|
Post by BillMc on May 19, 2011 1:23:49 GMT -5
Dirx asked "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. So because you can't vote you don't want to play today? want to throw your toys out of the pram? Unvoting and taking the penalty would prove your vote was actually bought.....some some credence to your claim. But it would not prove anything about your alignment.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 19, 2011 1:25:33 GMT -5
@squink You finish Day 2 supporting lynching both Pinkies and Fluid -- hedge your bets since you need both them dead A PM would go a long way to giving your claim at least a shred of credibility. ...and would also make it much easier for the scum knowing the actual PM. Day 3 -- Ginger and Ma'at open the day voicing their belated cases against Colby....and lo and behold, Meeko appears with a "forced vote" for Colby....nice timing. You start on a wow on the lurkers - then add to the "we were suspicious of Colby" bandwagon, trying to add credence to the argument that a forced vote on Colby was "pro-town". Metallic Squink and JustBeingGinger: you both come in Today saying you were suspicious of colby, but I see neither of you had a vote on him Yesterday. It's been a busy few days, and the other thread is 14 pages; did you voice suspicions of him Yesterday? And if so, where? If not, why the suspicion now? <snip> On my re-read last Night, I noticed that colby contradicted himself a couple of times and I was going to come in toDay and ask him about it. I did question him a few times yesterDay but I did not vote for him. Then throw in your wow on "lurkers" setting the scene for the subsequent supposition that the politican chose a lurker - ie meeko - to leverage their vote I don't understand the vote on meeko as it relates to his PM. What does the quote about colby surviving the Night have to do with getting town cred? You categorically dismiss the idea that the politician is scum, and categorically dismiss the idea that meeko may be doing this go gain town cred. You are awfully sure of yourself. 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? Here you are making an excuse for a scum Meeko, that "he really couldnt not have known" - which is incorrect, as he posted his "vote" several hours are daybreak - so unless he was completely blind and didnt read the thread, he would have known. I think it's more likely that he did read the thread and thought "oh crap, Colby is dead" and decided to modify the PM I see. Then it seems like a pretty bad move on a scum meeko's part to add something to his PM that wasn't in pinkies' PM and that draws even more attention to meeko. Not that scum wouldn't do that but still, I would think if the PM was fake, he would have just taken pinkies' PM word for word. Again, you are defending Meeko. Yes...scum wouldn't do that.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 19, 2011 1:29:09 GMT -5
@everyone
Several of you seem to hold the viewpoint that the scum would have been more likely to have killed Colby than Ed.
I'd like to hear your reasoning why.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on May 19, 2011 3:06:56 GMT -5
Unvoting and taking the penalty would prove your vote was actually bought.....some some credence to your claim. But it would not prove anything about your alignment. We both know that this would do nothing for you. Being the first person to state that my vote was purchased, making the vote that is, in hindsight so outrageous, and going through with it would work to. No other player has suggested that they had been forced to vote, no other player has used their first post to vote and explain why they had to vote. But, we both know that won't do anything for you either. You are the one throwing toys in front of the pram. "I'm Bill and I only want things my way. I can scream louder than you, and if I don't get my way, I'm going to let everyone know. "You want me to take on two penalty votes for your own amusement? "Waaah, Meeko won't hurt himself! Waaah!" Next thing you know Veruca, you will be wanting a bean feast as well.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 19, 2011 3:14:16 GMT -5
Here are my suspicions at the moment: CatinASuit: I find her accusing me very contradictorily. She was suspicious of me for unvoting Fluidroid too quickly and then suspicious of me for not unvoting Pinkies at the moment he posted his vote PM. She is suspicious of me for changing my vote from Pinkies to Fluidroid at the end of Day 2 and states that SCUM would vote off someone that was 3rd party and that was willing to "work" with town to win. My question to you CIAS is how did Fluidroid work with town in the time she was alive? Did she discuss who looked suspicious and would be good lynch candidates for her vote, NO. Did she post her vote on the Night thread during Night 2, No. So what makes you think that she was willing to work with town so much? She talked a good game at first but never backed it with actions. That's Mr CatInASuit to you I think you missed the point. It's not that Fluiddruid was pro-town, but that she was anti-scum, and as such, is someone I believe the scum would prefer to lynch before Pinkies, who was anti-town. And yes, I do get suspicious of people changing votes back and forth quickly. Also, for not following through on what they say will do from earlier posts. Oh and ... Fluidroid ;D
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 19, 2011 3:42:52 GMT -5
