|
Post by Renata on Feb 24, 2011 10:46:45 GMT -5
@ CIAS --
If the scum did perform two kills on Night One (and I kinda like your logic on that), then an alternate explanation for using Timmy as Mahaloth's choice could be that they were trying to set up a vig claim for Bob and decided to kill two birds with one stone by using the dead body as half of Mahaloth's "investigation". (Actually I think it works without necessarily having anything to do with Natlaw, even without the idea of a vig claim, but I got distracted and lost my reasoning somewhere. Anyway.)
Natlaw could then still be yet a third bird, so to speak, or could have been them chucking a dart at Timmy's voters; no way to tell.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 24, 2011 10:49:43 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. I think she's pretty clearly referring to deflecting votes on day *two* due to her actions at the end of day one.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 24, 2011 10:55:33 GMT -5
Renata, peekercpa - they are fair points. My other reason for putting it down is it gets it out of my head, so I can concentrate on finding scum ;D Regarding Night time - I don't think the mods are controlling it at all. If think there is something set up to amend how much time there is and if you don't have your choice in by then, then tough. As for number of scum, five is more likely, six is my worst case scenario. Seven would just be silly. Umm, it isn't that silly a game is it.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 24, 2011 11:02:46 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. He's not. He's implying, I think, that there is a power to change the length of nights, and that someone used it for the first time last night, for whatever reason. And also that the scum got tripped up by that and had not yet decided their kill by the time that night ended, hence ending the night without a kill. I think it's a hypothesis worth considering. There are other potential explanations, but none has been claimed to so far: -- yet another hidden protective role -- roleblock of the scum killer -- mass block -- some other oddball effect I'm not thinking of As well as: -- deliberate no kill (Why? Did scum shorten the day to hopefully mess up town powers, and were otherwise out of possible killers? Were they just out of possible killers regardless and decided to use the regular powers they had been using for one more night? Was it to promote some other effect? (But nothing has been brought forward.)) If crazypunker is to be believed, then the scum *did* get a roleblock order in; since I tend to believe her I think that eliminates the possibility of a mass block and lessens the likelihood that other scum decisions (the kill) were not made in time; but it doesn't rule it out. Of course they did, but what connection are you positing to Natlaw, if any? Why'd they pick him, and why were they willing to kill a top vote getter to do so? The highest percentage of scum I've seen is 5 for 20, in an all-power game, which this is not. It's too early to worry much about number of scum, IMO, but I do agree with you that six is not likely on the face of it. Not ruling it out, but still.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 24, 2011 11:07:03 GMT -5
CIAS, I've been putting together a WoW on Pedescribe all afternoon, you just beat me to it!
FWIW, I'll post it anyway: D1#36 Jokes - Natlazy, Maha D1#37 Supports mod-provided fake PMs D1#67 Joke - Natlazy D1#91 Joke - Maha D1#101 Comment on mod-provided fake PMs D1#120 Joke - Sister/Bob D1#357 Will try to catch up D1#390 Summarizes (humorously) Day with numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations D1#432 In response to Natlaw's correction and question about whether Pede intends to vote, answers no, doesn't want to place an essentially random vote D2#12 Happy to know Timmy's alignment D2#35 To Bob, comments on alternative username, to Romanic, who asks about his lack of vote, explains that he'd "rather not be led around by the nose by scum", probably would have voted Timmy D2#64 To Sister, thinks that unclaiming a power role should have some reasoning added D2#180 Having gathered 2 of the 3 last votes (in 3rd place with 2 votes, behind Cookies with 4 and Maha with 3, votes Maha, thinks Cookies is Town but no comment on Maha whatsoever - a self-defense vote? N2#23 Fluff D3#13 Comment on deaths: "scum got lucky or have an investigator" D3#34 Wonders what Mahaloth's claim means for Natlaw D3#42 Finds Romanic's paraphrasing inaccurate but "this does not absolve Bob" D3#54 To CIAS, defends comment about cause of NKs, D3#55 To Romanic, case was invented out of whole cloth D3#62 To Romanic, rest of case falls apart when 1 part is inaccurate D3#64 To Cookies, is leaning Town on Bob but sees bussing as reasonably possible D3#72 To Cookies, doesn't believe Bob's typo was a typo but Bob could be a lying Townie, doesn't see anything suspicious about his Day 2 play, thinks Romanic is lying to ensure Bob is lynched. To CIAS, defends comment on NKs, is not concerned about Maha and his investigatees D3#83 To CIAS, further defense of comment on NKs, doesn't know what to make of Natlaw, agrees with CIAS that Bob's claim is hard to buy, gives 3 reasons and then votes D3#87 Comment on previous game D3#145 To MHaye, defends Day 1 non-vote D4#17 Votes Romanic for Day 3 case. To Cookies, was not protective of Bob D4#25 To Renata, thinks Romanic is 3rd party, agrees that her summary of his case against Romanic makes him look scummy but he's not D4#27 To Renata, thinks it was a big deal for Romanic to "forge evidence" D4#47 To Renata, Romanic's paraphrasing changed the meaning of Bob's vote
