Day One

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Meeko, where you apparently see fire I don't even see smoke. That isn't the same thing as trusting everything that Guiri says as gospel.

But dismissing everything he says in the entire game as scummy lies, I believe, is statistically unlikely to be a good strategy.

If you really think you have spotted a scum in their first post, then you can run with that ball as far as you feel like running with it. But I am going to let that koolaid age a bit. In the fullness of time maybe things will change and I'll be more inclined to sip.

I believe I may be voting for Dizzy based on her first post of the game too, but I am certainly not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is scum and I am not assuming that everything she says is a scummy lie. That is just one possible layer of the onion.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Whoops. This proboards app keeps dumping me back into the composition screen and I can't tell when the post actually posts. Grr.

[Suburban Plankton]

Jul 3, 2013 9:47:31 GMT -5 Meeko said:

Jul 2, 2013 14:48:25 GMT -5 Suburban Plankton said:

You know what...you're right. You didn't say that. I was recalling the post that you quoted here, and didn't take the time to check back to make sure I remembered it correctly (which I didn't).

I thought you had said that multi-voting was anti-town, but not pro-scum. What you actually said was that multi-voting was anti-town, but that "anti town and pro scum are not necessarily the same thing".

So you stopped short of actually saying that multi-voting was not pro-scum, you merely implied that it was not pro-scum, without making a definitive statement one way or the other.

A smudge is a smudge is a smudge.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I wasn't smudging you. If I had made those comments but not voted for you, then I could see where you could define that as a "smudge". But I did vote for you, which makes that an "accusation".

[Pleonast]

I'm not having much time at the moment, but here's where I'm at. In order of decreasing suspicion:
1. Paranoia, for their double-"honest" post, which feels like a scum tell to me.
2. Suburban Plankton, for their weak vote on another player who'd already collected weak votes. This feels like scum trying to build momentum in a bad direction.
3. gnarlycharlie, for their characterization of guiri's multi-vote as inattentive. This seems like an suspiciously poor vote.

I'd vote for all of them if I could, although gnarly is on the border. My preference is for Paranoia, but I'll switch to any of them if it'll get them lynched.
unvote
vote Paranoia

Other thoughts, Meeko started out pro-town, but is falling into their typical fixation-on-one-player. No clue as to alignment. Cookies and Pizzaguy think too similar to me for me to get a good read on them (not that I often agree with them). Lizzy's logic is bizarre--like they're out-thinking their own risk aversion.

Oh, yeah, one more thing...

Jul 3, 2013 10:34:30 GMT -5 dizzymrslizzy said:

In the LAST game we played together, I think Pleo's Angel/Devil game, you barely said a word. THAT's all I was commenting on. Beginning and end. And you said you were purposefully being quiet, not because you were away or whatever you are claiming now.

Meeko wasn't in that game, which is just as well because they'd been crushed by the potatoes.

[Suburban Plankton]

Jul 2, 2013 16:34:49 GMT -5 Paranoia said:

Hey Suburban Plankton. Stop arguing with meeko for a second, Opinions on people would be lovely. You know, suspicions and the like.

But arguing with Meeko is FUN!





You want opinions and suspicions? Sure, I can give you some of those. There's been enough time gone by that I can make some quick judgments based upon absolutely zero evidence at all.

I think Askthepizzaguy is being uncharacteristically quiet. I realize he's competing with Meeko for "Most Prolific Poster", but he's fallen far behind, and that's not like him. And maybe I'm just getting used to him, but he seems to be far less 'confrontational' this time around than is the norm.

gnarlycharlie has only one post so far, and he used it to make a fairly crappy pile-on vote on guiri. I'd like to see something a bit more substantial from him before the end of the Day, especially since it's currently his vote that's keeping guiri in the lead.

