RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Jun 3, 2008 1:17:58 GMT -5
I'm really sorry. I had no idea it would get this long. If long posts make you angry, just skip this one. But I'd rather you read it. Maybe in small doses? Or use it as a reference to start off. May 30, 2008, 5:23pm (Koldanar's VC)less than 12 hours laterVote countStardragonman 2 : Darth, hockeyguy Hal Briston 1 : FlyingCowofDoom FCOD 1 : Bufftabby MrBlocky 2 : NAF, Nanook Czech 2 : Roosh, KidVermiciousBLaM 1 : hawkeyemoth Bufftabby 2 : storyteller, TDpatssuck Hockeyguy 1 : stardragonman. [/sub] Not Voting: 13, I believe. May 31, 2008, 10:18am Atarus VC#3 24 Hours after VC#2 hockeyguy8435 (8): stardragonman, Kat, hawkeyeop, ryjae, misterblockey, Roosh, bufftabby, Rebel bufftabby (5): tdpatriots12, Survivor Smurf, Hal Briston, FlyingCowofDoom, Tragic misterblockey (2): NAF1138, Nanook Tragic (2): KidVermicious, hockeymonkey Stardragonman (1): Darth Sensitive FlyingCowofDoom (1): Rysto Not Voting: (7)[/quote] Okay, Let's check out the Juicy bits, eh? Start off at 5pm or so May 30th. First Major Time Frame Point: Koldy's VC Reply #311 on May 30, 2008, 5:23pmStardragonman 2 : Darth, hockeyguyHal Briston 1 : FlyingCowofDoom FCOD 1 : Bufftabby MrBlocky 2 : NAF, Nanook Czech 2* : Roosh, KidVermicious [+Mr.Blocky] BLaM 1 : hawkeyemoth Bufftabby 2 : storyteller, TDpatssuck Hockeyguy 1 : stardragonman.
* Ah, first note: Koldy's votes were wrong: "Blocky voted Czech in post 284" many would point out. *Okay, so right now Czech is vote leader w/ 3 votes. Blocky, Buffy, SDM all are behind with 2 votes.* Reply #317 on May 30, 2008, 7:58pm: Greedy Votes Buffy -Buffy and Czech Votes are tied at 3 each. Reply #318 on May 30, 2008, 8:02pm: Hal votes Buffy - Buffy now Vote Leader with 4 votes, Czech is 2nd then Blocky, SDM -Two quick votes here puts Buffy into the lead, she's now the VL 3 hours after Koldy's VoteCount. But it's an iffy lynch. So let's keep at it, shall we? Reply #324 on May 30, 2008, 9:13pm: Kat Votes HG -THIS is a KEY KEY Vote. It was made at 9pm or so. Now, HG has 2 votes on him, and a much stronger argument vs. him than yet presented by Kat. -Vote Leader: Buffy (4), then Czech (3), then SDM, Blocky, and now HG with 2 each. Reply #329 on May 30, 2008, 9:59pm: Rysto votes FCoD. -This vote just votes for who Buffy was voting for. FCoD, a player many had said probably wasn't the best play that day due to the way he was still going after Hal continually. It's an interesting vote, mainly in it adding another player to 3rd place, but it could be WIFOM'ed. So i'll stay away from it for now. - Buffy (4) still the Vote leader an hour later, Czech is still #2 with (3), SDM, Blocky, HG, and now FCoD are all in the running with 2 votes. Reply #330 on May 30, 2008, 9:21pm: FCoD unvotes Hal, quoting Rysto's Post. -No major changes to Vote Leaders or top 3. Reply #333 on May 30, 2008, 9:42pm: KidVermicious unvotes Czech, Votes Buffy. -This is a really interesting move here- and one that it's nice for me to know KV's alignment now on.... - Buffy now is the Vote Leader with 5 votes. Czech is no longer #2, and there is a 5 way tie for 2nd place: Czech, Blocky, HG, FCoD, SDM are ALL tied for 2nd with 2 votes each. -Since we know that HG is scum, we can assume that scum do NOT want him probably dead, but other than that we can't really say anything. Especially if there are 2 scum groups, or if Buffy truly is a Mason or not. But all we know at this point Buffy has 5 votes for her, and the Demon Lord only has 2. Reply #334 on May 30, 2008, 9:51pm: FCoD now votes Buffy. - Buffy is the VL at 6, 5 way tie for 2nd. It looks pretty bad for her. -Also interesting how the votes seem to fall in chunks. Again 2 quick voters back to back. When it rains it piles or whatever. « Reply #335 on May 30, 2008, 9:51pm » HawkeyeOp unvotes BLaM, and Votes HG! -DemonLord at 3 now, Buffy still at 6, rest are still at 2.
Second Major Time Frame Point: [/b] Reply #340 on May 30, 2008, 10:31pm: Buffy Claims Mason. -At this point, she's got 6 Votes FOR her as Vote Leader. -HockeyGuy only has 3 votes for him. -SDM, Blocky, Czech, and FCoD all have 2 votes a piece. * My thoughts: now If I were a scum on HG's team here, I'd totally jump off the Mason Wagon, as it's just problematic. It's a Dead End. However, I'd go straight for the people 2 Votes a piece, and ignore HG, that way you could have a couple more 3 way dances, and try to play "hide the scum" amongst 2-3 other choices and just hope HG doesn't get lynched. So let's continue and see what goes down.* Reply #341 on May 30, 2008, 10:33pm: Ryjae (WITHOUT HEARING THE MASON CLAIM, only hearing Buffy's got a role) votes for HockeyGuy -This to me, is a pretty pro-town vote. He either played it REALLY safe, and didn't believe Buffy could be lying about her role, or he just was confident enough. But he's driving the Demon Lord up there in votes. - Buffy's still the leader at 6, but NOW HG's in the running for 2nd place with 4 votes, and the 2offers are all still there. Reply #342 on May 30, 2008, 10:41pm: HockeyGuy starts posting and trying to defend vs. Kat. (4 Posts in a row) -At this point, I'm sure he's realized he's got the 2nd most votes. So he's made a defense here. And at this point 5+ hours have elapsed since Koldy's vote count. In that time, we had 4 more voters for Buffy, driving her to claim, while there was just a shuffling around of the Czech/HG for 2nd most votes. It seems no one else really had much to talk about. It could be the time frame and that's just the people who were online at the time, or it could be that some people didn't really want to add much to the votes. We went from 13 non-voters at Koldy's vote, to 7 Non-voters by My Vote Count around Midnight. (Reply #351 on May 30, 2008, 11:33pm) Unofficial Vote Count as of Midnight or so Stardragonman 2 : Darth, hockeyguy FCOD 2 : Bufftabby, Rysto MrBlocky 2 : NAF, Nanook Czech 2 : Roosh, MrBlocky Bufftabby 6 : storyteller, TDpatssuck, GreedySmurf, Hal Briston, KidVermicious, FCoD Hockeyguy 4 : stardragonman, Kat, HawkeyeOp, Ryjae*Also, 2 of the 6 voters who did vote for Buffy are Known Town at this point. Interesting. -It is also my opinion, that I really doubt the Kat-Ryjae voters were all that scummy- It just doesn't make sense with the knowledge now that HG was scum to drive his votes up when he was nearly non-existent in votes earlier. StarDragonMan voted so early and poorly (just a blatant OMGUS) that I'll still keep him as a suspicious vote. But Kat, Hawkeye, and Ryjae all voted for HG without knowing that Buffy was going to claim Mason. That gives them tiny brownie points in my book. Reply #352 on May 30, 2008, 11:35pm: Tragic Votes Bufftabby *This was a WIERD Vote. Especially since it was made nearly an HOUR after the Mason Claim by Buffy TRAGIC: Care to explain/elaborate on this Vote?With it, Buffy stays the Vote Leader with 7 votes HG is still 2nd with 4 votes and the 2-offers are all still back there. -This Vote... just makes no sense to me. At all. I really wanna hear more. Because it's so blatantly scummy that I can't think of scum POSSIBLY doing it. Which is why it makes me suspicious. So Tragic, you get a free finger for this silly vote. FOS TRAGICReply #353 on May 30, 2008, 11:38pm: Story is the first to unvote Buffy for her Mason Claims. -Buffy goes down to 6 -HG still at 4 for 2nd place -Others at 2 Third Major Time Frame Point: Reply #355 on May 30, 2008, 11:40pm: Kat's 2nd Attack onto HockeyGuy. -This is the critical Post. It's the one being