Does that change anything with regard to Mordenkainen for you?
Not sure what you’re getting at, I have no doubt Vanta hid behind Kai.
I’m questioning TexCat’s case on Lightfoot. I find it hard to believe that a scum team member, who knew PCM was the scum kill, would push so hard against the Vanta-hiding-behind-Kai scenario, discard the breadcrumb, discredit one or two of Kai’s voters, and fight against Kai’s yeet, knowing he would flip scum and the breadcrumb might be true. Maybe she was convinced Vanta hid behind PCM, since she knew PCM was the scum target and a likelier candidate for Vanta to hide behind, but to double down by discarding the breadcrumb entirely and then to attack TexCat for following Meeko, Bashorian and myself with her vote on Kai seems a step too far to protect a scum buddy.
Now that I wrote that out, there actually is a world where we just got lucky, and Vanta never actually hid behind Kai but there was enough suspicion on him that the breadcrumb just solidified the case, but even scum Lightfoot wouldn’t have known that.
What I'm saying is I think we have confirmation that Vanta hid behind Kaiveran. You suspect Mordenkainen, in part, for espousing that theory, but I think it's reasonable for Mordenkainen to do that given the information that was leaked. I just wanted to know if, in light of confirmation that Vanta hid behind Kaiveran, that changes your position on Mordenkainen at all.
Oh no, not at all, I suspect Mordenkainen for several reasons, one of which was his vote on Kai which I felt was a pile-on. The mod clarification came in post #200 but Mordenkainen's vote was #186, he just corrected the spelling in #204. Here are my thoughts on their slot:
D1 ISO:
Mordenkainen
D1
#7 Hi, fluff
#133 explanation of GP course, dislikes Mahaloth's unforced VT claim, not reason enough to vote
#134 quotes Kaiveran, likes it, has a townie feel
#141 to Meeko, says Archangel did not go after Kaiveran, she just asked a question, and moved on when the answer satisfied her, will not be voting Archangel or Kaiveran toDay, maybe Maha or Meeko
#143 on Gnarly, mentions his single post, also missed the plurar "forces", not reason enough for a vote
#153 explains Lightfoot/SilverJan numbered lists confusion, notes there are 6 hours remaining
#160 on Bashorian, mentions his short burst of activity (quoted above), feels uneasy but needs more reasoning than low participation, since they are equally guilty of that so it's NAI
#167 to me, explains what they meant by inconsistent (quoted above), policy non-votes Gnarly
#189 on Texcat, dislikes her reasoning for voting Mahaloth, his claim was NAI and Colby's vote was a joke, disagrees with vote but wonders if it's a misunderstanding or made-up arguments, ends up voting Texcat because "not only scum would do that", for being wrong
#197 to me, who questioned their comment on Bashorian's short burst of activity and ironic, given his own short burst of activity, explains that it's their MO, does not know if it's also BC's MO
#200 to Archangel, who clarifies that low activity is also NAI for BC, does not understand tone
#250 (N1) to me, who asked if anyone else had Gnarly's interpretation of "forces", also thought of multiball, but not worth a vote, anyway it's too late
Slightly more content here, gives two town reads, does a few ISOs, fairly nice tone, although a little overly self-aware, playing both sides on gnarly, mahaloth, and bashorian. Three things stand out:
1. What made you pick Gnarly, Bashorian and TexCat to ISO?
2. Did you find TexCat scummy for being wrong? Do you think she faked the arguments against Mahaloth, or do you feel a need to stick to your policies no matter what?
3. A little snuggling and defense of Kaiveran, possibly too blatant too early
N2 reads list:
Mordenkainen ISO, D1#134/141 snuggle and indirect defense of Kaiveran stands out a little more now, comments on Kaiveran/Vanta in #131, returns in #186 with a little role-fishing attempt, factual re-hash of the previous discussion between Archangel and me, recognized 6 minutes later, was persuaded by the crumb - why now but not before in #131, since I spotted the crumb in #108? Changed stance on TexCat in #203, would like to hear current stance based on Kaiveran's flip.
