|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 3, 2011 8:59:04 GMT -5
ok, i went back and skimmed the first 4 Days and who rises to the top is natlawthe whole last vote nonsense doesn't make sense. i mean typically the folks joining in late are the ones trying to test the wind and acting accordingly. and on re-read what really strikes me odd is his resnponse to my observation about maha choosing to link timmy and natlaw. i made what i thought was a relatively benign post regarding that whole thing and the implications that it might hold for natlaw. now, of course, i was thinking that it had town implications for him but wasn't very clear (imagine that). nat replies (D3 reply #90) with "what implications" and then follows up with a confusing set of possibilities ("go fake pm" ??) when all i was trying to suggest was that there were town implications. now i know my logic is offtimes indecipherable to others but crud this comes off all sorts of defensive. now sometimes simplest is not best but this, in retrospect, smells like someone coming up with all sorts of odd stuff to justify said linkage. vote natlawalso, catina i certainly did mention that i had seen a role kind of like the one that bob claimed. the emphasis on the kind of. i think that i was pretty clear that a listener role that gets to direct said listening was overpowered what with a dead investigator and all.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 3, 2011 9:14:01 GMT -5
also, catina i certainly did mention that i had seen a role kind of like the one that bob claimed. the emphasis on the kind of. i think that i was pretty clear that a listener role that gets to direct said listening was overpowered what with a dead investigator and all. I agree. When I first read through it, you came across slightly scummy, based off your rection the role claim. But looking at the questions you asked, your reasoning behind them and why you voted bobarrgh, it actually looks fairly townie.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 3, 2011 10:29:25 GMT -5
Reviewing Skeezix’s points against Natlaw.
Comparison of posts on Timmy.
Skeez, post 310:
Skeez has just responded to Mahaloth’s claim with an unvote. At this point the day one Bob case is already mostly defanged despite three votes still on him (I have unvoted, as has Guiri). Bunny is the vote leader with five votes. Null tell for Skeez to start a new case at this point as opposed to vote for anyone else.
Natlaw, post 376:
The Bob bit is fine in itself; the question is whether it’s followed up on at all the next day, which I need to check on. I don’t like the comment about crazybunny being more suspicious than Mahaloth, and not just because of the relative alignments of each one. I don’t remember Natlaw ever saying anything about crazybunny previously this Day (please correct me if I’m wrong) either way. He *did*, just a couple pages back, challenge Mahaloth on a few points, seeming quite dubious of him. Here’s an example:
So where is the rationale for now seeing bunny as more suspicious than Mahaloth even absent considerations of their relative claims? I’m not seeing it. So definitely a questionable disconnect of logic there.
And he doesn’t like the timmy case, though the reasoning is a bit off there as well – Skeezix never made any real evaluation of the relative lurkiness of timmy and Pinkies, he just commented that scum might want to go after a day one lurker as an easy target, which is both a reasonable case and an accurate one as it applies to Timmy’s vote. Natlaw is basically questioning a conclusion that Skeezix never drew.
Natlaw, post 391, retracts his comment that timmy looks better than Pinkies on the lurker front (which is fine as far as it goes, though again it doesn’t actually have anything to do with why Skeezix voted Timmy)
Natlaw, post 397, unvotes Bob
This despite his very last comment on the matter being quite firm that his vote is staying where it is. Okay, screw it. I knew I should have finished the day one review. This post completely erases the impression of towniness afforded Natlaw by the natural feel of his original vote on Bob and Bob’s uncoordinated response to that (in terms of the timing of when he brought forth his explanation for the typo). There’s no logical connection between Natlaw’s last post on Bob and this one that I can see, from a townie standpoint. Natlaw is not unvoting because he’s found someone more suspicious; the post contains only the unvote. He’s not unvoting because he’s been persuaded (despite what he says), because he references those arguments in his previous post on Bob and they are not enough for him to switch his vote at that time.
What’s changed? Only the vote count. KidV has picked up four votes by now, but Bob is up to four again also with the addition of the vote by crazybunny.
And of course there’s that weird advice to Bob that he doesn’t need to claim.
I’m not going to continue. This sequence plus the other reasons for suspicion of Natlaw (the ones at the end of CIAS’ post are those which ring strongest to me not having done a full-scale review) are enough for me to be comfortable with a vote.
unvote[/color] vote: Natlaw[/color]
(Natlaw’s actual vote post on Timmy is #408 for anyone who’s interested. It brings to the count to KidV 5, Bob 4 and Timmy 4.)
