fhomess

As I stated earlier, I'm not comfortable with lynching Daala at this point, and I don't find the argument against Ozzel particularly compelling. I just don't have a strong read on him at all. I think the cases against Admiral Piett and Captain Jellico are more founded. I will throw my hat in the ring against Jellico. There is something that strikes me as particularly defensive in many of his contributions that I find to be at odds with his typical behavior. So among the leading candidates, he is the one that is scummiest to me. Unvote: Admiral Yularen (KotZ) Vote: Captain Jellico (Lady K) Admiral Yularen... I'm not going to putt he effort into a particularly robust accusation against you at this moment as I simply don't have the time for it. I stated some concerns yesterday about feeling like you could be contributing more substantially than you were, demonstrating that you actually care about the outcomes of our votes. Today, I didn't get the impression from your vote today that you would've voted that way if another vote had not already been cast. It seemed a vote of convenience. Others do not seem as concerned about you at this point so I guess you're off the hook for today. Hopefully, you will start to demonstrate your value to the Empire more visibly.

I don't really see the reasons from Yularen and you as adding anything beyond what Admiral Motti said. Yularen hasn't seemed right to me so I case my vote his way, but you both look a bit like you were just waiting for someone to follow on with a vote. Fenton makes a solid case against Jellico and I could be persuaded to contribute there. I'm less comfortable with voting for Daala at this stage.

I feel like you're avoiding the question. Whether that's laziness or deceit, I'm not really sure, but I don't much care for it. Is there someone today who looks particularly accusatory or do you change your approach on Day 2? The problem with Ozzel is that he was similarly unhelpful the last time we went through one of these ordeals and drew a lot of flak and suspicion for it. One might think he would try being a more helpful loyalist this time around, but you never know if he's the type who adapts based on the past. I think it's extremely unlikely that there are more than one traitor among the three votes for Ozzel. When I've previously had the need to infiltrate an enemy, my partners and I rarely were able to coordinate our efforts that succinctly as we all came from different star systems. Personally, I still don't like Admiral Yularen's contributions. His quick follow on to the vote on Ozzel seems like he was just waiting for someone to provide him with an opinion strong enough to latch on to. Vote: Admiral Yularen (KotZ) On a side note... if you're going to include a whole bunch of quotes, please provide some analysis or at least an opinion of yours. We all have the transcripts we can look through ourselves. Without your own thoughts, you're not really being all that helpful.

I took issue with what appeared to be an attempt to scuttle the conversation about who was scummy and who wasn't before it got started. I agree completely with Admiral Piett that yesterday's voting pattern was a bit of a waste. The lack of any primary candidates meant that we are no better off today than yesterday, and I think all those who've been strongly arguing against a day 1 lynch have allowed us, as a group, to be noncommittal. Even if we didn't settle on a day 1 lynch, we should've narrowed down the list of top suspects to a few. We didn't do ourselves any favors.

I'm not sure how this vote is helpful to anyone at this point. This is a total throwaway vote after we've had a decent amount of conversation already. You're not really commenting on how you feel about any of this stuff or what we should do differently. I found the tit-for-tat voting last time to be quite distracting. It brought attention to folks who were loyal because they weren't providing any insight into what they actually felt about others. It's exactly what you're doing now with your vote, and it's scummy every time. Anyone who's loyal should be trying to get their actual suspicions out there so others can analyze them on later days. And no, your vote isn't the same as the early throw-out votes because there's been plenty of discussion with which to start forming opinions. Your vote added nothing. Vote: Admiral Yularen (KotZ) Admiral Greer... you were talking about how you don't think vote analysis is a useful tool in scum hunting as an argument against a Day 1 lynch. I disagree, and I think one of the points that is being missed is that it can sometimes take a few days to see the patterns emerge. It's also important to remember that the lynch is a tool in the PR's decision making. First, any lynched player is no longer eligible for a night action, so the lynch narrows down the list of possible targets. Second, the vote patterns can help to narrow down that list further. Voting in and of itself almost never yields scum, but combined with other information is quite helpful.

