Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 17, 2011 15:10:41 GMT -5
So for me the list of likely town personas hasn't changed and my guess for scum currently looks like this romola MHaye Red Skeezix I think it's the same for me except with you added to it and probably romola of it. What was the case against romola except fubbling about who to hammer Day Five? Does anything remain of that since both Idla, lyla and me (you seem to be leaning that way and I know it) are town? Of those I think I'll be voting for MHaye simply because he has the worst vote record of those and I worry the my scum feeling of Red Skeezix is more due to his style (short case + vote, only extra reasons when asked for it) than direct scum evidence. His remarks Today might tip the balance though.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 17, 2011 15:40:36 GMT -5
Rereading the bob lynch again for clues: D2.151: bob votes Cookies for supposedly promising to unvote KidV and OMGUS voting texcat D2.159/161: guiri pokes bob about crazybunny D2.160: bob: he makes a few good points about Maha, but it just "feeling and suppositions, rather than hard fact" D2.182: Romola votes Mahaloth 5 - 4 Cookies I thought from the beginning that Mahaloth's claimed role may be unfeasibly powerful. However, I did think it made sense to keep him alive to claim results and have them scrutinised. Unfortunately, the claimed investigation results leave us none the wiser as to whether he's telling the truth or not. Also, Paranoia's confirmed role as an investigator casts additonal doubt on Maha's claim. No, it's not impossible that Town may have two investigative roles, but we also have to consider, if you are truthful, why Scum would have role blocked yourself, as a Watcher, rather than an investigator. I would be happy with a Mahaloth lynch toDay. I doesn't feel as a bus to me. D2.184 Guiri vote Mahaloth 6 - 4 Cookies. I posted about this before but with his bob poke earlier that Day he looking town to me. D2.185 Romola additional ping for Mahaloth about him quoting Renata as-if mod D2.192 Bob switch from Cookies to Mahaloth D2.200 Red Skeezix 'twigs' Cookies but votes lyla. 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 naturallylazyHis vote for lyla is for a feel but it more important that the twig for Cookies. It 8-4 at this point but I can see a scum Skeezix rather not voting for Cookies at that point. On the other hand, it is close to Dusk and the lynch seems set so why just not vote Cookies? Mhaye does just that: D2.203 Mhaye votes Cookies. Conclusion. Given Mahaloth's history, I could actually see him reacting this way whether he was a the role he claims he has or a Mafiate. So there's not enough for me to vote for him. On to the other lead contender, and there is a lot more to chew on. DarkCoconut. <snip> Now, Bobaargh claimed DarkCoconut promised to unvote KidV in D02.152. I didn't find any such statement from DC when I went over her Day 1. Conclusion. A lot of what has been thrown at DarkCoconut Today is unfounded. There are a some things, however, which mud does stick to. Her failure to address the point in D01.379, CIAS's accusation in D02.041, and the misstatement over how many times she has voted for people then voting her all have some valid grounds. I'm suspicious enough of DarkCoconut on those grounds to register a vote. I like the case better than Red Skeezix feelings, but in the end it is just scraps of mud stinking. His earlier vote for pedescribe for not voting on purpose seems more solid even. It is however not a one-off vote like Skeezixs (or mine that Day for those checking ). In short: guiri++, romola+ (I don't see her as a scum starting a bus but I'll admit I don't know her play that well), skeezix--, mhaye-. Day Three next post.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 17, 2011 16:36:17 GMT -5
