|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 12:59:27 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 3, 2009 12:59:27 GMT -5
Obviously the other scum voted Ed in some way. Really? How is it obvious. While it's likely that some of the scum did indeed vote Ed since he was a safe vote, there were ten players who didn't vote him at all. Are you saying none of those ten are scum? Shear odds alone make that unlikely, since that is over 40% of the current players, and scum are unlikely to cluster when there doesn't seem to be a strategic reason to do so. I'm willing to bet there are scum in both camps. But they didn't. Because by voting him first, they'd have to justify why they were doing so. It was much easier to hide in the larger crowd. So I guess I'm not really understanding what point you're trying to make here.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 13:01:11 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 3, 2009 13:01:11 GMT -5
Votes: Player | Vote 1 | Vote 2 | Vote 3 | crazypunker | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | | Hal Briston | Mr. Special Ed | | | Hoopy Frood | | Aubby | | Kat | Mr. Special Ed | | | Natlaw | Mr. Special Ed | | | molefan | Mr. Special Ed | | | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | Aubby | | peekercpa | Mr. Special Ed | peekercpa | Parzival | Rysto | Mr. Special Ed | | | shaggy | Mr. Special Ed | | | sinjin | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | |
Totals: Votee | Total | Voters (#1) | Voters (#2) | Voters (#3) | Mr. Special Ed | 27 (3) | crazypunker, Hal Briston, Kat, Natlaw, molefan, peekercpa, Rysto, shaggy, sinjin | | | shaggy | 7 (0) | Mr. Special Ed | crazypunker, sinjin | | Aubby | 4 (0) | | Hoopy Frood, Mr. Special Ed | | brokentree | 3 (3) | | | | peekercpa | 2 (2) | | peekercpa | | Parzival | 1 (1) | | | peekercpa |
Not Voting: brokentree, Aubby, KidVermicious, Merestil Haye, misterblocky, Nanook, Parzival, Pollux Oil, roxis, TDPatriots
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 13:13:36 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on Feb 3, 2009 13:13:36 GMT -5
I just had a realization about Mr. Ed & the Masons. It's not guaranteed that the scum knew which Mason was scum *. So all the poking around at who was 'protecting' him might be useless. It might also yield information, but nobody should be thinking it's a sure way to catch scum. I also doubt, if they didn't know, that the scum tried to jointly protect someone else. We might look for sudden changes in behavior throughout the Day - daytalking scum could reveal an influence. *To metagame a bit, I think there are arguments either way to make the game interesting. I want to comment on this post from aubby: I would probably throw a FOS at Parzival because he seemed a little harsh on Sinjin for asking questions in Day 1. However, his reason for voting Sinjin was because Sinjin seemed paranoid. At first that seemed a little harsh to me. However, in reading Sinjin's response in D1. 229, it seems a little overly defensive. Now, maybe that's Sinjin's playing style, but to jump on BrokenTree in post D1.216 for not seeing Parzival's actions as scummy... seemed like maybe Sinjin was trying to push others into agreeing. So at this point, I'm not sure which way I'd take it. While you're right that Sinjin's response - especially to Brokentree was odd, I just wanted to clarify the sequence. I voted her first, then she responded. My initial vote was partly based on a misreading of her questions & the responses she got, and preceded that behavior. For that reason I took my vote off her. Your post also takes a sidelong swipe at me. A statement like "I would throw a FOS, but..." manages to smudge while keeping some distance. To Natlaw - I voted exactly how I wanted. With the multiple choices, it was possible to have gradations in your vote. I was split between Mitey and zeriel, and only felt the balance to be worth one point for him.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 13:25:56 GMT -5
Post by aubby on Feb 3, 2009 13:25:56 GMT -5
Obviously the other scum voted Ed in some way. Really? How is it obvious. While it's likely that some of the scum did indeed vote Ed since he was a safe vote, there were ten players who didn't vote him at all. Are you saying none of those ten are scum? Shear odds alone make that unlikely, since that is over 40% of the current players, and scum are unlikely to cluster when there doesn't seem to be a strategic reason to do so. I'm willing to bet there are scum in both camps. But they didn't. Because by voting him first, they'd have to justify why they were doing so. It was much easier to hide in the larger crowd. So I guess I'm not really understanding what point you're trying to make here. Not obvious... bad choice of words. Yes, there had to be scum in both camps. I was making too broad a statement. On the voting Ed 1 vs 2 vs 3. People can justify anything they want. Isn't that what you've been saying about me?
