|
Post by guiri on Feb 25, 2011 4:44:53 GMT -5
Wincon: You win the game when you have "marked" all of the remaining living players. Has this ever been done? Tagging all the living players? I was thinking of what the situation was if he had chosen Cookies over Mahaloth. I think he would have stood out even more based on what he'd said earlier about Cookies: I am inclined to put a little trust in CtCwhC, as well, as she is making an unusually good counter-argument. 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. Yeah, I realise I shouldn't have signed up for a second game - it's affecting my participation in both games. What I really want to do is review each player's interactions with Bob and Mahaloth. Renata's already started on Day 1, how about I take over Day 2 and someone else does Day 3? With such a large bandwagon on Bob and the late Day rush on Mahaloth, the vote record itself is not as telling as it usually can be so I think it's best to review each and every vote, the timing and the reasoning given (compared to previous stances or comments on the votees).
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 25, 2011 5:01:40 GMT -5
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. Yes, it was a lot of assumption and speculation, but I'd rather put it down for others to help pick apart than just ignore it. Ok, Texcat's reason for voting for you. No, Mahaloth is the most suspect person I've seen all day, but you're a close second, and it is not that far of a reach. This comment made sense when Mahaloth had claimed and KidV had not yet. Cookies unvoted the person she though most suspect because of a claim and voted KidV who was a close second. But after the KidV claim, does she go back to her most suspect or does she move along to her third suspect? Seems a little too inconsistent for me. Looking at her reasoning, what she does not like is the fact you unvoted Mahaloth following a roleclaim, and did not unvote Kid V following his roleclaim. Also that you found Mahaloth more scummy than KidV, but wound up voting KidV. Why is that not a valid reason to vote for you? Oh, and this "we should evaluate all role claims accordingly". You decided that a claimed investigator should not be lynched, but a claimed protective role should be. I will also point out said claimed investigator role was scum and claimed protective role was town. As for "there were four other people", let's see, 3 of were not around for IRL reasons, leaving you and SubPlank. SubPlank gave a full reason in D1.428 giving good reason as to why his vote was staying where it was. Your reasoning at that time was: This is a wonderful scum hiding tactic. If a town person can do it, so can a scum. It may also explain why SubPlank is dead, because it gives validity to your actions because another town person did it. and you wonder why I think you are scum.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 25, 2011 6:19:10 GMT -5
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. Yes, it was a lot of assumption and speculation, but I'd rather put it down for others to help pick apart than just ignore it. Ok, Texcat's reason for voting for you. This comment made sense when Mahaloth had claimed and KidV had not yet. Cookies unvoted the person she though most suspect because of a claim and voted KidV who was a close second. But after the KidV claim, does she go back to her most suspect or does she move along to her third suspect? Seems a little too inconsistent for me. Looking at her reasoning, what she does not like is the fact you unvoted Mahaloth following a roleclaim, and did not unvote Kid V following his roleclaim. Also that you found Mahaloth more scummy than KidV, but wound up voting KidV. Why is that not a valid reason to vote for you? [/quote] I've gone over this over and over again. Do you or do you not agree that all claims are not the same? Texcat tried this contradiction too. She parroted the wisdom of the view that all role claims should be weighed on their own merits, yet suspected me for not behaving in the same manner when weighing two different role claims. How can you not see the flaw in this logic? As far as my Day 1 switch away from Mahaloth, first of all I do not think it is clear that Texcat is citing that on its own that as a reason to suspect me. She tries to cite it as a precedent with which to prove that I behave inconsistently later. I'd also like to take a look at how votes were already significantly moving off of Mahaloth when mine moved off of him: Just prior to Mahaloth's claim: Player (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] Mahaloth (6)(6) Red Skeezix [153], Renata [ 156 241 256], harmless little bunny [168], KidVermicious [271], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies [281], guiri [282] harmless little bunny (5)(5) Renata [141 156], Romanic [164], Suburban Plankton [186], Sister Coyote [260], peekercpa [263], bobarrgh [286] bobarrgh (3)(4) Natlaw [213], guiri [238 282], Renata [241 256], texcat [247], sinjin [273] sinjin (1)(1) Paranoia [174] Captain Pinkies (1)(1) timmy (2520 CatInASuit (0)(4) Romola [113 283], sinjin [128 273], harmless little bunny [131 168], Mahaloth [139 160]Hockey Monkey (0)(1) Renata [140,141]Not voting (8) Mahaloth, Merestil Haye, CatInASuit, Captain Pinkies, Hockey Monkey, naturallylazy, pedescribe, Romola With these votes, Mahaloth will be lynched KidV unvotes first Skeez unvotes next Guiri unvotes next I unvote next , after resisting and trying to retain vote pressure on Mahaloth with multiple posts between his claim and my unvote, after half of the people voting for him have bailed. Whether or not Texcat found my unvote suspect, you apparently do. Yet there are other people still in this game that moved their vote before mine, with much less resistance that I, and if their votes had stayed, mine would have stayed. Which brings me back to my point that I'm no more single-handedly responsible for Mahaloth escaping the noose on Day 1 as I am single-handedly responsible for KidV getting lynched later instead. Whether or not Texcat found my unvote of Mahaloth suspect, you apparently do. Yet there are other people still in this game that moved their vote before mine, with much less resistance that I, and if their votes had stayed, mine would have stayed. Which brings me back to my point that I'm no more single-handedly responsible for Mahaloth escaping the noose on Day 1 as I am single-handedly responsible for KidV getting lynched later instead. SubPlank gave a full reason in D1.428 giving good reason as to why his vote was staying where it was. Your reasoning at that time was: This is a wonderful scum hiding tactic. If a town person can do it, so can a scum. It may also explain why SubPlank is dead, because it gives validity to your actions because another town person did it. and you wonder why I think you are scum. [/quote] This last bit is all confirmation bias. A townie made the same mistake I did so I must be scum? My reasons for voting KidV were made when I voted for him, and elaborated upon prior to his claim, and after his claim. His claim and his subsequent posts did not convince me to unvote him, nor did they, in my opinion, degrade my already stated case against him. I saw no need to restate my reasons that were only a page or two back when acknowledging that my vote would stay. I find it dubious that you're citing such a statement as if it were the only justification that I provided for my vote.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 25, 2011 6:23:03 GMT -5
