|
Post by auntbeast on Jun 6, 2007 0:38:21 GMT -5
Sorry, that probably came out harsher than I intended it. My comments were not intended to be personal, nor do I think that we should sit here mute and wait for the pirates to do all the talking. I understand that this is how the game is played, but so far, maybe I'm naive, but we are missing some crucial information here. We are not ferretting out pirates. So perhaps there is something we should be doing, reading, analyzing, whatevering better than what we have done over the last two Days.
Maybe it is common in this game to have had so many misses and declarations already, but to me, it seems like we are barking up the wrong tree and we need to figure out what we are doing wrong. We haven't seemed to do much right yet. Maybe it is because we haven't found a pirate, maybe it is because it is too early in the game, I have no idea, but the answers have to be here somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jun 6, 2007 6:21:53 GMT -5
Since we know that MHaye is Crew and presuming that FlyingCow is as well, I'm trying to see what we can learn about HockeyMonkey's scumminess. Like tactical votes to protect him or hinder one of the others. Nothing really stands out to me on first look-through. Maybe someone else can find an incriminating vote or two. EXCUSE me? hockey voted, so far, for both people who have been lynched (and were town) thus far. She was also very quick to hop on the Mhaye train before she had a full train against her (she had two at the time, although I did credit this to saving her own neck). Thing is, she quickly changed to someone else near the end and while she explained this already, I dunno. It would have come out to be the same anyway with just sticking with Mhaye. Pleonast is also pinging me now. Mostly just feelings but also apparently posting with his eyes shut (see my reply to his quote above). : p I think you're misunderstanding my statement. I'm looking to judge HockeyMonkey's scumminess based on how others have voted. Potentially, trying to find someone who was apparently voting to protect HK by tactically voting for or against the other two, who we now know are Crew. Because someone doing so would have to have Pirate knowledge that HK was a Pirate. Does that make sense? However, I didn't see evidence of that kind of voting. The Day 2 voting seems to me more consistent with Crew flailing about. But I wanted to mention my line of thought in case someone else could think along it as well. I'll be out of touch for the rest of the calendar day today, so I'll put in my vote for now: ++Vote Auntbeast++Based on my reasons stated on Day 2: 1> seems fixated on staying alive (Crew don't need to stay alive), 2> was very reluctant to detail suspicions (scum have all the info they need, and so don't need give details), and 3> seems to think that positive/supportive posts are a Crew trait and that negative/accusatory posts are a scum trait (it's the opposite. Scum need to ingratiate themselves to stay alive. Crew need to ferret out scum, a necessarily aggressive play.) I'm suspcious of zuma and Tirial, but I'm not voting for them yet. Zuma, because it has the feel of scum jumping on an Officer's suspicion. Tirial, because zuma started it (and citing me while doing ). I may switch to one of them later, but I think Auntbeast needs more attention, at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Malacandra on Jun 6, 2007 6:22:36 GMT -5
So with about 32 1/2 hours to go, it's standing at:
zuma 5 (Mad The Swine, auntbeast, Lakai, Hal Briston, Idle Thoughts) hockeymonkey 2 (autolycus, FlyingCowOfDoom) tirial 2 (zuma, NAF1138) auntbeast 1 (Pleonast) panamajack 1 (hockeymonkey)
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jun 6, 2007 7:22:17 GMT -5
I'm a bit bothered that Auntbeast's only post for the Entire Day was to swoop in and drop an unexplained vote. FOS on Auntbeast for making an unexplained vote her only post so far. Yeah, except for the fact I explained it. I had not really read anything to change my mind from the person I had voted for on the previous day whom I specified was NAF and was intending to vote for NAF again, but in light of storyteller being town and taking his posts into account with a bit more credibility than he had before..I changed my vote. Call it swooping, call it whatever you want, but understand that posting JUST to post so people won't give you shit about posting is rather lame and one aspect of this game that bothers me. I'm a pretty verbose person in general, but I'd rather post when I have something to say. To be honest, I wasn't particularly thrilled about posting earlier because I felt like I didn't have enough to say, to say anything, but that I had better do it, otherwise a shit storm would start. I know it makes people comfortable to analyze every letter typed. The more we type, the more you can analyze. The down side is we have 18 pages of people covering their asses. It gets harder to separate the wheat from the chaff and we end up getting 3 crew members killed and not one damned pirate. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. *shrug* What I meant by unexplained, was that you didn't provide any analysis for your vote of your own. You based it on storyteller's post about zuma, based on knowing now that he was crew and it gives us more information. Well, no, it doesn't. The only information it gives us is that storyteller knew his own alliance and no one elses. There is quite alot to comment on now, and I find it hard to believe that anyone in this game doesn't have anything to say about something.And I just want to point out that the pirates/night roles have killed 3 crew. To this point 5 of us have died. Was it a slip of a pirate tounge to say that "It gets harder to separate the wheat from the chaff and we end up getting 3 crew members killed and not one damned pirate."? It's enough to make me unvote panamajack and vote Auntbeast. (I reserve the right to change this vote again if I wanna.)