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 16:29:36 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 3, 2009 16:29:36 GMT -5
On the voting Ed 1 vs 2 vs 3. People can justify anything they want. Isn't that what you've been saying about me? Right. But a scum would unlikely be the only one voting Ed as #1, because they would have to have a strategic reason to stick out like that, wether or not they even knew Ed was indeed scum. (As Parzival noted, we don't have confirmation that scum knew Ed was the mason scum.) Since no one else was voting Ed as number one, they'd have to justify themselves with a good reason to vote that way. It's probably not worth the risk, barring extenuating circumstances.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 17:38:13 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 3, 2009 17:38:13 GMT -5
OK, first I should say that I wrote most of this early this morning, didn't get time to post before I had to go out to work, and wrote the rest of it just now. So if parts of it look out of date, apologies.
Hoopy's criticisms of Aubby's reasons for voting the way he did, I agree with. (I don't apply the same logic to Shaggy though. I'll say why in a minute.) I also can't see Hoopy as scum right now. Maybe as very aggressive scum, but I've played with Hoopy when he was mafia-aligned and he never struck me that way.
Going on...
KidVermicious: This quote struck me as odd:
First off, there didn't seem any reason for him to post just when he did, other to underline his ignorance of the scum in general. Second off, I really really really hate it when people say things like "I'll be honest". Whenever they do, I immediately prepare myself for a great big whopper of a lie.
I've looked over his past posts, and while he's mildly defended Nanook - which bothers me, for reasons about to be explained - he's also voted Hoopy - which also bothers me, for reasons just explained.
My second "new" suspicion is Nanook, and his latest post hasn't done much to allay my suspicions of him. Nanook's made a few pretty large posts, and done very little else. Even his large posts don't seem substantial in ways that others' do. I find it very difficult to gauge where he stands, or what he's doing, and my gut instinct says that this is deliberate on his part. He's also voted the way I'd expect him to as scum on day one, which doesn't mean much - at least half a dozen people have - but combined with his lack of contribution, is enough to put him narrowly on the top of my list of "mason votors".
The Aubby / Parzival / Sinjin situation bothers me a lot. I can see reasons to suspect all three of them but it seems impossible for them to be scum together. My difficulty is that Aubby's outlined a fairly instinctive case against both of the other two that, on pure gut, I largely agree with. Whereas Parzival has said almost nothing I've agreed with, and I didn't like Sinjin's case against Roxis. Roxis (in direct contrast to KidV BTW) seemed to be genuinely confused yesterday, which to me points to her being town or, at worst, an uninformed PFK. This sorta put Sinjin on my radar after Parzival had pretty much taken her off it.
Indefinite =/= scum. Like someone said, "perfect information syndrome".
I agree with Natlaw about the late MiteyMouse votors. I also think we should be looking at some of the early Zeriel votors, as there was a lot of fluff voting for him based on reasons that, at least with hindsight, look pretty weak.
Are we assuming the ballot-stuffer (secret Brokentree votor) is town? If so, why?
Finally Crazypunker told Shaggy that he should "read people's arguments against you". This seems harsh when nobody's actually made any coherent case that I can see. Crazypunker posts a lot of fluff about the reasons for his votes, which basically can be boiled down to him not explaining himself too well, and then points out that "you didn't tell us why you never suspected her" (MiteyMouse). So basically you're voting Shaggy because he didn't explain why he didn't suspect someone who turned up town? PIS notwithstanding, since when in mafia are you expected to justify yourself when you're right?
I don't think anybody's been 100% clear on why they're voting for Shaggy, but their reasons seem to boil down to either "he gave bad information about his mason voting" or "he gave no information about his mason voting". It's not too difficult to see that those two reason contradict each other. This reminds me unpleasantly of the time I was lynched as "Arcade". I felt, then, that I was railroaded because I couldn't communicate very well with the other players. I don't want to see the same thing happen to someone else. (And ok, especially not the poor f--k who replaced me in "Mario" after my vanilla claim fiasco, but the point stands.)
