|
Post by texcat on Mar 1, 2011 21:57:32 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. Yes that was exactly what I meant. And no, I would not have brought it up had NatLazy still been around. And I might not have brought it up even then, except that Guiri specifically asked for my opinion. And perhaps I should never have mentioned it. For some reason, to me, meta-gaming seems ill-spirited, or at least not in the spirit of the game.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 2, 2011 7:09:06 GMT -5
Ok, picking up from runnig through Day 3 on bobarrgh.
#89: Natlaw - response to CIAS question about answering bobarrgh question on clamiing #91: Natlaw - defines bussing to bobarrgh, does not buy claim but hasn't re-read yet. #92: Sister Coyote - does not believe bobarrgh's claim, wil not be unvoting. Agrees with peekercpa about likelihood of Night kills, suggests giving bobarrgh a break on bussing claim, response to pedescribe on romanic building case against SisC, so why lynch bobarrgh, disagrees about the typo, but it doesn't let bobarrgh off. #93: bobarrgh - does not know if he is being bussed or not, did not realise it was something scum did to scum. #95: Cookies - has read claim, will not be unvoting barring other epiphanies. #101: RedSkeezix - does not believe bobarrgh's claim and votes bobarrgh. #102: Hockey Monkey - does not believe bobarrgh's claim, comment on lack of knowledge of what bussing means. #103: romanic - agrees claim is odd and would be surprised if it existed. #104: peekercpa - thinks role itself was not that outlandish. final nail in coffin is the choice of targets. comment about kidv and fake pm's and the harm they can do the town. votes bobarrgh #106: guiri - cannot see how bobarrgh's choice of Night victim can be reconciled with question to SubPlank. #108: texcat - voted for bobarrgh due to typo and cannot make sense of bobarrgh today. comment to bobarrgh about sounding desperate, claim gives pause, think we might be able to prove/disprove eventually. #110: romola - has not seen type of role before but doesn't think it is that powerful, is not convinced on other parts of case against bobarrgh, bussing and typo is a null tell, only worried about timing of claim, backing CIAS's thought that scum were waiting for mod false claim. #111: romola - Wants to see more from SisC about her vote for bobarrgh. #113: Mhaye - thinks romanic's paraphrase is not reasonable, thinks it is structured to support case. Is leaning scum on bobarrgh, but wants to follow up on romanic next Day. Comment on OMGUS votes and Cookies. Does not like claim from bobarrgh and votes for him. #114: SisC - response to romola about case against bobarrgh #116: romola - question to SisC, wants to see more commentary about other cases. #118: SisC - response to romola, saying details are in #92. Has trouble buying claim. #120: peekercpa - question to romola about not accepting Mahaloth's claim but accepting bobarrgh's claim. #121: romola - question to SisC about where she agreed with the cases against bobarrgh #122: romola - response to peekercpa, is not taking claim at face value, but does not see it as equivalent to a full investigative role. what info would you expect to get from listening to pinkies? #123: peekercpa - response to romola, saying that is one of the reasons he is voting for bobarrgh #125: peekercpa - question to romola about bobarrgh's claim, which part does he not buy. #127: HLB - votes bobarrgh for lots of reasons already mentioned #128: romola - response to SisC that since vote comments had been more pro-bobarrgh than against #129: romola - asks peekercpa if bobarrgh would have known about Pinkies. timing of claim is a worry but does not see the case against him. #130: peekercpa - gives reasons to romola why bobarrgh should have known about Pinkies. #132: romola - quotes guiri and agrees targets make no sense, votes bobarrgh #133: peekercpa - question to romola about bobarrgh's claim #134: romola - did not find claim unbelievable, did not like tming of claim, not convinced by other cases, but by choices #135: bobarrgh - comment on Night choices. #136: romola - question to bobarrgh about Night choice. #137: bobarrgh - stil has question for sinjin #139: sinjin - comment to bobarrgh about claim #140: sinjin - votes bobarrgh #146: Natlaw - comment to pedescribe. catches bandwagon on bobarrgh citing claim is unlikely.
Thoughts coming up later
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 2, 2011 8:14:49 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. I suggest you look at my voting record a little bit more closely than that, Idle, lest I change my vote to you for nothing more than one of the shallowest votes I've ever seen from you. Just for starters, I voted for BobArrgh on day three. The rest I'll leave as an exercise.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 2, 2011 8:15:28 GMT -5
Also I'm a girl!
