|
Post by special on Nov 29, 2011 18:45:20 GMT -5
Posting as I catch up I would have liked for paranoia to have responded to my post from yesterday. It's getting late in the day so I'll put my vote on paranoia. Essentially the vote is due to paranoia's suspicion of me that is largely based on my concerns about Special Ed. I don't understand why paranoia himself is not concerned with Special Ed as well. Vote: paranoia [/color][/quote] maybe because he knows I'm Town?
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Nov 29, 2011 19:00:37 GMT -5
3. The votes for Mahaloth late in the Day. I don't get them. His fate had all but been sealed at the time of a few votes... Scathach voted him late in the Day, even though he outright said he would rather lynch Colby. So why not vote for Colby? Why did you vote Mahaloth instead of the person you thought most suspicious? Mahaloth was gonna hang regardless of your vote... As it played out, it seems to me like an attempt to bus a scum mate... and, if Colby is scum, get in a little posturing while you are at it. You're ignoring the fact that I've already voted Colby today here www.idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=wedlockgame&thread=1777&post=84246I voted Mahaloth yesterday because I always think picking a bandwagon makes more sense than trying to start a new wagon late in day. So my first move in the new day was to vote Colby, when people might actually get a chance to look at my case for it. (which is, ironically, only picking up any traction from you, and you think I'm scum. Le sigh.)
|
|
|
Post by special on Nov 29, 2011 20:09:12 GMT -5
by my calculations, we have a 5 way tie for the lynch with me being in the tie-breaking position.
I'd rather not die, but as my role isn't too terribly pro-Town at this point in the game, I'm willing to go.
In any case, I'll follow sachertorte again. I was tempted to vote for lightfoot, but then, I always am.
Vote: paranoia
|
|
|
Post by Archangel on Nov 29, 2011 20:11:35 GMT -5
Having just made it back through yesterDay and toDay (I'd thought I was going to have more internet time. I don't know why. I never do) I would like to say that I'm disinclined to believe Scum knew who they were tied to at the beginning of the game, so I am in agreement largely with Paul. I'm not ruling out the possibility they have some method to find OUT who they're tied to, mind. Although I wonder if it's a question of being "tied to" at all. Also, although I suppose sacher has a point about Ed, I'm more perturbed by Lightfoot's play as pointed out by story; that, plus her non-post post up there about being here but not being here is enough for me to: Vote Sister CoyoteThis post, to me, appears to be an attempt to sound like you're saying something significant without actually saying something significant, and the vote on Lightfoot appears to be a jump on a growing bandwagon.
|
|
|
Post by special on Nov 29, 2011 20:17:05 GMT -5
will.....not...vote...for....Archangel....will...not....vote...for...Archangel...
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Nov 29, 2011 20:30:42 GMT -5
huh.
I'm getting lynched and sachertorte pulls that lovely accusation of PIS on me.
One: I know nothing about Ed's alignment. I'm just not convinced he's worth lynching.
Second Sinjin - are you seriously voting me by having people go HEY LOOK AT NOIA'S POSTS LOOK LOOK I WON'T SAY WHAT'S WRONG HERE LOOOOK *votes*
I am not-really satisfied with Caerie's response and then utter lack of doing anything. I'm slightly suspicious of Ed as this is now two townspeople that I know of he's bandwagoned without much thought. (jan, myself WHO KNOWS wrt coyote though)
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Nov 29, 2011 20:33:42 GMT -5
or not aaaaaaa I've been a bit too lazy this game. Sorry guys, I'll take a look at sachertorte's response and get back to you on that.
@storyteller: Was looking at how caerie would respond to pressure of any sort.
