|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 10:05:43 GMT -5
Post by Mad The Swine on Aug 1, 2007 10:05:43 GMT -5
. Why? Honestly, you can't just say something is scummy and not explain it. Otherwise I could decide that using the word "trout" is a scum tell, and vote for any and all who use the word "trout." What about my early vote seems scummy to you? I explained it. I still don't understand why I shouldn't vote for the person who seems most suspicious to me. Explain it to me. I can say whatever I want TYVM...that is the same type of argument that got drain in trouble in the first place. I don't believe you would cast a vote for someone who voted early on to kill a scum,it seemed you didn't even consider that.I find that odd. I know there may be other reasons. walleye
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 10:33:47 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Aug 1, 2007 10:33:47 GMT -5
If I am right ,I would bet that all the scum(except maybe one) voted for drain. I agree with some of what you're saying - I know you're wrong about me in particular, but there's no reason for you to know that if you're actually pro-town - but I would be genuinely astonished if all the N scum, or even N-1, voted for drainbead. Astonished.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 10:45:21 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Aug 1, 2007 10:45:21 GMT -5
I can say whatever I want TYVM... I'm a little embarassed to note that I have no idea what this acronym means. Trout Yell Very Madly? 'Till You Venerate Meercats? The Yellow Van of Murder? But acronym aside, you can certainly say whatever you want. So I'll restate: if you say something is a scum tell, but give no reasons why it should be a scum tell, then it is useless. No, drain "got in trouble," at least with me, by: (1) accusing you of voting without an explanation when you provided an explanation (albeit a frivolous one) one post below; (2) Singling out you for attention when others were engaged in the same behavior. I, on the other hand, have asked you to explain why you consider an action a scum tell. Prior to that request, you had not provided an explanation. Further, asking you to clarify your statement is making no argument at all. Please don't mischaracterize my posts. I'm going to put this on a macro: I voted for Roosh because I thought he was the most suspicious person in the game at that point. Doesn't mean I can't see arguments for and against. I will always vote for the person I think is the most suspicious person in the game at that point. Once I have an opinion on that subject, I see no reason to withhold my vote; my vote isn't an insta-kill. It can be withdrawn at any moment. It has no immediate impact on Roosh beyond recording and documenting my suspicion of him.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 10:48:34 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Aug 1, 2007 10:48:34 GMT -5
If I am right ,I would bet that all the scum(except maybe one) voted for drain. I agree with some of what you're saying - I know you're wrong about me in particular, but there's no reason for you to know that if you're actually pro-town - but I would be genuinely astonished if all the N scum, or even N-1, voted for drainbead. Astonished. I have to agree with you on that. Though I believe there is some possibility drainbead's death was pre-arranged, there are other scenarios that cover what happened. For instance, it could be that there was an attempt to just establish an early "vendetta" amongst crazies, to throw us off their scents that got out of hand. It might be that two of the top candidates for lynch were scum and that they couldn't really save both of them.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 11:04:59 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Aug 1, 2007 11:04:59 GMT -5
Ok, here's my info dump post. It mostly concerns activity on Day One.
1. Blaster Master - Will you shut UP about the random votes already? Seriously.
2. Hal Briston - I have a peg on him as a pro-town role. I think the thing with Greedy Smurf was odd, but I think it was just poorly worded. BOtD for now.
3. Storyteller0910 - As per usual, thoughtful posts that are generally concise and to the point. In past games, even when he was scum, analysis was thorough and generally helpful (until the endgame, of course).
4. Malacandra - Seems to be taking a lot of heat ToDay, from several different players, and most of his posts have necessarily been defending himself. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary when he voted YesterDay, but looking back, it does seem very odd the way he tied the votes up.
6. MadtheSwine - He's crazy, but I don't have a psycopath read on him.
7. Capybara - Tends to shoot from the hip, if you will. It could be an honest information flood, or it could be scum trying to confuse the reading of her posts by not using any actual paragraphs, making the reading obscure.
9. DiggitCamera - Still working on this one.
11. dotchan - Has some good points, no real read.
12. GreedySmurf - Says he's new, but's done a lot of observing. I'm not sure what to think of the Day One votes he garnered.
13. Roosh - Not sure, has some really substantial posts, but they tend to have minor flaws. I'm almost willing to let this go, as it seems his posts are similar to capybara's (except with paragraphs!)
14. dnooman - Not quite sure
15. cowgirl - Has much more logic and info in her posts than she did in 1982.
16. nesta - Again, thoughtful posts, no real read.
17. Pygmy Rugger - 100% town.
18. JSexton - His play style is... odd? I don't really understand the motive of the things he says sometimes, but who knows? I'm willing to give him the BOtD for now.
19. Mhaye - Says some stuff that's contradictory. I'm not sure if it's honestly changing perspective, or sneakily trying to get out of a jam.
