Day Three

[RoOsh]

Mmkay... I've had some time away to think....
(And good to see you back Cat, you're always an active poster, and I do like that).

Parzival's Postings from last night, and My Musings.

Atarus- My thoughts:
This dude is a tough nut for me. He comes off as "the nice guy", it's something i loathe in players of Mafia, because I feel like anyone out there who's trying to get on my good side has an agenda, and is trying to manipulate me. But I know Atarus in real life, and he is a smart and nice guy. So it frustrates me to see him playing "the Defender of the Townies" role. Because it's so hard to read, and I always WIFOM on it. Only thing i note: Last game he did the same thing (sticking up for players, defending them, and trying to not cast suspicions much- in fact even his breadcrumbs were really small, and I never saw them). It's something he's done last game as a cop, this game he's doing it again, but he's doing more of the "Defending" style and less of the calling out others.
So I'm not sure what to make of it. It's his Second game, and I don't know if it's how he'll always play or not.... But it ALWAYS pings my suspicion meter... but I also can see the WIFOM there. So I'm not sure what to make of Atarus currently. Just... i don't like You defending and coming off as a such a nice guy so damn much. Because I can't tell if you're defending "the Town" in order to protect certain players, or if you're doing the nice guy shtick to avoid suspicion, or if that's genuinely the way you play....
Of course your style is also directly in contrast to mine (As I prefer being aggressive to your defensive), it may just be that causing me to gristle at you. But yeah... I'm worried about Atarus, but I know i'm biased. so I'll listen to others comments about him much more so.
Some players you read their posts and think, "this bit here is townie, but this bit here is off". With atarus so far it works that you can either read all his posts as being pro-town, but if you assume he's scum then the posts all make perfect sense in a different way. -Parzival
I agree with you, P-man on this about Atarus. I also still feel he gave Pleo a "Free-pass" and by discouraging others to talk about him. That's why If pleo comes up scum... i know who I'm gonna go after next (One of Two people).
~~~~~~~
Cookies:
-Meh... She's been low on my radar. I mostly dislike her Arguments with Gov.Rugger to remove his vote, but other than that, not so much else (especially since I don't know/trust the Governor's Alignment, but I feel letting him vote would clue us in on that. Cookies doesn't. :shrug: I'm waiting on this one).
~~~~~~~~
Sinjin: You are the 2nd of two people I'd look at with Pleo's scumminess. Mostly because when I reviewed you in depth the 2nd time on Day 2, I really didn't like what I saw.
Since then, I'm not sure, but I'm WIFOMing on your actions.
-Because since Day 1, you've voted for Pleonast (day 2) and then Again today You're voting for Pleonast. I am very pro-lynching pleonast, but I'm curious as to your sudden switch.
Mainly because well... you HAD the chance to lynch pleonast Day 1, but you didn't take it. Then you got a bit of heat for that. And since then you've been firmly anti-pleonast.
--Here's the WIFOM and I guess A Question for you:
I could see, "oh, well, Sinjin has learned from her mistake. She's honestly changed her mind, and regrets her Day 1 actions because she understands it was a bad idea. So now she's examined Pleo more in depth, and since Day 1 (when she was quite believing and Pro-Pleo) to being Anti-Pleonast. Which is coincidentally the position that I (a person who has given her heat) has. Yay! We Agree! :Angel's play the harp:"

OR

"You don't regret voting for Zuma, because you did get to save Pleo. And since Day 1, you've realized you've gotten heat for saving pleo, and so now in order to throw off the detractors, you've become "anti-Pleo" however, he's not coming in any danger of being voted out, so you're feeling quite pleased with yourself for making it so that one of you at least will come out looking townie from the "fight". You cackle evilly at your plan."

Those are both the Extremes basically. I don't think you're in either of those categories. But I DO view that as the continuum and you're somewhere in between. So then a quote and then a Question:

sinjin said:

zuma1 died for pointing out that the third vote thing, actually, well, worked.

No, zuma1 died for voting erratically, jumping on someone who placed a third vote when the top three votees had two votes on them after calling emphatically for people to vote, and not role-claiming or defending himself when he was tied for a place in the chair with someone who had claimed a town power role*. In addition, the third vote thing will be proven to have worked if and only if kassia turns out to be a replicant.

*A claim which I don't believe anymore as posted previously.

Let's look at the "Previously" Post then:

sinjin said:

I did not misunderstand what you said. You used a general mafia game meme "they tend to receive a lot of heat" to explain your actions in a specific mafia game about three specific high posters two of whom did not receive any heat at all on day one. That is what makes your argument specious. If you had stated "they all received a lot of heat" I would have called you a liar.

But mostly for the mobius strip reasoning where-in he is not a "confirmed colonist" to himself which continues toDay:

So now... My question/thoughts:
You state one reason you're voting for Pleo for the use of a Mafia Game Meme to explain his actions. How is that different than YOUR Voting for Zuma1 on Day 1?
Because YOU voting for a random person on Day 1 on the basis that HE used a Mafia Meme too, showed a flaw in your current argument (as he turned out Town). Also, could you include in your explanation how you factor in the fact that YOU basically used a Mafia Meme to Vote for Zuma1.0 ("The Anyone who brings up the 3rd Vote Post at this point is Scum"?) as it's apparently a scummy enough tell to justify VOTING someone to be lynched. Not just an early vote, but a Final vote to determine scumminess for you.



