Felt vs. MC: Day 1 Thread

[Trepa Mayfield]

3 days, 3 hours and 11 minutes to the end of Day 1

Vote Count:
Placeholder (1):Zeener Diode [Day 1 Post 50]
Idle Thoughts (2): Zuma [Day 1 Post 76], Lucifer [Day 1 Post 83]

Not Voting: Sister Coyote, moody mitchy, peekercpa, RedSkeezix, Total Ulla, Romola, BillMC, Special Ed, BobArrgh, Idle Thoughts, Giraffe

Voting in the Future: Romanic [Day 2]

Voting in the Past: N/A

With these votes Idle Thoughts will be lynched.

(Placeholder votes have no value)

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

Does a place-holder vote count the same as a regular vote? Because I'm not really voting on anyone.[/COLOR][/B]

(Placeholder votes have no value)

[BobArrgh]

@ peeker: Got it.

I'm probably not going to bank my vote toDay, but as of yet, I don't know if anyone is acting particularly scummy. I know it is quite the thing to do to vote for Idle Thoughts on the first day, but I dislike following a crowd, and especially one I think is wrong.

[Idle Thoughts]

I agree with Romanic, someone is trying to start an early bandwagon.

I mean, seriously...voting for someone because they haven't claimed anything yet? Just because I haven't claimed on Day One, that must mean I'm scum?

[Red Skeezix]

Hmm.

I feel like the Idle case has zero merit, but i can't decide which of you is the scummiest?

I'm tempted to vote all three of the idle voters, but I don't really want pull in future votes for a day 1 case. So i'll vote the bandwagonest of that particular bandwagon. Plus 3rd voter is always scum, right? (that was a joke)



vote lucifer from day 1.[/B]

[Red Skeezix]

vote lucifer from day 1.]

NETA: CODING FAILURE.

[Red Skeezix]

wow, i can't count. I thought mitchy was voting Idle, the way he's going at him. Very smudgy indeed. He's seemingly in support of the Idle case, but not willing to put his vote where his mouth is.

unvote lucifer from day 1.

vote mitchy from day 1.

[Total Ulla]

I disagree very strongly. Moody is not trying to get more people to vote Idle. To me it reads like he is trying to suggest that Idle claims as vanilla Town. And therefor when idle don't claim it could indicate that he is has power-role.

Now this is getting a bit confusing to me.

We have Zuma and Lucifer voting Idle for not claiming on Day 1. That's weak. That's sooo weak IMO!

But then we have Romanic and Red trying to make it look like Moody voted/bussed/jumped the bandwagon - and I simply don't see that.

However Moody seems to me very convinced that Idle is Town and that's a bit... well... it could be benifit of the doubt and it also could PIS or some sort of knowledge that could be Town.

But to say Moody is voting Idle seems strange to me. Because he said he didn't want to fish and that implies to me that he thinks idle is Town with a power.

And all this only because Idle didn't vote
We never like early claims. What changed over night here?

[Total Ulla]

NETA: not And all this only because Idle didn't vote
But And all this only because Idle didn't claim

[Romanic]

@Ulla: Did you miss this from mitchy?

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

Oh and I'm suspicious of Idle Thoughts. 2 posts and no claim. Now that's got to be dodgy behaviour

His stance toward Idle seems clear to me.

Also, please explain this snippet:

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

However Moody seems to me very convinced that Idle is Town and that's a bit... well... it could be benifit of the doubt and it also could PIS or some sort of knowledge that could be Town.

Where did you pick that mitchy seems convinced that Idle is Town?

[Total Ulla]

Maybe we should wait for Moody to show up and explain. But I read this as a joke-statement:

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

Oh and I'm suspicious of Idle Thoughts. 2 posts and no claim. Now that's got to be dodgy behaviour

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

Bolding mine...

I fear that any comment made about this statement would be seen as fishing.

The use of the word "fishing" indicate to me that he views Idle as town. Because fishing applies to questions about possible town power roles. If you question a player you think is scum, I really can't see the word "fishing" having anything to do with it.

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

I went back and checked the last game... though I disagreed with his behaviour and cited it as anti TOWN.... Idle Thoughts never said in that game (at least not one Day 1 anyway) that he always claimed...