Ok looking back over the votes on Day 2, who placed them, why and other thoughts. #D2.4 - Special Ed votes Captain Pinkies - Cites the two posts on Day 1 re. Lie Detector #D2.26 - CIAS votes Archangel - Citing previous Day 1 arguments #D2.30 - Archangel votes fluiddruid - Citing pushing the Ace wagon and going along with it because it seemed inevitable #D2.37 - metallicsquink votes Archangel - post analysis of Day 1, too quick to judge and appease. Archangel first one to get multiple votes. #D2.47 - suburban plankton votes Pinkies - Only person who did not make a definitive Town statement on Day 1. Note: This vote was not counted. SP later claims it was because it was in the first 24hrs of the Day. #D2.60 - septimus votes CIAS - cites Day 1 reasons for vote. #D2.72 - Fluiddruid claims 3rd Party #D2.82 - septimus unvotes CIAS, votes Pinkies - citing no response from Pinkies on Day 2. #D2.90 - Pinkies votes Archangel - Says vote has been bought. #D2.108 - ModFail over vote counts spotted. #D2.156 - Meeko votes Pinkies - Requires more explanation from him. Ok, this puts Pinkies into the lead with four votes, ahead of Archangel with three. #D2.161 - Lightfoot votes Captain Pinkies citing a theory to be tested. #D2.176 - colby votes paranoia citing inactivity in the game #D2.198 - suburban plankton unvotes Pinkies, votes Special Ed - to test effectiveness of vote. #D2.203 - Archangel unvotes fluiddruid, votes gnarliecharlie - To test CIAS's theory on votes. #D2.209 - Suburban plankton - unvotes Special Ed, votes Pinkies - to put votes back the way they were. #D2.221 Suburban Plankton partial claims concerning ability to vote in first 24hrs of the Day. At this point, Pinkies is well in the lead with 5 votes from Archangel with 3. #D2.227 - gnarlycharlie votes fluiddruid - citing FD's role as 3rd party #D2.228 - JBG votes Pinkies - saying he is holding back info. #D2.246 - Archangel unvotes gnarliecharlie, votes fluiddruid - for reasons already stated (vote test over) #D2.262 - Moley votes JBG - citing contradictions in posting and threat vote on Pinkies #D2.263 - lightfoot unvotes pinkies - citing theory test #D2.269 - storyteller votes Pinkies - Umm for no discernable reason, other than perhaps Archangel is town? ?? (see #D2.282) #D2.304 - guiri votes Pinkies - no town motivation, of the three vote leaders, Pinkies is the best candidate Pinkies (7) is still in the lead at this point ahead of Archangel (3) and fluiddruid (3). #D2.306 - Pinkies claims vanilla town, posts Vote Purchase PM At this point, the scum know that Pinkies is vanilla town. #D2.313 - colby unvotes paranoia - unfair to vote someone subbing out #D2.317 - CIAS unvotes Archangel, votes Pinkies - citing adding nothing, holding back and not playing. #D2.321 - rysto votes guiri - citing getting people annoyed at Pinkies to vote him off. #D2.341 - colby votes Pinkies - says he shuold have posted his role pm #D2.343 - BillMc votes fluiddruid - says something about FD's story does not seem right, points out if it is not a penalty vote, then there are 4 people capable of voting rigging. Vote Count with 7 hours to go Pinkies (9) Fluiddruid (4) Archangel (2) At this point Pinkies looks a goner. #D2.362 lightfoot votes fluiddruid - would vote colby or rysto but would not change the outcome, votes because vote is best placed there. #D2.371 - Dirx votes Meeko - vote is between FD and meeko, but prefers the scum to be forced to deal with her. #D2.374 - MHaye votes Fluiddruid - citing problems with FD's claim and that lynching a PFK at the start of a game is acceptable Vote count now is Pinkies (9), FD (6) #D2.376 - Pinkies unvotes archangel, votes special Ed - to show the claim is accurate #D2.379 - moley unvotes JBG, votes fluidruid - says choice between lynching someone who is probably town and someone who is definitely not. #D2.380 - septimus unvotes pinkies, votes CIAS- promised Pinkies he would move vote if he took the penalty hit. #D2.382 - JBG unvotes Pinkies, votes fluiddruid, cites Pinkies PM post. #D3.389 - Maat votes colby, will give reasons in Day 3 EoD lynch count: Pinkies (9), Fluiddruid (8)
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 19, 2011 4:04:17 GMT -5
Unvoting and taking the penalty would prove your vote was actually bought.....some some credence to your claim. But it would not prove anything about your alignment. We both know that this would do nothing for you. Being the first person to state that my vote was purchased, making the vote that is, in hindsight so outrageous, and going through with it would work to. No other player has suggested that they had been forced to vote, no other player has used their first post to vote and explain why they had to vote. But, we both know that won't do anything for you either. You are the one throwing toys in front of the pram. "I'm Bill and I only want things my way. I can scream louder than you, and if I don't get my way, I'm going to let everyone know. "You want me to take on two penalty votes for your own amusement? "Waaah, Meeko won't hurt himself! Waaah!" Next thing you know Veruca, you will be wanting a bean feast as well. So lets see - you don't want the penalty votes, you dont want to even contribute today, you dont want to make the statement for the possible Lie Detector If I wasn't already voting you for being scum, i would be voting you for being anti-town. interesting that folks were quick to vote pinkies for anti-town play And dont you care about the other votes on you? Or are you more worried about MY vote on you?
