Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Dec 4, 2007 10:54:32 GMT -5
For the third consecutive day..
Vote Pleonast
Now, not only do I think he's scum, but if I'm right, I think it will shed quite a bit of information on those who have "saved" him in the past couple Days.
I strongly agree with atarus when he says the last minute votes haven't mattered. Heck, I feel ashamed that I've waited until this far into the Day to place my vote.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 4, 2007 10:58:30 GMT -5
Yay. Discussion. Welcome back, Kat. Project done, hooray! (I wanted to do more than what I ended up with - web-sized version here, but the due date being tomorrow just means my artistic vision has to be sacrificed.) Whatever else the color may or may not mean, last Night's results seem to lend credence to NAF's claim about Replicant resistance (or it could mean something about power roles, but until we know more I'll leave my speculation there). I seem to remember somebody floating the idea of testing Pleo's claim if a Cop ever decides to claim and share his/her results--would this be a good plan even if Pleo was Pro-Colony? This post really bugs me with the selective use of speculation. You're willing to speculate that only one death on Night 2 lends credence to NAF's claim, but you're not willing to speculate as to the "something about power roles" that may have been at play overNight? I must admit that this casts some suspicion on both you and NAF from where I'm sitting. Unless you know something that I don't, I can't see how the outcome of Night 2 changes anything with respect to the benefit of the doubt for NAF's claim. Roosh: I can only digest the first couple of paragraphs in your mega-posts, then they start reading like my old biochem text, and I have to be stabbing my arm with a pin to stay focused as I read. For the third consecutive day.. Vote PleonastNow, not only do I think he's scum, but if I'm right, I think it will shed quite a bit of information on those who have "saved" him in the past couple Days. Who are "those who have saved him"?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 4, 2007 10:58:55 GMT -5
PAGE FOUR VOTE COUNT
Pleonast (4) - zuma v. 2.0, sinjin, Roosh, Santo Rugger Death by Irony (2) - atarus, Captain Klutz sinjin (1) - Zeriel Zeriel (1) - Parzival
Eight votes have been cast. The Day will end in approximately 30 hours, at 5:00PM EST on Wednesday, December 5.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 4, 2007 11:00:24 GMT -5
For the third consecutive day.. Vote PleonastNow, not only do I think he's scum, but if I'm right, I think it will shed quite a bit of information on those who have "saved" him in the past couple Days.I strongly agree with atarus when he says the last minute votes haven't mattered. Heck, I feel ashamed that I've waited until this far into the Day to place my vote. Underlining mine. I have been watching you for a little while Rugger. Your play seems to be exactly the same as it has been every time I have played with you in the past, and though it would seem improbable that you would be scum again... you know better then to make a case for someone based on the underlined portion of that post. I know you know better. We have talked about that sort of reasoning as a town trap on the scum boards in past games. vote santos(Sorry for metagaming. It's all I got right now.)
|
|
|
Post by Tragic on Dec 4, 2007 11:03:38 GMT -5
First - sorry Zeriel! I acknowledge your dudeness and bow before he who is a man. That was a mistake and I sincerely do apologize.
YesterDay I FoSed Pleonast for the poor attempt at analyzation of others in the game. Today I've been a little more quiet than I intended because of a short trip over the weekend and then getting swamped at work. As I've been reviewing the arguements and the theories I really have started to lookg at Pleonast more strongly. Gut says he's just a townie but there's that little niggling at the back of my head that's telling me to investigate further.
There's definitely been a lot to read in the present discussions but I'm concerned with rushing to make a judgment. Especially since I helped to lynch Dio yesterDay. I'm trying to be a little more thorough in my analysis of the targets. I'm looking specifically at Pleonast and zeriel. On another level I'm kind of looking at atarus and roosh.. likely because I'm biased against them for specific reasons outside of the game.. and also because those two boys are quite vocal. And that means either there's something there to believe in or to question.
For right now I'm still a little torn, still lookign for just an ounce more proof that either zeriel or [/b]pleonast[/b] is the scum. I'll try and have an initial vote and formulated opinion by morning!
