|
Post by Romanic on Apr 5, 2011 10:36:03 GMT -5
Septimus why did you just give a snack to someone you're apparently suspicious of? Where did you get that Septimus was suspicious of Inner Stickler?
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Apr 5, 2011 11:00:44 GMT -5
@ Romanic: he brought up this on the last page --
(And went on to quote the post in question, which was about Ed.)
I took that as indicative of suspicion of Inner Stickler (Guiri had made a similar point about IS toward the end of the day yesterday), but now I can see that maybe it wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Apr 5, 2011 11:01:36 GMT -5
I can't really make sense of septimus' response to me in that context or any other, though.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Apr 5, 2011 11:01:51 GMT -5
ummm there seems to be a few issues with your vote counts... you should make sure they are correct before posting them.... Thanks. Corrected color-coded Day 1 vote count, E&OE: 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): Pinkies[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, ParanoiaMY response to your paragraph was answered I know, I was commenting on your response and quoted part of it. I'm questioning your defense of Archangel and Special based on your feel that 3 of their voters were scum and therefore the votees were likely Town without naming, accusing or voting any of those 3 players.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Apr 5, 2011 11:07:16 GMT -5
Paranoia's dead. He was the second kill last night, presumed but not certainly non-scum. Okay, that's it. I am so out of it right now I should probably ask to be subbed out jesu christo.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Apr 5, 2011 11:08:12 GMT -5
guiri, any chance you could post that again in not eeney-weenie-eyestrain-o-vision for those of us who are elderly and half-blind?
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Apr 5, 2011 11:16:50 GMT -5
Paranoia's dead. He was the second kill last night, presumed but not certainly non-scum. Okay, that's it. I am so out of it right now I should probably ask to be subbed out jesu christo. Cheer up -- I'm still suspicious of you, but that mistake goes close to enough to my beliefs of the sorts of things that mafia don't tend to get wrong that I probably won't vote for you today. Paranoia probably not being a scum kill it's hardly definitive, but still.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Apr 5, 2011 11:35:22 GMT -5
Give 1 snack to Special Ed Give 1 snack to Mental Guy Give 1 snack to Inner Stickler
<bleached> Septimus, why do you give a Scooby Snack to Special Ed when he apparently doesn't want them? He gave away 7 to other players today. Giving him one shows that you didn't think much about this. Also, I didn't like getting a snack after placing my vote on you. That was Romanic, voting for Septimus, who voted for FCOD for being a lurker, while admitting he was lurking himself. And while Romanic is placing his vote, he admits he's only been skimming (because he's been lurking himself). Maybe this is all part of the April Fool's joke? To defend my own vote, none of the Lynch leaders seem scummy to me, and I don't want to Lynch an active participant who's probably Town. Lurking and then making a me-too vote, OTOH, does seem like a possible a scum-tell. Romanic has participated. And even I have been trying to participate, if asking questions counts. And since, based on previous games, suspecting septimus is always a strong Town tell, I'm happy to pass on my extra Snacks to my would-be Lyncher: Transfer 1 Scooby Snack to Romanic.Best wishes ever, Septimus If anything, it makes me more suspicious of you. What was the idea? Looks like a deliberate attempt to lower suspicions on yourself.
|
|
|
Post by julie on Apr 5, 2011 11:49:45 GMT -5
Vote Count:
*FCOD: 1 (Renata 22)
LightFoot: 1 (Special Ed
*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)
Special Ed: +1 (septimus 77)
MentalGuy: +1 (septimus 77)
Inner Stickler: +1 (septimus 77)
Corrections always welcome.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Apr 5, 2011 12:05:46 GMT -5
@ guiri I did vote one of them that I thought was scum . I didn't name names because I was NOT certain who anyone was (still aren't except the dead ones)
Since I have not changed my mind I will do it again.