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on May 19, 2011 4:19:42 GMT -5
So lets see - you don't want the penalty votes, you dont want to even contribute today, you dont want to make the statement for the possible Lie Detector If I wasn't already voting you for being scum, i would be voting you for being anti-town. interesting that folks were quick to vote pinkies for anti-town play And dont you care about the other votes on you? Or are you more worried about MY vote on you? 1.Correct, I don't want the penalty votes. 1.1 REALLY?! I have to defend against that? 2.What do you call this, Veruca? if it's not contributing? There has to be lurkers out there, I am not one of them.
3.I don't want to make a statement for the possible Lie Detector ?! 3.1 I already have. 3.1.1 I am town. 3.2 The PM I received is legit. 3.2.1 In case you want another statement you can use 3.2 4. FOS Bill for smudging and skiming 5. It's very clear how stubborn you are being Veruca, you don't need to wear it on your sleeve. 5.1 I half expect you to tattoo there instead. 6.Why should I be concerned about a Vote from just you? I was of the belief that all votes were the same.
Are you trying to Magic Bag something here?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 19, 2011 4:51:14 GMT -5
Ok, thoughts on voting patterns on Day 2. (picks up pail of brown sticky stuff, starts bladed whirry thing) Biggest surprise: FD didn't vote on Day 2. So early in the Day, first surprise is the vote switch from septimus. @septimus - why did you change your vote from CIAS to Pinkies following FD's claim? What changed to make Pinkies more scummy than CIAS because of it, considering the reason you gave for voting Pinkies was also mentioned in the post in which you voted for CIAS. Looking at it, I can't tell if SP, septimus and Meeko are protecting Archangel from the votes or not, but there does appear to be a race between votes on Archangel and Pinkies. Following that there is a certain amount of vote testing to work out what has occured, but it ends up with Pinkies further in the lead from Archangel. Next there are a set of votes for Pinkies and FD, pushing Pinkies into a large lead. FD is only level with Archangel due to the penalty vote, so a bandwagon on FD has not really occured. Following Pinkies claim, we get a couple more votes for Pinkies despite the claim and in between rysto's vote piqued me. Rysto - why did you vote for guiri saying he was listing frustrating things about Pinkies to get him lynched, when Pinkies was doing a perfectly good job by himself. With 7 hours to go, yeah, Pinkies looks like dancing the hemp fandango Next up, lightfoot's vote and reading the reasoning made me pause. @lightfoot - why did you vote for the person you considered the second scummiest person on your list and not rysto. in #D2.277, you are prepared to give fluiddruid some time to prove parts of the claim later on and are going to vote Rysto. What changed? We then have a set of votes for fluiddruid, and unvoting of Pinkies. Given it is at the end of the Day, it almost looks like a couple of people jumping off a bandwagon which will lynch a townie and switching a vote to someone else. Given all that, I don't think Pinkies was ever not going to be lynched. Reading through it again, I also can't see any sort of bandwagon building on fluiddruid either except at EoD and it was only close because people jumped off the Pinkies bandwagon and not because the FD bandwagon gained enough momentum. But this makes me think, what would have happened if Septimus had moved his vote without Pinkies taking the penalty vote. The as MHaye pointed out, FD would be lynched above Pinkies, if only he had not taken the penalty. But if Septimus was town, this would not occur because septimus stated that he would move his vote if Pinkies took the hit and asked for others to follow suit as well. If there really was a concerted scum effort to get FD lynched over Pinkies, then it would have to have occured ot EoD and would be at some of lightfoot, MHaye, moley, septimus and JBG trying to influence it. People who seem scummy. septimus for the early day vote switch and eod bandwagon jumping lightfoot for switching her reasoning for vote JBG for eod bandwagon jumping MHaye for being a little too sure that if Pinkies had not switched votes, FD would have been lynched, because looking through it again, that doesn't really come out as ever being an option. ...and before anyone asks, I always do this in 3rd person.