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 4, 2007 11:05:18 GMT -5
Yay. Discussion. Welcome back, Kat. Project done, hooray! (I wanted to do more than what I ended up with - web-sized version here, but the due date being tomorrow just means my artistic vision has to be sacrificed.) Whatever else the color may or may not mean, last Night's results seem to lend credence to NAF's claim about Replicant resistance (or it could mean something about power roles, but until we know more I'll leave my speculation there). I seem to remember somebody floating the idea of testing Pleo's claim if a Cop ever decides to claim and share his/her results--would this be a good plan even if Pleo was Pro-Colony? This post really bugs me with the selective use of speculation. You're willing to speculate that only one death on Night 2 lends credence to NAF's claim, but you're not willing to speculate as to the "something about power roles" that may have been at play overNight? I must admit that this casts some suspicion on both you and NAF from where I'm sitting. Unless you know something that I don't, I can't see how the outcome of Night 2 changes anything with respect to the benefit of the doubt for NAF's claim. Cookies, what did I ever do to you? I have hardly said anything today and I get smudged for something someone else says. How many times so I have to apologize for forgetting to update the Day ending time in my sig!
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 4, 2007 11:06:57 GMT -5
I'm just happy to see the Day Four thread crawling toward 100 posts at last.
|
|
|
Post by kassia on Dec 4, 2007 11:16:18 GMT -5
Crawling towards 100 and I haven't posted yet toDay. Don't I feel ashamed. Sorry for the absence. RL is getting in the way. I am reading the boards and keeping up with the discussion, but I want to spend a little more time going over things before I make any decisions. I promise to get a vote in today sometime before I leave work.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Dec 4, 2007 11:17:30 GMT -5
Who are "those who have saved him"? To borrow a bit of legwork from atarus: Day 1 ---- zeriel - Votes zuma (w/ unvote) (8:41 AM) - 20 posts Death By Irony - Votes zuma (11:50 AM) - 11 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 Death by Irony and Cookies happen to be on both of these lists, and along with zeriel and sinjin, these just so happen to be four of my most suspicious candidates, apart from Pleo.
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Dec 4, 2007 11:28:59 GMT -5
It bothers me in real life, too, even in "real" messageboard life, but this is a game and it's a strategy for finding scum that tends to work for me.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Dec 4, 2007 11:41:03 GMT -5
First, let me amend my previous quote by saying I actually disagreed, and I think that last day votes have made a huge difference. Underlining mine. I have been watching you for a little while Rugger. Your play seems to be exactly the same as it has been every time I have played with you in the past, and though it would seem improbable that you would be scum again... you know better then to make a case for someone based on the underlined portion of that post. I know you know better. We have talked about that sort of reasoning as a town trap on the scum boards in past games. [colorBlue]vote santos [/color] (Sorry for metagaming. It's all I got right now.)[/quote] Of course you've been watching me, I've been posting more than just about anybody this game. I would hope that my play would appear to be exactly the same as in the past, as in the past, I tried to act as townly as possible. I'll take your comment as a compliment, and appreciate that you think I've done a swell job of doing so in previous games. The difference is that now I only know one player's alignment. I do, however, think it's odd that Pleo has been saved two Days in a row. Like you said, there's not much to go on, but I'm trying to start using the voting record to sense patterns. Isn't that why we're supposed to vote? For accountability? Saying that it doesn't matter who's voted for who in the past is, IMHO, even worse than doing what I "should know better than".
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 4, 2007 11:42:23 GMT -5
Who are "those who have saved him"? To borrow a bit of legwork from atarus: Day 1 ---- zeriel - Votes zuma (w/ unvote) (8:41 AM) - 20 posts Death By Irony - Votes zuma (11:50 AM) - 11 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 Death by Irony and Cookies happen to be on both of these lists, and along with zeriel and sinjin, these just so happen to be four of my most suspicious candidates, apart from Pleo. Is that what you meant? Hmm, well that changes things a bit. unvote RuggerI have another two people I find suspicious. I will gather some information on them at my lunch break and be back with a vote before then end of today (not to be confused with toDay).