I took a bunch of notes last night, but left them at home, so this is all off the top of my head. Feel free to point out anything that's incorrect, and I'll change my mental note.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 11:23:49 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Aug 1, 2007 11:23:49 GMT -5
Hi All...sorry for the lack of content toDay...as those of you following my most recent MPSIMS thread know, it's been a hectic couple of days. But, time to catch up now! While I've got a lot of reading to do, I did quickly skim the thread just to check for votes for the spreadsheet. One post jumped out at me: 2) Does the fact the Hockey voiced suspicions of Mal 130 times of the course of Day One absolve Mal at all? (assuming that the scum wouldn't want to appear to kill someone who was after one of them that clearly-- her death implicates Mal in a superficial way, and they'd be smart enough to avoid that (as Roosh should know. . .). Or it is a triple bluff? Is Mal indeed scum but they knew someone would post this very post?) While I don't necessarily think the following is true, here's something to consider: If it's a triple bluff, and a scummy Mal knew someone would post that very post, might he have known it because the two of you discussed it in private? That would certainly make for an interesting triple-bluff-plus.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 12:44:09 GMT -5
Post by Malacandra on Aug 1, 2007 12:44:09 GMT -5
I can say whatever I want TYVM... I'm a little embarassed to note that I have no idea what this acronym means. Trout Yell Very Madly? 'Till You Venerate Meercats? The Yellow Van of Murder? . (Thank You Very Much.)
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 13:26:31 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Aug 1, 2007 13:26:31 GMT -5
A short answer to dnooman. I spent all yesterday with a blazing headache. I simply couldn't face the idea of trying to read posts on this glaring white background until it cleared. I've managed to catch up reading, so now I'm going to let it stew a while. Hopefully I'll have something of substance tonight, but more likely tomorrow. We'll see how distracted I am by Heroes - that's only 40 minutes though. Got to leave now. I'm sorry that you had a headache, but you neglected to posit even the shadiest explanation of your activity. I didn't actually neglect anything. I posted all I had time for this morning. I'll try and do something tonight, but don't hold your breath. It might not happen until tomorrow. 19. Mhaye - Says some stuff that's contradictory. I'm not sure if it's honestly changing perspective, or sneakily trying to get out of a jam. If you can isolate what you find contradictory I'd be grateful.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 13:30:51 GMT -5
Post by cowgirl on Aug 1, 2007 13:30:51 GMT -5
Wow. Quiet Day. A day and a half left and there's not much action.
In the spirit of voting for whoever seems the scummiest, I'll vote Malacandra for the same reasons I voted for him yesterday.
I'm open to other suggestions, tho.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 14:22:52 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Aug 1, 2007 14:22:52 GMT -5
Malacandra (3) - JSexton, dotchan, cowgirl Mhaye (1) - dnooman Roosh (1) - Storyteller0910 Storyteller0910 (1) - Mad the Swine
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 14:52:27 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Aug 1, 2007 14:52:27 GMT -5
( Dotchan. I haven't read over this. But i apoligize if it seems a little harsh. That is not my intention. But, here are my thoughts:) Dotchan... I know this might be coming outta left field and all, but its kinda how I think, and i think its currently how you're playing. I thought about your voting habits on day one. It was first a random vote for me. But then you un-voted, which is cool for me. But... then what? You seemed very indecisive on day one, and didn't vote that day. There were 3 very big wagons, but you stayed away "from them all. Perhaps you didn't know which one was scum.... Perhaps you felt they were all innocent? Perhaps you wanted to be the hidden scum? Okay, that last one was a little low. But still. Your last posts in day one happen to mention Wine-in-front-of-me scenarios. (Replies #333, #331, and then Reply #357 as to why you didn't vote). Why is it that you were fine with Casting a random vote early on (a possible way to start a bandwagon), but then felt that none of the 3 were even slightly scummy enough to get behind? But now.... Day 2 comes along. You have re-calibrated your scumdar hopefully (as you said you would do). In reply 21: You state: Analyzing deaths doesn't seem all that useful to me...it's not like we can read the psycho's minds. (And it almost seems like a scummy thing to do, like the scum want to show off how smart they or something.) That was either a faintly scummy thing to say, or a very Newbie thing to say. At the time, i figured it was a newbie thing to say. As you did during the night call the others "old timers", and by posting your meta-game questions. But then you clarify your statements in Reply #25, pointing out that we should analyze the day 1 info and the voting actions. So it's all cool again. You're back under my radar, and I kinda forgot about you. Especially since I had my own things to deal with. Reply 33: Again a mention of the Wine game, and supporting Storyteller in explaining about your early comment on deaths. Then Reply #62: This is your first major HUGE post of substance in my eyes. Your thoughts on what everyone could be. Lemme just snip a little bit of it. The part that caught my eye: Namely: Your feelings on Malacandra, and JSexton. 4. Malacandra - His discussion of Genius strategy is a bit eyebrow raising, ditto the third vote on dnooman for lurking. HockeyMonkey's death may or may not be his fault tangentially, since he was the highest on her suspect list. 18. JSexton - He's the one who actually started the whole discussion over what side the Geniuses were on. (See Reply #123.) And his overanalysis of Greedy Smurf seems a bit of a stretch--his supicions may or may not turn out to be correct in the end, but having one's words picked apart for the tinest of scumtells can become a disincentive to post. ~~Snip~~~ I suppose it's due to my own playing style, but I'm actually more suspicious of the people whose posts read as deliberate and thoughtful than off the cuff since the scum can coordinate by talking in secret. At this point I feel that it's a tossup, and though I'd rather vote on stronger evidence, we might not ever get any, so... (Argh the better part of me really doesn't want to do this--I know it's only a game but it still doesn't sit well with me.) vote Malacandra Congrats you made your 2nd vote! For... Malacandra??. Here's the thing... In the reasons you listed for Mal's scumminess there, 2 of those things were from day one, while one was for the fact that he was linked suspiciously with HockeyMonkey. That's something i know all about- you don't wanna go for the simplest explaination, as storyteller has been on my case about. But... you did. Here's the thing though: Why today? Those first two reasons you stated for being suspicious of Malacandra were