|
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 30, 2011 11:12:43 GMT -5
Where did I say this? Where did I present a theory that Scum did/didn’t know who they were paired with? no where Special Ed (25)
Lightfoot (26) – quoting Special Ed
Special Ed (27) – quoting Lightfoot
Lightfoot (28) – quoting Special Ed
I already covered that. I don't think your conclusions sound like they're coming from the evidence that you're claiming underlies them. Other players seem like they're analyzing what they've seen and developing an opinion; you seem like you have an opinion and are just kind of saying "yeah, yeah, the evidence suggests it. Because I think you provided zero real reasoning. You did indeed "use everything deon posted," but you used it disingenuously. You posted a statement and then declared it suspicious by fiat or by innuendo, but there was nothing inherently suspicious about the statements you posted and you did not show the connection or even try to. "I didn't kill anyone" is not a shield against criticism of your actions or your votes. Yeah, that's a typograhical mistake, which changes the content of my analysis literally not at all.
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Nov 30, 2011 11:15:19 GMT -5
Vote: PWIAG [/PWIAG]
These infrequent info dumps unnerve me. o.0' At least my "infrequent" (I don't see how you can call them infrequent.... I missed Day 1 altogether and now that I am here I have posted quite frequently....) posts contain data to dump... As opposed to this post which seems to come out of left field and only contains a vote based on my playstyle (inaccurately portrayed) and not anything that points to my alignment.
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Nov 30, 2011 11:15:45 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? This
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Nov 30, 2011 11:19:42 GMT -5
@paul -
I simply don't agree with this. Late-Day, one-off votes are entirely useless for the purpose of future analysis. I might make one from time to time if I strongly feel that all the realistic candidates are Town, but in the situation above I argue that it gives everyone else more information about me if I am an active participant in what's happening.
@sach -
Well, to be pedantic: no. I don't have to include myself. You do, and that's fine and fair. But it's kind of pointless to include myself in my own analysis, since I know my own alignment.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Nov 30, 2011 11:22:50 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?[/quote] I wanted to post something before I dashed off to work this morning. I wrote most of that last night but had to make some changes this am. The first bit. I didn’t know if I would be able to post from work..(I can’t always hop on the computer for personl) And the sentence is not complete = I don't always have time to type a whole paragraph The second bit.No what I meant was based on the current votes ( as I knew them= and I was wrong) That placing my vote where I really wanted it could result in me being lynched since there are so many of us tied. NOW I see the vote count is different than what I thought it was.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Nov 30, 2011 11:57:58 GMT -5
My process of elimination analysis now looks like this: Sister Coyote Scathach Gnarlycharlie Archangel paulwhoisaghost
Of these I'm most inclined to vote for Sister Coyote or Archangel. Review and vote coming soon.
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Nov 30, 2011 12:09:48 GMT -5
My process of elimination analysis now looks like this: Sister Coyote Scathach Gnarlycharlie Archangel paulwhoisaghost Of these I'm most inclined to vote for Sister Coyote or Archangel. Review and vote coming soon. Your process of elimination? By what process did you eliminate the rest of the players?