Paranoia has 3 posts, and has placed votes on 2 of them. He's told us that he subscribes to the "vote early, vote often" school of gameplay, so I guess he should get props for practicing what he preaches, but to me it comes off like he's just looking for a place to fling a vote where it will stick. More troubling than that, though, is the fact that in his first post he told us how he would be voting for gnarly if he had more than one vote, but when he later changes his vote it's not to vote for gnarly (who by this time was tied for the lead with 3 votes) but for Jaade instead...with no mention of why he no longer found gnarly suspicious.

I'm a bit put off by Pleonast. First, he did not claim right out of the gate. While I think it's been well established that's a null-tell, it's absence still is 'off-putting'. He's also spent as much time talking about the rules as he has talking about the game. But I get the feeling he's doing that just to try to get a reaction out of people...and it certainly worked on me...


Unvote: Meeko

I still think his vote on guiri was unsupported by his own statements, but over all I'm not getting a strong Scum vibe from him at this point

I'm tempted to put my vote on Paranoia here...but integral to my argument for him being Scum is the fact that he avoided voting for gnarly to put him into the vote lead. That implies that gnarly is also Scum...which suggests to me that perhaps I should just vote for gnarly in order to give us a clear vote leader...

Vote: Paranoia

If I'm correct, then it really makes no difference which order we lynch them in. And if I'm incorrect, it still doesn't make much difference. Overall I'm getting a stronger vibe from Paranoia. From gnarly I'm mostly just getting an "AWOL" vibe, and I prefer not to lynch on that basis.

[Silver Jan]

I am a bit put off by Pleo not claiming yet but how much time do I spend thinking about it? I have seen him claim Town when his is either Town or Scum, not going to think about it too much yet but is still going to be at the back of my mind.

Why the votes on Paranoia for saying honest twice in one post? I was voted for something similar once and....oh yes, I was scum. I will be watching him and I could change my vote but at the moment Dizzy still looks scummy to me.

[Paranoia]

And as Little Jack Horner
sits in his corner
eating his whatever and whatever pies

Votes piled on
because holy hell honest twice at the end of a post is so suspicious that we can safely ignore everything else that's happened today.

[Paranoia]

Also nice hop there SP. Vote the person calling you out on your shit after people make it viable for literally pointless reasons.

I shouldn't have done it because you people never honestly seem able to tell what the hell is a joke and what isn't. (HELLO MEEKO HOPING STRAIGHT ON GUIRI TO TUNNEL AND DO NOTHING ELSE.) If I'm supposed to be a humorless robot and just tear into people I damn well will do so, but neither you or I will like it. Hell Let's Start Now.

[Paranoia]

Jul 3, 2013 15:03:17 GMT -5 Suburban Plankton said:

Jul 2, 2013 16:34:49 GMT -5 Paranoia said:

Hey Suburban Plankton. Stop arguing with meeko for a second, Opinions on people would be lovely. You know, suspicions and the like.

But arguing with Meeko is FUN!





You want opinions and suspicions? Sure, I can give you some of those. There's been enough time gone by that I can make some quick judgments based upon absolutely zero evidence at all.

I think Askthepizzaguy is being uncharacteristically quiet. I realize he's competing with Meeko for "Most Prolific Poster", but he's fallen far behind, and that's not like him. And maybe I'm just getting used to him, but he seems to be far less 'confrontational' this time around than is the norm.

gnarlycharlie has only one post so far, and he used it to make a fairly crappy pile-on vote on guiri. I'd like to see something a bit more substantial from him before the end of the Day, especially since it's currently his vote that's keeping guiri in the lead.

Paranoia has 3 posts, and has placed votes on 2 of them. He's told us that he subscribes to the "vote early, vote often" school of gameplay, so I guess he should get props for practicing what he preaches, but to me it comes off like he's just looking for a place to fling a vote where it will stick. More troubling than that, though, is the fact that in his first post he told us how he would be voting for gnarly if he had more than one vote, but when he later changes his vote it's not to vote for gnarly (who by this time was tied for the lead with 3 votes) but for Jaade instead...with no mention of why he no longer found gnarly suspicious.

