Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Mar 1, 2011 6:12:43 GMT -5
Voice over: Number ninety-seven: a radio. Radio Announcer: And now the BBC is proud to present a brand new radio drama series, "The Play of The Hiccoughing Guard" Part One: The Bartender. (music) Peeker's voice: Where is the Bartender? Captain Pinkies's voice: [Hiccup] (Silence for a long time) (music fades up and out) Announcer: Stay tuned for part two of the Radio Four Production of "The Play of The Hiccoughing Guard", coming up...almost immediately. (music fades up Then it fades out. Suddenly it is silent.) Cookie's voice: I think he's dead. Captain Pinkies's voice: No I'm not! (silence for a very long time. Then music fades up and out) Announcer: that was episode two of "The Play of The Hiccoughing Guard", specially adapted for radio by Total Stilhed and Masser af Opskrifter. And now, Radio Four and The Hiccoughing Guard will explode. (music and then the radio explodes.) Two Moderators are sitting on the couch listening to the radio when it explodes. One looks at the other Ulla: We'll have to watch the Telly-vision! Ed: (sound of agreement) Aaaaw (they turn the couch so it's facing the television. Ulla turns the television on, and they sit down. There is a small harmless bunny sitting on top of the television set.) Moderators: (singing, mumbled) hhmhmhmhmh... mhmmhmh mhmhm hhmhmmhm mhmhmmhmhmh Ulla: What's that on top of the telly-vision set? (pause) Ed: Looks like a harmless bunny. (pause) Ulla: It's been a long time there, now, has it? Ed: What's it doin' there? Ulla: Standin'! Ed: I can see that! (pause) Ulla: If it laid an egg, it would roll down the back of the telly-vision set. Ed: Ummmm. I hadn't thought of that. Ulla: Unless it's a male. Ed: Yes. It looks fairly butch. (pause) Ulla: Per'aps it's from the last game? Ed: LAST GAME?!? Harmless little bunnies don't come from ANY GAMES! They come from the country side! Ulla: BURMA!!! (they both stop short, looking around) Ed: Why'd'j say that? Ulla: I panicked. Ed: Oh. Ulla: Per'aps it's from the zoo Ed: Which zoo? Ulla: (angrily) 'ow should I know which zoo it's from?!? I'm not NAF1138!! Ed: NAF? Ulla: He knows everything. Ed: Oooh, I wouldn't like that, that'd take all the mystery out of life and mafia (pause) Ed: Besides, if it were from the zoo, it'd have "property of the zoo" stamped on it. Ulla: They don't stamp animals "property of the zoo"!! You can't stamp a huge lion "property of the zoo"!! Ed: (confidently) They stamp them when they're small. Ulla: (snapping back) What happens when they moult? Ed: Lions don't moult. Ulla: No, but harmless little bunnies do. THERE! I've run rings around you logically. Ed: (looks at the TV) OOOOH! THE GOAT AND THE BUNNY!!! (The television warms up: Høøpy Frøød is sitting behind a news desk) Høøpy Frøød: Hello! Well, it's just after eight o'clock, and time for the harmless little bunny on top of your television set to explode. (the bunny explodes) Ulla: 'Ow did 'e know that was going to happen?! Høøpy Frøød: It was an inspired guess. And now... harmless little bunny/crazypunker, Sir Bedevere, Town, Watcher has been killed
also dead is
Captain Pinkies, Hiccoughing Guard, Town, Vanilla
Scene 5 has started and will last until Sunday, 6 March 2011, 12:00:00 (Esbjerg time)
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 1, 2011 7:20:46 GMT -5
well fuck a duck.
and not that this helps one way or the other but it sure seals the deal for me about a mass block on Night 4. i guess the only question would be why? plus it really begs the question about maha and bob and their claims and what the crap scum were thinking.
gonna drink coffee, take advil and posit for a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 1, 2011 8:30:37 GMT -5
Once you've done that, a translation would be welcome. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Do you think there was, or was not, a mass block on Night Three (which I'm guessing you did mean as opposed to Night Four).
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 1, 2011 8:31:16 GMT -5
Also, could you please say now what you were after in questioning me about Pedescribe?