Interactions between Kai and Mordenkainen:
D1#134 quotes Kai's #38, is a positive start to the game, gives an overall townie feel
D1#141 indirectly, corrects Meeko on Archangel's approach to Kai, will not be voting Kai or Archangel toDay
D2#36 Kai, indirectly, does not think Mordenkainen's defense of gnarly is white-knighting, ranks the interaction 1st out of 5 in order of towniness
D2#131 indirectly, lists out three options for Vanta's death including Vanta hiding behind Kai
D2#143 Kai comments on my low-poster ISOs, unsure of my read on Mordenkainen, could be wolfy self-focus or struggling to get a read, waiting for follow-up, unlikely aligned with TexCat due to early vote, sees an improvement in content and evolving reads compared to BC
D2#154 Kai suspects one of the non-voters is scum, excludes others so "that leaves Colby and Morden", votes Meeko without reasoning why not Colby or Morden
D2#186 works through Vanta scenarios, Vanta's hint, votes Kai, asks em to come and play again
D2#187 agrees with hypotheses that Kai could be town, but finds crumb to be persuasive
D2#203 suggests a need to look at TexCat, for thinking Kai is townie, especially if Kai flips scum
D2#204 fixes spelling of vote on Kai so ensure the vote count reflects it correctly
- possible smoking gun here, there was no vote count posted, how did Mordenkainen notice the typo? Why was he so concerned about it appearing correctly in the vote count?
What I'm saying is I think we have confirmation that Vanta hid behind Kaiveran. You suspect Mordenkainen, in part, for espousing that theory, but I think it's reasonable for Mordenkainen to do that given the information that was leaked. I just wanted to know if, in light of confirmation that Vanta hid behind Kaiveran, that changes your position on Mordenkainen at all.
FWIW, I believe the moderator's statement was based on the scenario that both Kai and Vanta were Town, not a mod-confirmation that Vanta actually hid behind Kaiveran.
It's almost 2am. I don't feel like heavy thinking right now.
@guiri - How did I find out about my misspelling of Kaiveran's name? I ran the vote script to check the count and my vote did not appear against Kaiveran. It appeared against Kaiveren.
So I checked the player's name and corrected my error.
That was the easy question. What about the delay between the crumb and the vote? And your stance on TexCat?
re my stance on TexCat, it hadn't changed much; I tend to place D1 votes on suspicions that are much flimsier than those on later Days. I haven't yet given up my suspicion of TexCat; it's just that Kai emerged as a better suspect the more I read of Day 2 and the more I considered the crumb that was identified Yesterday.
Any delay in responding to the crumb has two contributory reasons; firstly I need to take time to let thing stew in my brain, and secondly I wasn't reading much Tuesday and Wednesday last week. I get worried about (spoilered for cringeworthness)
I'm warning you!
having a needle stuck in my eye.
Don't say I didn't warn you!
I'd also like to comment on why I feel consistent spelling of votes is important. A recent game featured frequent misspellings of Professor Pepperwinke's name. To get a correct vote count the mod had to consolidate multiple votes. Modding is hard enough work that this extra task can easily be an unnecessary burden.
Self-defence is a null tell. If the vote could fall on me or some other player that I am not suspicious of, then because I know my alignment and not theirs, voting for the other player has to have a greater chance of netting an enemy than eliminating me does.
If I know that the other is a Towm power while I am VT, it's best to stand aside and take the elimination, but then if there is still a tie, my flip should focus attention on the other lead contender.
Post 29 sees Tex present a case that Mahaloth and LightFoot are Mafiates in cahoots with the late Kaivaran. Post 34 further expands on this. In addition she defends guiri on the grounds that he saved her neck; this is referring to the last-minute vote switches at the end of Day 1.
This makes me more suspicios of Mahaloth and Lightfoot, as there is at least a prima facie case against those two here.
6th July 2022, 06:54 AM
Linear Mode