2. And also, for the Record (after having thought about it): I think the "Mobius strip" reasoning for "voting" for someone is just REALLY stupid. It's a weak way to create a reason to vote someone. Pleonast has done much scummier things (in my book), but making stupid analogies is NOT something I'd factor in as "the majority" of the reason to vote for someone. It's like giving Pleo a mild rug burn on all the ways to give him heat to justify a vote....

3. And also, I disliked your statement that 2 out of the 3 did not garner any heat. I felt I was attacked by pleonast for my statements against him, and I've felt I've been attacked quite a bit with the stupid argument "You are preventing us from talking, voting, and sharing new ideas!" from others, Sinjin. As if I'm the sole reason for the inactivity of the others. They're all afraid of ME...

But your definition of heat apparently is "gaining votes" and not "being told to be quiet and asking so many damn questions"



Since it's late in the Day... I feel the need to have my vote out there, So i'm going to make it now:
Vote Sinjin

(I will add that there is 1-2 other people who I may change my vote towards if I see further suspicion of them (Pleonast and another who i'll be making the next post on, I just want to split this post up, it's getting too big already).

Zeriel to come.

[Parzival]

Nice to get a little feedback on my thoughts, Roosh. I know there isn't much to pull out since I didn't really have any questions after I did it. I suppose the two biggest things are that I will be watching atarus for any shift that seems anti-colony (and I encourage others to be wary of trusting anyone too much), and I think zeriel's the scummiest-looking right now.

Today's vote for me goes to
vote Zeriel.

Most of the reasoning is in my summary post - but primarily it's for the unwillingness to commit to a vote Yesterday, and especially the odd lack of a final vote with a "I would have voted for Diomedes."

It's not likely to make me change my vote, but zeriel, why didn't you commit to a vote, even in the final hours?

[RoOsh]

Zeriel is actually the person I find 3rd most suspicious behind Pleo and Sinjin. But for the least amt. of reasons, with him it's just a gut feeling that something's wrong.

-He made the Slip "the townies" on Day 1, it's something that's a weak case against him, but none the less, it was an odd statement.
-He also promised to make a vote, but then did NOT vote. This irked Me, because i keep track of who votes where, and so him not voting makes him not go up on my chart of "who voted at the end".
Luckily i've kept a "who never voted that day" portion and so he fell into that part, but I've also had to remember where his vote was.

Thought there was still one more day to go. Does not vote, but says he would have voted Diomedes.
[Curiously, there are still two hours in the Day to go, and the vote is kind of close]. -P-Man
I didn't go back and check this out, but if this is the case... Not Cool. Not cool at all.

-Also he's not in favor of Gov. Rugger voting (states such on Night 2 Post). I just really disliked the whole "what if X is the case? we should prepare for X by punished* the current Governor"
*How much of a punishment basically letting the Governor have no accountability is, I'm not sure. It's something that could go either way. (Unnecessary WIFOM basically- Is he saying it cuz he wants the governor to have no accountability, or does he say that because he wants the Governor to not be able to vote? What's he know that I don't know??). The whole voting thing w/ the Governor, I dislike, because it could be easy to make a case where scum would WANT to be pro-Not letting the Governor Vote, and there's cases where they'd be Pro-Not Letting the Governor vote because he's scum and it'd help them too. It's one of those things that Parizval was saying in regards to Atarus: The idea sounds like a good idea, but because of closed nature of the Game, scum could offer such an idea and present it as a Pro-Town idea, when such is not the case.



-The final reason is just my gut reason.... Just something to me doesn't sit right with Day 1 and Day 2, who's been killed.
Mhaye's currently dead, but his steadfast voting of Zeriel, and Cat1.0's voting of Zeriel make me uneasy in a horror movie sort of way.




Zeriel is the other major person I would have voted for toDay (and I may do so, depending on what I still see as the Day progresses -that's pretty much where my votes will be going).

Right now, the reason why I didn't make my initial vote for Zeriel, is because I feel its a majority of gut feelings, while with the other two (sinjin/Pleo) I feel they genuinely are playing very inconsistent and have the posts to show for it. ie: less focus on their slips but more on their ideas. Not such with him, where it's more on slips, and his leanings. It's not as concrete in my mind. That's why I went with Sinjin.
And I don't want to pile up votes on him, and pressure others into voting in just one of the main 2 people. I want to see where the others are casting their votes in the early phase of the Day (and NOT the last damn 24 hours).


