Okay, Storyteller, I'll go piece by piece... this could take a while
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.
Okay, at least this makes more sense than what I remembered reading, but it is extremely circumstancial. Allow me to explain using my past persona from M4. In that game, with the exception of the first Day when I garnered some suspicion for not posting (because I didn't have access for whatever reason I can't remember), I had VERY little suspicion through the vast majority of the game. I figured, as pro-town as I felt I was coming across, that I would be targetted, but I never was. Afterward, reading through the pirate forum, I found that
Gadarene specifically argued that leaving me alive helped give him cover. Especially, after your early death, if I had been killed as well, the crew would have been left wondering why-oh-why was Gadarene, the most pro-crew player of all, not targetted?
I have been wondering along the same lines in this game. Obviously, it is in the scum's best interest to eliminate players who are thought to be or demonstrate themselves to be good or simply unlynchable targets. However, there's a few cases where this is NOT in the scum's interest. The first case is, as the example above, where one player of this type is, then the town has to wonder why they were never targetted. Another possibility is if they have strong suspicion that that player is the doctor and is self-protecting or likely has the doctor's protection (like JSexton in M1).
However, it is also clear that "skilled" players will eventually become suspicious precisely for the reason that they haven't been targetted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what it seems to me you're claiming here is that I'm somehow a smart enough scum to essentially avoid all suspicion, but not wise enough to realize how suspicious this would appear. Yet, you don't seem to think that if I were scum with the ability to communicate during the Day, that I could easily manufacture a convincing dispute among my compatriots.
So here's my concern, as an extension of my previous thoughts, regardless of whether we have two or three scum left, they have one target who is pretty much unlynchable (the doctor) and then one or two other targets they pretty much HAVE to get lynched. I would also suspect, based on the death of MadTheSwine being almost certainly an attempt at the doctor, that they probably had their most likely doctor candidate either selected or largely narrowed down. This also means that likely, yesterday, they were well aware of their worst case scenario if their target wasn't the doctor and that they'd have to prepare to target one of those among them. Further, establishing that I think it's likely I wasn't targetted specifically as cover for a player who is unlikely to be lynched, then the only person who can start an offensive against me is the very person I was left alive to protect... Storyteller.
Nice, I noticed you'd had some half-hearted FOSes and even votes in your direction. But as you say later (and I'll get to it in a moment), you "generally" don't have much suspicion. That is, one vote or an occassionaly FOS doesn't mean you're generally suspicious. Hell, even the FOS from
Roosh was along the lines of "Storyteller just seems to trustworthy to be trustworthy". IOW, for your accusation of me drawing no suspicion... the obvious fix for that is to deliberately draw up suspicion or point out some minor FOSes, which is exactly what you're doing here.
Dude, I know you did. Looking back, I realize I didn't word what I meant to say very well at all. It was a subtle smudge of
Roosh and
Diggit (two of the more trusted townies IMO at the time), on top of the accusation to me, AND you gain townie cred for pointing it out.
That is, I think you're becoming aware that leaving highly trusted townies alive is going to start looking suspicious, and someone was going to start poking at the three of us soon. Thus, by being the one to go "hey look over here", you gain a slight bit of townie cred because by originating the idea, since SOMEONE was going to say it eventually.
You're going to need to readdress NAF's smudging of me, because you ignored the general idea that he was likely "slinging mud and seeing what sticks". The fact that no one picked up after you and he had both FOSed me for it, seems telling to me about why both of you seemed to plainly drop the topic all together. That is, if both of you are psychos, and drove a train to get me lynched TOO hard without some townies jumping on with you, then when I came up townie, you'd both have a lot of explaining to do.
First of all, IIRC, NAF FOSed me on his second DAY in the game. That hardly fits the theory you're presenting. If that were the case, why did he wait until the second Day he was in to FOS me, and why did he wait for you to prompt him?
What you're failing to mention is that YOU FOSed me for it before he did. Both of you smudged me for it, and no one picked it up and ran with it. I think you realized that the town wasn't going to do your dirty work for you, and decided to get on the offensive. Can you explain, then, why you misrepresented what I said, I clarified, and you never responded to that? Perhaps it's because I said I didn't want to derail the discussion anymore, but I DID ask you to address that in my last post to you.
You keep claiming that my logic was egregious, but you're still refering to your initial misrepresentation of my thoughts. If my logic is so bad, bring up my response, and pick a point and go toe to toe with me on it, and don't keep vaguely refering to it as "anti-town logic".
This just plain isn't true. I had been smudged by you, more than once. I also recall being smudged by Roosh (largely in response to your smudges of me). I'm less sure about these, but I think Mad and nesta had also smudged me minorly once or twice. I do not recall being smudged by capybara or Diggit. If you're going to claim you didn't smudge me, I'll go back and find them, I'm simply loathe to go look through so many posts when I can't remember where it was, unless I have to.
I don't understand this at all. What other kind of vote is there besides bandwagon votes and safe votes? You're either on someone who is likely to get lynched (a band wagon) or you're on someone who isn't likely to get lynched (a safe vote). If you want to address a specific vote, I can address the logic or the timing or whatever else, but a gross over-generalization like this is not helpful.