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Nov 29, 2011 20:49:59 GMT -5
Most of her posts seem helaciously back and forth on Jan - having her in her "town" reads while suddenly dropping them for no reason and voting Jan. Of course I go back and forth. Why wouldn't I? More importantly, why wouldn't you? On Friday Silver Jan did something that I found to be typically Townie. I felt strongly that she was Town based on this. But her behavior was extremely uneven (do you disagree with this? do you feel that I should have her first post into account, but then ignored everything else she said?). I didn't "drop them for no reason." I stated my reasons, quite explicitly. You are so off base. My concern with Special Ed goes beyond his vote for Sister Coyote. His entire approach to this game is deliberately obfuscated. This concerns me. Does it not concern you? I was "preoccupied" with the time -- specifically the lack thereof. If I recall correctly, the post to which you are referring was posted with less than 24 hours in the Day and at that point we hadn't generated enough voting or discussion or pressure to warrant a single claim. Day One claiming is the typical outcome mid-Day. So, yes, the lack of sufficient voting to yield a claim that late in the Day concerned me. More importantly, I have openly stated that this concerned me. Why do you find my concern problematic? How does my observation of the game state make me suspicious to you? Nitpick. I assert that there is a difference between wanting to lynch Special Ed and having good reasons to lynch Special Ed. That isn't to say that my position is unjustified only that, Special Ed and his "new playstyle" are deliberately hiding his thoughts and intentions. That is absolutely sufficient reason to lynch the crap out of Special Ed. BUT! I can't hang my hat on anything he has actually done because he is hiding everything. I adamantly disagree that my wanting to lynch Special Ed is due to "policy." There is so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin. Do you even know what a policy vote is? Or why they are bad? Policy votes obfuscate the intent of the voter and hide alignment across the continuum of games. In this game we have Special Ed and his "new playstyle." There can be no policy on this matter because this is Special Ed's NEW playstyle. A policy vote is establishing a generic reason to vote and applying that generic reason in game. Special Ed's new playstyle is not a generic reason. It is a very specific one -- we have a specific player and a specific course of action selected by that player. Given paranoia's post and my subsequent thoughts on it, I'm worried that I'm going to be too focused on paranoia. The Silver Jan stuff I guess I can let slide since we know Silver Jan's alignment now, but the Special Ed stuff has me baffled. Why the hell isn't paranoia suspicious of Special Ed too?Or put another way simply to amuse myself: Paranoia, I'm concerned by your lack of paranoia regarding Special Ed. First thing that sticks out is that I supposedly must be suspicious of someone. I don't get how this works because what is scummy to one player might not be to another annnnd I just don't really see how he is scum from this. And I stand by the opinion that lynching someone because of their playstyle is silly... and to be honest it does not feel like you'd be lynching them because you found them scummy. It feels more like you're lynching them because supposedly their playstyle does not mesh with you. Also the post that caught my attention with you wrt silver jan you didn't explain crap. I looked at your other posts. I did not see a substantial reason from you to have suddenly changed opinions. ...yeah okay so off base blah blah blah I did read and that's exactly how your reaction to ed read to me. Your only concern with him day one was his posting style. That's it. i even noted that was what you were going after. should he be more open? definitely. could it be a stupid town gambit? yes. could it be a stupid scum gambit? Also yes. I just don't see it as reason alone to suspect him. I'd appreciate it if he'd stop being weird but I don't think he's worth a vote. basically I feel like ed and jan were easy out lynches when guiri first came in with his read wrt mahaloth. UnvoteVote: sachertorte.Something feels off here with how you adamantly defend your reason to lynch ed because of his playstyle alone despite it not really helping in the slightest to find scum.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 29, 2011 21:20:21 GMT -5
This post, to me, appears to be an attempt to sound like you're saying something significant without actually saying something significant, and the vote on Lightfoot appears to be a jump on a growing bandwagon. Yes, yes, dear. I agreed with someone, I suggested an alternate theory of events that has been adequately shot down, and I placed a vote on the person whose play I feel has been scummiest, relying on someone else's better argument than mine, but I didn't say anything. And a bandwagon of two is not.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Nov 29, 2011 23:07:24 GMT -5