D3.012 Sister Coyote votes bob. I simply cannot see her as scum - voting a toughguy after just losing a redirector? Nope. D3.025 Romola realizes she mistakenly took Mahaloth had claimed roleblocker two post before. Scum doing that on purpose? I doubt it. A confused player of either alignment (see her D5 confusion). Probably so null tell (but I'll admit I think a scum would pay more attention, at least I would) D3.026 Sister Coyote: Let's not test whether crazybunny votes count or not in response to plan of Romola. Not scummy but I don't see the harm in the plan so her emphasized not worth knowing at this point seems a bit odd to me. D3.027 guiri again poking bob D3.030 Romanic makes case against bob and votes him. Same as for Sister Coyote, that's major town points. D3.035 Red skeezix: Mahaloth investigation means Natlaw is town, scum or third party. Nothing wrong with this comment unless he doesn't mention bob later (as is is he posting/participating but avoiding bob?) D3.044 Sister Coyote to bob: your defense doesn't actually address my case. D3.045/46 Romanic about he pharaphrase in response to pedescirbe/bob D3.047 CIAS: let's see if someone else more scummy than Cookies. Mahaloth investigation might be scum trying to give Natlaw cover. Pokes pedescribe about scum kill assumption. D3.050 CIAS: Romanics case is solid, places fourth vote on bob. As said earlier - scum would need to have decided to give up on bob at this point for CIAS to be scum. Possible, but not likely. D3.051 Guiri places the fifth vote. I talked about this earlier but with the extra pokes I mentioned I don't think this is a bus. D3.069 CIAS pokes pedescribe, me based about the don't claim bob after reading Sister Coyotes case against bob and Skeezix about voting lyla over HM or Pinkies. D3.074 Bob makes his claim <<fast forward>> D3.101 Red Skeezix joins the wagon. At best a null tell at this point since little reason not to bus at this point D3.110 Romola: claim not that powerful, not convinced about the other parts of the case D3.113 Mhaye with his end of the Day summary. Votes Bob. See Skeezixs vote comment D3.116 Romola keeps poking Sister Coyote about her case against bob D3.129 And poking peeker as well D3.132 And finally votes bob D3.141 MHaye review Cookies and pedescribe. They look better but for both he has some suspicion left so Both MHaye and Skeezix don't comment on bob until after the claim so aside from a Sister Coyote++ and romanic++ not solid. Vote MHayealthough it just as easily could be Red Skeezix or in my eyes probably both. I'll try to review both before Dusk and maybe will switch my vote based on that. For the third I'll have to admit Romola looks worse than CIAS if scum did a Bus with Balls (but he's an experienced enough player for it afaik). As I set earlier I don't think a scum peeker would have claimed like he did. He's more likely SK or maybe actually vigilante (in which case I hope you bring over some skill fromt he Glasnost game ). Considering the no kills Night 1-3 SK he would be have been pretty unlucky (stopped by Plankton twice and doubling up with scum on guiri N3?).
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 17, 2011 17:37:31 GMT -5
The current Scum voting record would be: (it's an exact copy from my D5, #68 since we haven't found a Scum since)
CatInASuit D3 - BobArrgh (#50) (Bob 4, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Sister Coyote D2 - BobArrgh (#97) (Mahaloth 1, Sister 1, Sinjin 1, Cookies 1, Bob 1) D3 - BobArrgh (#12) (Bob 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)
****
MHaye has by far the scummiest voting record, because he has nothing to go for him. Never voted a Scum, except a weak vote on Bob (11th), and never was voted by a Scum. The bandwagon vote on Bob means nothing, it was a gimme at that point.
His complete voting record would be:
D1 - Didn't vote, missed the deadline.
D2 - Voted pedescribe (#179) (Cookies 4, Mahaloth 3, pedescribe 2, Sister 1, Bob 1, Plankton 1, textcat 1) Not particularly helping Mahaloth, but not going against him either. D2 - Moved his vote to Cookies (#203) (Mahaloth 8, Cookies 5, Sister 1, Bob 1, Plankton 1, MHaye 1, natlazy 1) Not really helping Mahaloth, considering the vote was the last for the Day, and done with about 20 minutes to go.
D3 - Voted Bob (#113) (Bob 11) Could easily be bussing.
D4 - Voted pedescribe (#120) (pedescribe 9, Romanic 1, natlazy 1) Runaway bandwagon, not much here.
D5 - Voted Idle Thoughts (#148) (natlazy 4, Idle 4, Natlaw 3, Renata 1) If MHaye is Scum and was trying to save someone else, that person would be Natlaw because natlazy and Renata are known Town. Natlaw is voting for him toDay though.