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 1, 2011 8:31:49 GMT -5
vote: NatLazy[/color]
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 1, 2011 9:19:42 GMT -5
fark a doughnut. you are right it was Night 3 revealed on Day 4.
the only thing i was getting at ren was why the unvote on ped right after his "boned" comment and semi half assed claim. you move to lazy for a "may as well" reason. now i can see a lurker vote on lazy but to be honest i don't think she has been particpatory enough for, at least me, to get any kind of read on her.
and i was just positing that it sure seems like a mass block on N3 rather than some convoluted series of blocks and missed deadlines and such. but like i said i don't see how that helps us much. i mean i guess one, or at least me, could infer that it is a town possessed power so that anyone claiming to have done so would be more likely town in my book. but even that really doesn't help us much at this point. or at least that i can see.
and maybe i am just picking on you since you seem at least willing to engage in banter. and i don't want to offend anyone but seriously it feels like there are about five folks playing.
and sure 3 of 4 lynches have been good. but cripes two were on some wildly over powered scum claims (what with a dead investigator and claimed watcher) and the third was on a self confessed mad bomber. now certainly there was some traction on pede before he melted but nonetheless that's how i read it overall.
so yeh, maybe i am picking on you but fuck at this point who the hell else is there to pick on?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 1, 2011 9:20:53 GMT -5
neta: and feel free to pick back.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 1, 2011 9:34:31 GMT -5
fark a doughnut. you are right it was Night 3 revealed on Day 4. the only thing i was getting at ren was why the unvote on ped right after his "boned" comment and semi half assed claim. you move to lazy for a "may as well" reason. now i can see a lurker vote on lazy but to be honest i don't think she has been particpatory enough for, at least me, to get any kind of read on her. And what I'm concerned with is why that seemed worth mentioning. As I've said over and over again, odd/nonstandard/unexpected play is not scummy play. What specifically was in your head, to question me on that? I want to know your thought process. As for Lazy I'm going to dig up those quotes in full so people can see more easily what I'm getting at. What from this night's events leads you to that conclusion any more than yesterday? Bunny got blocked; that's a given due to her town flip. But I would have put money on that yesterday, too. Other than that the only (known) anomaly is the lack of a scum kill that night. Which is exactly the same information as yesterday. Tell me about it. Well, I (and Guiri, and CIAS) have gone to considerable effort dredging up the residue of the first three days of the game; maybe you can find something in there to talk about? Come on, peeks, I have confidence in you.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 1, 2011 9:45:42 GMT -5
Day 1 Voting.
KidVermicious (5)(5 405) Renata [350], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies [360], Sister Coyote [361], guiri [389], Suburban Plankton [405]
timmy (5)(5 436) Red Skeezix [310], Captain Pinkies [335], Hockey Monkey [380], Natlaw [408], CatInASuit [436]
bobarrgh (3)(4 247) Natlaw [213 397], guiri [238 282], Renata [241 256], texcat [247], sinjin [273], harmless little bunny [330]
harmless little bunny (2)(6 346) Renata [141 156], Romanic [164 366], Suburban Plankton [186 358], Sister Coyote [260 359], peekercpa [263], bobarrgh [286], KidVermicious [346 382] sinjin (2)(2 295) Paranoia [174], romola [295]
Captain Pinkies (1)(1 252) timmy[252] guiri (1)(1 290) Mahaloth [290] Sister Coyote (1)(1 366) Romanic [366]
Mahaloth (0)(6 282) Red Skeezix [153 309], Renata [156 241 256 341], harmless little bunny [168 330], KidVermicious [271 303], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies [281 325], guiri [282 322] CatInASuit (0)(4 139) Romola [113 283], sinjin [128 273], harmless little bunny [131 168], Mahaloth [139 160] Hockey Monkey (0)(1 140) Renata [140,141]
Not voting (4) Merestil Haye, naturallylazy, pedescribe, KidVermicious
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Day 2 Voting.
Mahaloth (8) (8 192) harmless little bunny [3], peeker [163], Suburban Plankton [167], pedescribe [180], romola [182], guiri [184], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [187], bobarrgh [192]
ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts (5)(5 203) CatInASuit [41], texcat [128], bobargh [151 192], Mahaloth [178], sinjin [194], Merestil Haye [203]
Sister Coyote (1)(1 20) romanic [20] Bobarrgh (1)(1 97) Sister Coyote [97] Suburban Plankton (1)(1 121) Renata [121] Merestil Haye (1) (1 188) Natlaw [188] naturallylazy (1) (1 201) Red Skeezix [201]
pedescribe (0)(2 179) Natlaw [169 188], Merestil Haye [179,203] sinjin (0)(1 36) romola [36 111] Romanic (0)(1 47) Renata [47 72] texcat (0)(1 131) ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [131 187]
Not Voting (3) Captain Pinkies, Hockey Monkey, naturallylazy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Day 3 Voting.