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on May 19, 2011 7:01:37 GMT -5
That's Mr CatInASuit to you I think you missed the point. It's not that Fluiddruid was pro-town, but that she was anti-scum, and as such, is someone I believe the scum would prefer to lynch before Pinkies, who was anti-town. And yes, I do get suspicious of people changing votes back and forth quickly. Also, for not following through on what they say will do from earlier posts. Oh and ... Fluidroid ;D Sorry, Mr. CatInASuit!! So you say that you are suspicious of me for not following through on what I said I would do from earlier posts. I never said that I would unvote pinkies if he posted his vote PM. I stated that I thought that he should Claim and at the very least post his vote PM. Yet when Pinkies did post his ROLE PM, I unvoted him, you are suspicious of that. As for Fluid, I have never played in a game with a "real" 3rd party. The last game I played in had a 3rd party but because of a players actions that 3rd party was neutralized and turned into town. I see the 3rd party as being a foe to both town and scum, since they can take out anyone, correct me if I am wrong. I am trying to understand here, so I get that by coming out and claiming that she was 3rd party was anti-scum, but how else in her play was it anti-scum? She did nothing to help town, she in my opinion was anti town. She didn't even vote. Anyone please chime in. This is a part of the gameplay I need to learn. When changing my vote from Pinkies and placing it on Fluid, I placed it on someone that I thought did not BACK up her words. You say that you are suspicious of people that do not do things that they formally state they would do. Well in that case, you would of been suspicious of Fluid for not backing up her words and you would of understood why I placed my vote there and know that it was not a bandwagon vote as you so call it.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 19, 2011 7:19:41 GMT -5
So you say that you are suspicious of me for not following through on what I said I would do from earlier posts. I never said that I would unvote pinkies if he posted his vote PM. I stated that I thought that he should Claim and at the very least post his vote PM. Yet when Pinkies did post his ROLE PM, I unvoted him, you are suspicious of that. Yes, I am suspicious because it was done at the end of the Day and it looks like someone removing themselves from the lynch of a Townie at the last moment so as not to be part of it. You said you would reconsider when he posted his vote PM, which he did. But you didn't take any action about it until after his role PM had been posted right at the end of Day. As for Fluid, I have never played in a game with a "real" 3rd party. The last game I played in had a 3rd party but because of a players actions that 3rd party was neutralized and turned into town. I see the 3rd party as being a foe to both town and scum, since they can take out anyone, correct me if I am wrong. I am trying to understand here, so I get that by coming out and claiming that she was 3rd party was anti-scum, but how else in her play was it anti-scum? She did nothing to help town, she in my opinion was anti town. She didn't even vote. Anyone please chime in. This is a part of the gameplay I need to learn. Looking at fluiddruid's play, there was little to nothing that could be considered pro-town. If she was truthful about her role though, then it was neutral as far as the town was concerned (she was not a threat to the Town), but she still a target for the scum, they have to control the vote. However, by actively declaring to work with the town and stating she had a power, she becomes a much bigger target for the scum to have to deal with. Hence my thoughts on why the scum would prefer a Fluiddruid lynch to a Pinkies lynch, especially after the claimed vanilla town. When changing my vote from Pinkies and placing it on Fluid, I placed it on someone that I thought did not BACK up her words. You say that you are suspicious of people that do not do things that they formally state they would do. Well in that case, you would of been suspicious of Fluid for not backing up her words and you would of understood why I placed my vote there and know that it was not a bandwagon vote as you so call it. No, I'm not suspicious of you solely for putting the vote in fluidddruid. What I am trying to work out is your motivation for moving the vote at that point in time. If it was in response to Pinkies, then I would have expected your vote to have moved earlier. As it was at the end of Day, it looks much more suspicious. @jbg - If Pinkies had not claimed, would you have moved your vote?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 19, 2011 7:21:05 GMT -5
As for Mr CatInASuit, please forgive the snarky response. I spent the first few months being called her by Idle Thoughts. He still does it on occasion when he forgets.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on May 19, 2011 8:52:06 GMT -5
Current Vote Count:
Meeko (3,3) BillMc [72] Guiri [108] Archangel [116] BillMc (2,2) Honest Moley [81] Ma’at [103] JustBeingGinger (1,1) CatInASuit [64] Metallic Squink (1,1) Septimus [112] Archangel (1,1) Metallic Squink [121] CatInASuit (0,1) Septimus [47 112] colby11 (1,1): Meeko [13]