present on Day one, yet you did not feel a need to jump onto his Bandwagon and dirty your hands with a vote. So how did Malacandra get so much guiltier over the night? Just by HockeyMonkey's death? But wouldn't that be analyzing the deaths? Something that YOU advocated AGAINST doing? You need to practice what you preach then.... Also Point two: I mention JSexton, or your thoughts on him. It seems to paint a negative view of the guy. That you were against him. you didn't like what he did w/ the Genius discussion (which as you had stated for Malacandra, was something that made him look guilty or at least 1/3 of the reasons that you gave), but JSexton started that discussion you point out! And then you point out you disliked his dissecting habits of people's words. So I'm getting that you don't like Jsexton. That's cool. No love lost there for me and my FOS list too. But here's the thing then. YOU JOINED HIS VOTE! He started the vote for Malacandra, and then you hopped onto the wagon too! That just... that confuses me! You dislike JSexton's tactics, you're not a fan of the guy, esp. in his arguments against GreedySmurf. Here I'll post his reasoning for Malacandra's vote: Malacandra - Lots of attention here. the dnooman vote did seem like an attempt to derail DrainBead's lynch. Then, later, Mal votes GreedySmurf even while acknowledges that DB is probably the better lynch. Wow. Scum. vote: MalacandraThere's my info dump post. I'd like to see this kind of post from everyone. You were so cautious on day one, Dotchan. What happened? This just seems like REALLY inconsistent behavior, on day one to not vote for anyone. But then on day 2, to vote for a party that you could have voted for on day one, [but didn't] based on evidence brought up by another player that all came from day one! JSexton didn't post anything new in that voting of Mal! You even said don't analyze the Dead! But then... you vote for Mal, claiming 2 weak reasons (both evidence present during day 1 when you didn't wanna vote), but then you get behind someone you feel is suspicious as well. This is all just really really weirdly jumping out at me, Dotchan. Do you see it too? Why did you join JSexton's bandwagon? It seemed like a really weak one to begin with, but your evidence against mal... is kinda lacking too. Let's move on. In Reply 66 you clarify some points. You claimed at one point: "I'm not actually blaming Mal--yet." -But... You're voting for the guy. Isn't that...blaming him? you also point out, you didn't like JSexton's "gut" vote on drain bead [sic]. -But... how do you feel that his vote is different this time around? Do you feel his claims against Malacandra are stronger today than on Day one? Why didn't you feel any of these points on Day one, when they were presented by other people, but when someone you feel is suspicious points them out, you agree with them? -Also, you do point out that you dislike a "deliberate-sounding player" when they're making points. I tend to disagree there: When a post is well thought out for no reason, then its suspicious, and when a comment is off-the-cuff, then it's okay. When presenting arguments for lynching, I tend to dislike random/off the cuff VOTES, but well thought out Arguments are GREAT. I know this entire post could then fall under "well thought out" and thusly get a scum-vote. But honestly, I'd take this sort of vote over a random "I vote for so-and-so because of my GUT" (Something that JSexton did day one, and something you didn't like as you claimed, but yet something you're willing to forgive on THIS day....) Reply 73: Again you tell Malacandra: "Like I said, I'm not blaming you...yet. It just doesn't look all that great for you given that you were pretty much #1 on Hockeymonkey's list and she died overnight."but... again. You're voting for the guy! That's blaming him! (>_<') And... also, you cite evidence of Hockeymonkey. This is damning to me. You said Hockey monkey put Mal on her list @ #1. That my freind... IS ANALYZING THE DEAD. Which you said was a no-no. That is Inconsistent Behavior.And... I'll call it right here: A Scum Tell i feel. Then in Reply 91: I'd like to quote it: Aiee! Capybara called my name again! ;D Believe it or not, I was paralyzed by indecision on Day One. With so many players, and so little to go by, I wasn't sure what to do, which turned out to be a bad thing in retrospect. So today I'm going to throw out vote(s). The point of the game is to find scum, after all, and even if I'm the nicest person in the world I should be voting to string people up. You said today you are going to throw out votes. To find scum. But... that was your last post, and now the day is winding down.... There are 3 votes on Malacandra, and that currently looks like it could be enough to kill the guy. It is a mini-wagon. One that you are a part of. So you're not currently throwing out votes, you're just sticking behind JSexton's explainations and your own inconsistencies on why you find Malacandra guilty. And I don't know. Maybe you're right. But storyteller has said it again and again, vote for the one you find MOST (not just a little) but the MOST suspicious. And I'm sorry Dotchan. Because I think you are the nicest player out here. But you're also inconsistent at times with your behavior. And that will you give my vote. I also want to say I'm sorry if you turn out to be townie, but i honestly believe i can't say that... Because I think you're scum. VOTE DOTCHAN
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 15:12:18 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Aug 1, 2007 15:12:18 GMT -5
Roosh, that was an interesting post, and well-reasoned. I can't, in good faith, say that I have a strong enough opinion on you anymore to leave my vote where it is. So:
unvote Roosh
Unfortunately, that's about all I can do right now. I'm really sorry I'm being next to useless toDay. I keep trying to sneak in a little time to go back and re-read, and I keep getting whacked with more work. The best I can do is keep poking my head in from time to time and try to stay at least a little up-to-date.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 15:52:39 GMT -5
Post by cowgirl on Aug 1, 2007 15:52:39 GMT -5
( Dotchan. I haven't read over this. But i apoligize if it seems a little harsh. That is not my intention. But, here are my thoughts... Ooh. Great post. My initial thought (i.e. before too much reflection) is that it is indeed highly suspicious to (a) not vote at all yesterday, and (b) vote today based on the same information that apparently wasn't sufficient to vote yesterday. Most inconsistent. I don't want to switch my vote yet because it feels like there aren't many of us playing today. perhaps everyone is busy on the secret boards? dotchan, I'd like to hear what you have to say in response to Roosh.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 15:53:35 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Aug 1, 2007 15:53:35 GMT -5
As I find the early bandwagon on Malacandra to be suspicious, coupled with Roosh's post, I'm going to vote dotchan, also.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 16:48:11 GMT -5
Post by Malacandra on Aug 1, 2007 16:48:11 GMT -5
(Hi. I just got back after some inconvenient IRL stuff. No cause for alarm.)