Current (in my Mind) FOS Summary (Aka: i'd vote for one of these guys most likely toDay):
Sinjin
Zeriel
Pleonast

[Drain Bead]

My insta-vote was going to be for Pleonast. I've since decided to reserve it, as I see the point in the fact that people are all focusing on one thing and not exploring all options. That's not to say that I will not vote for Pleonast at some point in the future of the Day, but right now I'm giving myself 24 hours to make a decision, in hopes that people discuss a variety of subjects toDay.

As far as me "knowing too much" about night kills, could you give an example? Otherwise, I think you're smudging me without actually saying why. It's impossible to defend against, because I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about.

[RoOsh]

roosh said:

And I don't want to pile up votes on him, and pressure others into voting in just one of the main 2 people. I want to see where the others are casting their votes in the early phase of the Day (and NOT the last damn 24 hours).

Meh, I was writing for so much I lost track of the votes. Pleonast has 2 votes, and Dotchan 1. Not Zeriel 2.
*wait. Zeriel's got a vote too now.

So it's:

2 Pleo
1 Dotchan
1 Sinjin
1 Zeriel.

Fine. then I have no worries about the Pile up.
I will probably vote for one of the 2 I've focused on toDay, but i still want to see where the votes are falling.
And I want to avoid voting for a 3rd damn time on Pleonast, because then on the voting records that shows nothing.
I will offer to Hammer him though (as if no one expected that).

[Drain Bead]

Crap. That response was meant to be to CIAS2. Now to read the entire page I missed...

[Drain Bead]

Upon reading Page 3, I have but one new thing to say, and that's to Roosh, in response to:

2. And also, for the Record (after having thought about it): I think the "Mobius strip" reasoning for "voting" for someone is just REALLY stupid. It's a weak way to create a reason to vote someone. Pleonast has done much scummier things (in my book), but making stupid analogies is NOT something I'd factor in as "the majority" of the reason to vote for someone. It's like giving Pleo a mild rug burn on all the ways to give him heat to justify a vote....

I don't think what Pleo did there was a "stupid analogy." He said that scum on Day One vote for other scum. He then listed everyone who on Day One had not voted for a confirmed townie. He then left himself off that list. Transparency or not, leaving yourself off the list if YOU know you're town is silly. If you think that scum are voting for scum, you don't need to analyze the people who are voting for you if you are town. It's a waste of time and has the potential to confuse people, which it certainly has to this point.

That having been said, Roosh, you're pinging my scumdar a bit lately. First with what I pointed out last Night, where you told Diomedes not to reveal anything at Night and then voted to fry him later when the Magic Bag became an issue. And now, you're trying to write off what Pleonast did as a "stupid analogy" when it was nothing of the sort. I don't even see how it's an analogy at all.

I'm trying to decide between voting for you or Pleonast. I'll give myself 24 hours to make that decision so we can hopefully avoid last-minute shenanigans.

[episodeofblonde]

catinasuit said:

Is it me or has episodeofblonde just tried to stop night discussion and zeriel try to pass blame for diomedes' lynch onto other people.

I don't think I 'tried to stop' night discussion, although I am not sure how useful it really is - I said if someone had something they wanted to say they should say it but that it could be dangerous, which it, well, could.

As for me missing Roosh's analysis, well, that was just me being stupid. I posted without re-reading and had forgotten it.

[episodeofblonde]

That said, CIAS2, though you are wrong about me being anti-town, I agree enough with you and Parzival that I am going to vote zeriel for now.

[storyteller0910]

PAGE THREE VOTE COUNT

Pleonast (2) - zuma v. 2.0, sinjin
Zeriel (2) - Parzival, episodeofblonde
sinjin (1) - Roosh
Death by Irony (1) - atarus

Six votes have been cast. The Day will end in approximately 48 hours, at 5:00PM EST on Wednesday, December 5.

[sinjin]

I didn't want to post this at the end of the Day yesterday because I didn't want to clutter up the end of the Day. However Roosh's lengthy post in reply to my asking him just exactly what I should have done on Day one contains so many untruths, half-truths and just general crap followed up with more of the same today makes me feel the need to respond. I'll try to cut out the chaff and repetitions. First Roosh's post yesterDay.

Roosh:

Reply #310 (voted for NAF there and smudged Zuma.) Nov. 19

I was suspicious of both Zuma and NAF equally.
Me from post 310

So zuma and NAF I find you both scummy, what to do?

Vote NAF

As far as I know we're only allowed to vote for one person at a time.


Roosh:

Reply #487 (unvoted NAF) Nov 21

You conveniently neglect to mention I unvoted NAF specifically because of his role claim.

Roosh:

Reply #523(Voted Zuma Why? Because you believe Pleo.). Nov. 21

I absolutely did not vote zuma because I believed Pleo, I was giving Pleo the benefit of the doubt as a town power role claimer, same as NAF. Count the ifs in the last sentence:
Me in #523

I really hated the pouncing third vote thing when the top three votees were tied at two votes apiece. It just seemed so opportunistic especially due to his previous calls for player accountability via voting. It's like he was just looking for an excuse to lay a vote.

I'm not voting for Pleo ToDay because if his claimed ability to night kill a replicant is true he could really help us, especially if NAF's claim that replicants are resistant to night kills. If his claim is true and if he can be sure of his target. Damn there are way too many if's in this paragraph.