So here we go...
Vote 1 (three votes): Mr Special Ed. (Already voted this one.) Vote 2 (two votes): Nanook. Vote 3 (one vote): Kid Vermicious.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 17:49:30 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Feb 3, 2009 17:49:30 GMT -5
well i did say in the night why I did not want to vote her, and here is a quote from my post:
Now why did I think she was an investigator role? here is her PM, which I and most probably now that she is town, can agree is real.
So I took this to me, that she follow's them and find's out whom they vote in the scum thread, to be NK. If they do not vote, for not being scum, then she would find nothing but by putting in a vote on the scum thread, she would find that out. Hence find out the scum. Yes I could be wrong but that is what I took that PM to me. Hence I felt it unwise to vote for her. As I said during the night thread. Maybe it was that I mistook her role, but that is what I thought. And even if I did mistake it, and it is vig's and/or SK, she can track and discover. That does not change the fact, that I felt it to risky to lynch an investigative type role, especially on day 1. Even if I am wrong and it was sk's and vigs, it is still an investigative type role. Next to admiting to being scum the prime target usually in most cases is always not scum and is a mislynch. Evidance, day 1 of this game.
Anyways I feel I want to vote now and not risk accidently triggering the count down again. And no they are not OMGUS vote's . My last few post's I have said my reason's for being suspicous of them.
VOTE #2 Sinjin VOTE #3 Hoopy
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 17:52:01 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Feb 3, 2009 17:52:01 GMT -5
I mean by the last part the lynch on day 1 is always a mislynch pretty much.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 18:04:04 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 3, 2009 18:04:04 GMT -5
So I took this to me, that she follow's them and find's out whom they vote in the scum thread, to be NK. If they do not vote, for not being scum, then she would find nothing but by putting in a vote on the scum thread, she would find that out. Hence find out the scum. Yes I could be wrong but that is what I took that PM to me. Hence I felt it unwise to vote for her. As I said during the night thread. Maybe it was that I mistook her role, but that is what I thought. And even if I did mistake it, and it is vig's and/or SK, she can track and discover. That does not change the fact, that I felt it to risky to lynch an investigative type role, especially on day 1. Even if I am wrong and it was sk's and vigs, it is still an investigative type role. Next to admiting to being scum the prime target usually in most cases is always not scum and is a mislynch. Evidance, day 1 of this game. All right, so you're saying you weren't sure she wasn't scum. Fine, then why did you cite Zeriel voting for only one mason as a reason to place your vote on him, when he was the only mason you voted for? You still haven't explained that.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 18:11:40 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 3, 2009 18:11:40 GMT -5
Lotsa snipping... KidVermicious: This quote struck me as odd: First off, there didn't seem any reason for him to post just when he did, other to underline his ignorance of the scum in general. Second off, I really really really hate it when people say things like "I'll be honest". Whenever they do, I immediately prepare myself for a great big whopper of a lie. No reason at all for me to post that? It's good to know that you're paying attention in your reread. Kindly point to where I've defended Nanook? I've attacked a couple players who voted him, for what I felt were spurious reasons. I know it's been said in past games, but I guess it needs to be said again. Attacking a player for his votes does not equal defending the player he's voting for. And please explain again why my vote for Hoopy bothers you, cuz I didn't see where you said that at all. Wait, what? I'm not confused, ergo I'm scum, is that really what you're doing here? Not confused by what? Seriously, dude. Explain yourself.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 18:11:58 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Feb 3, 2009 18:11:58 GMT -5