Vote Count as of this time (EOD- Wednesday at 20:00 GMT)
3 votes Paranoia- Sinjin, sachertorte, Mr. Special Ed
2 votes Special Ed- Colby11, moodymitchy Archangel- JustbeingGinger, Pollux Oil Colby11- scathach, paulwhoisaghost Lightfoot- Storyteller, Sister Coyote
1 vote Sachertorte- Paranoia Inner Stickler- Drain Bead Sister Coyote- Archangel
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Nov 29, 2011 23:12:39 GMT -5
NETA- I believe that we have 16 hours left until EOD. Could be wrong
|
|
|
Post by special on Nov 29, 2011 23:23:00 GMT -5
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Nov 29, 2011 23:24:11 GMT -5
OK, catching up on Day 2 so far. sinjin makes a case for Paranoia at #11, based mostly on what she regards as Paranoia�s lack of substance. Can�t really object here, because this line of thinking netted us mahaloth yesterDay. There�s a fair bit of discussion regarding whether the two deaths were the result of linked collars detonating, or whether it was a Vigilante/Third Party, and honestly, while it�s valid discussion, it doesn�t really matter that much right now. We�re not going to know until somebody flips/claims/is outed as a Vig/SK, and it doesn�t much affect how we work going forward. We have to lynch our best candidate for Scum each Day, and let happen what may at Night. At #16, Paranoia names Caerie and Sachertorte (per subsequent correction) as his two main suspects. He gives a lengthy explanation for the former, but his explanation for the latter is difficult to find and seems a bit thrown in. Lightfoot addresses my criticism of her vote for deon at #23. Nothing she says here gets to the heart of my actual problem with her post, which was that her analysis read like someone who wanted to make a pile on vote but needed to reach for reasons to do so. This is followed by some discussion of Lightfoot�s theory that the Scum do not know to whom their own collars are connected. Lightfoot maintains repeatedly here that recent events have led her to this conclusion, but � as mitchy and others point out � the logic here doesn�t really make sense. Why would two blue deaths overNight lead Lightfoot to this conclusion? Note that paulwhoisaghost offers an argument with a similar conclusion (at #60). I don�t necessarily agree with the argument per se � it assumes that the primary goal of Scum will be to keep one of their own alive at all costs, which I don�t think is a good assumption � but it�s at least an argument that follows. Mr. Special Ed draws a few votes. I can�t say I don�t sympathize � Ed�s posting style is driving me CRAZY, a little � but I don�t know if it�s helpful. I�m not sure I believe that Ed�s behavior in this game makes sense as either Town or Scum. colby�s argument � that Ed�s Day 1 vote on Silver Jan was timed such that it appeared to be a bandwagon vote � is reasonable, though. ---------- Right now, my two primary suspects are colby11 and Lightfoot. colby11 I am primarily suspicious of due to the timing and nature of his vote yesterDay for deon, now known to be Town, while namechecking Mahaloth, now known to be Scum. The reasoning Colby gives for choosing to vote for deon is vague and insubstantial, and it�s timed in such a way as to (at that moment) increase the likelihood of Town dying and Scum living (for similar reasons, the flip suggests pro-Town motivation for Drain bead and gnarlycharly; see my own post #231 from Day 1 for more on this). However. If the Scum know to whom their collars are connected, then colby�s actions no longer look pro-Scum (and, not incidentally, drainbead and gnarlycharly applying the coup de grace to Mahaloth loses some of its pro-Town punch � in fact, it becomes something that Scum might indeed do in such a situation). Given that this situation looks so dramatically different depending on what the Scum know about their collar connection, I�d rather hold off on voting on the basis of these events for the moment. --- Which leads me to this: vote LightfootI�ve already covered my objections to her vote for Silver Jan in yesterDay�s posts. Moreover, her conclusions toDay about the Scum knowing/not knowing to whom they are connected don�t follow from the evidence she is claiming underlies those conclusions. She sounds to me like someone who knows what the Scum know. Maybe she�s telling the truth and maybe she�s lying about it, but in either case she know the truth. That�s why it�s so hard for her to articulate her reasons; she had a conclusion in mind that she wanted to present from the beginning and had to find a reason to present it. Ok I'm going to bring this up... Is there a reason why you used your little question mark thingy INSTEAD of an ' Lightfoot does the same thing later on. Whether this means anything or not, I'm not sure either. But, I'm going to ask anyways.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Nov 29, 2011 23:31:00 GMT -5
Thanks Special Ed... 15 and a half hours to go!