He said he'd got into a habit of doing so and had even considered claiming when some sort of power...

So I guess we have to try and decide whether there is any great reason for the change of heart this game but like I said... querying it too much will be (I think) seen as fishing.

Also I might have a bit metagaming going on here. But Moody has a history of being accused of fishing and therefore he seems to be very careful in avoiding this. However... the way he seems to mention this without doing it. It just seems a bit off to me.
If he thinks Idle is a Town Power Role - he should either say so or don't. Anyhow chances are that Scum has already picked up on the subject and what ever Mitch say or don't say will not make a big difference.
So for now I'll allow myself to be slightly pinged by a lot in this...

[Lucifer]

Originally Posted by Idle Thoughts

Nevermind, I found it.

Seems to me you're reading it wrong (either accidentally or deliberately). What it means is: All the times I've ever claimed, I was Town.
It doesn't mean "I only claim when I'm Town".

Idle, this seems pretty straight forward. Maybe you were being cocky or stupid in that game, or maybe this game. It's hard to say, but it's pretty obvious at this point that you're a really good lynch toDay.

Originally Posted by Idle Thoughts

I've never claimed in a game I was scum. I only claim in games I'm Town.

I did hint around at being a Strongman in one that I was scum in, but never actually came out and said it (I did have the added benefit of having the strongman power AND having the mod say "Idle Thoughts, the strongman...." when I was lynched too, though).

[Trepa Mayfield]

2 days, 15 hours and 5 minutes to the end of Day 1

Vote Count:
Placeholder (1):Zeener Diode [Day 1 Post 50]
Idle Thoughts (2): Zuma [Day 1 Post 76], Lucifer [Day 1 Post 83]
moody mitchy (1): Red Skeezix [Day 1 Post 106]

Not Voting: Sister Coyote, moody mitchy, peekercpa, Total Ulla, Romola, BillMC, Special Ed, BobArrgh, Idle Thoughts, Giraffe

Voting in the Future: Romanic [Day 2]

Voting in the Past: N/A

With these votes Idle Thoughts will be lynched.

(Placeholder votes have no value)

[Idle Thoughts]

Originally Posted by Lucifer

Idle, this seems pretty straight forward. Maybe you were being cocky or stupid in that game, or maybe this game. It's hard to say, but it's pretty obvious at this point that you're a really good lynch toDay.

And I'm saying you have a very weak reason for voting. That post was part of an exchange. The exchange went like this:

"What do you claim when you're scum?"
"I've never claimed when I was scum, I've only claimed when I was Town."

Now, yes, I didn't say claimED. I said "I only claim when I'm Town" in that post. But I meant CLAIMED. It can be read as "claimed" too. It can very easily be read and meant that way. It's talking about the past...not the present.


So the fact that you're hung up on that small grammar error, pushing apparently, very hard for a very weak reason to vote and are, basically, voting for me simply because I haven't claimed yet...

Vote Lucifer (toDay)

[peekercpa]

SP, where you been? I've role claimed on Day One in 8 of the last 10 games I've played in. I used to do it so often, Special Ed once voted for me in Day One of a game for not doing it.

I've never claimed in a game I was scum. I only claim in games I'm Town.

the above are quotes by idle from the dr. seuss game.

it doesn't seem to much of a stretch for folks to take these quotes and extrapolate out that "no claim" equals not town in my little pea brain. i mean i have no clue what games idle is referencing and don't know what his alignment was in the games he didn't claim but i think it safe to say that just based on percentages that he was scum at least once. if his statements are to be believed it doesn't take an einstein to make the leap that no claim equals scum in idle's case.

now i know this probably feeds into the whole idle motivation but i figured i'd get my two cents in and then move on.
i am unwilling to make that leap, however. primarily because when it comes to idle and his claiming or lack thereof has just become white noise in the background to me.

but to some extent it does create confusion/discussion. the confusion not so good the discussion very good. the only thing that makes it a downside to me is that now the first topic of every Day in a game that idle participates in has kind of devolved into: "has idle claimed or not claimed and what are the implications?" and to some extent this is very beneficial to idle because the group seems split on whether it means shit and he's got his stock answers already composed. so he gets to look all participatory and stuff all the while with the fall back of "toldya" or "crud you got me this time".