There are pros and cons to each of these thoughts. Giving time to power roles is partially valid. Reducing the pool of PR targets is a valid reason to lynch. It's also worth noting that we can rely exclusively on PR's. We can't be sure which PR's are available to us or whether the information they receive is actionable. It can take a few nights before that information comes together. Learning from who dies is the only way we can confirm information to evaluate others on. Not wanting to lose so many people is valid. The counter argument to that is that the only weapon we know we have at our disposal is the lynch. New players may be slow to contribute - eh, maybe? I agree completely we should not kill without reason. We absolutely should have some suspicion to go on. Thank you for contributing a detailed explanation of your thinking. The one thing I take exception to here is the comment about actively voting Day 2. That implies that you will not be actively voting today. Not voting is expressly punishable. Voting without putting some thought into who you actually do find traitorous is not in our interests. Everyone needs to place their vote thoughtfully. Voting for a random person just to avoid penalty makes it harder for the rest of us to look back on in future days. I tend towards lynching but some of my recent experiences have me more open to the idea of playing things a bit slower. I don't yet find anyone sufficiently more suspicious than anyone else to want to cast a vote at this time.

I don't think the conversation is worth having until people have had a chance to be accused and respond. I also don't care which way the board is leaning. I form my own opinions on these things and, given that there are those here who will try to push us into an agenda that is detrimental to the Empire, encourage everyone else to do the same.

People... please put your character name in your signature... It really helps us respond to you in character without having to go back to the beginning of the day thread to figure out who you are. I'm not familiar enough with Star Wars characters to know you all on sight (or actually any of you).

I say we let Lord Vadermort deal with the Vulcans. I'm curious why you bring up the topic of not voting someone out so early. We haven't even been here long enough to properly cast out baseless accusations and see how people react. Surely we ought to at least do our due diligence before deciding that.

I'm shocked there are traitors among us! I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they are all caught. That said, can't Vader use some kind of mind reading thing and just end this quickly?

General Veers here.

I can fill a spot. You're welcome to lynch me day 1 instead of Rider Raider.

I was convinced you couldn't possibly be the vig and have made that extra E mistake.

I'll say that I think the game was well balanced from a set up standpoint. The Miller is a bit of an unusual choice for a School game, but I think throwing an unusual role in isn't bad. Was our vig compulsory, or did he have an option to not kill? Generally, I think vig's should not kill night 1 if they don't have to. We lynched two town PR's, so if you've got a PR and are the leading candidate to be lynched, you really ought to claim your role. And make sure there's enough time for people to turn the vote around. I know Actor Builder's lynch came very quickly towards the end of the day, so there wasn't much time to work with. I told you all KotZ was a scummy scumbag who loves guns... I don't know why none of you believed me! Except jluck, who is awesome. The scum did a good job leading the lynches. 3 of the first 5 votes on me (including the first two) were scum. I almost posted something in the dead board about the 1st vote on a bandwagon being a great place for scum to hide when I was talking about how Lady K looked scummy to me, but I took it off because I felt like I was trying too hard to confirm a suspicion. For me, Lady K felt like she just didn't actually care that much about getting the answers she usually does. She wasn't as committed as usual. All scum try to play as town, but things like that slip through because you already know who is and isn't scum. They're just hard to pick up.

Nicely done, scum bags! Fun game despite how short it was. Can we have Actor Builder as vig and Tariq as scum every game?

Thanks for hosting me, Kintober!

I just don't get why anyone would believe that, though. Seems like a non-starter to me. Since hardly anyone seems interested in actually reviewing what I've said and is just waiting for the day to end so they can move on, I will throw out some of my observations for you to use on later days, after you see that I was actually town. Maybe it will help, although I'd have more confidence if more of you actually thought things through a bit more. Zombie Cheerleader - The miller claim was slightly odd in that it wasn't claimed off the bat but only after voting began. You've been actively commenting on things but have also ignored questions pointed directly at you. Yesterday, I asked why you didn't claim off the bat... no response. Yesterday, Bride of Dracula asked how your tit-for-tat vote was helpful to town... no response. You simply stated that you didn't want a lynch (I'm fine with that), but made no effort to vote for someone you actually suspected or found even slightly suspicious. Bride of Dracula - You mention the Cheerleader, Mummy, and Wolf among your suspicions. You haven't really made much of a comment on the miller claim, though. Anyone who suspects the cheerleader even slightly is saying they think that was a lie. If so, there needs to be some sort of a push on her to get a feeling. You've also been very early on both bandwagons. On the Dracula one, I didn't see much of an effort to look anywhere else yesterday or to really give Dracula a chance. It's not your fault that enough people followed you that it became the de facto bandwagon, but you should've been the one most disturbed by it. Mutant Fly - You need to start contributing more thoughts than 1-2 liners. I don't have much of a read on you and I suspect that others feel similarly because you aren't contributing enough to form a clear opinion. This isn't helpful to town. The Wolf vs. Zombie Bride - One of these isn't scum. There's been too much of a conflict between them for them both to be on the same scum team. I currently lean towards the Wolf being the more townie of the two simply because he's been a bit more aggressive in pursuing the Bride. I understand some of the votes on me, but there are a lot of sheep and a couple of folks who are just taking advantage of the situation. Good luck to the town.