D6 - Voted natlazy (#44) (natlazy 9, Natlaw 1, Romola 1) Runaway bandwagon, not much here.
There's no meaningful votes here, except Day 5 (and perhaps the first vote on pedescribe D2, but I would argue that this was a safe vote, not taking side in Cookies vs Mahaloth)
vote: MHaye
The absence of good/meaningful votes is good enough for me.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Mar 17, 2011 17:43:56 GMT -5
Natlaw's claim as a killing role always had the fundamental loophole of a "higher power" that decided whether his kill worked or not. Aside from the fundamental issue that if I'd put the HHG in a game I'd have made it a Crazy Townie role 1, the fact that there is a reason the kill might not go through makes the claim about as provable as a Vanilla. I guess with the second fundamental issue you meant irrelevant? No, I meant that, basically, I don't think the HHG is a good fit (flavourwise) for a Vig. (I apologise for using the word "fundamental" twice though. That's poor drafting.) Considering that many of the other roles have fitted their colour quite well (although why Sir Robin is a Paranoid Doc and not a commuter, I don't know; that counterexample does tend to weaken my suspicion.) That's arguable. If the so-called "higher power" decides you don't attack, you might not actually leave your resting place, in which case you wouldn't be seen actually doing anything by either role. As you say, they're both dead therefore the argument is academic. I meant that, assuming for a minute you are telling the truth, if a second player was involved in your power by making the decision on whether you attacked or not, then you would have no basis to know whether or not you would kill the person you nominated, hence it would be "unknowable." If, on the other hand, the decision is made by a rule established by the Mods, then you might have a chance of figuring it out and picking players who would die each Night. (As an aside, if you're telling the truth, one rule we can eliminate is "the player must have one or more final votes against them.) Pretty much, yes.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 17, 2011 18:28:17 GMT -5
I can't imagine a pro-town reason for MHaye not claiming at this stage in the Day.
I agree that his voting record is the worst of all remaining players but he also consistently avoided commenting on cases against known scum until they were forgone conclusions: He made no mention of the cases against Bob or Mahaloth on Day 1 but talked about Bill who was in no danger of being lynched by that time. On Day 2 he commented on all the other Day 1 lynch candidates except the two known scum. Later he posts about 3rd party Pedescribe but makes no mention of the cases against Maha and Cookies until shortly before the end of the Day when the Maha lynch was a certainty. And then the late Day 3 vote on Bob when it was a forgone conclusion could easily be bussing
Vote MHaye
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 18, 2011 3:44:47 GMT -5
However, unless we take out the scum roleblocker, it may be a moot point. <snipped> ding ding ding alarm bells are going off. and i don't know why this is such a burr in my saddle but it is. you keep arguing against a mass block and instead scum forgot to send in a NK. but you are also operating under the assumption that scum blocked bunny and then they just forgot to submit a Night kill. that makes not a lick of sense to me. additionally, how in the world do you so positively arrive at the conclusion that scum even have an rb? If you read the latest press release from CNN (CIAS News Network), you will note that the most likely option given the current info is that guiri was the target on Night 3, the scum did not mess up their kill and because HLB was blocked at the same time, the scum have a roleblocker. I have stopped arguing that the scum didn't send in a kill and because it looks like Renata got a result, it's highly unlikely there was a mass roleblock on Night 3. *slaps peekercpa with a tuna*
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 18, 2011 4:30:54 GMT -5
Unofficial Vote Count:
Natlaw(3 (4-47)): Red[6], Sister[31], romola[35], Peeker[47-67]
MHaye(3 (3-95)): Natlaw[92], Romanic[93], Guiri[95]
Romola(2 (2-81)): CIAS[53], Peeker[81]
Not Voting(1): MHaye
I don't like the tied vote with MHaye being the only non-voter.