Vote Pedescribe
- lack of vote and accountability on Day 1 - I can see your Day 2 vote being part self-defense, part bus, you made no comment on Maha previously or even when voting and seemed to only have to choose between him and Cookies - who'd you'd previously thought was townie - I can see the scum motivation in his vote on Romanic, trying to derail the case against Bob, especially picking on a single part of Romanic's case and exagerating the paraphrase's difference to the orginal: "forging evidence"
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 24, 2011 11:12:20 GMT -5
Oh and one quick note, if you need to shorten CatInASuit, try CIAS instead of Catina. I get Idle Thoughts flashbacks otherwise. And getting Idle flashbacks is back? Got it, CIAS it is, from now on. Similarly, can you make sure to spell it Romanic and not Rominac?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 24, 2011 11:21:16 GMT -5
And getting Idle flashbacks is back? Got it, CIAS it is, from now on. Similarly, can you make sure to spell it Romanic and not Rominac? Romanic it is then ;D
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 24, 2011 11:26:43 GMT -5
@cias [snip] 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. The first part is a mistake, pedescribe never voted Cookies on D2, his first and only vote was on Mahaloth.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 24, 2011 11:36:29 GMT -5
@cias [snip] 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. The first part is a mistake, pedescribe never voted Cookies on D2, his first and only vote was on Mahaloth. I never said he did, but check the numbers out. If pedescribe and bobarrgh had been voting for Cookies, instead of pedescribe voting for Mahaloth and bobarrgh switching across then Cookies would have been lynched. (barring anyone else doing stuff, of course.) Mahaloth (6) harmless little bunny [3], peeker [163], Suburban Plankton [167], romola [182], guiri [184], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [187] ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts (7) CatInASuit [41], texcat [128], bobargh [151], Mahaloth [178], pedescribe [180], sinjin [194], Merestil Haye [203] It's just something that caught my eye, while trying to work out why pedescribe would vote for Mahaloth with bobarrgh switching afterwards. And given how tight things were at that point, it would have been 5-3 Cookies in the lead. Instead we wound up lynching Mahaloth. Bears thinking about.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 24, 2011 12:04:21 GMT -5
@cias
The first part of the paragraph I quoted was "Other thoughts, pedescribe's switch on Day 2 from Cookies to Mahaloth", which I read as pedescribe voting first for Cookies, the switching to Mahaloth. That's what I was pointing out, it seemed like a mistake, unless you were speaking of what could have happened if pedescribe acted differently?
But I agree that pedescribe could have voted Cookies instead of Mahaloth, to make it 5-3: This vote is actually the only good thing I found going for pedescribe, but I've chosen to discard it for reasons already explained (in post #52)
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 24, 2011 12:05:48 GMT -5
He's not. He's implying, I think, that there is a power to change the length of nights, and that someone used it for the first time last night, for whatever reason. And also that the scum got tripped up by that and had not yet decided their kill by the time that night ended, hence ending the night without a kill. I think it's a hypothesis worth considering. There are other potential explanations, but none has been claimed to so far: -- yet another hidden protective role -- roleblock of the scum killer -- mass block -- some other oddball effect I'm not thinking of As well as: -- deliberate no kill (Why? Did scum shorten the day to hopefully mess up town powers, and were otherwise out of possible killers? Were they just out of possible killers regardless and decided to use the regular powers they had been using for one more night? Was it to promote some other effect? (But nothing has been brought forward.)) If crazypunker is to be believed, then the scum *did* get a roleblock order in; since I tend to believe her I think that eliminates the possibility of a mass block and lessens the likelihood that other scum decisions (the kill) were not made in time; but it doesn't rule it out. well, i continue to believe that the lack of a NK makes more sense by some other mechanism than they got timed out. i mean as scum we always made sure that at least a tentative target was mapped out early. that way in case something screwy happened we at least would know that we didn't lose out on a NK. and if it was a mass block i would think that hlb would have been affected as well. my supposition in order of likelihood is a mass block followed by a town rb getting lucky followed by something else. and for scum to get a block down without a kill makes little to no sense to me. Of course they did, but what connection are you positing to Natlaw, if any? Why'd they pick him, and why were they willing to kill a top vote getter to do so? while i am positing you seem to be pretty durn sure. any reason for that?