Vote FCOD
In your vote breakdown (which I appreciated) you used blue, was that for dead or known town? Since blue is a vote colour it could be missleading later on
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Apr 5, 2011 12:07:43 GMT -5
(color bleached) @ guiri I did vote one of them that I thought was scum . I didn't name names because I was NOT certain who anyone was (still aren't except the dead ones) Since I have not changed my mind I will do it again. Vote FCOD
In your vote breakdown (which I appreciated) you used blue, was that for dead or known town? Since blue is a vote colour it could be missleading later on
Are you voting for me or quoting someone? Are you talking to me or guiri? I have no idea what you're trying to convey. --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Apr 5, 2011 12:08:39 GMT -5
Septimus, why do you give a Scooby Snack to Special Ed when he apparently doesn't want them? He gave away 7 to other players today. Giving him one shows that you didn't think much about this. Also, I didn't like getting a snack after placing my vote on you. OK. I think there are a small number of Townies who need lots of Snacks to help us win. Those Townies can't identify themselves blatantly -- they'll be Killed. I'm trying to respond to hints (but I'm probably misinterpreting). I took Ed's Snack as a token of confidence that I'm likely to be Town; I returned it to reciprocate the confidence, and to suggest that I might not be the special Townie(s) who needs Snacks. I apologize for giving you a Snack. You're welcome to return it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 5, 2011 12:12:25 GMT -5
I took Ed's Snack as a token of confidence that I'm likely to be Town; That was not the intent of the snack
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Apr 5, 2011 12:21:21 GMT -5
@ LightFoot -- coloring known town blue in player-supplied vote counts and known scum red (and known third parties or PFKs some other color, if applicable) is convention around here.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Apr 5, 2011 12:29:31 GMT -5
@ FCOD I was replying to guiri hence the @ before his name.
Then I voted .
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Apr 5, 2011 12:33:18 GMT -5
@ LightFoot -- coloring known town blue in player-supplied vote counts and known scum red (and known third parties or PFKs some other color, if applicable) is convention around here. Fair enough, since all the deceased were town I asked.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Apr 5, 2011 12:47:56 GMT -5
85 – here 87 – echoes storyteller that he can’t participate much on weekends 220 – Ed/Daphne business stinks, would like to lynch him and be done with it, but is nervous he’s some type of bomb. Needs to think more. Wait a minute, why would him being a bomb have anything to do with whether he should be lynched or not. 223 – fluff 349 – after consideration, thinks Ed not scum, no motivation to pull this debacle if scum. Also agrees with storyteller it’s likely scum voted for him. Of those, votes archangel since she voted for Ed due to him voting for himself; could be an easy way for scum to hide in a bandwagon. Nothing else scummy, but has to get vote on record.
As has been pointed out, Archangel is not the only one to vote Ed for this reason. I did so as well, and so did Pinkies. FCOD fails to mention either of us. Archangel has three votes at this point, I have one, and Pinkies has none. (Paranoia has one and Special Ed two.) This post also comes very shortly after he had been called out for “flying under the radar”: a post of LightFoot’s using that phrase came only 20 minutes previous to the vote on Archangel.
357 – after Archangel says she doesn’t like his post where he voted for her, says he just doesn’t have much to say since he isn’t finding anyone very scummy
(After this, Archangel prods him a bit more for other opinions, such as on Mental Guy, but I don’t see any response.)
424 – Guiri asks for why Archangel over Pinkies and he says it’s a weak vote, having hard time getting scum vibes, feels it more from Archangel than from Pinkies. Also, gives septimus a big “umm, OK” since septimus’ vote on him (because he hasn’t said much and made a vote he admits is weak) is for behavior that septimus himself admits to (and in the same post to boot).
I’m a bit torn on this one. On the one hand he is right that septimus’ vote looks a bit bizarre. On the other, I just had it pointed out to me in dramatic fashion in another game that “you did it too” is NOT really applicable as a defense in a mafia game. The player casting the vote knows his own alignment, and if town, knows his own motivations, as well. But all you have to go on for other people is what they present to you, and if that’s weak, then that’s weak. Period. Septimus’ behavior might invite votes on him if it’s bad enough, but the case on FCOD is still legitimate.