Point taken, but I'm not sure it's necessarily valid. Part of that reason is meta-gaming (simply that I have missed a lot of crucial time periods, like the end of the first two Days, and the time of Dotchan's slip), but the matter of reason. That is, what you're pointing out about my logic is, not that it's necessarily of new candidates, but it is often simply a new train of thought
For instance, we'll take the first Day into account from my perspective. I specifically made a point of analyzing the top vote getters before looking at other candidates. I looked at JSexton's reasoning against GreedySmurf, and laid out my reasoning why I gave him the benefit of the doubt for the newbiness. I then looked at the
dnooman and
Drainbead wagons. I didn't understand the dnooman wagon at all, and specifically pointed out my suspicion of cowgirl and Malacandra (and to a lesser extent, hockeymonkey) and, because I had no way of finding the most suspicious individual on the dnooman wagon, and I had my own train of thought toward finding Drainbead suspicious, I went ahead and put my vote there. I would have continued looking at other people but, as you're aware, I didn't have access to the game again until the Day was over.
MAYBE you can accuse me of not being the first to accuse someone (though, I'm unsure if I was the first to point at hockeymonkey or cowgirl, regardless it's beside the point), but you're mixing apples and oranges here. That is, my original lines of reason are not necessarily going to lead to new people of whom I should be suspicious.
Obviously, that was hyperbole on my part, but I'm still not seeing your point. When I see a wagon, I want to know a few things. Is it a legitimate case? Is it scum or town driven? What do I think of it? If I'm able, I will almost always review and comment on any active case and present my view. Sometimes, I disagree with it (like with GreedySmurf) and sometimes I agree with it (like with drainbead and Dotchan). If I don't agree with a case (like in the first case), I'll start looking elsewhere. If I do, what should I do? I will look at different individuals if I don't have any active suspicions but, chances are, after the first Day or two, I'll almost always have an active suspicion. I really don't understand what you're proposing I should do instead, because this has pretty much been my MO since M2.
Okay, I think I get the connection you're seeing. All I can really say is, correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Like me, perhaps she has little to no access to the game over the weekend. Maybe when I put her in the lead, she felt it was hopeless and gave up.
I also don't understand how me putting her in the lead makes me scummy. Let's say, as you say, that I was trying to avoid controversy, I just as easily could have voted for Malacandra or cowgirl for their votes against dnooman, and I wouldn't have come under any scrutiny. I specifically didn't because I thought there was one scum on that wagon, and I couldn't differentiate.
Meanwhile, I DO think there's compelling evidence to make your initial vote for Drainbead look suspicious. First of all, in the very
post in which you vote for her, you say "I have very little confidence in this vote." which implies the same level of tenativeness of which you accuse me. Second, you're the FIRST to vote for her (of which you keep making a point about being the first to vote for people, which I don't understand), which could very easily be an attempt to get a vote against one of your fellow scum but make it weak enough not to follow. Which ALSO leads to why you couldn't extract yourself from her wagon once people started voting after you because it would have looked very suspicious if/when she turned up scum.
I don't think this is a fair representation of what I said.
Here is the post in which I voted for drainbead. You will notice I don't make a tenuous gut vote, as you did, and also make a note that I might change my vote specifically if better evidence came up against those who voted for dnooman. This is further clarified in the very next post in response to hockeymonkey.
That is, it was clear in the context, that I would have considered changing my vote to one of them, but I specifically didn't vote for them because the only evidence against them was their vote for dnooman, after which I could not differentiate which one was scummiest.
First of all, out of game, to link to a specific post, simply click "Link to Post" at the bottom of the post, and use the url in the address bar at the top of the page... that's it.
Second, you are specifically upset with my afterthought that you didn't link it (unaware that you were having trouble coding it) and did not address the main point. Namely, you made a point, I attacked it, you called that attack "fatally flawed", and I responded to that, and that second response has seemed to slip your memory more than once, and I never received a response, even now that it's completely relevant to the discussion at hand.
You can say explicitly anybody is anywhere on your suspicion list, but that doesnt' change what you imply. I saw it honestly in passing, and it seemed to fit into the whole idea of feeding suspicion while keeping your hands clean. You can argue against it, but I put it there mostly for the observers of our discussion to interpret for themselves.
I don't think this is a fair assessment of my play at all. I think this impression is largely an artifact of my intermittent ability to play, and less because of a change in my style. I think this particularly sticks out because, I was one of the central figures in the activities of Day Two, and I was actually around for the whole thing with little work to do. I think my attacks against MHaye, as they were against others before and after, were all legitimate, and based in logic. Rather than judging the sheer number of posts, try comparing the tone of a pair of individual posts. If I had the amount of time I did that day every day, then you know you'd see that many posts just from how damn much I posted in M2 and how much I tend to post in bursts on here.
To put it in context, this is in response to me saying "In fact, ou 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." So, by yes do you mean "Yes, I wouldn't have been any less impassioned" or "Yes, I would have been less impassioned"? Admittedly, that was a poorly worded point on my part.
Yes, you had that one post from your phone or whatever, but that is not the only post you made during that period of time. You made points that I missed in the holes in MHaye's argument. The point is, your tone seems to be implying that I was the only one who argued against MHaye, and somehow, I'm the only responsible for that debacle.
Out of game, I made my thoughts on the subject clear off-board to Idle. I didn't think it was fair for JSexton to be able to poll for whom he should kill.
On Preview... I see we have a couple of Doc claims...