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Mar 3, 2011 10:49:18 GMT -5
So, Peeker and Renata both came in and made more or less the same cases against Natlaw I was about to. Plus rethinking after Renata's post, plus my commentary on him yesterDay:
Unvote: unvote Vote: Natlaw
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 3, 2011 12:11:37 GMT -5
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. I specifically say that there were two scum voting Cookies Day Two - and yes I mean't bob+mahaloth not the final votes. 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. The review didn't happen because I'm lazy and bob lynch was pretty much set after his claim. Same D4 once pedescribe claimed I didn't review all people I listed (only guiri as part of a Day One review and Red Skeezix Today). I agreed with with pedescribe that the paraphrase left out too much but only made a comment about that not romanics case (altough it did indirectly I suppose). I commented on bob's cases against Cookies and Mahaloth (but I guess Day Three cases only?), not on the cases against. Yes I agree with pedescribe that romanic left out too much. Simplified by me it becomes: "I still don't like Cookies voting but Mahaloth has done nothing to convince me he is town Today. I switch my vote to him." I don't see Cookies' votes as scummy but I remember Cookies being a defensive player who reacts strongly to people who vote her. Romanic "don't like her votes" -> "She still is her scummy and her last even scummier" that last part wasn't explicitly said by bob. It can infered from his Cookies vote but Mahaloth also placed a defensive vote which presumably falls under "Mahaloth's protestions" that didn't convince bob. (I've not reread on bob yet just commenting on the paraphrasing part)
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 3, 2011 12:21:50 GMT -5
the whole last vote nonsense doesn't make sense. i mean typically the folks joining in late are the ones trying to test the wind and acting accordingly. It isn't as effective here since D3+D4 lynches really didn't have an alternative for scum to push. D2 had Cookies but at the end of the Day there wasn't much left. I ended up with a list mostly based on D1+2 since they had the most information. I've done this analysis before and since CIAS was posting the normal colored vote count I tend to do, I decided on this different view. I guess you skimmed over one of my last post that Day. The reason why I prodded you about that is because you 1) implied it did say something about my alignmnent 2) after questions you explain it makes lean a bit town 3) apparently forgetting posted both 1+2, you repeat 1 4) After I prod you, you give the same answer as 3
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 3, 2011 12:44:04 GMT -5
Natlaw, post 376: So where is the rationale for now seeing bunny as more suspicious than Mahaloth even absent considerations of their relative claims? I’m not seeing it. So definitely a questionable disconnect of logic there. Because Mahaloth play reminded me to exactly his town play in Halloween while bunny was voted him because Mahaloth's play reminded of scum (without being specific). If LTL is an easy target then LynchTheLTL is as well. But I you mean this post of mine, my response was more to Captain Pinkies who voted timmy because he was lurking just as much as himself. In my mind at that point timmy had contributed more but on a reread that turned out not to be the case and I voted timmy for it. The case against timmy seems not good to me as the lurker argument applied more the Pinkies before the voting started although he did step up his play after the vote. You seemed to missed my question about his mafia experience and his reponse which confirmed he was a newer player and thus, in my eyes, more likely to have made those post (whether or not he meant like or not I could see a newer player saying either without giving reasons). Please go read my responses to CIAS about this. I asked him a question and when he asked something in response I should have ignored it?
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 3, 2011 12:48:12 GMT -5
That bandwagon on Natlaw is sure picking up quickly. I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a minute: Day 1, the tally was 3 Mahaloth (Red, Renata, bunny) 2 BillMc (Romola, Sinhin) 2 harmless bunny (Romanic, Plankton) 1 Sinjin (Paranoia) And then Natlaw placed the first vote on Bob with this post: This has been pointed about by Guiri and sinjin before but there hasn't been a straight anwser yet: @ guiri ... I'm not sure I totally understand sinjin's comment regarding a Town Watcher watching Bill. It's the part after the ellipses that seem a little strange. I've read Bill's post several times and just can't come to the same conclusion that sinjin does. bobarrgh doesn't understands sinjin comment about Bill's WIFOM but he likes it. He also liked Bill comments. He seems to be dodging the question why he liked it and instead answer he didn't understand it of how he understanded it. So it seems to me he just made the "I like" comments were to snuggle up which I can see scum doing (this assumes of course town for sinjin/bill) and I think so far the best lead to scum. Vote: bobarrgh I do think bob explained his " little strange vote this early" ok although it also had to be pulled out. Not voting BillMc because it don't think the unprovoked vanilla claim is worth it. Not voting Romola becuase I think her vote-to-get-an-answer is reasonable Day One even if the questions might be too meta-game. I do have an outstanding question to her. Not voting Mahaloth his sub-out-here-is-my-vote seems a bit to attention grabbing for a scum to do (at least if I was scum, not sure how he plays as scum - someone accused him of doing so but I didn't see any specific on that?). <bleached> This was the first vote on Bob, followed quickly by Guiri, Renata and texcat, pushing Bob to the lead. My question, to all players voting Natlaw would be: @renata, Sister Coyote, Red Skeezix, peeker, CIASWhere does this vote fit in your case of Natlaw? Renata mentioned it, but CIAS, peeker, Red Skeezix and Sister Coyote didn't. I'd like to know why you are dismissing this vote as Town creds for Natlaw. I'm also puzzled by your case Red. You commented every one of Natlaw's votes, except this one on Bob, which looks like a convenient miss since it's by far Natlaw's best vote in the game. And you are aware of it because you wrote: Why did you choose to skip commenting this vote?
