Post by storyteller0910 on Aug 24, 2007 14:38:02 GMT -5
Blaster -
First of all, I'm not understanding the basis of point 1. How is me lacking general suspicion incriminating?
Well, I explained it in the post that you did not quote, but I'll do it again here for the record. For the scum to leave a pro-town player completely alone during the Day for this long is exceedingly odd. The scum want everyone to draw at least some suspicion, to give them as much cover as possible. If you were town, and had drawn no genuine suspicion after all this time, I'd expect the scum to be pushing at least something in your direction - to keep you from being treated as confirmed, to widen the pool in which you were hiding. If, on the other hand, you were scum, I'd expect the scum to pretty much stay away from you as long as no townies were looking your way - a trick with which I'm pretty familiar from a previous life, and one that is hard to ferret out.
From what I can tell, you're generally lacking suspicion, so is Roosh.
Roosh and I have both FoSed and voted for one another, and he, at least, has received a certain amount of suspicion, though it has admittedly faded. I have also gotten at least one vote from MadtheSwine.
This seems to me to be a convenient way for you to subtly smudge two of the least suspected townies while, simultaneously, boosting your own town cred because you pointed it out.
Dude, I wrote War and Peace about you, voted for you, and explicitly stated that I wanted to look at diggit next. For you to say that I'm trying to pull off some sort of "subtle smudging" is ridiculous - I am flat out directly accusing you, and there's nothing subtle about it.
Further, how have I increased my townie cred by doing it? You and diggit became widely-trusted for a reason; accusing you is bound to register as odd with at least some of those who trusted you, making them less likely to trust me.
So, you say the scum haven't smudged me? We've caught exactly two scum, one of which was killed on the first Day (and didn't really have time to smudge a bunch of people), and the other just yesterday. So essentially, you're basing your judgment of who the scum are smudging on the actions of the single combined scum of MAF?
You have not been seriously smudged at all, by anyone, with one exception which I pointed out, acknowledged, and discussed.
One subset of "anyone" is the scum.
Therefore, the scum have not smudged you.
And on top of that, you're contradicting yourself because your point 4 specifically points out a case where MAF did. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I covered this in the post you chose not to quote. I described it as an exception, and theorized as to its origins. Are you seriously maintaining that if I make a general observation and you find one exception, that invalidates the general observation?
(For those reading along at home - NAF's one lonely smudge was never followed up on. I posit that NAF joined the game, read the whole thing, realized that no one had even touched his fellow scum Blaster all game long, and fired off a quick, meaningless FoS that he never intended to pursue, just to try to correct that).
UNLESS, you specifically know who the other remaining scum are, and know who they are and are not, and thus know who they are and are not smudging? IOW, this is the type of statement that reeks of PKS.
Once again, I know the remaining scum haven't smudged you because none of the remaining players have smudged you. You're trying too hard.
Point 2: A fair point on the surface; however, it fails in two aspects. First, is a meta-game reason in that I'm only able to post about 3-4 days out of the week, and much of that time is spent modding MV (since it is my higher priority at this time, since it won't work if it isn't). I have missed a couple of votes, but never deliberately.
My concern isn't with the votes you've missed, which are understandable. It is with the votes you've actually made, which are invariably bandwagon or otherwise "safe" votes.
The second aspect seems logical on the surface, but isn't. Why exactly is it suspicious for me to be suspicious of people other people are suspicious of?
Oh, it's not, not inherently. I suppose it's theoretically possible that you have gotten to this point in the game without ever developing a purely original suspicion of someone. I just don't think it's likely, especially given how in general strategy talk your mind tends to lead you down unusual and original paths.
And even more, what's the alternative? ...do you really expect me to go after people who haven't done anything to pique my suspicion?
Obviously not. Did I say that? The alternative is to step back every once in a while and look at everyone, not just the whipping boy or girl of the moment. You haven't been doing that; you're never, ever on a limb.