Romola has just posted once toDay, a vote on Natlaw which contained an inaccurate summary of Peeker's vote record as a reason to vote Natlaw over Peeker. I still have mixed feelings about her: - her metagame Day1 vote on Bill and leaving her vote there despite his replies and the ongoing cases against known scum - her Day 2 vote on Maha was decisive in his lynch but came at a time when the case against Cookies already had 2 known scum voting and was gaining little traction compared to the case against Maha - her being smudged by Bob who then backtracked on his reasons for smudging her - her confusion about Maha's role is an unlikely mistake for a fellow scum to make but not implausible - her questioning of only Sister's case on Bob didn't seem to be going anywhere but it looks like she was attempting to catch Sister in a contradiction or mistake - her Day 5 confusion - her lack of claim and participation toDay
The early votes on Natlaw were based partially on suspicions from earlier in the game and partially on an either/or scenario relative to Peeker. Given the wording in Natlaw's PM about being informed if his kill was successful, I don't think the Vig and Exploder/Vig (Limited) roles conflict as it initially appeared when Peeker claimed. CIAS is correct that there's no reason not to believe there are two vigs in the game, one full-vig and one who is severely limited but while I think it's a crappy role to give someone, those PMs to the mods look authentic.
I'll review Red and CIAS tonight.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 18, 2011 4:32:24 GMT -5
D3.050 CIAS: Romanics case is solid, places fourth vote on bob. As said earlier - scum would need to have decided to give up on bob at this point for CIAS to be scum. Possible, but not likely. Much as I hate to kick myself, this is quite possible. If, as theorised, the second NK on Night 1 was bobarrgh, then it is possible he was a vanilla scum at this point, which makes him prime for bussing but still looking good for anyone scum that do bus him. Looking back over romola again, the one thing giving me real pause for thought is her vote on Mahaloth. Two things do come to mind. If she was scum and voted Cookies to save Mahaloth, then it would have been three scum in a row, which may not necessarily have saved Mahaloth due to suspicion on him. If she voted for someone else, Mahaloth would likely have gone down regardless. If she was town, it was the right choice to make and the reasoning behind it looks sound. However, there is the defence of bobarrgh through Day 1-3, a strange comment about the timing of Mahaloth's claim being perfect, but against that there is the confusion of bunny still being blocked, then the end of Day 5 confusion between the various players. It seems a curious mix of being very townie followed by very scummy behaviour. Hmm, looking between this case and the cases against MHaye, I have to think this case is weaker. unvote romola
vote MHaye
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 18, 2011 4:39:39 GMT -5
Updated claim roster.
Alive: 5. Merestil Haye - no claim 3. CatInASuit (BillMc)- Roger the Shrubber - vanilla 4. peekercpa - Sir Lancelot - vig 6. Sister Coyote - Tim, the Enchanter - vanilla 8. Romola - no claim 15. Romanic - Old Crone - vanilla 20. guiri - Concorde - scotsman 23. Natlaw - HHGoA - limited vig 24. Red Skeezix - European Swallow - vanilla
1. KidVermicious, Sir Galahad, Archangel 2. Renata, King Arthur, Tracker 7. Captain Pinkies, Hiccoughing Guard, Vanilla 9. sinjin, Witch, Vanilla 10. Paranoia, Prince Herbert, Questioner/Investigator 11. Idle Thoughts (Hockey Monkey), Patsy, Vanilla 14. texcat, Dennis the annoying peasant, Vanilla 17. Suburban Plankton, Sir Robin, Paranoid Doc 18. timmy, Frank the Historian, Vanilla 19. naturallylazy, Sir Not Appearing in this Film, Vanilla 22. harmless little bunny, Sir Bedevere, Watcher
Scum: 13. bobarrgh, Dead Collector, Scum Toughguy 16. Mahaloth, Dingo, Redirector
3rd Party: 12. ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, The Black Knight, Survivor 21. pedescribe, The Spanish Inquisition, Mad Bomber
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 18, 2011 7:43:20 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 1 day, 3 hours and 16 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] Merestil Haye (4) (4 98) Natlaw [92], Romanic [93], guiri [95], CatInASuit [98] Natlaw (3) (4 37) Red Skeezix [6], Sister Coyote [31], romola [35], peekercpa [37 67], romola (1) (2 81) CatInASuit [53 98], peekercpa [81] Not Voting (1) Merestil Haye With these votes, Merestil Haye would be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 18, 2011 9:25:34 GMT -5
jeebus, the case against mhaye took off quickly.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 18, 2011 10:08:32 GMT -5