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 3, 2011 13:06:08 GMT -5
While I'm reviewing the scum voting records, here's a list of all the votes made against a known Scum, for each (still alive) player:
CatInASuit D3 - BobArrgh (#50) (Bob 4, Romanic 1)
Cookies D1 - Mahaloth (#281) (Mahaloth 5, bunny 4, Bob 4 Bill 1, Sinjin 1, Pinkies 1) D2 - Mahaloth (#187) (Mahaloth 7, Cookies 4, pede 2, Sister 1, Bob 1, Plankton 1) D3 - BobArrgh (#59) (Bob 6, Romanic 1)
Guiri D1 - BobArrgh (#238) (Mahaloth 3, Bill 2, bunny 2, Bob 2, Sinjin 1) D1 - Mahaloth (#282) (Mahaloth 6, bunny 4, Bob 3, Bill 1, Sinjin 1, Pinkies 1) D2 - Mahaloth (#184) (Mahaloth 6, Cookies 4, pede 2, Sister 1, Bob 1, Plankton 1, texcat 1) D3 - BobArrgh (#52) (Bob 5, Romanic 1)
Idle Thoughts (as Hockey Monkey) D3 - BobArrgh (#102) (Bob 9)
Merestil Haye D3 - BobArrgh (#113) (Bob 11)
Natlaw D1 - BobArrgh (#231) (Mahaloth 3, Bill 2, bunny 2, Sinjin 1, Bob 1) D3 - BobArrgh (#146) (Bob 15)
naturallylazy Never voted.
peekercpa D2 - Mahaloth (#163) (Cookies 3, Mahaloth 2, Sister 1, Bob 1, Plankton 1, textcat 1) D3 - BobArrgh (#104) (Bob 10)
Red Skeezix D1 - Mahaloth (#153) (Bill 4, bunny 1, Mahaloth 1) D3 - BobArrgh (#101) (Bob 8)
Renata D1 - Mahaloth (#156) (Bill 4, Mahaloth 2) D1 - BobArrgh (#241) (Bob 3, Bill 2, bunny 2, Mahaloth 2, Sinjin 1) D1 - Mahaloth (#256) (BobArrgh 3, Mahaloth 3, Bill 2, bunny 2, Sinjin 1, Pinkies 1) D3 - BobArrgh (#31) (Bob 3)
Romanic D3 - BobArrgh (#30) (Bob 2)
Romola D2 - Mahaloth (#182) (Mahaloth 5, Cookies 4, pede 2, Sister 1, Bob 1, Plankton 1, texcat 1) D3 - BobArrgh (#132) (Bob 13)
Sinjin D1 - BobArrgh (#272) (bunny 4, Mahaloth 4, Bob 4, Bill 1, Sinjin 1, Pinkies 1) D3 - BobArrgh (#140) (Bob 14)
Sister Coyote D2 - BobArrgh (#97) (Mahaloth 1, Sister 1, Sinjin 1, Cookies 1, Bob 1) D3 - BobArrgh (#12) (Bob 1)
textcat D1 - BobArrgh (#247) (Bob 4, Bill 2, bunny 2, Mahaloth 2, Sinjin 1)
****
And votes that known Scums placed on other (still alive) players:
BobArrgh D2 - Cookies (#151) (Cookies 3, Mahaloth 1, Sister 1, Bob 1, Plankton 1, textcat 1)
Mahaloth D1 - BillMc/CIAS (#139) (Bill 4) D1 - Guiri (#295) (Mahaloth 6, bunny 5, Bob 3, Sinjin 1, Pinkies 1, Guiri 1) D2 - Cookies (#187) (Mahaloth 7, Cookies 4, pede 2, Sister 1, Bob 1, Plankton 1)
****
Some peeps are on the light side when it comes to land good votes, or being voted by the Scums:
Idle Thoughts (9th vote on Bob, D3. Weak, possibly bussing) Merestil Haye (11th vote on Bob, D3. Weak, possibly bussing) NaturallyLazy (no vote at all)
Of course taking all these votes at face values would mean the Scums didn't land good votes, unless maybe the remaining scums are included in these three names. I'd say it's unlikely, but we should be looking at these guys, possibly vigging NatLazy, if we do have a vigilante.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 3, 2011 14:45:14 GMT -5
A little distracted at the moment, so commenting on things of note a bit at a time. From Natlaw:
Really just an aside, because it's a minor issue, but fair warning that I cannot help but find people vaguely scummy who over-promise forthcoming analysis (which then fails to appear). It's such a scum-consistent thing to do, especially for people like you who typically come out with a great number of insightful posts as town. You feel the need to act like you usually do, but of course it's much harder if you're scum, and takes much longer. So you promise and you promise, just to be saying *something*, but then it never quite happens. Been there done that bought the T-shirt. Anyway, end digression.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 3, 2011 15:40:22 GMT -5
Because Mahaloth play reminded me to exactly his town play in Halloween while bunny was voted him because Mahaloth's play reminded of scum (without being specific). Did you actually explain this anywhere? Did you ever refer to bunny prior to that statement? Sure, but it's day one and Skeezix's previous vote has just claimed detective, so it's hard to fault him for it. For that matter I don't have much of an issue with your own vote on Timmy either, in isolation. It's just in context that it looks so bad. Actually I didn't miss it. It's just that any comment I could have made on it wouldn't have helped you; I left it out only because it's extremely subjective. I've asked that same exact question as scum and it was not an honest question, just setting up an excuse to do what I already wanted to do. Well, the more traditional response would be "you're the one who has whatever role you have, not me; so you decide. Don't try to pass it off on other people." But arghh, your explanation here actually does make some sense when all put together with your question to Bob and his comment that he's new. I don't know if it makes more sense than you being scum and regretting an initial vote on him, though.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 3, 2011 16:23:27 GMT -5