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Dec 4, 2007 11:43:17 GMT -5
Is that what you meant? Hmm, well that changes things a bit. [colorRed]unvote Rugger [/color] [/quote] What'd you think I meant?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 4, 2007 11:43:24 GMT -5
Yay. Discussion. Welcome back, Kat. This post really bugs me with the selective use of speculation. You're willing to speculate that only one death on Night 2 lends credence to NAF's claim, but you're not willing to speculate as to the "something about power roles" that may have been at play overNight? I must admit that this casts some suspicion on both you and NAF from where I'm sitting. Unless you know something that I don't, I can't see how the outcome of Night 2 changes any, thing with respect to the benefit of the doubt for NAF's claim. Cookies, what did I ever do to you? I have hardly said anything today and I get smudged for something someone else says. How many times so I have to apologize for forgetting to update the Day ending time in my sig! I'm actually inclined to join you in voting for Santo at the moment, but before I get distracted with that, no, you do not get a pass because it was someone else who said what caught my attention. I must at least allow for the possibility that both you and DbI stand to gain from any increase in the perceived credibility of your claim. That's the way my brain works. Even without DbI's post, some of my attention is returning to you and Pleo today. I keep coming back to the possibility that an individual scum could try to exploit the closed set up by making a fake claim on Day 1, when there is so little information with which any process of elimination would be possible, and enough benefit of the doubt to keep him/her alive. Until I have some reason to dismiss that possibility, I'm carrying it, and I'm often going to revisit you both, and your claims, trying to find something that will tip me one way or the other on either of you. Back to Santo, as I previously quoted, I also have problems with the statement that NAF underlined. It forces me to deal with the possibility that Santo has been doggedly pursuing a scummy Pleo so that he can both earn Colonist cred for doggedly pursuing scum and build cases at those of us who have not voted against Pleo. Further, his statement is vague in that he does not stipulate who exactly these Pleo "savers" are in his world view, or what about their previous behavior makes them distinguishable from any Colonists who have not taken up the cause against Pleo.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Dec 4, 2007 11:43:30 GMT -5
My time is still short, but I want to place a vote and that means some analysis. First, I'll look at Roosh's nice voting list: As usual my obligatory Vote Count Post with updated Data: Votes Day 1: FINAL COUNT Pleonast (5) - kassia, Santo Rugger, diggitcamara, Roosh, Diomedeszuma1.0 (6) - Cookies , Kat v1, Yattara, zeriel, Death by Irony, Sinjin CatinaSuit v1 (4) - NAF1138, drainbead, hockey monkey, episodeofblonde zeriel (3) - CatinaSuit v1, Captain Klutz, mhayeKat v1 (2) - Pleonast, Parzival NAF1138 (1) - Hal Briston mhaye (1) - atarus kassia (1) - zuma Non-Voters: BlasterMaster (Zuma2.0), HazelNutCoffee (Tragic) Votes Day 2: 18 Votes of 21 Diomedes (9*) - drainbead, atarus, Parzival, CometotheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, kassia, Tragic, episodeofblonde, DeathbyIrony, * Dio self votes in final 5 mins Pleonast (5) - Santo Rugger, diggitcamara, sinjin, Roosh, zuma 2.0, [Diomedes*]kassia (2) - NAF1138, Pleonast Death by Irony (1) - Captain Klutz Zeriel (1) - mhayeNon-Voters: (3): Hal Briston, Yattara, Zeriel ((modified to reflect substitutions)) And I also like to see post counts: Day One Day Two I've listed only living, non-subbed players (because that's easier to do). Players who were talkative both Days: NAF, Rugger, Cookies, blonde, Pleonast, Roosh, drainbead. Players who were not talkative both Days: atarus, Parzival, Irony, Klutz, kassia, diggitcamara. Players who swapped: sinjin (who posted about the same while everyone else shifted down). Overall, it shows players' posting volume is fairly consistent. Well, I'm not seeing any great leads here. I guess I'll take a look at kassia and diggitcamara, same as yesterDay. And I'll add zeriel. If I have time, I'll do a fourth. Summary of kassia - 1-49: Claims newbie status. (0) Neither suspicious nor not, but worth mentioning.
- 1-90: Votes randomly for Governor. (+1) Unaccountable votes don't help the Colony determine why someone voted.
- 1-296: Accuses me of preventing the development of alternatives, yet has no ideas herself. (+1) If she had broached an idea that was lost in clutter, she'd have a point. This seems more like a command to shut up.
- 1-306: Complains about that too much baggage and knowledge from previous games is making it hard for her. (-1) Too many players are bringing up past alignments and supposed scum tells. Each game needs to start from a blank slate.
- 1-440: Willing to vote for me even if I'm telling the truth because she doesn't think the role is useful. (+1) We're looking to electrocute Replicants, not Colonists with powers we don't like.
