|
Post by Archangel on May 23, 2011 11:11:05 GMT -5
To answer questions from yesterday, I believed Bill, and yes, my vote was primarily to save him. I also thought given that Bill was voting Meeko it was likely he wasn't scum. Terribly lazy play, I know, but it didn't hurt anything. I did intend to come back and do better but I got a job last week and it's changing my schedule a bit, haven't adjusted to it yet. I will try my best to do better toDay. I'm sorry, there's a typo in there that makes what I said sound like nonsense. I believed Bill was town, and what I meant was "I also thought given that Bill was voting Meeko, it was likely that he (Meeko) WAS scum." What is it that you believed regarding Bill? All Bill had done at that point was vote for meeko. He had not claimed so there wasn't anything concrete to believe, unless you are saying that you agreed with his case (but I think using the term "believe" is a bit strong but maybe that's just me). And you say that since Bill was voting meeko, Bill wasn't likely to be scum. What does that mean? It sounds like you knew something about meeko and/or Bill.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 23, 2011 11:13:25 GMT -5
Your Vote has been purchased. You must vote for septimus in your first post of the Day (whether said post includes other information is up to you), whether or not septimus has survived the Night.
Additionally, you may not change your vote once it has been placed.
If your first post of the Day does not include this vote, and/or if you attempt to change your vote, you will accrue TWO Final Votes per offense.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 23, 2011 11:23:01 GMT -5
I'm sorry, there's a typo in there that makes what I said sound like nonsense. I believed Bill was town, and what I meant was "I also thought given that Bill was voting Meeko, it was likely that he (Meeko) WAS scum." What is it that you believed regarding Bill? All Bill had done at that point was vote for meeko. He had not claimed so there wasn't anything concrete to believe, unless you are saying that you agreed with his case (but I think using the term "believe" is a bit strong but maybe that's just me). And you say that since Bill was voting meeko, Bill wasn't likely to be scum. What does that mean? It sounds like you knew something about meeko and/or Bill. My post posted in the middle of the quote somehow. I was trying to say that there was a typo that made my statement make no sense. I believed that Bill was town, and if so, felt Meeko was likely to be scum.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 23, 2011 15:19:16 GMT -5
Bill, i had a few questions yesterDay that i hope you can address. Bill, based on your quoting of the two PMs, i'll count you as close to Town short of turning up dead. ;D i just want some clarification. you voted for Meeko because: 1. his un-Meeko play 2. his posted PM about a forced vote the first is what it is. for the second, why don't you think the Mod wouldn't add the bit about Colby being dead or alive? is it because when Mods set up a game they already have set PMs for certain events? do you have other reasons you haven't mentioned? furthermore, you suspect Squink, Lightfoot, Mhaye and Rysto. you suspect Squink basically for defending Meeko. how about the others? Moley, what are your thoughts? Well first of all, I think it's time for a claim. I strongly considered making a full roleclaim yesterday when Meeko was on the block, with the intention of saving him. (Rather glad I didn't now.) There are still things that I don't understand though, and I think it'd be easier and more beneficial if I come clean right now and let the town help me decide what to do. As you'll soon see, my role has been more of a liability than a help thus far. You remember how I said that a good third of the characters in the "Alice" stories were either insane or psychopathic? Well, guess what, I got the worst of them all. I'M THE MOTHERHUMPING DORMOUSE BITCHEZ. Fear my wrath! (Ok, I may have slightly exaggerated my character's extreme deadliness there. Still, this is a game set in a world where one sip of a potion labelled "Drink Me", just like the one I happen to have in front of me right now, can turn a little mouse into a 25ft giant for a short time. Let's give it a whirl.) ** sip sip sip vooooooOOOOOOMP...** BOW TO ME!** whoooooooosh...** Oh, excuse me... Wait, this isn't right either...** voomp...** Ah, that's better. Now where was I? Oh yes, I'm the dormouse. I have a post restriction, a night action, and a whole bucketful of mouse-related puns. I thought I'd have to squeak by without using a single one of 'em, but happily that's not the case! Ok, first things first. Role PM, in full: Why am I claiming? Because my role has turned out to be worse than useless; it's deceptive. On Day One I sent the following PM to the mod (I'm going to post the whole thing, because it also responds to a mod PM which confirms two other statements that I'd made, those about Sis C. lifting my post restriction and those regarding my question about the role PM): So as you can see, I thought Meeko was the most likely scum on Day One. I investigated him and got the following response: Thereby ALMOST confirming him as town, since (at the time at least) it seemed pretty implausible that a scummy player wouldn't have any occasion to PM the mod at night - it was just possible I'd been roleblocked (which seemed very likely when there wasn't a single other confirmed night action, including kills) or that Meeko had been absent (also possible considering there'd been a period of almost five days when he hadn't posted anything at all in thread). On Night Two, having singularly failed to save both Ace and Pinkies, I decided to investigate one of my next most likely suspects, Ed and Colby. As it turned out, both would have been equally futile; but in the end I plumped for Colby. (And breadcrumbed it rather lightly in my dissection of Colby's death the following day... I was pretty subtle, but I still felt that the scum might notice how I made a point of saying how "lots" of people had visited Colby the previous night, when in fact I'd only mentioned two.) The result was predictable: Meanwhile I'd correctly pegged BillMC as someone who wasn't town during the first two days, but incorrectly marked his Meeko vote as a sign that