|
|
|
Post by special on Nov 29, 2011 23:31:24 GMT -5
something is funky in the way your browser is parsing some people's comments. Those are apostrophes to me.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Nov 29, 2011 23:40:23 GMT -5
something is funky in the way your browser is parsing some people's comments. Those are apostrophes to me. Oh.... Weird... They show up as little weird question marks to me... maybe my computer is stupid.. or Firefox needs to be updated
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 30, 2011 0:14:18 GMT -5
Firefox may need to be updated. It's more likely that they're using an actual apostrophe instead of the little ' mark for whatever reason (composing in Word, that sort of thing) and your encoding isn't set up properly or something. Because I also see apostrophes.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Nov 30, 2011 2:01:45 GMT -5
At this time, I would be happy with any of the lynch leaders going (well, except for me, of course... I don't wanna die)
This is the last post that I'll be able to make before the Day ends... I'm happy with where my vote is.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Nov 30, 2011 4:18:28 GMT -5
Day 2 Vote Count
paranoia (3): sinjin(#11), sachertorte (#86), Special Ed(#92)
Special Ed (2): colby11(#48), moodymitchy(#49) lightfoot (2): storyteller(#68), Sister Coyote (#72) Archangel (2): JustBeing Ginger(#47), Pollux Oil (#80) colby11 (2): scathach(#63), PWIAG(#87)
Inner Stickler (1): Drainbead(#59) Sister Coyote (1): Archangel(#93) sachertorte (1): paranoia(#97)
Caerie (0): paranoia(#16,#97)
Not voting: BillMc, deni, gnarlycharlie, Inner Stickler, Caerie, lightfoot
With these votes: paranoia will be lynched.
Day will end in 10 3/4 hours ish.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Nov 30, 2011 7:24:04 GMT -5
Vote: PWIAG [/PWIAG]
These infrequent info dumps unnerve me.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Nov 30, 2011 9:01:20 GMT -5
Also... after reading Day 1, I still think that the scum don't know who they are connected to. I just can't make sense of them not acting sooner to sway the votes away from Mahaloth. My guess is that Colby set it up so that they could do so.... but then someone on the scum team mentioned that by swinging the vote to someone else they could end up killing a different member of the scum team. I think Colby is scum, and his vote on Deon was placed not knowing that Deon and Mahaloth were tethered. Further support, we now know that getting Silverjan lynched would have resulted in scum getting 2 for one since she was apparently bound to another town. (This assumes that the 2 deaths were from one scum NK as opposed to a SK+Scum combo.) So Scum knew who they were attached to, wouldn't it have been extremely beneficial to push a Silverjan lynch? They would have known that lynching either Mahaloth or Deon would have ended badly for them... and that Silverjan would have been a boon... I agree with this. I don't think it's possible that the Scum knew who they were connected to as of yesterDay. I will add the caveat, however, that they may have a power role who can determine linkages, so it could be that they are gaining information every Night.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Nov 30, 2011 9:03:29 GMT -5
Vote: PWIAG [/PWIAG]
These infrequent info dumps unnerve me. There are other players who do the same thing ( story is the one who immediately jumps to mind). Why the vote for paul and not someone else?