Point 3: This one vexes me as well. I specifically stated I was voting for drainbead, and my other option was to basically take a stab at one of the dnooman voters. Then you comment that I didn't post the rest of the Day. <snipped>
Again, the key substance of that point, which I guess might have gotten lost in some of the blather, is that drainbead stopped speaking in her own defense fairly soon after you voted for her. This may not mean anything, but in the context of my other points, it seems to. It fits your overall pattern of avoiding controversy, voting with the crowd, and general trust-seeking.
You cast the vote that puts scum in the lead, and then she "coincidentally" gave up the fight and went meekly to her death soon thereafter.
That's the essence of point #3.
As I've said in this game, and others (M3 and M4 at least, one in which I was scum and the other townie), I consider non-participation poor form. Please interpret my silence as an inability to read and/or post; not as a deliberate action.
I know, which is why I have studiously avoided calling you out for nonparticipation. I have not called you out for the times you voted, for the times you were absent, because you made the above statement sooner and I have chosen to take you at your word on it. The only time I mentioned your absence was in the context of the drainbead vote, and in that case it was not your absence per se that bothered me.
See, when you voted for drain, you did it in sort of a "well, I guess this is what i'll do, but I'm open to changing my mind" way. Presumably, you knew you'd be leaving work in a while, and unlikely to get back to the boards. When were you planning to read and analyze new evidence, if that "I'm open to changing my mind" statement is to be read at face value? I think you voted for drain with no intention of changing your vote, because you wanted town cred for being part of her lynch.
Point 4: You may consider my logic "fatally flawed", but I think it holds up. Besides, as I learned back in M2 and have reitterated often is that a difference on strategy is not necessary a reason for suspicion. Further, most of your disagreements with my points on strategy were based on misunderstandings at best, and misrepresentations at worst, of my intentions. Convenient how you point this out, but fail to link to it.
Now this is incredibly disingenuous. I didn't link to it, because I haven't figured out how to link to individual posts. Most of the time I've done that, I've failed miserably. What I did was give the exact Day and page on which the exchange happened, explicitly so that people could go look themselves. You're trying too hard again.
An aside, since I just noticed it: You responding to MadTheSwine. I've been befuddled by the way you two have interacted during this game, and I think it's been a large part of my gut suspicion of MadTheSwine. The reason the post I linked caught my eye was because it implies an enormous amount of suspicion in MadTheSwine and a big smudge, but yet no FOS or vote. In fact, Storyteller hasn't been "actively" pushing the MadTheSwine wagon since his intial votes for him piqued my suspicion and I made my case. Since then, he's been making these sorts of comments to encourage suspicion, but not be actively making a case.
Since then? Show me one subsequent to the comment you just linked. And the comment I made there was not at all intending to encourage suspicion, and I'd be surprised if an honest reader would consider it so. I think sometimes Mad does and says things just to provoke a reaction, and this was a comment on that. For the record, though, I have said explicitly that Mad has moved to the bottom of my suspicion list at the moment, and given my reasons. If you have missed them, that's too bad, but they're out there. I will try to find them.
You're still trying too hard.
Finally, point five: This is just plain disingenuous. You're saying this with hindsight. Of course I'm going to be vocal on that. MHaye's claim was VERY difficult to believe and it was essentially asking me to die on the off chance that this incredulous claim was true. I fail to see how this lends any weight to your argument that I'm a psycho. Do you expect me just lay down and accept my death as a townie? Hell no! If I were a psycho, would you expect me to just lay down and accept death? Hell no! IOW, I don't think a logical person can say anything one way or the other about my alignment based on that Day.
Your behavior that Day can only be viewed in the context of your behavior throughout the game. As reserved as you've been, as reluctant as you've been to take risks, to be aggressive, you sure were aggressive in that spot. I do not consider it definitive, just one more brick in the wall.
In fact, you held the very same opinion I did at the time. Can you say, in my situation, you would have been any less impassioned in your defense.
Yes.
In fact, you were just about as responsible for how the town reacted to MHaye's claim as I was
Really? My barely coherent post hours into the fray had as much effect as your repeated, passionate arguments? I'm better than I thought.
Congratulations, Storyteller, you have leaped frogged RIGHT over MadTheSwine to the top of my suspicious list from the Drainbead voters. Your twisting of the facts is FAR too egregious to not be deliberate.