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 24, 2011 12:35:28 GMT -5
Common sense. If scum killed Timmy, then Mahaloth's use of him as a putative investigation target was also preplanned. (If you're talking about why am I so sure that scum killed Timmy, please read for context. The whole conversation is a hypothetical based on CIAS' speculation, though it's a speculation I find quite persuasive given what's happened (and not happened) since.)
And I just remembered the non-Bob-as-vig reason that scum could have chosen Timmy that would have nothing (necessarily) to do with Natlaw -- Timmy was the very opposite of a likely choice as scum kill. Kill Timmy, and people aren't going to connect it to the scum. Therefore, Mahaloth's "choice" of Timmy (which meant he only had to give one result instead of two) looks much more plausible as a simple coincidence than it would have otherwise. Killing Timmy bolsters Mahaloth's claim more than a kill of just about anyone else.
I've just about convinced myself that this is what happened, and why, but will just add that if Timmy's death was not due to the scum, then Mahaloth did just decide to be opportunistic in using Timmy's death to reduce the burden of information he needed to provide. Either way, the conclusion about Natlaw is similar: scum needed to pick someone who'd voted for Timmy, and the only question is why Natlaw instead of the rest of the people in that category.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 24, 2011 12:41:27 GMT -5
For what it's worth those people are CIAS, Skeezix, Hockey Monkey, and Pinkies.
|
|
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 24, 2011 13:17:47 GMT -5
boned I am boned I could try to explain how I actually was just completely coincidentally voting scummily, and how I really am not scum. I could try, but I know you wouldn't believe me. I know because, if I didn't know what I am, I'd think I were scum, too, no matter what I would say. I could claim, I suppose, but I have no bargaining power with my role and you wouldn't believe me anyway. Would you believe that I am an Ice Cream Cone? No? Didn't think so. While I'm here, though, I do have one thing to say. I wanted to say this earlier, but I figured it would have been suspicious. We can, I think, safely assume based on Night One that we have multiple killing roles. We know Scum had a redirector. It does seem most likely that the Scum Kill is the one that went through last Night, and if I hadn't been taught by playing on this board never to assume such that probably would have been my assumption as well, so I don't really read anything into pede's statement. Even if he is a better player than to make those assumptions under normal situations. Firstly, thank you, but do not mistake frequency for skill. I play a lot. I have never gotten good at this game. I am not a good player. As scum, I say something stupid and die ignominiously, and as town, I lead the town on wild goose chases on townies. As third party...well, this happens. There's a reason I am such a frequent moderator, and it is because I am a better game designer than player. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy this game. But I am not a good player, and I totally made those assumptions under normal situations.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 24, 2011 14:29:33 GMT -5
Oh come on Pedescribe, don't just say you have an un-useful claim and leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 24, 2011 14:55:38 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. That was a typo. I was referring to Day 2.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 24, 2011 15:27:32 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. That's quite a waffle on a third of your shortlist: Ok, suspicions. 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. 2. Pedescribe - Pedescribe gave me the feeling that he knew the scum were carrying out the Night kills to the exclusion of other parties. With bobarrgh's role revealed, it is quite likely the scum have been responsible for all 3 Night Kills. Hence my suspicion of pedescribe deepens. 3. Natlaw - I looked over Natlaw's posts on Day 3 and nothing seemed that wrong with them, but I still don't like the "you don't have to claim now" post he did for bobarrgh. Time to look again. The only explanation that seems to be offered for the waffle is a re-read of Texcat, which considering that adds up to about a thimble full, it just seems odd that such a re-read not only unseats your suspicions of her, but has you agreeing with her dubious argument. I was one of 5 people who effectively lynched KidV. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...5. I am not able to lynch people single-handedly, but I still seem to be the poster child scapegoat for single handedly bringing about KidV's fate. You've been coming after me for awhile, and I can't point out how flawed Texcat's argument is any more than I already have. I do recommend, however, that if you are going to examine Texcat's posts about me, you should probably examine mine posts as well. If you've done that already too, then we're just at a loss. A Town Power role claim does not exist in a vacuum and they are not all the same. They do not require lock-step reaction to unvote. Each one should be weighed in context, and even then, people can be wrong, like myself, Renata, Sister Coyote, guiri, and Suburban Plankton, though it is possible not all of us were wrong and there is someone in there happily and scummily helping to lynch KidV, it just isn't me.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 24, 2011 16:47:00 GMT -5
All right, I’m going through day one looking at Mahaloth and Bob, what people say about them and who doesn’t say anything about them. Summary is at the bottom.
