|
Post by CatInASuit on May 24, 2011 7:05:42 GMT -5
D2: Pinkies (Town) forced to vote for Archangel(?) D3: Meeko(Scum) "forced" to vote for Colby(Town) D4: Archangel(?) forced to vote for Septimus(?) From a possible town politican POV, how about its a case of buying out possible scum players to vote for other scum. D2: Pinkies never claimed on D1 and is never around anyway, so a good vote to buy. Archangel had gained a fair amount of heat on D1 and could have been considered a likely scum at that point in time. D3: Another possible scum in Meeko (good spot in this case) had their vote bought against colby. Colby was picking up a small amount of heat at EoD2 for his actions. D4: Archangel, still has had heat and could still be considered scummy, having her vote bought against septimus whose vote switch at EoD3 garnered him several votes. Yeah, I can justify it the other way as well.
|
|
|
Post by septimus on May 24, 2011 7:20:31 GMT -5
No, 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. Would you agree that one should vote for the likeliest Scum? Your main charge against Ma'at assumes that "Lightfoot is also scum," yet you don't vote Lightfoot. Do you honestly not see why I find this suspicious?
|
|
|
Post by septimus on May 24, 2011 7:30:36 GMT -5
I'll try to answer two questions from CIAS; but first a general comment. It seems to me that there are three reasons why a Townie might cast a Lynch vote: (1) To affect who dies; i.e. to make it more likely, in the player's estimation, that Scum dies. (2) To advise other Townies of one's suspicions, hoping they will accept good advice, or explain why the advice is mistaken. (3) To leave a record that helps other Townies realize one's self is Town. I've listed these in what seems to me to be priority order. Indeed, I've paid little or no attention to (3); assuming that trying to Lynch Scum, or declaring one's suspicions is itself evidence for one's Towniness. Since it is primarily one's vote near Dusk (Friday) that affects the Lynch, a main purpose of earlier votes is to express suspicion and get feedback. I'm beginning to understand that, at least in the opinions of some experienced players, I've got this backwards. For example, late in Day 3 I voted to Lynch Meeko because I thought it better to Lynch Scum than to Lynch Town. Now I learn that, if I hadn't the time to post a detailed case, it would have been preferable(?) to let a Townie die rather than commit an irregularity that "makes me look scummy." And I've learned that mentioning two possible Scum; voting for one, writing "This is tentative and I may revisit the vote later"; and later indeed revisiting the vote and voting the other candidate is "suspicious." Furthermore (and this speaks to my own lack of skill more than anything), in all the Mafia games I've played I can't remember anybody using my votes as hints for their own scum-hunting except to apply them to the question of septimus' own scumminess. 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. Among 20 players, I picked a hypothetical Cop which is a 1-in-20 chance. One hopes for a bigger coincidence than this whenever one bets a number at roulette. I did not know Ed was Cop; and I do not understand the "coincidence" you speak of. That discussion was hypothetical and, I thought, clearly so. I remain at a loss to understand how you read it. Do you think I slipped? bread-crumbed? confessed? @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. I'll try to answer, though I'm afraid my answer will seem "damning." I'm naturally an indecisive person; I re-read and re-re-read the posts, trying to make sense of them; my revote was after a night's sleep; the revote was still quite early in the Day. The biggest reason, I think, is that I was still using points (1) and (2) at the top of this message to instruct my voting. I'm now becoming more aware that whom I suspect and why I suspect them is less important than whether the timing of my votes fits a stereotype. I guess if I'm a slow thinker and don't react to Monday's posts until Wednesday, I need to then just ignore Monday's posts?