With these votes, Meeko will be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on May 19, 2011 8:55:31 GMT -5
Yes, I am suspicious because it was done at the end of the Day and it looks like someone removing themselves from the lynch of a Townie at the last moment so as not to be part of it. You said you would reconsider when he posted his vote PM, which he did. But you didn't take any action about it until after his role PM had been posted right at the end of Day. Looking at fluiddruid's play, there was little to nothing that could be considered pro-town. If she was truthful about her role though, then it was neutral as far as the town was concerned (she was not a threat to the Town), but she still a target for the scum, they have to control the vote. However, by actively declaring to work with the town and stating she had a power, she becomes a much bigger target for the scum to have to deal with. Hence my thoughts on why the scum would prefer a Fluiddruid lynch to a Pinkies lynch, especially after the claimed vanilla town. When changing my vote from Pinkies and placing it on Fluid, I placed it on someone that I thought did not BACK up her words. You say that you are suspicious of people that do not do things that they formally state they would do. Well in that case, you would of been suspicious of Fluid for not backing up her words and you would of understood why I placed my vote there and know that it was not a bandwagon vote as you so call it. No, I'm not suspicious of you solely for putting the vote in fluidddruid. What I am trying to work out is your motivation for moving the vote at that point in time. If it was in response to Pinkies, then I would have expected your vote to have moved earlier. As it was at the end of Day, it looks much more suspicious. @jbg - If Pinkies had not claimed, would you have moved your vote? ~~~~ I changed my vote late in the day because Pinkies posted his ROLE PM with 30 mins to go in the day. ~~~~ I never said I would reconsider my vote on him. I said what I thought he should do to avoid a lynch. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ******* I don't like Pinkies play style. I have not been quiet about it on other games. He lurks and when he comes out to post he gives us drink recipes and then throws in the one sentence remarks. He does not contribute to who he thinks is TOWN vs SCUM or how any of the mechanics work. The fact that he is a vet to these games and REFUSES to claim, tells me he has something to hide. He even posted "Why should I claim?" How is that helping town? My vote was not a I am voting you to come out to play vote, well not 100%. He saw with ACE not claiming and got lynched. So yes, he should claim at least a little bit. Post the PM that states his forced vote. He has the mind set that IF I am town then let me be lynched, as long as TOWN wins I do... All the while he does nothing to contribute to that TOWN win. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As for why I choose Fluid over anyone else, I did not trust Fluid with not backing up her statements in her claim as far as helping. She had done nothing to show her alliance to TOWN, other than a claim, which to me does not really hold water without actions supporting her intent. As for your question if Pinkies did not post his ROLE PM, would I have changed my vote, Most likely not. His behavior was suspicious all during the Day. Just by posting his vote PM did not say anything for his alignment. The statement that I found most suspicious about his play was "Why should I claim"... He just witnessed ACE get lynched for not claiming and she was vanilla. I even had my reservations about changing my vote. Why come on when there is 30 mins left on a Friday night when numerous people were asking for the claim all during the Day. He was so cocky to even unvote and re-vote and stated "to seal my fate". With all of that being said, I still did not want to mis-lynch a possible townie and I was not willing to take the chance.
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on May 19, 2011 8:56:05 GMT -5
As for Mr CatInASuit, please forgive the snarky response. I spent the first few months being called her by Idle Thoughts. He still does it on occasion when he forgets. No offense taken!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 19, 2011 10:32:49 GMT -5
Ok, looking back over today.
1. BillMc, I think your vote on Meeko for well...not being Meeko like is poor. He is normally talkative regardless of being scum or town, so to use it as a meta excuse for voting is suspicious. I also think that regardless of whether the politician role is town or scum (and it looks like one exists due to Pinkies), it is impossible to say whether Meeko is also town or scum based on it.
His drive by vote on ace903 and his resistance to assisting finding scum today is a different matter.
2. Ma'at's vote for BillMc based partly on him actually being in Day 3 is also poor. It could just mean guiri or storyteller are scum and wants cover, or its WIFOM for the town as to why the scum have left him alive.
NOTE: this is not a claim that guiri or storyteller are scum, just that they are very good players.