he (Bill) was scum. (In fact it was pretty much his first town-sided action the entire game, if Bill's current alignment claim is to be believed.) You see what I meant by saying I was "wrong for the right reasons" - as it turned out, about both Meeko and Bill? I thought my "chainsaw defence" of Meeko might (correctly) raise some suspicions that I knew more than I was letting on, but nobody seemed to suspect me of duplicity. When BillMC confirmed that only night-kills had been blocked, it seemed to me that I HAD to be right about Meeko being town. After all, what were the chances of me being role-blocked at the same time as all night-kills were? Not to mention that the PM I'd received from Sis C. didn't mention anything about me being blocked, just that I hadn't heard anything, in exactly the same terms as she used when I listened to Colby. From that point on I pretty much set my mind on making sure that Meeko wasn't lynched. (Yeah, the irony floors me as well.) Happily, I'm fairly inept at foiling late-day lynches, and I didn't have a convincing alternative suspect. So Meeko was lynched, and I was left wondering what the hell had just happened. My current theory? Meeko just didn't appear during that five-day period - between the end of Day One, all of Night One, and the first third of Day Two - in which he didn't post anything in thread. Not only did he not appear in the public threads in that time period, he didn't PM the Mod either. Unless either I or Meeko was roleblocked, this seems like the most likely scenario. Which brings me to my next point. My Night Three investigation brought up this result: Where the row of stars is, obviously, somebody's name. That person is still alive and in the game. I'm not ready to claim who they are - I ALMOST roleclaimed yesterday with the express intention of saving somebody who turned out to be scum, and I don't want to lead people astray. I would, however, appreciate the town's advice on how to use my role in the future. So far it's led me to try and save an actual scum, so it's fair to say I couldn't possibly do a worse job with it than I'm doing right now. I got a lot more regarding suspicions following Meeko's lynch, etc, but I'm going to save them for another post. Right now I invite your comments, questions, and suggestions. Although be aware that if they reach "you should stay quiet for an entire day to prove a post restriction that doesn't confirm your alignment and you couldn't have claimed anyway if you didn't talk" levels of idiocy, I may have to slap you repeatedly with a wet fish. Be warned!
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 23, 2011 15:22:25 GMT -5
I began my investigations by examining the aftermath of Bill's claim. Seeing as it lead to the lynch of a scum power role, I figured that's our best chance to pick up scum manipulations of the vote. Ma'at's behaviour in particular jumped out at me. I'll get to that presently, but first let's examine Parama'at's posts throughout this game. (Now that I'm finished my analysis, I'm mostly only posting this for completeness. There are several important posts that require a separate post devoted to their analysis, which is forthcoming. This summary, I must warn you, is going to be long and boring. The follow-up post should be much more interesting. Day Onelink- Clarifies mechanics of Mad Bomber role.
- Guesses at 4-5 scum, with a roleblocker, a godfather and an investigative role.
link - Opposes Ace bandwagon.
- Has two votes on him; doesn't remember the reasoning.
- Takes a bit of a shot at Suburban for voting Bill while Bill is away.
link "I am town." Day Twolink- Ma'at subs in
- Is happy with the Pinkies bandwagon
- Anti-town actions
- Delayed and then botched claim as scum in Scooby Doo
- Delayed claim as scum in Templars?
- Suspicious that Archangel forgot about third parties
Rysto notes: If she always forgets about them, I don't see why it's suspicious that she's done so again?
- Colby seems suspicious, but she doesn't remember specifics
link- Is no longer willing to vote off Pinkies after he posted his role PM.
Rysto notes: This stinks IMO. At this point a Pinkies lynch was inevitable, but Ma'at backs off? I don't like this at all -- it looks like Ma'at is trying to avoid actually participating for a lynch of a Townie
- Isn't familiar enough with the case for voting off fluid right away to vote for her
- MHaye asked for a vote out of Ma'at, so she votes for Colby just before the deadline
Day Threelink- Posts reasoning against colby for posterity
link- Theory as to why scum might have killed colby
- Asks for theories as to why there were three Night kills
Rysto notes: It strikes me upon reading this that scum would be very concerned about night-kills out there that they don't control idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=woo&thread=1634&post=78589- Defends theorizing about colby's death to me
idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=woo&thread=1634&post=78584- Defends herself further in the face of my pressure. Also defends dirx(I finally understand what both were saying at this point).
- Expresses vague suspicion of me
- "*someone* killed Colby - there is a good chance (though of course not 100%, maybe not even 75%) that it was scum."
idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=woo&thread=1634&post=78637- Analysing roles is good because this group is quiet so talking about something is better than not talking at all
idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=woo&thread=1634&post=78672- Asks Meeko to put his suspicions on record before the end of the Day, even though he can't vote
Rysto notes: This is the last we ever hear on this subject from Ma'at idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=woo&thread=1634&post=78681- Votes for Bill
- Was pinged on Day Two that Bill was after claimed third-party fluiddruid instead of scum
Rysto notes: I agree with the reasoning, but this is the first we here of any suspicion that supposedly existed the Day before
- Not killed by Day 3. She doesn't explicitly say that she's suspicious that scum haven't killed Bill yet, but she certainly implies it
- Bill has been arguing that Politician is usually scum, which is a bad assumption
Rysto notes: It would be worthwhile to go back and see what Bill actually said about the Politician. Anybody have a pointer?