428 – fluff/board advice
Day Two 24 – “gloating”: we’re not starting off well, are we? Defends his weak vote by saying it was weak, agreed it looks bad given the other voters for Archangel’s lynch. Should look closer at people who failed to vote yesterday. Summarizes as follows:
The problem with this post is that how can you really analyze people who just plain aren’t posting? Mahaloth falls into this category, so did peeker for at least half the day and I think Greedy Smurf as well (can’t remember). Where analysis is possible, such as with Storyteller, who said plenty of stuff that one can sink teeth into, none is offered. So it comes off as just an attempt to look useful, but there’s nothing behind it, even where there could have been something.
84 – can’t understand LightFoot either 100 – asks LightFoot what she just said
Summary Post 24 from today is what’s keeping my vote on FCOD. The day one stuff is so blatantly out there in its “well I just don’t find anyone scummy” comments that it’s almost hard to credit it coming from an experienced (scum) player. (Don’t you know that gets you in trouble, FCOD?) But post 24 today with the “we’re not starting off well” comment, plus the appeal-to-look-at-nonvoters with no actual effort expended in doing so, and all of it together just rather adds up to scum.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Apr 5, 2011 12:48:35 GMT -5
NETA -- I lost my header. Previous post is a summary of FCOD's posts, starting with day one.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Apr 5, 2011 14:12:37 GMT -5
Inner Stickler. Borrowing guiri’s summation from Day One post 367 for the first part of it.
Day One
#16 Confirms #55 Asks Pinkies why he claimed after just 1 vote #57 Metagame: To Special, comments on Pinkies' participation in a previous game: he wasn't allowed to participate due to being lynched twice #76 General strategy: Day 1 is useful for hearing people's strategies #140 General strategy: vigs should look after lurkers, not the lynch #143 General strategy: with lots of couching, vigs who target lurkers encourage scum to participate #186 Doesn't see scumminess in Special Ed's play, believes he is Daphne #304 Is OK with Romanic's snack sharing plan but can't believe game could be so easily broken
Certainly a high ratio of “other stuff” to hunting scum throughout this part of day one. Posts 55 and 186 are the only comments that directly fit the “hunting scum” category. This is not atypical of Inner Stickler, even when he’s town. But it is a bit on the extreme side.
Now me: 401 – as earlier, tends to believe Ed for now, ditto Mental Guy due to attitude toward Ed. Votes Lightfoot due to flurry of posts concerned with what everyone else is doing.
This is an OK vote, bothers me only because (as with FCOD’s), it came soon after Inner Stickler’s relative lack of participation had been highlighted.
Day Two
13 – snarky response to LightFoot wanting to know more about him; statement about hypothetical reasons why a town Mental Guy may not have been targeted for a kill. 14 – comment on name-change stuff 70 – another snarky response to LightFoot 85 – response to Septimus saying IS only had one post (#186 from day one) that commented explicitly on the game, wants to know why people keep saying that, doesn’t think it’s true
And that’s correct, actually. I count at least three (day 1 55, 186, 401), maybe four or five at a stretch (day 1 304, day 2 13). Septimus appears to be going off of Guiri’s summation alone, without looking for anything else, and that could be a problem.
At that Inner Stickler still sort of fails to address the real point. For someone who has 13 posts to date, there is very little content. He’s touched on the probable towniness of Ed or Mental Guy twice each, asked one question of someone who’d just done something weird, and placed one OK vote.
Summary
Very very little to go on. There's nothing at all overtly scummy and essentially also nothing that really looks townie. On the whole such patterns usually have me leaning scum, but I find it almost impossible to place a vote on something like that so early in the game. Which is probably why it's such an attractive strategy. Anyway, we'll see.
