|
Post by julie on Apr 4, 2011 10:50:15 GMT -5
So, what does a town advisor do? Advises. (It's a smart aleck answer, but also true. I won't go into any specifics about the role.) I have sent an email to peeker. I have also unlocked the Day 1 thread. I had forgotten links don't work from locked threads. Sorry about that.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Apr 4, 2011 10:56:13 GMT -5
It looks like we can't quote posts from the Night 1 thread, but something from Post 8 from last Night struck me... LightFoot said "since we have been having time zone conversations would y'all care to share yours?" The problem is, I don't recall seeing a conversation about time zones anywhere on this board... It was Night I was making small talk? A few ppl myself included had posted that different time zones make for different "play times"
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Apr 4, 2011 11:00:23 GMT -5
It looks like we can't quote posts from the Night 1 thread, but something from Post 8 from last Night struck me... LightFoot said "since we have been having time zone conversations would y'all care to share yours?" The problem is, I don't recall seeing a conversation about time zones anywhere on this board... Trailing ellipses of dooooommm ... So do you find this to be suggestive of scumminess to any real extent that you're planning to follow up on, or are you just hoping people will take it for given that you are correct and place the votes so you don't have to? I know something was said about time zones during day one, though I don't remember the details.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Apr 4, 2011 12:11:41 GMT -5
It looks like we can't quote posts from the Night 1 thread, but something from Post 8 from last Night struck me... LightFoot said "since we have been having time zone conversations would y'all care to share yours?" The problem is, I don't recall seeing a conversation about time zones anywhere on this board... Trailing ellipses of dooooommm ... So do you find this to be suggestive of scumminess to any real extent that you're planning to follow up on, or are you just hoping people will take it for given that you are correct and place the votes so you don't have to? I know something was said about time zones during day one, though I don't remember the details. If you look at my posts over time, you till see that I have a tendency to (over?)use ellipses... I brought up the point because I thought it was strange. I recall Lightfoot mentioning that she seemed to be posting at times when nobody else was online, but I don't recall any "time zone conversations" taking place... Yes, the unspoken accusation was that these "conversations" might have taken place on the Scum board, and that she accidentally referenced it here. I didn't follow it with a vote because I felt that it would have been would be premature...
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Apr 4, 2011 13:37:01 GMT -5
Well that's sort of my point. I think most townies, coming across something like that, would handle it differently. Either:
1. They would check, find the previous mentions during day one, and write it off without ever saying anything. Or,
2. They would ask. "Look at this post I found, was this ever mentioned previous to this, can anybody check?" sort of thing.
Instead, you just sort of tossed it out there like a dead fish for everyone to chew on, without really taking responsibility. And at that the comment itself falls into the Drain Bead Hypothesis sort of territory, I think, in that it's the type of potentially-scummy comment that scum are more likely to notice as suspicious (or "suspicious") than the town is. It's enough to push a review of your posts a little further up the review list, anyway.
What do you think of Ed today?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Apr 4, 2011 13:58:20 GMT -5
What do you think of Ed today? Well, other than the fact that he told us he hadn't been kidnapped, he hasn't had much to say, so my opinion of him remains unchanged at this point. He does seem to be viewed by many as "Cconfirmed Town" though, so that's good for him.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Apr 4, 2011 13:58:32 GMT -5
So you have no idea what Scooby Snacks do...but you're perfectly willing to pass them around anyway? Or are you simply trying to lighten your magic bag? How am I to find out what they do if I don't experiment with them? What magic bag are you accusing me of?
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 4, 2011 14:03:01 GMT -5
What do you think of Ed today? he's sexy as hell. I can't keep my hands off of him. Where's Captain Pinkies? not even any drink recipes. He must be tiring of this game. of course, it's not [s Day 3[/s] Day 6 where he really gets into the game. and, notice the new players still not commenting on the gloating. I wonder if they are all waiting for advice in the Scum thread.