- Disagrees with Bill's logic as to why the scum killed Ed
- Call Bill's vote on Meeko weak
idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=woo&thread=1634&post=78704- Defends vote to Suburban as not solely being based on metagaming
idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=woo&thread=1634&post=78706idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=woo&thread=1634&post=78709- Argues with Bill about what we can conclude about the scum kill
idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=woo&thread=1634&post=78709- Unvotes Bill after his role claim, which she believes
Rysto notes: I don't like the quick backpedal here. It's my experience that scum tend to be far more credulous about claims than Town. Scum only have to distinguish Town claims from Third-Party claims, so from their perspective any unknown claims are very likely to be true. This seems to factor into their thinking a lot. idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=woo&thread=1634&post=78782- Quick analysis of story
- Looks townie or encouraging Ace to claim and Pinkies to post more
- Made a case against Pinkies Day Two, also looked townie
- Pinged a bit that story was so sure that Ed was breadcrumbing
- (underlining mine)
Rysto notes: This why originally put me onto her. Ma'at, as a townie, should not be concerned as to whether Bill is vanilla. Ma'at should really only be concerned with his alignment. It's a minor point in the grand scheme of things, but it does point to Mat'at potentially analysing Bill's claim like scum would. idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=woo&thread=1634&post=78784- Long summary of Plankton on Day Two. Her summary:
(bolding not mine)
Her last series of posts in this Day are so important I am going to devote a second post to dissecting them.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 23, 2011 15:44:54 GMT -5
(Arg, I accidentally posted this to the Day Three thread. Sorry, SisC) [/color] (reasoning snipped)[/quote] I don't have anything to say about the reasoning here, so I snipped it for brevity. What I do want to point out is how the vote count stacked up at this stage: Meeko (4,4) BillMc [72] Guiri [108] Archangel [116] JustBeingGinger [215] Lightfoot (2,2) CatInASuit [165] Honest Moley [211] Metallic Squink (1,1) Septimus [112] Archangel (1,1) Metallic Squink [121] Guiri (1,1) Rysto [171] Rysto (1,1) Lightfoot [183] colby11 (1,1): Meeko [13] Twice in this Day, Ma'at voted at a critical juncture in the Meeko bandwagon, and twice she chose to vote for another candidate. Not only that, both of her targets already had a vote. This looks an awful lot like somebody trying desperately to setup an opposing bandwagon to Meeko's. In of itself this doesn't mean much, but it's very interesting when you consider this next sequence. I also find it extremely interesting that she did not choose to follow the #2 candidate at the time, Lightfoot, which is something I will speak more to later on. This is scummy, full stop. She expresses some suspicion of Meeko but isn't willing to back it up with a vote. She's trying to have her cake and eat it too: she doesn't want to help push Meeko over the top with a vote but she wants some townie cred for being suspicious. So, is this when those not voting for Meeko hope he comes out with a claim? Meeko? This is the smoking gun. For somebody who has Meeko as her #2 suspect, she sure seems to be interested in seeing him claim and potentially talk his way off of the gallows. In this post, Ma'at reveals that she clearly has a vested interest in seeing Meeko not be lynched. It's plain as day, and it's worth a vote alone. But when you combine this with her previously stated suspicion of Meeko along with her record on this Day of voting for opposing candidates, it's a slam dunk. I think the problem, Moley, is that there are a lot of “mediocre” scum candidates, but no strong ones. Maybe a person has done one or two scummy things, but have done 5 or 6 townie things to cover up their mistakes. We’ve had 5 days to talk and try to figure something out, and haven’t been very successful. I’ve read many of the other arguments regarding others’ votes, and none of them resonate all that strongly with me. (snip) This first paragraph is basically a long-winded way of saying, "I don't know who to vote for." That's a fairly common scum tell. The problem for scum is that they can have difficulty voting for townie candidates, because they know that the arguments that they are making are false. It's an honest expression of frustration, but a telling one. This is minor compared to the last two posts, but worth mentioning. I(snip) If I thought Lightfoot was scummy, would be more than happy to vote for her, but I'm not comfortable making a last minute (or last hour) vote change for someone that I'm not all that sure about, especially when it seems a little late in the day to try to get people to start switching votes to someone that hasn't garnered much suspicion. Ma'at is now explicit about it: she is unwilling to vote for Lightfoot. If Ma'at flips scum as I expect, Lightfoot comes out of this one looking very bad. Vote Ma'at
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 23, 2011 15:46:53 GMT -5
Oh, and given that Archangel voted for Meeko at a critical juncture, at later Ma'at tried to start a bandwagon against her, I regard her as very probably Town.