-----------------
Post 29 – Natlaw brings up Mahaloth’s support of the fake-PMs-on-the-fly business as “just to get the ball rolling” sort of suspicion (though without a vote). I had forgotten that post entirely and I think it’s a point in Natlaw’s favor as not-scum.
{110 – Romola’s vote on Bill.}
118 – Bob sideswipes Romola (“may say more about her than him”) due to Romola’s vote on Bill. Town points for Romola.)
128 – Sinjin characterizes Bob’s 118 as a “drive-by smudge”. She goes on to make a case against Bill and vote for him (vote 2), ignoring Bob, but the transition from Bob to Bill looks seamless enough. (She’s “suspicious of Bill [her]self”, which fits with Bob implying that he was NOT.) She also tacks on a FOS of Bob at the end, let’s see how that plays out.
129 – Bob responds with the infamous “I do like …” thing.
{131 – crazybunny votes Bill, #3. Bill removes himself from the game right after.}
137 – Guiri calls out the “I do like” thing immediately, catching the contradiction between what Bob had said about Bill (not suspicious) and what he said to sinjin (liked a comment that said Bill was suspicious) and asking him about it. Serious townie points for Guiri; given the way all of this played out, it is very unlikely to be bussing.
139 – Mahaloth votes Bill, #4, on the rationale that his leaving the game isn’t like him and could be scum WIFOM.
140 – I vote crazybunny (#1) on the basis of her substance-less me too on Bill; also commenting to Bob that KidV’s “interesting” comment to me is a good example of a “drive-by smudge”. (Actually the vote was on Hockey Monkey in this post due to name confusion; I had to fix it.)
144 – Bob responds to Guiri saying sinjin’s post confused him, and he hopes Bill stays.
146 – Sinjin starts questioning Bob along the same lines as Guiri, so she’s following up on her FOS; looks good for her.
149 – Bob responds some more with a bunch of stuff about watchers watching watchers that makes my head spin, but the gist is he’s still not seeing Bill’s comments as anti-town.
153 – Red Skeezix votes Mahaloth (#1) on the basis of post 139 being a very weak vote, even leaves himself an out if Bill is town. Since this post only makes it 4-1-1 in the vote count, bussing isn’t impossible, but the vote itself is nicely stated and doesn’t ring any of those sorts of bells. Town points for Red.
{155 KidV agrees with Skeezix, no vote}
156 – I switch to Mahaloth (bad new reason for a bandwagon vote is worse than a “me too”). Votes now 2 Mahaloth, 4 Bill, 0 crazybunny.
Ok general statement time. At this point the scum have to be perking up. Mahaloth has two votes and a statement of general support for the case against him. Bob has two people pressuring him (though no votes). The case against Bill hasn’t produced a new vote (other than Mahaloth’s) in 25 posts; and nothing else beyond the aborted spat between me and KidV has happened. So who goes for crazybunny?
158 Sinjin response to Bob, again asks him what he liked about her post.
160 Mahaloth unvotes Bill, saying Red makes a good point. Bill 3, Mahaloth 2.
162 Romanic votes for crazybunny. It’s a good enough vote, but the timing’s not good. Bill 3, Mahaloth 2, bunny 1.
166 I ask Romanic what he thinks of Mahaloth.
168 Bunny unvotes Bill, votes Mahaloth on the basis that Mahaloth is reminding her of last game where he was scum and because she didn’t like his reason for his unvote. Bill 2, Mahaloth 3, bunny 1.
