mini 814: OVER!

[ODDin]

vote: Starbuck

Because I'm watching BSG right now.

[ODDin]

What is your opinions on the random voting stage?

It's a fine enough starting point, though it can drag on for too long. More importantly, it can be a rather valuable resource for the town once some roles are revealed through death (it can be especially useful to deduce connections between mafia).

Why did you pick this game in particular?

I used to play mafia on forums where everyone could talk to everyone at any time by any means (including PMs, IRC etc). It seemed like a nice bit of semi-nostalgia.

Who do you expect to be the first person to be lynched this game, and why?

Who do you want to be lynched first this game, and why?

Too early to say in both cases. No real reads at this point.

Thank you for your time.

You're welcome.

[ODDin]

Monkey, why do you feel the need to push us back to the RVS? DNW's (my way of sayhing DOESnotWANT's nick from now on) questions pretty much pulled us out of it.

[ODDin]

You weren't encouraging random

voting

, per se, but you did encourage going back to random and idle discussion, which cannot develop into anything useful.

[ODDin]

Monkey, I'm not talking about the line of questioning Starbuck specifically (which is a bit too harsh IMO, but then again, I'm not a big fan of pressure tactics), but rather about DNW's original questions, which sort of pulled us out of the RVS.
Also, pardon me if I don't see how playing "Two Truths and a Lie" (with non-mafia related topics, at any rate) helps the discussion. The problem in RVS isn't the need to break the ice, it's the need to get on topic and generate some actual game-related discussion.

[ODDin]

And Two Truths and a Lie helps this how, exactly?

Also, I think things tend to cool down towards the end of D1, and the eventual lynch usually has a decent basis.

[ODDin]

Sorry for not being around. Been horribly busy with exams and various works I needed submit. I'll catch up no later than Saturday, hopefully Friday.

[ODDin]

Hello, and sorry again for not replying in some time. Well, nice to see stuff going on.

Here are some thoughts:

(1) I don't like how Locke put Henrz at L-1. Yes, self-voting isn't normally a good thing to do, but putting someone at L-1 is risky this early. Even if you think Henrz is worthy of being lynched, you should wait with it until the end of the day and get some more discussion going. However, Locke claims that he didn't see Monkey's vote on Henrz. Can't verify that, so this point still stays, but it might be the case (and the posts were indeed made at a small interval).


(2) Same goes for Starbuck, but in a much bigger fashion. First of all, there are no excuses here for not seeing a vote. Second, and more importantly, she's made her vote after Henrz had explained himself in detail and had unvoted. Selfvoting is mainly bad if you're actually causing a lynch with it, as then you're lynching the only person you know is town for certain. And this is indeed a bad thing to do. However, it's pretty obvious that Henrz doesn't want himself actually lynched, and that he was trying to generate activity. So, Starbuck, why do you vote him? Do you think his actions are more likely to come from scum than they are from town? If so, you don't say why this is so. ("I think you're lying" isn't, in itself, a reason, because you can't know if he's lying or not. You need to tell us why it's more likely he's scum than town based on his actions. And "I don't like what you're saying" is even less of a decent reason. I don't like many things as well.)
For all of this,

vote: Starbuck

That being said, I still don't think DNW's reasons for voting her are valid, and they aren't being brought into consideration here.


(3) Where did DNW disappear? Also, it is, in retrospect, quite odd that DNW didn't actually answer her own questions. One would expect to begin by providing her own answers, or at least provide them at some point during the game.


(4)

Other people have commented that I generally come off as pro-town, so I'd say that's a fair comment.

I don't like this. You're basically patting your own back here.

[ODDin]

So, you're going for a policy lynch. Him being at L-1, it means someone could hammer him and end D1 after 4 pages of discussion - a disastrous thing for the town.
Even if you think Henrz should be policy lynched, I'd expect you to just say this, without actually voting for him.

Also, why do you think self voting should never, EVER, be used? Why does it go against the spirit of the game? I mean, he

did

get this thing going somewhere, which is a good thing.

[ODDin]

The question I don't see answered is

why

self-voting is anti-town. All those who feel so strongly about it, do explain how, exactly, it hurts the town - in other words, how it facilitates a mafia win.
Even more specifically, why is it now easier for the mafia to win than it was before Henrz self-voted?