- 2-104: Criticized me but finds my logic too stupid to be used by scum. (0) Makes a point about me which doesn't really say much about her alignment.
- 2-154: Review of mhaye. Concludes he is suspicious. (0) Analysis is helpful to the Colony, but we now know mhaye is a Colonist.
- 2-167: Votes for Diomedes based on his sudden drop in posting volume and the "willy-nilly" factor of his Day One votes and posts. (+1) Sudden drop in voting is a poor reason to vote for someone. And I'm not sure it's fair to call a poster as prolific as Dio was on Day One willy-nilly.
Totals: scummy +4, townie -1, neutral 3. Summary of diggitcamara - 1-24: Disagreement with me about effectiveness of my Governor plan. (0) Honest disagreement is not an indication of alignment.
- 1-31: Disagreement with me about time available for deciding electrocution. (+1) Manifestly false statements. Read the Basic Rules: we'd have all of the regular time of Day N, all of Night N, and the bonus 24 hours of Day N+1 to choose the electrocutee for Day N+1. Yes, we'd get some information in the middle of the time, but that wouldn't mean our discussions were worhtless (look how much carry-over we're getting on Day Two from Day One).
- 1-96: Votes Rugger for Governor because of alignments in previous games (or, if he's kidding, no discernible reason). (+1) An unaccountable vote which makes it difficult for us to determine his alignment.
- 1-384: Votes for me because he doesn't believe my role claim. (0) A good reason to vote for someone, but doesn't really explain why he doesn't believe the claim.
- 2-50: Denies that scum are less likely to vote for Colonists on Day One. Presents alternative scum-finding plan. (0) This part of the post seems like honest disagreement.
- 2-50: But then throws suspicion on me because he doesn't like my plan. (+1) Sorry, disagreement on strategy does not imply difference in alignment.
- 2-69: Clarifies his arguments against me. (0) Disagreement is fine. I find it a little more worrying that he's mischaracterizing what I said. My tactic was probabilistic ("more likely"), while the tactic he seems to arguing against is not. He probably just misunderstood what I was saying, but keep in mind that distorting others' posts is a common scum tactic.
Totals: scummy +3, townie -0, neutral 4. Summary of zeriel - 1-32: Likes atarus' plan. Votes for me for Governor. (+1) No explanation for his vote. Votes need to be accountable.
- 1-69: Criticized NAF's Day One voting plan because it's too easy to for scum to manipulate. (0) Straight-forward discussion.
- 1-69: Says "governor debate should be of GREAT interest". (+1) Wait, he voted for Governor without adding to the debate. (I know others have pinged on his use of "the townies", but that doesn't really mean much to me.)
- 1-84: More critique of NAF. (0) Doesn't indicate anything about alignment.
- 1-116,131: Thinks Governor is not helpful to the Colony except in a few cases. Thinks stays of execution are anti-Colony. Clarifies things in later post. (0) Nothing particular scummy or pro-Colony here.
- 1-257: List of observations about early game town/scum behavior. (-1) I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but the whole vibe of the post is pro-Colony.
- 1-289,293: states suspicions of several players. (-1) Not a lot of depth but gives a few reasons.
- 1-339: Votes for mhaye, giving some reasons. (-1) Seems like an honest vote to me.
- 1-467: Switches vote to Cat. (0) But doesn't give detailed reasons.
- 1-480: We should assume a vanilla Colonist claim by everyone. (0) I agree, but it's such an obvious statement, I won't give any Colony credit for saying it.
- 1-481: Throws suspicion at blonde for defending him. (0) Not sure what to think of this. Could be Colonist defensiveness when being defended by an unknown. Or it could be a Replicant telling another to back off.
- 1-481: Switches vote to zuma because of drunk posts and to save his own skin. (+1) Not particular great reasons to vote someone.
- 2-13: Accuses sinjin of slip by wanting to hide in the one-offs. (0) Possibly valid scum slip, but not much to go on.
- 2-161: Suspicious of Dio and Hal. Thinks intentional lurking is very suspicious. Gives some thoughts on the Night kills. (0) I don't think lurking is a great scum tell, so I'm tempted to mark this is pro-scum.
- 2-173: More thoughts on Night kills and roles. (-1) The Colony needs open thinking.