[Lucifer]

Let's lynch Idle today, then tomorrow look at who came in to defend him.

I think our second scum is Romanic, and my evidence is the fact that Romanic has come to Idle's defense. If you're town, especially on Day 1, you don't know who else is town, so you don't know who to defend. The only way you know who to defend is if you're scum, and you're going to defend a scum buddy that's taking some early heat. Scum wouldn't bother defending a townie like this on Day 1,because it's too easy to sit back and let the lynch happen.

Couple that with trying to cast suspicion on whomever is bringing the heat (namely, me) and you've got a pretty obvious, iron-clad scum tell.

Originally Posted by Romanic

@ Lucifer, moody mitchy & zuma

Did it cross your mind that Idle may not be claiming because he has a pro-Town role rather than a Scum?

I'm not seeing why not claiming makes him Scum, even if he often claims early.

In Dr. Seuss, Idle wrote:

Claiming 8 times out of 10 is different than claiming every time..

And it seems we're hearing about Day 1 claims in every game, even when there is no claim. It's so easy to bring up.

So which one of you is the scumbag trying to hit on Idle Thoughts with this weak argument?

-and-

Originally Posted by Romanic

Between the three players voting Idle, I'd say that zuma is less suspicious than the other two, for throwing the first vote.

moody's post is almost a smudge on Idle. He doesn't state his arguments against him (although it could be argued that they are implied/obvious), nor does he vote for him.

Lucifer's me too vote is suspicious, but I've seen Lucifer do similar things in 2 games (1 scum, 1 town), however it doesn't excuse the fact that his only post so far was this vote.

But again, this is just too easy. It's unlikely to me that three townies came up with the same behavior, with none apparently considering that Idle could have a pro-Town role and that it would be foolish to claim immediately.

[peekercpa]

neta: and crap the sentence that starts with "now i know ...." is supposed to be at the very end rather in the middle of the previous post.

[Lucifer]

So, we have 15 players. My guess would be 3 scum, and maybe 1 PFK. That leaves one more scum, in addition to Idle Thoughts and Romanic.

I reckon that would be Red Skeezix. Red's tell is trying to drum up a little bit of vague suspicion of me, since it looks like I already stepped in shit, but he's not going to commit to it - just float it and then move on to whatever is next.

Originally Posted by Red Skeezix

Hmm.

I feel like the Idle case has zero merit, but i can't decide which of you is the scummiest?

I'm tempted to vote all three of the idle voters, but I don't really want pull in future votes for a day 1 case. So i'll vote the bandwagonest of that particular bandwagon. Plus 3rd voter is always scum, right? (that was a joke)


vote lucifer from day 1.[/B]

Originally Posted by Red Skeezix

vote lucifer from day 1.]

NETA: CODING FAILURE.

[Lucifer]

-and-

Originally Posted by Red Skeezix

wow, i can't count. I thought mitchy was voting Idle, the way he's going at him. Very smudgy indeed. He's seemingly in support of the Idle case, but not willing to put his vote where his mouth is.

unvote lucifer from day 1.[/B]

vote mitchy from day 1.[/B]

[Total Ulla]

Originally Posted by Lucifer

I think our second scum is Romanic, and my evidence is the fact that Romanic has come to Idle's defense. If you're town, especially on Day 1, you don't know who else is town, so you don't know who to defend. The only way you know who to defend is if you're scum, and you're going to defend a scum buddy that's taking some early heat. Scum wouldn't bother defending a townie like this on Day 1,because it's too easy to sit back and let the lynch happen.

Once more I disagree.
First - Scum would totally do that (and a lot of other things as well).

I've seen games where a Scum defended a Townie Day 1 - why?
Because they knew the player was town and the "case" that were building up was based on false pretense.

Defending (or in this case disagreeing with the case) is not something only Scum would do in case the "case" where on a scum-buddy.

Also I strongly believe it is a good thing to comment on a "case" ot a discussion even if it's just to say you don't agree.

And since I don't like unprovoked claims Day 1 I'm having a hard time understanding the votes on Idle.
Are you really voting him in order to force him to claim?