(And ok, especially not the poor f--k who replaced me in "Mario" after my vanilla claim debacle, but the point stands.) fixed I would like to say this about shaggy. What I can infer from last game is that he is capable of arguing some massively anti-town rhetoric, and even massively pro-scum rhetoric when he feels the least bit pressed, not due to strategy, but due to perhaps, taking the game a little too personally. Also I'm finding all these secondary votes a huge glass of WIFOM. I'm not sure who my two and three will be, but I'm doubting shaggy will be there today. To the rest of you. All of these statements, like telling him repeatedly he shouldn't play in the same games as Mitey, well they're kinda clouding things, because no matter what his alignment, shaggy acts scummy when he feels he's being personally attacked. I may as well at least get this on the record though. Vote 1: Mr Special Ed
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 18:29:42 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 3, 2009 18:29:42 GMT -5
Votes: Player | Vote 1 | Vote 2 | Vote 3 | crazypunker | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | | Hal Briston | Mr. Special Ed | | | Hoopy Frood | | Aubby | | Kat | Mr. Special Ed | | | Natlaw | Mr. Special Ed | | | misterblocky | Mr. Special Ed | | | molefan | Mr. Special Ed | Nanook | KidVermicious | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | Aubby | Nanook | peekercpa | Mr. Special Ed | peekercpa | Parzival | Rysto | Mr. Special Ed | | | shaggy | Mr. Special Ed | sinjin | Hoopy Frood | sinjin | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | |
Totals: Votee | Total | Voters (#1) | Voters (#2) | Voters (#3) | Mr. Special Ed | 30 (9) | crazypunker, Hal Briston, Kat, Natlaw, misterblocky, molefan, peekercpa, Rysto, shaggy, sinjin | | | shaggy | 7 (3) | Mr. Special Ed | crazypunker, sinjin | | Aubby | 4 (2) | | Hoopy Frood, Mr. Special Ed | | brokentree | 3 (3) | | | | Nanook | 3 (3) | | molefan | Mr. Special Ed | sinjin | 2 (2) | | shaggy | | peekercpa | 2 (2) | | peekercpa | | Hoopy Frood | 1 (1) | | | shaggy | Parzival | 1 (1) | | | peekercpa | KidVermicious | 1 (1) | | | molefan |
Not Voting: brokentree, Aubby, KidVermicious, Merestil Haye, Nanook, Parzival, Pollux Oil, roxis, TDPatriots
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 18:39:18 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 3, 2009 18:39:18 GMT -5
Lotsa snipping... KidVermicious: This quote struck me as odd: First off, there didn't seem any reason for him to post just when he did, other to underline his ignorance of the scum in general. Second off, I really really really hate it when people say things like "I'll be honest". Whenever they do, I immediately prepare myself for a great big whopper of a lie. 1) No reason at all for me to post that? It's good to know that you're paying attention in your reread. 2) Kindly point to where I've defended Nanook? I've attacked a couple players who voted him, for what I felt were spurious reasons. I know it's been said in past games, but I guess it needs to be said again. Attacking a player for his votes does not equal defending the player he's voting for. 3) And please explain again why my vote for Hoopy bothers you, cuz I didn't see where you said that at all. 4) Wait, what? I'm not confused, ergo I'm scum, is that really what you're doing here? Not confused by what? Seriously, dude. Explain yourself. 1) I am paying attention. In the "Andy on facebook" post you made a post on a subject that you'd had zero participation in before, making a statement about the scum kills that was false. In your next post you retracted that with an opinion that was expressed in terms that appeared to be insincere. The "mistake" that you made implicitly highlighted your lack of knowledge of the scum, exonerating you. In other words, in those two posts you could have set yourself up to look clueless about the scum. And you don't understand why I'm suspicious of that? 2) I was referring to this: "This could get me in trouble down the road, but I have to say, I don't think I've played a game with Nanook yet in which he was a top contributor. I'm all about asking him to contribute more, because, lets face it, thats the only way we're going to get a read on him or anybody else. But his low level of participation is a null tell in his case... he lurks whether he's a vanilla town, power role, or scum. It's what he does. Some of you have also played with him enough that you oughta know that he'll show up when asked, so I'm very suspicious of Hoopy and Peeker for their votes." OK, I'll grant you this one. You are attacking Hoopy and Peeker for their votes, rather than defending Naook directly. [Although if I'm right about Nanook being scum, one could say that any defence of him is suspicious. The validity (or otherwise) of it only depends on how plausible the scum is.] That said, fair point. I can see why you'd post this as town, although it doesn't prove anything either way. 3) Your vote for Hoopy disturbs me for the same reason that Parzival's for me, or Sinjin's for Roxis, do. Because you're voting for somebody who to me appears to be pro-town. I have a strong read on very few people right now. If someone is openly suspicious of someone I do have a pro-town read on, I'm going to ask if their reasons could be scummy. 4) This relates to point 1. Roxis' confusion struck me as genuine. Yours looked insincere.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 18:43:51 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 3, 2009 18:43:51 GMT -5