Because Mahaloth play reminded me to exactly his town play in Halloween while bunny was voted him because Mahaloth's play reminded of scum (without being specific). Did you actually explain this anywhere? Did you ever refer to bunny prior to that statement? He claimed truthfully as untrackable, alignment or power investigator in a previous game and he was seen by the masons watching his target on Night Two. Agreed on better to let him live for now although I think scum (if Mahaloth is town) would be more worried about whether he's protected or not. crazybunny, do you have more specifics on Mahaloth behaviour being scummy similar to a previous game? In the previous game mentioned he also played uber defensively as town investigator as well (and since his claim was pretty hard to swallow that ended up what he did mostly). That [my unvote of bob] puts KidV in the lead so I (imo) that means you don't have to claim. Please note different between an unprovoked claim like BillMc did and the later claim because the player were in the lead for the lynch close to Dusk. The latter is expected at least on this board. But only you know your role so only you can reason when it's best to claim before your lynched or not.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 3, 2011 16:49:01 GMT -5
But arghh, your explanation here actually does make some sense when all put together with your question to Bob and his comment that he's new. I don't know if it makes more sense than you being scum and regretting an initial vote on him, though. I'm stuck on his early vote on Bob. If a scummy Natlaw was so eager to vote a fellow scum (strongman) in preference to the scum redirector, townie harmless or CIAS/ Sinjin, why didn't he vote Maha on Day 2 and why did he wait so late to vote Bob on Day 3? Was the redirector worth that much to risk losing a strongman?
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Mar 3, 2011 17:13:15 GMT -5
Was the redirector worth that much to risk losing a strongman? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 3, 2011 17:38:07 GMT -5
But arghh, your explanation here actually does make some sense when all put together with your question to Bob and his comment that he's new. I don't know if it makes more sense than you being scum and regretting an initial vote on him, though. I'm stuck on his early vote on Bob. If a scummy Natlaw was so eager to vote a fellow scum (strongman) in preference to the scum redirector, townie harmless or CIAS/ Sinjin, why didn't he vote Maha on Day 2 and why did he wait so late to vote Bob on Day 3? Was the redirector worth that much to risk losing a strongman? Having played with a redirector my last game as scum -- yes without a doubt. That's why I've been rating votes placed against Mahaloth on day one so highly. Whether Natlaw and/or scum as a whole would see it that way in this game, I don't know. I don't think it takes too much imagination to justify Natlaw's votes from the standpoint of him being scum. At the time he votes Bob, there is a four-vote bandwagon on Mahaloth. Not only that, but two people (Guiri and Sinjin, both of whom I am leaning town on) have started to push on Bob. All it takes for a scummy Natlaw to place a vote on Bob at that point is some thought along the lines of "oh crap we're going to lose our redirector and it looks like there might come votes against our strongman as well. Well damn if I"m not going to get some town cred out of this". YOu know? I have more to say but just got interrupted. Back later.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 3, 2011 17:53:18 GMT -5
Romanic: I didn't mention much about natlaws vote for bobarrgh, because it's a non-event. On day 1 it looks like a misunderstanding and typos. On day 5 it looks like like a possible attempt to derail a bus with another bus. Except when Maha claimed, a bus on bob would no longer be needed, so it was abandoned, in favor of another bandwagon. IMO it's largely null to me based on the Day 1 context, and definitely wouldn't be the first time i've seen scum bus scum to save other scum. Next up, Idle: Idle, are you sure that Renata has never voted scum in this game? Because I believe you are mistaken, and thus the case you are pursuing is debunked.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 3, 2011 18:21:01 GMT -5
Hockey Monkey's posts: Day 1 #19 Confirmed receiving her PM. #103 She has no issues with Ulla writing PMs. #253 Stated that her post may not be relevant anymore but she's posting it still. She hopes that Bill does not quit. Thinks Bill may be Town, but also thinks Bill may be Scum. Don't lynch Bill, it's a bad idea. That post is odd. Why post outdated content? Why mention that you know it's outdated? Seems like she didn't know what to post, but felt that she had to. #254 fluff (about the wiki) #291 I'm gonna quote this one: I apologize for not being as active today as I would have liked. My boss had a death in the family and is out of town and I'm been running the dealership by myself bell to bell since Thursday. He's on his way back now so my time should free back up somewhat. I've been paying more attention to the game on Giraffe too, and for that I apologize as well. I've read through and I agree that the scummiest playing players right now are Mahaloth and the crazybunny. I'm a little surprised that Mahaloth hasn't voted yet, at least in an effort to save himself. I know it's early to try to do a vote analysis, but the one off votes bother me. I know from experience that some scum will try to hide their votes amongst folks who are not in danger of getting lynched, just so they aren't on a town lynch bandwagon. Timmy's vote for Captain Pinkies is sticking out to me. It's placed later in the day when there has been plenty of discussion about other players and a couple of wagons are rolling on other people. I would like to vote for Timmy, but my own vote would then be what I classify as a one off. I hate that! Can we have some discussion about Timmy's vote? I think there may be something there, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. I will be able to vote before the deadline unless something drastic happens. My top choices right now are Mahaloth, crazybunny and Timmy, with a leaning toward Timmy at the moment. 