[Lucifer]

So, these three (Idle Thoughts, Romanic and Red Skeezix) are setting up Day 1 a lot like Special Ed got the ball rolling in the Dr. Suess game.

In this Dr. Suess Mafia Day 1 post, I correctly identify 3 of the 4 scum in that game. I was wrong about Romola, but 75% accuracy on Day 1 is pretty goddamned good by any measure.

Originally Posted by Lucifer

Romola, this is preposterous. You're saying that it's not necessary to post any reason for a vote, provided you place that vote some time after someone else states their case? And, furthermore, it's not even necessary to cite that case (that the other player made), nor cite the post, the post number, the ideas contained therein, or refer (in any way) to that post? But it's perfectly reasonable to presume that the rest of us will recognize that it is, indeed, that case, which sures up the vote?


Here are the players I think most likely to be scum...
Special Ed (for reasons previously stated
Renata (I just think Ed's bussing you to build townie cred later)
Romola (for the ludicrous line of reasoning you are promoting above)
Moody Mitchy (for the comment you made in Post 78)

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

But to say Moody is voting Idle seems strange to me. Because he said he didn't want to fish and that implies to me that he thinks idle is Town with a power.

I caught that intent from Moody also.

But if he isn't fishing, why imply? He should not be hinting Idle is anything but Town.

FOS Moody

[Lucifer]

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

Once more I disagree.
First - Scum would totally do that (and a lot of other things as well).

I've seen games where a Scum defended a Townie Day 1 - why?
Because they knew the player was town and the "case" that were building up was based on false pretense.

Defending (or in this case disagreeing with the case) is not something only Scum would do in case the "case" where on a scum-buddy.

Also I strongly believe it is a good thing to comment on a "case" ot a discussion even if it's just to say you don't agree.

And since I don't like unprovoked claims Day 1 I'm having a hard time understanding the votes on Idle.
Are you really voting him in order to force him to claim?

I totally agree with you on most of these points, but when you add in the fact that they're all reacting to my Idle vote by tryin to cast suspicion in my direction, it adds up to scum - pure and simple.

I've been saying this for a long time, and I'll say it again: voting is like a Swiss Army Knife - you can do a lot with it besides whittling tree branches. You cast a vote, and don't just look at the reaction of the person you're voting against - you look at other players' reactions as well.

It's like this: you poke a stick into a hornet's nest and when you start getting stung it's reasonable to suspect you're being stung by hornets (even though you can't positively identify them as hornets).

So, a vote for Idle produces some pretty good results, as far as I'm concerned. If you boneheads want to go ahead and lynch me toDay, go right ahead, but toMorrow please look back at my vote, my reasoning, the players that came into play in this little drama, and the end result.

[Lucifer]

Originally Posted by Idle Thoughts

And I'm saying you have a very weak reason for voting. That post was part of an exchange. The exchange went like this:

"What do you claim when you're scum?"
"I've never claimed when I was scum, I've only claimed when I was Town."

Now, yes, I didn't say claimED. I said "I only claim when I'm Town" in that post. But I meant CLAIMED. It can be read as "claimed" too. It can very easily be read and meant that way. It's talking about the past...not the present.


So the fact that you're hung up on that small grammar error, pushing apparently, very hard for a very weak reason to vote and are, basically, voting for me simply because I haven't claimed yet...

Vote Lucifer (toDay)

I'm looking at the Big Picture here, and you're scum. This OMGUS vote is so pathetic, I'm embarrassed for you.

[Lucifer]

I'd like to hear Special Ed's opinion of the events thus far.

[peekercpa]

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

Defending (or in this case disagreeing with the case) is not something only Scum would do in case the "case" where on a scum-buddy.

Also I strongly believe it is a good thing to comment on a "case" ot a discussion even if it's just to say you don't agree.

<snipped>

luci i gotta agree with ulla on this one. if a case is shite in your opinion you really should speak up. now will scum naturally stick up for crappy cases against a fellow scum? certainly. but i think a townie would do that as well. seriously, if it's brown flush it down.