If you read the latest press release from CNN (CIAS News Network), you will note that the most likely option given the current info is that guiri was the target on Night 3, the scum did not mess up their kill and because HLB was blocked at the same time, the scum have a roleblocker. <snipped> and you could be right. i totally spaced that bunny had been blocked numerous Nights before his (her?) death. ok, guiri you can go stand over in the corner with romanic.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Mar 18, 2011 11:57:24 GMT -5
I've been reviewing the posts of Red Skeezix. My starting point was recent play, but I went back to the beginning. Day 1 sees Red vote Mahaloth, then unvote after the claim and switch to Timmy. His vote for Timmy is found in D01.310. The reason given is that Mafiates might well make a LtL case early on to avoid having their case challenged. Day 2 sees Red almost disappear until the end, when he comes charging in with a vote for Ms Lazy. Why? Because she's laying low. See D02.200, although the formal vote is placed in 201 (along with imprecations hurled at the colour tags.) So on Day 1, voting a player who was laying low was worth a vote; on Day 2 voting a player who was laying low was acceptable behaviour. This could be simply due to being caught short of time, but it doesn't sit well with me even if it is. Especially since that an uncharitable soul could argue that Red himself was laying low, after making four posts all Day, one of which was a NETA post to correct the borked Vote tags. Day 3 sees Red voting Bobarrgh for a claim that doesn't make sense. By the time Red placed his vote, there were already 7 votes on Bob, one-third of the electorate. Red's vote didn't make much practical difference to the outcome. Of course, neither did mine, which came somewhat later. I placed mine because, at that point I felt that Bob was likely to be Mafia-aligned, and I did not feel strongly about any of the other players (at least, not as strongly as I had done the previous Day) and I wanted to avoid not voting at all. As an aside, abstention is a valid vote, but only if it is a deliberate action and announced ahead of time. Much as I'd like to claim I was abstaining on Day 1, the plain fact is that I took to long researching and writing my post. Day 4. Votes Natlaw for an analysis he claims is the sort Mafia would post; this isn't a bad argument, as it's certainly in the best interests of Mafia to keep as many options open as possible. Red later switches to Pedescribe, but that is a null tell, since neither Town nor Mafia would leave such a wild-card alive. Day 5. Continued pressure on Natlaw, but switches to Idle when it appears his case against Natlaw was going nowhere. Day 6 sees Red vote for Ms Lazy. The grounds are that he felt Renata's pushing of the case against her was on the basis of some extracurricular knowledge her role had given her. Day 7. Red pushes quite hard for what he wants. In particular (and this is why I spent time rereading his posts) he seems to want to dictate the future course of the game based on Today's votes and actions. He continues pressure on Natlaw after a Day off. He doesn't seem surprised that Peeker has claimed Vig, and seems to think that if Peeker is, Natlaw isn't ( D07.006.) Red expands on his reasons in D07.029, in which he notes that all weird claims so far tested have proved false. Finally he states that if Natlaw comes up Vig, he'll vote for Peeker. A bit later on he demands CIAS place the last vote on Natlaw, and will vote for CIAS tomorrow if this does not happen. At least part of his accusation is, he claims, because CIAS (who has claimed Roger the Shrubber) wasn't pushing suspicion of Mahaloth when Maha claimed to be a Shrubbery. I'm not sure I wholly agree with this, since expecting all the roles in a Monty Python based game to be sensible is ignoring the source material. Given Red himself claims to be a European swallow, he already has an example of a silly name claim. I want to think about this a bit further, but right now I'm slightly more suspicious of Red than Natlaw.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 18, 2011 12:49:17 GMT -5
My problem with Pedescribe Yesterday was that he point-blank refused to vote. It's not that, like me, he made plans that failed, it's that he announced in advance that he did not intend to vote. Not voting on Day 1 is antiTown, because you are denying the players information later in the game. The more I think about it, the less I like it. As an aside, abstention is a valid vote, but only if it is a deliberate action and announced ahead of time. Much as I'd like to claim I was abstaining on Day 1, the plain fact is that I took to long researching and writing my post. One is not like the other. Or is it MHaye?