3. JBG: thank you for the answers, my suspicion towards you has lessened.
4. Reading back over it, I am now unsure whether Archangel is town or scum anymore, although if certain people do flip scum, then she will be back at the top of the list.
5. Of the others mentioned, the one giving me pause for thought is the switch in reasoning by lightfoot from giving fluiddruid time to prove herself, to saying the fluiddruid should swing because placing a vote on rysto would mean nothing. Given how many times you should always vote for the scummiest because that's the marker of how you are judged...
Unvote: JustBeingGinger Vote: lightfoot
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on May 19, 2011 11:14:19 GMT -5
Ok, thoughts on voting patterns on Day 2. (picks up pail of brown sticky stuff, starts bladed whirry thing) ~~SNIP~~ Next up, lightfoot's vote and reading the reasoning made me pause. @lightfoot - why did you vote for the person you considered the second scummiest person on your list and not rysto. in #D2.277, you are prepared to give fluiddruid some time to prove parts of the claim later on and are going to vote Rysto. What changed? You typed the answer yourself Rysto never had one vote on them. (so a if I had voted there , we'd be chatting about THAT now) As I said in the very post you quoted from .. fluiddruid in my mind was either 3rd party or a liar or both. (we don’t need those) I did agree with others that fd could be given some rope.The voting shows that many had decided not to wait. (bird in the hand and all) MY vote was not a bandwagon vote I felt it was best placed there @ CatInaSuit your voting record shows that you’ve voted Archangel D1 and D2 (which seems a game ritual when you two play together) and you voted Pinkies late D2:317 How would you analyze YOUR voting pattern?
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on May 19, 2011 11:15:18 GMT -5
NETA I see a gained a vote while I was composing .
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on May 19, 2011 11:19:55 GMT -5
~~snip~~ Given how many times you should always vote for the scummiest because that's the marker of how you are judged... ~~snip~~ But a one-off vote can snap your neck
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 19, 2011 11:31:58 GMT -5
@everyone Several of you seem to hold the viewpoint that the scum would have been more likely to have killed Colby than Ed. I'd like to hear your reasoning why. I don't think that's the case at all, and I really don't know why you're framing the discussion in this way. I think that many people recognize that we simply don't have enough information to conclude who killed Colby and who killed Ed. We can guess, sure, and my guess would have been Ed, too. But I've long-since learned that it's very difficult to get in the heads of the scum, so I certainly would not be willing to make conclusions based on my guess as to how the night-kills went down. Not with any confidence, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on May 19, 2011 12:44:16 GMT -5
If I were forced to vote right NOW I would choose one of the players on my 'not kicking the tires' list. But a one off vote accomplishes nothing /snip Not true. If you have a case to make against a player who currently has no votes, go ahead and make it, especially if you don't think any of the other candidates are scum, there's time left in the Day. Your vote will only be one-off if no-one else agrees with your case.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 19, 2011 12:58:37 GMT -5
Grr, Firefox crashed and took my response with it. Jotting this one off quickly. Rysto - why did you vote for guiri saying he was listing frustrating things about Pinkies to get him lynched, when Pinkies was doing a perfectly good job by himself. With 7 hours to go, yeah, Pinkies looks like dancing the hemp fandango First of all, as it's already been noted this ended up being a reasonably close race with fluiddruid. But regardless of how close the voting was, a crappy, undermotivated vote is always a crappy, undermotivated vote. On the topic of guiri's vote for Pinkies, Cat's question here got me to go back and revisit guiri's response to my vote: On that note: First of all, this is completely backwards. Looking for scum motivation is far more important than finding town motivation. Second of all, as you say Pinkies' play is always bizarre, so this isn't a reliable tell for him at all. I might be fooled into thinking that this is just a vote out of frustration, but the fact that you've invoked motivations tells me that you're trying to look like you're building a case when you're really not, which ping the hell out of me. I was making a general comment on Pinkies' playstyle. Guiri completely evades my point here. My whole point is that guiri starting out by acknowledging that Pinkies tends to play weirdly no matter his alignment, then proceeds to vote for Pinkies for voting weirdly. I really, really don't like this. Ok, so after I come after guiri starts to provide some actual reasoning behind his original points. I agree with the lurking bits in principle but not in practice -- lurkers are far too often Town. The first point is a clear null tell and I really don't know what guiri thought that it was proving. Here's where I really don't like how guiri seems to be thinking. Right after he fleshes out the case he outlined against Pinkies, he completely contradicts himself here and says that his biggest reason for voting was story's case. It really looks to me like guiri's not laying out a sincere case here -- he can't keep his story straight about why he's voting. I really, really don't like seeing a player disclaiming responsibility for their vote, especially before the cardflip. Given guiri's difficulty in presenting consistent reasoning, his undermotivated original vote against Pinkies that essentially boils down to a "me too" despite a lot of verbiage presented to make it look otherwise, and then the way he distanced himself from that vote, I'm quite happy to stick with this. Vote guiri
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on May 19, 2011 13:16:44 GMT -5
Vote: GnarlyCharlie
I never thought I would consider him a lurker. I understand that he is in 3 games but contribute to who you think is suspicious. I find it hard to believe that the only person he finds suspicious is Archangle and has since Day 1. He has been laying very low. The lack of anything from him is pinging me.