1st paragraph: real life stuff, explains why she hasn't been active enough. Not much there, except the fact that she's aware of not being active enough. 2nd paragraph: She states that the two scummiest players are Mahaloth and harmless bunny. But she's surprised that Mahaloth is not voting to save himself. Is she trying to defend Mahaloth? Almost like she's saying: "Look people, Mahaloth is not voting to save himself, move away your vote". 3rd paragraph: She does not want to be a one-off because Scum often do so, and she doesn't want to be seen scummy. Understandable I guess, but if your target is scummy, why would you bother about this? (Anyway- I asked that question, and she never replied, but KidV answered for her in #303, something about a sentiment that people share around here, of not wanting to be a one-off. I don't agree with this idea. If someone is scummy, vote for him, make a case and you won't end up in a one-off, or if you really don't want it to happen, unvote before the end, if your case doesn't pick up). So she continues that Timmy's vote on Pinkies is sticking out. 4th paragraph: She wants to vote Timmy, but again she'd hate to be one-off. Her 3 top suspects are Mahaloth, bunny and Timmy. She's leaning Timmy at the moment. 1) She's aware of one-off, but she doesn't want to look suspicious for voting her top suspect. Doesn't make sense to me, despite the one-off explanation. Is she trying to find scums, or avoid being suspicious? 2) Nobody had claimed at this point (actually Mahaloth claimed in #290 just before her, but you'll see that she wasn't aware of that, later, in #292). If she has three suspects, and none claimed why is she not voting Mahaloth or bunny? The tally was: Mahaloth 6, bunny 5, Bob 3, Sinjin 1, Pinkies 1. Mahaloth isn't a one-off, she could vote for him. Same for bunny. [You may point that she could have voted bunny to help Maha, if she's Scum, but I can think of reasons why she didn't. Bob placing the last vote on bunny (#286) so she might not have been comfortable placing that vote yet]. 3) She started the post with 2 suspects ("the scummiest playing players right now are Mahaloth and the crazybunny") but ended up with Timmy being the scummiest, which she cannot vote, for fear one being a one-off #292 NETA comment, she wrote #291 before seeing Mahaloth's post (even though Mahaloth posted almost one hour before her.) #380 Now shes voted Timmy. It's not a one-off anymore. Tally is : Bob 4, bunny 3, KidV 3, Timmy 3, Sinjin 2 etc.. Bob is ahead, placing a vote on Timmy sure helps. She can't vote bunny anymore, he claimed in a previous post (#330). Voting KidV can look suspicious, he's not one of her "suspects". #422 After KidV claims, she posts "Aren't you the doc?". Pointing a possible contradiction from KidV, fueling the mistrust at a claimed Archangel, without voting for him. #423 Precising why she thinks KidV is a doc. #433 Fluff Day 2 Her only post was a two word wonder. #14 "Well crap". Day 3 #17 She loves the writeup color. Fluff. #102 She doesn't believe Bob's claim, and votes for him. Tally is now Bob 9, everyone else 0. Could be bussing. ** During Day 4, Hockey Monkey is replaced by Idle Thoughts ** Day 4 #138 Voted pedescribe. Says he will spend the rest of the Day catching up. Day 5 [toDay] #28 Voted Renata for voting NatLazy, which he considers an easy lynch, and also for not voting for Scum, for voting KidV on D1, and being a one-off on D2, Plankton. My issues with this vote: 1) Renata has made a big case on NatLazy. If she's going for an easy lynch, she's certainly not taking the short way with the work we've seen so far. 2) Renata voted for scum four times. Her two votes on Mahaloth pushed him to a claim. Her vote on Bob D3 was the third one, it looks like a good vote to me. I guess that lynching KidV is a valid reason, but it's still a poor case considering the whole picture. And the one-off is meh to me. #29 fixing a voting mistake. #40 Still find Renata the shadiest after she pointed how inaccurate his case is. #42 Argue that the Day 1 vote from Renata don't mean anything, that only her vote on KidV matters [but as already stated, this is false. Renata's votes lead to Mahaloth claiming, and ultimately helped in lynching Mahaloth and Bob.] **** vote: Idle ThoughtsI am voting for Idle because of HM's work so far, which admittedly Idle cannot answer for, but it's still something we cannot ignore, and also for his case on Renata toDay, which I find to be a wrong picture of the reality.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 3, 2011 18:58:45 GMT -5
