Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on May 17, 2011 19:29:43 GMT -5
I took off the quote tags to get into this one. Again, my comments follow >>> . Some comments break into my outline and or have the >>> on each line, blame the fact that I have been working on this post for over an hour, with dinner taken while writing. I am sure you guys do the same. On Preview, I see Dirx' [Is that how you do a possessive of X ending names?]] quote is still intact. I don't think this takes from the intention. @ Meeko, Fluidfruid is dead. If somehow he manages to still win the game despite being dead, that would suck but there's not much we can do about it. >>> Ed said this back in Day 2, Reply 101 :: >>> """ This is not a survivor role. Death doesn't prevent winning >>> This was what I was getting at. "Death doesn't prevent winning" is the part that stuck with me. However, I don't think this game is gastard. [[But that would be the ultimate in gastardness, wouldn't it?]] All of that to say the game must be relatively balanaced and relatively straightforward. >>> Not much we can do about it. I guess that is right, Seems I need to learn this one, in real life perhaps even more. .... Moving on. I wanted to see the vote count in case there was an extra vote like yesterDay. If his role PM was truthful, he had one last shot at winning by guessing toDay's lynchee. There was no extra vote so I'm no longer concerned about him in any way. >>> Fluid said this Day 2 post 72:: >>> """ - I'll cast my extra vote for the second place lynch candidate each Day. >>> The claim came on Day 2. Wasn't the second place lynch candidate on Day 2 Fluid herself? >>> I wonder if there isn't some interaction here. If there is, Would Fluid follow her game plan to the grave? You suggest that "Purchase" may be more than just color. It implies you got something in return for your vote, did you? >>> Working Backwards here : >>> 0.Not that I am aware of. >>> 1.I am not sure how you mean " may be more than just color ". Isn't everything in Mafia color? >>> 1.1 Words having meaning, and if different words weren't used, we would be playing the same game over and over -- and we >>> would know it out right. LOTR and Potter is the exception that proves the rule here, that pair sticks out because all the >>> other games prove my point. Words are chosen over other words to seperate games from games. Dirx also voted you for your poor votes, not just you lack of participation: Meeko's been lurking and laying down crapass votes. To me, that has Scum written all over it. Your Day 1 vote was a bandwagon vote on Ace accusing her of asking Pinkies for a claim (debatable) while not claiming herself (untrue). >>> I don't see the value in talking about Day 1 votes. If we could play Day 1 better, it would cease to be Day 1. Your Day 2 vote was another bandwagon vote, on Pinkies. You voted him pending further explanation: "I could be wrong here, but until I get some more explanation from you I will: vote Pinkies" but he'd already explained that he'd been compelled to vote. This is what Pinkies said, cut and pasted, complete with a given Horizontal Rule [The assumption being I can Snip here.] >>> """ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I am placing the following vote. Once I make this vote I will not change it for the rest of the day. Vote: Archangel Oh... It has been a busy couple days on the home front. >>> And that was sufficient enough for you, Guiri? Your new job may explain your lack of participation and not being yourself but these really are crappy, opportunistic votes. >>> I would love to know what the metric is for a good vote. It seems to me that crappy, opportunistic votes are those so deemed. And the Emperor is fully clothed, too. Assuming your vote was purchased, who would you vote for toDay if you didn't have to vote Colby? >>> I don't see the point in answering this one. This seems to nail me down to something of a very limited value. I already can't unvote a dead player, having to backpedal off a non-vote vote would be an order of magnitude worse than this. Then again, perhaps I am more free with my non-vote vote than others, but that is not how I would like to play. Respectfully I find this question too restraining, for lack of better words, to answer.
|
|
|
Post by Dirx on May 17, 2011 19:42:29 GMT -5
I'm not in the mental position to pay much attention to the thread right now (we saw what happened Yesterday...), but while I was skimming your post, I noticed this: ">>> I don't see the value in talking about Day 1 votes. If we could play Day 1 better, it would cease to be Day 1." Alright, fine, next game, we all just vote randomly on Day 1 and let that be it! No accountability! I mean, after all, if we shouldn't bother discussing Day 1 votes, why bother doing anything worth discussing?