[ODDin]

There's a vote and there's a vote. Usually you vote to imply that you believe someone is scum, yes. However, this is not always the case. In situations where the one being voted for isn't in a serious risk of being lynched, votes are often used for other purposes as well. For instance, votes are often used to push people out of lurking and to get their attention, even if you haven't got an actual case against them.
In this case, I think it's pretty obvious Henrz wasn't trying to convey the message he is scum, his stated goals are pretty clear. I also don't see any attempt to mislead the town, as, again, his stated goals are pretty clear. So, I really don't see what he could gain out of the situation as scum. Not to say it gives him town points, but still.

[ODDin]

I want to apologise for my absence during the end of D1, I've been very busy with exams and stuff, but I'm still here. I'll catch up ASAP.

[ODDin]

Considering the behind-the-scenes PMs, I don't think we should have dead people replacing in.

[ODDin]

Hi, sorry for not posting much, had exams and such. Still do, so I haven't entirely caught up, but here are some thoughts.
Tarballs got 2 votes. From what I can see, the main reason is him not being on the Starbuck wagon, which, I think, is a weak reason. I'm not saying there's no point to it whatsoever, but I don't really see him as more suspicious than the other people who haven't voted for Starbuck.

Also, Locke, it's still possible that the silencer does exactly what you think - prevents someone from day-talking. You seem to be missing the fact that we

killed

the silencer, and therefore, she couldn't have acted on her role tonight...

[ODDin]

Also,

FoS Fluffy

, who quickly followed Locke on the Tarballs vote, which, as I've said above, isn't very well based IMO.
Also, I'd like to note that DNW was aggressively attacking Starbuck before everyone went after her, and for quite different reasons. By the time the wagon on Starbuck seriously formed, she'd already disappeared, and Fluffy came in to replace when it was already too late. So, I doubt that DNW actually thought her attack on Starbuck will lead to a lynch. For that matter, it might well have been her trying to distance herself from Starbuck, as her attack was a lot more aggressive than necessary, and quite poorly based.

[ODDin]

Response to prod: still here. Had some internet troubles, connection was very poor and kept disconnecting all the time. It's been fixed and should be fine now, so I'll catch up tomorrow or so.

[ODDin]

Okay, caught up.

My top suspect right now are Spinach, with Fluffy in second place.

Reasons:

Spinach:
1) He didn't vote for Starbuck.
2) This has been brought up by Locke and Fluffy, and they voted Tarballs. He then follows to gently push against Tarballs himself, in a somewhat wishy-washy manner. He's raising a suspicion, and then saying it's probably nothing. It's a classical way to attempt a win-win. When Tarballs questions him, he just says it's nothing, thus not warranting an answer - he didn't really accuse him. However, it did its job in solidifying Fluffy's opinion on Tarballs, which means it's hardly nothing. So, I think Spinach thought it was either him or Tarballs, and attempted to make sure it's gonna be Tarballs.
3) His aforementioned post 180 is more than far-fetched, it's outright speculation coming out of nowhere. He says the mafia were "obviously trying to isolate someone". I disagree. There's no way to know how much importance the mafia gives to the private discussions. Also, isolation isn't necessarily a goal per se. Any person dead hampers the communication. So, the argument is a very slippery slope, very conveniently leading to a not-so-thinly-veiled semi-accusation towards Tarballs.

Fluffy:
What I've said before. Nothing really new here.

Tarballs:
It seems perfectly possible to me that a town player would act the way he acts. Also, I like his cool reaction to the votes against him. If he was scum, I'd expect him to be much more agitated and defensive - his partner was just lynched D1 and now he gets two votes on the very beginning of D2. Very annoying indeed. But he seems pretty calm, and doesn't attempt to convince Locke or Fluffy to unvote, as he quite logically explains in post 207. Of course, he might be scum playing a good game. But my read on him is neutral.

Henrz:
Post 189 is weird. "kinda yes but no"? You seem very agitated about this.


I'm not voting Spinach because that'll put him at L-1, if I'm not mistaken (4 to lynch, Locke and Tarballs are both voting him).