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Jun 6, 2007 10:08:31 GMT -5
To respond to HM's question about people being quiet Today:
For me at least I have been trying to wrap my head around the last two days. I can't make it happen. AZ's claim, and I do think it is believable since there is no counter claim, as well as Kyrie's death have thrown me. So I have been spending most of my time reading and putting together theories, then testing them, then finding that they don't make sense. It's frustrating.
I don't know if I am on board with the Zuma lynch, mostly because it has built so very quickly. I know that isn't a great reason to mistrust it, but none of our other lynchees have had a wagon built against them so very fast.
AuntBeast troubles me. I still like my tirial vote better, but the more she posts the less she seems like a newb playing badly/strangely and the more she seems like scum.
Back to think about things, hopefully I will have a major revelation before we hit the 12 hour mark. At least that would make ME feel better.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Jun 6, 2007 10:24:26 GMT -5
Well, I've read through everything, and although the case for lynching zuma is fairly convincing, I'm not comfortable voting for him at this time. I will leave my vote where it is. In my opinion, I have a fairly solid basis for my suspicion of hockeymonkey, and I have to vote based upon my greatest suspicion. Auntbeast, tirial, and Hal Briston also look suspicious to me, but not enough for me to change my vote right now. And NAF, I can assure you that AZTeach's claim is true --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by auntbeast on Jun 6, 2007 10:34:35 GMT -5
and my point is proven.
Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by Mad The Swine on Jun 6, 2007 10:53:52 GMT -5
Well, I've read through everything, and although the case for lynching zuma is fairly convincing, I'm not comfortable voting for him at this time. I will leave my vote where it is. In my opinion, I have a fairly solid basis for my suspicion of hockeymonkey, and I have to vote based upon my greatest suspicion. Auntbeast, tirial, and Hal Briston also look suspicious to me, but not enough for me to change my vote right now. And NAF, I can assure you that AZTeach's claim is true --FCOD I agree that Hal Briston looks suspicious along with Auntbeast ,of course,but other than the post zuma pointed out by Hal,I can't add anything else.I would like to hear more from him , since his predecesor didn't say much.
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Parzival on Jun 6, 2007 11:00:48 GMT -5
I think that we should be starting to have enough information on actual crew to yield some answers (at this point we have 7 confirmed crew if you count the Officers). I plan on looking back through the Days with this hindsight, trying to make sense of what happened and what the Pirates might be doing.
If nothing comes of this, I think one of the biggest scum tells will end up being inconsistent behavior. It seems to me that if we say things like, "the Pirates will do X", then the Pirates will tend to not do X, unless it endangers a Pirate. They have a fair amount of leeway since they can cherry-pick who they accuse or support. If we ever happen to pick out a pirate, we can hope to pick up some changes in behavior.
For now, I'm suspecting everyone except the two Officers and the dead. I hope I can get something to vote on before the time gets short.
|
|
|
Post by diggitcamara on Jun 6, 2007 11:53:43 GMT -5
Now, why oh why, does defending someone have to be a scumtell? What if a crewmember thinks that someone else is a crewmember and doesn't want a crewmember to be strung up? There are several people I've stated I suspect are crew when they've been attacked for whatever reason. (snip) The reason it is seen as a scumtell is simple, actually: crewmembers don't know anyone is crew but themselves. Pirates can use good feelings, ideas you have brought up, etc. etc. to cozy up to you and that should be avoided at all times. Even if you think a crewmember is going to be lynched, you should not defend them on the basis of information you do not have; at best point you can point towards previous actions that have convinced you of their status (votes, vote changes, posts).
|
|
|
Post by diggitcamara on Jun 6, 2007 12:01:31 GMT -5
And, on the subject of false claims: a simple "false claim" might be conceivable (for desperate pirates), but it has many pitfalls: night kills that reveal who really holds the title, counterclaims that at worst would be a one for one trade (which in most cases benefit crew, since they still outnumber the pirates), etc.