Once again, I am shocked - shocked! - at your retalitory suspicion.
blastermaster said:
First of all, I'm not understanding the basis of point 1. How is me lacking general suspicion incriminating?
Well, I explained it in the post that you did not quote, but I'll do it again here for the record. For the scum to leave a pro-town player completely alone during the Day for this long is exceedingly odd. The scum want everyone to draw at least some suspicion, to give them as much cover as possible. If you were town, and had drawn no genuine suspicion after all this time, I'd expect the scum to be pushing at least something in your direction - to keep you from being treated as confirmed, to widen the pool in which you were hiding. If, on the other hand, you were scum, I'd expect the scum to pretty much stay away from you as long as no townies were looking your way - a trick with which I'm pretty familiar from a previous life, and one that is hard to ferret out.
From what I can tell, you're generally lacking suspicion, so is Roosh.
Roosh and I have both FoSed and voted for one another, and he, at least, has received a certain amount of suspicion, though it has admittedly faded. I have also gotten at least one vote from MadtheSwine.
This seems to me to be a convenient way for you to subtly smudge two of the least suspected townies while, simultaneously, boosting your own town cred because you pointed it out.
Dude, I wrote War and Peace about you, voted for you, and explicitly stated that I wanted to look at diggit next. For you to say that I'm trying to pull off some sort of "subtle smudging" is ridiculous - I am flat out directly accusing you, and there's nothing subtle about it.
Further, how have I increased my townie cred by doing it? You and diggit became widely-trusted for a reason; accusing you is bound to register as odd with at least some of those who trusted you, making them less likely to trust me.
So, you say the scum haven't smudged me? We've caught exactly two scum, one of which was killed on the first Day (and didn't really have time to smudge a bunch of people), and the other just yesterday. So essentially, you're basing your judgment of who the scum are smudging on the actions of the single combined scum of MAF?
You have not been seriously smudged at all, by anyone, with one exception which I pointed out, acknowledged, and discussed.
One subset of "anyone" is the scum.
Therefore, the scum have not smudged you.
And on top of that, you're contradicting yourself because your point 4 specifically points out a case where MAF did. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I covered this in the post you chose not to quote. I described it as an exception, and theorized as to its origins. Are you seriously maintaining that if I make a general observation and you find one exception, that invalidates the general observation?
(For those reading along at home - NAF's one lonely smudge was never followed up on. I posit that NAF joined the game, read the whole thing, realized that no one had even touched his fellow scum Blaster all game long, and fired off a quick, meaningless FoS that he never intended to pursue, just to try to correct that).
UNLESS, you specifically know who the other remaining scum are, and know who they are and are not, and thus know who they are and are not smudging? IOW, this is the type of statement that reeks of PKS.
Once again, I know the remaining scum haven't smudged you because none of the remaining players have smudged you. You're trying too hard.
Point 2: A fair point on the surface; however, it fails in two aspects. First, is a meta-game reason in that I'm only able to post about 3-4 days out of the week, and much of that time is spent modding MV (since it is my higher priority at this time, since it won't work if it isn't). I have missed a couple of votes, but never deliberately.
My concern isn't with the votes you've missed, which are understandable. It is with the votes you've actually made, which are invariably bandwagon or otherwise "safe" votes.
The second aspect seems logical on the surface, but isn't. Why exactly is it suspicious for me to be suspicious of people other people are suspicious of?
Oh, it's not, not inherently. I suppose it's theoretically possible that you have gotten to this point in the game without ever developing a purely original suspicion of someone. I just don't think it's likely, especially given how in general strategy talk your mind tends to lead you down unusual and original paths.
And even more, what's the alternative? ...do you really expect me to go after people who haven't done anything to pique my suspicion?
Obviously not. Did I say that? The alternative is to step back every once in a while and look at everyone, not just the whipping boy or girl of the moment. You haven't been doing that; you're never, ever on a limb.
Point 3: This one vexes me as well. I specifically stated I was voting for drainbead, and my other option was to basically take a stab at one of the dnooman voters. Then you comment that I didn't post the rest of the Day. <snipped>
Again, the key substance of that point, which I guess might have gotten lost in some of the blather, is that drainbead stopped speaking in her own defense fairly soon after you voted for her. This may not mean anything, but in the context of my other points, it seems to. It fits your overall pattern of avoiding controversy, voting with the crowd, and general trust-seeking.