I'm a bit put off by Pleonast. First, he did not claim right out of the gate. While I think it's been well established that's a null-tell, it's absence still is 'off-putting'. He's also spent as much time talking about the rules as he has talking about the game. But I get the feeling he's doing that just to try to get a reaction out of people...and it certainly worked on me...


Unvote: Meeko

I still think his vote on guiri was unsupported by his own statements, but over all I'm not getting a strong Scum vibe from him at this point

I'm tempted to put my vote on Paranoia here...but integral to my argument for him being Scum is the fact that he avoided voting for gnarly to put him into the vote lead. That implies that gnarly is also Scum...which suggests to me that perhaps I should just vote for gnarly in order to give us a clear vote leader...

Vote: Paranoia

If I'm correct, then it really makes no difference which order we lynch them in. And if I'm incorrect, it still doesn't make much difference. Overall I'm getting a stronger vibe from Paranoia. From gnarly I'm mostly just getting an "AWOL" vibe, and I prefer not to lynch on that basis.

Proooobably because I forgot Gnarly existed? It's kind of hard to remember who someone is and what they've done if they're not

you know

doing anything.

And there is a smidge and you know it: I said I would vote gnarly as well if I had more than one vote. As in my second most suspicious person. The way you word this post makes it sound like I said I'd vote him if there were more votes on him.

oh and, someone who is active versus someone who isn't - if you think they are scum together for the reasons lined above, why would you vote for the active player before the inactive? Like, where is the logic there?

[Meeko]

Jul 3, 2013 22:27:55 GMT -5 Paranoia said:

And as Little Jack Horner
sits in his corner
eating his whatever and whatever pies

Votes piled on
because holy hell honest twice at the end of a post is so suspicious that we can safely ignore everything else that's happened today.

Can't tell if he is imitating Peeker...





or Meeko.



/Futurama fry

[CatInASuit]

Day 1 Vote Count:

guiri (3): colby (#2-#2), dizzymrslizzy (#19), meeko (#26), Suburban Plankton (#36-#46), gnarlycharlie (#38)
gnarlycharlie (3): AskThePizzaGuy (#49), colby11 (#61), patricia (#82)
dizzymrslizzy(3): texcat (#5-#16), silverjan (#91), guiri (#97), DarkCookies (#101)
paranoia (3): texcat (#86), pleonast (#123), Suburban Plankton (#124)

colby (2): Jaade (#79), Mahaloth (#93)

jaade (1): texcat (#16-#40), paranoia (#100)

Suburban Plankton (0): guiri (#1-#97), Pleonast (#39-#123), paranoia (#74-#100)
Meeko (0): Suburban Plankton (#46-#124)

Not Voted: BillMc

With these votes, as of post 129, guiri will be lynched

Day ends in approx 35 hours.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am here, but there was a page where it was just Meeko and myself talking, and that allows scums to hide.

You seriously needed a break from my filibustering.

I have been reading along, however. I bet you any money I'll have much more to say once something happens.

[Askthepizzaguy]

@ Plankton, the above post.

I am on record as finding the guiri lynch to be nonsensical and just plain bad.

I am not immovable with my vote for gnarly, but he's a tricksy bugger who likes to hang back and survive a long time without much in the way of suspicions on himself, because as a person who posts rarely, he doesn't give you much to criticize or analyze. So, I'm favoring a lynch of him when I can get one, because he will duck your attention otherwise.

I don't know where I sit with the dizzy lynch- haven't been paying much attention to her, so can't say either way. I will suggest if she's scum, we might be able to catch her just by observing her.

I don't know Paranoia well enough to form an opinion, and I'd opt to wait and see more before making a judgment.

I would also like to see Jaade in action, just for my own learning about her process. But all of these reasons are meta, so please feel free to dismiss them.

[gnarlycharlie]

posting as i catch up.