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 2, 2011 9:51:25 GMT -5
@renata
About your case:
- You point that Natlazy is the bragging type, but you think that she would have killed Paranoia on Night 1, because he knew her. Isn't this a contradiction? Bragging is a sign of confidence, while killing someone for knowing her would suppose she's not confident in her mafia skills.
- How is her not mentioning Bob in post #187, a positive that she is scum?
I think there's some merit to your case, but I could scrap a lot of your arguments as null-tells. Undecided if it's worthy of my vote, but we will have to deal with NatLazy eventually, before her final votes become a big liability.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 2, 2011 10:06:28 GMT -5
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. Hey thanks for the wink, I can feel your love. Don't worry, I ain't voting you this time, you look like a good girl after these two votes on Bob.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 2, 2011 10:23:39 GMT -5
@renata About your case: - You point that Natlazy is the bragging type, but you think that she would have killed Paranoia on Night 1, because he knew her. Isn't this a contradiction? Bragging is a sign of confidence, while killing someone for knowing her would suppose she's not confident in her mafia skills. Maybe, but I'm at a loss to explain Paranoia's death otherwise unless it was just random coincidence. It isn't. Failure to engage in any meaningful manner with either of the scum who were on the block on day one is, though, something I think should be considered suspicious under the circumstances. I'd be willing to defer her to a potential vig for one day without getting too upset about it, but like I said, that doesn't mean I don't think she should be discussed.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 2, 2011 14:31:45 GMT -5
I swear I'm about >thisfar< from claiming scum just so I don't die of boredom first. Come on people.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 2, 2011 14:39:44 GMT -5
Seriously, I could start singing. You don't want me singing.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 2, 2011 14:46:53 GMT -5
Or dancing. Goodness that would be a horror show.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Mar 2, 2011 14:55:55 GMT -5
Sorry for getting your gender wrong. I have a real problem with that, sometimes. But I still think you're the shadiest at this point. Feel free to OMGUS vote in return.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 2, 2011 15:00:06 GMT -5
Maybe you could tell me why, beyond "doesn't like to vote for scum", which is patently untrue given I've voted for Mahaloth twice and Bob twice. Do you know something I don't about NatLazy? Otherwise I can't really account for your comments. Nor was HockeyMonkey really standing out as a solid townie before she left the game, either. (No worries about the gender; I think it's funny how many people you get that wrong with. )
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Mar 2, 2011 15:30:40 GMT -5
Oh, duh. You used to be nphase. I knew nphase was female, haha. I didn't know you were her. : )
Uh huh, nice try...but at the end of the day on Day One, you were voting for Kid V, not Mahaloth. And on Day Two, you had that one off vote when the majority were voting for the real scum.
Day Three, sure, you voted for Bob. Probably because you figured your running stats weren't looking so good by then.
So again, I have told you the why. I feel you're the most suspicious/shady right now from all that I read and caught up on.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 2, 2011 15:39:21 GMT -5
Yeah, that's me.
I think you are looking at things very shallowly. I voted for Mahaloth twice and Bob once earlier on day one. I was Mahaloth's second voter, switching to him from crazybunny. Later I switched from Mahaloth to Bob, then after talking myself out of the Bob vote, back to Mahaloth.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 2, 2011 16:59:25 GMT -5
I'm waiting for the dancing and singing.
I count 15 players left. Probably around five scum originally. Maybe one or two third party. Even with two kills per Night we shouldn't be close to lynch or lose so I'm not feeling a lynch the lurker right now. Yes, Renata's case isn't lynch the lurker but it is a case against non participant whos lynch might not tell us that much.
12-3, 9-3, 6-3, 3-3 (loss if scum stack votes first). So that's two or three lynches to go before we get there (if the double kills at Night keeps up). Captain Pinkies death does look like a vigilante kill and with the lack of deaths a serial killer doesn't seems that likely (assuming both kills Night One was scum+scum thoughguy). But with that few kills a mass block Night Three doesn't make much sense from a balance perspective (just drags the game on). But no town role blocker claimed and two town protective roles death it might just be that they didn't submit a kill. Or there is a third party blocker out who rather keeps a scum in his pocket since they seem behind.
Anyway it's back to looking at Day One through Three again.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 2, 2011 17:13:12 GMT -5
Might as well vote to spark things up a bit: Vote: Red Skeezix -D1 early Mahaloth is a plus, but his vote for timmy for voting LTL isn't -D2 minor 'twig' for Cookies, votes for lyla for laying low-D3 Mahaloth claimed result is WIFOM, late party vote for bob for unbelievable claim -D4 lost, votes Natlaw for scummy final vote assesment, later votes pedescribe for claiming PFK Besides the Mahaloth vote that's not much. Plus I get late OMGUS vote .