quoted so much by all the future HockeyGuy voters, with this one, she's basically given all future voters a "Me Too" excuse to get an easy vote on HG, I admit, I am one of those people, I thought it made sense, and it was stronger than any case I had for Czech at the time. Hell, you can see where I defend HockeyGuy and StarDragonMan as Newbies, but then once I realize that HG wasn't just being silly, but actually had inconsistencies in his playing style, I end up voting for him. Anyways, so lets see the ramifications of her Post: Reply #358 on May 30, 2008, 11:57pm: Mr. Blocky votes for HG, unvotes Czech. -Buffy still #1 with 6 votes -Czech now only has 1 vote, and isn't in 3rd place. But now HockeyGuy has 5 votes. It's now a race! Reply #360 on May 31, 2008, 1:15am: Roosh Votes for HG, unvotes Czech. -Buffy now has 6 votes, Hockey Guy has 6 votes. TIE for first place! -the next closest vote leaders are FCoD, SDM, and Mr. Blocky. *This is where it gets interesting again* What should scum do in this scenario? The Demon Lord is tied with a claimed Mason for votes. Do they bus him now? Do they focus on the one off votes? Or do they try to drive one of the 3rd place voters up there to try to tie with HG? Reply #362 on May 31, 2008, 1:24am Buffy unvotes FCoD, and Votes HockeyGuy. -Buffy now is in 2nd place with 6 votes -HG has 7 votes -FCoD has fallen from the choices to try to drive up there to reach the votes. Only Blocky and SDM have more than 1 vote really at this point.... -I'd say Buffy's vote is one of self-preservation. It's smart from any stand point if she wants to live. Only thing i'd add though in her favor- is is HG is a godfather sort of a person, AND buffy was his minion, then it'd be best for her to Bus herself, but this vote makes me think at least that HG and buffy were NOT on the same team, OR that Buffy is something equal to or MORE powerful than a Demon Lord, which just seems scary. Reply #364 on May 31, 2008, 1:40am: KidVermicious (2nd Buffy Unvoter) votes for TragicHG leads with 7 votes Buffy has 5 votes now Blocky/SDM have 2 each Tragic has 1 vote. -Again, it's good to know what side the Kid was playing for, but still. He votes for Tragic for her silly silly vote (one that she either just drive-by voted and just left the boards, or she didn't believe the claim of Buffy maybe? I'm not sure. But it's been an hour at least and she's kept her vote on Buffy. :shrug:) Reply #372 on May 31, 2008, 3:56am: Rebel votes HockeyGuy - HockeyGuy has 8 -Buffy has 5 -At this point Hockey's pretty much got the lead, anyone else close to him (Blocky/SDM) to be voted for would have to get 6 MORE votes just to TIE with HG. *I think Scum at this point would either just pile on to HG or hide, because it doesn't look good for HG. Reply #374 on May 31, 2008, 4:35am : Hockeyguy unvotes SDM. -Too little too late. Though it does mean that basically Mr. Blocky has 3rd place to himself. -----'Tis Morning now------- *So maybe the early birds will see the late Mason Claim for the first time? Reply #377 on May 31, 2008, 9:41am HockeyMonkey votes for Tragic for her vote on Buffy. Now Tragic is in 3rd place with Blocky, Buffy has 5 votes, and Hockey's still got 8 votes on him. Fourth Major Time Frame Point: Reply #381 on May 31, 2008, 10:18am: Atarus' Morning Vote Count[/b] Vote Counthockeyguy8435 (8): stardragonman, Kat, hawkeyeop, ryjae, misterblockey, Roosh, bufftabby, Rebel bufftabby (5): tdpatriots12, Survivor Smurf, Hal Briston, FlyingCowofDoom, Tragic misterblockey (2): NAF1138, Nanook Tragic (2): KidVermicious, hockeymonkey Stardragonman (1): Darth Sensitive FlyingCowofDoom (1): Rysto Not Voting: (7)[/sub] SWEET JESUS THIS POST IS LONG!!! AND ITS LATE! GAH! I need to wrap this up and talk more tomorrow!Reply #385 on May 31, 2008, 12:11pm: FCoD becomes the 3rd to Unvote Buffy, and votes for HG. Reply #388 on May 31, 2008, 12:40pm: Darth Sensitive unvotes SDM, and votes Tragic -HG has 8 votes, Buffy now has 4 votes, and Tragic is in 3rd place with 3 votes. Reply #391 on May 31, 2008, 1:17pm: HG Votes TragicReply #397 on May 31, 2008, 2:50pm: Hal unvotes Buffy, and votes Mhaye. Reply #406 on May 31, 2008, 4:06pm Mhaye votes for HG. -Now at this point, the HG lynch looks pretty obvious, but Mhaye's MO is always the late vote, so I can't hold it against him, but that doesn't mean I like it. Reply #407 on May 31, 2008, 4:29pm: Tdpats unvotes Buffy (4th one to do so now), and votes HG. **Note to self: Take a look at this vote later, it's a funky vote. - HawkeyeOp votes for TDPats later for this vote here.- Reply #418 on May 31, 2008, 6:14pm HawkeyeOp votes Tdpats, unvoting HG. Reply #428 on May 31, 2008, 7:50pm: Blam votes for FCoD. Gah.... This is freaking HUGE. That's what I get I suppose when I got post by post.... Apologies[/u] Because if you read all that, I probably owe you one.... But at least I've got ALL the votes/Unvotes made and the TIME/Post# of all the votes made here as well. -My goal for this week- I want to see what reasons people had for voting for HockeyGuy, which I don't think we're gonna get alot of variance on. ALOT of people cited Kat's major post as the defining reason. I def. want to hear more though from Tragic on her vote. It just seemed like SUCH a drive-by vote that i REALLY don't like it. There was just a vote, and no real explanation or nothing really afterwards. So please, I'd love to hear your thoughts more toDay. Same with Kison and Czech- how did you feel about yesterDay? What were your thoughts? Do you find anyone CURRENTLY suspicious based on the actions of yesterDay? I'd like to hear more from You guys as well. ugh. This post is fucking long. I'm really really sorry. Just, split it into chunks. Yeah, right. Even i know that sucks. I hope you read it.... It's more of just a record of actions, and not of motivations or such, so perhaps we could have someone like BLaM, or NAF go through this and perhaps use it as a starting point to discuss the votes more so? If it can help you guys, please use it, otherwise, i'm sorry it's so damn long.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Jun 3, 2008 1:20:58 GMT -5
:Looks at the above post: :cries: I'm SO Sorry! I swear!
|
|
|
Post by stardragonman on Jun 3, 2008 1:52:58 GMT -5
Thanks for trying to "analyze" my vote and its significance, but to be honest, it was a OMFGUS vote. I'm still getting the hang of all of this, but I think I'm starting to understand how this plays out. Good read Roosh.
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Jun 3, 2008 2:07:28 GMT -5
:Looks at the above post: :cries: I'm SO Sorry! I swear! No, it was beautiful, RoOsh. Not just 'cause it had my name in it so many times. I think this could be very revealing. My whole lynch drive seemed pretty manufactured as I was experiencing it. I'd like to take a look at some specific vote posts on that as well, but you're right, it's late, and that's going to wait for the morning. Taken completely out of context, this part is pretty super-sounding: "Buffy is something equal to or MORE powerful than a Demon Lord, which just seems scary." But not true. You are still welcome to have nightmares about my awesomeness, however.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Jun 3, 2008 2:07:52 GMT -5
Thanks for trying to "analyze" my vote and its significance, but to be honest, it was a OMFGUS vote. That's what I pretty much said it was: StarDragonMan voted so early and poorly (just a blatant OMGUS) that I'll still keep him as a suspicious vote. But thanks for reading.