Jul 1, 2013 10:29:34 GMT -5 Pleonast said:

Jul 1, 2013 9:53:42 GMT -5 gnarlycharlie said:

i OTOH have trouble reconciling the sharp townie guiri who looks for inconsistencies and slips with the one who thought he could multi-vote.

Vote: guiri

Really? A player reads the rules and makes the astute observation that multi-votes are not explicitly disallowed and takes advantage of that knowledge of the rules and you make the above statement? That's rather contradictory and/or self-serving of you.

If I had more than one vote, you'd be the second.

why do you assume its an astute observation? why assume a multi-vote? more games have single votes than multi-votes. perhaps your preference for multi-votes is making you defend his actions.

Jul 1, 2013 13:17:24 GMT -5 Askthepizzaguy said:

After some careful consideration, I'm finding myself in agreement with Pleonast.

Vote: Gnarlycharlie

Opportunistic and logically dubious.

YOUR vote is opportunistic. why not Suburban who didn't even give a reason?

Jul 1, 2013 17:07:59 GMT -5 guiri said:

Board just ate my post. Briefly:
1. I can see people disliking my early baseless votes but you'll find it's something I regularly do to get the ball rolling. I don't get the hate for the multivote though
2. Jaade, if early baseless votes are also a good way to catch scum, why discourage them? If someone places an early vote and goes the whole Day without moving it or giving reasons why it's the best vote compared to all other candidates, they deserve suspicion
3. Suburban, that was opportunistic. The reasoning could be applied to any player but you voted the player with the most votes
4. Gnarly, that's funny, it was specifically my combing through the rules that led me to multivote
5. Mahaloth, neither do I
6. Pizza, this is classic Meeko, I'm even getting a slight town lean on him

why didn't you ask the mod? you're very good at asking questions whenever you play. why not this time?

Jul 1, 2013 23:22:45 GMT -5 Colby11 said:

Gnarlycharlie's post looks like a "sure, I'll vote for hIm" post.

It kinda reeks of scum to me, so that's where my vote is going for now

Vote: Gnarlycharlie

your vote is just like Pizza's. Suburban's vote is closer to "sure, I'll vote for him" than mine and yet you pick me.

Jul 2, 2013 1:23:03 GMT -5 Paranoia said:

I'm just going to ignore meeko for now for his logic will make me rant and rave for awhile. I'm not sure what the hubbub over guiri's (first. Joke.) votes, and in fact find it more likely there's scum in the group of people who followed meeko's rabid attack on him.

Who is worse, suburban plankton who backed off guiri to vote meeko for his moon logic, or gnarlycharlie who's reasoning seems to be "oh he must not have read the rules and therefore is scum"

I'd Vote: suburban plankton for now, because his initial vote and that hop feel damned weak, but as pleo has noted if I had more than one vote to throw out Gnarly would be who I vote for.

so your vote is strong? i guess Suburban and i must be lousy players. the logic of our votes are so bad it they don't even pass D1 standards. seriously, why not Meeko then? isn't his logic worse? are you just chalking it up to Meeko being Meeko?

Jul 2, 2013 9:05:50 GMT -5 patricia said:

I'm still finding very little meat to sink my teeth into for a vote on day one. However, to avoid the last minute bandwagon pile on vote(which usually leads to a townie lynch) I'm going to vote for Vote: GnarlyCharliefor now if I had a second vote it would be on Dizzymrslizzy both for piling on the bandwagon for the multi voting which I don't see as something a scum would do DAY 1 - I'm not sure that the bread crumbing is townie either but I'm letting that play out for now

not even a reason why? your worse than Pizza and Colby.

[gnarlycharlie]

NETA - crap. that should have been "you're worse than Pizza and Colby."

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am not sure how you could define my vote as opportunistic. You weren't even close to being a lynch candidate when I voted for you.