Let's try that again... 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. Yes, it was a lot of assumption and speculation, but I'd rather put it down for others to help pick apart than just ignore it. Ok, Texcat's reason for voting for you. This comment made sense when Mahaloth had claimed and KidV had not yet. Cookies unvoted the person she though most suspect because of a claim and voted KidV who was a close second. But after the KidV claim, does she go back to her most suspect or does she move along to her third suspect? Seems a little too inconsistent for me. Looking at her reasoning, what she does not like is the fact you unvoted Mahaloth following a roleclaim, and did not unvote Kid V following his roleclaim. Also that you found Mahaloth more scummy than KidV, but wound up voting KidV. Why is that not a valid reason to vote for you? [/quote] I've gone over this over and over again. Do you or do you not agree that all claims are not the same? Texcat tried this contradiction too. She parroted the wisdom of the view that all role claims should be weighed on their own merits, yet suspected me for not behaving in the same manner when weighing two different role claims. How can you not see the flaw in this logic? As far as my Day 1 switch away from Mahaloth, first of all I do not think it is clear that Texcat is citing that on its own that as a reason to suspect me. She tries to cite it as a precedent with which to prove that I behave inconsistently later. I'd also like to take a look at how votes were already significantly moving off of Mahaloth when mine moved off of him: Just prior to Mahaloth's claim: Player (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] Mahaloth (6)(6) Red Skeezix [153], Renata [ 156 241 256], harmless little bunny [168], KidVermicious [271], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies [281], guiri [282] harmless little bunny (5)(5) Renata [141 156], Romanic [164], Suburban Plankton [186], Sister Coyote [260], peekercpa [263], bobarrgh [286] bobarrgh (3)(4) Natlaw [213], guiri [238 282], Renata [241 256], texcat [247], sinjin [273] sinjin (1)(1) Paranoia [174] Captain Pinkies (1)(1) timmy (2520 CatInASuit (0)(4) Romola [113 283], sinjin [128 273], harmless little bunny [131 168], Mahaloth [139 160]Hockey Monkey (0)(1) Renata [140,141]Not voting (8) Mahaloth, Merestil Haye, CatInASuit, Captain Pinkies, Hockey Monkey, naturallylazy, pedescribe, Romola With these votes, Mahaloth will be lynched KidV unvotes first Skeez unvotes next Guiri unvotes next I unvote next , after resisting and trying to retain vote pressure on Mahaloth with multiple posts between his claim and my unvote, after half of the people voting for him have bailed. Whether or not Texcat found my unvote of Mahaloth suspect, you apparently do. Yet there are other people still in this game that moved their vote before mine, with much less resistance that I, and if their votes had stayed, mine would have stayed. Which brings me back to my point that I'm no more single-handedly responsible for Mahaloth escaping the noose on Day 1 as I am single-handedly responsible for KidV getting lynched later instead. And 4 people who didn't vote at all. 7 people apparently busy doing other things has no bearing whatsoever on somehow making my wrong choice into a malicious choice. This last bit is all confirmation bias. A townie made the same mistake I did so I must be scum? My reasons for voting KidV were made when I voted for him, and elaborated upon prior to his claim, and after his claim. His claim and his subsequent posts did not convince me to unvote him, nor did they, in my opinion, degrade my already stated case against him. I saw no need to restate my reasons that were only a page or two back when acknowledging that my vote would stay. I find it dubious that you're citing such a statement as if it were the only justification that I provided for my vote.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 25, 2011 6:23:40 GMT -5
fucking hell, but at least it is better than the first time
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 25, 2011 6:37:57 GMT -5
Welcome to the joys of quote hell Cookies. Ok, I will be honest, I can see some of your points and can understand the reasoning behind them. You're gonna make me re-read it all again, aren't you. Ah well, it needs doing in light of Mahaloth and Bobarrgh's roles being revealed. I will agree that any role claim should be based off its merits. But I will point out, that you better have a very, very good reason for lynching a claimed protective role, ESPECIALLY ON DAY 1, and back it up with a lot, and I do mean a lot, of explanation. If it had come off, of course we would be lauding you for your intelligence. It didn't, so we get to criticise you for either your scumminess or your stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 25, 2011 6:44:41 GMT -5
Wincon: You win the game when you have "marked" all of the remaining living players. Has this ever been done? Tagging all the living players? Just recently by mlerose on Giraffe. I'd love to see you do that. I'll be finishing Day One later today.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 25, 2011 8:53:36 GMT -5
Before I get into that, though, this other bit of that post by NaturallyLazy reminds me of something:
This is someone who's made a huge deal, over and over again, of being such a good town player that she's constantly meta-gamed early on by being either night killed or recruited. I've seen no sign of anything resembling good townie play from her this game.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 25, 2011 8:54:06 GMT -5
well being one who only infrequently looks a gift horse in the mouth i am going to
[vote pede
but it still makes me nervous as heck. i mean he was building up a head of steam for a lynch but still this game has a long ways to go (i think) and to throw in the towel like this seems odd. i mean claiming third party something other than mad bomber, sure, but this guarantees a stringing. like ren mentions several of us are just coming off a game where such a role denied both scum and town from getting a victory so it really seems odd in that context since i assume he was following along what with having the subsequent game in the queue and all.