|
|
|
Post by tdpatriots12 on Jun 3, 2008 2:22:38 GMT -5
Reply #407 on May 31, 2008, 4:29pm: Tdpats unvotes Buffy (4th one to do so now), and votes HG. **Note to self: Take a look at this vote later, it's a funky vote. - HawkeyeOp votes for TDPats later for this vote here.- The note about Tragic I admittedly distanced myself from later. I was careless and was just refreshing Day One. Her last post voted for bufftabby and then she went away. I didn't see her post in the Away thread till someone questioned what I said regarding her play. I'm embarrassed that I didn't see it. But, playing without knowing that, I was wondering where her explanation was. Dropping off the face of the planet is a good way to see if what you did is going to get you in trouble, or if you can just let it go. Also, to answer story's specific issue with my Tragic comments: The simple truth is that I didn't consider it. The thing you accused me of doing with my hockeyguy vote is actually kind of more what I did with my Tragic smudge, which is give her shit for not responding to an important question at the end of the Day. All that being said, it's not like I'm ruling her out, but I will definitely do my studying before throwing out a smudge like that again. However, hockeyguy and my vote on him is a different story. I wasn't confident he was scum, that's for sure, and it was reflected in my attitude - that I didn't like my two choices. Anyway, here's my vote for reference again: And story's issue with my hockeyguy vote: And hawkeyeop's issue with my hockeyguy vote: (I think I covered the vote twice, multiple lynch part in the Tragic section)I immediately disagreed with story's characterization of my vote, here is an elaboration on what I said: That sort of conflicting message was something I was often (but not constantly) editing out of my posts in the Batman game. Balancing your real win condition with the win conditions of the town requires a small amount of mental juggling, and as a new player I found it required special attention or I'd pull exactly the kind of mistake that I believed I saw in hockeyguy's post. It doesn't have to be obvious, just something that gives me the impression that something in the posters mind changed significantly while he was writing one post. Short-term, same day patterns are easier to camouflage* , but since you can't edit posts, mistakes that occur entirely within them never go away. I should also mention not totally buying Kat's case. I guess my reads of hockeyguy's posts, except for the one I mention, strike me as confused and disoriented, which I thought was more of a townie trait. *I think. I could elaborate but I'm really just jumping to a conclusion for the sake of illustrating the permanence of post content, it seems logical but I haven't exactly worked it out yet.
|
|
|
Post by tdpatriots12 on Jun 3, 2008 2:28:41 GMT -5
Clarification: Also, to answer story's specific issue with my Tragic comments: The simple truth is that I didn't consider it. The thing you accused me of doing with my hockeyguy vote is actually kind of more what I did with my Tragic smudge, which is give her shit for not responding to an important question at the end of the Day. What I meant by that was; not being around to answer important questions at the end of the Day is something I just don't like, and therefore it fits this... ...more accurately than my hockeyguy vote. But then, for the record, I didn't base a vote on that kind of disagreement, just an ill-advised smudge.
|
|
|
Post by stardragonman on Jun 3, 2008 2:29:39 GMT -5
To clarify, Roosh, I was talking about everyone else when I mentioned analyzing my vote, and not to you specifically.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Jun 3, 2008 4:47:37 GMT -5
First off, I'm likely to be a bit low on Mafia time until Thursday night. That, coupled with a wretched sore throat means I'm struggling to make sense of anything in the evenings. But I'll be keeping up. .But before storyteller's eyes, something else began to happen. A dark mist began to pour out of Hal's open eyes and mouth. Soon the mist congealed into a cloud. The cloud paused and hovered in the air as if considering storyteller, then it rose into the air, going higher and higher into the sky until it finally disappeared from view. Do you think that it's safe to assume from this that the Demonic Possessor does not transfer to another player? Unfortunately, I don't. One of the things we know is that game colour does not provide hints about game structure, except for the opening post. Atarus said that in post D1.109. I hypothesised (somewhere in the last 24 hours of Day 1) that there was a restriction on who an Incorporeal could possess if its previous host was killed, and that some roles are immune to possession. Hal's death scene supports both the hypothesis I advanced and the more tentative speculation regarding the details which I did not include. So I have to continually remind myself that Day 2 colour is not evidence of game structure. I think we can trust stuff about observable fact. That Hal wrote "I am possessed" for example. What we can't trust is the implication that his killer was a Corporeal. (Who else would just come to kill Hal? The exorcist would say he's come to free Hal, right? It's also worth remembering that in a case like this, evidence that refutes an hypothesis is conclusive proof that it is wrong; evidence that supports it is not conclusive proof that it's right. Mind you, if I'm right then the Corporeals, by killing Hal, have reduced the number of evil entities in the game and made it harder for themselves to win. I find that thought rather amusing.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Jun 3, 2008 8:57:53 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that link Mhaye. It saves me the trouble of looking like an idiot when I tried to analyze the color. (I had some really good ideas too!) But that statement doesn't appear to have any wiggle room, so I'll just let it go.
The post analysis from Roosh is very informative, if long. I was prepared to continue with my arguments against misterblockey today, but looking at what Roosh discovered, it seems like a good idea to move him down the list, at least for the time being.
Right now I would say my top two suspects are Tragic and Tdpats. I'm going to hold off on Tragic for the time being, to give her a chance to return to the game and provide some sort of explanation.
As for tdpats. Your vote for HG was terribly reasoned. You bandwagoned onto HG when it was obvious that he's was going to be lynched, but you did so with a very weak reason. Yes, I saw your explanation to story and Hawk, but it strikes very much as post hoc reasoning after your gambit failed. This is exactly the sort of move I would expect from a demon hoping to hide in the crowd.
Vote TDPats[/color]
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Jun 3, 2008 9:41:03 GMT -5
Roosh, that is tremendously helpful. I'm really having trouble keeping up with both games right now - I will never play two at a time ever again, this was just stupid of me - and having a synopsis like that keeps me from having to do it myself.
I'd like to move time point to time point, if that's OK, because I have a lot of interesting questions and I think we need to approach them (and, of course, the questions of others) systematically in order to get anywhere. Let's start at Roosh's second time point, when the vote count stands as such:
Bufftabby 6 : storyteller, TDpatssuck, GreedySmurf, Hal Briston, KidVermicious, FCoD Hockeyguy 4 : stardragonman, Kat, HawkeyeOp, Ryjae Stardragonman 2 : Darth, hockeyguy FCOD 2 : Bufftabby, Rysto MrBlocky 2 : NAF, Nanook Czech 2 : Roosh, MrBlocky
I think, at this point, I'm going to group voters into three groups, and discuss them separately:
---------------------------
First: six voters for bufftabby. I will provisionally guess that, given that the secondary target at this moment is the fricking Demon Lord, at least one demon is voting for buff. Now, since the following is based on that provisional guess, I'll start with: does anyone want to challenge that assertion? I'm open to discussion on the subject, and it is certainly possible that all six voters are pro-Town, but my feeling is that it's more likely than not that at least one is a Demon.
Now, I know that I'm not a Demon, and I now know that neither were Hal or KidVermicious. So from my perspective, there is a strong possibility that at least one of the trio - FCoD, Greedy Smurf, or tdpatslosttotheGiants - is a Demon. I realize that you all will include me in that group as well, which is only fair, but otherwise, does this make sense?
-----------------------
Group Two: four voters for hockeyguy, the Demon Lord. No info exists on any of them, except for ryjae who has made an incomplete and utterly untestable claim of a pro-Town power role.
And here is the key question, which I'm putting in orange text to emphasize its key-ness:
How do we assess the likelihood that one (or more) of these four are scum?
I'm interested specifically in discussion of these four votes. It is my opinion that of them, the third and fourth would be pretty dangerous scum votes. The first and second could easily hide scum trying to be clever. Other thoughts?
-------------
Finally, we have voters for other candidates. I think it's a cold stone certainty that some of those voters are Demons, but teasing out which given the dearth of information will require closer examination.