A double claim like this case, however, would be rather bad strategy. It would be, at worst, a 2 for 1 exchange (in favor of crew). And a really bad deal for pirates.
|
|
|
Post by capybara on Jun 6, 2007 12:41:59 GMT -5
Even if you think a crewmember is going to be lynched, you should not defend them on the basis of information you do not have; at best point you can point towards previous actions that have convinced you of their status (votes, vote changes, posts). Ok, that makes sense, when it's nuanced like that. The problem is that I give the benefit of the doubt to a couple of people because they haven't given me any reason to suspect that they're pirates-- I guess it's the problem of providing evidence for a negative (aaaaand on the very verge of an atheist rant. Wrong board!). I just don't like to see people I don't suspect get strung up, but I suppose what's happening is exactly what we knew would happen from day one-- innocents getting strung up because we have little info. So I'm. . . peeved at some of the low posters, especially those who come on in with very short announcements. They haven't done anything suspicious, but that makes me suspicious, because it's from lack of info, rather than positive evidence to the contrary. The exceedingly low post count people are probably ok because it's on the radar, which a pirate would avoid. It's the people in the low middle right now (with exceptions of latecomers) who I'd like to hear more from in order to get a feel, but I fear that pretty soon I'm just going to start votin', because they're denying me that option which I'll take as default admission-- 'taking the fifth' looks sketchy. This aint' the legal system, and I'll assume that the quiet have something to hide.
|
|
|
Post by diggitcamara on Jun 6, 2007 12:52:33 GMT -5
The problem is that I give the benefit of the doubt to a couple of people because they haven't given me any reason to suspect that they're pirates-- (snip) So I'm. . . peeved at some of the low posters, especially those who come on in with very short announcements. They haven't done anything suspicious, but that makes me suspicious, because it's from lack of info, rather than positive evidence to the contrary. The exceedingly low post count people are probably ok because it's on the radar, which a pirate would avoid. (snip) Never-EVER assume innocence in this game. If someone gives you "good vibes" or "bad vibes" look at their participation as objectively as you can and judge them on that basis. (and on the second part. OK. I'll go stand in the corner with my duncecap)
|
|
|
Post by capybara on Jun 6, 2007 12:58:04 GMT -5
Well, You've at least posted some useful bits and some analysis (low volume highish content, IMO-- your input's at least been useful to me) but there are others who've done nothing but vote with vague statements and pop in momentarily without a lot of input.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Jun 6, 2007 13:17:50 GMT -5
You're right capy, its the medium range posters we have to watch out for. I just can't seem to figure out who is actually flying under the radar at this point. We seem to have talked about everyone.
I do have a little list of people who do not currently have a vote:
ArizonaTeach Blaster Master Capybara cowgirl Gadarene panamajack Tirial
Some of these people really stick out to me, because they post a lot, but haven't really committed to anything.
Of course this alone can't be used to find scum, but if one of these folks has a couple of other scum tells, I will gladly change my vote.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Jun 6, 2007 13:18:30 GMT -5
And that is a list of people who have not currenly voted
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Jun 6, 2007 13:20:32 GMT -5
BAH currently, currently!