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Mar 18, 2011 12:56:52 GMT -5
My problem with Pedescribe Yesterday was that he point-blank refused to vote. It's not that, like me, he made plans that failed, it's that he announced in advance that he did not intend to vote. Not voting on Day 1 is antiTown, because you are denying the players information later in the game. The more I think about it, the less I like it. As an aside, abstention is a valid vote, but only if it is a deliberate action and announced ahead of time. Much as I'd like to claim I was abstaining on Day 1, the plain fact is that I took to long researching and writing my post. One is not like the other. Or is it MHaye? Fair point. The difference between what Pede did and the sort of abstention that I would regard as legit is that Pede didn't give a reason not to vote except "I don't want to be led around by the Mafia." I accept that I should have spelled that out. Either that or my memory is fading. Or both. A valid abstention would need to be accompanied by an explanation of why the cases made to date are wrong. Pede didn't do that. The last time I can remember abstaining on Day 1 was one of Storyteller's games on here. Skrull Planet, I think; the Day where the choices were either HonestMoley the claimed inventor or Peeker the Miller/Doc. I gave reasons then. Abstention should be regarded as a last resort.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 18, 2011 13:08:49 GMT -5
We do have a tiebreaker in this game so I don't think you reasoning holds in this game (at least). If you abstain now you are basically voting yourself.
And if you abstain because you're not agreeing with the current lynch candidates, you still have "Not voting on Day 1 is antiTown, because you are denying the players information later in the game. As in a one-off vote would be better, especially if reasoned well.
Anyway, it was an aside of why you might just as well not have voted D3 if you had thought bob town but you didn't so you voted him, if I read you right.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 18, 2011 13:10:00 GMT -5
NETA: missing ening quote at "...denying the players information later in the game".
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Mar 18, 2011 16:09:37 GMT -5
We do have a tiebreaker in this game so I don't think you reasoning holds in this game (at least). If you abstain now you are basically voting yourself. I'm not planning to abstain. I wanted to let my reading and discussion of Red Skeezix's posts ferment a little, and review where in the continuum of suspicion he falls for me. A one-off vote is better than abstention in over 99% of cases. If I had thought Bob likely town, I'd have said so, and not voted for him. If I'd had a stronger suspicion at that point, I'd have voted accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 18, 2011 17:08:46 GMT -5
As far as claims go, we're missing only two: CIAS - Vanilla - D7 #53guiri - Scotsman - D7 #73Merestil Haye - ? Natlaw - Exploder/Vig - D5 #105peeker - Vig - D7 #13Red Skeezix - Vanilla - D7 #76Romanic - Vanilla - D7 #89romola - ? Sister Coyote - Vanilla - D7 #70*** 4 vanillas, 1 vig, 1 exploder/vig, 1 Scotsman and 2 unknown.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 18, 2011 17:18:45 GMT -5
Day 5. Continued pressure on Natlaw, but switches to Idle when it appears his case against Natlaw was going nowhere. Are you ignoring the fact that Natlaw had claimed at this point? And that I advocated letting a possible vig take him out if he was lying? Day 6 sees Red vote for Ms Lazy. The grounds are that he felt Renata's pushing of the case against her was on the basis of some extracurricular knowledge her role had given her. Day 7. Red pushes quite hard for what he wants. In particular (and this is why I spent time rereading his posts) he seems to want to dictate the future course of the game based on Today's votes and actions. Of course I do. What other way would there be to act except on the evidence of the past? I can't possibly vote on future behavior since I don't know what it will be. He continues pressure on Natlaw after a Day off. He doesn't seem surprised that Peeker has claimed Vig, and seems to think that if Peeker is, Natlaw isn't ( D07.006.) Red expands on his reasons in D07.029, in which he notes that all weird