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 4, 2011 14:05:46 GMT -5
Give 1 snack to Mahaloth Give 1 snack to Mental Guy Give 1 snack to septimus Give 1 snack to Captain Pinkies Give 1 snack to Suburban Plankton Give 1 snack to Inner Stickler Give 1 snack to storyteller
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 4, 2011 14:06:47 GMT -5
Give 1 snack to Mahaloth Give 1 snack to Mental Guy Give 1 snack to septimus Give 1 snack to Captain Pinkies Give 1 snack to Suburban Plankton Give 1 snack to Inner Stickler Give 1 snack to storyteller[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 4, 2011 14:07:03 GMT -5
bah!
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Apr 4, 2011 14:09:20 GMT -5
What was the point of that? And why didn't I get any?
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 4, 2011 14:12:28 GMT -5
What was the point of that? And why didn't I get any?There was a rationale behind it. Maybe not a good one, but there was. I'm sorry you didn't get one.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Apr 4, 2011 14:13:20 GMT -5
What do you think of Ed today? he's sexy as hell. I can't keep my hands off of him. Where's Captain Pinkies? not even any drink recipes. He must be tiring of this game. of course, it's not [s Day 3 [/s] Day 6 where he really gets into the game. and, notice the new players still not commenting on the gloating. I wonder if they are all waiting for advice in the Scum thread.[/quote] I'm at work and have yet to find the wiki link for the terms.. I will eventually (unless you have it handy?)
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Apr 4, 2011 14:13:54 GMT -5
Well, at least Daphne made an appearance in the color toDay. That should lend a little support to Special and Mental's claims.
@ Suburban, do you still think Daphne is not in the game? Where did Sister magic bag?@
Sister, do you think Special has any use for the snack or do you view him as a larder for safe-keeping?
@ GnarlyCharlie, why do you consider Special outing himself on Day1 to be a good move?
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Apr 4, 2011 14:16:00 GMT -5
How am I to find out what they do if I don't experiment with them? What magic bag are you accusing me of? You had said that "if we had figured out the purpose of Scooby Snacks, and if it were better for Scum to not know that purpose, then perhaps it would be best not to say anything." Next post you were passing some around. It could be that you had figured out what to do with them, and were doing it, but not telling the rest of us what "it" was. Hence the 'magic bag' reference.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Apr 4, 2011 14:18:27 GMT -5
@ Suburban, do you still think Daphne is not in the game? Where did Sister magic bag?@ I have seen nothing to change my mind on the subject of Daphne (and my association, Ed). And I answered the SisC question in Post 45, immediately following your question.
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 4, 2011 14:19:37 GMT -5
and, notice the new players still not commenting on the gloating. I wonder if they are all waiting for advice in the Scum thread. I'm at work and have yet to find the wiki link for the terms.. I will eventually (unless you have it handy?) There isn't a wiki article. I guess it boils down to the difference between these quotes: and this:
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Apr 4, 2011 14:21:15 GMT -5
I have seen nothing to change my mind on the subject of Daphne (and my association, Ed). Make that by association
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Apr 4, 2011 14:28:56 GMT -5
I'm at work and have yet to find the wiki link for the terms.. I will eventually (unless you have it handy?) There isn't a wiki article. I guess it boils down to the difference between these quotes: and this: I'm familiar with the word, I thought it was another "game" term that I was not yet privy to. AND Since you referenced A wiki in your first comment. I didn't see anything that struck me that way on page one, I will re-read.