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 24, 2011 7:48:45 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. Among 20 players, I picked a hypothetical Cop which is a 1-in-20 chance. One hopes for a bigger coincidence than this whenever one bets a number at roulette. I did not know Ed was Cop; and I do not understand the "coincidence" you speak of. That discussion was hypothetical and, I thought, clearly so. I remain at a loss to understand how you read it. Do you think I slipped? bread-crumbed? confessed? The co-incidence is that you call Ed a Cop on Day 2, on N2 Ed is killed and revealed to be a Cop at SoD3. I'll try to answer, though I'm afraid my answer will seem "damning." I'm naturally an indecisive person; I re-read and re-re-read the posts, trying to make sense of them; my revote was after a night's sleep; the revote was still quite early in the Day. The biggest reason, I think, is that I was still using points (1) and (2) at the top of this message to instruct my voting. I'm now becoming more aware that whom I suspect and why I suspect them is less important than whether the timing of my votes fits a stereotype. I guess if I'm a slow thinker and don't react to Monday's posts until Wednesday, I need to then just ignore Monday's posts? No, all votes are valid as long as they can be backed up with a good justification. It is not fitting into a stereotype, it justifying your answers with a reason. You are not doing that. Your answer is damning because you don't do the one thing I asked you to do. Justify your vote. Taking your points: (1) To affect who dies; i.e. to make it more likely, in the player's estimation, that Scum dies. What made you change your mind that Pinkies was more scummy than CIAS and so you should vote for him instead? (2) To advise other Townies of one's suspicions, hoping they will accept good advice, or explain why the advice is mistaken. and again, what made you suspicious enough to change your mind that Pinkies was more scummy than CIAS? I cannot see any justification from your posts, or in your answers, as to why you would change your vote like this.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 24, 2011 7:59:37 GMT -5
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. The problem is that its either a very stupid town role or a scum backup role. The power just doesn't appear to work the way you have displayed in your claimed results. I am sorely tempted to ask you to stay quiet for a Day, just to prove it's not.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 24, 2011 8:06:51 GMT -5
I am sorely tempted to ask you to stay quiet for a Day, just to prove it's not. It can be partially proven - but it depends on trusting someone else. e.g. I could send a single sentence message to the Mod today - if Moley so wishes, he could ask about me - and would get the msg. ok, it partially proves Moley's claim - but doesnt really help in the scum hunt
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on May 24, 2011 9:46:15 GMT -5
I am sorely tempted to ask you to stay quiet for a Day, just to prove it's not. It can be partially proven - but it depends on trusting someone else. e.g. I could send a single sentence message to the Mod today - if Moley so wishes, he could ask about me - and would get the msg. ok, it partially proves Moley's claim - but doesnt really help in the scum hunt Assuming you are Town, yes. But if you're both Scum, it would prove nothing.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 24, 2011 10:19:53 GMT -5
It can be partially proven - but it depends on trusting someone else. e.g. I could send a single sentence message to the Mod today - if Moley so wishes, he could ask about me - and would get the msg. ok, it partially proves Moley's claim - but doesnt really help in the scum hunt Assuming you are Town, yes. But if you're both Scum, it would prove nothing. Ok then, would you prefer it if I sent a message to the mods tonight for moley to try and listen in to? Of course, the problem is that the scum may decide to kill the person who it is suggested should send a message, just so moley cannot be confirmed either way.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on May 24, 2011 10:36:58 GMT -5
Current vote count:
Septimus (2,2) CatInASuit [17], Archangel [21]* Archangel (2,0) Metallic Squink (1,1) BillMc [8] Gnarlycharlie (1,1) JustBeingGinger [18] Ma’at (1,1) Rysto [35]
With these votes, Septimus will be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 24, 2011 12:35:18 GMT -5
No, 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. Would you agree that one should vote for the likeliest Scum? Your main charge against Ma'at assumes that "Lightfoot is also scum," yet you don't vote Lightfoot. Do you honestly not see why I find this suspicious? This is a complete fabrication on your part, and your quote there proves it. As I said, "No, those comments have nothing to do with [Ma'at]." That isn't even a part of my case against Ma'at, let alone the main charge. You've been effective at tying me down in explaining irrelevant details, so I think that it's important for me to summarize my actual case: - Ma'at twice voted at critical times during the Meeko bandwagon. In both cases, she chose alternate candidates who had a chance at derailing the Meeko train. - The second time that she voted, Ma'at said that Meeko would be her second choice. This is a classic scum