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 2, 2011 17:26:30 GMT -5
That Mahaloth vote is a rather big "besides", though. I agree the rest sparks no confidence.
*boots Red Skeezix*
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 2, 2011 18:12:40 GMT -5
singing?
dancing?
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 2, 2011 18:18:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 2, 2011 18:35:01 GMT -5
And now for something completely different:
Romola: Day 1 #39 Agrees with mod-provided fake PMs, is 3rd time she's seen it #40 Asks Bill why he objects to fake PMs in this game and not in previous games #43 Comments on fake PMs not being controversial in a previous game #44 NETA, may be mistaken or have missed Bill's objection in a previous game #89 To Bill, asks why the PMs are an issue in this game but not before #110 Votes Bill, suggests he's attempting to gain Town cred by objecting to a pro-scum feature #112/3 NETA for vote format #121 Explains reasons for early vote and what it says about her, may unvote if Bill explains #123 To Sister, explains correct reason for vote #127 To Renata, thinks the fake PM thing is a null-tell for KidV as he'd objected before role PMs were sent #147 Hopes Bill doesn't leave game based on vote #237 To Natlaw, who asks why she hasn't unvoted, has yet to receive an answer, is unsure whether to unvote due to guilt, doesn't have a better candidate #244 To Natlaw, who quotes Bill's comment about objecting here and in previous games, does not want to continue the argument or change vote #283 Doesn't see any point with vote, the disappearance makes Bill look like an "agrieved Townie", will re-read #293 Questions Mahaloth about claimed power and a typo in his PM #295 Doesn't like case against Bob, doesn't want to vote Mahaloth due to claim, suspects and votes Sinjin for apparently making an easy 2nd vote on Bill for the VT claim #297 Asks Mahaloth if he can use the power on himself - would make it "even more uber powerful" #301 Asks Pinkies is he tends to post more when he has received votes #318 To Cookies, re: false claiming Mahaloth confirming a 3rd party as Town, would like to see what Maha claims toMorrow and expects him to be questioned heavily. Asks Pinkies is he's seen anything worth commenting on #324 Admires Maha's timing in his claim #328 To Maha, is interested to see results
Day 2 #36 To Sinjin, who's pinged by Cookies and Sister, asks for explanation for the content-free smudge, votes her #61 Wonders why people get upset when they get votes #106 Needs to re-read, doesn't believe Sinjin is scum due to outburst - "outraged Townie", scum wouldn't do that #111 NETA for format #182 Votes Maha to put him into the lead, suspects players who didn't unvote KidV, considers Harmless's self-preservation vote a null-tell, thought Mahaloth's claimed role was unfeasible powerful but wanted to scrutinize his results, paranoia's death casts doubt on his claim, doesn't understand why he wasn't blocked, happy to lynch him #185 Wonders why Mahaloth took issue with Peeker over "custom made PMs" if he hadn't posted one himself
Night 2 #17 Fluff #20 Fluff
Day 3 #23 Doesn't understand Harmless being blocked again unless Suburban blotected him, would like to see if Harmless' vote is counted, otherwise there must be another roleblocking role #25 Misremembered Maha's role, scum could still have a roleblocker, no harm testing the vote theory #110 Doesn't consider bob's claim all that powerful as no alignment is shown, doesn't think Pinkies's lack of results tells us much, not convinced of some other parts of the case against Bob, bussing comment is a null-tell, Day 1 typo also, only worried about the timing of the claim, it appears scum were waiting for mod support #111 Would like to hear more from Sister, wonders what she thinks of the other votes for Bob and his claim #116 To Sister, just wants some detailed commmentary #117 NETA #121 To Sister, sees where she disagreed but not where she agreed #122 To Peeker, who questions why she was willing to lynch Mahaloth previously but not Bob, doesn't buy claim "on face value" but doesn't see role as equivalent to a cop, what could he have gained from investigating Pinkies? #128 To Sister, explains interest is her opinions, her comments appeared to be in Bob's favor #129 To Peeker, who doesn't buy claim due to investigation targets, wonders if Bob knows about Pinkies, still worried about the timing of the vote but not seeing rest of case #132 To guiri, had missed Bob's contradiction on reasons for backing off from Sinjin, targets make no sense, timing of claim is suspect, votes Bob #134 To Peeker, explains why reluctant to vote #136 To Bob, who explained why he gave two reasons, asks why he felt the need to give the first and why he invented a reason, makes no sense
Night 3 #13 Fluff