Roosh, them's some great analysis, but it's getting late where I am. I'll sleep on it and post again maybe ten hours or so from now, but damned if you ain't got something there.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 17:05:37 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Aug 1, 2007 17:05:37 GMT -5
6 of 16 have cast votes with one whole day and four hours to go before Day Two ends.
Malacandra (3) - JSexton, dotchan, cowgirl dotchan (2) - Roosh, pygmyrugger Mhaye (1) - dnooman Storyteller0910 (1) - Mad the Swine
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 18:13:40 GMT -5
Post by capybara on Aug 1, 2007 18:13:40 GMT -5
Ok, I'll break this up into spaced-out "paragraphs" (i.e. sentences) so Pygmy can follow along better. I was about ready to vote Dotchan early on for the no vote, the fast vote, and the strange request for a DB post-mortem in the night thread, so I might be able to get behind this one, but Still haven't heard MHaye account for himself (the late vote switch, really), and I'm to curious about that. Not all over your ass, MHaye-- just curious. Oh, and Hal, about the quadruple-bluff-- you're even more paranoiac than I am. That's impressive! It's starting to sound like Borges or Eco in here. We need to have a game, now, where all the scum actually think they're town. . . I'm hella busy today, but before voting or even posting more I want to go back and re-cross-reference suspicions with the voting wagons of Day 1 and see what I come up with. Usually I'd be wary of bothering looking into Day 1 voting too much, but scum died, and I think that really gives more meaning to the votes than usual. WHAT it means is a harder question.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 18:23:05 GMT -5
Post by capybara on Aug 1, 2007 18:23:05 GMT -5
Oh, Hell. I've been all over Dotchan all day, and I realize that she's exempted herself from be analyzed in a vote analysis (other than the 3 votes she has cast, according to Hal's chart. . .).
In reference to points I've made earlier in the day (I will collate and summarize if requested), buttressed by Roosh's even more careful look,
Vote Dotchan.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 18:34:43 GMT -5
Post by Greedy Smurf on Aug 1, 2007 18:34:43 GMT -5
Looks like everyone is having RL issues toDay.
I like Roosh's posts, very interesting, personally I'm up in the air if Dotchan's behaviour is scummy, or just a personal style. It certainly raised my eyebrow a little when Dotchan threw out an early vote in Day Two without having voted at all Day One.
My gut read of Dotchan was being OK, strangely enough mainly because of the no vote. A vote from her in Day One could have saved Drainbead without drawing an overabundance of suspicion. Certainly no more than the flak being sent up over a no vote then a quick vote.
So I'm not ready to jump onboard the Dotchan vote train just yet. Although I will be interested to see what Dotchan has to say.
I'm actually more interested in the lengthy 'honest and open' discussions going on between a few players. Scum engineered arguments anyone? I will have to have a close reread when I get some time. Hopefully work will allow me to do that before the Day closes, otherwise my vote today isn't going to have a lot of solid backing or I'll have to rely on someone else's analysis.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 18:45:50 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Aug 1, 2007 18:45:50 GMT -5
Yeah, I was way too conservative on Day One. I didn't feel too strongly about any of the candidates, so the clock ran out and I ended up not voting. (I shall do penance by flagellating myself with a wet noodle. ;D) Day Two...still not much in the say of anything certain, so I re-read everybody's posts and draw up my list of suspects. Mal was one of said suspects, so I threw my first vote on him. Eventually maybe someone else might do something more suspicious (which was what I was expecting to have happened already, but the posting leve's gone way done for whatever reason)...or, worst case scenario, Mal ends up dead and we confirm his alignment one way or another. (In my mind, not blaming Mal and voting him are two separate things. I'm not voting him on the basis that Hockey Monkey died, but the other things I mentioned.) And, BTW, Roosh, your post analyzing how scummy I am when I'm nothing more than Spartacus a Normal Townie is exactly the kind of thing I find suspicious. And your copying of the vote count in post #229 was at best confusing and at worse deliberately misleading. Oh, and what's even better: and just reading over the last 25 or so of Hockey's posts seems to show that she had posted the fact that she was keeping a detailed list of voting habits, which she showed to us all. And during day one, she was very anti-Malacandra instead of joining the Dnoowagon or the Drainwagon (though she did agree that Drainbead was a scummy looking suspect, she felt more inclined to go after Malacandra)....