---------------
So there's my starting point. Much more from me as the day continues.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 10:57:29 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jun 3, 2008 10:57:29 GMT -5
Roosh, that is tremendously helpful. I'm really having trouble keeping up with both games right now - I will never play two at a time ever again, this was just stupid of me - and having a synopsis like that keeps me from having to do it myself. Can I take this moment to say you're crazy? Two games? First: six voters for bufftabby. I will provisionally guess that, given that the secondary target at this moment is the fricking Demon Lord, at least one demon is voting for buff. Now, since the following is based on that provisional guess, I'll start with: does anyone want to challenge that assertion? I'm open to discussion on the subject, and it is certainly possible that all six voters are pro-Town, but my feeling is that it's more likely than not that at least one is a Demon. I agree completely with this. Now, I know that I'm not a Demon, and I now know that neither were Hal or KidVermicious. So from my perspective, there is a strong possibility that at least one of the trio - FCoD, Greedy Smurf, or tdpatslosttotheGiants - is a Demon. I realize that you all will include me in that group as well, which is only fair, but otherwise, does this make sense? Yes. Obviously, the trio from my perspective consists of Smurf, TDPats, and storyteller. I am the most suspicious of TDPats. Here's what I think of these players: Survivor Smurf: I don't have a read on him. TDPats: I am leaning towards the scum side. I'd like to vote for him based upon the argument that I completely agree with in this post, by Nanook. I am going to read more of his posts before I cast my vote, but for now FOS TDPatsStoryteller: You scare me. In M2, when I was a Mafia Henchman, you were my Godfather. As I recall, the Mafia won because everyone was convinced of your townieness. I will never trust you again, ever! You consistently provide solid analysis and project a townie vibe. While you haven't done anything yet in this game to lead me to believe you're a demon, I am very wary. Group Two: four voters for hockeyguy, the Demon Lord. No info exists on any of them, except for ryjae who has made an incomplete and utterly untestable claim of a pro-Town power role. And here is the key question, which I'm putting in orange text to emphasize its key-ness: How do we assess the likelihood that one (or more) of these four are scum?I'm interested specifically in discussion of these four votes. It is my opinion that of them, the third and fourth would be pretty dangerous scum votes. The first and second could easily hide scum trying to be clever. Other thoughts? My thoughts on ryjae: I think that I don't know about his townieness. He certainly seemed to have a knowledge of some game mechanics that vanilla roles didn't, but then again, if what he said was true why would Hal be killed instead of merely investigated? We certainly can't rule out the possibility that ryjae is lying. Of course, it wouldn't make a lot of sense for him to have claimed so early without being in danger, but then again maybe he was just making a really gutsy play. Arg the WIFOM is starting to hurt my head. On hawkeyeop: I don't like this post he made earlier today about who he thinks is Town. See my response here. I am not yet ready to vote for him, but I did FOS him. I don't think it's far-fetched that a scum would have been the third vote for hockeyguy. At the time, buff had 6 votes to the Demon Lord's 3, so it was a pretty safe vote. All of this means that he is very high on my list of potential demons. Kat: I think it's unlikely that Kat is a demon. Her argument put the nail in the hockeyguy's coffin (at least it did for me). I don't think a scum would lead such a charge against the Demon Lord. stardragonman: I don't have much of a read on him. I do think it's likely that a scum would put the first vote on the Demon Lord so that down the road he can say, "But look I voted for scum way back!" That's not to say I think SDM is a demon, just that he could be. Finally, we have voters for other candidates. I think it's a cold stone certainty that some of those voters are Demons, but teasing out which given the dearth of information will require closer examination. I think it will be difficult to determine who the demons are among this group. Given that I'm sure that there is at least one demon in the groups we discussed above I'm comfortable in saying we should keep our attention on the aforementioned people (myself included, although I know I'm Town). --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 11:36:01 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Jun 3, 2008 11:36:01 GMT -5
Can I take this moment to say you're crazy? Two games? I'm doing the same, and I don't think it would be that bad...if this game wasn't as completely insane as it is. The closed set up combined with the weird things going on makes it really hard though. But neither of us are nearly as insane as Blam, who was doing all 3 current games until he got NK'd in Doperville. After some more consideration, I have a question for the group. Do you all think there's any information beyond the obvious hidden in the color? I'm thinking there might be, but atarus didn't want us getting caught up in it ala Batman, so he made the statement he did. If people think there's a chance of that, I'll share the thoughts I had. Otherwise I'll drop them. Or at least try to.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 11:48:03 GMT -5
Post by Rysto on Jun 3, 2008 11:48:03 GMT -5
Share, Nanook. I think that it's better to have as many avenues of discussion as possible.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 12:34:45 GMT -5
Post by tdpatriots12 on Jun 3, 2008 12:34:45 GMT -5
As for tdpats. Your vote for HG was terribly reasoned. You bandwagoned onto HG when it was obvious that he's was going to be lynched, but you did so with a very weak reason. Yes, I saw your explanation to story and Hawk, but it strikes very much as post hoc reasoning after your gambit failed. This is exactly the sort of move I would expect from a demon hoping to hide in the crowd. I have a request, if you're going to say my vote for hockeyguy was unreasonable, at least give me your views on why it was unreasonable so we can discuss it. Otherwise, what am I supposed to add here that I haven't already said? Well, apparently a lot... What's so unreasonable about it? Where's the post hoc stuff? I haven't said anything about my vote on hockeyguy that isn't consistent with my vote and following posts on him. I'll buy that I've done a lot of backtracking on what I said about Tragic that would, again, better fit what you're actually criticizing me about. Now on to story. I'm just curious as to how I'm suddenly on the buffwagon when my vote for her took place way before Kat's vote on hockeyguy, and the next time I was online . Here's the order of events re; buffy from my perspective: May 30, 3:58PM, post 300: Voted for bufftabby(later that day, 2 more people vote bufftabby, here and here) Then Kat posts her oft-quoted indictment of hockeyguy at exactly 9:13PM. Then I have a couple posts that almost immediately follow it (my first also occurs at 9:13PM). I don't remember for a fact if I read Kat's post that night or not, but I did decide to quit for the night. My posts were a defense and follow up of my bufftabby vote. After a mix of votes on different people, including two* new ones on bufftabby. This is all after Kat's post but before buffy's claim. Then there's the claim and Tragic's vote, as we've been over. Those two votes there, in the middle, between Kat's post and the mason claim are the only ones that actually fit your criteria (unless we're counting Tragic's post claim vote) of being votes that essentially have a choice between the case presented against hockeyguy and the buffwagon. Our votes weren't indicative of an "alternative to the demon lord" because at the time we placed them he wasn't even on the chopping block. However, it is possible that I left my vote on him as long as I could (~4 hours before the end of the Day) in the hopes that the Demonwagon (boy am I sick of bolding player names) would derail itself. Likewise the fact that you didn't see fit to "hide" your vote anywhere except your own pocket until your vote for me less than 3 hours before dusk probably will end up rubbing people the wrong way if/when I turn up as a dead townie. Now, story your theory about the scum hiding in the bufftabby vote isn't what I take issue with, you're probably right - there's scum in there and people need to look at both of us. But that being said, our votes on bufftabby happened before Kat's indictment of said demon lord, so when we placed our votes, how could it possibly have been a case of buff vs. hockey? How can you be choosing it as an alternative to a case that hasn't actually been presented? My first post back the next day is my unvote of bufftabby and my vote for hockeyguy. My vote has other/enough things wrong with it apparently without lumping it into a group it doesn't belong in. Given that I came back to the board to see that my best guess had claimed mason, it really wasn't like I had anything concrete in my back pocket. I went back and tried to find something scummy to vote for. So in my reread that post cited in my vote by hockey tripped my scumdar, which may work differently than some of yours, but I still feel like my vote was logically reasoned. Back to that late vote: If I had said, "Hey, I'm back, I really like Kat's explanation, vote hockeyguy" then maybe I'd still be pinging people, it doesn't matter. The point is I wanted 1) to vote for the person I thought was scummiest at the time 2) to have my own reasoning, for the purposes of discussion later. Otherwise what have I contributed with my vote? Nothing. What would I be saying now, "I continue to strenuously agree with Kat?" Meh. I didn't buy it then, neither did you, story. But I had my reasons for my vote and I'll continue to stand by them. Understandably though, I'm looking forward to seeing exactly how everyone responds to what I've said. Since I'm town, I'd prefer it if people saying my vote for hockeyguy was poorly reasoned actually examine my reasoning and refute it, so the town has posts of yours to look back on in the event I'm lynched. *These are FCOD (with something he admits resembles an OMGUS) and KidV(town). Since I think story is right and there's some scum on the buffwagon I don't think it's story based on the timing of his vote, I know it's not me, and KidV is town, that leaves FCOD, who might have gotten a FOS a second ago (I just deleted the orange color) until I saw how pivotal his hockeyguy vote was. So maybe it is a deadend, or we have the wrong "scum hid here" bandwagon. I do recall lots of people piling the votes on Tragic, and given what I said about her play, I can understand why, but it was also a different option for the scum. Someone who voted for a mason, seems easy enough to justify.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 12:55:36 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Jun 3, 2008 12:55:36 GMT -5