Bobarrgh (15) (15 146) Sister Coyote [12], Romanic [30], Renata [31], CatInASuit [50], guiri [52], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [59], pedescribe [83], Red Skeezix [101], Hockey Monkey [102], peekercpa [104], Merestil Haye [113], harmless little bunny [127], Romola [132], sinjin [140], natlaw [146]
Captain Pinkies (1) (1 0)
Romanic (0) (1 42) pedescribe [42 83]
Not Voting (4) Captain Pinkies, bobarrgh, texcat, naturallylazy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Day 4 Voting.
pedescribe (13) (13 138) Renata [22 78], Sister Coyote [41], Romanic [52], CatInASuit [59], guiri [64], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [82], Red Skeezix [84], peekercpa [99], romola [102], Merestil Haye [120], Natlaw [122], sinjin [123], texcat [128], Idle Thoughts [138]
Captain Pinkies (1) (1 0) Romanic (1) (1 17) pedescribe [17] naturallylazy (1) (1 78) Renata [78]
Natlaw (0) (1 80) Red Skeezix [80 84]
Not Voting (3) Captain Pinkies, harmless little bunny, naturallylazy
|
|
|
Post by harmless little bunny on Mar 1, 2011 10:21:02 GMT -5
Good Luck town!
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 1, 2011 10:41:58 GMT -5
well ren i'll take the lollipops first.
first, when i read your unvote and then vote i really did parse it as crazy and not lazy. which seemed odd to me since you had voted pede early with a fairly well reasoned case. subsequent to your analysis and vote their were some additional cases and votes against pede. so it just seemed odd that you were voting for a claimed town power for a "may as well" reason as opposed to voting for someone against you had made a case against and determined that they were scum. and to some extent, while not quite as egregious, it still seems odd to move to lazy because shoot she hadn't even been around or posted squat. so in either case it just seemed discongruent to me.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Mar 1, 2011 10:57:37 GMT -5
Based on the Pinkies death, I'm starting to wonder if Town has a Vig. If so, though I'm usually opposed to making such statements, it might be a good idea to let them handle lazy.
Things are a little nuts in my office this morning, which means I probably won't be back until tomorrow -- Romanic, please note the word probably in that statement -- I want to go back and re-read because unlike the last couple of days with bob and pede I don't have a good candidate in my head just at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 1, 2011 11:01:30 GMT -5
now the mass block it makes sense. bunny said she was blocked and based on her flip i can't imagine she lied. now i can't see a townie blocker targeting her. and i don't see scum blocking her and not doing a kill especially since she is dead toDay. so it just smells like a mass block since typically those are one timers. but like i said i am not really sure what in the world that gives us other than the fact that it is typically a town power. but even that is not a 100 percent given. and i'll take your suggestion and go back over the last couple of Days and see what i sniff out. but i can tell you now that i will most likely end up determining that maha and bob are scum.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 1, 2011 11:50:14 GMT -5
well ren i'll take the lollipops first. first, when i read your unvote and then vote i really did parse it as crazy and not lazy. which seemed odd to me since you had voted pede early with a fairly well reasoned case. subsequent to your analysis and vote their were some additional cases and votes against pede. so it just seemed odd that you were voting for a claimed town power for a "may as well" reason as opposed to voting for someone against you had made a case against and determined that they were scum. and to some extent, while not quite as egregious, it still seems odd to move to lazy because shoot she hadn't even been around or posted squat. so in either case it just seemed discongruent to me. I actually think that the Maha/bob debacles of day one (from scum perspective) would have been pretty rough on morale. So her disappearance after day one actually feeds into my suspicion somewhat. It's mostly the sheer scumminess of what posts she does have, though -- they ooze scum-paralysis. I'm almost through her day one posts, so I'll have them up soon.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 1, 2011 11:52:06 GMT -5
Based on the Pinkies death, I'm starting to wonder if Town has a Vig. If so, though I'm usually opposed to making such statements, it might be a good idea to let them handle lazy. I'd rather get some comments in on her first, whether or not she is ultimately left to see if she turns up dead tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Mar 1, 2011 12:37:25 GMT -5
now the mass block it makes sense. bunny said she was blocked and based on her flip i can't imagine she lied. now i can't see a townie blocker targeting her. and i don't see scum blocking her and not doing a kill especially since she is dead toDay. so it just smells like a mass block since typically those are one timers. but like i said i am not really sure what in the world that gives us other than the fact that it is typically a town power. but even that is not a 100 percent given. and i'll take your suggestion and go back over the last couple of Days and see what i sniff out. but i can tell you now that i will most likely end up determining that maha and bob are scum. Maybe I'm not understanding you here peeks. Bunny was blocked every night not just on the night when nothing happened. That's a pretty clear indication to me that she was blocked by scum or perhaps a PFK. Oh and I loved the color, but not the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 1, 2011 14:08:21 GMT -5
NaturallyLazy summary, more detailed/different comments below.