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Nov 30, 2011 12:16:54 GMT -5
@paul - I simply don't agree with this. Late-Day, one-off votes are entirely useless for the purpose of future analysis. I might make one from time to time if I strongly feel that all the realistic candidates are Town, but in the situation above I argue that it gives everyone else more information about me if I am an active participant in what's happening. @sach - Well, to be pedantic: no. I don't have to include myself. You do, and that's fine and fair. But it's kind of pointless to include myself in my own analysis, since I know my own alignment. How does adding your vote to an out of control bandwagon in the 11th hour provide for better future analysis than casting a one off vote for the person you think is most suspicious. Your vote on Mahaloth made no difference what so ever... he was going to be lynched regardless. As town, placing your vote there makes no sense if you think someone else was more suspicious... As town you could not have known that Mahaloth was scum, therefore you were adding your name to a list of people who may have been participating in bandwagon that resulted in a mislynch. As scum it makes perfect sense, because future analysis would show that you voted for him but might not necessarily show that you did so at the last second when he was already going down anyway. Your vote 1. Does not accurately reflect your suspicions 2. Does not give us good information for future vote analysis, it in fact would skew the future analysis if the timing of the votes aren't looked at. 3. Made no difference in the outcome of Day 1. 4. Shows no clear town motivation, in spite of the fact that it was for a now known scum.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Nov 30, 2011 12:27:14 GMT -5
My process of elimination analysis now looks like this: Sister Coyote Scathach Gnarlycharlie Archangel paulwhoisaghost Of these I'm most inclined to vote for Sister Coyote or Archangel. Review and vote coming soon. Your process of elimination? By what process did you eliminate the rest of the players? I look for statements that sound like they came from a townie and not a scum trying to look like a townie. My list consists of people who have not said anything yet that I consider to be evidence of townness.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Nov 30, 2011 12:27:37 GMT -5
My vote on paranoia was a save my arse vote.
But I did have the vote count incorrect at the time.
Upon review I will Unvote: paranoia
Vote: Sister Coyote
My reasons were stated in my previous post-
Damn the torpedos
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Nov 30, 2011 12:32:29 GMT -5
@ storyteller I wager I ain’t gonna change your tune but let us try this. (maybe it will make sense to someone else) If I live this Day perhaps this will help me the next
My one liner grew into a whole theory by your hand.
I didn’t share a long list of why I was leaning that way because I was not convinced that I was correct at that point. = no need to muddy the water
I said my deon case wasn’t a tight one when I posted it but it was what I had.
Sometimes it seems my train of thought looks like it’s not on all its rails when I type
Ie makes perfect sense to me but not to others. Nature of the beast
I put a smiley after my comment on the typo on purpose . I wasn’t calling it anything else
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Nov 30, 2011 12:56:52 GMT -5
Your process of elimination? By what process did you eliminate the rest of the players? I look for statements that sound like they came from a townie and not a scum trying to look like a townie. My list consists of people who have not said anything yet that I consider to be evidence of townness. So the trick to making it off of your list is for scum to sound more genuine when going about their business? What happens when you come across a townie that is notorious for sounding scummy?
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Nov 30, 2011 13:21:36 GMT -5
@paul - I simply don't agree with this. Late-Day, one-off votes are entirely useless for the purpose of future analysis. I might make one from time to time if I strongly feel that all the realistic candidates are Town, but in the situation above I argue that it gives everyone else more information about me if I am an active participant in what's happening. @sach - Well, to be pedantic: no. I don't have to include myself. You do, and that's fine and fair. But it's kind of pointless to include myself in my own analysis, since I know my own alignment. How does adding your vote to an out of control bandwagon in the 11th hour provide for better future analysis than casting a one off vote for the person you think is most suspicious. Your vote on