I really don't think you got what I'm saying if you're still focusing on the gun thing as being key. The gun thing wasn't at all the meat of what I was discussing. Regardless, I don't understand how being right about it would help a scum, so not sure what was going on on in those parties. It should still worry you that the pace of voting was so rapid. Scum don't pile on a scum teammate unless there's a night action that convicts them clearly.

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. You can't just focus on things in isolation. I'm looking at things in context to try to understand how they all fit together. In the context of yesterday, only a few votes had been cast since the last tally, and there was a decent debate going on about whether or not we should have a day 1 lynch at all. The part I took exception with was asking for the vote without commenting on that debate. Maybe you're missing that because you don't really care. I don't think your vote for the Mummy made one bit of difference other than to make you look like you're participating in a helpful way when all you're really doing is seeing who posted and picking someone who didn't. It's the second laziest form of voting, next to the Mummy's day 1 random vote. It doesn't tell us anything about yourself.

Ok, I'll explain myself... but wow, that bandwagon formed quickly. That should be fun to look at in the future. My vote for Swampy was not a throw away at all, but the reason that I didn't expand on the justification at the time was to "poke the bear" so to speak. Starting with yesterday, Swampy was 4th on the bandwagon for Dracula, complaining that he wasn't checking in. He even earned a vote from Zombie Bride yesterday for that scummy approach. You don't need 4 votes to get someone to talk... it was clearly bandwagoning. Swampy's response to that was to say that he didn't think he was bandwagoning at all... which is simply not true, as I said yesterday. You place 4 votes on an absent party member who hasn't had any time to respond and you're bandwagoning. Nothing more to it than that, and Swampy knows well enough I'm right. He made no effort to disagree further. You have plenty of time in the day to get him to talk, and the 4th vote isn't going to make him show up any sooner. It's largely why I didn't like Zombie Groom's pushing for the Dracula lynch early in the day, too. By joining that bandwagon, you look like you're contributing, but you really aren't. You're taking the easy road out of not having to share any real thoughts about the other stuff going on. You're not making any effort to get others to contribute so you can actually learn something about what people think. So today when I make an offhand comment about the kill methods and then explain my actual reasoning for thinking the kills went the way they did, and Swampy ONLY captured the part of my post where I didn't explain my thinking. That's scummy. Go read that post and see what part of my comments were quoted. Not the parts where I actually talked about possible reasons the scum would've preferred one victim over the other. No, because you read selectively and didn't make an effort to understand what I was actually saying. You're looking for something to hang someone with, not looking to figure out what my alignment truly is. Scum don't need to figure it out because they already know who's on their side. I'll add one more thing that I noticed at the end of the day yesterday that you did that just felt off. Close to the end of the day yesterday, you asked for a vote tally. That's not scummy in and of itself except for the conspicuous lack of any reasoning for why you wanted it. You weren't actively pushing for a lynch and you weren't actively pushing to avoid a lynch. You were appearing helpful while maintaining a neutral middle ground on a topic that was of particular note to the conversation. It's like you were trying to nudge us in the direction of lynching Dracula without appearing to do so. 1. Missing the point 2. Reasonable, but you can argue for anyone on a bandwagon the same way. I agree completely with those who suggest there are probably at least 2 scum on the bandwagon. I'm not one of them, but it's certainly logical thinking and likely. 3. Reasonable. Please review my justifcation above. As for my confidence in the night kills, you're overstating it. I threw out a theory for discussion, a theory I think is pretty reasonable but will readily admit could be wrong. That said, I do believe the theory. What I find interesting is how Swampy's focus on the gun comment killed discussion of the theory itself, and that only you and Zombie Bride made an effort to understand what I was saying. Since the weapon topic won't go away, I will state that while they don't determine who the killer is, hosts will occasionally be consistent in the kill method for certain factions. My argument was really that the Groom was under some suspicion for pushing the early lynch. From me in particular, I will admit, but the Witch wasn't under any suspicion at all. If you're a vig and you need to kill someone, you kill someone who had some suspicion on them or that you suspect. If you're the scum, you don't kill someone you think you can help lynch the next day. The scum knew that Dracula wasn't on their team, so they knew that those who pushed for the lynch of Dracula would be under suspicion today. An SK is less predictable, and IMO the more likely situation if I'm wrong about my theories. It's still not helping town to throwaway a vote on someone you don't actually think is suspicious. It's worse than that, it's actively unhelpful. Townies need to figure out each other's alignment, and scum want us not to figure it out. By voting for someone with no reason that you don't suspect, you're making it harder to for town and hiding like scum. An early throwaway vote to get discussion going can be helpful, but not what you did. I don't like your vote today, but at least your letting us know what you think this time. I think you're both being lazy. I've only just now seen anyone else's question. Did your vote for the Mummy accomplish anything? Did you scare him into talking?