Day 4 #40 To Sister, who is struggling with Romola's play, explains why she was questioning her: possibly scum, not seeing case against Bob. Thought Bob was a new Townie who'd make some mistakes, would not have voted based on Sister's case alone #45 To Sister, who asked why other voters weren't questioned, says that they offered evidence and up-to-date thoughts while Sister didn't #102 Votes Pedescribe without comment
Pity we can't use spoiler tags here, I feel like I'm spamming the thread with a single post. Comments: - I'm not sure what to make of the vote on Bill. As it was based purely on metagame knowledge, I don't think it was destined to go anywhere but she held on, even after Natlaw quoted where Bill said that he'd objected previously, dismissing the cases being made against Mahaloth and Bob. At the time of her post #244: "I don't want to continue the argument. Neither do I want to change the vote just yet.", Bob had 3 votes, Maha and Bill had 2, sinjin had 1. - Later she dislikes the case against Bob, (and doesn't want to vote Mahaloth who'd claimed), votes Sinjin - but no mention of Harmless who was 2nd with 5 votes? - She admires Mahaloth's play and is interested in seeing his targets and results. I don't detect any sarcasm at all in these posts - Her vote on Sinjin Day 2 is fair but, while I understand the emotional aspect, her reasons for unvote are familiar: Bill was "agrieved Townie", Sinjin was "outraged Townie", scum wouldn't do that - Her vote on Mahaloth is the 5th and breaks the tie with Cookies. While she'd talked about his claim on Day 1 and her vote reasoning is light but reasonable, I wonder if scum thought he was doomed and this was the most opportune time to jump on the bandwagon and gain most cred? At least two scum were already voting Cookies and that alternative case wasn't gaining much traction. - I consider her confusion about Mahaloth's role as a simple mistake but I'm quite confused by her repeated suggestion that Harmless place a vote to test a theory. I can't see any scum motivation but it's weird. - I agree that Sister's Day 2 case against Bob wasn't sufficient for me to revote Bob but it's true that Romola questioned Sister multiple times but, even though she stated that she was not convinced of parts of the case against Bob, she didn't question anyone else. The only thing with this is that Bob already had 10 votes when she first questioned Sister so I'm not sure what a scummy Romola would have been trying to do
I have mixed feelings about Romola so would like to look at others from my shortlist.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Mar 2, 2011 18:41:34 GMT -5
A seemingly endless project of process documentation is sucking at my time like a big fat leech for the moment. I'm reading but may not be able to make a heftier contribution until the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Mar 2, 2011 19:15:10 GMT -5
I'd be willing to defer her to a potential vig for one day without getting too upset about it, but like I said, that doesn't mean I don't think she should be discussed. You know my theory is the more discussion, the better for Town; I certainly wasn't trying to shut discussion about NatLaz down, just wanted to throw my thoughts down before I forgot. (That said, I really am looking forward to next week, when things will be A LOT quieter here on the home front.) - I consider her confusion about Mahaloth's role as a simple mistake but I'm quite confused by her repeated suggestion that Harmless place a vote to test a theory. I can't see any scum motivation but it's weird. I could have sworn there was some discussion of why asking someone to "prove" that their ability to vote has been affected was Scummy during the spoiler thread of the Dr. Seuss game, but when I went back to look I couldn't find it. As I said at the time, however -- all that would prove was that Harmless didn't have a vote and nothing more. Romanic's case against me on Days One and Two hinged on me saying some pretty stupid shit that looked contradictory on its face -- and, had the whole Mahaloth/Bunny thing not gone down, could probably have gained some momentum. I think it was entirely possible that a Scum Romola looked at those two Days and was hoping to pressure me enough that I would -- once again -- say some pretty stupid shit that contradicted myself so that she could then say I'd lied and make me a good candidate to get votes off Bob. Whether or not I was ultimately lynched. In fact, I think it's so possible, that I'm going to: Vote: Romola Also -- the early pressure she put on Bill, trying to make a big deal about the meta thing and Bill changing his tune is not a point in her favor, IMO. I think it's entirely likely she's been Scum all along and was hoping to get a bandwagon going on Bill to get him out of the game without Scum needing to use a Night Kill. But that's really random speculation based on a gut feeling and probably shouldn't be valued more than the pixels it's "printed" with.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 2, 2011 19:44:28 GMT -5
Huh, I thought I had already come in and voted Natlaw.