|
|
|
Post by Dirx on May 17, 2011 19:45:43 GMT -5
Oh, and this:
No, it wasn't. In fact, it wasn't good enough for anyone. So it's a good thing he went and made more posts that attempted to explain more. Posts which you ignored in your vote post, and apparently are still completely unaware of.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 17, 2011 19:56:52 GMT -5
I'm relatively inexperienced at this game. If a Townie guesses who has a Power role, is it considered pro-Town to announce it in the public thread? No, it's pro-Scum: use the public thread to help confirm/reject one's Power guess and avoid a wasteful NK. To help Scum guess Power roles, especially when there is no other obvious NK candidate, seems so scummy, I'd definitely move my vote to you, were it not already on you. Here's another example of anti-Town vs. pro-Scum. I agree with you that it hurts Town to publicly speculate about who is a power role(I must note that some people disagree vehemently with me). However, if Cat were scum he could just as easily speculate about power roles in their own board, without potentially warning a doctor about who would be a good person to protect. So overall I'd classify this as ill-advised play rather than scummy behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by Ma'at on May 17, 2011 20:05:43 GMT -5
MeekoI'd also be interested to hear who you'd vote for today if not forced to vote for Colby. Maybe not necessarily right now (I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet, so can't expect you to know who you would want to vote for at this point), but as we get closer to end of day. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning at all as to why you wouldn't want to do that. Quote: >>> I don't see the point in answering this one. This seems to nail me down to something of a very limited value. I already can't unvote a dead player, having to backpedal off a non-vote vote would be an order of magnitude worse than this. Then again, perhaps I am more free with my non-vote vote than others, but that is not how I would like to play. Respectfully I find this question too restraining, for lack of better words, to answer. how in the world is saying who you would like to vote for if you had the opportunity of "limited value" and "restraining"? You seem to be evasive and not sure why that would be the case.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 17, 2011 21:16:32 GMT -5
Moley, what do you mean by "he would have chosen a different player instead"? I mean, if Meeko was lying about his vote restriction, I have to believe two things: 1) that he knew for certain nobody would contradict him, and 2) that he had some reason for choosing Colby over anybody else. I can just about buy #1, if the vote-buyer is scum (and some good arguments have been put up against that theory); but for the life of me I don't understand #2. If you're going to lie about a voting restriction, as scum, why choose the guy who's died as your "vote"? Why not just choose a living player instead? This is what I mean - if Meeko is town, he's probably telling the truth about his restriction. But if he's scum, he's still probably telling the truth about his restriction. Where I balk is that BillMC regarded Meeko's claim as MORE suspicious because of the bit about Colby "surviving the night". I don't buy that, and I also have problems believing that Bill buys that. Add that to his behavior regarding CIAS and myself at the end of Day One. (I said at the time to "watch him". Wish I'd stuck to my guns there, but I got sidetracked on Ginger and CIAS himself.) The most likely explanation, to me, is that BillMC is a liar who's placed an opportunistic vote on Meeko, who right now is looking a lot more like distracted town than scum to me. So unless Bill comes up with something very good, I won't be unvoting him any time soon.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on May 17, 2011 22:02:27 GMT -5
MeekoI'd also be interested to hear who you'd vote for today if not forced to vote for Colby. Maybe not necessarily right now (I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet, so can't expect you to know who you would want to vote for at this point), but as we get closer to end of day. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning at all as to why you wouldn't want to do that. Quote: >>> I don't see the point in answering this one. This seems to nail me down to something of a very limited value. I already can't unvote a dead player, having to backpedal off a non-vote vote would be an order of magnitude worse than this. Then again, perhaps I am more free with my non-vote vote than others, but that is not how I would like to play. Respectfully I find this question too restraining, for lack of better words, to answer. how in the world is saying who you would like to vote for if you had the opportunity of "limited value" and "restraining"? You seem to be evasive and not sure why that would be the case. It's more what you said to begin with than not, I don't know who I would, if I could, yet. Assuming that I feel the need to ""unvote"" my non-vote, I feel it will be fruitless. I mean, I'm already in a position where I essentially can't vote today. Not really something I want to think about too much. If I get my non-vote vote wrong, it can be used against me. And today is already a non-starter for me, as far as my vote is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Dirx on May 17, 2011 22:13:15 GMT -5
It's more what you said to begin with than not, I don't know who I would, if I could, yet. Assuming that I feel the need to ""unvote"" my non-vote, I feel it will be fruitless. I mean, I'm already in a position where I essentially can't vote today. Not really something I want to think about too much. If I get my non-vote vote wrong, it can be used against me. And today is already a non-starter for me, as far as my vote is concerned. So do you not even want to discuss who you find suspicious? Are you just not going to contribute at all Today?