[ODDin]

I'm not voting Spinach because that'll put him at L-1, if I'm not mistaken (4 to lynch, Locke and Tarballs are both voting him).

After what happened yesterday, I'd say that's somewhat understandable. But why don't you want to put someone on L-1? If you're suspicious about someone, you shouldn't be afraid to vote.

I don't want to allow the scum to hammer quickly, in case Spinach isn't actually scum. I see no point in taking this risk where nothing can be gained.

Spinach: I'm not voting for you *only* because you haven't voted for Starbuck. Of course, in isolation, this isn't a strong argument. But as Locke has said, this is a small game. Voting patterns are important, and not voting for scum has to be taken into consideration. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that you could've been a townie not agreeing with the arguments on Starbuck. I believe everyone here has, as town, not agreed with arguments against someone who later flipped scum. And yet, this counts as an argument against you. Believe me, I'd never vote for someone if not voting scum was my *only* argument against them.

[ODDin]

Tarballs: If they actually quickhammered, it'd be great, sure. I'm more afraid of the vote hanging there for some time, and then someone will come along and hammer with a huge post of reasoning. And oops, what do you know, he flipped town. I'm counting on the scum to hammer so that we don't suspect them, and don't want to give them the opportunity.
Also, what with yesterday's ending, I'm quite afraid of town player mistakenly hammering as well. We might not be so lucky second time in a row.

(Also, happy scumday )

On a different note, Henrz made some interesting notes on Locke, though I think I'd want to reread the game to better decide my take on that.
What I find very strange, however, is that Locke has posted after Henrz's post - yet didn't say anything about the accusations raised against himself.
He did, however, rise up to answer a question directed at me and clarifying what I have said (and I don't think I've made the impression so far that I cannot explain what I'm saying - correct me if I'm wrong). This might be buddying to an extent.

Mod: could you please write "X votes to lynch" in the vote counts?

[ODDin]

I've never said I think Tarballs is perfectly town. But him not voting Starbuck is his only serious offense I see right now, which, as I've said, isn't reason enough to vote for him. And there's no real line of questioning also. He said why he didn't vote, I don't see what more info I can get from him at this point.
What do you expect me to do, say "and Tarballs also didn't vote Starbuck" every post?

[ODDin]

I admit that. I didn't really think of it at the time. But yes, him not voting Starbuck is factored into my calculations. Otherwise, my read on him is slightly pro-town, so together it sort of makes it neutral.

[ODDin]

Locke: I'm actually pretty satisfied with your answer. I just found it quite strange that you didn't respond to them at all - not even by saying "I've answered all of these points before, RTFT".
It seems both people who haven't voted - myself and Kitty - have Spinach at the top of their list of suspects.
And it also seems like there's noting much left to be said. Is everyone okay with me hammering, then?

[ODDin]

Hey people, I got pretty sick yesterday, so I can't really process complex information right now.
I can still hammer if necessary, but I won't be able to judge any new arguments decently. I do hope I get fine before the new deadline, though.

[ODDin]

Spinach makes an extensive case on Tarballs only after being specifically asked to do so. In this case, while making some decent points, he's also misinterpreting Tarballs' words and attempts to make a scum-tell out of virtually anything at all.
Several things in the case will be brought into consideration tomorrow, and Tarballs isn't getting a free pass or anything like that, but I

vote: Spinach

.

[ODDin]

No, I don't know there's going to be a tomorrow - nevertheless, I might as well plan for it; if we win, all the better. Plus, I don't always feel the need to say "unless [something obvious]" every time. In just the same way I don't feel the need to say "I'll do X tomorrow unless I'm NKed". Of course if I'm NKed I won't do that tomorrow. Of course if we win I won't be suspecting Tarballs tomorrow.
Also, I didn't say I'm certain about lynching Tarballs. I just wanted to clarify that some of Spinach's points were, indeed, valid.

That being said, you are in your right to suspect me.

[ODDin]

After Locke flipped tracker, I tried to look for a breadcrumb that he might have left about his result from night 1. I didn't find anything too obvious, but this is the best I managed to find:

As bad as that Monkey hammer was, I don't think he's scum. Scum hammering their partner without even giving them a chance to claim on D1 is ridiculous. I think it's just awful town play.