and tagging all players is unusual since that is a bitch kitten to achieve. more often it's a majority of the living folks. and ren, was mle all or a majority?
oh, and just to add to catina's list of non existents is our friendly bartender who popped in yesterDay just to say he was sorry but would catch up and be back in a bit. a guess his bit is longer than my bit. but at least i know enough to use mine.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 25, 2011 8:59:05 GMT -5
and just in case the little bracket thingy messes with the mods
unvote all
vote pede
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 25, 2011 9:21:43 GMT -5
MLE was all players, yeah. She won at around four players left. When I played Mad Bomber in the Halloween game that was also an "all players" situation, though in that game I was unknowingly allied with three other PFKs (a win for one would have been a win for all). Games I remember previous to those were less difficult (something like 3/4 usually).
I could maybe see Ped being what he says he is and still throwing in the towel -- he's right that there are no obvious claims he could make that would get him out of the situation he's in.
|
|
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 25, 2011 9:43:56 GMT -5
I'm going away for the weekend and it will be not far from Day end when I get back. I hope Pede's claim isn't a conversation stopper for everyone, but I'm sorry that I won't be able to contribute much toDay, although I will probably get a little time to skim read.
Vote Pedescribe
|
|
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 25, 2011 9:45:37 GMT -5
Vote Pedescribe
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 25, 2011 10:08:37 GMT -5
What conversation?
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 25, 2011 10:43:49 GMT -5
Day 2 interactions with known scum, ignoring dead players and Pedescribe: - Harmless votes Mahaloth early (3), persists with the case (26, 164, 165), expresses his continued suspicions of Bob from Day 1(165) - Peeker finds Mahaloth scummiest, wants to re-read (81), votes (163) - Romola votes Mahaloth, doubts his claim, making vote 5-4, no previous mention of him (182), comments on his interaction with Peeker re: custom PMs (185) - I question Mahaloth about his post to Peeker re: cover roles and his quoting Renata instead of a mod (91), I question TexCat about her suspicions of Bob (139), I question Bob on his suspicions of Harmless (159 and 161), I vote Mahaloth making it 6-4 (184) - Cookies disagrees with part of Sister's case against Bob (99), still suspicious of Mahaloth (145), votes to make it 7-4 (187), would vote Bob too if she had a second vote (195) - CIAS only mentions Mahaloth twice: first when questioning Harmless' early case, and later when building and defending his case against Cookies, no mention of Bob - TexCat is pinged by Mahaloth's early comment about not knowing who's scum but not worth a vote (128), is keeping eye on Bob but finds Cookies scummier (142) - Sinjin does not like votes on Mahaloth, votes Cookies making it 8-4 (194) - MHaye responds to Bob's question about "questioner" role (30), Bob thanks him (34), at 4-3 (to Cookies), MHaye votes Pedescribe with no mention of other candidates (179), doesn't have enough to vote Mahaloth, votes Cookies instead (203) - Romanic is curious about scum's blocking Harmless and not Mahaloth, offers alternative reasons for scum blocking Harmless (to make us think he's scum but doubts they'd risk letting Mahaloth get two results), suggests that Harmless may even be lying about role/being blocked, not ready to "lynch one yet" (22), no mention of Bob or further comment - Sister responds to Mahaloth's question about Night duration (18), is suspicious of Mahaloth but finds Bob scummier and votes (97), defends vote (101), finds Cookies suspicious too but less than Bob (104), says she unvoted Harmless to give him a Day's benefit of the doubt but now finds Mahaloth scummier (113) - Renata understands Harmless' logic on his suspicions of Mahaloth based on paranoia's reveal (6), concludes that Mahaloth was either the scum target which failed or one of the two claimaints is not Town (23), thinks Sister is reading too much into Bob's reluctance to claim (102), would like to leave Mahaloth alive another Night (121), one-off votes Suburban - Natlaw responds to Mahaloth's question about the archangel role - points him to previous Day, comments on Mahaloth's claimed role (24), questions Mahaloth about his investigation targets (44), when vote is tied 3-3, places one-off vote on Pedescribe (169), explains not ready to lynch Mahaloth yet (172) - most likely scum failed in their kill or they let him live to build suspicion (172), doesn't have a real read on Mahaloth, doesn't think Cookies is scum, votes MHaye when vote is 7-4 (188), suggests a possible scum motivation (to Mahaloth) for his Day 1 claim (207) - Red makes no mention of Bob or Mahaloth - Pinkies does not participate, Bob asked him a question about his playstyle (63) - Hockey does not mention Bob or Mahaloth in her one post of the Day: "Well crap" (14) - NatLazy did not particpate but was questioned by Bob on his suspicions of Pinkies (63)