Well, I still vote natlaw. His assessment yesterday is still the broad based smudge today as it was yesterday. Still looks like scum trying to drum up targets to me.
vote Natlaw
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 2, 2011 20:44:17 GMT -5
Is that it? You're not happy that his vote on you is sufficiently ... something, so you vote for him? Absent any larger consideration? You're better than that, I know you are. At least make a case on someone else, too.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 2, 2011 21:01:47 GMT -5
Seems I'm doing little but complaining right at the moment, but I disagree with your vote on Romola, SisC. Here's her post 23 from day three.
"Or that there is another roleblocking role apart from the dead scum roleblocker ..." "struggling to work out bunny being roleblocked again ..."
Help me see that as at all plausible for a scum teammate of dead redirector Mahaloth to speculate on. The whole premise of the post, that there's something odd about bunny claiming a second roleblock, hinges on the scum *roleblocker* being dead. Romola is saying that she can't figure out how or why a town bunny would have been blocked a second time with no scum roleblocker around. That's what's making her talk about Suburban Plankton -- his role was (partially) roleblocker, and he could hypothetically have blocked bunny; Romola is looking for any conceivable evidence that he did, in order to determine whether bunny is telling a bald-faced lie.
But the whole post makes no sense if the scum roleblocker is still alive, and the scum roleblocker most certainly *is* (insert appropriate disclaimers about assumptions based on available evidence, etc), since Mahaloth -- the only dead scum to this point -- was not one. I simply cannot see this being a mistake that Mahaloth's teammate would make. Do you see it as a deliberately misleading post, or are you just ignoring it?
As well, there is Bob's quite strong smudge of Romola from day one, though objectively that's less definitive, just hard for me personally to look past.
There's several aspects of Romola's play I'm not really comfortable with, that vote on Bill being the most problematic, but I struggle to see her as mafia.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 2, 2011 21:45:34 GMT -5
To Clarify: I'm not voting him for voting me, well slightly I am, but not because it's me. The main reason i'm voting him his the way he presented his analysis yesterday. It gave him a tool to pretty much vote however he likes. That makes him scummy, most any case he wished to make yesterday he could have sourced from that table. IE a broad brush smudge.
Next, Let's look at his voting history:
Day 1 votes for timmy. Wait, didn't he say voting for timmy was a point against me? So lets look closely at the reasoning here: He switched from bobarrgh (scum) to timmy because timmy was voting LTL on pinkies, while being a lurker. Sound familiar? Oh yeah! THATS WHY I VOTED TIMMY. According to natlaw, that's scummy behavior. Wait how would he know: simple answer: He's scum.
Day 2: First he votes pedescribe for "mainly not participating" (yet another LTL, is that scummy or not Natlaw?) Next he switches to MHaye: why? " Anyway that leaves me arguing for another lynch than those two which brings me back to the non-participants. I don't like MHaye ignoring the cases against Cookies and Mahaloth. lyla only has one post Today." More LTL, which according to him is scummy behavior....
Day 3: He's the last vote on bobarrgh, when bob was already a pretty forgone conclusion. Then he turns around the following day, and makes a big deal about where everyone's votes wind up at the end of the day. This feels engineered. His vote for bobarrgh is reading to me like he's fellow scum who doesn't want to miss the bus. Also note, he criticizes my vote as a "late party vote". Who's later to the party than the last one to arrive?
Day 4: I voted for him yesterday based on his analysis which doesn't take into account anything but the final votes of the previous three days, allowing him to completely discount any pro-town behavior on anyones part, if they were hoodwinked by some false claim.
So yeah, there's the non cliffs notes of why I'm voting Natlaw.
The only other smidge of a complaint right now is against the non participants, but it seems like there might be a vig out there who is taking care of those.