Roosh:

And then your comment #2 on Night 2: I'll quote the whole thing "Rats. "

This from the guy who responded with *shrug* when dotchan was offed the first time in firefly. What more was I supposed to say? I'm not a huggy person.


Roosh:

And you've NOW stated that your policy is simply believe all role claims.

I have never stated that.

Roosh:

But then the next day, you basically throw a vote out on Zuma, why? Because you figure that pleonast is more useful than whatever Zuma turns out to be (That may not have been your intention, but to me, its basically the same thing. You voted for an unclaimed person basically because the other guy looked less suspicious and "You disliked the 3rd vote strategy").

Now- my issues. Okay, you smudged Zuma, but you gave a TERRIBLE reason for voting for the guy. One, I really wish you had put more thought into "Why Zuma" because to ME -your vote came off as "I want to save pleonast. Zuma is a "safer" kill than Pleonast. Why you made such a decision, I have no idea. It was a risky play, and since Zuma turned out Vanilla town, I'm not as pissed, but if Zuma was a doctor or a Cop, and YOU basically chose his fate over Pleo because "you believed pleo" (Without stating ANYWHERE Else any other discussion of him), that to me would have been VERY Scummy, and I'd be voting your butt outta here right now.

I did put a lot of thought into my vote for zuma. Go back and see how long it was between my unvote of NAF and my vote for zuma. I reread every post.

And you think I shouldn't have voted for zuma because he hadn't claimed and he could have been the doctor or the cop? For all I knew at that time zuma could have been The Flying Pumpkin That Shoots Laser Beams Out Of Its Ass. zuma could have claimed at anytime. But he he did not. Are you really advocating not electrocuting people if they don't claim and don't defend themselves and don't show up for the end of the day?

Then a rant about my vote for zuma being a scum tell because if you vote for somebody for voting for someone who placed a third vote thats a scum tell too? You're again ignoring my other reasons for voting zuma.

Then a whole lot of repetition of previous stuff and buried in the middle the answer to my question:

Roosh:

I really don't know what to do with you, Sinjin, yet, but since you asked me, those are my opinions. I disliked your vote, i disliked how you did it, but there was nothing you could have done in that situation,

italics mine. Thank you.


Then a whole bunch of stuff about posting more than a couple of times a day and no one should vote in the last 24 hours, blah, blah, blah. Hey Roosh: It was Thanksgiving week. Yes, I do have a real life. A lot of people weren't posting a lot

[sinjin]

Gah, where to start with toDay's Roosh post.

Roosh:

I could see, "oh, well, Sinjin has learned from her mistake. She's honestly changed her mind, and regrets her Day 1 actions because she understands it was a bad idea. So now she's examined Pleo more in depth, and since Day 1 (when she was quite believing and Pro-Pleo) to being Anti-Pleonast.

I was not pro-Pleo or anti-Pleo on day one. I gave him the benefit of the doubt based on his power role claim. I didn't like his gov. theory or his voting theory on day one and said as much. My overall feeling was that he was a colonist with a couple of bad ideas, remind you of someone else Roosh? I don't regret my Day 1 action. I regret that zuma1 turned out to be a Colonist. However hind-sight is 20-20, given what I knew then I still would have voted the same.

Roosh:

"You don't regret voting for Zuma, because you did get to save Pleo. And since Day 1, you've realized you've gotten heat for saving pleo, and so now in order to throw off the detractors, you've become "anti-Pleo" however, he's not coming in any danger of being voted out, so you're feeling quite pleased with yourself for making it so that one of you at least will come out looking townie from the "fight". You cackle evilly at your plan."

Please see above.

Roosh:

Let's look at the "Previously" Post then:

Previously refers to my post yesterDay not to the paragraph above, duh.

As far as your not understanding how it's wrong going from the general to the specific where the specific case does not correlate with the general there's not much else I can say. Maybe someone else can explain it to you better.

[Pollux Oil]

zuma said:

There is a whole lot of bullshit on day 1 and 2. Lots of suspicious votes to end the day, and they ended it with townies going down.

Okay, this post made me think a bit, and I decided to do a bit of analysis.

Now, there's been some people throwing around that last-minute voting is bad. I also think this. I guess "last-minute" can really be a catch-all phrase, some think that if you suddenly throw on a vote at literally the last minute, that's last minute...or somebody that votes for the first time in the last 24 hours is last minute. *shrug* But anyway, I decided to do an analysis of just how bad the "last minute" voting is for this group.

I decided to pick 12 hours as a good time frame, because theoretically everybody should be able to check in and see developments and what not at least once during the last 12 hours of the Day. I then went and for both Day One and Day Two I went through and recorded all the votes that happened within the last 12 hours of the Day.