I think Septimus and Julie up next.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Apr 5, 2011 14:13:26 GMT -5
Right, here we go again. Let’s see what we can see, shall we?
Ed posts his vote on Pinkies, for being noncontributory in past games, at #49.
What follows is some sniping between them. Nothing generates further voting until #92, when Plankton votes for Ed thusly (the quoted section is responding to my own rhetorical question; vote bleached [here and throughout this post] for moderator convenience):
Fair enough. I don’t agree with Plankton, here, obviously, but it’s the first one on Ed and it’s reasonable enough. Coyote, without voting, says this at #99:
I have already responded to this quote, but wanted to put it here again just to emphasize how much I find the scare tactic “so-and-so is a good player let’s worry about him/her” routine suspicious all by its lonesome – especially when it’s accompanied by no vote or follow-up. Let’s see where this goes.
Anyway, lots of commenting on Ed and Pinkies, but precious little voting for a bit. It all sort of morphs into a vague conversation about lynching nonparticipants versus letting a hypothetical Vig sort them out, which, OK.
At #147 Mental Guy votes Ed for reasons having nothing to do with Pinkies – MentalGuy thinks Ed knows a bit too much about the Daphne scenario. Which, given MentalGuy’s claimed knowledge and Ed’s claimed role, all kind of makes perfect sense. Moving on.
Third vote (!) comes at #156, from Joanie. Voting text:
This is kind of a straightforward vote, not meaningfully different in content than Plankton’s, but it raises the eyebrow just a bit higher because now we’ve gone from “a coupla people voting Ed” to “Ed might be in a trouble here.” The stakes are raised. I think, though, that Joanie’s post has a whiff of meta-game about it – I’ve played with Pinkies and he’s not like you’re saying, stop picking on him – that moves this in the direction of null tell for me.
At #169 Ed votes for himself. That’s the fourth vote, and now Ed could legit be lynched. It is at this point that he transforms into a juicy target – a player who has voted for himself is putting a big, fat, “vote for me without consequences” sign on his own forehead in general. Of the first three voters for Ed, I think it possible but not certain that Scum are among them (in order of likelihood to be Scum, from most likely to least, 1. Joanie; 2. Plankton; 3. MG). But now, with Ed’s own vote on him and (seemingly) an easy lynch, some Scum player is going to vote for Ed; I’ll bet a shiny nickel on it. Let’s see who bites:
Mental Guy UNvotes at #194. He hints at having more information about Daphne. Immediately thereafter, Renata votes for MG (#195) promising later explanation. Shortly after that she unvotes, and votes Paranoia, with no explanation in the voting post (it is possible that she explained her suspicion of Paranoia earlier; I’ll go back and check later).
At #214, Plankton posts the following, as justification for continuing to lynch Ed even in light of current developments:
Dislike. The analysis for Possibility 1 is fatally flawed, in that a truthful Ed has actually very limited information. He may understand his own role better than “the rest of us,” but “better than the rest of us” is not the same as “well enough to determine definitively whether he should live or die.” This post makes me more suspicious of Plankton.
Archangel follows this logic and votes for Ed at #217. Archangel is dead and was Town, so we can probably just move on from here.
At #220, here’s FCoD:
Dislike. There’s no real reasoning here… just a vague imprecation that the situation “stinks.” Why? In what way?
And now, at #225, Renata:
Adding yet another vote to the pile – moving Ed up to five. Also, the tone rings all wrong. “Sigh – guess we have to lynch Ed, even if he’s a Town power role. And now we won’t have any ability to use the vote record tomorrow.” The fatalism and defeatism sounds odd to me, in this context, especially given that the central premise – that we have no real choice but to lynch Ed – is so obviously false.
Pinkies follows with another Ed vote (@#227). Frankly, this is one of the most obviously OMGUS votes of all time. I don’t love the vote – I don’t love any of these votes for Ed, but they can’t all be Scum – but given the provocation I find this one less interesting than some of the others.