Thoughts: Harmless, Sister and Cookies come off well for expressing continued suspicion of both known scum and voting accordingly. Peeker expressed suspicion of Mahaloth and followed up with a relatively early vote and so looks good too. Texcat expresses suspicions of both but finds Cookies scummier - Based on Day 2 alone, without knowning Cookies' alignment, this is null, adding her Day 1 vote on Bob, leaning Town CIAS only mentions Mahaloth in relation to his case on Cookies, no mention of Bob all Day - not sure Romola's vote, while pushing Mahaloth 5-4 in the lead, comes out of nowhere, no mention of suspicions of either scum earlier - Based on Day 2 alone, possible "me too" vote or bus vote for Town cred Sinjin and Renata want to let Mahaloth live and hope to catch him out later, no mentions of suspicions of Bob - Based on Day 2 alone, null, added Day 1 votes and suspicions, leaning Town Romanic thinks one of Mahaloth and Harmless is scum but pursues case against Sister - not sure but with Day 3 case on Bob, leaning Town MHaye and Natlaw don't have a strong enough read to vote Mahaloth, no mention of Bob - null to scummy Red, Pinkies, Hockey and Natlazy do not mention either - null to scummy for not being involved
I need to follow-up on Romola, MHaye, Natlaw and the 4 low-to-non participants after the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Feb 25, 2011 11:33:21 GMT -5
Ok, picking up Day 3 concentrating on Bob.
#12: Sis C - vote bobarrgh citing Day 2 #14: bobarrgh - Response to SisC's saying case is still weak, wanted to ask SubPlank some questions on Day 3, comment to peeker about roles from Dr Seuss game #15: Sis C - response to bobarrgh about roles in Dr Seuss game #18: Natlaw - Summary of roles and associated votes, thinks he will review bobarrgh, comment on peeker and guiri #27: guiri - questions bobarrgh about Sis C's case, also not answering guiri's question, also what bobarrgh was going to ask SubPlank #28: Cookies - Happy to vote for Bob, but going to look elsewhere for a bit. repeated paraphrasing left bad taste in mouth, if he is town, he is playing carelessly. #30: Romanic - Agrees Bob is a good suspect. Looks through bob's votes and concludes he bussed mahaloth and votes bob. Includes paraphrasing a post of bobarrghs as part of case. #31: renata - agrees with Romanic and votes bobarrgh #37: bobarrgh - response to guiri about Sis C and for missing question. Answers question and gives reasons for actions on Day 1. Found HLB's claim more scummy than Mahaloth. On Day 2, thought Cookies was acting more scummy than HLB. Had 2 questions for SubPlank, 1. a line of questioning on sinjin, 2. question on why SubPlank got away with a typo and bobarrgh didn't #38: Cookies - question to bobarrgh. Typos happen and indication of scum implication. #39: bobarrgh - response to romanic about rewriting what other people post. Didn't think we could do it. Wasn't trying to bus Mahaloth, voted Cookies because of her voting pattern, by end of Day his bad vibes overcame suspicion of Cookies #40: bobarrgh - response to Cookies post of D2.195, quotes Ed's vote count from D2.193 showing votes against and response vote. #41: Cookies - response to bobarrgh about votes for Mahaloth. Says bob doesn't want to share any cred with her for lynching Mahaloth, or mahaloth flipping scum casting a townie light on her. #42: pedescribe - votes romanic citing inaccurate paraphrasing of bobarrgh's statement #43: bobarrgh - retracts accusation of OMGUS voting on Mahaloth #44: Sis C - Response to bobarrgh saying typo had nothing to do with her case. #45: romanic - response to bobarrgh runs through paraphrasing, says it was rephrasing and simplifcation but was still accurate #50: CatInASuit - follows up on Romanic's case against bobarrgh, agrees it is good, cites changing suspicions and votes bobarrgh . #51: guiri - cites suspicions and reasons of bobarrgh on Day 1, cites more examples on Day 2 of non-town behaviour. #52 guiri - votes bobarrgh #55: pedescribe - attacks romanic over his paraphrasing of bobaargh's comment #57: Natlaw - agrees with pedescribe over romanic's paraphrasing of bobarrgh's post. Simplifies it in a different way. Has not re-read on bobarrgh is just commenting on paraphrasing. #59: Cookies - response to bobarrgh, says explanation doesn't fit with previous reasoning, cannot reconcile him ignoring what happened on Day 1 and votes bobarrgh #61: romanic - response to pedescribe over paraphrasing again #62: pedescribe - says romanic's case falls apart because of bad paraphrasing and provides other reasoning for bobarrgh's actions. #63: Cookies - asks pedescribe what side he thinks bobarrgh is on. Or is romanic bussing him with dubious justification. #64: pedescribe response to Cookies. Sees bobarrgh as town, but also scum