|
|
|
Post by Ma'at on May 23, 2011 16:22:11 GMT -5
Rysto – I’m only commenting on the parts of your post that are italicized (your musings about my actions). Archangel said she has a mental block on 3rd parties and always forgets about them. The game she just modded had a 3rd party. So seemed weird to me that she would always be forgetting about them when she just had one in her game (the mental block and forgetting were words she used – I was paraphrasing her so did not use quotes) Regarding asking about 3 night kills – yes a scum might be worried about NK’s that they don’t control. Wouldn’t a townie also be concerned about 3 NK’s, 2 of which were of townies? Wouldn’t a newbie in her 3rd game, who has never seen more than 1 NK in a night also wonder about 3 NK’s? I asked Meeko to share his suspicions, which he then later sort of did, by pointing an FOS or two. I did also comment at end of day that I thought it odd that he wasn’t around to defend himself. Regarding your comment that it was the first you were seeing of a suspicion I had about day 2 – I don’t post all my suspicions as they pop into my head – I get *a lot* of them. If I posted them all, it would look like random thoughts that go all over the place, and I would be smudging every player in the game. I wait and think about some of them, and then post if I think it ends up being well founded (either some other actions take place that help confirm it, or I think it might be useful for the rest of the group to ponder and comment on) Post 72 day 3 is where Bill says Politician is usually scum. Two players came out afterward and said games they played in it was a town role. My point was that it seems like a mighty big assumption to make that the politician is scum in this game because it’s “usually” a scum role (and I’ve never seen one up to this point, so I have Bill’s opinion and two conflicting opinions in posts 73 and 74. As I also mentioned, seems to me that it might be a town role in this game, just based on who the politician is having people put their votes on, but I could easily see it as scum as well.) Regarding my backpedaling of a vote on Bill. When I first voted Bill, I started off by saying I was placing a vote sooner than I would normally like, and didn’t feel my argument was great (I think I said it wasn’t strong, can’t remember). But, I felt like things were moving slowly in the game, and I was hoping to shake things up at least a little. Bill ended up posting his role and the background info on it, so I retracted my vote, since I wasn’t all that confident with it in the first place. I said I wasn’t convinced Bill was vanilla town, because that’s what he said he was, vanilla town. Yes, technically, my concern is with whether or not he is scum or town, but I used the words he did in his post. And I see you have posted part 2, so I will try to respond to that soon (it's always iffy when I'm at work). And I think I got everything in your post, but if I missed something, let me know (it's not me purposely trying to avoid something)
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on May 23, 2011 16:24:31 GMT -5
So as you can see, I thought Meeko was the most likely scum on Day One. I investigated him and got the following response: Thereby ALMOST confirming him as town, since (at the time at least) it seemed pretty implausible that a scummy player wouldn't have any occasion to PM the mod at night - it was just possible I'd been roleblocked (which seemed very likely when there wasn't a single other confirmed night action, including kills) or that Meeko had been absent (also possible considering there'd been a period of almost five days when he hadn't posted anything at all in thread). Moley, With regard to Scum actions, silence does not necessarily indicate inaction. In several games where I have played Scum, Night Actions were specified in the Night thread on the Scum Boards, and not necessarily by PM. If that's the case in this game then you might never hear a peep out of the Scum all game, making your role even less useful than you imagine.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 23, 2011 16:30:23 GMT -5
Oh yeah, I forgot: Moley, I'd be happy for any comments you have on that case against Ma'at.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on May 23, 2011 16:31:03 GMT -5
And I am going to be accruing penalty votes for not reading my PMs before posting. (Not that specifically-- apparently I was supposed to do this in my first post of the day.) Not just penalty votes, you will have 2 final votes which will stay on you for the rest of the game. I'm starting to get votes and suspicions so should defend myself. The principle charge seems to be that I voted Meeko with little or no explanation. For a Townie, the purpose of a vote is to Lynch scum. I was on my way to bed, many hadn't voted, and there was danger that a Townie would be lynched. Who was the Townie in danger of being lynched?
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 23, 2011 16:41:32 GMT -5
So as you can see, I thought Meeko was the most likely scum on Day One. I investigated him and got the following response: Thereby ALMOST confirming him as town, since (at the time at least) it seemed pretty implausible that a scummy player wouldn't have any occasion to PM the mod at night - it was just possible I'd been roleblocked (which seemed very likely when there wasn't a single other confirmed night action, including kills) or that Meeko had been absent (also possible considering there'd been a period of almost five days when he hadn't posted anything at all in thread). Moley, With regard to Scum actions, silence does not necessarily indicate inaction. In several games where I have played Scum, Night Actions were specified in the Night thread on the Scum Boards, and not necessarily by PM. If that's the case in this game then you might never hear a peep out of the Scum all game, making your role even less useful than you imagine. I get that now. And indeed, I remember doing the same thing as you say when I was Olimar along with the other scum in "Smasher Mansion". For some reason though, I got the wrong idea into my head and thought I'd be privy to the scummy scum's most intimate thoughts. Can't explain this, it's just a mental block, or maybe I'm too out of practice.