tactic to try and gain some townie cred by being publicly suspicious of a scum player without actually voting against the scum. - In the next substantive post that Ma'at made after she said that Meeko was her second choice, she made a comment that she really, really wanted to see a claim out of Meeko. Her phrasing made it quite clear that she did not want to see Meeko lynched, contradicting the suspicion she just expressed against him. - In her next substantive post, she expressed her general dissatisfaction with the current slate of lynch candidates and said that she was finding it very difficult to find a compelling case. This is a common problem for scum players, who find themselves in the position of constantly having to make cases that they know are false.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 24, 2011 12:41:23 GMT -5
Oh, and on the subject of Moley's claim to not have results so far, it occurs to me that if Moley were not scum, after claiming his post restriction he would be a very good candidate for a hypothetical scum roleblocker. A lot of ifs there, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Ma'at on May 24, 2011 14:55:44 GMT -5
@ Rysto
You’re convinced I’m scum, and all I can say is you’re off-base – I’m pretty sure when you see a comment by me that says, “So, is this when those not voting for Meeko hope he comes out with a claim?” as me “really, really” wanting to see a claim out of Meeko and it makes it “quite clear” that I didn’t want to see Meeko lynched, then it seems obvious to me that you are only seeing what you want to see. Perhaps you should go back and reread my post, because you seem to have blown it up into something that it’s not.
It’s nice for you that you seem to not ever have a problem figuring out who to vote for (regardless of whether they are scum or town). I on the other hand, do not find placing votes so easy. Just opposite play styles, I suppose. You seem convinced your decisions are correct (and if it ends up being against a townie, then what? Oh well?), while I am hesitant to vote people off that might be town (like an unknown Meeko who looked very much like a townie Pinkies). Not knowing who to vote for may very well be a scum tell, but I have found many townsfolk (in my other two games) who also have a difficult time figuring out who to vote for.
Your complete and utter confidence in a bad vote annoys me a lot. Is there not even a little bit of doubt in your mind that I might be town, or am I a “slam dunk”, in your eyes?
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 24, 2011 14:58:51 GMT -5
Assuming you are Town, yes. But if you're both Scum, it would prove nothing. Ok then, would you prefer it if I sent a message to the mods tonight for moley to try and listen in to? Of course, the problem is that the scum may decide to kill the person who it is suggested should send a message, just so moley cannot be confirmed either way. First off, I don't mind the questioning. Right now I'd be more suspicious of people who didn't want an explanation of what the heck I've been doing over the past three Days. I do, however, mind staying quiet for an entire day, especially now that I feel I've got a decent beat on who the scum might be (for pretty much the first time in the game). Secondly, I made a list of (I think) around eight scummy people, based on yesterday's posts. I'm going to go into them in a lot more detail, but in the meantime, why don't I just investigate one of the OTHERS at random? Instead of trying to get a read on a scum, I try and confirm my role by checking someone I think is most likely a townie instead? Makes a helluva lot more sense than continuing to try and get reads on potential scum. It's easy enough for those guys to just post some random s--t in a PM to Sis C. (Sorry, Sis C... looks like you'll be spammed somewhat tonight.) That doesn't, of course, take into account the fact that I might be roleblocked; but on the other hand, are the scum really going to waste a role block on me? Like my post restriction, confirming my role doesn't really confirm my alignment.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on May 24, 2011 15:01:17 GMT -5