It's mostly day one post 187 that is prompting my strong suspicion of her as scum, but the whole pattern fits as well. She is someone who said over and over again (mostly pre-game) that she's such a good town player on her other site that she rarely survives long, and there hasn't been a sign of such play here. She posts a fair amount on day one while the proverbial shit is hitting the proverbial fan for the scum, but the closest she comes to commenting on any of it is to say that she *can't* really comment on the Mahaloth case, because there's too much metagaming and she can't check up on it. This is just false. Only one of Mahaloth's detractors (crazybunny) referenced anything that couldn't be checked up on within the confines of the day one thread itself.
On top of that blatant bit of avoiding-the-issue, there is also that she never comments on Bob, comments on Bill only to say she doesn't like the case on him (but never approaches a criticism of anyone who does), and makes a statement to Pinkies that she's been posting substantively when her contribution really consists almost exclusively of fluff, game theory, and failure to commit. The whole thing fits the pattern of a scum player in over her head too quickly.
She never votes, despite promising to vote/participate more/whatever repeatedly and apologizing for it each time it doesn' t happen. Broken promises and apologies on that scale are much more of a scum thing than a town one.
Paranoia is killed night one, and she has more reason to kill him than anyone else in the game does, because he's the one who knows how she plays and was poking her to share her thoughts.
On day two and three she posts only a single time, saying nothing of substance, but avoiding the final vote for nonparticipation. Again, much more a trait of an overwhelmed scum than an uninterested townie. (She does fail to participate entirely on day four.)
Her apology on day two for not saving KidV is detached from her claimed day one thought process, in that she would have had to vote Timmy to do so, and Timmy was the vote target of the only person she'd expressed any suspicion of at all (Captain Pinkies).
But really, post 187 of day one. Keep the circumstances in mind and read it. Here are all her posts, below.
-------------------------------------------------------
Post 20 – confirm receipt, ready and eager to go
63 – role PMs
95 -- fluff
187 – after a poke by Paranoia posts this long comment. By this point Mahaloth has a stack of votes, as do Bill and bunny. I’ve lost track of the timing of the votes on Bob, but he’s at least been questioned by sinjin and Guiri by now.
“Naturally, you would [like my thoughts]. I'm a little shy about posting them, for which I apologize. I really shouldn't be.
Vanilla claims on day one: arbitrary. I've observed people who play with them, and others who don't. I've nearly been lynched because I revealed I had a Role PM in a round where supposedly Vanilla town players did not have role PMs. What's great is ALL Vanilla Town players actually had role PMs, and the mafia tried to claim otherwise. I do not see this vanilla claiming business as a reason to vote Bill anymore than a reason not to vote him. If anything, I think it's stupidly scummy to vote for him BECAUSE he claimed alone. I realize most of the cases on Bill have more than that to their cases, but the fact that it's being used as supporting evidence is WRONG on so many different levels. “
Long paragraph on vanilla claims (a side issue), defends Bill (very likely townie IMO) and doesn’t like the cases against him (but doesn’t comment on any specifics).
“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.”
Votes on Mahaloth are somewhat meta-based? This is just plain not true. Only a single vote on Maha (the one from crazybunny) references anything remotely meta-related. The others are based on his vote on Bill being poor and/or opportunistic, and things related to that. There’s nothing preventing Lazy from commenting on my vote or Red Skeezix’, based on information in the game thread itself. So Lazy deflects having to comment on the whole issue with a brazen falsehood.