Was the redirector worth that much to risk losing a strongman? Yes. OK, so you think he didn't want to bus Day 2 as he still wanted to protect the redirector? And then didn't bus Day 3 as the strongman had increased in value? Despite the avalanche of votes? I don't think it takes too much imagination to justify Natlaw's votes from the standpoint of him being scum. At the time he votes Bob, there is a four-vote bandwagon on Mahaloth. Not only that, but two people (Guiri and Sinjin, both of whom I am leaning town on) have started to push on Bob. All it takes for a scummy Natlaw to place a vote on Bob at that point is some thought along the lines of "oh crap we're going to lose our redirector and it looks like there might come votes against our strongman as well. Well damn if I"m not going to get some town cred out of this". YOu know? OK, I can see motives for the Day 1 bussing but why not Days 2 and Day 3? (see above)
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 3, 2011 19:00:37 GMT -5
NETA, why not bus Bob earlier Day 3?
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Mar 3, 2011 19:41:55 GMT -5
I actually have a fair amount more to think about/say in response to your post and Natlaw's latest response, just no time to get it all coherent at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 3, 2011 21:30:03 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 2 days, 8 hours and 30 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] Natlaw (5) (5 63) Red Skeezix [52] CatInASuit [59], peekercpa [60], Renata [62], Sister Coyote [63] naturallylazy (1) (2 4) Renata [4 62]Renata (1) (1 28) Idle thoughts [28] Red Skeezix (1) (1 45) Natlaw [45] Idle Thoughts (1) (1 76) romanic [76] Romola (0) (1 51) Sister Coyote [51 63]Not Voting (7) Merestil Haye, Romola, sinjin, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts, texcat, naturallylazy, guiri With these votes, Natlaw would be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 4, 2011 6:07:06 GMT -5
Red: D1#59 Doesn't like scum having advantages, but does see general advantages of ad-hoc fake claims and doesn't see them substantially different to pre-writted PMs D1#153 Votes Mahaloth for weak vote on Bill with no apparent reasoning, infused with meta, feels like scum getting on a bandwagon D1#309 Unvotes Mahaloth after claim, is intrigued, not sure if buys claim but rather not risk lynching a power on Day 1 D1#310 NETA to clarify previous post as "garbage", votes Timmy for voting a lurker, easy vote for scum D1#426 Comments on previous game with both Doc and Archangel D2#69 Is here, will be back D2#199 Will be back with vote D2#200 Comments on Cookies's understanding on KidV's role as "the doctor role" when he wasn't but she's not the only one to blame. Something is twigging him but he'd not comfortable voting, votes NatLazy for laying low D2#201 NETA for vote format D3#35 To Pedescribe, who asks about Natlaw in light of Maha's claimed result, thinks result tells us nothing D3#101 Doesn't believe Bob's claim, too powerful, votes D4#80 Feeling a bit lost, finds Natlaw's vote assessment scummy, seems to discount all non-final votes made, votes NatlawD4#84 Doesn't want to keep pfk alive, unvotes to vote PedescribeD4#146 We need to deal with Pinkies and NatLazy before they pick up too many final votes D5#52 Votes Natlaw again based on vote D4 summary D5#55 Explains vote, looks at Natlaw's voting history: inconsistent reasoning on voting for Timmy and later Red, makes LTL votes on Pedescribe and Mhaye, is last to vote Bob but makes a big deal out of final votes the following Day. Is slightly pinged by Sister but can't make a case out of it. Comments: - Started the case against Maha, unvoted 2nd - OK - Vote on Timmy for make an easily defensible LTL vote - OK - No mention of Maha on Day 2, vote was 8-4 (to Cookies when he posted - hrmm - Is "twigged" by Cookies, votes NatLazy for laying low - strange given his reason for voting Timmy on Day 1: Timmy has felt the need to vote for Captain. I can easily see scum making LTL cases this early on as a way to vote for something which they cannot easily be challenged. Comparing Timmy's vote on Pinkies with Red's vote on NatLazy: I've played in just one game with Captain, and he was voted for lack of participation on Day One (might have been the Halloween). You and maybe others seem familiar and--- dare I say--- approve--- of his non-participation in Day One. He's being active and responding but there's no substance behind his posts. I think he's laying low for a reason. Although, something is twigging me about your play, i can't put a face to a name as it was, so i don't feel comfortable voting you. Instead, I'm gonna vote naturally lazy. I feel like she's laying low. - Vote on Bob is 8th, 2nd after claim - OK - Voting NatLaw just for the vote summary seems weak and possibly an overreaction to being on natlaw's shortlist of 9 players "to look at" - hrm - Later explanation of vote is more solid, he's correct that Natlaw seems to have a double standard about LTLTL voting and LTL voting, but so does RedNot ready to vote yet. Might as well vote to spark things up a bit: Vote: Red Skeezix [/color] -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 . [/quote] Natlaw, is this a poke vote, an OMGUS vote, or do you think Red is scum? Your summary of Red's contribution to the game matches my WoW, but the only commentary is "that's not much" and you give his two votes on scum little weight.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 4, 2011 6:09:09 GMT -5