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Nov 30, 2011 9:55:30 GMT -5
Having just made it back through yesterDay and toDay (I'd thought I was going to have more internet time. I don't know why. I never do) I would like to say that I'm disinclined to believe Scum knew who they were tied to at the beginning of the game, so I am in agreement largely with Paul. I'm not ruling out the possibility they have some method to find OUT who they're tied to, mind. Although I wonder if it's a question of being "tied to" at all. Also, although I suppose sacher has a point about Ed, I'm more perturbed by Lightfoot's play as pointed out by story; that, plus her non-post post up there about being here but not being here is enough for me to: Vote Sister CoyoteThis post, to me, appears to be an attempt to sound like you're saying something significant without actually saying something significant, and the vote on Lightfoot appears to be a jump on a growing bandwagon. Arrrrghhhhh, I hate, hate, hate this post by this player. This is Archangels only post toDay. This is the sum total of her game posts yesterDay: Given the timing of her vote on Deonyesterday as pointed out by Pollux , her complete lack of any substance at all and this drive by vote; unvote Paranoiavote Archangel
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Nov 30, 2011 10:00:30 GMT -5
First thing that sticks out is that I supposedly must be suspicious of someone. I don't get how this works because what is scummy to one player might not be to another annnnd I just don't really see how he is scum from this. It isn't that you must be suspicious of someone or even of specifically Special Ed, but that you are quite cavalier of Special Ed's anti-Town behavior. "Playstyle" can mean many things. Some playstyle is innocuous, such as my penchant for posting my thoughts point-by-point. Ed's adopted 'new playstyle' is NOT innocuous. He is (or at least was) intentionally obfuscating his positions and being generally unhelpful. I will freely admit that Special Ed (at the time) hadn't done anything OVERTLY scummy. That kind of was my point. The playstyle he adopted he would NEVER do anything at all. I have a problem with this, as would most people. I question not so much why it didn't bother you, but why grilling Special Ed DID bother you. That isn't what is happening here. Then you missed it. I was explicit in discussing the nature and timing of Silver Jan's vote on me versus her suspicion on Sister Coyote but lack of (read reluctance to) vote. I know it was there, and I know that others commented on my point. That was pretty substantial. I also know that I went on a bit of a rant regarding Silver Jan's bizarre posting. How you missed that baffles me. (1) Note that I have not voted for Special Ed (2) I haven't read Special Ed closely for day two posts, but my impression is that he is being less annoyingly terse, so (3) Mission Accomplished We don't know Special Ed's alignment (this is what I mean by you are not being nearly paranoid enough about Special Ed). I can accept that you 'don't think he's scummy,' but the way you dismiss others suspicion on him -- even going to the point of saying that any hint of an attempt to get Special Ed lynched or Silver Jan over mahaloth is itself scummy -- bothers me. Yes. I tried to get Silver Jan lynched instead of mahaloth. That is perfectly clear and with the information at hand, I felt it was the correct move. While I should not question the prowess of Guiri, the "read" came on two posts from Mahaloth. I'll copy them here for you: vote for people. See how they react. typical Day 1 stuff. What would we do on day 1 if this mechanic weren't in the game? Complain about not knowing what to do on Day One, I expect. It's a crap shoot, honestly, always is. My two cents? Discuss what we think of the mechanisms all we want, I guess. In the end, I'll just vote for whomever is the most suspicious. I mean, all we can do is play normally and hope the gasterd stuff does not blow up on us. Vote Mr Special EdIt's his suggestion and as it's Day 1 and I don't have much else to go on... I'd just like to see his reaction. Which specific suggestion? I think I'd know, but I'd like you to say it more clearly. That's it. That is what got Mahaloth lynched. Am I really supposed to think that was more scummy than Silver Jan or even Special Ed? I still don't understand how Guiri did it, or how Mahaloth's posts are even remotely "scummy." Obviously Guiri did and deserves great credit, but the idea that Mahaloth was in lynch danger due to Guiri's single vote is preposterous. Mahaloth was in no perceivable danger until just before end of day. The earliest we can put Mahaloth in the "danger" column is after Pollux Oil's vote which came 13 hours to end of day and put Mahaloth at a whopping two votes. Why would I not adamantly defend my position? More importantly, why would I not want to explain my position so that you can understand it? What course of action would 'not feel off?' Or are you upset simply because I disagree with you? Now for the good stuff: I would have been much more comfortable with all this had paranoia responded to my post from Monday without my having to vote for him first. Nevertheless, I find paranoia's response to be adequately townie-ish. I'm still troubled by his lack of paranoia regarding Special Ed, but that is a relatively minor point. Unvote: paranoia
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Nov 30, 2011 10:33:34 GMT -5
I find the push from storyteller and the misinterpretation of my posts interesting. SisC’s me to- ish vote ( using the same misrepresented data)
All very interesting. ( mosey on back and read what I actually typed when you have time)
AND let us not forget the harping on a DAY ONE vote that didn’t kill anyone
If I don’t survive this Day my only saving grace will be if I am linked to a Scum.