|
|
|
Post by julie on Apr 4, 2011 14:44:22 GMT -5
Vote Count:
*FCOD: 1 (Renata 22)
*Current lynch leader
Snack Transfers:
Special Ed: +1 (Sister Coyote 10)
Mahaloth: +1 (Special Ed 39)
MentalGuy: +1 (Special Ed 39)
septimus: +1 (Special Ed 39)
Captain Pinkies: +1 (Special Ed 39)
Suburban Plankton: +1 (Special Ed 39)
Inner Stickler: +1 (Special Ed 39) storyteller: +1 (Special Ed 39)
Corrections always welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Apr 4, 2011 14:56:55 GMT -5
Next post you were passing some around. It could be that you had figured out what to do with them, and were doing it, but not telling the rest of us what "it" was. Hence the 'magic bag' reference. Nope. Just decided I would pass one around and see what, if anything, happens toDay or toNight that might be attributable to my lone (though no longer Lonely, Jesus, Ed) Snack. Sister, do you think Special has any use for the snack or do you view him as a larder for safe-keeping? Neither of the above. I have no reason to think Ed has any use for the snack, nor do I view him as a storage space. It was a whim; I acted on it.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Apr 4, 2011 15:15:12 GMT -5
I think ouw newer players might benefit from a wiki entry on gloating. if i understand correctly, gloating is viewed as something scum would do. idle thoughts never corrected us in our first game when ALL of us would say 'Sorry.' it's his fault. LOL Give 1 snack to Mahaloth Give 1 snack to Mental Guy Give 1 snack to septimus Give 1 snack to Captain Pinkies Give 1 snack to Suburban Plankton Give 1 snack to Inner Stickler Give 1 snack to storyteller no scooby snacks for renata and the noobs. @ GnarlyCharlie, why do you consider Special outing himself on Day1 to be a good move? well, he wasn't kidnapped. strangely though, mental was killed (scared away). i would have figured that he would be a target since he can rescue daphne. is he fred? perhaps someone protected mental. so good move for him as well.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Apr 4, 2011 15:19:09 GMT -5
i mean mental WASN'T killed.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Apr 4, 2011 16:04:08 GMT -5
Sister Coyote Day One
20 – here 42 – “the usual stuff” 52 – helpful advice to scuzzlebutt, tells LightFoot Ed’s been pretty active (in different words) 99 – a “scum would do that” response to Storyteller’s doubt that a scum Ed would start off the game in such a conspicuous way (at this point, referring to the meta-game vote on Pinkies and subsequent pie-fight); also references Ed’s exploits in almost getting town to lynch their cop in a recent Giraffe game 123 – response to gnarlycharlie: sniping and illogical voting are what we do on day one 124 – helpfully quotes two posts that Special Ed referred to but didn’t include. To the first one (a comment on Septimus doing the classical “I’m too newbie to catch scum” maneuver) says that she doesn’t see the scumminess that Ed does (but has been wrong before). To the second one (Storyteller’s objection to Paranoia answering the “fishing” question from Septimus) says she would like to see the answer to that. [Note: Paranoia never responds.] 242 – response to Storyteller’s objection to post 99 (on the basis it’s smudgy, more or less) and question as to why what Ed’s doing is scummy: she doesn’t think Ed is particularly scummy and didn’t mean it as a smudge against Ed so much as a general warning comment. Is disturbed (in a facetious way) that Ed isn’t currently finding her scummy. Ed’s taken care of, doesn’t know he’s best choice for lynch, not going vote for him but rather keep watching people.
Note this is after Ed and Mental Guy have made their respective claims, also after Ed has answered some questions (one of which later prompted Archangel’s unvote). At this point Ed is not very likely to be lynched. Assuming he’s town, a hypothetically scummy SisC has nothing much to lose by making this concession at this point. But she has nothing to say about him earlier other than the arguable smudge. Which, by the way, I don’t really buy as the general warning she later characterizes it as. I mean, if it really were intended as a general warning, why bring up Ed’s specific history at all? Or maybe a better way to put it is: if Ed’s specific history is relevant (which I’d probably argue it is), why disavow it later?
251 – fluff 341 – doesn’t understand Archangel’s characterization of Paranoia’s statement as illogical/inconsistent. Tempted to throw a vote on peeker just because [because what?], isn’t thrilled at cases on anyone else. Before anyone is tempted to vote her for not being able to make a case, warns it’s far easier for her to do so as scum than as town.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen SisC as scum, if I ever have, but I can’t say I’ve ever noticed any difficulty making votes as town. I do remember once voting her for placing like three or four different votes on day one, and her being town. She may be being accurate that she has trouble articulating *cases*, but I’ve never seen that extent to difficulty placing votes before, that I can remember. Correct me if I’m wrong, SisC, because so far the pattern of participation leans to the scummy side. There’s a fair amount of posts here, but nothing that looks particularly like scum-hunting (see also below), and not even any “me too” votes.