|
|
|
Post by Ma'at on May 23, 2011 17:11:42 GMT -5
Rysto Regarding not voting Meeko. As I mentioned, and you point out, I was feeling like Meeko was probably the next strongest candidate. I felt this way because he wasn’t around trying to defend himself toward the end of the game and had been sort of uncooperative. What I also said, which came out garbled in the post you quoted, which I subsequently fixed in a later post, was that Meeko’s play style reminded me a lot of Pinkies on Day 2, and Pinkies ended up being town. I almost voted Pinkies on D2, but he posted his role at the very end, so I decided to vote Colby (next most suspicious), and then it turned out Pinkies was town. So I was hesitant. Additionally, I will admit something that is becoming apparent (to me) about my play style – I don’t like voting for people that are in danger of getting voted off unless I am very convinced of their scumminess. If I am on the fence about someone that has the most votes, I will vote for someone else I think is scummy that isn’t in danger of getting lynched. I just don’t like the idea of being “that vote” that ends up getting a townie lynched by mistake (so instead I play it safe and vote for people that aren’t in danger, which isn’t really very “townie” of me, so I’m going to have to figure out what to do about this – be more confident in my suspicions, I guess…). I felt like Archangel was a good place for my vote based on her vote for Meeko with no reasoning provided, other than she wanted to protect Bill, who says he’s town, but we have no way of knowing at this time. So boooo for me for being wimpy, but that doesn’t make me a scum (though, might look scummy, to you obviously). Your smoking gun comment has me confused. Me wanting Meeko to claim and “talk his way off of the gallows” makes me scum? If I was scum, why would I be asking him to claim, knowing he's also scum? Ace was asked to claim to save herself, Pinkies was asked to claim to save himself, so I thought Meeko should make a claim to save himself. I don’t think it seems as though I have a vested interest in him not getting lynched – I think it means I want to see him come and defend himself if he’s town. I hope you’re not implying that me not wanting to vote for someone ( Lightfoot) who I don’t see as scummy is scummy? You mention me not voting for her twice in your post. I’m never going to vote for someone that I don’t think is scummy. Moley thinks she’s scummy, so I’m fine with Moley voting her, but I’m not going to vote for her just to try to save Meeko. If Moley had wanted to try to get more of a bandwagon going for Archangel, I would have supported that. You seem to be convinced I’m scum, which is your choice – most of your arguments are at least logical (though misguided) but your Lightfoot stuff doesn’t make any sense, so that bugs me (just stating that so it can be on the record). You can harp on who I *don’t* vote for all you want, and see scumminess in it, but I have been clear in who I *do* vote for and why, and have tried to find scum, which is about all that can be asked of a player, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 23, 2011 17:29:17 GMT -5
Oh yeah, I forgot: Moley, I'd be happy for any comments you have on that case against Ma'at. I agree with a lot of it. I have problems because I too have noticed some of the things you've pointed out about Ma'at. One thing I didn't notice was that she didn't vote for Lightfoot. The point about the Meeko bandwagon is fairly compelling. Here's my essential problem: I thought Paranoia, very early on indeed, made a pretty convincingly casual remark that was sceptical of the Ace vote. It didn't look like an attempt to distance himself from the rest of the scum at least. All in all I found what little Paranoia posted more convincing than I find a lot of what Ma'at has posted, and yet they plainly have to be the same role and alignment. Here's what I get out of the entire sequence of votes: 47 - Septimus votes CIAS (1 vote total) 64 - CIAS votes Ginger (1 vote) 72 - Bill votes Meeko (1 vote) 81 - I vote Bill (1 vote) 103 - Ma'at votes Bill (2 votes) 108 - Guiri votes Meeko (2 votes) 112 - Septimus unvotes CIAS (0 votes), votes Squink (1 vote) 116 - Archangel votes Meeko (3 votes) 121 - Squink votes Archangel (1 vote) 165 - CIAS votes Lightfoot (1 vote) 171 - Rysto votes Guiri (1 vote) 173 - JBG votes Gnarly (1 vote) 183 - Lightfoot votes Rysto (1 vote) 193 - Ma'at unvotes Bill (1 vote) 196 - I unvote Bill (0 votes) 211 - I vote Lightfoot (2 votes) 215 - JBG unvotes Charlie (0 votes), votes Meeko (4 votes) 232 - Ma'at votes Archangel (2 votes) 233 - Gnarly votes Meeko (5 votes) 235 - Plankton votes Archangel (3 votes) 237 - Septimus votes Meeko (6 votes) 238 - Dirx votes Meeko (7 votes) 239 - Plankton unvotes Archangel (2 votes), votes Septimus (1 vote) 252 - MHaye votes Septimus (2 votes) 255 - Storyteller votes Septimus (3 votes) My immediate thoughts, upon re-reading everyone's reasons, etc: 1) Squink and Septimus had an interesting spat. Distancing or (at least) one of them isn't scum? 2) Individually I can see Ma'at, Plankton and Squink as scum, but I can't see all three of them together as scum, all voting for the same person. 3) Ma'at looks pretty suspicious based on votes alone, as Rysto has pointed out. 4) The early Meeko votors - Bill, Guiri and to a lesser extent Archangel - look a lot like town to me. The later Meeko votors, less so. JBG, Gnarly and Septimus look the most obviously suspicious just based on votes. 5) MHaye has been one of the last people to vote on all three days. Not sure what to make of this, if anything. 