The following is a compiled list of what I found, along with some other statistics which I'll explain after the lists:

Day 1
----
zeriel - Votes zuma (w/ unvote) (8:41 AM) - 20 posts
drainbead - Votes CatinaSuit (w/unvote) (8:53 AM) - 25 posts
hockeymonkey - Votes CatinaSuit (w/unvote) (11:09 AM) - 20 posts
Diomedes - Votes Pleonast (w/unvote) (11:36 AM) - 24 posts
Death By Irony - Votes zuma (11:50 AM) - 11 posts
episodeofblonde - Votes CatinaSuit (w/unvote) (1:20 PM) - 36 posts
sinjin - Votes zuma (w/unvote) (3:54 PM) - 11 posts

Day 2
----
Tragic - Votes Diomedes (5:05 AM) - 10 posts
episodeofblonde - Votes Diomedes (9:18 AM) - 9 posts
Death By Irony - Votes Diomedes (11:49 AM) - 6 posts
Pleonast - Votes Kassia (w/unvote) (11:56 AM) - 14 posts
Diomedes - Votes Pleonast (2:02 PM) - 5 posts
Diomedes - Votes Himself (w/unvote) (4:57 PM) - 5 posts

===
Okay, so first is the name of the person casting the vote. Next is who they voted for. If it says (w/unvote) after the name of the person they voted for, it means they either included an unvote in the same post as their vote, or they unvoted at some point before their vote but still within the last 12 hours of the Day. After that is the time they placed their final vote (time of any unvote wasn't recorded). Finally, I included the number of posts they made throughout the entire Day.

Notice nearly everybody on Day 1 who voted within the last 12 hours of the Day unvoted from somebody, which means they'd already cast their vote previously (and most of the unvotes were off of NAF and/or Pleonast because of their role-claims). And Death By Irony, the only person to vote without unvoting in the last 12 hours, had already voted for zuma and then unvoted to think, so her vote for zuma was really a revote.

In my opinion, after looking at this data, I don't think "last minute voting" is actually that big a deal.

I don't know if this will be helpful to anybody or not, but I thought I might put it out there as something else to discuss.

[storyteller0910]

Ladies and gentleman, I'd like to reintroduce to you, subbing for Yattara, the one and only Kat.

In an effort to maintain the coherence of the game, I'm going to make an effort to limit substitutions from here on out. Modkills will be considered if future inactivity necessitates moderator action.

Thanks, and good night!

[Zeriel]

Parzival--I didn't vote because I didn't feel like I had enough information to commit, and I wasn't feeling mentally on top of my game last week--between the job interviews, getting hired at a new place, and starting to square away my old job, I literally didn't know what day it was half the time. I'm trying to get back to being my rabid vote-early-vote-often self toDay.

Does it seem like days in this game are pretty short to anyone else? I remember Firefly and Sekham seemed to take forever but these are like zip zip zip. That's just a subjective observation.

As for today? I still don't feel like there's much information floating around right now. It's been seeming like we've been spinning our wheels as a town, the same suspects keep coming up. For example, I wish that we collectively would either vote for Pleo or stop worrying him like a nervous dog with a bone he's not sure he wants. Same with me--either y'all think I'm scum or you don't.

This Roosh vs. Sinjin thing today is entertaining at least...Sinjin looked scummy to me after night two, and now roosh is talking today about not wanting for vote for Pleo again "because then on the voting records that shows nothing". That's a coin flip for who I'm going to vote for. Because frankly, even expressing the belief that your vote should say anything about you is scummy--the only thing a townie's vote should say is "I honestly believe(d) these people I voted for are scum". If you're trying to hide, you have something to hide.

Meanwhile, can episodeofblonde articulate a reason for voting for me other than "he referred to the town in third person in an analysis post on day one" or "I agree with (read: pass the blame for my vote onto) x"?

I play aggressive. I always play aggressive. Look up my past games.

Tails, it's vote sinjin. Roosh, you're next, unless either of you come up with a reason for wanting to lay low that doesn't involve being a toaster's slightly-smarter cousin.

[Zeriel]

Also, damn you story for a totally intriguing but utterly evidence-free response to my question. =)

[Gir!]

Just stopped by to say, Hi, here I am, I've read the Day, but it's time for me to go to bed now, because I have to go to work early tomorrow.

[CatInASuit]

drainbead said:

My insta-vote was going to be for Pleonast. I've since decided to reserve it, as I see the point in the fact that people are all focusing on one thing and not exploring all options. That's not to say that I will not vote for Pleonast at some point in the future of the Day, but right now I'm giving myself 24 hours to make a decision, in hopes that people discuss a variety of subjects toDay.

As far as me "knowing too much" about night kills, could you give an example? Otherwise, I think you're smudging me without actually saying why. It's impossible to defend against, because I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about.

This post from Day 2 pinged me slightly

I'd imagine no Vig would have run the risk of taking out NAF or Pleonast (definitely NAF, at least). If there's a Vig, they probably went for CIAS. CIAS was so begging for a vigging that now I'm assuming there's a Vig in this game.

I'm not saying you are a Vigilante, but someone who knows more about night kills than they should YMMV. Given the description of CIAS v.1's death, this paragraph just seems wrong.