double-bus play is possible #65: Cookies - question to pedescribe - what does he think of the other cases against bobarrgh? #70: CatInASuit - question to Natlaw about unvoting bobarrgh and telling him he doesn't have to claim #72: pedescribe - tells Cookies, romanic's case is the one about the typo and he is trying to get bobarrgh lynched. #73: bobarrgh - says he is being bussed by either Sis C or guiri. Roleclaims as town eavesdropper, listened to Sinjin Night 1, Captain Pinkies Night 2. #76: peekercpa - comment about bobarrgh implicating two other scum. #77: peekercpa - comment about Bobarrgh getting the terminology right. #78: CatInASuit - points out power claimed makes no sense #80: guiri - Asks bobarrgh if he knows what bussing is #81 peekercpa - metagame observation that there was a similar role in another game #83: pedescribe - Looks at bobarrghs roleclaim, agrees with CIAS about power being unreasonable, unvotes romanic and votes bobarrgh #88: bobarrgh - thought bussnig was starting a wagon train on someone.
Grief this is difficult - got as far as this #89 on Day 3. Will probably not finish it off before Day end - but its a start.
I do have one question for Natlaw from #89 though:
When bobarrgh wrote it and I quoted it, the sentence read:
I don't have anyone I can ask about what my next step should be. I've know there's a lot of discussion about whether or not a person should claim on Day 1, etc., etc. I feel that no matter what I do, it will be seen as a null-tell.
In #89, it has become
I don't have anyone I can ask about what my next step should be. I've know there's a lot of discussion about whether or not a person should claim on Day 1, etc., etc. I feel that no matter what I do, it will be seen as a scull-tell.
Please explain.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 25, 2011 13:18:57 GMT -5
Looks like he was "fixed it for you"-editing the quote to "scum tell" and forgot or lost track halfway through. What's the rest of the post?
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 25, 2011 13:19:43 GMT -5
NETA: Said the same thing twice. That was supposed to be "forgot (lost track) or thought better of it halfway through".
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 25, 2011 13:33:15 GMT -5
NETA: Said the same thing twice. That was supposed to be "forgot (lost track) or thought better of it halfway through". do people actually do this? i mean i'll try to take folks' posts out of context and or twist them but i have never edited someone's post unless it was by <snipping> or <bleaching> but even then i try to make sure that everyone knows that.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 25, 2011 14:03:50 GMT -5
I wouldn't do it either, but isn't that what it looks like?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 25, 2011 15:03:52 GMT -5
I wouldn't do it either, but isn't that what it looks like? i'll wait and see what nat has to say. and i forgot to add that on top of snipping and bleaching i will bold and change font sizes but even then i try to make sure that it is disclosed. and guiri must be a hell of a lot more precise than me because i would have never in my wildest have picked up on it or the maha quote either. the only time i actually saw it done was on giraffe (ragnorak?) where someone attributed a quote to me that wasn't mine. and the only reason i caught it was because i knew i hadn't said it. otherwise it would have gone right over my noggin.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 25, 2011 15:20:02 GMT -5
Continuing on:
191 – crazybunny explains her vote switch to Mahaloth (vote on Bill was early-game weak, Mahaloth is a better case)
196 – I challenge SP on referring to Mahaloth’s vote on Bill as a non-scummy “statement vote”
212 – Peeker challenges crazybunny for all the right reason, but only says this about Mahaloth: “this is where he unvotes bill and votes for maha.
now he rightly chastises maha for voting for someone for reasons that have nothing to do with them being scum.”
In other words he essentially says nothing about Mahaloth, nor does he actually place a vote on Crazybunny. (No mention of Bob either.) I’d rate this as at least moderately suspicious given the situation and the timing.
214-215 -- I follow up questioning of SP and Mahaloth.
217 – more suspicion from me directed at SP, but not convinced enough o move my vote off Mahaloth
222 – Romanic counters Mahaloth’s rationale for voting Bill (Bill not being scum because leaving would be too manipulative) and thinks his backing down could have been because he was afraid, too.
225 – Mahaloth defends himself to Romanic saying they agree now and didn’t before, ho-humm.
226 – peeker responds to a pointed comment of Romanic’s that was aimed at SisC just a couple of posts back, but still nothing to say about Mahaloth
Note: MHaye is posting several times through here, too, ostensibly catching up, but taking time to comment on some current happenings that aren’t related to anything important.