170 Romanic replies that Mahaloth’s was a bad vote and he’s an interesting lynch candidate; his unvote might be backing down or wising up. Not really sure what to think about this – Romanic and I tend to think alike so often that whenever we’re not on the same page I get suspicious. But it’s not like my own decision to switch votes to Mahaloth was extremely solidly felt; and he did push the vote on Bob on day three, so he gets a pass from me for now.
172 Romanic still doesn’t like Bunny’s reasoning, isn’t sure what to think of her switch to Mahaloth but she likes to follow the trends.
173 Mahaloth responds to Romanic’s comment about his unvote of Bill, says the quick votes on him were a bit suspicious (which is a slight smudge of Skeezix, me and bunny – good for all of us I think).
181 Sinjin in response to a vote from Paranoia reiterates her belief that Bob’s comment about Romola was a smudge.
183 Bob tries to clarify that his smudge was before Romola explained something or other.
{186 – Suburban Plankton votes bunny. Mahaloth 3, Bill 2, bunny 2.}
187 – Naturallylazy chimes in about Mahaloth, among other things. She doesn’t mention Bob. She says “There seems to have also been votes on Mahaloth. These seem to be somewhat based on Meta which I clearly don't have, so I can't really do much about that, other than go back and read these rounds. Considering what I'm working with, that would be almost ridiculously counter-productive, and unnecessary. If it's there (I'm moving quite a bit slower this round, probably because I actually have to think more), the following bugger* does seem weird, I can't deny that, but I'd like to see a decent paragraph from him (her?). Another, if he has already posted one and I missed it.” I’d characterize this as a fairly suspicious response to the situation – she says she can’t deny Mahaloth is “weird”, but the case against him is somewhat based on meta (only bunny of his three voters plus KidV said anything about that). It all looks quite dismissive. (And this *is* meta, but rationale for Paranoia’s death – because he knows her too well?)
----------------------------------------------
I’m going to stop here for the day. Summary from this part of day one only:
On the leaning-not-scum side of things:
Sinjin looks quite good due to pointing out a smudge from Bob and persistent questioning of him on the contradiction that Guiri first brought up (though her vote is still on Bill, which I don't get).
Guiri looks pretty good for bringing up Bob's contradiction so quickly and accurately, though at this point he hasn't followed up on it yet.
Romola looks quite good for being smudged by Bob (though her vote is also still on Bill). I don't think that scum-on-scum smudges are all that common.
Skeezix looks good for being the first vote on Mahaloth despite that it came at a time when Bill had a comfortable 4 votes to Mahaloth's none. The vote was solid and accurate; and Mahaloth was a redirector.
On the looking-like-scum side of things: Romanic voted for crazybunny *right after* the Mahaloth bandwagon became dangerous. I can't fault his vote itself (and his pushing of the bandwagon on Bob yesterday mitigates this greatly), but the timing is not good.
Naturallylazy's comment about Mahaloth in post 187 was so scumtastic in retrospect that I'm tempted to change my vote right now despite being also suspicious of pedescribe and there probably being no point.
Natlaw gets the "hmm" glare for making a long post about vanilla town claims right in the middle of the Mahaloth/Bob stuff without ever saying anything about either one.
Texcat gets the same for saying essentially nothing (one fluff post) this whole period.
Back tomorrow with the rest of the Day; will see if any of these impressions change.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 24, 2011 17:03:28 GMT -5
unvote vote: NaturallyLazy
May as well
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 24, 2011 18:53:03 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 2 days, 20 hours and 6 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] pedescribe (4) (5 64) Renata [22 78], Sister Coyote [41], Romanic [52], CatInASuit [59], guiri [64] Captain Pinkies (1) (1 0) Romanic (1) (1 17) pedescribe [17] naturallylazy (1) (1 78) Renata [78] Not Voting (12) Merestil Haye, peekercpa, Captain Pinkies, Romola, sinjin, Hockey Monkey, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts, texcat, harmless little bunny, Natlaw, Red Skeezix With these votes, pedescribe would be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Feb 24, 2011 19:46:28 GMT -5
I'm feeling a bit lost in this game, to be honest.