And the only hint of scumminess other than Natty that I'm picking up is from Sister Coyote, but like Cookies earlier in the game. I feel like the play is scummy, but I can't make a case out of it, so my feelings on the matter are less than worthless.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 2, 2011 22:41:31 GMT -5
Thanks, Skeez, I really do appreciate the director's cut version. I'll comment in the morning after I've double-checked the referenced votes.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 3, 2011 6:45:49 GMT -5
That Mahaloth vote is a rather big "besides", though. I agree the rest sparks no confidence. The reason I don't find it as big is that Mahaloth's vote was so weak that other scum might have felt compelled to jump on it. I think NAF in Dr. Horrible did vote for scum as scum on Day One for a similar reason. I don't know how Red plays as scum though. Day 1 votes for timmy. Wait, didn't he say voting for timmy was a point against me? Yup, I also did say that about myself in that final vote analysis I made. No, now you go from "point against" to "scummy behaviour" which I didn't say. I didn't what a Mahaloth lynch Day Two because I wanted to wait for more results from him. I voted bob at the end of the Day because I didn't have a vote at all at that point, he was my initial suspect that Day and his unlikely claim sealed the deal. But note I only give 'town credit' to the early scum votes, not the late voters. Again I used the final votes to filter out candidates to look at, I didn't vote anyone on that list until my vote for you Today because I find you participation and votes so far lacking. No, that 'late to the party' was a quote directly from your vote post - it was your own criticization (but yes, it does apply to me as well). Please point out where I discounted pro-town behavior because someone's final vote or how that follows from narrowing down suspects by looking at the final votes? Is having a final vote on scum instead of a town player is not pro-town (!= anti-scum) behavior according to you? By hoodwinked you mean you unvoting Mahaloth? Or me not voting Mahaloth Day Two because of his claim? Am I supposed to just list my twigs, smidges and hints and then note that they're just feelings so never mind instead of looking at the votes (even it was just the final ones to make an initial selection)? At least you case against me has some meat to it .
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 3, 2011 6:57:27 GMT -5
Ok, looking through the bobarrgh voting, which feels like most of the third Day anyway. Ok, major townie points. Romanic for making the case on Day 3 and sticking with it and explaining. guiri/CIAS - their cases pushed bobarrgh from 3 to 5 votes and set bobarrgh as the major lynch candidate for the day. CIAS - for pointing out the problem's with the role power straight off. I'll give minor WIFOM townie points to Sister C and guiri over the bussing comment. Cookies gets a fair amount of townie cred for her lines of questioning both to bobarrgh and against pedescribe and for the fairly early vote. By the time pedescribe switched at #83, I think any vote after that is pretty much bandwagon. It's difficult to find scummy behaviour in this tbh other than pedescribe's actions, when he turned out to be a mad bomber anyway. There are two other things that caught my eye will running through it. 1. Those people who thought the claim was not unreasonable: peekercpa/romola/texcat Hmm, if the role had existed elsewhere I can understand this POV partially. peekercpa had plenty of questions about it, romola seemed to take a lot of convincing and seemed to spend more of a time questioning Sister C, and texcat seemed to think we could possibly prove/disprove the role. 2. These people who attacked romanic's case: pedescribe/bobarrgh/Natlaw/MHaye Now, considering there were two other cases also put forward by CIAS/guiri, it surprised me that people were everyone was picking on romanic. The main reason I can think of is that his was the original case and if it could be derailed then other cases would not look as sure. Of these, Mhaye's made the point about romanic's case, but voted bobarrgh anyway, bobarrgh was scum and I have the feeling that pedescribe had tagged bobarrgh the Night before. Natlaw, posted about the bad paraphrasing, didn't buy the claim much but didn't actually vote until end of Day. Of those above, the ones I want to look at again would be MHaye, Natlaw and texcat. texcat: from D3 - It is a quite powerful and useful role that we might be able to prove or dis-prove eventually. Natlaw/texcat: D4.10 where Natlaw gives a brief rundown of end of day votes, with a comment that there were two scum voting for Cookies, and texcat responds with D4.18 that Bobarrgh had his vote on Cookies and switch to Mahaloth. yeah, probably not a slip in the slightest, the comment probably does refer to bobarrgh and Mahaloth, but it really makes me think there is one more scum on the Cookies bandwagon and Natlaw knows who it is. MHaye: Didn't like the case but saw enough of from bobarrghs actions and from the claim to vote him. Questions for Natlaw and MHaye, you didn't like romanic's case, what did you thkn of the other cases by guiri and CIAS? So with Cookies seeming more townie than she has a right to, ,pedescribe lynched, I'm going back to the next on my list. vote NatlawAside from the other points I have raised, I'll add in the "vote analysis" which didn't appear to go anywhere, the questioning of romanic's case without commenting on the other cases and the late, late vote. Also, the review of bobarrgh which didn't happen. Oh grief, another re-read coming up.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 3, 2011 6:58:59 GMT -5
Complete brain failure, I can't even get the voting right. This is what happens when I transcribe most of Day 3.
vote Natlaw
|
|