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 17, 2011 22:33:40 GMT -5
I think Moley is saying that if Meeko's claim that his vote was purchased is false, both Meeko and the politician must be scum - otherwise he'd risk being counter-claimed. So, rather than adding the sentence about voting Colby whether he's alive or not, he'd simply have chosen a different player to pretend to be forced to vote for. I'm guessing then, that Moley doesn't agree with BillMc's assumption that the scum didn't kill colby, right? Because if BillMc is assuming that the scum did not kill colby (which is what he is saying), then a scum meeko would not have known colby was going to be alive or dead so he really could not have known to add in anything about still being forced to vote for a dead player regardless of who that player was. Does that make sense? So I guess I don't really see the choice of target making much difference but I could just be confused. Ok, assume for the moment that Meeko is both scum, and lying about his vote restriction. Scum might have decided at night to target Meeko's fake vote restriction on Colby, if Meeko was scum. This still gives Meeko time to switch targets that morning, once Colby turns up dead. My point is, why not abort the plan, or switch targets, IF Meeko is lying? The fact that he went ahead with the most implausible story, despite the fact that he really didn't need to if it was a lie, strongly suggests that it's actually the truth. And that applies regardless of whether Meeko is scum or town. I think Dirx has pretty much made my case for Meeko being careless town; but Ma'at makes a good point also. Meeko, just because you can't vote, doesn't mean you can't tell people who you suspect and why. The attention seems to be on you at the moment, and if you are town - as I'm thinking right now - then I'd rather avoid seeing a third ineffective townie get railroaded! A further point about BillMC - I said from the start that the scum would mix up their bandwagons to avoid being lumped together. Bill wasn't on the Ace bandwagon or the Pinkles one. He'd be a prime candidate, if he was scum, to start a Meeko wagon. It wouldn't surprise me right now if the scum agreed before the day started that he was to do it, and the forced vote gave him an opportunity. He might have arranged that vote (if the vote-buyer is scum) or just taken advantage of the opportunity that it gave him to throw suspicion on Meeko. Either way, though, it seems that the scum are targeting ineffective townies; and Meeko, assuming he's town, fits that mold perfectly. Reading back over Bill's posts, he is pinging my scumdar like mad here, and I don't think it's just confirmation bias. He seems to have spent most of Day 2 analyzing the posts of a claimed PFK, and the vote-restriction situation in general, instead of actually scum-hunting, or even commenting on other people's attempts to scum-hunt. On Day 1 I'd say the same thing about his posts regarding my post restriction. (In fairness he did make one valid point - regarding my having asked Sis C about something that's already in the rules - but, weighing up the three days so far, I think he was most likely looking for something to use to frame me, not for evidence against an actual scum.) And on Day 3, so far, he's voted for Meeko, and I've already said what I think about that vote. In short, it would take a helluva lot right now to convince me that BillMC isn't scum. Unless he makes a very convincing claim, or someone says they've investigated somebody else and that investigation has turned up a confirmed scum, my vote's staying exactly where it is; and I urge you guys to consider joining me.
|
|
|
Post by Dirx on May 17, 2011 23:01:00 GMT -5
I think Dirx has pretty much made my case for Meeko being careless town; I recall making no such case. My opinion is actually (still) leaning towards a scummy Meeko.
|
|
|
Post by septimus on May 17, 2011 23:01:06 GMT -5
Here's another example of anti-Town vs. pro-Scum. I agree with you that it hurts Town to publicly speculate about who is a power role(I must note that some people disagree vehemently with me). However, if Cat were scum he could just as easily speculate about power roles in their own board, without potentially warning a doctor about who would be a good person to protect. So overall I'd classify this as ill-advised play rather than scummy behaviour. Yes, I tried to imply this in my post. But it wouldn't hurt for Scum to speculate in the public board as well, to provoke discussion to aid their insights. It's also possible Cat is PFK or 3P with no access to the Scum board. Still, I'm wondering if CatInaSuit is behaving too scummily to be scum, if that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by septimus on May 17, 2011 23:13:09 GMT -5
I'm surprised by the suspicion cast on the new sentence in the bought-vote PM. I've never been a Moderator, but if I were the Mod in this situation I'd sure add the clarification about voting for the dead player just to avoid the otherwise almost-certain round of clarifying PM's. And I think a lying Meeko would worry that the vote-for-the-dead mechanic is too strange (and might even provoke Mod refutation), so I'm inclined to believe that, whether Scum or not, he did get the PM. If you're going to lie about a voting restriction, as scum, why choose the guy who's died as your "vote"? Why not just choose a living player instead? I worry that Scum are playing very cleverly this game. If the Politician is Scum he's concerned about concealing his nature, rather than taking full advantage of the extra vote this early in the game.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on May 17, 2011 23:54:27 GMT -5