You seem to simply be lashing out at your accusers. Of particular interest to me is where you said this:

"i guess Suburban and i must be lousy players. the logic of our votes are so bad it they don't even pass D1 standards."

Given Suburban was nearly taken down as scum in the last game he was scum on day one, with no less than two of his allies needed to spare his butt, I would say that it's already been established that he can't pass the day one sniff test as scum. LOL

As for yourself, I haven't seen you get this defensive from being voted...... um. Ever.

So yeah, a bit flinchy there man. Got an explanation?

[Askthepizzaguy]

I note you're in a dead-even tie with three other candidates, but you're the only one who is hitting the panic button.

[gnarlycharlie]

i didn't need to be close to a lynch for someone to have an opportunistic vote.

also, i'm not defensive. i'm defending myself. i'm also pissed. in my responses, you will see that i'm calling out those whose logic i find flawed. why did YOU vote me and not Suburban? you haven't answered my question. i actually bothered to justify my vote. in your other boards, you don't even bother with that. what's wrong with calling out colby and patricia? like you, the former felt i was worse than Suburban and the latter didn't justify her vote.

so why isn't looking at Bill? he's posted but hasn't voted.

now, i'm not advocating lynching him. it just seems to me that you see what you want to see.

[gnarlycharlie]

you can call it panic or whatever you want, Pizza. turn the screws or try to put pressure all you want. it doesn't change what i've said.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Jul 4, 2013 7:35:24 GMT -5 gnarlycharlie said:

i didn't need to be close to a lynch for someone to have an opportunistic vote.

also, i'm not defensive. i'm defending myself. i'm also pissed. in my responses, you will see that i'm calling out those whose logic i find flawed. why did YOU vote me and not Suburban? you haven't answered my question. i actually bothered to justify my vote. in your other boards, you don't even bother with that. what's wrong with calling out colby and patricia? like you, the former felt i was worse than Suburban and the latter didn't justify her vote.

so why isn't looking at Bill? he's posted but hasn't voted.

now, i'm not advocating lynching him. it just seems to me that you see what you want to see.

Most of these questions are irrelevant.

Why did I not vote Suburban, why did I not vote Bill, are all meaningless as questions. Why didn't you vote for Bill for not voting? Just as meaningless a question.

You may ask me why I did something, asking me why I didn't do any number of things is silly. Because I felt doing something else was more betterer. I don't need to have reasons for NOT doing something. That's ass-backwards.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Also, the scumbags who die for no reason go to their grave squealing about how unjust their deaths were, because there was no case.

Proof, see the Giraffe game where vindictus and I and several others demolished that 5 person scum team with 5 consecutive lynch or loses at end of game. Because at least two of them complained about how there was no case.

They died anyway. And cases/reasons on Day One are usually pretty silly anyway. If you want to argue your way out of a lynch, give a reason why you were actually believing that you were hunting scum with your vote pattern so far.

I don't believe you were.

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's like saying why don't you believe in the fictional 7-headed pink dragon I'm imagining right now as your lord and savior. Because I'm not, that's why. I don't need to have reasons to not do things. That's like a law of thermodynamics practically.

I still can't get over how silly a thrust these questions are. Where's your head at, gnarles?

[gnarlycharlie]

so, i should just shut up because all that i say is irrelevant. but i won't. just keep going answering the questions you want to answer. where's Meeko? i'm sure we three can have a great conversation. you seem to be replying to him.

feel free to ask more questions or state how irrelevant my posts are. i'm in the mood to reply.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Jul 4, 2013 8:19:00 GMT -5 gnarlycharlie said:

so, i should just shut up because all that i say is irrelevant. but i won't. just keep going answering the questions you want to answer. where's Meeko? i'm sure we three can have a great conversation. you seem to be replying to him.

feel free to ask more questions or state how irrelevant my posts are. i'm in the mood to reply.