Poetic justice if there are indeed Scum voting me / AND a one/one trade for Town.
Optimally of course I would prefer to live and take out a red/red pairing.
But since I don’t know for sure what I will be able to post the rest of this Day
The interpretation of my actual posts by Story Chaps my hide . Talk about building a boat to sail your vote in…………………… .( and they sure correct a player when they aren’t quoted correctly) And Sister Coyote’s me-too-ish vote right behind it feels lazy and weak .
Her D1 vote on Ed didn’t have much meat in it either
However voting one of them at this time could kill me
For the time being I am going to Vote: paranoia
more later if I can get in.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Nov 30, 2011 10:36:41 GMT -5
Day 2 Vote Count
Archangel (3): JustBeing Ginger(#47), Pollux Oil (#80), sinjin(#112)
Special Ed (2): colby11(#48), moodymitchy(#49) lightfoot (2): storyteller(#68), Sister Coyote (#72) colby11 (2): scathach(#63), PWIAG(#87) paranoia (2): sinjin(#11,#112), sachertorte (#86,#113), Special Ed(#92), lightfoot(#114)
Inner Stickler (1): Drainbead(#59) Sister Coyote (1): Archangel(#93) sachertorte (1): paranoia(#97) PWIAG(1): Inner Stickler(#109)
Caerie (0): paranoia(#16,#97)
Not voting: BillMc, deni, gnarlycharlie, Caerie, sachertorte
With these votes: Archangel will be lynched.
Day will end in 4 1/2 hours ish.
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Nov 30, 2011 11:00:56 GMT -5
I find the push from storyteller and the misinterpretation of my posts interesting. SisC’s me to- ish vote ( using the same misrepresented data) All very interesting. ( mosey on back and read what I actually typed when you have time) AND let us not forget the harping on a DAY ONE vote that didn’t kill anyone If I don’t survive this Day my only saving grace will be if I am linked to a Scum. Poetic justice if there are indeed Scum voting me / AND a one/one trade for Town. Optimally of course I would prefer to live and take out a red/red pairing. But since I don’t know for sure what I will be able to post the rest of this Day The interpretation of my actual posts by Story Chaps my hide . Talk about building a boat to sail your vote in…………………… .( and they sure correct a player when they aren’t quoted correctly) And Sister Coyote’s me-too-ish vote right behind it feels lazy and weak . Her D1 vote on Ed didn’t have much meat in it either However voting one of them at this time could kill meFor the time being I am going to Vote: paranoia [/color] more later if I can get in. [/quote] Ummm... please explain what you mean by the two underlined portions of your post as quoted above... Because to me 1. The first comment makes no sense 2. The second comment seems to imply that you are afraid of lynching them because your collar might be tied to them. Which would be fine except that you have no problem voting for Paranoia, which shows that you aren't afraid of your collar being connected to his. Which isn't knowledge that a townie should have... Did I misparse that?