Stupid boss comming into my office making me post before I can proof read.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jun 6, 2007 13:32:43 GMT -5
You're right capy, its the medium range posters we have to watch out for. I just can't seem to figure out who is actually flying under the radar at this point. We seem to have talked about everyone. I do have a little list of people who do not currently have a vote: ArizonaTeach Blaster Master Capybara cowgirl Gadarene panamajack Tirial Some of these people really stick out to me, because they post a lot, but haven't really committed to anything. Of course this alone can't be used to find scum, but if one of these folks has a couple of other scum tells, I will gladly change my vote. Cowgirl does not have a vote because she hasn't posted at all toDay. Wondering if Malacandra can poke her with a stick and see what's up.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Jun 6, 2007 13:36:19 GMT -5
BAH currently, currently! Stupid boss comming into my office making me post before I can proof read.You meant, of course, "coming". Right? ;D --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jun 6, 2007 13:36:43 GMT -5
Idle Thought's only post for the Day was a joke. Sorry. I think it's a couple things. First, that nobody thought the next Day would start so fast. I mean last time Night lasted, what, two or three normal days? And in both Days before, I've noticed a slow start but a pick up in posting speed as time went on. I think today we'll see a change in posting traffic and a lot more and a WHOLE lot before Day ends tomorrow. I've been here off and on after my joke post and before my long one on the last page, but I tend to remember things to say later rather then post and post and post over and over and over. After that post of mine, however, I'll be a lot more active now that I've "gotten into the groove" of this new Day. : p Meanwhile, one of the scummiest posts I've seen today is Hal attempting to add fuelt to the fire by claiming that only a pirate would know that AZ and FCOD are "obviously" town. Are you even paying attention, Hal? Similarly, Idle. You're not seriously suggesting at this point that you do not know what to make of AZ and FCOD's claims and suggesting that they may actually be scum? You don't honestly think the "real" people in those roles would be dumb enough to remain quiet, do you? FOS: Hal BristonFOS: Idle ThoughtsEh? Did you not read what else I put in that post? I did say that if they were not really what they say they are, then I'd expect the real roles to express some misgivings about trusting them. So far I have not seen anyone do this at all, save for you, just right now. You seem to be saying in this quote exactly that as well, only making it seem like I didn't point out that fact. So....what is this about? You "FOS" me for mostly agreeing with what you're saying yourself (in that post)? The people who are flying low under the radar need to be pulled out and examined. Snipped. True. I also don't know many who are flying under the radar save for Auto and everyone keeps blowing him off with "Ohh hehe, that's just how he is. Oh that crazy Auto!." Seriously, I hope he starts to post a lot more because he could be scum all this time and nobody would suspect him because that's just how he always acts. Not saying he is. Just saying it's really hard to get a read on him when he's still not posting much, and the posts he does make usually uses the oppurtunity to use pirate-speak. [game off]I came across a little harsh in my last post... I apologize for that. It's all in good fun and it's a little easy to get frustrated and overheated while posting. [game on] I don't think you did. *shrugs* This game does have high emotion, yes...but as long as you always view it as you did now, you're fine. ;D I think you're misunderstanding my statement. I'm looking to judge HockeyMonkey's scumminess based on how others have voted. Potentially, trying to find someone who was apparently voting to protect HK by tactically voting for or against the other two, who we now know are Crew. Because someone doing so would have to have Pirate knowledge that HK was a Pirate. Does that make sense? Well, it does, but I think it's a bit of a stretch and also narrow thinking to assume that second to last sentence. I feel that she may be a pirate too but I know that I'm not one myself. Seems to me someone could have suspicions of someone being free and clear of scumminess too. I don't know, I saw a possible three way tie. Out of those I'd think there's a good chance of one being scum. As of now we know: One was crew. And one MAY be a mason. The only one we don't know is hockey. Now I'm not saying pile on and string her up right now. I'm just saying I think that is (combined with other things I've noticed from Day one) reason enough to have higher suspicions of someone. *shrug* I just thought it'd be a bit more apparent to someone and it just seemed/s like you are/were wondering about what's so shady about her.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Jun 6, 2007 13:40:42 GMT -5
BAH currently, currently! Stupid boss comming into my office making me post before I can proof read.You meant, of course, "coming". Right? ;D --FCOD I hate me