I see that Bill is still alive. (is that a SCUM tell?) I think that if I were to fake a forced vote I would not be so DAFT as to place my fake forced vote on a player that was already dead. (complete with caveat) If I were SCUM forcing a player to vote for someone already dead ( ok I might do that with the voting oddness yesterDay it MIGHT be a great funny) But I am guessing what ever forced the vote didn't know the object would be already dead SCUM having 4 "powers" in one Night seems bizarre to me (I think there are other players in play ) as mentioned by others *Scum kill * vig *vote steal *WTF? not in any order that I see This stands out to me From a balance perspective, a scum politician is an incredibly powerful role. A town politician is rather less so. The scum have a much better idea of how to use the bought vote to their advantage. Now, that advantage isn't as pronounced with the politician role as it seems to work in this game(where the order comes in at Night instead of during the Day), but the point stands. Yes that is true. Why did you say it? things that I see Somethng about Rysto still buggs me CatInaSuit has done some nice mechanics and a bit of semantics storyteller has not been silenced (IN game . but has not shared a bunch) gnarliecharlie is getting the jokes The removal of quote tags confuckles the beans out of me septimus is making some sense to me I've had to explain myself before............... I seldom vote early and I try not to vote often. I am not smudging so much as sharing MY observations Considering my busy-ness this past clock day I didn't share much. I will try to find more time
|
|
|
Post by Ma'at on May 18, 2011 0:29:45 GMT -5
Maybe it’s just me, but this board seems to be moving very slowly (meaning, scum are not being found – not even strong possible scum candidates). So, even though it’s earlier than I’d like, and I don’t have a super strong argument, I’m going to vote: Vote: Bill MC Reasons (And I apologize in advance for those who don’t like “meta-gaming”): I’ve only played 2 games with Bill MC, but his scum hunting skills seem to be “legendary”. So much so, that he often gets voted off early in games because scum do not want him around hunting them. So, it started pinging me slightly when he was going after fluiddruid on D2 after her claim. If he’s so good at finding scum, why was he going after a 3rd party (who sounded like she was going to cooperate with town) instead of scum hunting? It’s day 3 and he’s still here (meaning, scum have not killed him yet). Must suck to be so good that you either get voted off right away by scum, or start looking suspicious when you don’t get voted off. Your comment that the Politician role is usually scum – two players (CIAS and Metallicsquink) questioned this and stated they had played in games where the politician is town. And opinions seem to differ on whether our Politician is scum or town, but I’m leaning toward town (since the votes have been going against players who have garnered some suspicion). Maybe the majority of the games you’ve played it’s been a scum role, but you’re a good enough player not to make assumptions like that. Your comment in post 72: It seems more likely that the Scum would have taken Ed out than Colby. For the scum to have chosen Colby over Ed that Scum would have had had to believe the Colby represented more of threat than Ed -- and since Colby flipped Vanilla, that was not the case This doesn’t really make sense to me. Scum don’t know if either Ed or Colby are a power or vanilla until they’re dead and it’s announced by the mod. You’re saying that since Colby flipped vanilla, it’s more likely scum voted Ed, as if scum knew ahead of time that Ed was a power role. Saying that because Colby flipped vanilla, it’s more likely Scum killed Colby seems like backward logic to me. Lastly, I think your vote on Meeko is weak. I’m not sure what I think about meeko, but voting for someone for low-participation, when they’ve stated it’s because they are busy with work, seems like a cop out. And the Colby comment on the end of his PM doesn’t seem *that* suspicious to me.
|
|
|
Post by Ma'at on May 18, 2011 0:30:50 GMT -5
Oh, and Moley, feel free to chime in
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 18, 2011 3:27:57 GMT -5
I'm going to hold off on voting BillMc for now because I do want to see what he has to say about this. Where I'm going is drawing you scummy folks out from the woodwork. I'm pretty sure Meeko is scum, and you are doing defending him rather strongly. Either you know he is being truthful - or know he is lying. So here's a simple question/statement for both Meeko Please state "My vote has been bought by a player unknown to me" If its a fake vote then you are a liar, if it is a scum ploy - you are a liar. And for the record Squink, I think you are as scummy as Meeko
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 18, 2011 3:28:34 GMT -5
I’ve only played 2 games with Bill MC, but his scum hunting skills seem to be “legendary”. So much so, that he often gets voted off early in games because scum do not want him around hunting them. So, it started pinging me slightly when he was going after fluiddruid on D2 after her claim. If he’s so good at finding scum, why was he going after a 3rd party (who sounded like she was going to cooperate with town) instead of scum hunting? Lynching a 3rd party mad bomber is better than mislynching town. It’s day 3 and he’s still here (meaning, scum have not killed him yet). Must suck to be so good that you either get voted off right away by scum, or start looking suspicious when you don’t get voted off. Well I was waitng for the ole "he's still alive, he must be scum" - rather than the more plausible "he's still alive, and possibly protected from NK" Your comment that the Politician role is usually scum – two players (CIAS and Metallicsquink) questioned this and stated they had played in games where the politician is town. And opinions seem to differ on whether our Politician is scum or town, but I’m leaning toward town (since the votes have been going against players who have garnered some suspicion). Maybe the majority of the games you’ve played it’s been a scum role, but you’re a good enough player not to make assumptions like that. I said *usually* a scum role This doesn’t really make sense to me. Scum don’t know if either Ed or Colby are a