And for that. Malacandra say hello to my FOS. FOS play nice with Malacandra You jump all over me for voting Malacandra, but you FOS him for pretty much the same reason? unvote Malacandravote Roosh
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 19:24:07 GMT -5
Post by cowgirl on Aug 1, 2007 19:24:07 GMT -5
To play devil's advocate, I read over Roosh's post assuming that he was scum trying to frame a townie. Keeping in mind that I still think Malacandra is scummy, so I am evaluating who is scummier (not looking for "beyond a reasonable doubt"). Here's what I came up with: For starters, dotchan's actions are consistent with those of a person who does not have as much time for the game as she anticipated. Not saying that is what is happening, just that it's an alternative explanation that should be tested. I thought about your voting habits on day one. It was first a random vote for me. But then you un-voted, which is cool for me. But... then what? You seemed very indecisive on day one, and didn't vote that day. There were 3 very big wagons, but you stayed away "from them all. Perhaps you didn't know which one was scum.... Perhaps you felt they were all innocent? Perhaps she was paralyzed with indecision? I can certainly relate to that in this game. (emphasis mine) That isn't quite fair - we have talked a LOT about random votes and one thing I think we can say is that they could mean anything at all. It is a stretch to describe it that way. I dunno, upon reflection, I don't find these arguments about timing of posts all that convincing. (It's the same with the MHaye post late yesterDay.) It's quite possible that they were working on their ideas/posts all day, and didn't realize how close it was to the deadline. It's not unreasonable for me to believe that she wasn't convinced yesterDay, but has become so since then through rereading and reflection. Newbie mistake. You yourself have made it. Did she pursue it once she was told? First, I don't understand what you're saying here. How you get "malacandra got guilter overnight" from "analyzing the deaths"? Please clarify, particularly about how her actions differed from those of someone who was just taking time to think about it? Also, again, you misunderstand what she was advocating. She was saying we shouldn't try to guess why people were killed, but that we should analyze what they said during the Day. I'm sorry, I don't follow this at all. Why? Haven't you ever voted in alignment with someone you found suspicious? She's reading and learning. This game moves fast and it takes a big chunk of time just to catch up with the thread, let alone to reflect on it. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but it's certainly a reasonable possibility. This lost me completely. What bandwagon? She says "... so at the moment it's just a little mark next to JSexton's name." (2.66) That's the only reference I can find to JSexton. What did I miss this time? Maybe she's not making up her mind based on what JSexton says? She works all day away from the internet. Not unreasonable. That is a reasonable observation, but not damning. +++++ Now, please keep in mind I'm not arguing for dotchan's towniness. about that I have no idea. But in my opinion Roosh's case is not made. Some of his points could be equally explained by other factors (e.g. time; newbiness); some I don't understand; and some seem to almost be disingenuous (e.g. taking only one possible interpretation of her posts, even though other interpretations were discussed at the time). Now, I'm not sure that Roosh is scummy, and not just a newbie who made careless mistakes rereading. However, the timing is a bit suspicious (e.g. just right for scum to come up with a strategy and send someone over to post it, just in time to start a bandwagon). My vote is currently with Malacandra and at the moment I think he is more deserving of the benefit of my doubt. Accordingly, unvote Malacandravote Roosh
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 19:31:55 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Aug 1, 2007 19:31:55 GMT -5
And, BTW, Roosh, your post analyzing how scummy I am when I'm nothing more than Spartacus a Normal Townie is exactly the kind of thing I find suspicious. And your copying of the vote count in post #229 was at best confusing and at worse deliberately misleading. Oh, and what's even better: And for that. Malacandra say hello to my FOS. FOS play nice with Malacandra [/blockquote] You jump all over me for voting Malacandra, but you FOS him for pretty much the same reason? [/quote] I can answer those 3 Qs. Not in that same order though. 1. Reply #229 on Day 1: Yes, I posted the wrong vote count, but the answer to that one is quite simple: I simply looked through the votes to find which one was recent, and then i copied and pasted it. For me it was Post #206 of Idlethought. I cut and pasted that one. And then began my arguments vs. Drainbead. I did leave off "GreedySmurf (1) - kat" but I addressed that AT THE VERY beginning of Reply #229. I believe my words were (again c/p):
I was going to agree with Kat vote of GreedySmurf actually a few pages back when she first accused him, but now I must say Greedy's done an admirable job of returning and talking. So I see no reason for voting for the guy.