Ok, catching up with a brief look at Natlaw again: Day 1Comments on mod written role-claims wants motivation from BillMC for claiming more comments on mod-written role-claims unprovoked role-claims on Day one are full of wifom questions to romola. votes bobarrgh, will not be voting BillMc, romola or Mahaloth. What I don't understand is why mention Mahaloth, it's the first mention of him by Natlaw in the game?questions to bobarrgh comments about Mahaloth's roleclaim suggestion to Mahaloth about targets leaving vote on bobarrgh, leaning more scummy on HLB than Mahaloth, but leaving the claimants alone, case for KidV is best, case against timmy is not good. retracts statement that timmy looks better than Pinkies. believes bobarrgh when he says made a mistake, puts KidV in the lead 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 scum-tell. I'm not sure I am supposed to reveal my role at the moment, so I am not going to, simply because I don't want to make the wrong move with respect to hurting the other Townies. That puts KidV in the lead so I (imo) that means you don't have to claim. Please note different between an unprovoked claim like BillMc did and the later claim because the player were in the lead for the lynch close to Dusk. The latter is expected at least on this board. But only you know your role so only you can reason when it's best to claim before your lynched or not. Ok, I went back to bobarrghs post. He has already said he is not going to claim. So why add in the extra statement that the player does not have to claim. Also his unvote puts KidV in the lead, he already said KidV was the scummiest, so why not vote for him. Is then not sold on the case for KidV. votes timmy, and agrees with pinkies over reason. is not voting KidV because he doesn't think scum would vote like that. Thoughts:Strange mention of Mahaloth saying he is not voting for him The vote for Bob is safe, still don't like the "don't have to claim now" line, when bobarrgh has already said he is not going to reveal. Also, cites KidV's vote as why he is the scummiest of the cases but doesn't vote him saying that he can understand why a non-scummy KidV would vote like that. Day 2.Starts off Day as if Mahaloth's claim is real. Comment on HM, Mhaye and pedescribe. Provides scummy ping for HM and votes pedescribe citing no participation and bad summary. So that leaves trying scum to kill Mahaloth and failing (block/protect/redirect), scum letting him live as town in hope we lynch him or Mahaloth as scum.This line amuses me given that Mahaloth was a scum redirector Doesn't see a reason why paranoia would be killed by the scum doesn't like case against Cookies or Mahaloth, unvotes pedescribe, votes MHaye for ignoring cases aganist Cookies or Mahaloth Thoughts:Where's the case against HM, seeing as it had a big ping up front, which appears to have vanished. Day 3:Vote summary response to MHaye agrees with pedescribe re: paraphrase does not like final mod votes response to CIAS re: bobarrgh's question implications response to peekercpa about mahaloth. This just seems like someone trying to get townie cred from a scum ploy. catches bobarrgh wagon at end of Day Thoughts:Agreeing with pedescribe could be considered an attempt to derail the wagon against bobarrgh. The response to peekercpa about just seems wrong. i am not even sure that it matters although it might have implications for natlaw. What implications? What I can think of is that Mahaloth tried to redirect me so that if anyone tracked/watched his target would be the same his claimed investigation. But that assumes scum thought I was a power role worth redirecting (go fake PM? ) and there was also a claimed watcher that was blocked so if that's truthful there would need to be another town tracker/watcher to see him. Wait, if they considered you important enough to redirect using Mahaloth as a power role, in order to try and cover his tracks and reasonably it would be because the scum think you a power role, so why aren't you dead yet? Day 4:Final vote analysis?? Response to Sister Coyote comments and defence of final vote analysis Day 1 scum interactions votes pedescribe following claim Thoughts:That vote analysis went nowhere really - it was supposed to be a starting point, but I didn't see much come out of it. Ok so from Day 1 -4 what do we have. In general some of Natlaw's play is townie - some Day 1 pressure on bobarrgh and his defence of questions around it. But beyond that, I'm not so sure. On Day 1: his vote on Timmy, and giving the same reason as to why KidV is both the scummiest of the non-claimed cases and also not a reason he should be voted for make me scratch my head. Also the mention of Mahaloth out of the blue as justification when voting for bobargrh. On Day 2: HM gets a large mention and is never heard of again, he seems to want to stay away from the two main cases and concentrates on pedescribe and MHaye instead. On Day 3: the possible attempt to derail the paraphrase argument of romanic. Also the attempt to gain Town Cred because he was targetted by Mahaloth. If he was considered a power role to cover for Mahaloth, why isn't he dead yet? On Day 4: The final vote analysis, especially since he posted a vote for bobarrgh at end of Day 3 just seems contrived. It also did seem to go anywhere. So, if it was Day 1 alone, I would probably be neutral, perhaps leaning town, but other Day 2-4 and give what we know of bobarrgh and Mahaloth, he is definitely leaning scum for me. I'm happy with my vote.