Also, why would your insta-vote be for Pleonast when you had voted for CIAS v.1 at the end of Day 1 and CIAS v.1 was not dead at the point you made it?

What made you change your mind?

[CatInASuit]

kat said:

Just stopped by to say, Hi, here I am, I've read the Day, but it's time for me to go to bed now, because I have to go to work early tomorrow.

Hey Kat,

Great to see you back.

The more Cats/Kats the better I say

[RoOsh]

Okay, I've got some people addressing me apparently, I've not read them yet (just got to sinjin's but I want to break these up).

So first up Drainbead

drainbead said:

That having been said, Roosh, you're pinging my scumdar a bit lately. First with what I pointed out last Night, where you told Diomedes not to reveal anything at Night and then voted to fry him later when the Magic Bag became an issue. And now, you're trying to write off what Pleonast did as a "stupid analogy" when it was nothing of the sort. I don't even see how it's an analogy at all.

:coughs: What the Hell are you talking about?
1. I NEVER told Diomedes to not reveal anything at night.
That's a blatant lie. Go read Night 1. Go back. Read it. Go read my Post. WHERE did I even tell Diomedes NOT to post?

Here's my only post from Night 1 of content:
Yeah, but they can also make you end up Dead.
Last game Mhaye or Mtgman said they had a big post for the morning....
Next morning, we all woke up.... And who was dead?

I believe Night convos are too easily manipulated by scum (Since they can talk at night AND get to pick who to kill). So yes, I'll take the negative cost of "Okay, I'm not helping out the Colonists" at the expense of "I REALLY REALLY Don't want to have NIGHT WIFOM to deal with when sorting out the morning kills along with the Previous Day's WIFOM".

So I will not be adding anything of value till the Day ever. I dislike the night chatting, but YMMV.

I stated in the above post:
- I dislike Night chatting because:
1. People who state they have something to share at night, and then wait till dawn because they end up dead (the underlined part).
2. If people post content during the night and end up dead, it adds another layer of WIFOM and Guessing to the game (Was someone killed for their night talk or their day talk? I rather just have the level field and not have to add the extra "hmm... did they get killed for something they stated at night vs. Day?")

And Point B:
I never "voted to fry" Diomedes on Day 2. That's another blatant untruth.

Now whether or not you are thinking of someone else, or you're just trying to blatantly smudge me, I'm not sure. But this is terrible reasoning against me because I did NEITHER of those things you just stated, and i'm going to have to take a further look at you.

And I do believe the Pleonast Analogy is stupid. It doesn't mean I think Pleonast's town, but I think it's a stupid way to do something. I understand the sentiment "Hey, I know you guys can't trust me, so I'll make myself a suspect." But to do it to the extent he did, it's just taking it too far, especially when VOTES and suspicion is being decided by him using his little method.

The issue I had with Sinjin on it was she stated that was a major reason today for voting Pleonast. The fact that he kept up with the analogy.
Sinjin stated:
But mostly for the mobius strip reasoning where-in he is not a "confirmed colonist" to himself which continues toDay:

That to me sounds like she's voting for him because he called himself NOT a Townie. It's... an incredibly weak point. It's basically the issue I've had with Sinjin. Her "deciding" votes have had really crappy reasons (the 3rd vote looks scummy, and now the whole "he doesn't call himself a townie, so he must be scummy")
i mean, there are lots of great reasons I believe in voting for Pleonast, but I'm wondering if Sinjin is doing the same thing, or if she's just voting for him to lose herself in the "popular thing to do" AKA Scum voting for scum.

My vote on her is based on the weak reasons she uses as the "main" reason to vote. They seem... shallow reasons to me, and not in depth, and so I'm wondering at what level is she playing the game at.

I'm surprised though Drainbead , by your claims that I voted for Drainbead, and that I "discouraged him from sharing info". I keep getting called out for preventing people from sharing info.... And I'd like to know where the hell am I doing that? Because your reasoning to attack me is just terrible. FOS Drainbead for misrepresentation, and because according to MY chart I have you as the first one down voting for Diomedes..... So what the hell are smoking to say I voted for him?


And now to keep reading.

[CatInASuit]

episodeofblonde said:

I don't think I 'tried to stop' night discussion, although I am not sure how useful it really is - I said if someone had something they wanted to say they should say it but that it could be dangerous, which it, well, could.

As for me missing Roosh's analysis, well, that was just me being stupid. I posted without re-reading and had forgotten it.

Night discussion

I understand the desire to have a fruitful night after an unfruitful day, Parzival, but it could be dangerous to try and do too much serious discussion. Of course, if you've got something to say, waiting is just as dangerous, in this bloodstained Colony!

This reads to me like, "don't do any night discussion, but if you are going to, don't make it serious discussion".


Roosh's post analysis: what is interesting is that you mention hockeymonkey directly in your post, when that is the analysis that has already been done, but fail to mention zuma or CIAS v.1. If I said that the next post reads like a NETA post, but trying to cover up what you missed.