I can see most of the case against Ma'at. - Ma'at twice voted at critical times during the Meeko bandwagon. In both cases, she chose alternate candidates who had a chance at derailing the Meeko train. I can see that for the second vote but the first was quite early at a time Meeko had just one vote and Bill had already been voted by Moley. - The second time that she voted, Ma'at said that Meeko would be her second choice. This is a classic scum tactic to try and gain some townie cred by being publicly suspicious of a scum player without actually voting against the scum. He voted Archangel for her vote on Meeko without reasoning (fair enough) and for not coming back to explain her vote but seems to encourage her to change her vote as Bill is no longer in danger and at the same time Ma'at is hestitant to vote Meeko, his next strongest candidate: This Day is tough. I just really don’t have a strong feeling about anyone (although, my strong feelings are often wrong, so who knows, maybe that’s a good thing). My argument for voting Archangel is that she placed a vote on Meeko without giving any reason, other than she didn’t like the “bandwagon” (a bandwagon of 2) building on Bill. Meeko pointed this out to her, and she still has not been back to give any reasoning. And this was after stating early toDay that she is suspicious of Dirx for some D2 stuff. So, she had some suspicions about Dirx, then votes Meeko because she’s worried about Bill. Doesn’t really add up to me, and she hasn’t been back since (and Bill appears to be under no threat of getting lynched now, so she could conceivably place her vote now for the person she finds most scummy)
Meeko would be my next strongest candidate, but for some reason his play style today reminds me a little of yesterday, so I’m hesitant to add a vote there.Pinkies
- In the next substantive post that Ma'at made after she said that Meeko was her second choice, she made a comment that she really, really wanted to see a claim out of Meeko. Her phrasing made it quite clear that she did not want to see Meeko lynched, contradicting the suspicion she just expressed against him. If you're referring to this post, you are reading a lot into a single sentence here: So, is this when those not voting for Meeko hope he comes out with a claim? Meeko? - In her next substantive post, she expressed her general dissatisfaction with the current slate of lynch candidates and said that she was finding it very difficult to find a compelling case. This is a common problem for scum players, who find themselves in the position of constantly having to make cases that they know are false. I do wonder what 5 or 6 townie things Meeko did to cover up his scummy things: Maybe a person has done one or two scummy things, but have done 5 or 6 townie things to cover up their mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by Ma'at on May 24, 2011 15:21:43 GMT -5
guiriTo answer your last question - that comment about doing 2 or 3 scummy things vs 5 or 6 town things was a generalization, and wasn't really refering to Meeko (I don't think). I was doing some rereading of D1 and D2 at some point and as I was going through, I would pick up on something that said to me "oooh, scum!", but then as I kept reading, it either got explained away, or that person did other things that said to me "oh, town". I don't take notes, so I don't really remember who in particular it was - once I saw more townie things, I sort of mentally removed them from my suspicion list. I do remember getting suspicions on a couple people, and then writing them off as I continued my re-read. That's what the comment referred to.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on May 24, 2011 15:24:48 GMT -5
If you're referring to this post, you are reading a lot into a single sentence here: Well, maybe. But keep in mind in that her previous substantive post, she named Meeko as her #2 suspect, but now she counts herself in the category of "those not voting for Meeko". The contradiction there is rather striking. The other thing that struck me was her use of the word "hope". Why is she hoping for a claim?. It's subtle, but IMO very telling.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 24, 2011 15:25:16 GMT -5
Rereading and trying to catch up. I do apologize for my low-level of participation and boneheaded mistake that caused me 2 permanent votes (I'm very distracted this week, starting a new job).
2 things are really bothering me right now: Moley's claim and the suspicion on Septimus for having "known" on Day 2 that Ed was a cop.
1. Moley's claim: I have never seen a role claim before that claimed night actions on only dead people and/or lack of results that did not turn out to be scum. Despite my belief of his claim on Day 1, I find this highly suspicious now. I also don't like his magic bagging of "I investigated someone living today" and got no results without revealing the name.
There was no good reason to do this and the stated reason of "I was trying to save someone who turned out to be scum before" (paraphrase, not direct quote) makes no sense to me.
The only way to confirm what you were saying would have been to announce who you investigated at the time of your claim. At this point you can claim it was anyone to suit your purposes.
I would be voting Moley now if my vote were my own.