Locke's first post of day 2. He's not completely clearing Monkey, which he shouldn't have even done, as that would've been suspicious, but this makes me think he tracked Monkey and found out that Monkey didn't visit Droideka. Then again, it's possible that the last scum is a blocker who blocked Locke night 1, in which case there would be no report to breadcrumb.

I don't think it comes from his power role info. Clearin Monkey was pretty obvious after his hammer on Starbuck D1, and I think this was mostly his reasoning for that. He wasn't the only one saying that, either (I know I said so too).

I'm somewhat suspicious of Fluffy: DNW's early extreme aggression towards Starbuck seems like an attempt at distancing more than anything else. Then D2, there's Fluffy following Locke, though it's not entirely clear that she was indeed following him, so that's a pretty weak point. Not enough material to vote at the moment, and sadly almost nothing to really question (can't question Fluffy about DNW's behaviour).

I'll wait for Tarballs to respond to Spinach's lengthy case before making a decision on him.
However,

I'll answer to Spinach's case against me once I have enough time for it,

although his whole case against me just seemed like desperate scum trying to save themselves when I first read it, so that actually made me more confident that Spinach would be the last scum.

What's your point in stating this? It seems like you're defending yourself against arguments which aren't there.

After Locke flipped tracker, I tried to look for a breadcrumb that he might have left about his result from night 1.

Smart thinking! Never occured to me to look for that.

Buddying?

Tarballs: And what do

you

think of my "slip"?
Also, what are your opinions on the other players? Who are your top suspects today?

[ODDin]

Hello everyone. I'm very sorry I haven't been around, I had a project to make and was pretty preoccupied with it. I should have announced it but forgot. It's my fault.

I'll catch up later today, I promise!

[ODDin]

Okay then.

1) I like Tarballs' reply to Spinach's accusations. One thing still remains, and that is this issue:

Then Tarballs makes a flawed vote on hernz. Please look at the bolded parts, woot contradictions, + Scum points for reasons explained.

Ok, let's see now. This is what I said, bolded parts by Spinach, red- and orange-colored parts by me:

However! Making a random vote, and not just any vote but a selfvote, 4 pages into the game

doesn't help us progress, so therefore he is obviously stalling the game on purpose

.

On the other hand

,

this will cause people to vote him for that anti-town play,

which quite possibly will help us leave the RVS behind

. He wants us to vote him, so that's exactly what I'm going to do

If you're able to understand the red-colored part, you'll clearly see that there is no contradiction in there.

Yes, there is "on the other hand" there. However, the phrase is essentially "X, but on the other hand, NOT X", from a logical standpoint. The way I see it, there are several options:
a) You were completely clueless as to what the effect of Henrz's act may be. It seemed equally reasonable to you that it would stall the game and that it would quite possibly get the game out of the RVS stage and create more discussion. If this were the case, however, it wouldn't make sense for you to vote based on it, and later claim this to be your opinion. If you had no idea how the thing would unfold, you shouldn't have voted on it.
b) You thought that Henrz TRIED to stall the game, but, in your opinion, his act was doomed to fail because it would in fact stir discussion and get the game out of the RVS. If this were the case, it means you actually believed Henrz was scum - perhaps poor scum, but scum. Then you should've voted for him.
c) You believed the act would, in fact, stir discussion, and believed that this was, in fact, Henrz's aim. Then saying he was trying to stall the game doesn't make any sense.
d) You're scum, and you just said all possible options, hoping that no matter how it would turn out, you end up on the winning side.

2)

I don't know how to defend myself against this. I tend to get accused of buddying or being buddied when I'm town, but not when I'm scum, though.

If you could provide games in which you were town and acted in a similar manner, that would help.

3) Curiously enough, while I am one of MiteyMouse's top suspects, he doesn't say anything regarding my slip, which, until now, was essentially the only thing anyone has said against me.