power or vanilla until they’re dead and it’s announced by the mod. You’re saying that since Colby flipped vanilla, it’s more likely scum voted Ed, as if scum knew ahead of time that Ed was a power role. Saying that because Colby flipped vanilla, it’s more likely Scum killed Colby seems like backward logic to me. I never said the scum killed Colby -- I said it was most likely the scum killed Ed. Scum often take out the players they feel are a threat to them -- Colby was no threat -- he was too busy worrying about dying. As the old Indian saying goes - if a man is sure he will die tomorrow, he will probably find a way to do so. Lastly, I think your vote on Meeko is weak. I’m not sure what I think about meeko, but voting for someone for low-participation, when they’ve stated it’s because they are busy with work, seems like a cop out. And the Colby comment on the end of his PM doesn’t seem *that* suspicious to me. I did not vote him for participation - I voted him because I dont believe his post. There is absolutely no reason that the mod would provide different messages to Cap and Meeko.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 18, 2011 3:30:46 GMT -5
And since the vultures are starting to circle - I'll say this
Most Likely Scum: Meeko, Squink Poss Scum: Lightfoot, MHaye, Rysto
Most Likely Town: Plankton, Moley, Story, Dirx Poss Town: Cat in a suit
In a game this size, there are probably 4-5 scum
|
|
|
Post by guiri on May 18, 2011 4:57:40 GMT -5
I had to put the quote tags back in. I wanted to see the vote count in case there was an extra vote like yesterDay. If his role PM was truthful, he had one last shot at winning by guessing toDay's lynchee. There was no extra vote so I'm no longer concerned about him in any way. Fluid said this Day 2 post 72: - I'll cast my extra vote for the second place lynch candidate each Day. The claim came on Day 2. Wasn't the second place lynch candidate on Day 2 Fluid herself? I wonder if there isn't some interaction here. If there is, Would Fluid follow her game plan to the grave? Who knows, but we can't lynch him and he can't be NKed again so there's not much value discussing him anymore, I'm moving on. You suggest that "Purchase" may be more than just color. It implies you got something in return for your vote, did you? Working Backwards here : 0.Not that I am aware of. 1.I am not sure how you mean " may be more than just color ". Isn't everything in Mafia color? 1.1 Words having meaning, and if different words weren't used, we would be playing the same game over and over -- and we would know it out right. LOTR and Potter is the exception that proves the rule here, that pair sticks out because all the other games prove my point. Words are chosen over other words to seperate games from games. You suggested that there was a reason why "purchased" was used and suggested that it could be useful to figure out why it was used: There was comment on why the use of the word "Purchase" was used. It was dismissed as being nothing but color. I agree it's color, but there is a reason why that word was used above any other one. I mean, it's the reason why Sawyer got the Gun in LOST and Hurley didn't. That is to say, I think there could be value in figuring why the word purchase was used and what character be able to purchase. Is the effort worth it? Probably not. If you didn't receive anything in exchange for your vote, I don't see why you, someone who's claimed to have had their vote purchased (rather than "stolen"), would suggest this. Dirx also voted you for your poor votes, not just you lack of participation: Meeko's been lurking and laying down crapass votes. To me, that has Scum written all over it. Your Day 1 vote was a bandwagon vote on Ace accusing her of asking Pinkies for a claim (debatable) while not claiming herself (untrue). I don't see the value in talking about Day 1 votes. If we could play Day 1 better, it would cease to be Day 1. I disagree, I expect to be held accountable for every vote I make and you should too. You jumped on an existing bandwagon, fabricated reasons for voting Ace, avoided discussing any of the other players bar a meta comment on Peeker- Colby, and avoided answering questions about your vote. Your Day 2 vote was another bandwagon vote, on Pinkies. You voted him pending further explanation: "I could be wrong here, but until I get some more explanation from you I will: vote Pinkies" but he'd already explained that he'd been compelled to vote. This is what Pinkies said, cut and pasted, complete with a given Horizontal Rule [The assumption being I can Snip here.] I am placing the following vote. Once I make this vote I will not change it for the rest of the day. Vote: Archangel Oh... It has been a busy couple days on the home front. And that was sufficient enough for you, Guiri? No, but I read his successive posts where he explained that his vote was being controlled. You voted him pending an explanation that he'd already given and did not respond to questions about your vote. Your new job may explain your lack of participation and not being yourself but these really are crappy, opportunistic votes. I would love to know what the metric is for a good vote. It seems to me that crappy, opportunistic votes are those so deemed. And the Emperor is fully clothed, too. I don't know about metrics but if you jump on a bandwagon to vote someone based on an inaccuracy and, even when the inaccuracy is pointed out, you leave it on the player without adding any other reasoning, it's a crappy vote and looks like you don't care about who or why you're voting as long as you've got a vote somewhere. Assuming your vote was purchased, who would you vote for toDay if you didn't have to vote Colby? I don't see the point in answering this one. This seems to nail me down to something of a very limited value. I already can't unvote a dead player, having to backpedal off a non-vote vote would be an order of magnitude worse than this. Then again, perhaps I am more free with my non-vote vote than others, but that is not how I