“Personally, I'd like to hear from Captain Pinkie. That is where my attention has been drawn. I feel that your posts have been very... strange. I can't explain it properly. Perhaps there is somebody else who knows more about it than I do, but you're definitely a player that has been pegged for watching. I have yet to decide if a vote is warranted. If you do happen to show up on the thread, I know that I would greatly appreciate a thought-out post. I cannot get a decent read on you, and from past experience, it's not a good position to be in. For either of us.”
A now-known-to-be townie is “strange”. Add “odd”, “interesting”, and the like; I swear those words are half-decent scum tells in themselves. Because “strange” and “scummy” are not synonyms, but scum often try to pass them off as decent approximations of one another.
“Let's see... I am getting headaches every time Role theory pops up. "Oh, if we have role X, then Role Y should do this and Role Z should do this. But then Role P could do this and Role V could do that. So, everybody target W, and we'll be a-okay~!" Uh, No. That's not how this works. If that's how it works, then I should just say right now - There had better be a doc AND a shrink on me here, because I haven't made it as town through three phases in such a long time that I'm likely to be either hit or converted before the dawn of Day Two. I don't remember who was sitting down and WIFOM-ing a town watcher and a mafia watcher (isn't that more like a stalker?) going around, but that is almost the most ridiculous thing I've seen on a thread in the absolute LONGEST time.”
More meta-game near-fluff.
“Oh, yeah. It was Bill. Go figure. That said, Bill, please don't quit. If I may, it never looks good to quit. If anything, it reflects poorly on yourself, and shows a low tolerance for crazy stuff that always happens. Which is generally something that's not good in Mafia players, it just makes the game less of ... uh... less of a game, and more of crazy stuff just went down and now I should be stressed ball of twine. OR something like that. That would generally be how the game runs under everybody quit when the going gets tough scenario.”
Don’t quit, Bill!
“Also: I need a new vote tally. >_> Mine has totally been lost with everything else I've been doing.
I've probably been cut a few times, considering that my roommate went to bed about fifteen minutes after I started this post, and that was half an hour ago. *sigh* Oh well.”
For all the words in this post, it is largely a pack of nothing at all, and what substance it does contain consists of the following: deflecting responsibility for commenting on a case on a known scum with a falsehood defending a very likely townie from attacks, without follow-through
This post is scumscumscumscumscum with scum-sauce, and that’s why I changed my vote.
188 – gives Texcat a “what the heck was that, is that all you have to say?” type of comment aimed at Texcat’s pointlessly fluffy post 185. Given my confirmation bias, reads as trying too hard.
232 – response to Pinkies contesting her comments about him, saying that he never knows what to say until day three and questions are good, and what does she want to know?
“I have never played a round with you, as far as I know, so I am unaware as to how the, ah, normal routine goes.
Typically when I'm asking somebody to talk, I'm asking because I feel as if there's something more that I can't see in just the average post. Certainly it doesn't take until Day Three to form opinions about the activities going on in this thread. Maybe it takes until Day Three to form ideas about specific players - I always think that I'm more accurate any day other than Day One - but it certainly does NOT take that long to decide, "Okay, I agree with Player X, because you know, this is what seems right for the way I would play things, which is Tactic Y."
I realize I do not have much space to talk with the way I am approaching this round, and how few times I have posted. However I do think it's safe to say that most of my posts have been substantiative and while they may be a little rarer than I would like, they will probably bounce back as I get used to a thread that actually moves, as opposed to one that I can check in on once a day and find the mafia in five minutes. “
“Most of my posts have been substantive” is a self-serving exaggeration, as she’s actually said ZERO in regards to actually finding scum. Some game mechanics/game theory comments, some “I don’t like the case against Bill”, some “I can’t evaluate the case against Mahaloth” [FALSE], and “Pinkies is strange”. That’s it. She’s trying to look like she’s participating – this comment itself leaves no doubt that she is actively trying to leave that impression – but she’s not actually doing it.
(The following is in response to a weird comment from Timmy about Paranoia, Texcat and Lazy’s recent fluffy comments to one another.)