[Trepa Mayfield]

2 days, 12 hours and 46 minutes to the end of Day 1

Vote Count:
Placeholder (1):Zeener Diode [Day 1 Post 50]
Idle Thoughts (2): Zuma [Day 1 Post 76], Lucifer [Day 1 Post 83]
moody mitchy (1): Red Skeezix [Day 1 Post 106]
Lucifer (1): Idle Thoughts [Day 1 Post 113]

Not Voting: Sister Coyote, moody mitchy, peekercpa, Total Ulla, Romola, BillMC, Special Ed, BobArrgh, Idle Thoughts, Giraffe

Voting in the Future: Romanic [Day 2]

Voting in the Past: N/A

With these votes Idle Thoughts will be lynched.

(Placeholder votes have no value)
Edit/Delete Message

[moody mitchy]

Hello all.... well what a hornets nest I've unintentionaly stirred up....

Yes I said I thought it was suspicious that Idle Thoughts hadn't claimed when , in the last game I called him out on it for unTOWN like behaviour and he said that he did it a lot when he was TOWN.

I have a reputation of not really asking stuff in the right way apparently. I ask and it's seen as fishing, others ask and it's enquiring. I don't know why that is but there you go.. That's why I've no wish to press Idle Thoughts on it at the moment...

Others have mooted that it could be because he has a Power or is possibly Non TOWN... and I belive that Total Ulla has even stated that I have some sort of PIS on the subject... sadly I don't .

When someone quite openly states that claiming first post is a thing they do often... Then when it doesn't happen it makes me curious as to why not.


I'm amazed that both Renata and Red Skeexix actually thought I'd laid down a vote on him...

Red Skeexix more so because his post comes straight after a vote count from the Mod (Ok he could have cross posted ) but in his next post (after getting his coding right). He corrects himself and votes me stating I thought mitchy was voting Idle, the way he's going at him.

Now I think we should take a look at how I've gone at him....

Oh and I'm suspicious of Idle Thoughts. 2 posts and no claim. Now that's got to be dodgy behaviour Yes I voice an opinion of suspicion..

Then there's

I fear that any comment made about this statement would be seen as fishing. Stating I don't wish to fish...

and....

Refuting Zuma's statement that Idle Thoughts always claimed
And another mention about not wishing to fish....

And that's it... now if that is "going after" someone... I don't know what a major interogation would look like.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Lucifer

I totally agree with you on most of these points, but when you add in the fact that they're all reacting to my Idle vote by tryin to cast suspicion in my direction, it adds up to scum - pure and simple.

Really? You think that the only explanation for someone finding your vote for Idle suspicious is being scum? Because your Town status is so completely obvious to everyone that it shouldn't even be questioned?

I swear, I keep thinking I'm eventually going to play a game with you where you're less scummy than the game before, but so far it hasn't happened yet.

[Idle Thoughts]

Lucifer, you said a lot of things, but most of it just seems to be jibba jabba.

Put simply: You're voting on me because I haven't claimed yet. And you think that makes me scum.


But why couldn't it mean I was a Town power role? Why does it mean, in your mind, only that I MUST, must, must be scum?

[Giraffe]

Sorry about not posting much so far -- I was on travel for work the past couple of days and only able to occasionally follow along from my phone.

The person who has been pinging me like crazy toDay is moody. I was especially struck by his first post:

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

Confirming

I'd regard anyone who removed their vote (from a runaway lynch leader) late on in the Day with high suspicion. To me it would be an easy ploy for SCUM to build up a stash of votes especially early on in the game .

To me, this reads like scum laying the early groundwork to cook up defensible reasons for future votes. Follow-up posts are in a similar vein:

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

I still feel that very early on in the game. If folks store votes for the future it just absolves them of any responsibility regarding whom they might be suspicious of...

Early on with little information to work with I don't think it's going to help TOWN. And even later on in the game if SCUM build a decent case on a TOWN member.... a player who has stored votes might be convinced by the case and place a double vote on the TOWN member...

I'm not saying you shouldn't be doing it just that I am going to be wary of those that do over the first couple of Days

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

So saying that someone should actually lay a vote down on who ever they voiced suspicion about after banking a vote, is a little unworkable... but should people wish to bank votes then I do think they should state who they would have voted for...

Basically, a lot of ambiguous smudging of hypothetical users of the new rules. Which feels very scummy. Town doesn't need to lay out all the stuff that they're later going to find suspicious, they'll just wait until it happens and then point it out.