- 2-199: Decides not to vote on Day Two, but would've voted for Dio. (+1) Not voting by itself is scummy. But not voting while stating you'd vote for the vote leader strikes me as very odd. Like he's afraid of some repercussions (like a Martyr/Avatar type effect) for voting for the person going down.
Totals: scummy +4, townie -4, neutral 8. I think I'm happiest with my vote for electrocution on kassiabut I may switch to one of the others if no one else does. story, what is this "Day Four" you speak of?
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Dec 4, 2007 11:45:54 GMT -5
<snip> story, what is this "Day Four" you speak of? Don't you know? Day 4 is on November 31!
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 4, 2007 11:48:19 GMT -5
<snip> story, what is this "Day Four" you speak of? Don't you know? Day 4 is on November 31! DAMMIT! Well played, sir. Well played.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 4, 2007 11:48:21 GMT -5
Who are "those who have saved him"? To borrow a bit of legwork from atarus: Day 1 ---- zeriel - Votes zuma (w/ unvote) (8:41 AM) - 20 posts Death By Irony - Votes zuma (11:50 AM) - 11 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 Death by Irony and Cookies happen to be on both of these lists, and along with zeriel and sinjin, these just so happen to be four of my most suspicious candidates, apart from Pleo. What lists am I on?
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 4, 2007 11:50:48 GMT -5
Is that what you meant? Hmm, well that changes things a bit. [colorRed]unvote Rugger [/color] [/quote] What'd you think I meant?[/quote] Well I had assumed that you were talking about peoples arguments and not peoples votes. I am 100% in favor of lynching based on voting patterns. Again, for metagame reasons I know we are both aware of how nearly impossible it is to not eventually leave a vote trail as scum. I am just rather bad at finding the patterns myself. And the mini pattern you have found is rather interesting, but only if Pleo is scum. I am not ready to lynch a claimed power role yet, and Pleo still isn't near the top of my suspicion list, so I won't be supporting that lynch. But I am interested to see how those patterns play out.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Dec 4, 2007 11:53:04 GMT -5
<snip>What lists am I on? Cookies, you know good and well you voted for the player who was killed instead of Pleonast on both days. Just because you're not specifically on the lists of players that voted in the last 24 hours does not diminish my point in the slightest.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Dec 4, 2007 12:06:35 GMT -5
Day 1 votes for Pleonast: Pleonast (5) - kassia, Santo Rugger, diggitcamara, Roosh, Diomedes Day 2 votes for Pleonast: Pleonast (5) - Santo Rugger, diggitcamara, sinjin, Roosh, zuma 2.0, (Diomedes) Day 3 votes for Pleonast so far: Pleonast (4) - zuma v. 2.0, sinjin, Roosh, Santo Rugger --- Does it bother anybody else that the same people are always a part of the Let's Vote Pleo Fan Club? I mean, I admire their consistency and their unwavering charge, but seriously folks, aren't you the least bit afraid you're tunnel visioning? Now, not only do I think he's scum, but if I'm right, I think it will shed quite a bit of information on those who have "saved" him in the past couple Days. And if you're wrong and Pleo turns up town, then I hope you understand the same logic will be applied to you and the Let's Vote Pleo Fan Club. Players who were talkative both Days: NAF, Rugger, Cookies, blonde, Pleonast, Roosh, drainbead. Players who were not talkative both Days: atarus, Parzival, Irony, Klutz, kassia, diggitcamara. Players who swapped: sinjin (who posted about the same while everyone else shifted down). Overall, it shows players' posting volume is fairly consistent. Ickbpth. I don't like this wording. Saying somebody is more talkative just because they have over the median line of posts is...not good. Somebody could have a lot more posts because they have a lot more fluff. Or most of their posts could be one line. Similarly, somebody with few posts could have a chock-ton of information and analysis in one post, and paragraphs upon paragraphs of information in their 3 posts. I mean, look at Roosh's last two posts. If those were his only two posts for this Day, I highly doubt anybody would qualify him as "not talkative."
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 4, 2007 12:07:41 GMT -5
Fine, just make your point in specifics instead of making vague references, and then adding other vague references to your attempts at clarification. You post two lists that I am not on, then say that I'm on "both lists". Who wouldn't be confused?