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 4, 2011 6:27:49 GMT -5
Having played with a redirector my last game as scum -- yes without a doubt. That's why I've been rating votes placed against Mahaloth on day one so highly. Whether Natlaw and/or scum as a whole would see it that way in this game, I don't know. (Also to Sister Coyote) It would depend on how many extra kills the strongman has (or if he can pierce protections - we don't know exactly what kind bob was). A redirector needs to know a town power role to redirect or get lucky while the extra kill is just there. In Dr. Horrible scum (I was one) had our hitman lynched Day One and the investigator claimed that Day as well (or soon after). Eventually we lost the game to a double protected investigator I couldn't kill before he confirmed enough town (or found me). So I would rate a extra/unstoppable kill higher especially early game if there are no claimed town powers yet.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 4, 2011 6:46:59 GMT -5
Natlaw, is this a poke vote, an OMGUS vote, or do you think Red is scum? Your summary of Red's contribution to the game matches my WoW, but the only commentary is "that's not much" and you give his two votes on scum little weight. Partly poke ('Might as well vote to spark things up a bit'), OMGUS I guess in that his vote was the trigger to look at him next (from my list earlier). I think the initial case of 'final vote analysis is bad' sucks (again it was to narrow down the people to look at and his 'allow you to ignore pro-town things' doesn't make sense to me) but I can see there being a case against me based on my votes so far. As for the other people I mentioned: 1) Renata - tons of posts to analyze and she's good to post like town when TP/Scum so that leaves her not ideal final vote record but also had some votes for scum Day One). 2) MHaye/HM-Idle/lyla don't seem to be around much so a case against them won't spark much discussion/defense from them. Plus with a possible vigilante around he might take care of them. Of these three I would vote for MHaye first mainly based on the reasons I voted him D2. 3) That left me with Red Skeezix. (insert not-scummy-promise to review others when I get back from work )
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 4, 2011 6:51:27 GMT -5
What I don't understand is why mention Mahaloth, it's the first mention of him by Natlaw in the game?/quote] I mentioned all the people who had votes (or more than one vote, haven't checked) at that time. Rest will have to wait till I get back from work.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 4, 2011 7:40:34 GMT -5
What I don't understand is why mention Mahaloth, it's the first mention of him by Natlaw in the game?/quote] I mentioned all the people who had votes (or more than one vote, haven't checked) at that time. Perhaps the vote count at the time may help. Vote Countwith approximately 3 days, 19 hours and 5 minutes until DayEnd Player (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] Mahaloth (3)(3) Red Skeezix [153], Renata [156], harmless little bunny [168] BillMc (2)(4) Romola [113], sinjin [128], harmless little bunny [131 168], Mahaloth [139 160]harmless little bunny (2)(2) Renata [141 156], Romanic [164], Suburban Plankton [186] Invalid (1)(1) peekercpa [15] sinjin (1)(1) Paranoia [174] Hockey Monkey (0)(1) Renata [140,141]Trying to vote but not succeeding (1) KidVermicious [93] Not voting (14) Mahaloth, Merestil Haye, BillMc, Sister Coyote, Captain Pinkies, Hockey Monkey, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, bobarrgh, texcat, timmy, naturallylazy, guiri, pedescribe, Natlaw With these votes, Mahaloth will be lynched Do you want to try answering that question again, you appear to have missed off HLB and mentioned romola instead?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 4, 2011 7:46:50 GMT -5
Just as a general note, we appear to be missing MHaye, romola and natlazy, none of whom have posted today at all.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 4, 2011 7:58:15 GMT -5
aqnd sinjin has a whopping 1 post questioning my harebrained hypothesis about a mass block.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 4, 2011 8:02:04 GMT -5
neta: and after a good start we are now confronted with a what i would consider a shit pot of folks that will start racking up penalty votes. and if they are all town then we be fucked. wouldn't that be a mother fucking ass sucking pisser.
|
|