I have a request, if you're going to say my vote for hockeyguy was unreasonable, at least give me your views on why it was unreasonable so we can discuss it. Otherwise, what am I supposed to add here that I haven't already said? Well, apparently a lot... What's so unreasonable about it? Where's the post hoc stuff? I haven't said anything about my vote on hockeyguy that isn't consistent with my vote and following posts on him. I'll buy that I've done a lot of backtracking on what I said about Tragic that would, again, better fit what you're actually criticizing me about. Let's take a look then. This was the reasoning you provided when you placed the vote. This is terrible reasoning. Disagreement about strategy does not equal scummy. You were rightfully called out for it by story and responded with the following. This is where the post hoc reasoning comes in. The reason you provided stated nothing of a disconnect between ideas, or that you felt it was a scum tell. You stated that the strategy was bad and voted for it. Only when called on it did you pull this out. However, even if you used the post hoc reasoning originally, it would be a weak vote. A vote for a lurker is not a random vote, not exactly. I don't see any disconnect between what HD stated and how he voted. It really feels like you just wanted to get a vote on record for when a demon went down, but didn't want to just me too, since a very late me too would draw attention. But the reasoning you did use smacks as a desperation grab of something, anything besides the prevailing reason to vote the way you did.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 13:04:08 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Jun 3, 2008 13:04:08 GMT -5
Share, Nanook. I think that it's better to have as many avenues of discussion as possible. Ok. This is the section that caught my eye specifcally. What this is saying to me is that the speculation regarding the D2mons being a game mechanic that moves on the death of the possessed townie is accurate. It seems like the d2mon inhabiting Hal tried to move into another townie, in this case storyteller. It would then seem like it, the d2mon, decided against it or was unable to and left. This would imply that at least some people are immune to the possession, and that story is one of those. Maybe a power role, maybe a regular demon, maybe protected by someone else. Only story could really say for certain, and unless he's a demon I'd rather he kept quiet about it. (If you ARE a demon story, feel free to confess. It's good for the soul you know.) Then I thought about it some more and realized that it's unlikely that atarus would tell us who the d2mon jumped to, if and when they did, so we can't necessarily read anything into the interaction with story and what appears to be a dissipation. But it definately seems to confirm the game role part, and strongly hints at body jumping and protection from body jumping.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 13:05:00 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jun 3, 2008 13:05:00 GMT -5
I have a request, if you're going to say my vote for hockeyguy was unreasonable, at least give me your views on why it was unreasonable so we can discuss it. I, for one, will get there. As I said, I'm trying to approach this systematically. Having looked at that one moment in time and proposeda few theories based on it, I think the next step will be to figure out how we got to that particular moment. (NOTE: I know these timepoints are essentially arbitrary. I am using them to organize my thinking). Unfortunately, because I'm going back and forth between this and the other game - battling board timeouts, of course, at the Dope - it's taking me a while. You're on the buffwagon because you voted for buff. That's all. I'm on the wagon, too. Here's the order of events re; buffy from my perspective: Then Kat posts her oft-quoted indictment of hockeyguy at exactly 9:13PM. Then I have a couple posts that almost immediately follow it (my first also occurs at 9:13PM). I don't remember for a fact if I read Kat's post that night or not, but I did decide to quit for the night. My posts were a defense and follow up of my bufftabby vote. I snipped a whole mess of what you said here, because I need to read the sequence of events for myself to comment on them cogently. I just wanted to reply to this. Yes, that's a fair point, and one I will raise eventually. But looking at the situation at timepoint 2 specifically, it would seem to me that unlikely that all of the Demons avoided the BuffWagon entirely, simply because of the remaining votes, four were for the Demon Lord. I'm not sure I'm explaining this clearly enough. Let's try it this way: at timepoint 2, six votes were on bufftabby. I consider it monumentally unlikely that more than one of the votes for hockeyguy came from a Demon. Absent more information I can't really say even approximately how many scum there might be, but let's say there were five. Am I really to believe that, by timepoint 2, with no coordination beforehand, four of the five independently chose to avoid the two major bandwagons? I'm not worried about "rubbing people the wrong way," and your pseudo-threat here does nothing for your own defense. I voted for buff, removed it when she claimed Mason, then voted for you because I found you suspicious. I won't apologize for that or for the reasoning underlying it, whatever you come up, because it's the only way I know how to play. But the whole watch it, buddy, your suspicion of me will look bad if I turn out to be Town routine seems awfully scummy. Won't work, though. I don't... understand this passage. Here's my interpretation of what you're claiming: you came back and found your best guess had claimed Mason. Your second best guess was hockeyguy, based on a general feeling. You didn't want to piggyback on Kat's reasoning, so you scraped up some original reasoning. Because, with regard to Kat's reasoning: Referencing me there is a nice trick, I guess, but it's meaningless. True, I didn't buy Kat's argument (wrongly, as it turns out). You know what I did because of that disagreement? Didn't vote for hockeyguy. Above, you seem to be saying that: (1) You didn't buy Kat's argument; (2) you had to scrape up an argument of your own; and (3) you voted for hockeyguy anyway. I have lots of reading and analysis still to do. In the meanwhile: <Does the Robert DeNiro two fingers eye-to-eye pointing thing from Meet the Parents>
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 13:09:06 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jun 3, 2008 13:09:06 GMT -5
This would imply that at least some people are immune to the possession, and that story is one of those. Maybe a power role, maybe a regular demon, maybe protected by someone else. Only story could really say for certain, and unless he's a demon I'd rather he kept quiet about it. (If you ARE a demon story, feel free to confess. It's good for the soul you know.) In the interest of maximizing the available information, and because there's no harm to the disclosure, I will say that I have no reason to believe that I am immune to or protected from possession (beyond any protections that might have been granted by other players, about which I know nothing).
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 13:43:54 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jun 3, 2008 13:43:54 GMT -5
OK, let’s get serious about this. Time to review, in detail, how we got to timepoint 2, where bufftabby had six votes and hockeyguy had four.
By that time, the vote count stood as follows:
Czech (2): Roosh, KidVermicious, misterblockey misterblockey (2): NAF1138, Nanook Stardragonman (1): Darth Sensitive Hal Briston (1): FlyingCowofDoom FlyingCowofDoom (1): bufftabby BLAM (1): hawkeyeop
That’s a whole mess of varied one-off votes - I have no comment on those yet - and an intriguing little developing bandwagon on Czech. Hard to say whether that meant anything or not, just yet.
I do want to mention that at #285, Roosh gives an FoS to Czech despite having his vote already on him. That’s weird, to me. It may mean nothing, but it draws my eye to Roosh. Moving on.
BT Vote 1 - by storyteller - #296 - My vote for buff was principally because I felt like she was mischaracterizing FCoD’s arguments against Hal - she said he wanted to lynch Hal just for information, while I think he made it clear that he wanted to lynch Hal because he found Hal suspicious.
BT Vote 2 - by tdpatriots12 - #300 -Follows shortly; sees bufftabby as voting opportunistically. No pings.
HockeyGuy Vote 1 - by stardragonman - #301 - Clear OMGUS vote; hockeyguy had voted for SDM as a noncontributor; SDM responds with “if anything, you are not contributing much.” I have no problem seeing this as a potential scum vote, or as a Town vote.
BT Vote 3 - by Survivor Smurf - #317 - Reasoning follows:
OK. I don’t know how to respond to this.
BT Vote 4 - by Hal Briston - #318 - CONFIRMED TOWN
HockeyGuy Vote 2 - by Kat - #324 - Very forceful vote. I still don’t agree with her reasoning, but it was extensive. I don’t think we should ever completely exonerate someone on the basis of making a case against Scum - remember, all it takes is one Scum making it to the end for the Scum to win - but this is pretty close.
(Rysto in here at #329, voting for FCoD. Don’t agree with his reasoning, but don’t see anything manipulative or wrong about it).
BT Vote 5 - by Kid Vermicious - #333 - CONFIRMED TOWN, unvotes Czech
BT Vote 6 - by FCoD - #334 - He echoes some of my reasoning, adds some of his own. This post doesn’t really ping me at all.
HockeyGuy Vote 3 - by hawkeyeop - #335 - Basically summarizes the case against hockeyguy pretty succinctly: he voted for a lurker, while being one himself. This seems like a very strange place for scum to be, given the identity of HockeyGuy. The buff wagon is in full swing, there are alternate minor wagons everywhere; why swell the existing Demon Lord wagon to three, making it more of a legit wagon?
BUFFTABBY CLAIMS HERE
HockeyGuy Vote 4 - by ryjae - #341 - Piggybacks Kat’s case. Made after bufftabby’s claim, but seems to reflect not having read it. I agree: this is a weird vote, if ryjae is scum. On balance, given ryjae’s claim and this vote, I’m not at all inclined to vote for him any time soon.