Because I know that your suspect list contains at least one false positive (myself), I am very curious about your analysis on the others. Not because I wish to dismiss it outright, but because I truly wish to understand it. I think it is very likely that there are scum lurking amongst those who have not been on the Pleo train, and it is very likely that they are using me and any suspicions against me as cover. Seeing these other players through your eyes enhances my visibility.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 4, 2007 12:09:26 GMT -5
NETA: That was to Santo's post #109
|
|
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 Dec 4, 2007 12:18:31 GMT -5
Re-reading your previous post what you said makes sense, Santo Rugger, but I think it is a little hard to tell when you quoted just a few names.
zeriel, I would have understood if you'd just said you didn't realize the Day was ending and decided not to make a vote. The fact that you said "but I would have voted Diomedes" is what I find fishy.
It seems like you were trying to avoid actually committing to a voting record, while still throwing out names of people who are suspicious. You did something similar on Day 1, with your "unfocused suspicion" line (1.289) and a few more names.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Dec 4, 2007 12:20:15 GMT -5
Fine, just make your point in specifics instead of making vague references, and then adding other vague references to your attempts at clarification. You post two lists that I am not on, then say that I'm on "both lists". Who wouldn't be confused? Those that wouldn't be confused include those who have been following the game, and know that I've called you out several times for saying I shouldn't have a vote, which would have, in effect, caused the electrocution of the person you were voting for, instead. I'm not sure there's much to say more than what I've said already. I think Pleo's role is a scum role that takes two Nights to activate a kill, and that was a special power unique to his [scum] role. In order for that kill to work, one or two of his scum buddies would have to save him.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Dec 4, 2007 12:23:48 GMT -5
<snip>I mean, I admire their consistency and their unwavering charge, but seriously folks, aren't you the least bit afraid you're tunnel visioning? And if you're wrong and Pleo turns up town, then I hope you understand the same logic will be applied to you and the Let's Vote Pleo Fan Club.<snip> I think he's scum. While tunnel vision might be bad, I've consistently posted who I've thought was scummy throughout each day. Had one of those players been far above Pleo in votes, I would have switched to them. I feel the logic is different. Going after a player who you think is scum, compared to going after different players just so that the player you know is scum isn't offed.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Dec 4, 2007 12:25:30 GMT -5
Re-reading your previous post what you said makes sense, Santo Rugger, but I think it is a little hard to tell when you quoted just a few names. <snip> Those names are those who voted for the player who was eventually killed, in the last 24 hours. Sorry for not making that more clear.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 4, 2007 12:31:38 GMT -5
<snip>I mean, I admire their consistency and their unwavering charge, but seriously folks, aren't you the least bit afraid you're tunnel visioning? And if you're wrong and Pleo turns up town, then I hope you understand the same logic will be applied to you and the Let's Vote Pleo Fan Club.<snip> I think he's scum. While tunnel vision might be bad, I've consistently posted who I've thought was scummy throughout each day. Had one of those players been far above Pleo in votes, I would have switched to them. I feel the logic is different. Going after a player who you think is scum, compared to going after different players just so that the player you know is scum isn't offed. A suggestion for Santo and the others who want to lynch Pleo. Can you all vote for someone ELSE you think might be scum unless it looks like Pleo's lynch is gaining steam? There has to be more then one scum out there. You must have suspicions of someone else. And at this point Pleo and the suspicion against him is holding the town hostage. We either need to collectively decide to put off killing Pleo for a few Days or we need to collectively decide to kill him so we can move on with the game. But right now we are stalled and need to move on. (this is why I haven't posted to the game yet. Once I start its hard to stop. I don't have time for this!)
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Dec 4, 2007 12:35:54 GMT -5
Umm.. NAF? Pleo has the most votes against him right now. *sigh* I know what you mean about not having time for this... Damn DoE documents!
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Dec 4, 2007 12:49:02 GMT -5
Parzival: Yeah, day two was a pain in the ass for me in real life and I was flighty. I don't really remember WHAT my thought process regarding not voting for Dio was, I was a bit occupied mentally with holyshitnewjob. If I had to reconstruct my reasons, my recollection would be that I was thinking he was the vote leader anyway, and I wasn't sure enough to hammer him but I was sure enough to watch the thread to see if anyone else was gonna swing the vote away last-minute.
I don't think my day one votes were particularly unfounded. My reasons for mhaye were given, and my reasons for zuma were "he's not helping, and last time he acted this way it was a scum ploy"--for better or worse, history applies.
My vote's out there toDay too. I think my reasons are sound.
|
|