That wasn't the first time you have missed something obvious

You accused CIAS v.1 of target jumping in Day 1 #474

CIAS v.1 responded with

I would be curious to know what you mean by target jumping. My vote has remained on zeriel since the start and although I have found fault with both NAF and Pleonast and the action plans they endorsed, I have yet to vote for them.

You followed by retracting it on Day 1. #479 with

OK. For some reason I thought you had voted for NAF earlier in the day, sorry about that.

This is the second time you have missed something of value in the game, in this case a vote or lack of for another player. It would not have taken long to see if CIAS v.1 had voted for NAF previously.

Comments?

[CatInASuit]

Death Scene Colour prose.

Well, I reckon whoever killed CIAS v.1, also killed MHaye.

Night 1
hockeyMonkey - choked to death on own right foot
Kat - shot in back of head
CIAS v.1 - killed by exsanguination and

Night 2
MHaye - heart removed

Something to watch out for on future nights.

[RoOsh]

Clarifications for Sinjin:

sinjin said:

Roosh:

Reply #310 (voted for NAF there and smudged Zuma.) Nov. 19

I was suspicious of both Zuma and NAF equally.
Me from post 310
As far as I know we're only allowed to vote for one person at a time.

So You voted NAF and Smudged Zuma. I still stand by that.
Any way you put it, you basically voted for one, and not the other. Yes, you only get one vote. But you did mention the other in a negative light- hence "smudge."
You CAN only vote for one. I presumed you voted for the scummier of the two and called it smudging the other (because you certainly didn't vote for the other at that time).

2. Yes, you unvoted NAF for his role claim. I felt it was understood (I agree with you on that one, as I think lynching NAF at that time and currently is unwise, and it wasn't a bad move. Hence, I saw no need to mention it).
-I view NAF vs. Pleo as a different cases. One has stated he cannot hurt the town, and has given a non-violent means of trying to prove such information. He has also provided insight that the other one did not provide until AFTER he had already claimed, and then amended his statements to add that his abilities could be more useful for that reason.
- I distrust the more dangerous claim, and because it's an easy claim to make as scum (A Modified Vig Claim basically). NAF could be blatantly lying about his role as well, but I think it's less harmful to trust him for a longer time than the one who claims he has at least a one shot kill ability.

3. You did state that you were under the impression that you believed all role claims (as taught to you by firefly), THAT is why I stated your policy is to believe all role claims.

Or have you amended that now from your firefly days?

4. "shrug" vs. Rats. I can kinda see your point, but I disagree with it.

But it's on a level that is out of the game. (Mostly in that I tend to use Shrug as an instinctive phrase in my speech, while talking about issues. But there's no way I can prove that in here, and once it was pointed out, i tried to be more aware of the sensitivity of other players towards my actions that I don't even think about. "Rats" on the other hand, was a posted message by you and just that. I felt it was a deliberate comment, and since it contained nothing else.... I wondered what was its purpose.) But i can see where you're coming from. So maybe you're not a huggy person either.... I'll dismiss that one then, and I won't hold that against you anymore.

5. I just dislike the "3rd vote scumtell" and then the "Well at this point its a scumtell to call out someone on the 3rd vote scumtell" and back and forth, it's something that just keeps growing, and I think it's just terrible reasoning. It was only because you brought it up again toDay when talking TO Zuma that you brought up that 3rd vote thing again.... And it just made me go "AARRGH!" -because I just dislike that whole tactic, it's pointless WIFOM, and can be used by either side to justify either stance.... So I guess I'm trying to discourage it in future games by hounding you on it.
--But I'm starting to see that I'm feeling hypocritical. Because of the endless nature of the 3rd vote rule, Why can't someone in future games just go "Well, pointing out the 3rd vote is scummy" "Well, what about pointing out that the 3rd vote rule being used is scummy?" "Oh Yeah, well what about the idea that the 3rd Vote Rule is scummy being used as a reason to vote someone who voted for someone who voted against another using the 3rd vote rule is scummy?" At that point, My head would explode from all the stupidity and I would have to pull a lewis black sort of rant.... So I'm gonna stop harping on this issue. Because I think i'm losing myself in the issue and you're losing yourself in the issue (as I keep getting angry when I see people mention it as a valid rule, because I tend to think its just an easy way to shallow vote).
Just... in future votes... let's try to avoid these 3rd vote rules crap....

sinjin said:

My overall feeling was that he was a colonist with a couple of bad ideas, remind you of someone else Roosh? I don't regret my Day 1 action. I regret that zuma1 turned out to be a Colonist. However hind-sight is 20-20, given what I knew then I still would have voted the same.

Touche. It's cold. It harsh (the Townie view).... And yeah, hindsight is 20-20. I guess it's just odd being on the other side of the coin and seeing someone echo my actions....

Thanking for taking the time to respond to my rants/questions/issues, sinjin.
I do agree with you on the Pleonast voting, it's just I'm disapproving of how it was coming about.