Also: the question from Storyteller to Paranoia that SisC said in post 124 she wanted an answer to – “Just posting as I go to note that you have suggested that no one answer a question and then answered it. Why would you do this, if you thought it was a bad idea?” Compare to her assertion in post 341 – “What I don't understand about archangel's statement regarding paranoia is how his statement was illogical/inconsistent.” One of these things is not like the other, isn't it? The question she wanted Paranoia to answer is *about* his being some form of inconsistent or illogical. I can't really account for her statement about Archangel in any context where she still has Paranoia's potential scumminess in mind.
457 – votes scuzzlebutt due to a misattributed post (Suburban Plankton, while wearing scuzzlebutt’s name, said something like there were only a couple hours to go and a lot of people not voting; added that he still found Ed to be the scummiest; and signed his name (as Suburban Plankton). SisC took this as being a post by scuzzlebutt, quoting (sort of) suburban plankton’s opinion of Ed as a means of getting others to vote for Ed, and lacking other content to support SP’s “quote”.
Given the name confusion, the vote itself is defensible, if maybe a little shallow. (I’m not sure what was supposed to be the motivation for encouraging votes on Ed with just two hours left in the Day, unless it was to spare Archangel, who I believe at that point was still two votes in the lead. But then why wouldn’t SisC just vote Archangel?) But when added to the timing (only a couple of hours prior to the end of the day), the timing of the suspicious post itself (only shortly beforehand), and the target (not any of the seven people with votes to that point), it just looks opportunistic. It looks like someone reluctant to vote for any of the people who already have votes, for whatever reasons those might be in each case, and who is grabbing at the nearest weird thing she sees as a pretext for choosing “none of the above”. It’s just such a pointless vote.
I referenced that at the time and didn’t get a response.
Summary
10 posts total, but the only accusation is arguably shallow/avoidant and comes right at the end. 5 of 10 posts contain essentially no game-related content. Defends Special Ed as not especially scummy only after the claims have come out; prior to that, if anything, arguably smudges him as potential scum. Never directly addresses the claims either, for that matter, and makes the point in her last post that she won’t fully believe him until he’s mod-confirmed or dead. Arguably forgets her own “beliefs” regarding Paranoia and Archangel: first wants a response from Paranoia about the inconsistency that Storyteller pointed out, but later says she doesn’t understand why Archangel says Paranoia was inconsistent.
Of everything, I think that last part, the reference to Archangel, is the most solid evidence that Sister Coyote is not town. It suggests she’s forgotten (or never really thought too much about) pretty much the only thing she’d done up to that point that suggested she was looking for scum as opposed to just being there.