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Nov 30, 2011 11:05:47 GMT -5
@ paul - I didn't vote for Lightfoot yesterDay because there was no practical chance that she would get lynched. Were I strongly opposed to all of the potential lynch candidates, I'd have used a one-off vote to record my suspicion, but given that I saw two of the three main candidates (Silver Jan and Mahaloth) as worthwhile targets, I preferred to use my vote as I did. Mahaloth's late-Day disappearance once he got heat made me very comfortable voting for him. You say that you didn't vote for Lightfoot because there was no practical chance she would get lynched. That shouldn't matter. The point of voting is twofold. You should be voting to lynch someone you are suspicious of, but also to show everyone else what your true intentions are. You talk like voting for Lightfoot yesterday would have been a waste of a vote... I don't see it as any more of a waste than voting for someone is definitely going to hang based on votes and time left in the Day. At least if you had voted for Lightfoot it would have been on record and easily viewed that you were suspicious of her on Day 1.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Nov 30, 2011 11:11:18 GMT -5
In other words, in this particular instance I viewed the four late-breaking Mahaloth voters as suspicious specifically because of the speed with which his wagon gained traction. To go from two to six votes in twelve or so real-life hours is unusual, particularly in a case like this where the suspicion stemmed not from any kind of real Scum tell but just from a generalized sense of active non-participation. meh. Those 12 or so real-life hours were the LAST 12 HOURS of the Day. But I will agree that the wagon did pretty much come from nothing. Part of me wonders how much of the voting was "I'll vote with Guiri" thinking. I have to admit, the thought crossed my mind. For my part I didn't take that route because mahaloth had literally two posts, and Guiri's alignment was unknown at the time. Well, I think the stable late-day wagon is easily explained. I know that if I woke up and logged in and saw a vote leader ahead by even only one vote, I would be reluctant to attempt to change the lynch target just hours before the end of day unless I had really good reason to do so. I don't see anyone (Town or Scum) trying to change the lynch target that late in the Day that also happened to be overnight in the USA. Frankly, I think the votes on Mahaloth are more of an indicator of who was online rather than who is scum or town. That's fine. I guess. But you have to include yourself, yes?
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Nov 30, 2011 11:12:01 GMT -5
3. The votes for Mahaloth late in the Day. I don't get them. His fate had all but been sealed at the time of a few votes... Scathach voted him late in the Day, even though he outright said he would rather lynch Colby. So why not vote for Colby? Why did you vote Mahaloth instead of the person you thought most suspicious? Mahaloth was gonna hang regardless of your vote... As it played out, it seems to me like an attempt to bus a scum mate... and, if Colby is scum, get in a little posturing while you are at it. You're ignoring the fact that I've already voted Colby today here www.idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=wedlockgame&thread=1777&post=84246I voted Mahaloth yesterday because I always think picking a bandwagon makes more sense than trying to start a new wagon late in day. So my first move in the new day was to vote Colby, when people might actually get a chance to look at my case for it. (which is, ironically, only picking up any traction from you, and you think I'm scum. Le sigh.) Please explain to me this mob mentality of yours... I don't get it... you're not alone in thinking this way... I just think it's a poor way to play the game. If you vote with a bandwagon instead of voting for the person you are most suspicious of, you are subject to manipulation at the hands of scum. It really isn't that hard for scum to push a mislynch. All they have to do is cast suspicion on some one and hope that someone else votes, then they add their own vote, and before you know it people see a bandwagon that they should get behind because "Hey the guy I think is most suspicious has 0 votes and that guy over there has 2... " OR Scum cast a single vote against someone, another scum then comments on the merits of the case but states that they think a different player is more suspicious, townies read those two things and see the popularity of the case and decide it's worth voting on.... and before you know there is a bandwagon formed.... and then players like you decide to add votes onto the bandwagon instead of voting the person they think most likely to be scum. I guess you could call it a difference in playstyle... but I don't think thats the case right now... I think you wanted to bus Mahaloth and now you're hiding behind this mob mentality defense.
|
|