“Texcat invited Paranoia here. Paranoia invited me here (The latter should be obvious from the sign-up thread - Paranoia mentions that I'm a frequent Night One hit). I imagine that Paranoia, knowing my play style, wanted my opinion on things faster than I've been putting out as of late. The other issue might be that I promised I'd vote Day One, and I haven't done so yet, so I need to figure out what I'm dooooooooiiiiiinnnnnnnnngggggggg”
Note she doesn’t actually vote day one. Or at all so far, in the entire game. And that she’s conscious of Paranoia wanting her input. (Paranoia is killed this night.)
The rest of the post is fluff in response to a terminology correction by peeker and the wiki link provided by MHaye. So another long post that barely touches any important issues and which puts her own participation level in an undeservedly good light to boot.
336 – In response to Pinkies’ countervote on Timmy, characterizes it as possibly OMGUS and promises once again to get a vote down this day and saying she has plenty of time to do so over the afternoon/evening.
337 – “oh my claiming shenanigans” (Seriously, what was the point of this post?)
Day Two
57 – responds to Romanic’s “where are you” poke “I'm here.
I shall start by apologizing for my negligence inadvertently causing KidV's Death. I was not paying enough attention to this round the day the lynch occurred. In general, I have been paying less attention to this round than I should be. I am clearly too used to playing at a slower rate. I probably would not have helped much anyway, since I was more interested in Pinkie than anybody else, honestly.
*continues reading the thread*”
Pointless (and confusing) apology – is she saying she would have voted to prevent KidV from dying? If so, her only reasonable choice at the end of the day would have been to vote for Timmy – who was in turn being voted for by the only person (Pinkies) she’d come close to suspecting all day long. A person who should logically have been looking more townie than most to her, as a result. And she implies she would have voted for him? And that doesn’t need a whole heck of a lot of explanation, under those circumstances?
There’s no connection to anything solid in her comments. It’s just words.
Day Three 98 – more apologies, finals week, wouldn’t have signed up if she’d known it would be that bad, will try to catch up “in a few hours”
She doesn’t post on day four.
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 1, 2011 14:27:27 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 4 days, 15 hours and 32 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] naturallylazy (2) (2 4) Renata [4] Not Voting (14) Merestil Haye, CatInASuit, peekercpa, Sister Coyote, Romola, sinjin, Hockey Monkey, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts, texcat, Romanic, naturallylazy, guiri, Natlaw, Red Skeezix With these votes, naturallylazy would be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 1, 2011 15:01:56 GMT -5
Where'd you disappear to, Romanic?
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 1, 2011 15:40:48 GMT -5
Where'd you disappear to, Romanic? Oops, you caught me lurking? ;D Yeah, I haven't posted much recently with the runaway bandwagons we've had, and I might have overdone it a little bit, playing 7 mafia games at once. I do follow this game, but I've got some catchup & analysis to do.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 1, 2011 15:43:24 GMT -5
I await it with bated breath.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 1, 2011 15:47:16 GMT -5
Great color mods! Farewell Harmless and cocktail recipe poster.
I don't know what to make of Peeker's mass roleblock idea. I suppose it's possible and we've seen the role in recent games here but the alternatives are about as (un)likely: - the target was protected or self-protected (with a dead archangel and paranoid Doc I doubt there are more protective roles) - the killer was blocked (possible) - the scum missed the deadline (ha!) - the scum chose to forfeit a Night-kill to use other powers (with a dead redirector and strongman I doubt all remaining scum have powers)
As for the case against NatLazy, I'd like to hear TexCat's opinion too. And I will get around to reviewing the players I shortlisted for their Day 2 interactions with scum.
Natlaw, the two lists you quoted yesterDay are quite different and I say as much in my Day 3 vote. The first section, which matches my Day 1 list (in tone and content), are events which led me to doubt that Bob was scheming scum intent on sowing confusion and was possibly a confused Townie so I unvoted wanting to get a better read on him. You'll see that I continued to poke and prod him throughout Day 2 and 3 until I was ready to place a vote. I added the additional evidence against him which is what made me more confident in my case. I wasn't sold on Sister's case and so was not prepared to vote when Day 3 started. When he actually replied to my questions I replied with a vote.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Mar 1, 2011 16:49:01 GMT -5
The suspicious lynch runner-up (Timmy) and the player who has gone missing (Pinkies) are typical town vig targets. Of course, just because they might be typical vig targets, does mean they were vig targets. So if we do have a vig, we might give them one more night to take out NatLazy.