You cast the vote that puts scum in the lead, and then she "coincidentally" gave up the fight and went meekly to her death soon thereafter.
That's the essence of point #3.
As I've said in this game, and others (M3 and M4 at least, one in which I was scum and the other townie), I consider non-participation poor form. Please interpret my silence as an inability to read and/or post; not as a deliberate action.
I know, which is why I have studiously avoided calling you out for nonparticipation. I have not called you out for the times you voted, for the times you were absent, because you made the above statement sooner and I have chosen to take you at your word on it. The only time I mentioned your absence was in the context of the drainbead vote, and in that case it was not your absence per se that bothered me.
See, when you voted for drain, you did it in sort of a "well, I guess this is what i'll do, but I'm open to changing my mind" way. Presumably, you knew you'd be leaving work in a while, and unlikely to get back to the boards. When were you planning to read and analyze new evidence, if that "I'm open to changing my mind" statement is to be read at face value? I think you voted for drain with no intention of changing your vote, because you wanted town cred for being part of her lynch.
Point 4: You may consider my logic "fatally flawed", but I think it holds up. Besides, as I learned back in M2 and have reitterated often is that a difference on strategy is not necessary a reason for suspicion. Further, most of your disagreements with my points on strategy were based on misunderstandings at best, and misrepresentations at worst, of my intentions. Convenient how you point this out, but fail to link to it.
Now this is incredibly disingenuous. I didn't link to it, because I haven't figured out how to link to individual posts. Most of the time I've done that, I've failed miserably. What I did was give the exact Day and page on which the exchange happened, explicitly so that people could go look themselves. You're trying too hard again.
An aside, since I just noticed it: You responding to MadTheSwine. I've been befuddled by the way you two have interacted during this game, and I think it's been a large part of my gut suspicion of MadTheSwine. The reason the post I linked caught my eye was because it implies an enormous amount of suspicion in MadTheSwine and a big smudge, but yet no FOS or vote. In fact, Storyteller hasn't been "actively" pushing the MadTheSwine wagon since his intial votes for him piqued my suspicion and I made my case. Since then, he's been making these sorts of comments to encourage suspicion, but not be actively making a case.
Since then? Show me one subsequent to the comment you just linked. And the comment I made there was not at all intending to encourage suspicion, and I'd be surprised if an honest reader would consider it so. I think sometimes Mad does and says things just to provoke a reaction, and this was a comment on that. For the record, though, I have said explicitly that Mad has moved to the bottom of my suspicion list at the moment, and given my reasons. If you have missed them, that's too bad, but they're out there. I will try to find them.
You're still trying too hard.
Finally, point five: This is just plain disingenuous. You're saying this with hindsight. Of course I'm going to be vocal on that. MHaye's claim was VERY difficult to believe and it was essentially asking me to die on the off chance that this incredulous claim was true. I fail to see how this lends any weight to your argument that I'm a psycho. Do you expect me just lay down and accept my death as a townie? Hell no! If I were a psycho, would you expect me to just lay down and accept death? Hell no! IOW, I don't think a logical person can say anything one way or the other about my alignment based on that Day.
Your behavior that Day can only be viewed in the context of your behavior throughout the game. As reserved as you've been, as reluctant as you've been to take risks, to be aggressive, you sure were aggressive in that spot. I do not consider it definitive, just one more brick in the wall.
In fact, you held the very same opinion I did at the time. Can you say, in my situation, you would have been any less impassioned in your defense.
Yes.
In fact, you were just about as responsible for how the town reacted to MHaye's claim as I was
Really? My barely coherent post hours into the fray had as much effect as your repeated, passionate arguments? I'm better than I thought.
Congratulations, Storyteller, you have leaped frogged RIGHT over MadTheSwine to the top of my suspicious list from the Drainbead voters. Your twisting of the facts is FAR too egregious to not be deliberate.
Once again, I am shocked - shocked! - at your retalitory suspicion.