vote 4 misterblockeyfor using the word debacle, for bolding it, for underlining it, for increasing it's font size, for making it look like molefan used the word, for stealing my chocolate chip cheesecake, and for goodness sake No, "debacle" is fair enough. I woulda voted for the cheesecake if I could have.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 18:58:18 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Feb 3, 2009 18:58:18 GMT -5
I'd be more apt to think scum would vote Ed second (and I say that as someone who voted him second...or, at least I think I did...I'd have to go back and check). More of a "hide in the middle" sort of move, ya know? Thanks, Hal. Anybody else wanna weigh in on this? Sure. I will. I was going to reply to Hal but there was no appropriate sheep opening. Must have already been taken. I agree that MMQ makes a second vote on [Ed] look specious. I voted Ed second. However, I did fall into the trap of just stack ranking the three from most to least scummy, IMO. And I clearly (at least for me) stated why. If I need to again I certainly will. I am also on record for mea culpaing that action. Let's also get this out of the way. 2. Unvote me 3. Unvote Parzival2. Vote shaggy 3. Vote chucara (isn't that who replaced fria comida)shaggy for voting someone who did the same thing he did. chucara for being a replacement that has not posted. Little bit of a nudge, my friend. And I know this is obvious as all hell, but .... It's apparent that ed is getting strung today so if anyone in any other place comes out with a role claim I am going to look at that person askance. This, of course, does not apply to any scum who would like to be some sort of character witness for the accused. Maybe leniency could be exercised if your arguments about childhood abuse were sufficiently compelling.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 19:08:59 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 3, 2009 19:08:59 GMT -5
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 19:17:33 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 3, 2009 19:17:33 GMT -5
Thanks, Hal. Anybody else wanna weigh in on this? Sure. I will. I was going to reply to Hal but there was no appropriate sheep opening. Must have already been taken. I agree that MMQ makes a second vote on [Ed] look specious. I voted Ed second. However, I did fall into the trap of just stack ranking the three from most to least scummy, IMO. And I clearly (at least for me) stated why. If I need to again I certainly will. I am also on record for mea culpaing that action. Let's also get this out of the way. 2. Unvote me 3. Unvote Parzival2. Vote shaggy 3. Vote chucara (isn't that who replaced fria comida)shaggy for voting someone who did the same thing he did. chucara for being a replacement that has not posted. Little bit of a nudge, my friend. And I know this is obvious as all hell, but .... It's apparent that ed is getting strung today so if anyone in any other place comes out with a role claim I am going to look at that person askance. This, of course, does not apply to any scum who would like to be some sort of character witness for the accused. Maybe leniency could be exercised if your arguments about childhood abuse were sufficiently compelling. Natlaw replaced Koldy.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 19:18:51 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 3, 2009 19:18:51 GMT -5
Votes: Player | Vote 1 | Vote 2 | Vote 3 | crazypunker | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | | Hal Briston | Mr. Special Ed | | | Hoopy Frood | | shaggy | Aubby | Kat | Mr. Special Ed | | | Natlaw | Mr. Special Ed | | | misterblocky | Mr. Special Ed | | | molefan | Mr. Special Ed | Nanook | KidVermicious | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | Aubby | Nanook | peekercpa | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | Natlaw | Rysto | Mr. Special Ed | | | shaggy | Mr. Special Ed | sinjin | Hoopy Frood | sinjin | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | |
Totals: Votee | Total | Voters (#1) | Voters (#2) | Voters (#3) | Mr. Special Ed | 30 (9) | crazypunker, Hal Briston, Kat, Natlaw, misterblocky, molefan, peekercpa, Rysto, shaggy, sinjin | | | shaggy | 11 (5) | Mr. Special Ed | crazypunker, Hoopy Frood, peekercpa, sinjin | | brokentree | 3 (3) | | | | Nanook | 3 (3) | | molefan | Mr. Special Ed | Aubby | 3 (2) | | Mr. Special Ed | Hoopy Frood | sinjin | 2 (2) | | shaggy | | Hoopy Frood | 1 (1) | | | shaggy | Natlaw | 1 (1) | | | peekercpa | KidVermicious | 1 (1) | | | molefan |