I have no idea where NatLazy is, but I was inclined to believe that she was scum from way back when I heard Mahaloth's claim. Mahaloth's alleged role sounded vaguely familiar to me. I hate to suspect NatLazy on mostly OOG reasons, but I did. Of course, she has left us so little in game that OOG may be all we are left with on her.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Mar 1, 2011 18:23:17 GMT -5
Renata, I have a really hard time reading your summary without loosing track of who said what.
Guiri, were you looking for Texcat's metagame opinion on Lazy, or game-related opinion? Are you satisfied with her response?
I'm not.
Texcat: What does Mahaloth's role sounding familiar to you have to do with Lazy being scum?
Considering she at least had some dense participation days, I think it can be argued that she's left us more to sift through than you have so far, though it is hard to disagree that she has indeed left us.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 1, 2011 19:06:32 GMT -5
Guiri, were you looking for Texcat's metagame opinion on Lazy, or game-related opinion? Are you satisfied with her response? Both and not really. On the game-related side, I'm curious about TexCat's play in this game and am struggling to get a clearer read on her beside the leaning town ping I have from her Day 1 vote on Bob. I realize she's apologized several times for her participation levels but I'm still trying to prod her into sharing her thoughts and suspicions. On the meta side, I wondered if Natlazy may simply have got bored with the pace of this game or if the disappearance is a common occurrence. As for her response, I agree that there's more meat to the case than OOG reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 1, 2011 19:27:46 GMT -5
Post 16 reformatted with proper quotes.
NaturallyLazy summary, more detailed/different comments below.
It's mostly day one post 187 that is prompting my strong suspicion of her as scum, but the whole pattern fits as well. She is someone who said over and over again (mostly pre-game) that she's such a good town player on her other site that she rarely survives long, and there hasn't been a sign of such play here. She posts a fair amount on day one while the proverbial bugger* is hitting the proverbial fan for the scum, but the closest she comes to commenting on any of it is to say that she *can't* really comment on the Mahaloth case, because there's too much metagaming and she can't check up on it. This is just false. Only one of Mahaloth's detractors (crazybunny) referenced anything that couldn't be checked up on within the confines of the day one thread itself.
On top of that blatant bit of avoiding-the-issue, there is also that she never comments on Bob, comments on Bill only to say she doesn't like the case on him (but never approaches a criticism of anyone who does), and makes a statement to Pinkies that she's been posting substantively when her contribution really consists almost exclusively of fluff, game theory, and failure to commit. The whole thing fits the pattern of a scum player in over her head too quickly.
She never votes, despite promising to vote/participate more/whatever repeatedly and apologizing for it each time it doesn' t happen. Broken promises and apologies on that scale are much more of a scum thing than a town one.
Paranoia is killed night one, and she has more reason to kill him than anyone else in the game does, because he's the one who knows how she plays and was poking her to share her thoughts.
On day two and three she posts only a single time, saying nothing of substance, but avoiding the final vote for nonparticipation. Again, much more a trait of an overwhelmed scum than an uninterested townie. (She does fail to participate entirely on day four.)
Her apology on day two for not saving KidV is detached from her claimed day one thought process, in that she would have had to vote Timmy to do so, and Timmy was the vote target of the only person she'd expressed any suspicion of at all (Captain Pinkies).
But really, post 187 of day one. Keep the circumstances in mind and read it. Here are all her posts, below.
-------------------------------------------------------
Post 20 – confirm receipt, ready and eager to go
63 – role PMs
95 -- fluff
187 – after a poke by Paranoia posts this long comment. By this point Mahaloth has a stack of votes, as do Bill and bunny. I’ve lost track of the timing of the votes on Bob, but he’s at least been questioned by sinjin and Guiri by now.
Long paragraph on vanilla claims (a side issue), defends Bill (very likely townie IMO) and doesn’t like the cases against him (but doesn’t comment on any specifics).
Votes on Mahaloth are somewhat meta-based? This is just plain not true. Only a single vote on Maha (the one from crazybunny) references anything remotely meta-related. The others are based on his vote on Bill being poor and/or opportunistic, and things related to that. There’s nothing preventing Lazy from commenting on my vote or Red Skeezix’, based on information in the game thread itself. So Lazy deflects having to comment on the whole issue with a brazen falsehood.
A now-known-to-be townie is “strange”. Add “odd”, “interesting”, and the like; I swear those words are half-decent scum tells in themselves. Because “strange” and “scummy” are not synonyms, but scum often try to pass them off as decent approximations of one another.