The FOS on Idle was mostly a null tell to me -- it's something that a Townie would be right to point out, but it's also something that scum would jump on as a defensible way to get a bandwagon rolling. The lack of a vote makes it slightly scummier than null, actually, but only barely.


It's far from an iron clad case, but his whole demeanor toDay feels like someone posting with the idea firmly in mind that their posts may be scrutinized down the road.

[Giraffe]

Crap, hit submit too soon!

[Lucifer]

Originally Posted by Idle Thoughts

Lucifer, you said a lot of things, but most of it just seems to be jibba jabba.

Put simply: You're voting on me because I haven't claimed yet. And you think that makes me scum.


But why couldn't it mean I was a Town power role? Why does it mean, in your mind, only that I MUST, must, must be scum?

Your reaction to the vote is what iced it. And continues to do so. If you're not scum, why are you coming all undone? Why did Romanic and Red give two shits about what crazy ol' Scratch said about you? Because you three are scum, that's why. I'm shining a light on you and your scummy behavior, and as long as I'm doing so, you'll have to defend yourself. A townie can defend himself easily - s/he just tells the truth, stays the course, and shrugs it off if it looks like s'he's going to swing (because they know they'll be vindicated when they are revealed as town). But not scum. Scum get all squirmy and combative (like you) when they catch a vote. The weaker or weirder the reason, the more squirmy the scum will get.

[SisterCoyote]

[QUOTE=Lucifer;547144]

Originally Posted by Idle Thoughts

Your reaction to the vote is what iced it. And continues to do so. If you're not scum, why are you coming all undone? Why did Romanic and Red give two shits about what crazy ol' Scratch said about you? Because you three are scum, that's why. I'm shining a light on you and your scummy behavior, and as long as I'm doing so, you'll have to defend yourself. A townie can defend himself easily - s/he just tells the truth, stays the course, and shrugs it off if it looks like s'he's going to swing (because they know they'll be vindicated when they are revealed as town). But not scum. Scum get all squirmy and combative (like you) when they catch a vote. The weaker or weirder the reason, the more squirmy the scum will get.

Idle tends to be a squirmy and combative player anyway, though, so I don't think this is anything other than a null tell; I think you're making a mountain out of the proverbial molehill.

I also don't think your behavior is particularly Scummy at this point, though I do agree with Giraffe that your presumption that anyone other than you will assume you are Town is a little bit off-putting. OTOH, if you are Town, it only makes sense.

Finally: I see the case on Moody, but I'm not sure I agree with it.

[SisterCoyote]

Sigh. Code clean up on aisle 133, please.

[Idle Thoughts]

Originally Posted by Lucifer

Your reaction to the vote is what iced it. And continues to do so. If you're not scum, why are you coming all undone?

Who's becoming undone? If you can point out the posts where I'm becoming "undone", I'd love to see it. : p

[moody mitchy]

Basically, a lot of ambiguous smudging of hypothetical users of the new rules. Which feels very scummy. Town doesn't need to lay out all the stuff that they're later going to find suspicious, they'll just wait until it happens and then point it out.

Snipped quote from This Post

Why wouldn't TOWN need to state what they might see as suspicious behaviour... I'd agree if it was just a normal voting system but it's not. It's a new (well at least to me) system that has garnered a lot of discussion as to how it might be used to the advantage or disadvantage of either side.

With no real information available to TOWN ... I don't think in the first couple of Days that it would be to TOWN's advantage to bank votes.. though it could be for SCUM to force a lynch of a player.

[moody mitchy]

Giraffe in the last game when you were unable to vote.... did you feel that being asked to state who you would have voted for... was a SCUMMY thing for people to do or was it just because people in general wanted to get an idea of who you found suspicious...

It's no different.. if players bank a vote I feel and I'm not the only one that's said this, that players should at least be prepared to state who they might have voted for if they hadn't banked the vote... this way it gives us all something to look back on because, hell even your posts get scrutinized as the game goes on... thanks for infomring me of that. I just thought all I wrote here was lost to the interweb once the Day had finished

[Red Skeezix]

Originally Posted by Lucifer

So, these three (Idle Thoughts, Romanic and Red Skeezix) are setting up Day 1 a lot like Special Ed got the ball rolling in the Dr. Suess game.