231 – Natlaw votes BobArggh. I had completely forgotten about this vote. It’s for the same issues and Guiri and Sinjin raised; Natlaw is looking for a straight answer since Bob hasn’t provided one. At first glance this looks really good for Natlaw – losing a tough guy on day one is not a huge improvement over losing your redirector; crazybunny was an alternative easy “good vote”, and the whole thing on Bob might well have died a slow death at the rate things were going …); let’s see what happens next. (Natlaw doesn’t want to vote for Mahaloth because the vote on Bill looks too conspicuous for scum.) Vote count now Mahaloth 3, Bill 2, crazybunny 2, Bob 1.
(232 Natlazy posts again, in response to Pinkies and about participation; says her posts have been substantive, but have they? Nothing on any of the current suspects.)
234 – Bob explains himself to Natlaw and still gets it wrong. Okay, this post alleviates most of my suspicions that this could be a bussing. Bob figured out (or “figured out” ) his error not too long after this and I thought maybe they’d worked out the explanation on the scum board or something, but this doesn’t look like that. Good town points for Natlaw.
235 – Natlaw aside to Paranoia that Bob’s early comment was in fact a smudge
237 – at this post Romola hasn’t changed her vote from Bill b/c she has no other candidate
238 – Guiri votes Bob, suspecting snuggling of Sinjin and commenting that Bob still hasn’t reconciled his two comments. Maha 3, Bill 2, bunny 2, Bob 2
239 – More pursuit from Natlaw
241 – I switch from Maha to Bob on the same grounds, saying I like the case more than my own (on Maha and SP).
243 – more from natlaw
245 – Bob finally realizes or “realizes” the source of his error, and produces his explanation.
247 – texcat places a vote on bob: “And now we are to believe that should read "I don't like your.."? Hmmm..not sure I buy that. Seems a very strange thing to say: I don't like your comment. Period. No explanation of why I disagree with it or what I don't like about it. On the other hand, a statement of I like your comment does not really require an explanation.
vote: bobarrgh” Maha 3, Bill 2, bunny 2, Bob 4
Much as her lack of participation is irking me, I will give her not-scum points for this. She didn’t have to make this vote (bunny was still a very viable option), and it came right after Bob’s proferred explanation, not before where she might have been able to back out again by saying she accepted his explanation.
And MHaye is STILL all over the place through here, commenting on everything BUT the current goings-on.
253 – Hockey Monkey chimes in, to comment on Bill only. Suspicious.
255 – Cookies does the same.
255 – I waffle on Bob’s explanation and wind up switching back to Mahaloth. Maha 4, Bill 2, bunny 2, Bob 3
257 – Guiri doesn’t buy it
258 – more from me
260 – SisC is not thrilled or sold with the cases on Bill, Bob or Mahaloth (no reasoning given as to why), but does like the one on Bunny (due to her voting for a null tell, essentially (the Bill vote)). Maha 4, Bill 2, bunny 3, Bob 3.
This vote has to be considered highly suspect under the circumstances, especially because of the relative lack of explanation; and getting wrong what is IMO at this point a 2/3 chance of hitting scum.
Unfortunately I have to stop here and probably won’t have time to chime in again with any very much prior to the deadline. I’d greatly appreciate it if someone could finish off the day one review for me and post it with their thoughts.
Summary in my next post.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 25, 2011 15:22:51 GMT -5
Can't have peeker waiting. When bobarrgh wrote it and I quoted it, the sentence read: I don't have anyone I can ask about what my next step should be. I've know there's a lot of discussion about whether or not a person should claim on Day 1, etc., etc. I feel that no matter what I do, it will be seen as a null-tell. In #89, it has become I don't have anyone I can ask about what my next step should be. I've know there's a lot of discussion about whether or not a person should claim on Day 1, etc., etc. I feel that no matter what I do, it will be seen as a num-tell.Please explain. You ( CIAS) originally removed that quote with bob's question from my post, so I edited it back in to show I was respongin to his question. Since bob made a correction post right after for (null tell -> scum-tell) I also edited that in and obviously botched it.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 25, 2011 15:43:13 GMT -5
Here are my impressions from the first part of day one, for reference.
And here's how they've changed:
Sinjin - same Guiri -- same
Romola -- same impression in terms of scum/not-scum on the strength of that big old smudge, but her continued leaving of her vote on Bill and repeated assertions that there is no one else she wishes to vote for doesn't leave me with a very good impression. If we ever get to the point of looking for (more?) third parties, or we're running low on scum suspects, then Romola comes back into play for me.
Skeezix -- lack of participation through here has him sliding back toward neutral, though nothing's really changed. His vote is still on Mahaloth.
Romanic -- same NatLazy -- even worse than before -- another big post lauding her own posting as substantive but addressing none of the suspects. Natlaw -- MUCH better, up to the not-scum side of the ledger. His pursuit of Bob looks specifically like lack of coordination as opposed to the opposite, and the reasoning is fine. Texcat -- a bit better. The vote on Bob is her only participation, which doesn't fill me with confidence, but it's the right vote and comes at a time when it will be hard to back out of. Up to neutral, maybe even higher.