4) On the subject f my lurking, I agree that it was bad play on my part. My time management skills are pretty much abysmal, and with me being a student, this leads to long lapses of lurking.
In my defence, you can check Open 144, where I played until recently, and was killed last night and flipped town. My pattern of replying there was similar to here: rarely and with much content.
However, you're accusing me of

active

lurking, which is objectively not true. Active lurking implies being around, reading the game, showing presence but doing no actual scumhunting. I, however, simply don't reply for long periods of time, and then come back to post content. This isn't the regular pattern of active lurking, so I would ask you to say why, in your opinion, my lurking was indeed active - what leads you to believe that in the periods I wasn't replying I was, in fact, following the game but chose to avoid saying anything.

[ODDin]

EBWOP:
Messed up the link to the other game. There it is:
Open 144

[ODDin]

Well, in your other town game I see one case which may be seen as buddying:

Porochaz has been a good IC, in my eyes. His approach is interesting to me; in my last game, both ICs were scum. One of them was just about the friendliest person I've ever seen online (they were overdoing it a bit because they were scum, though). However, your style isn't bad; I think it's important for newbies to learn to think for themselves ASAP. I had that problem, and now that I've gotten past that for the most part, I am a way better player. Anyways, I'm sorry you're most likely going to die tonight, since you are a great help to the town, in my eyes.

I don't quite understand if his role as a doc was discovered at that point or not.
Even if it was, though, this is the same all-too-friendly tone you're using here, so this does speak in your favour in this regard.

[ODDin]

(The last post addressed Kitty.)

@Tarballs:
I don't think anyone but you thought that Henrz was attempting to stall the game, or that his actions would stall the game. He himself stated the exact opposite several times. People either agreed with him, or accused him because of self-voting, not because they thought his actions will stall the game. So, I really can't see how you could think that his actions can be seen as an attempt to stall the game. I mean, really, in what scenario would his self-vote stall the game?

As for my other game: well, I did only say what can be seen by simply reading the game. I believe it's fairly standard to check one's lurking across one's other ongoing games and compare posting patterns to see if it's active lurking or just lurking.

[ODDin]

There's a difference between not hurting one's feelings and being extremely, overly nice. You must realise that Kitty's behaviour can look like buddying. She admitted it herself.
Of course, different people have different playstyles - that's why I asked her to provide a game where she was town and talked in the same way, to see if this is indeed a matter of playstyle and not an attempt at buddying. Seeing that she indeed acted talked in a similar manner in that other game, it seems that this is, indeed, her way of talking generally, and thus the argument on buddying becomes almost a null-tell.
Without her providing such evidence, it would've remained, in my eyes, a valid argument against her.

Frankly, I don't see what you find odd about this. Wouldn't you, without any prior info on a player, see the a statement along the lines of "your argument is so smart, I never would've thought of that" as a possible attempt at buddying?

And, you're still avoding to answer my question: what do you think of my "slip"? And how come you haven't commented on it before, seeing that I'm one of your top suspects?

[ODDin]

There's a difference between not hurting one's feelings and being extremely, overly nice. You must realise that Kitty's behaviour can look like buddying. She admitted it herself.
Of course, different people have different playstyles - that's why I asked her to provide a game where she was town and talked in the same way, to see if this is indeed a matter of playstyle and not an attempt at buddying. Seeing that she indeed acted talked in a similar manner in that other game, it seems that this is, indeed, her way of talking generally, and thus the argument on buddying becomes almost a null-tell.
Without her providing such evidence, it would've remained, in my eyes, a valid argument against her.

Frankly, I don't see what you find odd about this. Wouldn't you, without any prior info on a player, see the a statement along the lines of "your argument is so smart, I never would've thought of that" as a possible attempt at buddying?

And, you're still avoiding to answer my question: what do you think of my "slip"? And how come you haven't commented on it before, seeing that I'm one of your top suspects?

[ODDin]

I don't suspect you of buddying because you aren't really "throwing compliments around". You're exchanging compliments with Kitty, and this seems to be mutual, so it doesn't really raise my suspicion.
Of course, you

could

be using the fact that you know Kitty against her, seeing that she thinks highly of you, and thus lull her into a false sense of security. However, if you wanted to do that, you probably wouldn't have listed her as one of your main suspects - especially seeing that she isn't a popular candidate in the suspect lists of people.

Bottom line, no, your conversation with Kitty haven't raised my suspicion at all.