6) My gut all along has said Squink is town, but reading back over the posts counted around the early hundreds, now knowing that Meeko is scum, she comes off pretty badly. I'm going to read back over the early posts of Squink, Septimus and others and see what I can pick up. 7) When Meeko had three votes, five people all threw individual votes in quick succession: Squink, CIAS, Rysto, JBG, and Lightfoot. Unless they'd given up on Meeko, this looks kinda in their favour. 8) After this had happened, the next people to join non-Meeko bandwagons, apart from myself, were Ma'at, Plankton, M'Haye, and Story. But by the time the last two got on Septimus, there was little chance of anybody but Meeko being lynched. I'm going to read back over several people and see what I can come up with. I'm definitely not ruling Squink out any more though. Purely going on what I can see in front of me, I'd have to guess the majority of the scum would be among Plankton, Septimus, Squink, Ma'at, Gnarly, and M'Haye. But I'm going to try and come up with something more definite.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 23, 2011 17:33:03 GMT -5
Oh yeah, I forgot: Moley, I'd be happy for any comments you have on that case against Ma'at. Oh, forgot... add Ginger to that list. For some reason I keep discounting her, even though I voted her on Day One... Gut says she's insane town, but plainly that doesn't always work out.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on May 23, 2011 17:52:22 GMT -5
So as you can see, I thought Meeko was the most likely scum on Day One. Was it just a gut feeling? On Day 1 you voted Archangel, Fluiddruid and CIAS, and expressed suspicion of Bill and Ginger. The only time you mentioned Meeko was a fluffy comment about Peeker. On Day 2 you mentioned you were suspicious of Meeko and wouldn't be surprised if he flipped scum. However, on Day 3, supporting your claim, you said "I just don't see Meeko being scum, whether he's telling the truth or not." On Night Two, having singularly failed to save both Ace and Pinkies, I decided to investigate one of my next most likely suspects, Ed and Colby. As it turned out, both would have been equally futile; but in the end I plumped for Colby. On Day 2 you voted Ginger and later Fluiddruid. The only mention of Colby on Day 2 was in relation to Meeko's comment to him.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 23, 2011 18:10:39 GMT -5
Your smoking gun comment has me confused. Me wanting Meeko to claim and “talk his way off of the gallows” makes me scum? If I was scum, why would I be asking him to claim, knowing he's also scum? Well, the obvious thing to do in that situation is to claim falsely. It's not what you said, it's how you said it. Your phrasing wasn't just asking for a claim. You were pretty clearly hoping to see a convincing claim out of MeekoNo, those comments have nothing to do with you. I'm thinking ahead -- or getting ahead of myself, take your pick. The point that I was making there was that if you are scum, you would have had a really good reason to join the Lightfoot bandwagon at that time, but you didn't. The most likely explanation in that situation is that Lightfoot is also scum. Of course, if you're not scum then obviously it tells us nothing about Lightfoot. When scum is on the block, who a player doesn't vote for tells you at least as much as who they did vote for.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 23, 2011 19:31:50 GMT -5
So as you can see, I thought Meeko was the most likely scum on Day One. Was it just a gut feeling? On Day 1 you voted Archangel, Fluiddruid and CIAS, and expressed suspicion of Bill and Ginger. The only time you mentioned Meeko was a fluffy comment about Peeker. On Day 2 you mentioned you were suspicious of Meeko and wouldn't be surprised if he flipped scum. However, on Day 3, supporting your claim, you said "I just don't see Meeko being scum, whether he's telling the truth or not." On Night Two, having singularly failed to save both Ace and Pinkies, I decided to investigate one of my next most likely suspects, Ed and Colby. As it turned out, both would have been equally futile; but in the end I plumped for Colby. On Day 2 you voted Ginger and later Fluiddruid. The only mention of Colby on Day 2 was in relation to Meeko's comment to him. I'll rephrase what I said earlier then: on NIGHT one, having time to read the day back, my main suspicion was Meeko. Before that I was thinking Ginger, Bill and CIAS (and was pretty annoyed at all three of them at the time, which had a lot to do with it also). Looking into the question of voting, though, Meeko looked pretty bad - his Ace vote and the reason behind it looked weak. Obviously I didn't mention this at the start of Day 2, given that I'd just investigated him and found him (as I thought) looking innocent. Day 2, all attention was on Pinkies and Fluid for the most part (although there was the bizarre argument with Lightfoot). I made a fairly long post at the end of the day detailing what I was thinking about everyone I wasn't sure of, and Colby and Ed were at the beginning of it as the people I was most unsure of. I can't honestly claim to have a definite list of "main" suspects at that point - it was more a list of people who I thought hadn't really done much to help the town, and Ed and Colby were easily among the top five or six people on that list. To make one thing clear though: I put Meeko down as a suspect at the end of Day 2 because I didn't want to breadcrumb that I had any reason to know he wasn't, but was careful with my phrasing - I put "Without a definite read, it wouldn't hugely surprise me if Meeko turned out to be scum." The point being that I had a definite read. Obviously Meeko wasn't in any danger at that time; when a bandwagon started to develop on Day 3, I had to come out and support him.