But here's my feelings right now: I feel like Natlaw's last vote assesment is scummy. I feel like scum would want to discount all votes made, in favor of only discussing final votes. Scum are able to adjust their positioning in the voting, because they know who scum are. Scum are also not as easily swayed or as likely to get bored with a case, or want to pursue other avenues during the course of a day. His whole analysis of the last votes, is just ringing all kinds of alarm bells.
vote Natlaw
|
|
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 24, 2011 21:02:39 GMT -5
Oh come on Pedescribe, don't just say you have an un-useful claim and leave it at that. Yeah, that was kind of jerky wasn't it. I'm a Mad Bomber. So far I've tagged: timmy (who died) BobArrgh (who died) and Natlaw (who hasn't died...yet). So even if you let me live, I'd still have like no chance of winning (thus, boned).
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 24, 2011 21:08:21 GMT -5
Well that settles it.
Vote: Pede
I am still curious if you really didn't think Bob looked scummy, or if you were just trying to stir stuff up with the ignoring the other cases on Bob and picking at Romanic or something.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 24, 2011 21:13:36 GMT -5
Oh come on Pedescribe, don't just say you have an un-useful claim and leave it at that. Yeah, that was kind of jerky wasn't it. I'm a Mad Bomber. So far I've tagged: timmy (who died) BobArrgh (who died) and Natlaw (who hasn't died...yet). So even if you let me live, I'd still have like no chance of winning (thus, boned). That would explain nicely why you were protective of Bob, thank you. ;D Well, I guess we're gonna have to discuss the merits of letting a mad bomber live, over lynching him immediately. @pede: Are you the mad bomber kind that can detonate only once (to win), or can you detonate multiple times (aka, detonate at night instead of tagging) ?
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Feb 24, 2011 21:32:38 GMT -5
well i certainly have no desire to keep a PKF alive, especially one who isn't posting their pm.
unvote natlaw
vote Pedescribe
|
|
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 24, 2011 23:57:01 GMT -5
Yeah, that was kind of jerky wasn't it. I'm a Mad Bomber. So far I've tagged: timmy (who died) BobArrgh (who died) and Natlaw (who hasn't died...yet). So even if you let me live, I'd still have like no chance of winning (thus, boned). That would explain nicely why you were protective of Bob, thank you. ;D Well, I guess we're gonna have to discuss the merits of letting a mad bomber live, over lynching him immediately. @pede: Are you the mad bomber kind that can detonate only once (to win), or can you detonate multiple times (aka, detonate at night instead of tagging) ? I'm the sort of Mad Bomber that has to tag everyone. To wit: Right now, I've got...one (two counting myself) out of 18.
|
|
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 24, 2011 23:58:15 GMT -5
Well that settles it. Vote: Pede [/color] I am still curious if you really didn't think Bob looked scummy, or if you were just trying to stir stuff up with the ignoring the other cases on Bob and picking at Romanic or something.[/quote] A little from Column A, and a little from Column B.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 25, 2011 0:29:24 GMT -5
Thanks for indulging my curiosity. Sorry you have to die. Thanks to whoever just slapped a vote on Lazy recently. I had forgotten Lazy was playing. Sinjin's name has come up in people's posts, or I may have forgotten she was playing too. When Texcat gets back, maybe we'll get more than a few sentences.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 25, 2011 4:08:25 GMT -5
@cias The first part of the paragraph I quoted was "Other thoughts, pedescribe's switch on Day 2 from Cookies to Mahaloth", which I read as pedescribe voting first for Cookies, the switching to Mahaloth. That's what I was pointing out, it seemed like a mistake, unless you were speaking of what could have happened if pedescribe acted differently? But I agree that pedescribe could have voted Cookies instead of Mahaloth, to make it 5-3: This vote is actually the only good thing I found going for pedescribe, but I've chosen to discard it for reasons already explained (in post #52) You're right actually, it is an error in my post. he had not voted Cookies. I was thinking of what the situation was if he had chosen Cookies over Mahaloth.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 25, 2011 4:27:36 GMT -5
Today has been really quiet. We have only had 13 players posting today out of 18.
Hell, Mr. Ed is beating 10 of them just giving vote counts.
|
|