my general thoughts on the game atm. I'm sure everyone has their own opinions, which will differ from mine, but this is what I'm currently thinking. ;D Night Kills: Night 1: scum kill + scum toughguy kill Night 2: scum kill Night 3: Scum messed up. If there was an SK, I would have expected to see more Night kills. I don't believe there was a mass block on Night 3, I think the very early end of Night caught the scum out. I don't expect that to work again. However, this leads onto another thing and that's Mahaloth's WIFOM from Day 2. If the above is true, then the scum were responsible for both kills on Night 1 and if so then I would have expected Timmy to be killed for a reason. But if you were going to pick two townies to link together, why kill one of them, unless it is to give creedance to the other. But if any investigator was to examine the other person, it would have to come back with a town result, otherwise both Mahaloth and the scum buddy would be exposed. Which leads to a conclusion that Natlaw is a scum godfather. Yup, drank deeply from that WIFOM there, didn't I. Other thoughts, pedescribe's switch on Day 2 from Cookies to Mahaloth. It's the one reason I haven't voted him yet, because after SubPlank and he voted for Mahaloth, the lynch was effectively decided. If he had voted Cookies and bobarrgh had remained where he was, Cookies would have been lynched instead of Mahaloth. If he is scum, then he either sacrificed Mahaloth for a lot of town cred or to save Cookies. I'm holding either option open at the moment. There is his comment that Cookies is being really townie in her arguments, but it doesn't answer them main point that she effectively lynched claimed town protective role on Night 1. I've looked over texcat again, and I agree more with her reason for voting Cookies and disagree with guiri's take on her vote. If I'm looking for scum, then my guess would be Cookies, Natlaw pedescribe I also reckon there is likely to be a sixth scum kicking around somewhere and atm, peekercpa gets that honour.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 24, 2011 7:56:14 GMT -5
Oh and one quick note, if you need to shorten CatInASuit, try CIAS instead of Catina.
I get Idle Thoughts flashbacks otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 24, 2011 9:08:09 GMT -5
Bob seemed to me to be saying: "Well, I think cookies can't help OMGUS voting, and I understand that, so I think her behavior is a null tell. I think Mahaloth, on the other hand, has been acting a little squirrely, so I'm going to change my vote." Footnote: Peeker, it's OMGUS and not OMGYS because OMG is a standard text/internet abbreviation for "Oh My God" and U is the standard text/internet abbreviation for "you." Also, OMGUS is easier to type, despite the "Y" being right next to the U. <snipped> kind of posting along as i catch up and re - read all at the same time. maybe there is some humor here or an indication that my meds need to be increased/changed. when bob made his post about cookies i read it not as omgys but that he was suggesting that cookies had a voting restriction of only being able to vote for someone who had voted for her. i was even thinking about chastising him for coming up with such a stupid idea but then got distracted. off the rails and into the wheat field i go. also if the stinking y is so close to the u then what's the point? i mean it's not like having to type shift-ctrl-f2.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 24, 2011 9:24:25 GMT -5
I think Natlaw's use of final votes as a method of focusing his scum-hunting efforts is a valid starting point but alone should not form the basis for determining a player's likelihood of being Town or scum. <snipped> and i am not sure whether we are arguing the same or different points here so i will clarify my stance. final votes are meaningful in the context of the situation and the reasoning behind said final vote. i mean a vote that makes the status x v x + 1 means a hell of a lot more than a vote that makes the status x v x + 5. in the first instance depending on how the flippee flips can say a lot about the last vote. especially if made late in the Day and it carries some weight. in the latter case not so much. matter of fact in the latter case if the flippee is scum i would suggest that there is a greater likelihood of some of those folks being scum. i mean their buddy is going to swing why not try to manufacture some cred by getting a vote down on a scum. additionlly, if the flippee is town and there are some late one or two offs that's where i would also look for scum. the attitude being, "well the rest of you nimrods want to lynch a townie but i'll have no part of that nonsense - being the good townie i am". so yeh, final votes are a good place to start. just not necessarily with a default position that they are town motivated. many times, i would suggest, final votes are more an indication of scumminess than towniness. and above all else timing and motivation is what flavors the situation.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 24, 2011 9:50:37 GMT -5
I spent a lot of time on Day 1 deflecting vote after vote after vote based on being one of the lynchers of KidV combined with spurious reasoning if not reasoning manufactured completely out of whole cloth by confirmed scum. That was the distraction that I was referring to. <snipped> confession is good for the soul, so they say. i really hosed Day 1. no real excuse except that dr. seuss was getting to its penultimate moment and my focus was there. so to a great extent a lot of Day 1 was just a skim and now a re-read of the end. so to the extent that i missed some of the nuances leading up to the end is my own durn fault. but .... cookies i don't see a whole bunch of deflection of votes on Day 1. matter of fact i don't even see a single vote on you after you voted kidv i mean romanic (or one of the fracking r folks) kind of asked you for clarification. and kidv kind of engaged with you but knowing how he flipped i kind of wouldn't expect anything else.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 24, 2011 10:35:54 GMT -5