And others: SisC's vote in 260 looks quite bad in almost every way: substance, target, and timing. Leaning scummy based on this part of the game. MHaye stands out by having a large number of posts through this part of the game, zero of which address any of the issues at hand, much less the two scum on the block or the one probable not-scum who's wedged between them. He says he's reviewing as he catches up, but there's no sign of it, just avoidant post after avoidant post. Strong scum read here. Peeker: fewer posts, but addresses crazybunny once without a vote, and the two scum not at all. Not looking good. Hockeymonkey: single post during this period, addessing only Bill. Not looking good. Pinkies, of course, is saying nothing at all and is impossible to read. The only thing of note is that Lazy gives him a hard time once; if she turns up scum, he may not be. Cookies is mostly absent through here, too; I'm sort of relying on the day two situation for town cred for her, but it may not be deserved; I'll settle on neutral for this bit as a result.
I'm not sure if I missed anyone else who's still alive.
So here's my short list for activity through post 260 of day one ONLY:
NatLazy MHaye peeker HockeyMonkey (Pinkies)
And Romola as a dark horse.
Everyone else looks pretty townie to neutral at worst.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 25, 2011 15:52:18 GMT -5
Whoops, I left off SisC. It should be:
NatLazy MHaye peeker HockeyMonkey SisC (Pinkies)
It obviously needs to be synched up with the rest of the Day and the rest of the game to be of full use, but it's here.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 25, 2011 16:18:31 GMT -5
D1 scum interactions continued: 261: peeker has looked at crazybunny, "seem discongruent" and votes him. Maha 4, Bill 2, bunny 4, Bob 3 265: romanic pokes peeker for better explanation 266/267: peeker rereading bob, refers to 214 for bunny (I guess he meant 212) 272: MHaye is almost up to date with re-read: BillMc left out of frustration, won't lynch non-participants (which Bill isn't so he won't get a final vote which MHaye doesn't like). No comment on Bob/Mahaloth. 273: sinjin switches from Bill to bob which she wanted to do earlier. Maha 4, Bill 1, bunny 4, Bob 4. Invite to town credibility party for sinjin. 275: Cookies on Mahaloth: could comfortably vote (town could join Bill wagon with novel reason, but the votes for Mahaloth are definitely not lynching the loud as he complains). Doesn't actually vote. 279: guiri rereading bob he gets confused. It's "a load of confusion, misunderstandings and backtracks. All on Day 1." 281: Cookies: bill and bob null tell which leaves Mahaloth. Maha 5, bunny 4, Bob 4. So Cookies is right about her suspicion for Mahaloth Day One and she voted for it. 282: guiri suspects a OMGUS vote of bunny for Mahaloth and switches from bob (confused townie) to Mahaloth (vote was weak and hiding from the heat he got from it). Maha 6, bunny 4, Bob 3. 283: Romola unvotes Bill, no point in persuing it now 286: bob votes bunny for a gut reaction to Mahaloth gut vote for bill 288: bunny responds to bob and guiri re: Mahaloth. Similar scum behaviour in past games. Does not think his vote OMGUS or how if makes him more scummy than bob in guiri's eyes. 289: guiri maybe more meta game than OMGUS since you brought up the past game 290: Mahaloth claims investigator, votes guiri because wasn't hiding as scum but as power role. This is seven hours after guiri voted him and 7.5 when Cookies did. I mention this because while it's longer that the amount of post in between suggest and when I looked at vote record those last votes for Mahaloth could just as easily be from scum who knew a claim was coming. Cookies pushed Mahaloth earlier though while guiri didn't. Both ended up on KidV at the end of the Day. guiri voted bob earlier but could be that scum decided that one of them had to claim and they went with Mahaloth and guiri vote move was to make sure the wagon wouldn't switch to Bob. I remember being surprised when guiri showed up with a laundry list of reasons to place the fifth vote on bob Day 3 while he had unvoted Day One. 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 His list Day One just before the unvote: So, in summary we have: - He seems to have missed all Romola's posts building up to her voting Bill, saw Sister Coyote's inaccurate comment and added that Romola's vote looked strange without saying why - a smudge - Later he gave an explanation for the smudge and then, even later, gave a completely different explanation - He misrepresented the timing of events surrounding his smudge - He liked two contrasting opinions on the same subject without giving any reasons for liking the second comment. When questioned, he explained that he didn't understand part of the comment, then he claimed to have said "I don't understand" and not "I do like", then he claimed to have made a typo and intended to say "I don't like" (see his use of "do" for emphasis in previous posts). The Day One list reasons although not a word for word copy match but the Day 3 ones have a more accustory tone to them. Of course those were given as reasons to vote for and the D1 ones as reasons to unvote. Overal it's definitely not enough to convince me that guiri is scum but it does leave me wary of him, mainly due the timing of his votes for scum seems convenient enough for scum making the best of a situation. Still they are votes for scum but for me they don't make me invite guiri to the town credibility party just yet. I didn't take a close look yet at his KidV/Mahaloth vote yet.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 25, 2011 16:20:34 GMT -5
SisC's vote in 260 looks quite bad in almost every way: substance, target, and timing. Leaning scummy based on this part of the game. Except, of course, for the fact that I was racing through to get a vote down before the EoD when my meatspace world was going to hell in a handbasket. Yes. It lacked substance. Yes, my target was bad only I didn't have any way of knowing that at the time. Yes, my timing sucked. Shit happens. Look elsewhere for Scum.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 25, 2011 16:24:42 GMT -5
I don't have anyone I can ask about what my next step should be. I've know there's a lot of discussion about whether or not a person should claim on Day 1, etc., etc. I feel that no matter what I do, it will be seen as a null-tell.