[ODDin]

The second paragraph is somewhat WIFOMy, yes, although I really only need the first paragraph in order to say that I don't find your conversation with Kitty suspicious.

[ODDin]

MiteyMouse: The frustration is understandable, but the question we need to ask ourselves is, do we really think he's scum? Frankly, his behaviour doesn't seem like scum behaviour to me. Sure, scum tend to lurk, but this is too much - they don't lurk to the point they're about to be replaced. So, it seems to me his current absence is a null tell. Thus, lynching him based on that isn't productive and doesn't help the town.

[ODDin]

This question is all wrong and can only possibly lead to confusion. Locke didn't know more than any of us when he chose his target for tracking. So the only things that could affect his decision are what people have actually said. So, if we want to try and find out who he would've tracked, it's ridiculous to bring actual roles into consideration.

So what, exactly, are you trying to do with this question?

[ODDin]

Prod received. I have a test tomorrow, so I'm afraid I won't be replying today, sorry, but I will try to make a post tomorrow evening tops. However, my last post was 2 days ago, and it wasn't a filler post, so I'm not sure why I've earned a prod.

[ODDin]

First of all, I want to apologise for my post 385. I didn't read the previous posts in the proper order of the discussion and thought Sanjay's words to mean something else. Upon rereading it, I realise that his point in asking the question was quite clear indeed.

That being said, I'm not sure I want to speculate on Locke's intentions too much. He barely gave us any info, I don't know him enough as a player, and I still think that his line about not laying off Monkey is perfectly understandable given what has happened, without need for special power role info. And I don't think pondering about confirmed townies is helpful right now.

Now, on to other things:

1) In his post 378, where Sanjay brings the bulk of his argument against Kitty, he also says things in her favour. To me, this seems like town points - if he just wanted to make a case and lynch Kitty, he would avoid stating things that speak in her favour.

2) In her post 386, Kitty is being extremely defensive, and also attacks Sanjay back, which reeks of OMGUS. Also, she seems to be accusing Sanjay of voting for her while still saying things in her favour, but this doesn't make sense. It's possible for scum to do things which give the town points. On the contrary, like I said in (1) above, this probably speaks in Sanjay's favour, rather than being ground for an accusation against him.

3) There's a peculiar inconsistency in KittyMo's tone of speaking. First she's all cute and cuddly, ready to give people compliments and such. Then when it comes to Monkey (or, perhaps, when it comes to defending her own hide), she's thrashing him like there's no tomorrow. Maybe it's because Monkey is no longer in the game, but if I were him, I'd be hurt by her words. And she's not exactly too kind in her words to Sanjay, either. I really can't help but get the feeling of "KittyMo shows her true self".

4) Sanjay: we're 5 people in the game. Focusing on a single player is fine in larger games, where you can trust other people to focus on the other players and when you want to concentrate on something specific. With five players, however, it's easy enough to be able to follow everyone. You only need to keep track of four people. So, no, tunneling in this situation isn't acceptable. And Kitty is right - you've been saying a lot about her, but practically nothing about anyone else in the game. What do you think of the other players? Even if you think we're all shining paragons of pro-towniness, you should say so, and explain why.

5) MiteyMouse: This is something I've somehow missed. You began your play with accusing me (post 334). Then I replied to your accusation (post 339, my last point there) - and you didn't react. In all of your posts after that, you don't seem to address the issue. How come? Whether you think my defence is sound or (especially or) you think my defence is BS and I'm still guilty- why do you say noting on the subject? Feels like you just wanted to say something, bring something new to the board to show activity ("woo, look, I'm making an original argument so I must be town"), but then you don't really care where the argument goes.

6)

No. Locke and Hernz do not have anywhere near the same critical thinking level. If you're going to argue that, then you're going to have to explain a lot of what Hernz did that has been attributed to newbishness.

That being said, it could have well caused him to direct his night action elsewhere. There's a long way between having someone cleared and believing him to be the best option for a nightly check. Seems quite possible to me that Monkey's hammer could cause Locke to consider someone else as a better option for a night visit, even if not entirely clearing Monkey.

7) Can't help but feel that Kitty's post 399 is an appeal to emotion, in a reverse psychology looking-for-compliments sort of way.