Well, no, I said you were asking me questions that were irrelevant in that they don't really lead anywhere. Unless you make a specific decision to refrain from doing something, the default position is not to do it, and the default position specifically means there's no thought process behind it. It's a dead-end line of questioning to ask people why they're not voting for someone. That's the default position. You vote for people, you don't list all the reasons why you're not voting everyone else. And incidentally I did give my thoughts on the top candidates and why I would/wouldnot/don't care regarding voting for them, so anything relevant to the game I've actually discussed already.

I'm replying to you as well, and challenging you to put some meat on your own arguments. What did Guiri do that made him scum, exactly? Or, revealed a scummy motivation?

Or was he simply too loud and proud with his multi-voting, and you had to kill the shiny thing? What's the reason Guiri is the top candidate for scum in your mind, still?

My main complaint with you is that you were there to push Guiri further down the path of no return, offering very little reason as to why.

Why so serious?

Why so eager to kill a man? I mean, you were there on the wagon, eagerly shoveling dirt on him. You must have been pretty sure he needed to die.

Why was that so?

[Colby11]

Jul 4, 2013 7:48:36 GMT -5 Askthepizzaguy said:

Also, the scumbags who die for no reason go to their grave squealing about how unjust their deaths were, because there was no case.

Proof, see the Giraffe game where vindictus and I and several others demolished that 5 person scum team with 5 consecutive lynch or loses at end of game. Because at least two of them complained about how there was no case.

They died anyway. And cases/reasons on Day One are usually pretty silly anyway. If you want to argue your way out of a lynch, give a reason why you were actually believing that you were hunting scum with your vote pattern so far.

I don't believe you were.

Don't remind me of that one....

[Colby11]

Gnarlycharlie, to me, is screaming don't kill me, you idiots.

Either he's scum, or a power role.

Gnarlycharlie, who should I vote for, then?

[Askthepizzaguy]

I believe it was the great 21st century philosopher and poet Zack de la Rocha who said the following-

Here is something you can't understand,
How I could just kill a man

I don't, I don't understand. How could you just kill a man? You're upset with a perceived lack of reasons for others voting for you, though I'm pretty sure I've been quite descriptive with my own reasoning. But here we are, I still have no idea why you want Guiri dead. I never found the reasons behind any of those votes to be compelling, but I found your pile-on to be the most dubious. And it still is.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Jul 4, 2013 9:12:15 GMT -5 Colby11 said:

Don't remind me of that one....

I'm just getting deja vu all over again. It's the whole reason I said something the last time, because I had seen that same pattern of behavior before, from different people on a different board in a different game with an entirely different worldview. But they still were scum annoyed with not being able to argue down their accuser's logic, because they didn't offer any.

You can't argue against the prosceutor's case if you're not allowed to see it. That drives people nuts, especially when they're already stressed out about being guilty and about to be exposed.

[guiri]

Jul 4, 2013 9:20:38 GMT -5 Askthepizzaguy said:

But here we are, I still have no idea why you want Guiri dead. I never found the reasons behind any of those votes to be compelling, but I found your pile-on to be the most dubious. And it still is.

Have I given off that much of a townie vibe? Is my lynch so clearly a bad decision? Obviously I agree that the reasons given for the votes on me are not compelling but I did ruffle some feathers, I acted like an asshole reinterpreting the rules (no offense Pleo), I gave silly reasons for my votes and I back off almost all of them pretty quickly. I was just having fun, (possibly a weird way to show it but voting for posting in blue or for being relatively subdued or for saying "present" rather than "confirming" or for being overly willing to please in the N0 thread seemed funny to me) but I can see how a paranoid, overly sensitive or lazy player could think my actions voteworthy. I'll question their votes to see if there's scummy intent included, or inconsistent reasoning (see Dizzy's case) but I won't dismiss them all automatically just because they're wrong. Why would you?

[guiri]

NETA And I didn't really intend to call all my voters paranoid, over-sensitive or lazy, I'm pretty sure there's at least one scummy scum among them too .