Night Kills: Night 3: Scum messed up. But if you were going to pick two townies to link together, why kill one of them, unless it is to give creedance to the other. But if any investigator was to examine the other person, it would have to come back with a town result, otherwise both Mahaloth and the scum buddy would be exposed. Which leads to a conclusion that Natlaw is a scum godfather. I also reckon there is likely to be a sixth scum kicking around somewhere and atm, peekercpa gets that honour. <snipped> i just left in the salient points. if you want the whole post it is reply #53. and of course i am not posting to agree with you. ;D you imply that the reason because there was no NK last Night is because scum missed the deadline. now what i have been inferring to be is that the Night lasts at least x and at most y. the x being no matter what we are in shut down mode for that long. the y being the oustide delimeter on how long folks would have to get in Night actions. bascially that the Night last x or until everyone who needs to pm the mods does so but no more than y. i mean if you are correct then that is kind of messed up. i mean i like the fact that no kill occurred but to ascribe it to the capriciousness of the mods i think is a stretch. maybe so, maybe no on the natlaw thing. if we still had/have a town dick floating around that might make sense. but alas, i think we lost our full one when paranoia bit it. i am much more inclined to believe that scum directed the timmy NK already pegging natlaw as their "linkage" and that paranoia was simply a whoopee do bonus for them. i mean maha posts at 8 a.m. five hours after Daybreak. i sincerely doubt that scum didn't have that planned out in advance. now having said that maha is smart enough and quick enough on his feet that he could have just pulled that out of his ass it just feels more coordinated, is all. and to some extent maybe that helps your point. but at this point it's wifom. and regarding 6 scum. shit, first of all that's a crapload of scum in a 24 person game. especially, with some dead scum with identified powers, a presumed role blocker (based on hlb's ongoing failure to get any results) and your hypothetical gf. assuming a fifty percent lynch success rate (which is actually pretty good) that means this sucker is going 11 - 13 Days at our current rate of attrition. i mean even at a 2/3 success lynch rate (which we are currently at) we are going 9. sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. athough i am glad you thought of me.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 24, 2011 10:45:24 GMT -5
So, as he is on the block. pedescribe with added paraphrasing. ;D
Day 1: #36: fluff #37: Is in favour of mod-written role PMs #67: fluff #91: fluff #101: Understands mod-help limited to colour, player should specify name and role in advance. #120: fluff #357: explains absence from game. #390: paraphrases Day 1 so far. #432: Too busy/confused to place a vote - saya it would be random
Day 2: #12: Comments we know Timmy's alignment #35: Comment on name on Giraffeboard. Response to romanic as to why he didn't vote.
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 a really poor reason to not vote. Really Poor. Not leaving a vote trail and on Day 1, I really don't understand the comment about begin led around by the scum. Not to mention that if he had voted Timmy, Timmy would have been lynched and not Kid V. (hindsight, I know)
#64: comment that anyone can claim a power role. #119: Inclined to put trust in Cookies due to good counter-argument #180: Says Cookies is arguning like a townie so votes Mahaloth
As far as I can tell, it';s the first non-fluff mention of Mahaloth. No case, no reason, just not a Cookies lynch
Day 3: #18: "Either the scum got lucky, or we have a scum investigator".
You know, when I first paraphrased this sentence I wrote the following.
"Either scum got lucky or they have a scum investigator. "
I know it could be taken either way, but....
#34: Comment about Mahaloth's "investigation" result. #42: Picks up Rominac's paraphrase of bobarrghs statement. Says it was inaccurate and votes for rominac #54: Says going to assume if a single night kill that the scum did it #55: Reponse to rominac that mis-paraphrasing is a big deal, saying case made out of nothing #62: Response to rominac that says rest of case falls apart because paraphrase is innaccurate #64: response to cookies about Bobarrgh's side. Is leaning town, but can also see double bus scum play as possibility #72: Response to Cookies that reason for going after rominac's case and not the others is because it involves the typo. Response to CIAS about Night kills #83: Responses to CIAS about Night Kills. Posted question about Mahaloth's claim to see if anyone had any ideas, but no-one had any ideas about , so dropped it. Votes bobarrgh following role claim as being false.
But three people had responded to his question about Mahaloth with different answers, so this answer rings false.
#87: fluff #145: Response to MHaye that his voting on Day 1 would give exactly same data as not voting as it would have been random.
Ok, thoughts on pedescribe.
1. Not voting on Day 1 - To not vote at all saying it is random and that you don't want to be led around by the nose. This is not a townie behaviour when analysing votes and reasoning is major part of scum hunting. 2. The jump to vote Mahaloth on Day 2. No previous non-fluff (IMHO) mention as to why, just not voting Cookies. This makes little sense atm, as to why vote for someone for no reason other than you don't think the other candidate should be lynched. 3. we/they have a scum investigator. It may just be me, but as town I would write something completely different. 4. The case against Rominac. Considering all the cases against bobarrgh, why continue arguing this one, given all the other data. What's worse for pedescribe is that Rominac was proved right at end of Day 3. And why say specifically that Rominac is likely 3rd party?
I think he is likely scum anyway, given my previous comments as well so,
vote pedescribe
|
|