would like to play. Respectfully I find this question too restraining, for lack of better words, to answer. I'm not asking you to unvote and potentially suffer a penalty, I'm asking you to share your thoughts and suspicions, comment on the other cases and possibly make a case of your own if you don't agree with any of them. Why would you have to backpedal off a non-vote if you have reason to believe that player is suspicious? It's more what you said to begin with than not, I don't know who I would, if I could, yet. Assuming that I feel the need to ""unvote"" my non-vote, I feel it will be fruitless. I mean, I'm already in a position where I essentially can't vote today. Not really something I want to think about too much. If I get my non-vote vote wrong, it can be used against me. And today is already a non-starter for me, as far as my vote is concerned. How would expressing your suspicions be fruitless? Why would expressing your suspicions be used against you if they're for real? Do you have no intention of hunting for scum? Have given up for toDay because you cannot change your vote? I can accept that your job has affected your participation but based on your votes and lack of defence for them, your avoidance of accountability, your lack of scum hunting, and your reasons for not wanting to voice your suspicions toDay, I suspect you're scum. Vote Meeko
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 18, 2011 5:09:58 GMT -5
That's just it; you don't discount extras. Both Pinkies and Fluid had seven votes placed by other players, but if Captain P had not moved his vote and got two penalty votes, the vote count would have been 8 - 7 in Fluiddruid's favour, and she, not Captain P, would have been lynched, because Fluiddruid had more votes. Only if the number of votes were tied would the earliest-vote tiebreak come into play; Fluiddrud's penalty vote did not count for that purpose only. Understood, I can see where I went wrong with the vote count above, it's missing Fluiddruid's extra vote from the start of the day. Yes, without Pinkies shifting vote, it would have meant Fluiddruid being lynched. But this brings up another point worth investigating. Given the two options of fluiddruid or Pinkies, which one would the scum prefer to see lynched. Pinkies - the walking anti-town distraction who is likely to get himself lynched later on Fluiddruid - claimed 3rd party and looking to assist the town with a power Both are anti-town, but neither of them are pro-scum. Looking at it, I think the scum would have much preferred to see Fluiddruid swing than Pinkies.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 18, 2011 5:17:35 GMT -5
Here's another example of anti-Town vs. pro-Scum. I agree with you that it hurts Town to publicly speculate about who is a power role(I must note that some people disagree vehemently with me). However, if Cat were scum he could just as easily speculate about power roles in their own board, without potentially warning a doctor about who would be a good person to protect. So overall I'd classify this as ill-advised play rather than scummy behaviour. Oh, I definitely disagree. Not pointing things out is a very scummy thing to do, seeing as usually it is much easier to spot things as a scum team, bat ideas back and forth, and they much prefer to keep the knowledge to themselves, whereas a lone townie may miss it. Chances are that if a townie has spotted something, the scum team have definitely spotted it as well.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 18, 2011 6:36:18 GMT -5
I think Dirx has pretty much made my case for Meeko being careless town; I recall making no such case. My opinion is actually (still) leaning towards a scummy Meeko. You think? You remember Ace was wrongly lynched for being un-cooperative when he didn't need to be. Don't you think that Meeko's refusal to say who he would have voted for falls into the same category? I mean, how hard is it to just pick a name? As hard as it is to post the words "I am town" in public thread? That kind of bolshieness is a town tell, not a scum one. Whatever Rysto's alignment, he's right about one thing: don't confuse anti-town with scum. Scum know enough to NOT appear anti-town. Case in point, two players who were obviously playing an anti-town game at some point - Pinkies and Ace. Both of them, town. So far both lynches have been fairly ineffective, inactive townies. Assuming that the scum are at least partly behind both lynches, there were two people who I thought they'd try to get lynched today, both of them possible townies who fit the "ineffective" mode. Meeko was one of those two people. (I'm not going to name the other one - it serves no purpose apart from putting a target on somebody's back - but it's another player who hasn't contributed that much but may still be town.) My point is, when BillMC puts a vote on Meeko that IMO is scummier than yesterday's dishwater, it confirms some doubts I've had about BillMC, and fits exactly into what I was thinking the scum would do. Two other points to be considered: 1) We don't know that the scum didn't know Ed's role. They may have an investigate power, for example. Alternatively it could just be a really good guess. It's not hard to identify the cop if you know what you're looking for and you know who isn't scum - just ask Rysto, who I personally NKd on Day Two of "Smasher Mansion" because I thought his playstyle reminded me of the time he was cop in an earlier game. He turned out to be the cop there as well. 2) Wasn't it me who originally pointed out the use of the word "purchased" as a possible clue? A point which, you may remember, was specifically singled out and answered? And furthermore, made the theory that the vote-buyer would have to give up something to use his power, but not necessarily to the person whose vote he'd bought? I'm not sure why people (in particular Guiri) are 1) ascribing this to Meeko, when he's pretty much just echoing what I had already posted, or 2) suggesting it's somehow scummy for him to do so.