claims so far tested have proved false. Finally he states that if Natlaw comes up Vig, he'll vote for Peeker. A bit later on he demands CIAS place the last vote on Natlaw, and will vote for CIAS tomorrow if this does not happen. At least part of his accusation is, he claims, because CIAS (who has claimed Roger the Shrubber) wasn't pushing suspicion of Mahaloth when Maha claimed to be a Shrubbery. I'm not sure I wholly agree with this, since expecting all the roles in a Monty Python based game to be sensible is ignoring the source material. Given Red himself claims to be a European swallow, he already has an example of a silly name claim. You missed the point here, it's not that it's silly (IIRC, i was referring to Natlaw's claim as silly). It's that Mahaloth's false claim specifically mentions Roger the shrubber AND it doesn't draw attention from CIAS. If my role name was mentioned in someone elses PM, it'd certainly draw my attention. Combined with the fact that CIAS a claimed vanilla decided to start a mass claim rolling. That is scummy behavior. I want to think about this a bit further, but right now I'm slightly more suspicious of Red than Natlaw. Just out of curiosity, do you believe that Natlaw is more likely to be town than yourself?
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 18, 2011 17:50:50 GMT -5
Also, my future MIL has arrived for the weekend, so I'll be scarce till Sunday/Monday.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 18, 2011 17:54:01 GMT -5
Also, my future MIL has arrived for the weekend, so I'll be scarce till Sunday/Monday. You mean you'll be hanging around here all weekend? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Mar 18, 2011 18:16:37 GMT -5
Romola is out of town on an unexpected vacation, so I will be very surprised if we hear from her, let alone see a claim.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 18, 2011 19:28:24 GMT -5
I've only got up to Day 4 on CIAS, I'll try to finish before the end of the Day but from what I've read, I am comfortable with my current vote. Day 1: Mainly Bill, claims VT, to Romola, explains stance on on-demand fake PMs: water-tight alibi PMs are unfair, to Pinkies, explains motivation for VT claim and breadcrumbs "shrubbery", comments on Natlaw's fake claim - "illustrates that there is no player in the game called that", gets upset, to Romola, states that he'd previously objected to on-demand PMs, asks to be subbed out. CIAS subs in just before the end of the Day, will give the three claimants Maha, bunny and KidV "benefit of the doubt atm", votes Timmy 6 minutes before Day end as "something about Timmy seems wrong." I suppose given the amount of time left in the Day and the current vote situation (KidV-5, Timmy-4, Bob-3, Harmless/Sinjin-2), a gut feeling was the most he could have but he avoided mentioning Bob. Day 2 Responds to 2 night kills, to Harmless, asks to explain how Paranoia's reveal implicates Mahaloth, posts vote count without commentary #41 Does a WoW on Cookies and Suburban due to their vote on KidV, finds Suburban scummier but votes Cookies due to her comment about KidV not being the only protective role #68 Defends comment about Suburban being scummier but not voting him and case against Cookies - didn't read whole paragraph as being based on the assumption that KidV was telling the truth #73 Adds to suspicions of Cookies, she hadn't mentioned Harmless when voting Mahaloth#76 Asks Renata what should would have done had she been online to see KidV's claim Having a color-coded vote counts is great but when there's absolutely no commentary, no matter how trivial or inconclusive, it gives an appearance of participation - playing the helpful Townie - without actually taking stances or sharing suspicions. Most of his D2 participation is focused on his case against Cookies and his interpretation of her comment about KidV not being the only protective role. We now know he was correct to be suspicious of her and her intents may have been less than pure but his last post came almost 3 days before the end of Day and he completely missed the Mahaloth lynch but was the 3rd response to the lynch reveal. Day 3 starts with some fluff, another vote count without commentary, still suspects Cookies but will re-read #48 He comments on implications of Mahaloth's claimed result on