In this Dr. Suess Mafia Day 1 post, I correctly identify 3 of the 4 scum in that game. I was wrong about Romola, but 75% accuracy on Day 1 is pretty goddamned good by any measure.

This cracks me up. You guessed right in another game, and that means you are right now? Hah! Glad you aren't resting on your laurels too much...

[peekercpa]

Originally Posted by Red Skeezix

This cracks me up. You guessed right in another game, and that means you are right now? Hah! Glad you aren't resting on your laurels too much...

i came in 3rd in a school spelling bee back in sixth grade.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

Giraffe in the last game when you were unable to vote.... did you feel that being asked to state who you would have voted for... was a SCUMMY thing for people to do or was it just because people in general wanted to get an idea of who you found suspicious...

It's no different.. if players bank a vote I feel and I'm not the only one that's said this, that players should at least be prepared to state who they might have voted for if they hadn't banked the vote... this way it gives us all something to look back on because, hell even your posts get scrutinized as the game goes on... thanks for infomring me of that. I just thought all I wrote here was lost to the interweb once the Day had finished

This is not even a tiny bit relevant to the reasons I laid out when I voted for you. I'm not voting for you because you suggested that vote-banking players indicate who they would have voted for, I'm voting for you because I believe your first several posts sound a lot more like they were written by scum than by Town, for the reasons I mentioned.

For you to respond by digging up a pro-Town argument you made in those posts and trying to tie it to my behavior last game, well, that feels a bit scummy too.

I think I'll leave my vote where it is.

[Trepa Mayfield]

2 days, 5 hours and 20 minutes to the end of Day 1

Vote Count:
Placeholder (1):Zeener Diode [Day 1 Post 50]
Idle Thoughts (2): Zuma [Day 1 Post 76], Lucifer [Day 1 Post 83]
moody mitchy (2): Red Skeezix [Day 1 Post 106], Giraffe [Day 1 Post 131]
Lucifer (1): Idle Thoughts [Day 1 Post 113]

Not Voting: Sister Coyote, moody mitchy, peekercpa, Total Ulla, Romola, BillMC, Special Ed, BobArrgh

Voting in the Future: Romanic [Day 2]

Voting in the Past: N/A

With these votes moody mitchy will be lynched.

(Placeholder votes have no value)

Originally Posted by peekercpa

i came in 3rd in a school spelling bee back in sixth grade.

Nice. I remember the only time I got into the spelling bee, I screwed up on the second word. I did get second place in the Geography Bee, though. Lost to a question about the Alaskan Pipeline...

[Lucifer]

Originally Posted by Red Skeezix

This cracks me up. You guessed right in another game, and that means you are right now? Hah! Glad you aren't resting on your laurels too much...

It means I am always right! I am the super-invincible-never-wrong scumhunter! Feel my wrath! LOL.

Yeah, maybe I get a little bit carried away, but I have a good time

[Romanic]

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

I'm amazed that both Renata and Red Skeexix actually thought I'd laid down a vote on him...

I'm coming up with more posts (after I'm done catching up) but I want to point that this is the 2nd game in a row where I am mixed up with Renata. It's a honor, she's a great player and all, but I can't figure how people can make that mistake.

Her avatar is a black horse, and I am a red dragon. She's a woman and I'm a man. The only thing we have in common is our name starting with a R.

And Renata isn't even playing in this one.

[Zeener Diode]

Aren't you Romola?

[Romanic]

@Lucifer:

I find it hilarious that you think I would be so blatant about protecting my scum partner on Day 1, when he had only 2 votes and plenty of time for things to happen.

Originally Posted by Lucifer

Couple that with trying to cast suspicion on whomever is bringing the heat (namely, me) and you've got a pretty obvious, iron-clad scum tell.

"iron-clad scum tell"

(Sorry, I'm having too much fun here, and I want to remember this later when I reread the game)

Btw, I didn't bring heat on you specifically, but on people accusing Idle with a bad reason. I'm not protecting Idle as much as going after people who are using bad logic to place an easy vote.

You look genuine enough now, with all this interaction. I'm happy with what I read, thank you.