Mahaloth made no difference what so ever... he was going to be lynched regardless. As town, placing your vote there makes no sense if you think someone else was more suspicious... As town you could not have known that Mahaloth was scum, therefore you were adding your name to a list of people who may have been participating in bandwagon that resulted in a mislynch. As scum it makes perfect sense, because future analysis would show that you voted for him but might not necessarily show that you did so at the last second when he was already going down anyway. Your vote 1. Does not accurately reflect your suspicions 2. Does not give us good information for future vote analysis, it in fact would skew the future analysis if the timing of the votes aren't looked at. 3. Made no difference in the outcome of Day 1. 4. Shows no clear town motivation, in spite of the fact that it was for a now known scum. i think this is a matter of playstyle. i've played with some who in their boards think it's better to place a vote between bandwagons rather than an off vote. it works for them so i'd say that there is merit to that. that said, based on the number of votes on Mahaloth, i'd guess there's at least one, maybe two, scum bussing him. however, i don't see a serious case against any of them atm. the ones which are most suspicious are Lightfoot and Archangel. Lightfoot seems to be in trouble again although she doesn't seem to have done anything different from when she's town. i think her type of posting is a null tell. she doesn't seem to be squirming either as she is wont to do as scum under pressure. she did vote for Deon for statements she has seen him make as town in other games so i'm not sure why she chose to vote for him on D1. Archangel dropped by, voted and not much else. her reasoning was because SisC was jumping on a growing bandwagon. it was far from that. that couple also with her vote for Deon. she's another player who has seen him post similarly as town and still voted for him. i wouldn't mind seeing either lynched but i feel Archangel is more suspicious. Vote Archangel
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Nov 30, 2011 13:37:48 GMT -5
My vote on paranoia was a save my arse vote. But I did have the vote count incorrect at the time. So you voted Paranoia, not because you thought he was suspicious, but simply to save your own butt? Hrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Nov 30, 2011 13:50:50 GMT -5
My vote on paranoia was a save my arse vote. But I did have the vote count incorrect at the time. So you voted Paranoia, not because you thought he was suspicious, but simply to save your own butt? Hrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Although I did feel the case had some merit I wasn't married to it, yes. I would prefer to NOT die this day (I believe that was part of Ed's vote reasoning too) I've seen many players vote to save themselves with out a true case. some will hang for it some will be understood.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 30, 2011 14:08:27 GMT -5
Archangel dropped by, voted and not much else. her reasoning was because SisC was jumping on a growing bandwagon. it was far from that. that couple also with her vote for Deon. she's another player who has seen him post similarly as town and still voted for him. i wouldn't mind seeing either lynched but i feel Archangel is more suspicious. I am reluctant to vote Archangel, despite what I consider the strength of the case against, for fear of being accused of OMGUS and despite being willing to effectively OMGUS Ed on Day One. That said, I am definitely behind an Archangel lynch, as the vote on me was ridiculous, and the vote on Deon smells. Your vote 1. Does not accurately reflect your suspicions 2. Does not give us good information for future vote analysis, it in fact would skew the future analysis if the timing of the votes aren't looked at. 3. Made no difference in the outcome of Day 1. 4. Shows no clear town motivation, in spite of the fact that it was for a now known scum. And now I have someone else's strong arguments against voting for a bandwagon. This isn't the kind of behavior I consider a Scum tell, but I know for me I'd rather leave an honest vote than follow a bandwagon unless someone I'm pretty sure is Town is about to be lynched. I've seen many players vote to save themselves with out a true case. some will hang for it some will be understood. I've seen lots of players vote to save themselves. Most of the time -- but not ALL of it -- they're Scum, because Scum numbers are more important to end game than Town numbers. There are reasons Town would vote to save themselves, AND I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF ANYTHING, just contradicting your statement about being "understood."