My feeling Dotchan and Malacandra are neutral. I don't really think they deserve the votes and i think they're fine. I wouldn't vote for them yet, and so I wont.Idlethought posted that count i used at 8:12pm. My post went up @ 12:52am. I did not really look at the new activity that had gone up while i was composing my arguments and therefore Idle's new vote count @10:33pm because... well I'm a slow typer, i was focused on my post. Once I had my list, i felt no need to update it. And I was happy and confident in my vote for Drainbead. I did miss Dnooman being voted for, and that was my fault. However, i did later look at Dnooman in the day and I felt confident still of my vote. If I misled you by not pointing out the Dnooman vote.... Well. Oops? Point #2: You dislike well-thought out posts. They are "scummy" to you. Again, I don't know if you're a Townie. You may be. But I find the opposite viewpoint true (as i mentioned in my post vs. you). I find random votes or "gut votes" that are not well thought out, kinda scummy. I like to see WHY someone wants to vote for someone. I don't like voting alot, so when I vote, I like to vote for who i believe is the WORST of the scum. The Scummiest looking person. And therefore, I will vote with REASONS to why I think said person is the "scummiest", because scummy is an objective term. And it is more useful to others as well if I happen to die, they can look back at my thoughts and see where I was going with my arguments. So you dislike well-thought out posts. I dislike "gut" votes and votes without substance (FoS's are cool by me). To me the idea of liking posts that are weak and not well thought out, and just kinda quick (as is your style) is... well unhelpful honestly. And kinda scummy. It would garner me a FoS in your direction. But because I take the time to then examine your posts, I have realized I dislike the behavior too. And its scummy. More than anyone else. That's why I voted for you. It's stronger than a FoS. And i felt i have the evidence to back it up. It's helpful to me and to others to see vs. just a "I vote for so and so cuz... I agree with whatever this guy said". This way I'm responsible for you with my vote. I would not just randomly vote for you, but I honestly believe you're Scum. And you may say you're Town. But so would scum. So i'm being helpful to you if you are a townie, as you can now defend yourself. (Your post however has made me more confident. Holy OMGUS Batman! Okay, that last part wasn't needed but still. It's my thoughts.) Point #3: The Malacandra FoSing. Yes. I FoS'ed Malacandra. But you VOTED for the guy. There's a big difference (to me at least) between a FoS, and a Vote. I had this discussion with Storyteller about my thoughts on it. I will ask you to Refer to Post #95 on Day two to see my thoughts again on why I FoS'ed Malacandra. In case you missed it, I will c/p the gist of it (yes, it was reckless and foolish, but it is what it was): But then came Day 2. Day 2, I FOSed Mal for 2 reasons. One I did want to keep him fresh in my mind, and keep him on my list, just like i had w/ JSexton. However, as the day has gone on, Mal's been making some points, and I'm liking them. I don't really think he's that suspicious, but i'll still keep the finger on him. (One reason why in that post of mine, my FOS was so lighthearted.... Well, at least- I thought it was funny).
But the 2nd reason was, I wanted to see what would happen. ~snip about the Storyteller parts. Feel free to go and read it anyone out there if you'd like~I was curious to see if anyone would jump on Malacandra on day 2, so I posted a FOS on the guy to remind myself of looking at him, and to encourage this behavior perhaps. Maybe it would lead to clues. And it has led to the guy getting 2 votes, one of which seems very flimsy and the other from a guy on my FOS list. While I myself have been struck with a vote from Storyteller for doing the FOS, while he seems to turn a blind eye to Jsexton.
I don't have anything yet to make a stronger case against Jsexton, Storyteller, Malacandra or maybe even Dotchan, but this behavior to me just seems... unusual. See i mentioned 4 names in that post. So i went and look a closer look at the 4 of them. And... that's why you got investigated. I took the time, and I posted what I saw. I hope that helps clarify your accusations.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 19:52:43 GMT -5
Post by capybara on Aug 1, 2007 19:52:43 GMT -5
Ok, I've been looking some more, and. .
unvote Dotchan
I think what I've been seeing is either very scummy or, which I'm seeing now as more likely, a new town player who doesn't know what not to do. The OMGUS vote for Roosh? Scum, especially in this game with the daytime scum chat, would be too careful for that, even a new player, as the other scum would act as 'handlers' to defuse things and play bordercollie.
Dotchan is playing like a completely free agent, for better or for worse.
The no-vote followed by the fast vote could be new player trying to correct what she realizes was poor play on Day one. Dotchan gets the benefit of a doubt from me for now.
I'm not willing to turn this back on Roosh-- I myself, of course, was just about as suspicious of Dotchan myself, so I understand how this looked like a promising direction.