|
|
|
Post by septimus on May 23, 2011 21:48:22 GMT -5
Not just penalty votes, you [archangel] will have 2 final votes which will stay on you for the rest of the game. Sister Coyote -- Is this correct? (I thought the permanent penalty applied only to non-participation.)Who was the Townie in danger of being lynched? Archangel was in 2nd place at that time, IIRC; the vote was close; many people hadn't voted yet; I was off to sleep and would miss Dusk. But perhaps my comment was poorly phrased. IMO, I should put my vote on the most likely Scum among those in contention for Lynch, at least when the likely Scum is very likely, as was Meeko. Elsewhere I'm being asked to defend my votes on Day 1, and to defend not repeating the Day 1 votes on Day 2. Short answer: Day 1 votes tend to be weak; mine were weak in this game; I indicated so at the time. If Ma'at flips scum as I expect, Lightfoot comes out of this one looking very bad. Vote Ma'at I think Lightfoot is more likely to be Scum than Ma'at is; several others seem to agree; and maybe you do also. ("If Ma'at flips scum ... very bad" for Lightfoot, but Lightfoot could be Scum even if Ma'at isn't.) Yet Rysto doesn't vote Lightfoot. The way I read this, Rysto and Lightfoot could both be Scum, with Rysto trying to make an argument for Lightfoot to be Townie after they Lynch a Townie Ma'at. It's not what you [Ma'at] said, it's how you said it. Your phrasing wasn't just asking for a claim. You were pretty clearly hoping to see a convincing claim out of MeekoWe still don't know for sure if Scum can communicate at Day, but they've been able to in every game I've played. With that assumption, why wouldn't Ma'at just advise Meeko on the Scum board? Thus this seems like either a smudge or, if Scum indeed have no Day thread, a slip that Rysto knows that. I hereby promote Rysto to my Scum Candidates List.
|
|
|
Post by septimus on May 23, 2011 21:49:42 GMT -5
Oh; I forgot:
Please, Honest Moley, I'd like to hear your comments on my comments.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 23, 2011 22:16:13 GMT -5
I think Lightfoot is more likely to be Scum than Ma'at is; several others seem to agree; and maybe you do also. ("If Ma'at flips scum ... very bad" for Lightfoot, but Lightfoot could be Scum even if Ma'at isn't.) Yet Rysto doesn't vote Lightfoot. I really don't know what you think you're proving here. I have yet to look at Lightfoot in depth. In the course of reviewing Ma'at's posts, I noticed that her voting pattern yesterDay could say interesting things about Lightfoot, but only if Ma'at is scum. The voting pattern of a townie tells you little. That's one wonderful strawman you're burning there. Care to address an argument that I've actually made? You could start with the part where I said that if Ma'at is not scum we learn nothing about Lightfoot's alignment. That was not a smudge; that was an outright accusation. Huge difference there, especially when it's backed up with a vote. Second, I advanced no argument as to why Ma'at said what she did. I examined how what she said gave a lot of insight into what she wanted.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 24, 2011 3:15:22 GMT -5
Moley: interesting role claim. Very interesting indeed.
But just one question about your power:
Each Night, you may choose to eavesdrop on any message sent to or from the Moderator. Before Day break you will get one random sentence.
Nowhere does it state that you have to name a target and not only that, but you might also get a random PM sentence from the Moderator?
You are claiming that you have received.
You listen and listen for all you're worth within your teapot, but you hear no communication from Meeko at all. - which is not a random PM sentence sent back and forth between the players and Mods
You listen and listen for all you're worth within your teapot, but you hear no communication from colby11 at all. - ditto
You listen and listen for all you're worth within your teapot, but you hear no communication from *************** at all. - see previous.
Umm, the power described is completely different to what you have claimed your have received as results.
Care to explain before I decide to vote for you for lying. It had better be a real good explanation.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 24, 2011 3:22:31 GMT -5
@septimus - you still haven't answered this question, and quite frankly it is still damning.
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.