|
|
|
Post by septimus on May 18, 2011 6:39:51 GMT -5
Unvote: CatInaSuitI have a confession to make. (No, not that kind of confession! ) I confess that I am very unskilled at building cases of scumminess. Rysto is right; my votes in this game have been for anti-Town behavior. Not because I overlooked his argument, but because I'd just not sensed any clear pro-Scum behavior. I feel somewhat more confident about evaluating cases others make against possible Scum. The cases built against Archangel, Ace, Moley seemed poor to me; those raising suspicion raised my suspicions of them as smudgers. But just as likely is that they, like I, have trouble identifying real Scum. But now accusations have been made against Meeko and metallic squink. I've looked over their posts and these accusations have a strong ring of truth to me. Meeko has posted relatively little (indeed one of the arguments against him seems to be that he's quieter than usual) so I focused on squink's posts. His recent discussion of the "alive or not" sentence in Meeko's alleged PM seems contrived to mislead, rather than explore, especially his "I see..." correction. And several other posts seem contrived: I was thinking it was just me that didn't understand where Bill was going with his vote. Moley, what do you mean by "he would have chosen a different player instead"? I'm going to hold off on voting BillMc for now because I do want to see what he has to say about this. [suburban wrote:] 300: “ I think Pinkies is not going to claim. I am happy with my vote....” On rereading this last comment, it really seems like story knows that pinkies is town and just not claiming. I vaguely remember Scooby Doo (and may even have played in it - I'm getting too old to keep up anymore!) but I don't understand this comment at all.
Given a wide acceptance by now that the Lynch of ace was misguided, this post seems quite suspicious: The way I see it, there is no reason to excuse her hesitation which is why I am confused that you [suburban plankton] would do it. You are even saying yourself that you do not agree with her play in this case and yet are willing to wait and see what she does. To me the issue here is not whether or not she comes in and says "I am town", it's the hesitation in the first place (which you are defending). And given the phrasing of your initial post defending this play, it seemed to me that you are not accounting for the fact that she may not want to post "I am town" because it could be a lie. And just to be clear, I see a distinct difference between revealing your role and revealing your alignment. Obviously no one is asking ace to reveal her role. Making a statement about your alignment is not harmful to town in this case. Making a false statement about your alignment is harmful, but only to yourself and perhaps that is what she is contemplating. I think I've convinced myself that ace's play is scummier than yours, although I still think your defense of her is suspicious. unvote Suburban Plankton vote ace093 Rereading these, I'll bet others think "I don't see the scumminess." I may not be able to explain it either; I just read the posts imagining the writer is Town and imagining the writer is Scum and seem what "seems to fit." And on my reading, Scum seems to fit. Vote: metallic squink
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on May 18, 2011 7:26:54 GMT -5
Checking back in from yesterday. Will catch up on all the posts with a BUNCH more coffee needed. I will be in class most of the morning so I will not be able to really post till this afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on May 18, 2011 7:36:33 GMT -5
Current Vote Count:
BillMc (2,2) Honest Moley [81] Ma’at [103]* Meeko (2,2) BillMc [72] Guiri [108] JustBeingGinger (1,1) CatInASuit [64] Metallic Squink (1,1) Septimus [112] CatInASuit (0,1) Septimus [47 112] colby11 (1,1): Meeko [13]
With these votes, BillMc will be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 18, 2011 7:54:00 GMT -5
Maybe it’s just me, but this board seems to be moving very slowly (meaning, scum are not being found – not even strong possible scum candidates). So, even though it’s earlier than I’d like, and I don’t have a super strong argument, I’m going to vote: Vote: Bill MC (bleached) [/color] Reasons (And I apologize in advance for those who don’t like “meta-gaming”): I’ve only played 2 games with Bill MC, but his scum hunting skills seem to be “legendary”. So much so, that he often gets voted off early in games because scum do not want him around hunting them. So, it started pinging me slightly when he was going after fluiddruid on D2 after her claim. If he’s so good at finding scum, why was he going after a 3rd party (who sounded like she was going to cooperate with town) instead of scum hunting? It’s day 3 and he’s still here (meaning, scum have not killed him yet). Must suck to be so good that you either get voted off right away by scum, or start looking suspicious when you don’t get voted off. Your comment that the Politician role is usually scum – two players (CIAS and Metallicsquink) questioned this and stated they had played in games where the politician is town. And opinions seem to differ on whether our Politician is scum or town, but I’m leaning toward town (since the votes have been going against players who have garnered some suspicion). Maybe the majority of the games you’ve played it’s been a scum role, but you’re a good enough player not to make assumptions like that. Your comment in post 72: It seems more likely that the Scum would have taken Ed out than Colby. For the scum to have chosen Colby over Ed that Scum would have had had to believe the Colby represented more of threat than Ed -- and since Colby flipped Vanilla, that was not the case This doesn’t really make sense to me. Scum don’t know if either Ed or Colby are a power or vanilla until they’re dead and it’s announced by the mod. You’re saying that since Colby flipped vanilla, it’s more likely scum voted Ed, as if scum knew ahead of time that Ed was a power role. Saying that because Colby flipped vanilla, it’s more likely Scum killed Colby seems like backward logic to me. Lastly, I think your vote on Meeko is weak. I’m not sure what I think about meeko, but voting for someone for low-participation, when they’ve stated it’s because they are busy with work, seems like a cop out. And the Colby comment on the end of his PM doesn’t seem *that* suspicious to me. [/quote] I'm little bit lost right now, need to read to catch up, IRL busy this week, but I don't like a bandwagon building on Bill. There was no NK the first night. It seems likely to me that scum tried to kill Bill, and someone, knowing his reputation, protected him. So until I can catch up, Vote MeekoBut I will be back this afternoon to read everything and make a more informed decision then.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 18, 2011 7:54:46 GMT -5
Grrr.