More meta-game near-fluff.
Don’t quit, Bill!
For all the words in this post, it is largely a pack of nothing at all, and what substance it does contain consists of the following: ---- deflecting responsibility for commenting on a case on a known scum with a falsehood ----- defending a very likely townie from attacks, without follow-through
This post is scumscumscumscumscum with scum-sauce, and that’s why I changed my vote.
188 – gives Texcat a “what the heck was that, is that all you have to say?” type of comment aimed at Texcat’s pointlessly fluffy post 185. Given my confirmation bias, reads as trying too hard.
232 – mostly quoted below: response to Pinkies contesting her comments about him, saying that he never knows what to say until day three and questions are good, and what does she want to know?
“Most of my posts have been substantive” is a self-serving exaggeration, as she’s actually said ZERO in regards to actually finding scum. Some game mechanics/game theory comments, some “I don’t like the case against Bill”, some “I can’t evaluate the case against Mahaloth” [FALSE], and “Pinkies is strange”. That’s it. She’s trying to look like she’s participating – this comment itself leaves no doubt that she is actively trying to leave that impression – but she’s not actually doing it.
(The following is in response to a weird comment from Timmy about Paranoia, Texcat and Lazy’s recent fluffy comments to one another.)
Note she doesn’t actually vote day one. Or at all so far, in the entire game. And that she’s conscious of Paranoia wanting her input. (Paranoia is killed this night.)
The rest of the post is fluff in response to a terminology correction by peeker and the wiki link provided by MHaye. So another long post that barely touches any important issues and which puts her own participation level in an undeservedly good light to boot.
336 – In response to Pinkies’ countervote on Timmy, characterizes it as possibly OMGUS and promises once again to get a vote down this day and saying she has plenty of time to do so over the afternoon/evening.
337 – “oh my claiming shenanigans” (Seriously, what was the point of this post?)
Day Two
57 – responds to Romanic’s “where are you” poke
Pointless (and confusing) apology – is she saying she would have voted to prevent KidV from dying? If so, her only reasonable choice at the end of the day would have been to vote for Timmy – who was in turn being voted for by the only person (Pinkies) she’d come close to suspecting all day long. A person who should logically have been looking more townie than most to her, as a result. And she implies she would have voted for him? And that doesn’t need a whole heck of a lot of explanation, under those circumstances?
There’s no connection to anything solid in her comments. It’s just words.
Day Three 98 – more apologies, finals week, wouldn’t have signed up if she’d known it would be that bad, will try to catch up “in a few hours”
She doesn’t post on day four.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 1, 2011 19:31:31 GMT -5
Texcat: What does Mahaloth's role sounding familiar to you have to do with Lazy being scum? She seemed to be implying that NatLazy had used or been exposed to a role much like Mahaloth's claim on this other board that she, NatLazy and Paranoia know each other from. What I'm interested in is whether Texcat ever thought to bring this up before my accusation; and if not, why not.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 1, 2011 20:40:56 GMT -5
As long as I'm flogging this horse, I may as well expound more fully on this paragraph of NL's (also from that post 187, and quoted above). Bill had four voters. Romola -- for something I can't remember. Sinjin -- for a variety of reasons. Bunny -- for his claim. Mahaloth -- for flouncing.
So it's "stupidly scummy" to vote Bill for his claim alone. Not a whole heck of a lot of room for interpretation there. Did anyone actually do that? Yep, Bunny did. Is NL voting for Bunny? Nope. Does she ever even revisit this "stupidly scummy" thing to look for suspects? Again no. (Though I have to wonder if the potential was in her mind somewhere and that's why she came out with that weird "claiming shenanigans" comment right after bunny claimed watcher, never to post again that day -- bunny was her "if all else fails" fallback, perhaps. But I'm getting way too far into confirmation bias territory here, so I'll shut up.)
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Mar 1, 2011 21:13:44 GMT -5
I think that NatLazy would be a very easy lynch...really, too easy (for scum). So I'm going to Vote Renata (for possibly trying to get a lynch train going on NatLazy)
He also hasn't voted for scum yet..on Day One he was voting for (Town) KidV. On Day Two he was voting a one off vote for (Town) Suburban Plankton.
He doesn't seem to want to vote for scum.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Mar 1, 2011 21:14:30 GMT -5
Vote Renata ..in case I need to make it bold.
|
|