At #242, Sister Coyote responds to my points about her post on Ed by not really addressing the substance of my points and declining to vote for Ed. Something about her approach to him really, really, really feels off to me.
At #245, Renata slams archangel, changes her vote to archangel, I guess because she feels that archangel’s approach to her is mistaken. I don’t get the reasoning underlying this vote. On the other hand, why does a (putative) Scum Renata change votes from Ed at this critical stage if she is hoping to get him lynched?
Then Ed explains his actual restriction, there are a fair number of unvotes, and the whole thing fizzles. Eventually, archangel dies.
Summary and vote to come.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Apr 5, 2011 14:25:44 GMT -5
SUMMARY:
Plankton: My opinion keeps changing with every post he makes. Didn't really have a problem with his original vote. Really disliked his "guess we have to kill Ed whether he's Town or Scum" premise. But then, the stubborn, dogged insistence on going after Ed long after most everyone else had moved on? What's the Scum motivation there? The insistence that - in spite of Ed's claim, and MentalGuy's pseudo-confirmation - there is no Daphne? No. In the final analysis, leaning Town here.
Sister Coyote: Everything about Sister C rubbed me Scummy in my re-read. That first post about Ed really felt like drumming up suspicion and paranoia against Ed without commiting to it in a way that could later be traced. I am not ready to vote for her yet, though; my next project will be re-reading all of her posts so far to see what she's said and done in a not-Ed context. For now, leaning Scum.
FCoD: His massive smudge, unaccompanied by a vote for fear of a Bomb (seriously, when was the last time we had a bomb? Mafia 3?), at #220 bugs me big time. Like Coyote, I'm interested in a more general re-read of his stuff.
Joanie: Kind of agnostic here. Third vote on Ed, but a meta-game vote that to me was not terribly meaningful, missed most of the Day for IRL reasons. Not leaning at all, in any direction.
Renata: Really find the sum total of her participation in the Ed storyline suspicious. From the random-ass vote on MentalGuy, never explained or supported that I saw, to the swallowing of Plankton's very bad "guess we have to lynch Ed" argument, to the weird vote on archangel. Mitigating factor: a Scum switch to archangel at the particular moment when Renata abandoned the Ed wagon seems undermotivated. Had Renata not done that, I'd be howling for her head.
For now I have three primary suspects:
1. Renata 2. FCoD 3. Sister Coyote
I'll be reading up on all three in the next (real-life) day or so, and my vote may very well change. But for now:
vote Renata
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on Apr 5, 2011 14:50:10 GMT -5
Hello all! I have a break in my work day. Thought I would pop in and read the post. I have to say this is very overwhelming. I need a quiet room for about 2 hours to go through everything, not going to happen... I am able to vote this time so I will contribute more and not be so much of a observer. Plus I just finished another game yesterday. Once I read it all, I will share my views.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Apr 5, 2011 15:33:35 GMT -5
Is everyone getting the same number of Snacks each morning? There is publicly available information about one player's snacks from which you may be able to deduce an answer to your question. Archangel gave Special Ed 2 snacks on Day 2. Special gave one of these to Mental and the other back to Archangel leaving him with the same quantity of snacks he began the game with. On Day 2 Sister gave him a single snack and he proceeded to distribute 7 snacks to various players. So, between his initial supply and his Day 2 refill, he received at least 6 snacks. Is there some way to negotiate questions/challenges on that to gain knowledge or scum-hunt? I've no idea. What are you thinking of? @ guiri I did vote one of them that I thought was scum . @ Lightfoot, that's not a valid defense: you made the comment in question in D1#402, I asked you about it in D1#403, you replied in D1#453 and didn't vote FCoD until D1#477, after I'd poked him about his vote on Archangel. I didn't name names because I was NOT certain who anyone was (still aren't except the dead ones) If you're Town, of course you weren't certain, that's the point of the game. @ Sister, I've asked the mods to remove the tags. It looked fine on my phone and I didn't want to spam the thread.