Natlaw, suspects Timmy may have been the scum kill to provide cover, accuses Pedescribe of PIS for his comment on scum making the single Night 2 kill #50 He adds the 4th vote on Bob adding to the case - Bob's dropping his D1 suspicions on Harmless without reason - and suspects that Bob may have been trying to save Mahaloth with his vote on Cookies - which makes her more likely to be Town #67 Asks Pedescribe about his interest in Natlaw#68 Asks everyone to name someone they find scummy and why #69 Asks Pedescribe what he means by "scum double-bus" #70 Asks Natlaw why he told Bob not to claim #71 Asks Red how he selected NatLazy from the 3 non-participants of the Day #74 To Pedescribe, further comments about his PIS and questions about his interest in Natlaw#78 Bob's claimed power makes no sense #85 Game is quiet Good vote on Bob, but again no posts for almost 3 days, Day ends and again he's the 3rd response to the lynch reveal. Bob already had 7 votes when CIAS last posted but given his complaint that the game was quiet, this stands out Day 4 Starts with a response to the lack of deaths, posts an updated vote count #21 Suspects TexCat for her vote against Cookies, finds Cookies Town due to Bob's reveal, suspects Pedescribe for PIS, suspects Natlaw for his comment to Bob about claiming #24 To Renata, who accuses Pedescribe of trying to derail the case against Bob by attacking the paraphrase portion of the case, agrees that point is possible but corrects her on the number of votes on Bob at that time (3, not 2) #53 Comments on game so far, thinks scum messed up N3, no SK, no mass block, suspects Natlaw is a scum godfather, is wavering on Pedescribe's "switch from Cookies to Mahaloth" - possibly to gain town cred or to save scummy Cookies, no longer suspicious of TexCat - agrees with her reasoning for voting Cookies, Cookies replaces TexCat in his suspect list with Peeker as a possible 6th scum. #59 Posts a WoW on Pedescribe, votes him (4th) for not voting D1, reasoning behind vote on Maha, the case against Romanic#62 To Renata, explains reasoning for comments on NKs, suspects Night duration is not controlled by the mods, expects 5 scum, maximum 6 #68/88 Clarifies comments on Pedescribe's vote, to Romanic, wasn't a switch but if both Pede and Bob had been voting Cookies she may have been lynched #89 Comments on how quiet the Day is #91 Analyzes TexCat's vote on Cookies, thinks her vote was valid and explains reasons for suspecting Cookies#95 Further comments on Cookies's vote on KidV#105 Posts analysis of D3 interactions with Bob, no comments, asks Nat about his edit to Bob's post Weird flip-flop on TexCat, good vote on Pedescribe, generally supported by previous comments, no posts for the last 2 days of the Day but this time it was a forgone conclusion.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 19, 2011 10:53:49 GMT -5
20 minutes to go. MHaye has not claimed or voted. Dunno what to make of that. If scum, he must think he cannot convince anyone to lynch me and his own vote isn't enough. So he's not voting to not give out anymore information. But there no harm in voting me anyway just on the off chance someone else switches. If town, it makes no sense given his posted thoughts on abstentions, etc yesterday. Also if he he wanted to lynch me or maybe Red Skeezix he needs to convince others to join him and not him, but he hasn't really defended himself either. To be fair the case against him is pretty much be elemination (everyone else voted better), at least for me. Red Skeezix is an alternative for me, has some scummy feeling commments Today but that early Mahaloth vote as well. The third scum then would be Romola unless I start consider bussing. 8 minutes to go... It's too quiet here. If the Spanish Inquistion wasn't already dead I would be expecting them .
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Mar 19, 2011 10:59:35 GMT -5
Unvote: Red Skeezix
Vote: Natlaw
Self-defence. I know I'm town and don't know for certain that he is.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 19, 2011 11:14:17 GMT -5
Ah, bloody, if I read the rules right that means I get lynched because my four vote peak was earlier than MHaye even though I dipped to three for a bit? (mumbles something about MHaye but since the Day is over no one hears me)Ah, total is on now to do the execution
|
|