|
|
|
Post by Gadarene on Jun 6, 2007 13:53:07 GMT -5
NAF:Assuming that I'm one of the people to whom you're so diplomatically referring , I'm not going to post until I've gone over the past days to my own satisfaction. I'm not happy about real life intruding so far this week, but it's been unavoidable. I hope to return to my usual level of posting as soon as practicable, and I certainly intend to participate and vote before the end of the Day.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Jun 6, 2007 14:01:05 GMT -5
I hope to return to my usual level of posting as soon as practicable, and I certainly intend to participate and vote before the end of the Day. Hey, life happens, this is just a piece of the puzzle and not an accusation of anyone. But just so you remember, the day ends in about 25 hours. If you are going to participate it is kinda now or never at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Jun 6, 2007 14:22:53 GMT -5
Meanwhile, one of the scummiest posts I've seen today is Hal attempting to add fuelt to the fire by claiming that only a pirate would know that AZ and FCOD are "obviously" town. Are you even paying attention, Hal? Apparently not. Well, for the most part, yes...just apparently not at the critical moment. I unvoted yesterday because I had only skimmed the threads after subbing in -- I felt it wasn't really fair for me to vote when I hadn't been able to fully delve into the conversation. I figured I'd just pick things up fresh on Day 3. Two pages after that, we get the role claims that I simply never noticed (a hazard of the "separate thread for each Day" setup we're using here). Granted, I had noticed AZ mentioning about being the Captain in toDay's thread, and certainly wondered where that came from, but figured if there was a role-claim I missed, it was just that -- an unverified role-claim, which would have left your statement still very suspicious. Obviously I've since found the role-claim post in question, and because of this I'll happily unvote zuma, hyperbole notwithstanding. (Damnit! That was such a good scum tell too...pesky things, those facts are...)
|
|
|
Post by ArizonaTeach on Jun 6, 2007 14:30:03 GMT -5
[game off]I came across a little harsh in my last post... I apologize for that. It's all in good fun and it's a little easy to get frustrated and overheated while posting. [game on] I'll address this first, because, yeah, I totally agree! IF you are crew, I can totally sympathize with someone making what you feel is a totally ridiculous and random accusation against you . However, IF you are scum, suck it up and take it like a man!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Gadarene on Jun 6, 2007 14:37:51 GMT -5
NAF:Point well taken. I'm planning to do nothing tonight but laundry and this.
|
|
|
Post by ArizonaTeach on Jun 6, 2007 14:56:30 GMT -5
Jesus, AZ, your theories get loonier and loonier. Ok, you don't get to do that! If you want to address what I said, or rebut what I said, or defend yourself against what I said, that's fine. But you don't get to ignore it. And you don't get to call theories loony because they are about you! By my estimation, there's about 1/3 chance you're a pirate and 1/6 chance you're pirate aligned non-pirate. What the hell is so loony about what I say? That I might be right? Untrue. storyteller withdrew his vote for you to think about it some more and because he felt more suspicious of FCOD. Not to mention that even you acknowledged that your reasons for mistrusting auto were inconsistent. storyteller's analysis is perfectly reasonable and still stands and you seem to be desperate to ignore it. You also said the reason you voted for me was because you felt you had to leap off somewhere based on a vibe. Keep this in mind, because it will come back later. There is much about storyteller's accusations you ignore, such as why focus on me when other people started the same topics you claim to have voted for me for and spent more time on them. This is why I can't let this go. This is either an outright lie or shows a stunning misunderstanding of your own thought processes. Day One - you vote for me because you think I'm against aggresive players. Once it's pointed out that it was KatiRoo you were thinking of, you switch your vote. Again, the only deciding factor seems to be the fact you think I'm against aggressive players. Your other reasons are ignored, but, for the record, they were the fact I didn't like Random votes, and I thought that capybara was suspicious for asking what pirates would do. I'm not sure what the bad advice is there, especially since several other players said the same things. Day Two - you vote for me because I'm wondering who killed whom. As storyteller pointed out, not only am I the first person to bring this up, I'm not the person devoting the most time to it. You also, as I have said, claimed you voted for me on Day One because you had to start somewhere. Regardless, what is the bad advice I'm supposedly giving? I'll point out that both times you pretty much decline to answer my rebuttal of our accusations or respond to any of my accusations of your inconsistency. Day Three - you rebuke me for "aggresive bickering." Specifically, diggitcamera