@ Renata, ha!
@ FCoD, could you answer my question in D2#57? Or were you waiting for Story's summary of the events?
I see Mahaloth has fixed his name since my post D2#57 but hasn't posted, hope all's well.
|
|
|
Post by julie on Apr 5, 2011 15:39:51 GMT -5
Guiri, I seem to be able to move or delete the post, but not edit it. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Apr 5, 2011 15:40:07 GMT -5
Awesome, some meat to chew on. (snip) I have already responded to this quote, but wanted to put it here again just to emphasize how much I find the scare tactic “so-and-so is a good player let’s worry about him/her” routine suspicious all by its lonesome – especially when it’s accompanied by no vote or follow-up. Let’s see where this goes. Heh. I can hardly wait until you find my comment about Guiri and Romanic. (snip) Third vote (!) comes at #156, from Joanie. Voting text: (snipped) This is kind of a straightforward vote, not meaningfully different in content than Plankton’s, but it raises the eyebrow just a bit higher because now we’ve gone from “a coupla people voting Ed” to “Ed might be in a trouble here.” The stakes are raised. I think, though, that Joanie’s post has a whiff of meta-game about it – I’ve played with Pinkies and he’s not like you’re saying, stop picking on him – that moves this in the direction of null tell for me.[/quote] I agree. Looking at the vote list alone, she doesn't look good, but the vote itself feels fully authentic; second, I'd almost be willing to bet that if she is nevertheless scum, Pinkies is not. I would rank Plankton ahead of Joanie, in part for his persistence in voting Ed, in part for stuff today. (And in part perhaps because I haven't reviewed Joanie's posts yet.) Why do you have them this way? You have Joanie as what I'd call a "strong" null tell (that is, not lack of information, but positive information that reads as neutral), how does Plankton rate higher than that? I'd have bet a lot higher on this before Archangel flipped town, but let's see: I did. All of this really needs context to look other than inexplicable. I had first voted for Paranoia. At some point shortly before the posts you're talking about, Mental Guy made a post that (in part) referred to Ed's claim. Something in that post pinged the heck out of me; given what happened since I can't even remember what it was, though I could go look. I voted for him right away, but didn't have time to write down why. By the time I did, Mental Guy had made his own claim to back up Special Ed, which claim I believed, hence the tell I thought I saw was meaningless. So I just unvoted and returned to my earlier vote. Agreed, I think. (snip) I agree. And I find it particularly suggestive that he did NOT vote for Ed. Where I differ from you in your interpretation of the post self-vote happenings is that I think it at least as likely that scum might oppose an Ed lynch (after all, assuming Ed is telling the truth, Daphne's survival is not entirely a bad thing for them) on some fake principle or other as hop on. Or, conversely, might do what FCOD did just here. Avoid the bandwagon, but nevertheless encourage it at the same time. Yeah. I am not entirely sure why I made that vote. In retrospect it looks stupid; even at the time it felt sort of stupid, and I wasn't really comfortable with it. But about the "we have no choice" part, it wasn't that, exactly. It was more that, believing Ed a likely townie, I wanted to give him the benefit of knowing best how to play his own role. He was the one with the knowledge, and at that point, wasn't sharing it. So -- give him what he asks for and hope it's the right thing to do. I think that's more or less what I was thinking. Not sure I agree. I think there was something about that vote that pinged me (maybe just that it came so late?), but since you didn't quote it, it'll have to wait until I get to reviewing Pinkies' posts before I can comment further. Easy. I don't. Because I wasn't walking into this with any agenda other than hoping to find the scum. With the exception of the vote on Ed, which I was thrilled to find a suspect strong enough to change away from, at every point I was voting for someone I thought had good odds of being scum.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Apr 5, 2011 15:50:29 GMT -5
