I still don't have my game notes as my nephew was unable to replace the faulty fan in my main computer yesterday since he didn't have one the right size/shape/config or something so he has to obtain one and come back tomorrow, but I've had time to read back through the thread enough to write this, I believe, without the benefit of my notes.
Despite Fishy’s assertions to the contrary, I have in fact set out my reasons for voting him. I am not satisfied with his responses and I do not have any reason to move my vote as there is nobody else who I find more suspicious than him at present.
As I have already said, there is overlap among Fishy, Drake and Jere on the early DDD wagon and the late freeko wagon. On the early DDD wagon were 1, Drake; 2, freeko; 3, Jere; and Fishy came later at #4. On the late freeko wagon were 4, Fishy; 5 Nuwen; 6, Drake; 7 Jere. I think it most likely that there is scum among the overlap. This is not to say that I think that all of those in the overlap are scum, because I don't think that, but I do think there is scum among them, at least one, possibly two.
Looking at those two wagons, certain patterns emerge, some of which I have previously commented upon. Drake started the DDD wagon and the second player to join it was freeko. Fishy started the freeko wagon and the second player to join it was DDD. After DDD voted freeko (vote 2), Fishy switched to the DDD wagon with his post 212 (vote 4). Fishy stayed there for quite a while but nobody else followed him to vote number 5. Then, once freeko’s wagon got up to 3 votes, Fishy jumped back over with a fourth vote, tipping the balance of the lynch from 4-3 DDD to 4-3 freeko. It looks suspicious to me, the timing of these votes, as does Fishy’s subsequent posts that seem to be trying to brush this all aside essentially say, ‘nothing to see here folks, move along, vote analysis is useless.’
Fishy also said (on Day 2 long after the fact) that “by maybe post 230, it was clear that DDD or freeko was likely to be lynched.” This looks to me like Fishy trying to give himself an out after the vote analysis led to him as a suspect. Back when post 230 was written, there was no looming deadline, there was no reason that other players could not be discussed, there was no reason to drop discussion on other suspicious play by others or to stop scumhunting by post 230. It is also suspicious to me that Fishy chose to cite post 230 as the delineating mark of Day 1, as that post was not one of his own posts, but rather a post by LightKun which only put freeko at 3 votes. Looks like Fishy was trying to ‘blame’ someone else by choosing that post by LightKun as the do-or-die mark, rather than one of his own posts/votes, when it was actually Fishy who tipped the balance, not LightKun, and that wasn’t until Fishy’s post 271.
As I have also already said, I am not voting Fishy only for his voting pattern and his role in steering the wagons, but also for being so quick to accept Light_Kun's Vig claim while simultaneously being so against the idea of having the town direct LK's night kill or no-kill, purporting to prefer to let him choose independently, despite the fact that we need to test Light-Kun's claim since he could just as easily be a SK as a Vig, and then only a couple of weeks later coming suddenly posting that he has "incidentally" come around to the way of thinking that most of us had already expressed re directing LK’s kill or no kill.
I have also indicated that I agree with some of the points that others have raised about Fishy; I'll have to look up the details when I recover my notes, but I think that they include points made by Drake, Jere, and LightKun.
I also contend that Fishy's insistence that the flavour of the game somehow makes LightKun's claim "very likely false" is ridiculous. I note, as well, that Fishy continues to ignore the fact that the flavour of the game makes it 100% clear that those of us who are townie penguins are also cannibals (cannibals!) feeding on fellow townies who are krill. It is one thing to have an idea about how the flavour might play out and to suggest that Light's claim might be false as a result of what you thought, but once it has been established beyond doubt that the flavour is, in fact, somewhat odd and inconsistent (i.e. those of us who are townies are cannibals), it is quite another thing to cling to your idea and to ignore the proven reality that the flavour is unreliable as a means to support your belief.
Regarding the unsatisfactory response by Fishy in his post 551 to which I earlier referred:
Fishythefish wrote:Do you really believe a SK would go against the town's orders?
Jazzmyn wrote:Where do you get from my posts that I think that?
You say that directing L-k's kills tests his claim. This is only true if L-k the SK can be distinguished from L-k the vig by directing his kills. The relevance is that if directing L-k's kills is not helpful in this regard, it is less important.