In #89, it has become I don't have anyone I can ask about what my next step should be. I've know there's a lot of discussion about whether or not a person should claim on Day 1, etc., etc. I feel that no matter what I do, it will be seen as a scull-tell.Please explain. I'm doing my second read. I stopped to check this because if Natlaw actually changed what Bob said, it's worth a vote. Fortunately, he didn't.Bob's initial post was D01.384. He did indeed say this. Anyway, if I'm going to be lynched, then so be it. I've always felt that "... a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Thus, since several of you have made up your mind about me, there's not much I am going to be able to say to make you change your minds. I don't have anyone I can ask about what my next step should be. I've know there's a lot of discussion about whether or not a person should claim on Day 1, etc., etc. I feel that no matter what I do, it will be seen as a null-tell. However, less than five minutes later, Bob followed that post up with D01.385. In it Bob said: - I feel that no matter what I do, it will be seen as a null-tell. The underlined part should have been "scum-tell". Thus Bob amended "null tell" to "scum tell." It looks like Natlaw tried to take Bob's correction up and didn't complete the job.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 25, 2011 16:53:00 GMT -5
bugger* happens. Look elsewhere for Scum. That's what I've been doing, if you missed it. Or do you mean, look everywhere but at you?
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 25, 2011 17:03:41 GMT -5
D1 scum interactions post Mahaloth claim.
291: HockeyMonkeys most suspicious of Mahaloth and bunny. Want to vote timmy if it wasn't one-off 292: reads claim and redacts comment (so the claim canceled the scummy behavior?)
293/297: Romola wants to know how to role works 294: Renata finds the role extremely powerful. Back to Mahaloth and unbelievable claims like in previous game.
295: Romola: bob case make no sense at all in context. Mahaloth somewhat suspicious but with claim no vote. Votes sinjin for 2nd vote on bill without refering to the first
296: Romanic finds HM "I would like to talk about a vote for timmy but not voting" scummy. I agree with him. Then responds to timmy about lurker voting Pinkies:does not support it now with active case and based on SDMB games scum doesn't lurk here as much. 298: Romanic believes we need to take claim serious and let Mahaloth live at least a Day.
299/300: Pinkies pops in, no comments on Mahaloth/bob
309: Red Skeezix: intriguing claim, rather no lynch and unvotes. Votes timmy for voting LTL Pinkies. Maha 4, bunny 5, Bob 3, timmy 2
311: Natlaw: claim not that extremely powerful, rather let mahaloth live. Ask bunny to clarify Mahaloth scum behavior compared to previous game. Mahaloth behavior similar to when he was claimed town investigator.
314: Cookies unwilling to unvote. Scum could easily fake results.
318: Romola to Cookies: risky claim but let's let it run for a bit
319: Natlaw suggests to Mahaloth to try to get results on two living players instead of someone who voted for the lynched player.
322: guiri: Mahaloth was hiding not playing is safe but claimed a powerful investigate role so unvotes. Maha 3, bunny 5, Bob 3, timmy 2
324/328: Romola admires Mahaloths claim timing. Interested in the eventual results.
325: Cookies unvotes with resevations. Maha 2, bunny 5, Bob 3, timmy 2
330: bunny "might as well claim too", switch from Mahaloth to bob in self defense. Maha 1, bunny 5, Bob 4, timmy 2
332: Pinkies hasn't seem a claim like Mahaloth which makes him a bit suspicious, pokes bunny about vote, votes timmy for being a pot calling the kettle black.
336: "Oh dear god, claiming shenanigans. -_____- " and a poke to Pinkies about OMGUS vote.
340: Recalls Halloween, unvotes since he might produce result. There cannot be a scum redirector and a town Mahaloth. Technically I don't see why not IIRC Mahaloth targeted a single player so could have been redirected. Still has difficult time with the power of the claim. Maha 0, bunny 5, Bob 4, timmy 2
344: guiri points out "You will then before next Day begins be informed by the Moderators if the target-player and the player voted for have the same alignment or not." and finds it unusual that a town investigator would get results before Night over.
348: Renata: no problem with bunny self defense vote since he claimed watcher but would still like to know who he finds scummy. Guiri's question not fruitful. Votes KidV for unvoting one claimed player but then voting for another. Maha 2, bunny 5, Bob 4, timmy 2, KidV.
And since the KidV case starts there I stop here for now.
|
|