Now, Greedy, what 'open and honest discussions' are you referring to? I'd welcome another suggestion of line of inquiry.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 20:11:15 GMT -5
Post by Greedy Smurf on Aug 1, 2007 20:11:15 GMT -5
Now, Greedy, what 'open and honest discussions' are you referring to? I'd welcome another suggestion of line of inquiry. I'm referring to the exchanges between Roosh and Storyteller. Which seemed to get pretty animated, so much in fact that they both felt the need to make an out of game post to reassure that it was nothing personal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it seen as a classic scum tactic to orchestrate a little spat? For my part, not sure when I'm going to be able to check back in, so I Vote Diggitcamera. I am making this vote based upon Diggit jumping on board my bandwagon in Day 1. And I still have a FOS on Hal for doing the same thing.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 20:12:24 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Aug 1, 2007 20:12:24 GMT -5
First, I don't understand what you're saying here. How you get "malacandra got guilter overnight" from "analyzing the deaths"? Please clarify, particularly about how her actions differed from those of someone who was just taking time to think about it? Also, again, you misunderstand what she was advocating. She was saying we shouldn't try to guess why people were killed, but that we should analyze what they said during the Day. I'm sorry, I don't follow this at all. Why? Haven't you ever voted in alignment with someone you found suspicious? She's reading and learning. This game moves fast and it takes a big chunk of time just to catch up with the thread, let alone to reflect on it. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but it's certainly a reasonable possibility. This lost me completely. What bandwagon? She says "... so at the moment it's just a little mark next to JSexton's name." (2.66) That's the only reference I can find to JSexton. What did I miss this time? I will try to clarify some of the problems i saw: JSexton Bandwagon: Yes, Cowgirl you have a valid point w/ the JSexton bandwagon, It's not a bandwagon if its only one person. I do take the blame for that. I should have said JSexton's side or something like that. Bandwagon just was the word I had though. The JSexton point I was trying to make is that she hasn't made any real evidence as to why she was voting for Malacandra. At that point all I had to go on was her big post in Reply 62: She gives 3 thoughts on Malacandra. And she posts 2 comments on JSexton. In it she claims to find Jsexton suspicious. She cast suspicion it seems over maybe 5 people in that post: Jsexton, myself (she says inconsistent read), Pygmyrunner, and Myhaye (by her dislikes detailed posts comment). Maybe Malacandra since she voted for the guy. But her explainations are so... wishywashy that I can't really tell who she's Suspicious of. But Jsexton gives people a disincentive to post. And also he started the genius discussion. These seems to me like things that Dotchan didn't like. Thusly she has a negative view of the guy. But she votes alongside him. And without much more evidence vs. Malacandra. It just seems like a "Me too!" vote w/ JSexton, whom she seems to be suspicious of. That... just doesn't sit well with me. That to me was...wierd. (and as to your voting for suspicious peep rhetorical? question, I don't know yet. This is my first game and day one i was happy with my vote) i hope that helps to clarify a little. Then you mention the How you get "malacandra got guilter overnight" from "analyzing the deaths"? Please clarify, particularly about how her actions differed from those of someone who was just taking time to think about it?Also, again, you misunderstand what she was advocating. She was saying we shouldn't try to guess why people were killed, but that we should analyze what they said during the Day.
See, for me i'm asking: Why did Dotchan vote for Malacandra.She hasn't said much on the issue. In fact she keeps pointing out that she doesn't BLAME the guy. So... why vote for someone who you don't believe is really scummy? The only real evidence I saw her give was from post 62: Where she's got 3 things: His discussion of Genius strategy is a bit eyebrow raising, ditto the third vote on dnooman for lurking. HockeyMonkey's death may or may not be his fault tangentially, since he was the highest on her suspect list.So i assumed those were perhaps her big 3 reasons and i looked at them: #1-The Genius strategy is something that was brought up on Day 1. She didn't vote for anyone on Day 1 though, but perhaps you're right cowgirl. Maybe over the night, she analyzed something and changed her mind on how she feels about the conversation. But... She points out later that it was JSEXTON who was the started of the genius strategy. She was suspicious of him too. But she voted along side the guy. That to me is inconsistent. What did malacandra say that Jsexton didn't say that Dotchan felt incriminated Malacandra MORE than Jsexton?? #2-"ditto the third vote on dnooman for lurking" -Yes. This was suspicious. I didn't say Mal was a townie, and this to me IS very irregular behavior. I do agree with Dotchan here. But it's not enough of a reason for me to vote for Malacandra yet. #3- HockeyMonkey's death may or may not be his fault tangentially, since he was the highest on her suspect list. In reply 21 She stated that we should not analyze the deaths. That looking at why someone died would just lead to countless puzzlings and her Wine-in-front-of-me scenarios. She points out in Reply #25 we should examine the info from Day 1 instead of looking at the deaths. But then again I must ask, Why did she vote for Malacandra?Dotchan doesn't say she believes malacandra is guilty. All we have is Post 62 to go off of and then 2 posts of where she states she doesn't blame Malacandra. All i have is her 3 things she's said about mal. And the 3rd one is basically that Malacandra was connected to Hockeymonkey. And Hockeymonkey died. She's doing exactly what she said she wouldn't do: She said we shouldn't analyze the deaths. Then why now is she analyzing deaths? She's only given 3 reasons for voting for malacandra other and if 1 of the 3 reasons is something that she told us NOT to do... That's just scummy (to me at least). That's my issue with the Death thing at night. Someone who takes the time to think about it.... Well, i'd think they'd give reasons for why they're voting a certain way. Or that maybe they're just voting for someone and then they pull it away when it starts to run out of time. But she stayed with her vote into the final 48 hours with no worries. Even though she told Capy that she was gonna be doing some analyzing. (Reply 91) It'd been 24 hours and still nothing until finally she finally came back to accuse me. So yes, maybe she had real life interrupt. Or maybe she said it to throw Capy off her trail. Devil's Advocate. Tangent rant: Reply 33 just doesn't sit well with me for that reason: How does Dotchan know why the Scum wanted Hockeymonkey dead? She states: Whether or not she gave off any Cop tells, I figure the scum felt threatened enough by her to kill her off.
I didn't like that line, but i didn't feel it was evidence strongly enough to be used vs. her in my original post. Mostly because i dislike the idea of "Scum knowledge tells" where someone says someone is guilty cuz they said something that sounds definite about why the scum did something. It's always a weak point but still. Since i'm here, why not mention it? In Summation:The problem i had was that Dotchan voted for someone, and then going from a totally conservative person on day 1, to being fine with being part of a group that could potentially vote someone off with no real definite reasoning behind her vote (going so far as to say she doesn't even actually blame the person she's voting for). All she gave me to work with was Reply 62 as to why she voted for a person. Since then its been silence from her as to why she voted for Mal. I believe people do change, but this felt like way too much to be just a simple change in ideas or behavior, this is just plain inconsistent....