As I said, Fishy’s response here was both strawmanning and unsatisfactory. The former because instead of addressing what I actually wrote, he asked “Do you really believe a SK would go against the town’s orders?” when that is not what I said at all. The latter, because when I asked Fishy where he got from my post that I thought that which he attributed to me, he completely misrepresented my post. He left out what I actually said in favour of what he wanted others to believe I said. What I actually said in the post to which he purported to reply was that I was also suspicious of him “for being so against the idea of having the town direct LK's night kill
or no-kill
, purporting to prefer to let him choose independently, despite the fact that we need to test Light-Kun's claim since he could just as easily be a SK as a Vig.” Fishy misrepresented my post by ignoring the fact that I specifically said that we needed to direct LK's kill
or no-kill
in order to test him since he could be a SK rather than a Vig. The duo-combo of strawman and misrepresentation only reinforces my suspicion of Fishy.
Fishy goes on to say:
Fishythefish wrote:My rationale is all but explicitly stated by the post in question. I wonder whether L-k would be able to no kill as the SK, and then say that I have changed my mind because L-k's motives might differ from ours over whether to shoot.
But it wasn’t stated explicitly at all. Rather, in the "post in question", which I note that Fishy didn't cite, he asked a question “by the way”, and then said that “incidentally” he had come to the conclusion that most of us had come to a long time ago, and that he was against until then. The post was this:
Fishythefish wrote:By the way, a question to any experienced players: in a normal game, how common is it for a serial killer to be able to no kill? This is obviously relevant to testing L-k's claim.
Incidentally, on reflection I no longer support letting L-k choose his own kill. The benefits are marginal, and if L-k is the SK, his interests may not align with ours, particularly over the matter of whether or not he should be shooting at all.
That doesn't look or sound to me at all like someone who is 'explicitly stating' their rationale for an about-face. The first sentence is prefaced with "by the way" followed by a question to experienced players. The second sentence is prefaced with "Incidentally" Neither looks to me like explicit rationale for changing his mind all of a sudden and coming around to the view that many, if not most, of us had already expressed. The first is just asking a question of experienced players, which suggests that Fishy has not come to any conclusions at all. As for the second, when one prefaces a statement with “Incidentally,” that means to me (and to most people, I would think) that it is not specifically related to what you said just prior, but rather that it is something that you just want to add to something that had been discussed elsewhere, previously, or nowhere at all. Perhaps that was Fishy just misusing the term, but that’s how it read to me, so I do not know how anyone would be expected to take from that post of Fishy's that that was his rationale for changing his mind all of a sudden. Given the strawman and misrepresentation above, I am more inclined to think that Fishy's further misrepresentation is deliberate rather than accidental, though.
And Fishy, you ignored parts of my post, including specific questions, so it should come as no surprise to you that I found your response unsatisfactory. Here are the parts you left out:
Jazzmyn wrote:Fishythefish wrote:If I was scum, I'd sure as hell want to know whether he was a vig or a SK.
Makes sense. Wouldn't you also want to know if you were town?
Fishythefish wrote:I'd just love him to get lynched.
And? Again, it isn’t clear to me what point you’re trying to make.
Fishythefish wrote:Knowing his target couldn't hurt either.
Makes sense, but the tradeoff is that as town, we need to be able to test his claim and control his kill or no-kill.
Why did you just ignore those? I didn’t ask the questions for no reason, you know, and I don’t post just to see myself post. It is not at all sufficient to say, after the fact, and after you’ve wholly ignored those portions of my post that “the next 4 are all completely covered by my next point- viz that if there is no reason for scum to take my position, it’s not scummy. You were asking why I brought a few things up- this was the answer to all of them (and that was obvious).” This answer is wholly insufficient. I was not, as you claim, simply asking ‘why you brought a few things up’. I was asking you specific questions and you ignored them. You also ignored (again) the fact that I referred to the necessity of controlling LK’s kill
or no kill
– which you later went on to pretend I hadn’t mentioned.
In the result, I am happy with my vote where it is. Fishy is the player who I find most suspicious at present.
Other stuff: I remain troubled by Drake's unsolicited doctor claim at the time and in the circumstances in which he made it; Jere looks more town to me than I previously thought; I need to re-read Howard as I don't know anything about him and have never played with him before; as for Looker, I've played in a few games with her recently (some are still ongoing so I can't say much more) but I think I'm beginning to get a bit of a read on her and I think it's safe to say that while her play style might be unorthodox, that doesn't necessarily mean she's scum (Doesn't preclude it either, of course, but just saying).
Sorry for the wall-o-text. Just realized on preview how long it is.
More to follow once I catch up on the most recent posts and once I regain access to my game notes to plug in the mos recent stuff for further analysis.
Regards,
Jazz