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Nov 30, 2011 14:11:09 GMT -5
So the trick to making it off of your list is for scum to sound more genuine when going about their business? Incorrect. "Genuineness" has nothing to do with it. It is matter of position and risk. Sounding scummy is not part of the calculation, though sounding scummy might warrant an analysis of its own. Process of elimination is eliminating players who act in a way I find consistent with Town (or more importantly inconsistent with scum). Sounding scummy doesn't put you on the list, it has no effect other than failing to get oneself off the list. As for a Vote: Sister Coyote had a smidgen of townness in her posts so I don't feel the need to lynch her right now. My main concern about Archangel is that I'm worried that I'm essentially a day late in lynching the lurker. After Mahaloth got lynched yesterday, I find it hard to believe that scummy Archangel would ALSO lurk to this degree. But the fact remains, she hasn't done anything that remotely looks like a townie move. Vote: Archangel
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Nov 30, 2011 14:11:18 GMT -5
Although I did feel the case had some merit I wasn't married to it, yes. I would prefer to NOT die this day (I believe that was part of Ed's vote reasoning too) I've seen many players vote to save themselves with out a true case. some will hang for it some will be understood. Okay, but why Paranoia? Paranoia wasn't the lynch leader at the time. Your vote on Paranoia was effectively the same as your vote on Sister Coyote now. Hrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 30, 2011 14:11:24 GMT -5
(Current vote count without strikeouts because I'm lazy)
Archangel (4): JustBeing Ginger(#47), Pollux Oil (#80), sinjin(#112), gnarlycharlie (#132)
Special Ed (2): colby11(#48), moodymitchy(#49) lightfoot (2): storyteller(#68), Sister Coyote (#72) colby11 (2): scathach(#63), PWIAG(#87) Sister Coyote (2): Archangel(#93), LightFoot (#129)
paranoia (1): sinjin(#11,#112), sachertorte (#86,#113), Special Ed(#92), lightfoot(#114,#129) Inner Stickler (1): Drainbead(#59) sachertorte (1): paranoia(#97) PWIAG(1): Inner Stickler(#109)
Caerie (0): paranoia(#16,#97)
Not voting: BillMc, deni, Caerie, sachertorte
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Nov 30, 2011 14:12:08 GMT -5
except add one to archangel and take sacher off the not voting list DAMN YOU.
|
|
|
Post by moodymitchy on Nov 30, 2011 14:19:36 GMT -5
I've got back a bit too late to read what's gone on properly since this morning so I will leave my vote where it is, as I'm still a suspicious of Mr Special Ed's new way of playing and he didn't help himself to my mind by when he says himself that his role isn't too terribly TOWN at this point...
Not quite sure what he means by this.
Archangel has been very quite yes ... and much of her Day 1 content was made up of questions to the Mod if my memory serves me right.
Also , not in his defence but just my observation, Paulwhisaghost has contributed more since he has caught up than Mr Special Ed has during the whole game.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Nov 30, 2011 14:21:43 GMT -5
And now I have someone else's strong arguments against voting for a bandwagon. This isn't the kind of behavior I consider a Scum tell, but I know for me I'd rather leave an honest vote than follow a bandwagon unless someone I'm pretty sure is Town is about to be lynched. I don't think there are hard rules for this, nor should there be. In my view, we've had a somewhat unusual two days. On Day One, our competing bandwagons we all stalling at 2-3 votes until the last few hours of the day when one took off ALONE. Normally I would side with storyteller in that everyone should chime in on the lynch, but in THIS case, the lynch of Mahaloth was assured. In other words there were no competing bandwagons such that putting your vote on one would be important data. Short version: Competing bandwagons -- should vote for a viable wagon to get position on record for the actual lynch. Runaway Single Wagon -- vote for who you think is scum.
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Nov 30, 2011 14:27:59 GMT -5
Although I did feel the case had some merit I wasn't married to it, yes. I would prefer to NOT die this day (I believe that was part of Ed's vote reasoning too) I've seen many players vote to save themselves with out a true case. some will hang for it some will be understood. Okay, but why Paranoia? Paranoia wasn't the lynch leader at the time. Your vote on Paranoia was effectively the same as your vote on Sister Coyote now. Hrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. If you re-read my posts I've admitted I had the vote count wrong Hrrmm yourself. I decided to place my vote where I had made some sort of a case for the record ( my current vote)
|
|
|
Post by LightFoot on Nov 30, 2011 14:32:12 GMT -5
@ SisC thanks for the clarification.
I was vague with the "understood" comment. typing brief replies can leave alot behind. There is a better word for what I meant but it escapes me at the moment
|
|
|
Post by Deni on Nov 30, 2011 14:39:28 GMT -5
Sorry all - life just threw me so much upheaval this past few weeks that I can't concentrate on anything very well. I have requested a sub. :-(
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Nov 30, 2011 15:08:41 GMT -5
Day is over
|
|