The only thing that had changed was fluiddruid's role claim and a vote count showing that Archangel was in the lead and Suburban Plankton's vote had not counted.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 24, 2011 3:30:46 GMT -5
Moley: interesting role claim. Very interesting indeed. But just one question about your power: Each Night, you may choose to eavesdrop on any message sent to or from the Moderator. Before Day break you will get one random sentence.Nowhere does it state that you have to name a target and not only that, but you might also get a random PM sentence from the Moderator? You are claiming that you have received. You listen and listen for all you're worth within your teapot, but you hear no communication from Meeko at all. - which is not a random PM sentence sent back and forth between the players and Mods You listen and listen for all you're worth within your teapot, but you hear no communication from colby11 at all. - ditto You listen and listen for all you're worth within your teapot, but you hear no communication from *************** at all. - see previous. Umm, the power described is completely different to what you have claimed your have received as results. Care to explain before I decide to vote for you for lying. It had better be a real good explanation. I have no clue. My posted role PM is 100% accurate with no changes or omissions. (Hypothetical lie-detector, have at it.) Maybe there was no communication either way, or maybe I've been role-blocked. Every single PM I've posted today has been 100% accurate. The only omission I've made is some fluff concerning polar bears.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 24, 2011 3:37:14 GMT -5
septimus, either its the world's biggest co-incidence or you knew Ed was an investigator. From #D2.62 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So I'm right. Lie Detector could submit your (2) and, given a "False" response, deduce that I'm non-Town and that Ed is Scum or Investigator. Scum wouldn't know whether someone is Town or Third Party, but I can try this: Special Ed is not Scum. Lie Detector will, in fact, get "Unknown" from this, but if they think I'm Scum they can submit it to (partially) confirm their suspicion of me and (in the case I am Scum) also learn Ed's alignment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Actually, reading #D2.60, #D2.62 and #D2.64 again, it may well be the world's biggest co-incidence. I'm still waiting for an answer to my other point though.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 24, 2011 4:05:04 GMT -5
I still don't think you can assume the politician is scum. If a scum politican didn't force Meeko's vote, I would have expected them to copy Pinkies PM verbatim. I'm betting it is more likely to be a Mod colour than anything else. I can also see good reasons for both either a Town or Scum politican making the choices that have been ascribed to them. I'm keeping an open mind for the mo. Fair enough. D2: Pinkies (Town) forced to vote for Archangel(?) D3: Meeko(Scum) "forced" to vote for Colby(Town) D4: Archangel(?) forced to vote for Septimus(?) On D2, with Pinkies playstyle, there was a good chance of him getting himself lynched. On D3, the scum may have gambled on the fact that we wouldn't repeat the same "mistake" of lynching for the forced voter. Now today we have a big glass of wifom: town on town town on scum scum on town scum on scum The "politician is town" argument has basically been based on leveraging the vote of a lurker. While Pinkies didn't vote Day1, Meeko did vote on Day2. Given the public evidence on D1/D2, I couldn't see Colby being lynched - so the forced vote for Colby seems pointless. Meeko's refusal to make a statement on the vote buy makes me think that the politician is scum. Archangel accruing the penalty votes proves the vote buy is real. She could be scum and has deliberately screwed up (or unintentionally), tho carrying a 2 vote penalty for the rest of the game is a big risk for scum
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 24, 2011 4:08:06 GMT -5
Bill, i had a few questions yesterDay that i hope you can address. Bill, based on your quoting of the two PMs, i'll count you as close to Town short of turning up dead. ;D i just want some clarification. you voted for Meeko because: 1. his un-Meeko play 2. his posted PM about a forced vote the first is what it is. for the second, why don't you think the Mod wouldn't add the bit about Colby being dead or alive? is it because when Mods set up a game they already have set PMs for certain events? do you have other reasons you haven't mentioned? furthermore, you suspect Squink, Lightfoot, Mhaye and Rysto. you suspect Squink basically for defending Meeko. how about the others? Moley, what are your thoughts? Lightfoot - his reaction to my claim MHaye/Rysto - more of a feeling than anything else - they arent playing the way I would expect them to play And what are your thoughts? @moley - feel free to chime in on anything.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 24, 2011 4:12:19 GMT -5
The problem with the statement is that there's really no reason for there to be those particular consequences if you were wrong. Had you been wrong about Meeko, I can't see why it would have led us to lynch you - it would have been very stupid play for us to lynch you on that basis alone. I assume you realize that, which is why your post came off as odd. I've been lynched/NK'd for lesser reasons. More of a case I accept the consequences of my actions - I wouldn't cry wolf with "I was wrong about meeko, please don't lynch me"
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 24, 2011 4:14:56 GMT -5
So I'm right. Lie Detector could submit your (2) and, given a "False" response, deduce that I'm non-Town and that Ed is Scum or Investigator. Agreed, that statement is highly suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 24, 2011 4:17:04 GMT -5
So as you can see, I thought Meeko was the most likely scum on Day One. I investigated him and got the following response: Thereby ALMOST confirming him as town, since (at the time at least) it seemed pretty implausible that a scummy player wouldn't have any occasion to PM the mod at night - it was just possible I'd been roleblocked (which seemed very likely when there wasn't a single other confirmed night action, including kills) or that Meeko had been absent (also possible considering there'd been a period of almost five days when he hadn't posted anything at all in thread). Moley, With regard to Scum actions, silence does not necessarily indicate inaction. In several games where I have played Scum, Night Actions were specified in the Night thread on the Scum Boards, and not necessarily by PM. If that's the case in this game then you might never hear a peep out of the Scum all game, making your role even less useful than you imagine. Agreed - in many games the scum actions are specified in the scum thread. A lack of PM's to/from the player to to the mod could indicate that the player is vanilla, or is a power but chose not to act. The existence of a PM from the player to/from the mod could indicate that that player had a night action (and probably not scum, assuming scum actions are in the scum thread - the no pm's from meeko evidence would support this) or the player simply had a question to ask the mod about something - or just mused to the mod about the game. Basically, a no-message result is totally inconclusive. A message result would only be as useful as its content - e.g. If you had gotten "We should kill BillMc early, and if possible often. " then it would be pretty damning evidence. :-)
|
|