I’m going to review FCOD’s votes fully before I decide if I change my vote to SisC.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Apr 4, 2011 16:32:27 GMT -5
@ GnarlyCharlie, why do you consider Special outing himself on Day1 to be a good move? well, he wasn't kidnapped. strangely though, mental was killed (scared away). i would have figured that he would be a target since he can rescue daphne. is he fred? perhaps someone protected mental. so good move for him as well. Given the circumstances, and assuming his claim is true, yes, I agree that last Night could have seen a dead MentalGuy and a kidnapped Special. Instead we have a dead mason and a dead adviser, not exactly a better scenario. Had Special not claimed when or for the reasons he did, I expect scum would have needed to search for Daphne and sure, they may have got lucky and found her quickly but alternatively they may either have never found her, lost their victim to a lynch or kill, or not discovered her until it was too late to kidnap her. Also, without his claim, MentalGuy may not have had to claim, and certainly would not have had to claim to have more to his role that is not Daphne related. Special's additional vote, if that really is the benefit to scum, is most useful to them later in the game and so I don't expect scum to be in much of a hurry to kidnap him, or in much of a hurry to kill Mental while the pool to find power roles has been reduced. All in all, I think it was a very poor move to claim on Day 1. I realise I am quite risk adverse whereas Special has taken large risks in the past in return for a small chance of a large return.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Apr 4, 2011 17:10:35 GMT -5
It’s been a while since I’ve seen SisC as scum, if I ever have, but I can’t say I’ve ever noticed any difficulty making votes as town. I do remember once voting her for placing like three or four different votes on day one, and her being town. She may be being accurate that she has trouble articulating *cases*, but I’ve never seen that extent to difficulty placing votes before, that I can remember. Correct me if I’m wrong, SisC, because so far the pattern of participation leans to the scummy side. There’s a fair amount of posts here, but nothing that looks particularly like scum-hunting (see also below), and not even any “me too” votes. I have no trouble making Votes, no. Though since that game where your argument about me jumping votes around got me lynched, I've backed off "Vote Early, Vote Often." But, yes. I'm talking about my ability to articulate my cases on those people for whom I am voting, and not the act of voting itself. Given the name confusion, the vote itself is defensible, if maybe a little shallow. (I’m not sure what was supposed to be the motivation for encouraging votes on Ed with just two hours left in the Day, unless it was to spare Archangel, who I believe at that point was still two votes in the lead. But then why wouldn’t SisC just vote Archangel?) But when added to the timing (only a couple of hours prior to the end of the day), the timing of the suspicious post itself (only shortly beforehand), and the target (not any of the seven people with votes to that point), it just looks opportunistic. It looks like someone reluctant to vote for any of the people who already have votes, for whatever reasons those might be in each case, and who is grabbing at the nearest weird thing she sees as a pretext for choosing “none of the above”. It’s just such a pointless vote. I referenced that at the time and didn’t get a response. I didn't see your question (and, in fact, haven't had a chance to go back and read it yet). And I didn't think any of the other lynch candidates were potentially Scum; I really didn't see Archangel's play as Scum. So, yes, it was a shot in the dark over something I thought was maybe kind of scummy but didn't have a firm feel on. Regarding my level of participation and my lack (so far) of Scum hunting -- I haven't been up to my usual standards, no; I've been very disappointed in myself for my play in the last two games I've been in (Monte Python here and HB/pedescribe's game on Giraffe) and I'm not doing any better (in my opinion) so far this game. However, since a part of my problem is that I'm a little distracted with medical tests right now (nothing serious, just follow-up on the pituitary tumor I had removed last year), I'm willing to cut myself just a little slack. Not a whole lot, though. Got Scum to find, after all. Also, without his claim, MentalGuy may not have had to claim, and certainly would not have had to claim to have more to his role that is not Daphne related. Did MentalGuy have to claim that last, though? Or did he choose to do so, throwing additional WiFoM in the mix?
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Apr 4, 2011 18:05:41 GMT -5