[Romanic]

Also funny is that this post is probably gonna frack Lucifer's theory about having found the 3 scums.

unvote Player X on Day 2
vote: Red Skeezix


For failing to answer my question:

Originally Posted by Romanic

I haven't claimed anything, softly or not, I'm just saying things to pop a discussion or two.

Why are you tempted to vote for me?

I realize that answering this could have been potentially dangerous for a scum, and I see failure to answer as a possible conscious avoidance.

My answer came 6 minutes after Red's post, so he might have been around to read it, and could have answered quickly, but he didn't. Another pointer to avoidance I'd say. (of course it's possible that he left immediately after making that post, but I think it's more likely that he was still around to read my answer).

Anyway, don't smack me for the last paragraph, I know how you people are when it comes to weak stuff like this. My point is that he failed to answer a good question after pushing doubts on another player (me). The rest is just some cheese on the cake.

And there's also these two posts:

Originally Posted by Red Skeezix Hmm. I feel like the Idle case has zero merit, but i can't decide which of you is the scummiest? I'm tempted to vote all three of the idle voters, but I don't really want pull in future votes for a day 1 case. So i'll vote the bandwagonest of that particular bandwagon. Plus 3rd voter is always scum, right? (that was a joke) vote lucifer from day 1.[/B] Originally Posted by Red Skeezix wow, i can't count. I thought mitchy was voting Idle, the way he's going at him. Very smudgy indeed. He's seemingly in support of the Idle case, but not willing to put his vote where his mouth is. unvote lucifer from day 1. vote mitchy from day 1.

#1 He votes Lucifer for being the last on the Idle bandwagon, stating there's 3 Idle voters and being wrong about it. I'm not getting a feel that he's looking for Scum, or he would know that moody didn't vote Idle.

#2 Oops! 4 mins later he realizes that he made a mistake, and changes his vote for mitchy.

I think he's trying to place a trendy vote, but he's not really looking at the facts.

[Suburban Plankton]

Originally Posted by Romanic

I'm coming up with more posts (after I'm done catching up) but I want to point that this is the 2nd game in a row where I am mixed up with Renata. It's a honor, she's a great player and all, but I can't figure how people can make that mistake.

Her avatar is a black horse, and I am a red dragon. She's a woman and I'm a man. The only thing we have in common is our name starting with a R.

And Renata isn't even playing in this one.

Mind if we call you 'Bruce' to keep it clear?

[Lucifer]

Romanic=trying too hard

[Red Skeezix]

@Romanic: The reason I didn't answer your question is simple. I already said why I was tempted to vote you. What can easily be read as a soft claim:

Originally Posted by Romanic

Banking votes for the future makes a player more powerful, while taking vote from the future makes someone less powerful. So in a perfect world, the vanillas would be banking their votes, and the pro-town would vote normally (or twice, pulling one from the future).

But of course this would make it too easy for the Scums to spot our best roles. We can't be so obvious, right?

vote X on day 2

(Bolding added)

But since you are confused, Let's look at your post shall we? You hypothesize that in a perfect world vanillas would be banking their votes. And then you say we shouldn't telegraph our plays, but then you bank your vote. I initally read this as a soft vanilla claim or at the very least a vanilla breadcrumb. These sorts of plays are the kind of thing that scum likes to do because they can point back to it later and say "See i've been saying this all along!" or when they get called on it, it's "Oh that was just WIFOM". Hence why I was tempted to vote for you.

Secondly: Oh noes, you posted 6 minutes after me. I don't even know if I was around 6 minutes after you posted. Could you possibly get more meta? This is the weakest reason to include in a vote post that i've seen in a LONG while. You might as well vote because the temperature was different today than yesterday.

Thirdly: I was mistaken about moody being an Idle voter, but my impression was that he was voting for him based on his comments. But then again that tells me more about moody than anyone else.


It's a bit funny though, once lucifer starts making noise about you and me both being scum, all of a sudden you seem to think I'm not answering questions. You didn't seem to notice that I didn't answer in the 2888 minutes that have passed between asking and accusing. Despite the fact that you notice that you asked a question 6 minutes after I made a post.

[Romanic]

Don't get me started with "trying too hard" arguments.