2. As for Septimus: maybe I'm looking at this wrong because I have a strong gut that Septimus is town, and someone who is easy to start a bandwagon on (I sympathize) due to play style. But CIA's pushing him on the point of hypothetically mentioning that Ed might be a cop makes no sense to me. If Septimus were scum, how would he know that Ed was a cop? I looked at the roles again and I don't see any role that even suggests the ability to tell roles, apart from the gossip, possibly. Moley has claimed that role, and I believe he has it, but I now believe it's a scum role.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 24, 2011 15:45:50 GMT -5
Rereading and trying to catch up. I do apologize for my low-level of participation and boneheaded mistake that caused me 2 permanent votes (I'm very distracted this week, starting a new job). 2 things are really bothering me right now: Moley's claim and the suspicion on Septimus for having "known" on Day 2 that Ed was a cop. 1. Moley's claim: I have never seen a role claim before that claimed night actions on only dead people and/or lack of results that did not turn out to be scum. Despite my belief of his claim on Day 1, I find this highly suspicious now. I also don't like his magic bagging of "I investigated someone living today" and got no results without revealing the name. There was no good reason to do this and the stated reason of "I was trying to save someone who turned out to be scum before" (paraphrase, not direct quote) makes no sense to me. The only way to confirm what you were saying would have been to announce who you investigated at the time of your claim. At this point you can claim it was anyone to suit your purposes. I would be voting Moley now if my vote were my own. 2. As for Septimus: maybe I'm looking at this wrong because I have a strong gut that Septimus is town, and someone who is easy to start a bandwagon on (I sympathize) due to play style. But CIA's pushing him on the point of hypothetically mentioning that Ed might be a cop makes no sense to me. If Septimus were scum, how would he know that Ed was a cop? I looked at the roles again and I don't see any role that even suggests the ability to tell roles, apart from the gossip, possibly. Moley has claimed that role, and I believe he has it, but I now believe it's a scum role. Ok I'll bite. I think you make a good point about my not claiming who I investigated last night. So here it is: Lightfoot. Yes, the person I tried to start a late bandwagon on yesterday in order to save Meeko. What's interesting here is that I still have fairly substantial suspicions that Lightfoot may be scum. Unless we're pulling off one hell of a trick play here, I think most people would agree that we're unlikely scum partners, given that we were at each others' throats on Day 2 and I made an attempt to get him lynched on Day 3 that could, at best, be classified as "risky" if he was actually on my side the entire way. Of course, whether Lightfoot is scum or not, he knows full well that he didn't receive or send any PMs to / from the mod. (Again, I'm discounting the possibility that I was roleblocked here, because who'd want to roleblock me after I pretty much chainsaw-defended Meeko for an entire day?) So if Lightfoot is town, he knows I'm telling the truth and has little motive to lie about it. If he's actually scum, he can still back me up and try and gain some town cred with me. Or he can lie and say he did PM the mod last night, but if that turns out to get me lynched, he'd have to explain it away the next day when I flip town. And last night was the absolute least likely night I think for me to have been roleblocked. If he's third-party... I don't even want to have to think about the multitude of possibilities there.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on May 24, 2011 15:53:02 GMT -5
Of course, whether Lightfoot is scum or not, he knows full well that he didn't receive or send any PMs to / from the mod. (Again, I'm discounting the possibility that I was roleblocked here, because who'd want to roleblock me after I pretty much chainsaw-defended Meeko for an entire day?) Replying specifically to this statement: if someone thought you were Scum (because of your defense of Meeko), they might well have decided to block you hoping that by doing so they might block the Scum's Night Kill.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 24, 2011 16:08:42 GMT -5
Of course, whether Lightfoot is scum or not, he knows full well that he didn't receive or send any PMs to / from the mod. (Again, I'm discounting the possibility that I was roleblocked here, because who'd want to roleblock me after I pretty much chainsaw-defended Meeko for an entire day?) Replying specifically to this statement: if someone thought you were Scum (because of your defense of Meeko), they might well have decided to block you hoping that by doing so they might block the Scum's Night Kill. Crap, didn't think of that. Well if Bill is to be believed, we've already lost one town roleblocker in Colby (well, he could at least block night-kills). Don't know if there's anybody else out there who might fit the role (blocker). Of course, a lot depends on what Lightfoot says.