(Posted in wrong thread, sorry) Color-coded Day 1 vote count: Archangel(4): Renata[245-355], Mental[319], Bill[331], FCoD[349], Special[382] FCoD (3): Archangel[377], Septimus[404], Lightfoot[477] Special (2): Suburban[92], MentalGuy[147-194], Joanie[156], Special[170-248], Archangel[217-253], Renata[225-245], Pinkies[227-256]Paranoia (2): Renata[94-195], Renata[200-225], Guiri[272], Renata[469] Bill (2): FCoD[400], GnarlyCharlie[471] Lightfoot (1): Renata[355-469], Inner[401] Septimus (1): Romanic[412] Scuzzlebutt (1): Sister[457] Pinkies (0): Special[49-170] MentalGuy (0): Renata[195-200]Renata (0): Archangel[253-358]Inner (0): Lightfoot[402-477] Non-voters (6): Mahaloth, Peeker, GreedySmurf, [Scuzzlebutt], Storyteller, Paranoia2. I will bet a shiny nickel on the following proposition: if Ed is Town, at least one of the players who have voted for Ed so far is Scum. I agree with Storyteller that there is likely a scum in the bandwagon on Ed. I don't think it you, and of the three that are left, my ranking would be Archangel most likely, then Pinkies, then Renata. I also agree with storyteller that it seems likely that at least one of the Ed voters is scum. it seems a lot of focus is on the voting for Special Ed. those who jumped on the lynching bandwagon are suspect. while i agree there must be scum involved, i would rather focus on when daphne was brought up. How are you guys feeling about the votes on Special Ed now? Do you still think there must be scum involved? Who? What I think I was reasoning ......since I feel that some of the voters are SCUM, then the person they are voting for is likely TOWN I'm not sure I understand your response. You suspected 3 players of being scum. 2 of them voted Archangel so it's two of Renata, Mental, Bill and FCoD (excluding Special) and one of them voted Special so it's either Suburban, Mental, Joanie, Renata or Pinkies (excluding Archangel and Special) and this is why you felt Special and Archangel were Town. But then you voted Inner Stickler, who just happened to vote you in the previous post. If you were sufficiently confident that there was scum on their bandwagons as to consider them Town, why didn't you vote or make a case on any of the players you suspected were scum earlier? Sorry for my lack of posts. I'm extremely busy at work and have little time. Hope things clear up for you soon, when come back bring correct username!
|
|
|
Post by Captain Pinkies on Apr 4, 2011 18:30:47 GMT -5
Where's Captain Pinkies? not even any drink recipes. He must be tiring of this game. of course, it's not [s Day 3 [/s] Day 6 where he really gets into the game. [/quote] Hot diggy damn, ED is missing me Thanks the scooby snack... <== Passes a round of scooby snacks 1/2 oz Malibu® coconut rum 1/2 oz creme de bananes 1/2 oz Midori® melon liqueur 1/2 oz pineapple juice 1 1/2 oz whipped cream Directions: Pour rum, creme de banane, melon liqueur and pineapple juice into a stainless steel shaker over ice. Add whipped cream, and shake; until well mixed and sufficiently chilled. Strain into an old-fashioned glass and shoot.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Pinkies on Apr 4, 2011 18:33:11 GMT -5
(Posted in wrong thread, sorry) Color-coded Day 1 vote count: Archangel(4): Renata[245-355], Mental[319], Bill[331], FCoD[349], Special[382] FCoD (3): Archangel[377], Septimus[404], Lightfoot[477] Special (2): Suburban[92], MentalGuy[147-194], Joanie[156], Special[170-248], Archangel[217-253], Renata[225-245], Pinkies[227-256]Paranoia (2): Renata[94-195], Renata[200-225], Guiri[272], Renata[469] Bill (2): FCoD[400], GnarlyCharlie[471] Lightfoot (1): Renata[355-469], Inner[401] Septimus (1): Romanic[412] Scuzzlebutt (1): Sister[457] Pinkies (0): Special[49-170] MentalGuy (0): Renata[195-200]Renata (0): Archangel[253-358]Inner (0): Lightfoot[402-477] Non-voters (6): Mahaloth, Peeker, GreedySmurf, [Scuzzlebutt], Storyteller, Paranoia2. I will bet a shiny nickel on the following proposition: if Ed is Town, at least one of the players who have voted for Ed so far is Scum. How are you guys feeling about the votes on Special Ed now? Do you still think there must be scum involved? Who? I'm not sure I understand your response. You suspected 3 players of being scum. 2 of them voted Archangel so it's two of Renata, Mental, Bill and FCoD (excluding Special) and one of them voted Special so it's either Suburban, Mental, Joanie, Renata or Pinkies (excluding Archangel and Special) and this is why you felt Special and Archangel were Town. But then you voted Inner Stickler, who just happened to vote you in the previous post. If you were sufficiently confident that there was scum on their bandwagons as to consider them Town, why didn't you vote or make a case on any of the players you suspected were scum earlier? Sorry for my lack of posts. I'm extremely busy at work and have little time. Hope things clear up for you soon, when come back bring correct username! ummm there seems to be a few issues with your vote counts... you should make sure they are correct before posting them....
|
|