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on May 19, 2011 13:18:02 GMT -5
Ok lets try this again...
Vote GnarlyCharlie
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on May 19, 2011 13:57:42 GMT -5
The votes on BillMc are misguided in the extreme. Special Ed, Deceased Cop, on Day 2, at post #343, apropos of nothing: It's Day 2! *runs up and gives Bill a big hug Now, look. I know we all spend a lot of time overthinking things in these games, and it's dangerous to make assumptions and blah blah blah. But Special Ed is extremely experienced. He knew that if and when he died, people would go combing through his posts looking for breadcrumbs. This post sticks out like a sore thumb. It seems obvious that Ed investigated BillMc on Night One and got a Town reading. And further, this makes sense. BillMc makes a perfectly reasonable target for a Cop on Night One, because if he's Town, he's such a useful resource. I challenge anyone who is voting for Bill to come up with a reason why Ed - who was a Cop and knew it - would choose not to breadcrumb a real result but instead to make a post that looks so very much like a breadcrumb but is not one. BillMc is either Town or the Godfather. Truth be told, that post probably got Ed killed. I'd imagine that, if Bill is Town, the Scum are very concerned about him (and if Bill is the Godfather, the Scum will be very alert to posts about him). That weird post would not have been missed by Scum hunting for power roles. And I'll go a step further, because frankly I'm insanely swamped at work and so I might as well just toss my cards on the table on the rare occassions that I get the chance: I think Bill is probably Town. Apart from his tone, which reads Town to me, there is the fact that no one died on Night One. Everyone makes jokes about the way Bill keeps getting killed early, but he did not on Night One. Why? My guess is: Scum - and who knows, maybe even a wandering Serial Killer or whatever - tried to kill him, but he was protected. ---- I have some reading to do. I very much disliked Ma'at's post at #103 toDay; I will begin with that poster, and with the Day One lynch of ace, in looking for a place for my vote. I'm out of meetings now, and I'm going to make up for my nonparticipation so far in the next 24 hours or so. ;D
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on May 19, 2011 14:33:53 GMT -5
Conversely, a problem has reared up and bitten me.
Tomorrow afternoon, I have an appointment with someone who is so crazy about eyeballs they spend their days taking digital photographs of retinas. This procedure requires dilating my pupils to a fare-thee-well.
Having pupils that big means reading will be challenging, at least until the drops wear off. Hopefully I'll be around by this time tomorrow, but I can't count on it.
Meantime, back to reading.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on May 19, 2011 14:46:15 GMT -5
I have an appointment with someone who is so crazy about eyeballs they spend their days taking digital photographs of retinas. This procedure requires dilating my pupils to a fare-thee-well. Having pupils that big means reading will be challenging, at least until the drops wear off. If you're having the procedure I think you're having, it will also briefly turn the entire world red and may cause momentary nausea. So, good luck!
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on May 19, 2011 14:51:38 GMT -5
I have an appointment with someone who is so crazy about eyeballs they spend their days taking digital photographs of retinas. This procedure requires dilating my pupils to a fare-thee-well. Having pupils that big means reading will be challenging, at least until the drops wear off. If you're having the procedure I think you're having, it will also briefly turn the entire world red and may cause momentary nausea. I can't say I've noticed such symptoms in the twelve years I've had to do this. Thanks anyway. Getting home is always a challenge. I just hope it's overcast and dim. All that light hurts.