8) MiteyMouse, you asking whether Kitty is scum... uhh... how is that going to help you? I mean, she's obviously going to tell you "no". Are you going to look deep into her eyes to try to understand if she's lying?..

[ODDin]

That's an interesting point about Starbuck there. However, you should notice she was being extremely emotional at the moment. She accused the entire town of lynching her prematurely - instead of accusing only Monkey, whose fault alone it really was (if, indeed, it was not intended with him being her scumbuddy). So, much like promising not to replace into games with any of us playing, it makes sense that she also focused on what annoyed her most in the argument. "you lynched me because I hate self-voting" is more concise, angry and emotional than "you lynched me because I hate self-voting and some other mildly scummy stuff".

Also, on MiteyMouse, I still do disagree on the buddying issue (see my post 353).

That being said, when I look at this again, it is yet another instance of MiteyMouse abandoning the case. For the love of god, I've admitted to some WIFOM and I'm one of your top suspects, do something about it...

Also, I think I have an idea what MiteyMouse was doing with post 400: active lurking. He does something seemingly meaningful, but in fact, he's delaying saying anything of any value until he gets an answer for a question which can only possibly have one answer. It's a question which gives absolutely zero information. Only reason this makes sense is an incredibly poor attempt to fake activity.

MiteMouse is my top suspect, with KittyMo a second. And maybe it's about time to get down from the fence and put some pressure.

Vote: MiteyMouse

.

[ODDin]

MiteyMouse, sorry for referring to you as a man, but you didn't specify your gender in your account.

All of my points remain, however, including the fact that the question about whether kitty is scum was most likely buying time.
And you still haven't responded to any of my points, really.

[ODDin]

Well, intuitively I'd say it seems pretty genuine.

The question is, what could she gain from it?
Only possible strategy I can see here is that Monkey is scum, and she's trying to convince us he's not scum but rather a clueless townie. In such a case, it would seem that accusing Monkey himself, rather than accusing the entire team, would make more sense.
If Monkey is town, I don't see at all how her posts could help the scum team.

So, yes, it feels pretty genuine to me.

[ODDin]

No. She could have been legitimately angry at Monkey. If he's indeed town, then her anger is legitimate. I know I would be angry. If he's scum and it was a plan to begin with, then of course there's no reason for her to be angry. If he's a scum and did it without saying anything and just out of the blue... I guess she could be angry, because it wasn't really a necessary, winning scum move at the point, and getting out of the game like that pretty much sucks.
But one way or another, being angry at the entire town is unfair.

However, what are you, Sanjay, getting at?

[ODDin]

Interesting that you chose to hammer without giving MiteyMouse a final chance to actually explain himeslf and his case against me, and also without waiting for Tarballs to answer your question. Even if we Mitey flips scum (and hopefully he does), I don't think it was a good move on your part.
I don't know about Tarballs, but I know I myself wasn't ready for a lynch right now.
This game has a curious tendency for unexpected hammers.

[ODDin]

EBWOP: Sorry, I again referred to Mitey as a he instead of a she. My bad.

[ODDin]

I think daytalking would've worked better if killing someone would've made his neighbours neighbours, instead of just disconnecting them. That is, the cirlce would've always remained a circle, only a smaller one.
Or, just have everyone able to talk to everyone.

The most obvious option to use daytalking is if you're a cop and you find out somebody's town, and you then claim to them in PM, thus trying to form small alliances.
All the while scum also claim to people in PM they're cops.

[ODDin]

Anyways, good game, I really had fun. Look forward to playing with all of you again.
Myk, thanks for the hosting. )

[ODDin]

BTW, Tarballs, I seem to remember you also ran a similar setup. Is that game over yet? If it is, how did the daytalking go there?

[ODDin]

Starbuck, first of all, let me assure you that none of us wanted to quickhammer you like that. I'm sure even Monkey simply didn't realise what he was doing.
Also, the neighbour thing sadly didn't have much impact on the game, but I think it could've been really cool, we just needed more ability to talk.

Personally, I tried talking with my neighbours a bit, but it didn't really go anywhere. Which is understandable, as they were both VTs. Plus, at D3 they were both dead.