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on May 24, 2011 16:14:59 GMT -5
Replying specifically to this statement: if someone thought you were Scum (because of your defense of Meeko), they might well have decided to block you hoping that by doing so they might block the Scum's Night Kill. Crap, didn't think of that. Well if Bill is to be believed, we've already lost one town roleblocker in Colby (well, he could at least block night-kills). Don't know if there's anybody else out there who might fit the role (blocker). Of course, a lot depends on what Lightfoot says. Moley, your PM in your claim post says someone has to speak to you directly in order for you to respond to them. Does quoting you count? SP was, of course, speaking to you directly here, but he didn't quite say your name. He did post it in the quote, and said "you."
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on May 24, 2011 17:28:01 GMT -5
Crap, didn't think of that. Well if Bill is to be believed, we've already lost one town roleblocker in Colby (well, he could at least block night-kills). Don't know if there's anybody else out there who might fit the role (blocker). Of course, a lot depends on what Lightfoot says. Moley, your PM in your claim post says someone has to speak to you directly in order for you to respond to them. Does quoting you count? SP was, of course, speaking to you directly here, but he didn't quite say your name. He did post it in the quote, and said "you." The role PM says separately that someone has to address me, and then that someone mentioning my name counts as "addressing me". I've responded to people who haven't said my name before and nothing's happened in a negative sense.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on May 24, 2011 18:23:24 GMT -5
No, all votes are valid as long as they can be backed up with a good justification. It is not fitting into a stereotype, it justifying your answers with a reason. You are not doing that. Your answer is damning because you don't do the one thing I asked you to do. Justify your vote. Taking your points: (1) To affect who dies; i.e. to make it more likely, in the player's estimation, that Scum dies. What made you change your mind that Pinkies was more scummy than CIAS and so you should vote for him instead? (2) To advise other Townies of one's suspicions, hoping they will accept good advice, or explain why the advice is mistaken. and again, what made you suspicious enough to change your mind that Pinkies was more scummy than CIAS? I cannot see any justification from your posts, or in your answers, as to why you would change your vote like this. His initial vote on you with comment on Pinkies: On another topic, Lie Detection has led to some interesting discussion. Archangel started with "My alignment is also Town." This seems straightforward and Detectable yet led to suspicion from CIAS. This suspicion makes me suspicious; for this and other reasons (some stated yesterDay) I'm going to <vote snipped> This is tentative and I may revisit the vote later, but I seem to need to play Chicagoan ("Vote early, vote often!") just to get my votes recorded. <snip> Captain Pinkies wrote simply "Town." This seemed extremely odd at the time (How hard is it to type "I am" ?) so Ed may be correct to find it suspicious. But, it seems almost too obvious of a blunder. His change to Pinkies 12 hours and 28 posts later: My scum-hunting skills are weak, and I've made weak votes for people's weak suspicions. But perhaps there really is a "slam dunk" toDay: With no post from Pinkies, and no explanation for his reluctance to type a straightforward "I am" ... <vote snipped> There's no apparent reason for the switch to Pinkies, the reasoning which was "too obvious of a blunder" becomes a "slam dunk". I note that he voted you for being suspicious of Archangel's lie detector statement (among other things), he voted Pinkies when the vote count was corrected to show Pinkies winning the tie with Archangel (edited later to show Archangel in the lead) and on Day 3 voted Meeko because there was a danger Archangel would be lynched. Now, I'm leaning Town on Archangel, and there are no masons in the list of possible roles, but Septimus seems to be going to some lengths to defend her. What do you suspect his motivation was for the vote change?