The biggest problems I had with your posts, Sinjin, was that I kept seeing your posts and what you'd cite as your big reasons for voting someone, and I'd just grimace. Even though you were agreeing with me in who to vote for, it was just like.... "but those reasons are so weak! Look at all these others reasons! None of them really stood out? It was THAT reason? Really?" And so I may have jumped the gun on you. For toDay I've been kinda going back and trying to connect the pieces, since I've been focused on Pleonast. And you were connected to the pleonast thread. But I saw the advice I had given to Atarus on Day 1, which was this game IS NOT a closed system and we shouldn't treat it as such. I shouldn't just create a "list" of people who are tied together as scum, but rather try to start at one end, and then see what information comes up, and then look at the next link in the chain. Not just a "if A, then B then C" without going back to check on if A is truly right, or if I just have accepted A as being true.

So I apologize but only slightly, Sinjin. I may have jumped the gun on you, and I think I should first settle my Pleonast issues before I bring them in against you. I looked back at my two extremes and they were huge. Lots of "ifs" for myself as well there.... So I need to step away from that.
Unvote Sinjin

So I'm gonna go to the tops of my chain again:
I will vote for Pleonast today. And then based on that Info I will re-examine you sinjin. But I think Zeriel's reminder rings true to the one of the first tenets of Mafia i learned from Storyteller in Asylum:
ALWAYS Vote for Who you think is the SCUMMIEST.
So Vote Pleonast.

But let it be on the record, that I did FoS Sinjin and Zeriel, but right now the person who i believe to be the scummiest and least likely to be Town is still Pleonast.

I know the Zeriel one won't show up on my vote chart, but I do find him suspicious.
But I feel more sure and confident about Pleonast's Scumminess than Zer or Sin....

[RoOsh]

Man. I need to break up my posts... Long posts are just blah to look at....

And I tend to lose others in them, because I'm so focused on writing, that I forget details:
Like let me add a weak FOS to Drainbead. I haven't looked at her yet. But I want to check her out in the future (post Pleo).

[episodeofblonde]

zeriel, I'm not voting for you for the 'slip' on day one, particularly. As I said at the time, pursuing someone on evidence like that is unlikely to work out well. I'm voting for you now becuase you seem scummiest to me right now. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? I didn't like the way you responded to mhaye, who's now dead, in particular.

CIAS2, well, I can't argue that I have missed a couple of things due to not re-reading. I have a limited amount of time and made those posts too hurriedly, basing them off memory, which was clearly inaccurate in these cases. I'm sorry about that, it's not good for the town. I'll try to re-read more carefully in future, because making errors like I have is not productive. There's not much more I can say about this.

About my night discussion post, I was merely stating the obvious, I guess. You are reading more into it than was meant.

[Drain Bead]

Excellent point about Roosh's voting record comment, zeriel. That sort of hit me as odd when I read it but I couldn't quite put my finger on why. Another point in the Roosh column. I'll see how things play out in the work day, but now I'm leaning toward Roosh.

[Drain Bead]

And as for what you said to me, Roosh, I may have been mistaken that you voted for Diomedes, but here's why.

Day Two, post 22:

Diomedes-You pulled out the "magic shiny bag" during the night. And you lived to tell about it. You said you have promised to share when you gather your thoughts, I await to hear your ideas.

You were the first person to bring up the magic bag on Morning Two, just a few posts after Diomedes said that he may have changed his mind based on the results of the Night.

Day Two, Post 79:

With that said, currently my FOS list is as such:
Pleonast
Mhaye -Pending Atarus/others ideas. I'm curious to know why he's so suspicious, and why Hockey suddenly dropped this trail.
Dio- Still waiting for his Magic Bag reveal.

Day Two, post 124:

If this keeps up, I may be in favor of just voting for the Lurking people... and Dio will be the first one on that List.

A lot of subtle smudging without voting, from early in the day to in the middle. I apologize about being mistaken that you voted for Diomedes, though. I just could have sworn I saw it in a vote count. But you did advocate for voting for him after telling him to remain silent on the magic bag at Night, and were the first to pressure him to reveal it during the Day. That seems very opportunistic to me, in hindsight.

[Zeriel]

Yeah, episode, but WHY do I seem scummiest? Give reasoning or get out. What didn't you like about my response to mhaye?

[Captain Klutz]

I'm currently suspicious of Death By Irony and zeriel, for reasons I have given but have been well set out (and expanded) by atarus in 3.34

I could vote for either, for now I will again
vote Death By Irony

[episodeofblonde]

zeriel said:

Yeah, episode, but WHY do I seem scummiest? Give reasoning or get out. What didn't you like about my response to mhaye?

OK, I have just promised that I wouldn't post without re-reading so until I can go back over Day 1 and find the specifics about you and mhaye's interaction that made me uncomofrtable, I will unvote zeriel. I do know that your type of aggressive play (like, say zuma1.0's) can give me false reads, so maybe I'm allowing my discomfort with the 'attack-style' (such as your recent interaction with sinjin when you called her 'snotty') to get in the way of my reasoning. Certainly possible. I know I can be very sensitive to this kind of aggression, seemingly pointless and generalised, in real life so it would make sense that it would bother me here.