And so we’ve arrived at Roosh’s timepoint #2. Observations to follow.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 13:44:23 GMT -5
Post by tdpatriots12 on Jun 3, 2008 13:44:23 GMT -5
I'm sorry but it does. I was pointing out what I thought was his mistake. You need to look at the post I voted for hockeyguy for, and understand the context. Here's the post again: I will break it down for you: * He says he doesn't know who is scum * He says three players are pinging him "more than others" - indicating that he thinks that they might be scum * Aside from a few posts or sentences? What game does he think we're playing? * Doesn't want to hurt the town * Votes for a lurker For Christ's sake, the purpose of the game is to vote for who you think is scummy. He stated that he had three options right there, and then voted for a lurker. Put another way... He said in his post that he finds three people scummy, he says that it was because of "posts and sentences." He then votes for something completely contrary to the rest of his post! It struck me as a scum mistake, which is why I pointed out that he farked up. It was his actual game strategy I was critiquing, not his pro-town lies. As a scum he shouldn't have done what he did in that post. Re: story it seems you're reading a lot of unintentional malice from my posts. I only wanted to point out that it was reasonable to 1) not buy Kat's argument, 2) Even townie actions given the right set of circumstances, can look scummy. On the other hand, if I was trying to call you out, I'd just do it (like Tragic and hopefully not stumble all over myself distancing myself from it). With regards to your clarifications regarding the buffwagon I think they make sense. Then you'd have to be thinking that as a scum player, I've completely changed my views on how to play the role since Batman, because all I did there when under pressure was deflect and hide until I got caught. I was extremely passive, intimidated even. So yes, it's entirely possible that I've become an aggressive scum player in that time. Or I could just be a townie, boldened by the freedom granted by shared win conditions . Above, you seem to be saying that: (1) You didn't buy Kat's argument; (2) you had to scrape up an argument of your own; and (3) you voted for hockeyguy anyway. That's exactly what I'm saying. *I come back, chief suspect claimed mason. Square one. Not to derail but where are we with this anyway?*Read Kat's argument and subsequent bandwagon, don't buy it. *Went back, looking for something scummy to vote for, saw hockeyguy's post and didn't like it at all. *Saw Tragic still had a vote up for said mason, and I got angry that she hadn't responded to questions. I covered how I messed that one up ad nauseam. Just because I didn't buy Kat's reasoning doesn't mean I therefore ruled out hockeyguy, that would have been monumentally stupid and I don't think anyone ever does this. We've been doing a lot of assuming that I'm scum. Assume I'm townie for a second and everything I'm saying has been the truth. Logging on at 4PM, with my vote currently on a claimed mason, and an already developed bandwagon steamrolling towards a lynch - it's not exactly a situation I think a lot of us would come out looking pristine. But frankly I didn't care, I voted for what I thought was scummy and damn the consequences, and here we are. In the interest of maximizing the available information, and because there's no harm to the disclosure, I will say that I have no reason to believe that I am immune to or protected from possession (beyond any protections that might have been granted by other players, about which I know nothing). If you're telling the truth then that would imply one of the following: *The demon that was possessing Hal now possesses someone else without said immunities. *The demon that was possessing Hal is dead, but there is a different possession mechanism we don't know about. *Your role's immunities are a red herring. An immunity is usually for balance purposes, yes? Then wouldn't it be directed at balancing the town's strength versus scum? I think maybe option #2 is looking better than I thought it did when I first read your statement. Second, if it is option #1 or option #2, the new host hasn't saw fit to inform us yet.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 13:51:07 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jun 3, 2008 13:51:07 GMT -5
That's exactly what I'm saying. *I come back, chief suspect claimed mason. Square one. Not to derail but where are we with this anyway?*Read Kat's argument and subsequent bandwagon, don't buy it. *Went back, looking for something scummy to vote for, saw hockeyguy's post and didn't like it at all. *Saw Tragic still had a vote up for said mason, and I got angry that she hadn't responded to questions. I covered how I messed that one up ad nauseam. OK. Your explanation is plausible to me. I just wanted to confirm that I was correctly understanding that explanation. I have no immunities. Maybe the post to which you were responding was badly written: I have no reason to believe that I am immune to possession.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 13:53:25 GMT -5
Post by tdpatriots12 on Jun 3, 2008 13:53:25 GMT -5
I have no immunities. Maybe the post to which you were responding was badly written: I have no reason to believe that I am immune to possession. That's what I meant, someone who wasn't immune to possession. Kind of obvious but I figured it had to be listed for completeness.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 14:20:49 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jun 3, 2008 14:20:49 GMT -5
Okay, I've been taking a look at who voted for me and what reasoning they used, so I'd like to go ahead and quote a shit ton of posts on the matter. First, my initial FCOD vote post (D1.240, couldn't figure out how to link to my own post), where the trouble seems to have begun: I'd like to get a vote on the record. Honestly, it's verging on a sideways OMGUS, but that's the best I've got at this point. vote FlyingCowofDoom I call it a sideways OMGUS because his/her vote against Hal bothers me. Why would we want to lynch someone who can potentially be converted to Town? I understand the angle of lynching for information, but I *hate* lynching purely for information. Another factor, still related to his vote on Hal, is the running commentary s/he's provided on the subject, including the following:"Also, Hal seems to making it clear that he knows more than the rest of us...it makes me suspicious..." "Well, my DemonometerTM is going off like crazy... Obviously we have three players that know something the rest of us don't...what should we do about it? I tend to think that any group that knows something I don't is bad, but then again they may be some sort of Mason group.My head hurts .""I'd like to point out another possibility, misterblockey: Hal is possessed by a demon, and if we lynch him the demon moves to a different town player. We may or may not be aware of this move. Hal might even show up as vanilla town. I think it'd be worth the risk of another possession to lynch him. If he turns up town, we could reasonably assume that he was possessed and that the demon has now moved. We may have lost a townie, but we'll have gained valuable information.""I really really don't think Hal is telling the truth." These posts just rub me the wrong way, becaause there is no potential belief of Hal in there. I am by no means convinced that Hal isn't up to no good, but I'm certainly willing to entertain the possibility that he is. It bothers me that FCOD seems to have such a hard-on for voting Hal, and so that's where my vote is going. "
Then we've got storyteller's response to that, and the first buff vote, D1.296, 5-30, 13:16 (link to post button not working w my browser, so sorry guys):
"OK. Trying to strip back to the basics, here's what I have: My read on Flying Cow of Doom is that, whether he is Scum or Town - and I haven't the faintest clue either way, nor is it particularly germane to the arm of the discussion that I'd like to open up - he has expressed specific suspicion of Hal for several clearly articulable reasons. They are not necessarily reasons with which I agree. For instance, one leg of FCoD's case is that he doesn't believe that the moderators would allow blatant circumventing of a "can't tell people you're possessed" rule. Now, having the benefit of playing in Three Kingdoms, where such circumvention was permitted, and in Batman, where the question of "what would the mods do?" was a question destined to lead the asker down paths of madness, I don't agree with this argument. But it's an argument. FCoD has outlined multiple reasons why he considers Hal to be the most suspicious player around - the most likely to be scum. He has also suggested that lynching Hal might produce useful information, but he has repeatedly and clearly stated in more than one post that the primary reason for his vote is that he finds Hal more suspicious than anyone else. And again, he's given his reasons. Now, I disagree with his conclusions, but one thing is clear: he is not trying to get Hal lynched purely for information. So then I read this:
-May 29, 2008, 17:07, bufftabby wrote:I call it a sideways OMGUS because his/her vote against Hal bothers me. Why would we want to lynch someone who can potentially be converted to Town? I understand the angle of lynching for information, but I *hate* lynching purely for information.-
And I am motivated to vote bufftabby, because this caricature of FCoD's position, used as a primary foundation for a vote - and a vote for a player who, current count aside, is in a precarious position in his current role as acting prosecutor in the Case of the People v. Hal Briston - is disingenuous. At best. More from bufftabby:
-Quote:Another factor, still related to his vote on Hal, is the running commentary s/he's provided on the subject,-
FCoD's a girl, and she's very sensitive on the subject. Be careful.
-Quote:including the following:"Also, Hal seems to making it clear that he knows more than the rest of us...it makes me suspicious..." "Well, my DemonometerTM is going off like crazy... Obviously we have three players that know something the rest of us don't...what should we do about it? I tend to think that any group that knows something I don't is bad, but then again they may be some sort of Mason group.My head hurts .""I'd like to point out another possibility, misterblockey: Hal is possessed by a demon, and if we lynch him the demon moves to a different town player. We may or may not be aware of this move. Hal might even show up as vanilla town. I think it'd be worth the risk of another possession to lynch him. If he turns up town, we could reasonably assume that he was possessed and that the demon has now moved. We may have lost a townie, but we'll have gained valuable information.""I really really don't think Hal is telling the truth."-
Nothing much to say about the above except that since bufftaby clearly read FCoD's posts, she can't argue that she somehow missed all the times that he has explained his motivation beyond "lynching for information."