SUMMARY: Plankton: My opinion keeps changing with every post he makes. Didn't really have a problem with his original vote. Really disliked his "guess we have to kill Ed whether he's Town or Scum" premise. But then, the stubborn, dogged insistence on going after Ed long after most everyone else had moved on? What's the Scum motivation there? The insistence that - in spite of Ed's claim, and MentalGuy's pseudo-confirmation - there is no Daphne? No. In the final analysis, leaning Town here. Really? Other than myself, this is the one I'm really disagreeing with you on. The scum motivation for hanging on to a suspicion long past the point of reason is pretty obvious: it keeps you from having to focus on anything else. I've done it tons of times. Day one in that Giraffe game I was talking to Archangel about (hanging on to Lucifer like a limpet). Mahaloth in the Halloween game. And as long as you can justify it by some stretch of the imagination, people tend not to call you on it, because after all, you are doing your townie duty of suspecting *someone*. Plankton is rather high on my suspect list. He went too far with continuing to doubt Daphne's existence, but that's an error of calibration if he's scum, doesn't make him town. Agreed on the parts you've reviewed. Not noticing Paranoia had died has me backed off her a little bit today. My number one candidate. Likewise. Happily there's a lot more than the Ed to thing to consider when it comes to me.
|
|
|
Post by julie on Apr 5, 2011 16:06:40 GMT -5
Guiri, I seem to be able to move or delete the post, but not edit it. Sorry. Apparently, one needs to be smarter than the interface, and I failed the test. Edited just to remove the size tags.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Apr 5, 2011 16:11:36 GMT -5
One more time for guiri D1 #402 as I stated before I had just drank my supper and should not have posted since it was not fleshed out. D1 # 453 was my “morning” and I was trying to track my own logic. I wanted my vote to count so I waited a bit so see what was going to happen. I prefer to not change my vote a bunch .
D1 #447 It was nearing end of day and with the information I had I voted the player I thought was SCUM and where my vote might do good. I don’t recall reading your “poke” at FCOD so it had nothing to do with my vote
Now can you put this subject to bed?
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Apr 5, 2011 16:18:46 GMT -5
After reading Renata's post by post of Inner Stickler, and looking at his posts myself, I get the feeling that he is Scum. His whole contribution could be mostly resumed in these words "In my experience [something]", and there's pretty much no commitment. Also his vote on Day 1 is suspicious: Like I said earlier, I'm tending to believe Ed's claim for the moment and also think that Mentalguy is townie based on his attitude toward Ed. Vote: Lightfoot [/color] I dislike the flurries of posts that seem overly concerned with what everyone else is doing.[/quote] What kind of reason is that? I don't get it. Please explain again using different words. And disliking something another player does, doesn't make him Scum. It's just a bad reason in my opinion. And casting the first vote on Lightfoot makes me wonder if he didn't know Archangel wasn't Scum, hence the one-off vote. vote: Inner Stickler
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Apr 5, 2011 16:47:55 GMT -5
One more time for guiri <snipped> Now can you put this subject to bed? For now, OK. I hoped to understand you better as you seem to have a very different approach to this game: you said you were suspicious of a group of players in D1#260 for fishing but named no names, you commented that no-one know who anyone is or what their roles entirely entail in D1#264 and 313, your FOS twitched in response to a group of unnamed non-participants in D1#284 and #288, you doubted scum had advance information in D1#297 and 313, you surmised that scum couldn't talk until Night in D1#311, under duress, you expressed suspicions of several named players in D1#347 but didn't mention any archangel or Special voters, you expressed suspicion of Archangel and Renata in D1#383 but then suspected 2 of Archangel's voters as scum in D1#402 (but voted someone else) and then explained that this made Archangel likely Town in D1#453. It's all quite confusing. I agree with you that FCoD is a good lynch candidate.
|
|