asked me a question, I responded, he gave what I thought was an odd response, and I noted that. And you felt the need to comment on that...why? Two Days ago you voted for me because you thought I was against aggresive playing, and on Day Three you yell at me because you think I'm aggresive? And what's the bad advice you say I keep giving? Is it because I'm pointing out that you're acting crazy-suspicious? I've refrained from voting and asked for discussion and you respond with this? Not to mention that several other players have noted your odd posting and inconsistencies, including Mad, capy (and she's your biggest defender!) and storyteller. You refuse to defend yourself against these accusations of inconsistency. Or to keep capy alive. And yet, you voted for me even though I am a vocal player. And yet, you are not a vocal player this game. So you see why it's not plain and simple. You keep changing the rules. And you won't answer my questionsI'm not the one who changed his story so many times. If you'd just knock of the inconsistencies, I'd feel comfortable. But with one day to go, it's time to commit, and since you refuse to explain your inconsistencies, and I think my theory is as reasonable as anything else, and all the reasons that have been repeated ad infinitum that you have ignored, vote zuma.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jun 6, 2007 15:08:44 GMT -5
True. I also don't know many who are flying under the radar save for Auto and everyone keeps blowing him off with "Ohh hehe, that's just how he is. Oh that crazy Auto!." Seriously, I hope he starts to post a lot more because he could be scum all this time and nobody would suspect him because that's just how he always acts. Not saying he is. Just saying it's really hard to get a read on him when he's still not posting much, and the posts he does make usually uses the oppurtunity to use pirate-speak. Since I brought it up, I'll tell you who I think is flying low under the radar for me. This is purely subjective. It comes down to the people who haven't garned much attention, or had a turn under the microscope. Auntbeast Autolycus - just because he's a nut doesn't give him a free pass Blaster Master - but only really for toDay's absense tirial - is getting some suspicion from a few others but hasn't really raised my hackles yet, so on the list he goes. cowgirl - really guys, is anyone else worried or is it just me? DiggitCamara Lakai MadTheSwine panamajack Pleonast I'm not saying that these people are the bad guys or that anyone not on this list with the exception of myself is a good guy. These are the people who have caught my eye because they haven't caught my eye. Auntbeast is on the list because I'm voting for her and I'd like for others to take a look at her too.
|
|
|
Post by ArizonaTeach on Jun 6, 2007 15:15:21 GMT -5
Let me just add, please don't bandwagon zuma because I'm an officer and you feel you can trust me. I went along with far too many mason decisions in M2 that were wrong because I figured, hell if the mason says it...
I don't blame the masons at all; I'm a big boy, but I know for a fact that feeling is there.
Look at what I've posted, the arguments I've made, and zuma's defense and actions. If a bunch of people tell me I'm flat out wrong and give reasons, that's one thing. If a bunch of people tell me, "Gee, I don't know...zuma just feels crew," I ain't listening. But also, if anyone just says, "What the hell, vote zuma" I'll be most cross.
Make sense? We can't let this go down to the wire like the other two days; that's why I'm doing this 24 hours before deadline. Right now zuma has five votes, and several people looking at him closely. We need to talk it out here.
That said, I'm also suspicious of Hal Briston, for reasons I'll explain closer to the end of the day, but I want to mention it now in case something happens and the Day ends abruptly, as I'll be at the school tomorrow.
And where the hell are all the other players?!?
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Parzival on Jun 6, 2007 15:35:09 GMT -5
My analysis of each player is more effort than I thought, but I hope to pick out at least a few candidates. I want to go down the whole list because when it was revealed that storyteller0910 was Godfather in M2, I was blown away (even if I wasn't as invested in that game). I'm expecting the Pirates to be in the unlikeliest of places.
One of the first names happened to be zuma, so I'll share my thoughts. One thing that I've noticed is that IF zuma turns out to be pirate, it's highly unlikely that capybara is too. His defense, including openly advising to capybara to keep it down, is just too risky a pirate move so early in the came (again, if both are pirates). To some extent this undermines some of the reasoning for voting for him (IMO), but we are not going to play the "of these two, one must be a pirate, right?" game with that.
Something else — Kyrie Eleison was defending zuma yesterday - and drawing suspicion for it. zuma-pirate could have more easily pushed him into a lynch (IMO) than night kill (not that the pirates necessarily did in Kyrie). Zuma's question this morning did strike me as a little odd (since he failed to forward any theory of his own).
|
|