Not Voting: brokentree, Aubby, KidVermicious, Merestil Haye, Nanook, Parzival, Pollux Oil, roxis, TDPatriots
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 19:19:12 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 3, 2009 19:19:12 GMT -5
3. Vote chucara (isn't that who replaced fria comida) chucara for being a replacement that has not posted. Little bit of a nudge, my friend. No "Cold Dinner"/Koldanar was replaced by Natlaw, who has posted 6 posts this Day, which is no doubt more than some others of us. And his last post was less than 12 hours ago, so it's not as if he's disappeared. Plus, he's probably trying to get up to speed on Day 1 since he's been active in the Evil Dead game up until his night kill which was fairly recently.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 19:24:14 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 3, 2009 19:24:14 GMT -5
Lotsa snipping... 1) No reason at all for me to post that? It's good to know that you're paying attention in your reread. 2) Kindly point to where I've defended Nanook? I've attacked a couple players who voted him, for what I felt were spurious reasons. I know it's been said in past games, but I guess it needs to be said again. Attacking a player for his votes does not equal defending the player he's voting for. 3) And please explain again why my vote for Hoopy bothers you, cuz I didn't see where you said that at all. 4) Wait, what? I'm not confused, ergo I'm scum, is that really what you're doing here? Not confused by what? Seriously, dude. Explain yourself. 1) I am paying attention. In the "Andy on facebook" post you made a post on a subject that you'd had zero participation in before, making a statement about the scum kills that was false. In your next post you retracted that with an opinion that was expressed in terms that appeared to be insincere. The "mistake" that you made implicitly highlighted your lack of knowledge of the scum, exonerating you. In other words, in those two posts you could have set yourself up to look clueless about the scum. And you don't understand why I'm suspicious of that? 2) I was referring to this: "This could get me in trouble down the road, but I have to say, I don't think I've played a game with Nanook yet in which he was a top contributor. I'm all about asking him to contribute more, because, lets face it, thats the only way we're going to get a read on him or anybody else. But his low level of participation is a null tell in his case... he lurks whether he's a vanilla town, power role, or scum. It's what he does. Some of you have also played with him enough that you oughta know that he'll show up when asked, so I'm very suspicious of Hoopy and Peeker for their votes." OK, I'll grant you this one. You are attacking Hoopy and Peeker for their votes, rather than defending Naook directly. [Although if I'm right about Nanook being scum, one could say that any defence of him is suspicious. The validity (or otherwise) of it only depends on how plausible the scum is.] That said, fair point. I can see why you'd post this as town, although it doesn't prove anything either way. 3) Your vote for Hoopy disturbs me for the same reason that Parzival's for me, or Sinjin's for Roxis, do. Because you're voting for somebody who to me appears to be pro-town. I have a strong read on very few people right now. If someone is openly suspicious of someone I do have a pro-town read on, I'm going to ask if their reasons could be scummy. 4) This relates to point 1. Roxis' confusion struck me as genuine. Yours looked insincere. Lemme spell it out for you, then. Post 111 obviously contains a false statement. Post 112, which is a direct response to Hoopys request for other folks to weigh in on the issue, indicates that I originally assumed a specific killer, then thought I'd seen something from the moderator that contra-indicated that assumption. Obviously I was wrong. But lets back up a second, because you're backpedaling now. That apparent contradiction-that-isn't-really-there isn't what you first objected to. You said, and I quote: So you found my post objectionable because you didn't know why I posted it, despite my quote of the request I was responding to. And you're paying attention? Hogwash. You're flinging shit.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 19:24:24 GMT -5
Post by roxis on Feb 3, 2009 19:24:24 GMT -5