|
|
|
Post by metallicsquink on May 19, 2011 14:53:09 GMT -5
My comments are preceded by >>> @squink You finish Day 2 supporting lynching both Pinkies and Fluid -- hedge your bets since you need both them dead >>> There were good reasons for each of them to be lynched and I wasn't the only one who thought that. A PM would go a long way to giving your claim at least a shred of credibility. ...and would also make it much easier for the scum knowing the actual PM. >>> I wasn't the only one who wanted to see his PM. Day 3 -- Ginger and Ma'at open the day voicing their belated cases against Colby....and lo and behold, Meeko appears with a "forced vote" for Colby....nice timing. >>> I'm not sure what you are implying here about my motives. You start on a wow on the lurkers - then add to the "we were suspicious of Colby" bandwagon, trying to add credence to the argument that a forced vote on Colby was "pro-town". >>> Where did I say that a forced vote on Colby was pro-town? On my re-read last Night, I noticed that colby contradicted himself a couple of times and I was going to come in toDay and ask him about it. I did question him a few times yesterDay but I did not vote for him. [/quote] Then throw in your wow on "lurkers" setting the scene for the subsequent supposition that the politican chose a lurker - ie meeko - to leverage their vote >>> Where did I say that the politician was targeting lurkers? Also, it's Day 3 which I feel is a good time to start poking the lurkers. You categorically dismiss the idea that the politician is scum, and categorically dismiss the idea that meeko may be doing this go gain town cred. >>> You are putting words into my mouth. Where did I "categorically dismiss the idea"? Did I specifically state "there is no way the politician is scum"? I was following along your line of reasoning and trying to understand your case against meeko. You are awfully sure of yourself. >>> You are the one who is awfully sure of himself. You seem so sure the politician is scum. You seem so sure that you know who killed whom last Night. You seem so sure that of all the people doing the same things I am doing (voicing suspicions of both fluid and pinkies, asking you about your vote against meeko) that I am the only one who is scum. Here you are making an excuse for a scum Meeko, that "he really couldnt not have known" - which is incorrect, as he posted his "vote" several hours are daybreak - so unless he was completely blind and didnt read the thread, he would have known. I think it's more likely that he did read the thread and thought "oh crap, Colby is dead" and decided to modify the PM >>> That is a valid point and honestly, not one I had thought of. By the same token, though, you did not say that in your case against meeko and that was where I was going with my questions to you, i.e., what about his PM made you think he was lying about something. I see. Then it seems like a pretty bad move on a scum meeko's part to add something to his PM that wasn't in pinkies' PM and that draws even more attention to meeko. Not that scum wouldn't do that but still, I would think if the PM was fake, he would have just taken pinkies' PM word for word. Again, you are defending Meeko. Yes...scum wouldn't do that. >>> I don't know that I would call this a defense since I cannot know what meeko was thinking but you say "tomato" and all that. I don't see a problem with me asking questions in order to understand other players' votes.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on May 19, 2011 15:18:09 GMT -5
On the topic of guiri's vote for Pinkies, Cat's question here got me to go back and revisit guiri's response to my vote: So, you voted me, I responded, you didn't comment or mention your suspicions of me for almost a week until you yourself were questioned about your vote. Guiri completely evades my point here. My whole point is that guiri starting out by acknowledging that Pinkies tends to play weirdly no matter his alignment, then proceeds to vote for Pinkies for voting weirdly. I really, really don't like this. Weirdly no, I start by saying that I never see Town motivation in his playstyle, a fact. Ok, so after I come after guiri starts to provide some actual reasoning behind his original points. I agree with the lurking bits in principle but not in practice -- lurkers are far too often Town. The first point is a clear null tell and I really don't know what guiri thought that it was proving. You accused me of listing off frustrating things he'd done, I was making 6 accusations. You've commented on the first one only: lurking. On its own it may not a reliable scum-tell but when you add the incomplete alignment claim, the drawn out explanation of his vote restriction, the lack of claim, the lack of suspicion/commentary and broken promises of participation, there's a pretty good probability that the player is not Town. Here's where I really don't like how guiri seems to be thinking. Right after he fleshes out the case he outlined against Pinkies, he completely contradicts himself here and says that his biggest reason for voting was story's case. It really looks to me like guiri's not laying out a sincere case here -- he can't keep his story straight about why he's voting. I state that I agree with Story's case that Pinkies is behaving exactly as scum would and agree he's the best candidate. Where's the inconsistency? I really, really don't like seeing a player disclaiming responsibility for their vote, especially before the cardflip. You accused me of trying to get people annoyed and then vote him, I denied that accusation as Pinkies had succeeded in getting people annoyed himself and that my vote wasn't going to make have that effect. I was in no way disclaiming responsibility for or distancing myself from my desire to lynch him.
|
|