-Quote:It bothers me that FCOD seems to have such a hard-on for voting Hal, and so that's where my. vote is going.- This simply makes no sense. buff castigates FCoD for "not considering that Hal might be on the side of the good," but that criticism could be applied to anyone who votes. Ever. I mean, on the basis of the above, could I fairly say that "bufftabby has a hard-on for voting FCoD?" Or is FCoD's vote for. Hal supposed to be more suspcious because he's continued to back it up? Post history of bufftabby will be forthcoming, though it might take some time. "
I find this post very interesting, because I've obviously stated that I voted FCOD for more reasons than just that he wanted to lynch Hal for info. So one could say that Storyteller is caricaturing me by saying that I voted for FCOD, caricaturing him as lynching solely for information. Next up is tdpats' vote post for me (D1.300 5-30, 14:58): "The votes seem all over the place at the moment, so I'll concentrate on what bothers me. There's bufftabby whose first post of this game made mention of a couple of theories about the setup, smudged Hal then FOSed me for not discussing what someone's post didn't say (or was it somehow implying that I wouldn't..?). But she seemed to let it go easily enough. Either she's a townie satisfied with the answer or scum realizing there's no traction in trying to lynch me based on something like that... ...her next post on a new subject is a vote for FlyingCowOfDoom. That's two substantive posts (since the others are mostly followups and questions about message board procedure) with one FOS and one vote. The next posts include a response to Czech where she goes on the record being against (in general) lynching a claimed role. I don't really have anything to say about this opinion one way or another. It all depends on the situation, I guess. The other is one against a Day extension. A Day extension would be a pro-town move, but I can see even townie players being against that kind of thing. So what have we got from bufftabby? *FOS on me*Vote on FCOD Meh. I've seen Day One votes sway for less. But just to make sure I'm not about to do a partial OMGUS vote, I'll examine the case against FCOD. Beware: "I don't think scum would do this" argument coming. Yes, I know the guy who claimed Ash in Batman probably is the last person you want to hear one of these from, but it's what I feel in my gut. Back to the idea that Day One lynches can happen for almost any reason... If there's any point in which the scum benefit most from blending in, it's Day One. Everyone is (relatively, if ryjae is to be believed) completely clueless, and it's easy to hide in a sea of ignorance. There's an endless amount of possibilities to speculate on, and if you're careful (and lucky) you can last the whole day without pinging a soul. FCOD is defending his vote on Hal because he believes we should vote for who is the most scummy. I agree. I am not convinced by his argument, but I think if he was scum, he might have dropped it by now. Yes, in the back of my mind I am thinking I may regret this opinion down the road, but the following things lead me to believe Hal, and still think FCOD is town. * Hal basically claimed first. Definitely not a "scum wouldn't do this" thing, but it would be an incredibly risky play. What are the scenarios where this is a really smart play? If he's a bomb? Too many variables and I'd rather give our power roles an opportunity to do their work, at least Tonight. * FCOD is in my opinion either a determined townie or is playing a scum role very nicely. My current theories about mafia mean, though, that if given a choice between underestimating or overestimating a player... I should err on the side that they're not doing anything particularly impressive. Anyway, if they are, then I suppose I deserve to get fooled by it on Day One. Where does this leave my vote ~4 min from when I have to stop typing? I am never really happy with Day One votes, but I think the fact that bufftabby strikes me as an opportunist with her posts so far... I'm gonna have to: vote bufftabby Probly won't be back to see how the rest of the Day goes, but who knows with Comcast.
-May 30, 2008, 13:16, storyteller0910 wrote:And I am motivated to vote bufftabby, because this caricature of FCoD's position, used as a primary foundation for a vote - and a vote for a player who, current count aside, is in a precarious position in his current role as acting prosecutor in the Case of the People v. Hal Briston - is disingenuous. At best- (vote color removed for mod convenience) I think the way she misinterpreted my post regarding misterblockey's list is consistent with this kind of convenient caricature, isn't it?"
Looks like an attempt to be buddybuddy with storyteller, tdpats. Duly noted. It's interesting that this vote seems to rest on the idea of, Look, here's how FCOD could be Town. Voting for him sure is scummy, let's vote buff. I don't like that strategy one bit, I must say.
Next up is Survivor Smurf (D1. 317, 5-30, 18:58),
"Both Mister Blocky & bufftabby I can buy those votes. But, I keep having to go back to Mafia Rule #1 - vote for who you think is scummy. And for me at the moment that is bufftabby.VOTE Bufftabby I don't have a case, with quotes and arguments, at least not one that would add anything new to the vote, it is more a 'feel' I am getting."
What a lovely vote. He doesn't have a case, just a feel, yet he can buy the votes against me. This seems like a pussyfoot around a "me too" vote.
Then we've got Hal Briston's "me too post". So obviously not everyone on my bandwagon is scum, but I want to include this for continuity/timeline purposes (D1.318, 5-30, 17:02). "Ok, 1 minute until quitting time....my big three of late are Stardragonman, misterblockey and Bufftabby. I think I'm going to hitch a ride on storyteller's synopsis and throw this one in as: vote Bufftabby Sorry...If I turn out to be wrong, I'll buy the pee cake. "
As a side note, here's rebel's take on my situation (D1.319, 5-30, 19:25: "-I’m really trying to see how what bufftabby did/said has brought upon her so many votes. It’s something else I’m going to have to relook at now. "
Very noncommittal, yet still having an opinion on the subject. I don't really have a problem with this comment, but I'm trying to be all-inclusive here, in case I'm missing some significant details somewhere, and I thought this comment was worth a look-see at least.
Another similar comment, this time from Czech (D1.322 5-30, 19:56): "At the moment, I can't really see Bufftabby's scumtells either, as much as I'd like to get people on that bandwagon and off mine." I consider this somewhat of a point in czech's favor. He could've voted for me and cried self-preservation, (a famously null tell, I hear,) but didn't.
Now some commentary from hockeymonkey (D1.332, 5-30, 21:40) "I'm torn on my re-read on who to vote for: hockeyguy, bufftabby, or FCOD. I've never played with 2 of them and it's been a while since I've been in a game with FCOD, and it's been hard to get a read. I will vote before the deadline, for one of these three. (Unless compelling evidence for someone else comes to light.) "
I'd really like to see your reasoning behind this, hockey monkey. To be honest, this pinged me a bit the first go 'round, since in this same post, you also quoted kat's case against hockeyguy, but then expanded your pool of potential votees to include FCOD and me. If you're considering voting FCOD at this point, obviously you find him suspicious. So why would you find me suspicious as well, since the votes for me are all founded on my vote for FCOD? This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical accusation, by the way. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that there is a reasonable explanation. I do find your later vote interesting, however: (D1.377, 5-31, 8:41): "I know I had a list of people I would choose from to vote for, but I'm not going to vote for a claimed mason, the bandwagon on hockeyguy seems to be gaining speed way too fast, with a lot of "me too" type votes, and FCOD just isn't pinging me the same on re-read. vote tragic ...for voting for a claimed mason." There's no real commentary there on the hockeyguy situation, just a distaste for the speed and methodology of his bandwagon. I also find it sketchy that you voted for Tragic, who had very clearly stated that she was having some troubles, and so could easily have failed to read the entire thread. She may still be scum, but hockeyguy's case seemed a lot more compelling at the time.
Kid V voted next for me, citing my commentary on the difference in opinion between FCOD and I, a post I made that was regrettably unclear that my vote on FCOD was not exactly based on a difference in opinion.
Then FCOD votes for me (D1.334 5-30, 21:51) "I get that the majority of people don't think my logic is sound. That's fine, I can deal with that. bufftabby seems to be trying to twist that into scummy behavior, and that's why I'm voting for her. I didn't read anything in her posts that pointed out anything I did that was actually scummy, just things I did that she didn't agree with. A classic scum move is trying to turn something a town player said that might be considered scummy into something scummy, and that's what I think is going on here." (Actual vote snipped bc it was followed by quotes from me, then the above-quoted analysis).
This could easily be a vote from a Town player; while I disagree with the reasoning, I understand it.
Next up is Tragic's famous post-mason-reveal vote against me: "- I think the whole thing with stardragonman and hockeyguy likely stems from the fact that they know each other outside of the game and it's probably an easy vote to cast if you're otherwise lost, overwhelmed or trying to kick the other's butt into gear. That's not to say that their actions, discussions and what not are excusable but I'm shedding what light I have on the situation. Vote bufftabby What pinged me as 'off' was her voting FCOD based on a difference of opinions. That's just one of the more recent pings considering that she's been involved in several 'arguements' and 'disagreements' where there's been a feeling that she's been trying to smudge another's reputation. Just feeling a little.. warry at the moment."
I find her mention of hockeyguy intriguing, as it is a slight defense of him, but not exactly. This entire post could be very innocent; I know she's got some oog stuff going on at that time, but I think it bears noting. I also would like some details on these smudges you mention, Tragic.
Now, again we've got criticism of the hockeyguy bandwagon for developing too quickly, this time from storyteller: "3. I need to read more carefully to see what I think of this hockeyguy wagon, which has developed far too quickly for my taste."
I find that arguement (also used by hockeymonkey) very interesting, as the votes pretty much have to go somewhere when they come off of me, and it's almost go-time, so any other vote trend after mine pretty much has no choice but to develop quickly. The end of Day was closing in quickly. Were people supposed to be taking their time then?