Vote Meeko
|
|
|
Post by metallicsquink on May 18, 2011 8:00:41 GMT -5
@ BillMc: Do you care to actually back up those accusations of scumminess? Or are you just going to smudge anyone who questions you?
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 18, 2011 8:10:00 GMT -5
From a balance perspective, a scum politician is an incredibly powerful role. A town politician is rather less so. The scum have a much better idea of how to use the bought vote to their advantage. Now, that advantage isn't as pronounced with the politician role as it seems to work in this game(where the order comes in at Night instead of during the Day), but the point stands. Yes that is true. Why did you say it? Uh, because there was a discussion going on as to whether the Politician was a town or scum role?
|
|
|
Post by metallicsquink on May 18, 2011 8:40:19 GMT -5
Unvote: CatInaSuitI have a confession to make. (No, not that kind of confession! ) I confess that I am very unskilled at building cases of scumminess. Rysto is right; my votes in this game have been for anti-Town behavior. Not because I overlooked his argument, but because I'd just not sensed any clear pro-Scum behavior. I feel somewhat more confident about evaluating cases others make against possible Scum. The cases built against Archangel, Ace, Moley seemed poor to me; those raising suspicion raised my suspicions of them as smudgers. But just as likely is that they, like I, have trouble identifying real Scum. But now accusations have been made against Meeko and metallic squink. I've looked over their posts and these accusations have a strong ring of truth to me. Meeko has posted relatively little (indeed one of the arguments against him seems to be that he's quieter than usual) so I focused on squink's posts. His recent discussion of the "alive or not" sentence in Meeko's alleged PM seems contrived to mislead, rather than explore, especially his "I see..." correction. And several other posts seem contrived: I was thinking it was just me that didn't understand where Bill was going with his vote. Moley, what do you mean by "he would have chosen a different player instead"? I'm going to hold off on voting BillMc for now because I do want to see what he has to say about this. Given a wide acceptance by now that the Lynch of ace was misguided, this post seems quite suspicious: The way I see it, there is no reason to excuse her hesitation which is why I am confused that you [suburban plankton] would do it. You are even saying yourself that you do not agree with her play in this case and yet are willing to wait and see what she does. To me the issue here is not whether or not she comes in and says "I am town", it's the hesitation in the first place (which you are defending). And given the phrasing of your initial post defending this play, it seemed to me that you are not accounting for the fact that she may not want to post "I am town" because it could be a lie. And just to be clear, I see a distinct difference between revealing your role and revealing your alignment. Obviously no one is asking ace to reveal her role. Making a statement about your alignment is not harmful to town in this case. Making a false statement about your alignment is harmful, but only to yourself and perhaps that is what she is contemplating. I think I've convinced myself that ace's play is scummier than yours, although I still think your defense of her is suspicious. unvote Suburban Plankton vote ace093 Rereading these, I'll bet others think "I don't see the scumminess." I may not be able to explain it either; I just read the posts imagining the writer is Town and imagining the writer is Scum and seem what "seems to fit." And on my reading, Scum seems to fit. Vote: metallic squink I'm not sure how to defend myself against this. And you yourself are saying that you are not very good at making cases so you seem to have given yourself an out for making a case based on poor evidence. In any event, all I can say is that I was not the only one to question BillMc's vote so I'm not sure why my question seems any more contrived than Honest Moley's. As for my vote on Ace, again, without anything specific about what you find suspicious, I'm not really sure how to respond. And I'm a she.
|
|