I don't really know what to think at this point. shaggy seems to be acting the same as I've known him to in other games. Is it necessarily anti-town? Occasionally, but I think when one is being attacked the way he is, it's only natural to want to defend oneself in any way possible. Right now, I don't believe his actions warrant my vote, but I'll definitely be revisiting this issue in the future. Same with sinjin - she strikes me as a generally aggressive player in general. Although... Ok, I'm of course going to vote: Mr. Special Ed 1. As far as the other votes go I'm up in the air until tuesday when I will have time to reread day one. But, I would like to apologize for being such a hard ass night 1 and day 1. In real life I'm not this rigid but sometimes when I try to do the right thing playing mafia I get caught up in the moment and I come across that way. So if I offended anyone I hope you'll forgive me and let's just get on with the game. this post almost seems as though it's a way to justify her aggressiveness, though she wasn't really being attacked for it. However, I'm not going to be voting for her either. Because I want to get a set of complete votes in (and don't want to risk starting the countdown when I do so), I'll be voting now. Vote 1. Mr Special EdI don't really feel the need to justify this vote, but...I'm voting for him because we know him to be scum. Vote 2. aubbyYep, joining the aubby bandwagon. It seems like she's posting a lot, yet saying very little. There's the obvious switcheroo during the last portion of the countdown yesterDay, coupled with her lurking whilst saying "I just have nothing to say". She's posting a lot now, but I just don't feel as though her posts contain much content. This way, no one will vote her for not posting, but she doesn't have to risk saying something that will incriminate her. It's not enough to warrant a lynch over Ed at this point, but it warrants a vote from me. Vote 3. Pollux Oil/FuegoHonestly, it was between you and brokentree, but she has posted once in this thread, even though it was just inquiring about the votes on her. I know she hasn't been on much at this point due to a funeral, so...I understand why she has been absent. I know you've been on since I've talked to you and all, so I don't understand your absence. Or maybe I just want to pick on you a little.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 19:59:01 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Feb 3, 2009 19:59:01 GMT -5
Oh, and this probably falls into the day late dollar short category. I just king of assumed that scum would have to designate a killer since that seems to be the general structure in the games I have played in recently. Hence my town points to MM since a tracker would be nigh on useless in the absence of this property.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 20:23:09 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Feb 3, 2009 20:23:09 GMT -5
I was feeling a little guilty about the conjoined twins post. but I obviously got over it. <sinjin's daughter> "Filters Mom, remember to take them out and clean them on a regular basis but don't forget to reinstall them!</sd> Also, sorry for not being around today, I under-estimated my workload.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 20:27:18 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 3, 2009 20:27:18 GMT -5
So you found my post objectionable because you didn't know why I posted it, despite my quote of the request I was responding to. And you're paying attention? Hogwash. You're flinging shit. No, in my first post I just wrote it how I thought it. The "I'll be honest" post attracted my attention first, so that's what I wrote first. It's the post before that, the "Andy is Mr Special..." one, that's unprovoked. Yes, I didn't make that clear in my first post, but it's obvious enough if you look back. Nobody asked your opinion, you'd not said anything about it before then, and you were either unsure or mistaken in your facts. The Hoopy post is irrelevant, because hell, someone was going to pick you up on that mistake regardless of whether or not it was genuine. Doesn't matter if it was Hoopy or anyone else. It's a null-tell.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 21:02:58 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Feb 3, 2009 21:02:58 GMT -5
And this is what I get for reading and posting sequentially. If understand roxis then good vibes are called for brokentree.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 21:31:27 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 3, 2009 21:31:27 GMT -5