And finally, Blam comes in and explains my FCOD vote way better than I apparently could (D1.420, 17:40):
"The part that has me suspicious, isn't the reasoning for a vote for Hal, but the fact that he wants to vote for him at all. That is, the reasons he laid out could be legitimately what he thinks, or they could be post hoc reasons for why a scum would want him lynched. However, he's completely ignored the good reasons we have to keeping him alive. Such that, he really has no scum motivation for making the claim he did, we have no reason to believe that the holy water bit wasn't a legitimate mistake on Hal's part, and there's a massive potential for gaining information there without actually having to kill someone for trying to do what's best for the town, if he's honest. "
Which is exactly what I was getting at, but completely ineffectively.
By the end of it all, only survivor smurf and tragic had left their votes on me, and only czech and kison had not voted.
I hope this was not too long, but I know it was. I hope I at least provided some interesting information here, as a sort of addendum to RoOsh's excellent post last evening. I apologize again for the suckiness of my formatting on this. Tried to link to posts, apparently don't know how to do so properly.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 14:51:00 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Jun 3, 2008 14:51:00 GMT -5
So my point of all of this is...you can't just say you think people are not scum without actually saying something more. In retrospect, I shouldn't have listed anyone in that initial post, and just explained how I'm going to go about this day. I'm not making a confirmed town list. I'm not trying to figure out who is most likely to be town. What I am trying to do is figure out is who to vote for today. There have been discussions here and elsewhere on how scum don't really behave in a "scummy" fashion anymore than town members do. So I want to try something else. I'm going to through all the posts thus far, and see who I think seems Pro-town, and see what is left. I don't know that this will work any better, and is probably only as good as my observational skills, but we shall see. I do plan on giving reasons as to why people will not get my vote today including the ones' that I previously mentioned. I don't expect everyone to agree with all my reasons. This isn't a list of things we know, or are pretty damn sure of. This is a list of people I think are townie, just like others may create a list of people who they think are scummy. I will reconsider the entire field each day.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 15:00:47 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jun 3, 2008 15:00:47 GMT -5
Okay, I've been taking a look at who voted for me and what reasoning they used, so I'd like to go ahead and quote a shit ton of posts on the matter. [snip] I hope this was not too long, but I know it was. I hope I at least provided some interesting information here, as a sort of addendum to RoOsh's excellent post last evening. I apologize again for the suckiness of my formatting on this. Tried to link to posts, apparently don't know how to do so properly. This post is nearly impossible to read. I strongly suggest you re-post it with proper quoting. To quote a post, just use the quote tag: [ quote]Text to be quoted[ /quote]. You should not put spaces between the [ and the quote, but I can't write it the way it will look exactly because it will be interpreted as a quote. If the keyword was "kwote" instead it would look like [kwote]Text[/kwote]. If you would like to quote a post and have the link and everything, find the post in a separate browser window, click the "quote" button, and copy the code that is in the new post window. To link to a post, use the url tag: [ url=http://whatever.thelinkis.com/blablabla]This is the text that will be underlined[ /url] --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 15:14:25 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jun 3, 2008 15:14:25 GMT -5
Okay, I've been taking a look at who voted for me and what reasoning they used, so I'd like to go ahead and quote a shit ton of posts on the matter. [snip] I hope this was not too long, but I know it was. I hope I at least provided some interesting information here, as a sort of addendum to RoOsh's excellent post last evening. I apologize again for the suckiness of my formatting on this. Tried to link to posts, apparently don't know how to do so properly. This post is nearly impossible to read. I strongly suggest you re-post it with proper quoting. To quote a post, just use the quote tag: [ quote]Text to be quoted[ /quote]. You should not put spaces between the [ and the quote, but I can't write it the way it will look exactly because it will be interpreted as a quote. If the keyword was "kwote" instead it would look like [kwote]Text[/kwote]. If you would like to quote a post and have the link and everything, find the post in a separate browser window, click the "quote" button, and copy the code that is in the new post window. To link to a post, use the url tag: [ url=http://whatever.thelinkis.com/blablabla]This is the text that will be underlined[ /url] -FCOD Thanks, it can be hard to tell how things look from my Blackberry. I had tried the quote tags before, and it didn't work, but I see what I did wrong now. Unfortunately I have no such thing as a separate browser window, but I'll reformat in a bit.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 15:21:08 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jun 3, 2008 15:21:08 GMT -5
So my point of all of this is...you can't just say you think people are not scum without actually saying something more. In retrospect, I shouldn't have listed anyone in that initial post, and just explained how I'm going to go about this day. I'm not making a confirmed town list. I'm not trying to figure out who is most likely to be town. What I am trying to do is figure out is who to vote for today. There have been discussions here and elsewhere on how scum don't really behave in a "scummy" fashion anymore than town members do. So I want to try something else. I'm going to through all the posts thus far, and see who I think seems Pro-town, and see what is left. I don't know that this will work any better, and is probably only as good as my observational skills, but we shall see. I do plan on giving reasons as to why people will not get my vote today including the ones' that I previously mentioned. I don't expect everyone to agree with all my reasons. This isn't a list of things we know, or are pretty damn sure of. This is a list of people I think are townie, just like others may create a list of people who they think are scummy. I will reconsider the entire field each day. I get that, and I got it at the time. No, you probably shouldn't have posted a list, but you did...so now it's out there. I more or less understand your reasoning behind the players on the list too. But the whole thing gives me pause.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 15:23:30 GMT -5
Post by tdpatriots12 on Jun 3, 2008 15:23:30 GMT -5
Looks like an attempt to be buddybuddy with storyteller, tdpats. Duly noted. It could, and thanks for your comment on it. I did admit here that I tacked that part on hoping to elicit a response. I'm glad that it continues to do so! Moving on... Reasons I voted for you: *Day One paranoia/partial OMGUS (This used to happen more with me, now I dont smoke before posting, lol) It's partial because I didn't end up using it as my justification, but it was why I looked at you more carefully. I think that's a natural reaction. *That being said I absolutely hated your reasoning for your FOS on me, but I figure we covered that pretty effectively Yesterday. Feel free to look it up again. *Your substantive posts* up to that point didn't give me much to work with to form a contrary opinion. Look at what I said about FCOD in one of my posts earlier in this thread, I was about to FOS him for his vote on you (given it's timing and story's theories about where scum might be hiding, plus my own interpretation) until I noticed his vote on hockeyguy put him 4 votes in the lead. I'd say this vote, and not mhaye's sealed his fate. But that's more of a judgement call. The point is there was contradictory evidence that forced me to question the conclusion I had drawn based on his bufftabby vote. I am not bringing this up to smudge or poke FCOD (he can take it however he wishes, however I AM about to defend some of his Day One actions, FWIW) but to help illustrate that no such posts existed from you at the time of my vote to make me question what bugged me... *Here's the core of it (bold emphasis added): *Here are what I define as your substantial posts that took place before my vote, and therefore were the ones that led to it. FOS on meVote on FCODGeneral post about lynching claimed roles, I read this as a null tell as it seems purely speculative but internally consistent.(Feel free to dispute my definition of substantive, but thes are the posts I was going with for my vote)The first two are targetting specific players, and I didn't like your reasoning for either of them. I therefore judged your play to smack of opportunism, but it might have been some confirmation bias kicking in. As it was Day One, I wouldn't be shocked if I was completely wrong. But if I was, you weren't giving me much reason to think so at the time. Anyway, I unvoted the next time I was on after your mason claim. I don't know what else I could have done. Thanks, it can be hard to tell how things look from my Blackberry. I had tried the quote tags before, and it didn't work, but I see what I did wrong now. Unfortunately I have no such thing as a separate browser window, but I'll reformat in a bit. If using quote brackets is difficult/not worth it on your Blackberry or whatever, you can use different color, bolding, whatever, just make it clearer what you're saying and what you're quoting. (color=purple), (/color) replace ( with [ , obv.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jun 3, 2008 15:29:01 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jun 3, 2008 15:29:01 GMT -5
All right, let me try this again, this time with quote tags!
Okay, I've been taking a look at who voted for me and what reasoning they used, so I'd like to go ahead and quote a shit ton of posts on the matter. First, my initial FCOD vote post (D1.240, couldn't figure out how to link to my own post), where the trouble seems to have begun:
Then we've got storyteller's response to that, and the first buff vote, D1.296, 5-30, 13:16 (link to post button not working w my browser, so sorry guys):
I find this post very interesting, because I've obviously stated that I voted FCOD for more reasons than just that he wanted to lynch Hal for info. So one could say that Storyteller is caricaturing me by saying that I voted for FCOD, caricaturing him as lynching solely for information.
Next up is tdpats' vote post for me (D1.300 5-30, 14:58):
|
|