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on May 24, 2011 19:22:35 GMT -5
Sorry I have not been on today at all. I have come down with a bad cold and are on cold meds. I have tried to read everything but I am not in any frame of mind to think... I will be back on tomorrow, hopefully feeling better.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on May 24, 2011 20:04:32 GMT -5
Replying specifically to this statement: if someone thought you were Scum (because of your defense of Meeko), they might well have decided to block you hoping that by doing so they might block the Scum's Night Kill. Crap, didn't think of that. Well if Bill is to be believed, we've already lost one town roleblocker in Colby (well, he could at least block night-kills). Don't know if there's anybody else out there who might fit the role (blocker). Of course, a lot depends on what Lightfoot says. Working backwards. I can attest that I did not send or receive any PM's last Night . But I don't see that it proves a bloody thing? I plan to get back to that later To prevent future sex change operations, I am female (very confusing when I'm being discussed (I think I'm being discused) and being referred to as male) semi OOG this week has been h.e.double hockeysticks at work I have not had time to add productive information this Day. I do plan to have more evening time as the computer hog is gone to grams/
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on May 24, 2011 22:03:58 GMT -5
while do have time I will add some observations. Since WoW posts tend to make ME roll my eyes I will break this up I think that every role claim smells 'funny' Honest Moley initially claims a vote restiction WAS frustrated with the restriction ( argued with me about that) and went to the mod for modification. And he does not have to PROVE anything. (he says that often and large) EOD 3 He tries to 'save' the doomed Meeko (trying to throw me under the bus was a nice touch Since Meeko flipped SCUM) This quote sent me looking I've snipped some of the large and sometimes theatrical font shenannigans that seem to be this players "style' and the LAM bits about being "right" about Bill (not proven yet) And I found I didn't ping on this the first time but now that it has been brought up............. This looks like Moley had information that had nothing to do with his 'claimed' PM and was admittedly breadcrumbing it as well? to whom?
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on May 24, 2011 22:29:01 GMT -5
D3 we arrive to find that 3 players are gone.
Not clear how each was slain
If we are to believe Bill's claim, colby11 was Alice but became Mary Ann when Bill found and killed colby and traded "places" Since Mary Ann WAS 3rd party why didn't colby as Mary Ann flip 3rd party
This line from Bill as Mary Ann's PM bothers me D3.188 "If Alice is lynched or killed by other means, you will automatically take her place. You will win or lose with the rest of the town."
if Bill as Mary Ann were to be near his wincon ( third parties have those right? ) And colby as Alice was lynched or killed. All would be lost for the 3rd party win and Bill would become vanilla town? There is no wincon for Bill as Mary Ann
I don't know beans about third parties so I ask .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ D4 we arrive to find only ONE has been removed
If Bill is believed (even partially ) his one shot kill was used on colby N2
We can ass/u/me that Scum made a NightKill and DirX took another ( not positive)
We still don't know for sure what killed the players Night 2 or if they are still able to.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on May 24, 2011 22:51:54 GMT -5
D2 Surburban Plankton claims a vote restriction (votes in the first 24 hour don't count) the rest of the PM is redacted so we don't know as much as we do I think. OK, time for a partial claim... ~~snip~~ Mary Ann is mentioned here too. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ on preview the quote won't fix . Sorry
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 25, 2011 3:51:45 GMT -5
2. As for Septimus: maybe I'm looking at this wrong because I have a strong gut that Septimus is town, and someone who is easy to start a bandwagon on (I sympathize) due to play style. But CIA's pushing him on the point of hypothetically mentioning that Ed might be a cop makes no sense to me. If Septimus were scum, how would he know that Ed was a cop? I looked at the roles again and I don't see any role that even suggests the ability to tell roles, apart from the gossip, possibly. Moley has claimed that role, and I believe he has it, but I now believe it's a scum role. Two things One, I will point out it's not the only reason I'm voting for him. Two, you seriously can't see any role on that list that could have the ability to investigate a single player and determine their roles... ....seriously especially given that any variation on a role is possible.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on May 25, 2011 4:01:45 GMT -5
I note that he voted you for being suspicious of Archangel's lie detector statement (among other things), he voted Pinkies when the vote count was corrected to show Pinkies winning the tie with Archangel (edited later to show Archangel in the lead) and on Day 3 voted Meeko because there was a danger Archangel would be lynched. Now, I'm leaning Town on Archangel, and there are no masons in the list of possible roles, but Septimus seems to be going to some lengths to defend her. What do you suspect his motivation was for the vote change? We can agree to disagree on Archangel then, I am not leaning Town on her, in fact quite the opposite. Go look at some of the early votes on Day 2. As Archangel got one, so did Captain Pinkies. If septimus is scum, I could make an excellent case against Archangel and possibly on Suburban Plankton as well. But for the moment, septimus will do. You will note, he hasn't answered my question about his Day 2 vote despite having opportunity to do so.
|
|