So you found my post objectionable because you didn't know why I posted it, despite my quote of the request I was responding to. And you're paying attention? Hogwash. You're flinging shit. No, in my first post I just wrote it how I thought it. The "I'll be honest" post attracted my attention first, so that's what I wrote first. It's the post before that, the "Andy is Mr Special..." one, that's unprovoked. Yes, I didn't make that clear in my first post, but it's obvious enough if you look back. Nobody asked your opinion, you'd not said anything about it before then, and you were either unsure or mistaken in your facts. No, it's not obvious to me at all. I think you're backpedaling, trying to revise your post history. Questions - what exactly is suspicious about me trying to help Shaggy understand how a role works? And if "I'll be honest" is so disturbing to you, why didn't you say anything when Blockey used the same phrase? And why are you so sure that Hoopy is town, that you'll use a vote for him as part-justification for a vote of your own? I think you figured you'd try to appear town, and decided to use me to do that, and weren't ready to get picked apart. I haven't decided yet why I think you're so eager to appear town, tho. Normally I'd call this a blatant scumtell, but you've got a history of doing harebrained things as town, so I need to think on this some more.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 21:51:09 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 3, 2009 21:51:09 GMT -5
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 22:01:26 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 3, 2009 22:01:26 GMT -5
are you stalking him or trying to send him a message? Pede won't give me the password to the scum thread, even after I'm lynched he said, can you send it to me on FB? She's stalking me. I told her no means no, but she just can't keep away. ;D Oh, and thanks for those last posts Ed. Very enlightening. You are a gentleman and a scholar. ----- Aaaaaanyway. Re: Shaggy. I have trouble reading his posts because his posting style makes my eyes glaze over. I had the same trouble with peeker initially, but now that I've acclimated to his posting style I can translate the peekerness. But the point is, I'm afraid the fact that I can't comprehend what shaggy is saying might affect my scumdar when it's pointing at him. Regardless, I voted for shaggy yesterday for the same reasons others did and he's getting into arguments with them but hasn't mentioned me. I want to feel the love. Aubby is making me hella suspicious. Her actions yesterDay with voting for Ed, and her defenses toDay are lacking. I made the unfortunate mistake yesterDay of assuming either zeriel or MiteyMouse was the scum mason, and the other was the scum target to keep their buddy alive. Now that we know neither was the scum mason, I'm going to take a look back at Day One and see who started the zeriel train. The reason is because I feel like with zeriel coming out of the gate and laying the suspicion on Mitey (with Ed backing him up), a scum or two would then take the opportunity to jump on zeriel to start the ball rolling on him, thus creating an escalation of the two non-Ed masons that would shelter Ed. 1. Vote Mr. Special Ed 2. Vote aubbyMy third vote will come once I've relooked at Day One, and will most likely be on a person I think looked scummiest during the early zeriel votes. Happy now roxis?
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 22:02:52 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 3, 2009 22:02:52 GMT -5
Votes: Player | Vote 1 | Vote 2 | Vote 3 | crazypunker | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | | Hal Briston | Mr. Special Ed | | | Hoopy Frood | | shaggy | Aubby | Kat | Mr. Special Ed | | | Natlaw | Mr. Special Ed | | | misterblocky | Mr. Special Ed | | | molefan | Mr. Special Ed | Nanook | KidVermicious | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | Aubby | Nanook | peekercpa | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | Natlaw | Pollux Oil | Mr. Special Ed | Aubby | | roxis | Mr. Special Ed | Aubby | Pollux Oil | Rysto | Mr. Special Ed | | | shaggy | Mr. Special Ed | sinjin | Hoopy Frood | sinjin | Mr. Special Ed | shaggy | |
Totals: Votee | Total | Voters (#1) | Voters (#2) | Voters (#3) | Mr. Special Ed | 36 (12) | crazypunker, Hal Briston, Kat, Natlaw, misterblocky, molefan, peekercpa, Pollux Oil, roxis, Rysto, shaggy, sinjin | | | shaggy | 11 (5) | Mr. Special Ed | crazypunker, Hoopy Frood, peekercpa, sinjin | | Aubby | 7 (4) | | Mr. Special Ed, Pollux Oil, roxis | Hoopy Frood | brokentree | 3 (3) | | | | Nanook | 3 (3) | | molefan | Mr. Special Ed | sinjin | 2 (2) | | shaggy | | Hoopy Frood | 1 (1) | | | shaggy | Pollux Oil | 1 (1) | | | roxis | Natlaw | 1 (1) | | | peekercpa | KidVermicious | 1 (1) | | | molefan |
Not Voting: brokentree, Aubby, KidVermicious, Merestil Haye, Nanook, Parzival, TDPatriots
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 22:06:04 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 3, 2009 22:06:04 GMT -5
aww, I shouldn't have quoted that. NOw people can find it without digging :-( Yeah thanks for that. I was afraid I'd have to do it myself.
|
|