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 20:28:24 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Aug 1, 2007 20:28:24 GMT -5
I don't like "gut" votes either, because I can't read the other guy's mind. But the line-by-line breakdowns ping my scumdar even more because I've followed many a game where this was how scum got bandwagons started on innocents. My Mal vote was, as I mentioned above, a rather wibbly test vote to see what kind of reaction I would get. Roosh was on my list of suspects to start with, so his reaction got my vote. Day One I definitely played too nice, "well, yeah, they could be scum but let's give them the benefit of a doubt". I've since gotten a ton of extra free time in the form of "sorry, you don't need to work for us any more, go clean out your desk" ( ) so if I sound a little snippy for the next few days please don't take it personally.
|
|
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 23:40:40 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Aug 1, 2007 23:40:40 GMT -5
21 hours to go before Day ends.
dotchan (2) - Roosh, pygmyrugger Roosh (2) - dotchan, cowgirl Malacandra (1) - JSexton Mhaye (1) - dnooman Storyteller0910 (1) - Mad the Swine DiggitCamera (1) - GreedySmurf
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Aug 1, 2007 23:53:16 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Aug 1, 2007 23:53:16 GMT -5
<snip>I've since gotten a ton of extra free time in the form of "sorry, you don't need to work for us any more, go clean out your desk" ( ) so if I sound a little snippy for the next few days please don't take it personally. [Real me] dotchan, I'm really sorry to hear that. I'm sure everything will work out for you, but here's hoping it works out quickly![/Rm] I'm going to go over today's posts and votes, my vote is likely to change, in light of some great counterpoints, but I will let it stand for now.
|
|
|
Post by dnooman on Aug 2, 2007 2:53:45 GMT -5
And the winner for most inconsistent behavior goes to............Cowgirl!
Allow me to elaborate. Cowgirl started off with:
Roosh posts his manifesto on Dotchan, and Cowgirl says:
Here are the first two sentences from her next post:
She goes on to chew up and spit out Roosh's post, even though after first read she said "Ooh great post!"
Let me reiterate. Cowgirl said:
Then she defends Dotchan's inaction by saying that she may have been "paralyzed with indecision".
This one's good, here she says:
Then in the same post she says:
Finally, three quotes from her in chronological order:
This was after Roosh's large post.
Not sure he's scummy huh? But scummy enough to garner a vote from you. You voted for Mal two days in a row, for the same reason, and now he "is more deserving of the benefit of my doubt."?
One last time:
This after you congratulate Roosh on his "great post".
Oh yeah, there's the issue of the timing of your votes. Your vote for Mal made the score board look like this:
Malacandra (3) - JSexton, dotchan, cowgirl Mhaye (1) - dnooman Roosh (1) - Storyteller0910 Storyteller0910 (1) - Mad the Swine
Putting someone in the lead by two votes, you must really think he's the scummiest.
Roosh makes his post, Storyteller sees fit to unvote him, and you congratulate him on his "great post".
Pygmy and Capy vote for Dotchan making the score: Malacandra (3) - JSexton, dotchan, cowgirl dotchan (3) - Roosh, pygmyrugger, capybara Mhaye (1) - dnooman Storyteller0910 (1) - Mad the Swine
Dotchan decides to OMGUS vote for Roosh, in doing so she unvotes Mal. Then in the very next post, you do the exact same thing (unvote Mal, vote Roosh). Score:
dotchan (3) - Roosh, pygmyrugger, capybara Roosh (2) - dotchan, cowgirl Malacandra (1) - JSexton Mhaye (1) - dnooman Storyteller0910 (1) - Mad the Swine
Capybara decides that such an obvious OMGUS vote would not be something that scum would do if they could talk about it, unvotes Dotchan. Greedy votes for DiggitCamera and we get:
dotchan (2) - Roosh, pygmyrugger Roosh (2) - dotchan, cowgirl Malacandra (1) - JSexton Mhaye (1) - dnooman Storyteller0910 (1) - Mad the Swine DiggitCamera (1) - GreedySmurf
I don't like the vote swingin' goin' on here. I keep getting the feeling that Mal is a scum whipping boy, and is their go-to town target. I dunno.
Once Mhaye is well enough to respond to my inquiry, I'll decide if that's the best place to keep my vote. Until then, I think that Roosh found some inconsistencies and ran with it. Dotchan could be a newb townie, or a newb scum being instructed to act like a newb townie. I haven't decided on that one yet. Cowgirl's actions today seem to be contradictory, without enough factual basis, and way too bandwaggony for my taste.
FOS Cowgirl but that may very well change into a vote depending on Mhaye's response or lack thereof.
|
|
|
Post by Malacandra on Aug 2, 2007 3:01:13 GMT -5
Aw, crappity-crap, dotchan. Which still leaves me (a) teetering between yourself and Roosh, and (b) wishing I'd got more sleep. One point to mention, I guess, is that dotchan just said that she has "followed many a game", and I think we should weigh any tendency to excuse noobishness very carefully on account of that. I still need to think it through some more before casting the Dreaded Third Vote though.
|
|