Vote: Swamp Creature (KotZ) For being a scummy scumbag who loves guns.

The punny-ness of this seems off to me. Could be, but your bringing it up in this way isn't. Any of us can go back and look this up ourselves. If you want this to be useful, give us your thoughts on it. Personally, I find final vote tallies less useful than the full voting record, including the unvoted votes. "I told you so" isn't particularly useful. I think most of those voting for Dracula readily admitted we were likely going to lynch a townie but that there was something to be gained by accepting that risk. You yourself say that there were likely 2 scum on the bandwagon and 1-2 voting elsewhere, and since we know that Dracula was a townie we can now review the 6 voters with that in mind. Do you think scum would be likely to vote early on a townie like this or to vote later? I will be looking more closely at those early on... meaning Dracula's Bride and the Swamp thing. As for the night kills, I think the Witch is more likely the scum kill and the Zombie Groom is more likely a vig or SK kill. First, we know the mafia has no qualms about using a gun, and secondly, the Zombie Groom was under suspicion for pushing for Dracula's lynch long before such a push was really needed. Scum likely would've preferred to play off of that today, knowing Dracula was town. So they have little incentive to kill the Groom. In a party this size, I would expect that we only have two killers, unless one of them is extremely limited, so any town blocking roles can be reasonably confident they didn't block a killer. I'll also say I'm glad to see the non-voting vote penalty reduced. It did seem a bit harsh.

Unvote: The Mummy (Actor Builder) Vote: Dracula (Rider Raider) (host... you keep calling him Racer for some reason...) I still find the Mummy's vote extremely scummy, but I'm behind a Day 1 lynch and I haven't seen a compelling reason that we should not make an effort. Our PR's need to whittle down the field... they can typically only get information on one other person per night. Reducing that pool can help narrow the field down more quickly so that we can identify the scum among us. To those that say that Day 1 lynches don't usually help us analyze voting patterns, I think it's not that different than Day 2 or 3 townie lynches. You learn the most from lynching scum. Townie lynches are much hard to analyze in general. I can think of a few times where Day 1 has lynched scum with about the same amount of information we have today.

Unvote: Zombie Groom (Forresto) Vote: The Mummy (Actor Builder) The only reason to vote for the Cheerleader is if you think she's flat out lying about being the town miller. You don't bother to address that at all, and if you believe it then you really ought to being shouting at the rest of us to join you. If you're just voting for her as a throwaway vote then you're being even less useful than everyone else, who is at least voting for people with some semblance of a reason. You're giving us absolutely nothing to look back on and analyze later, which is about as scummy as can be. You're not helping town at all. I came here all ready to vote for Dracula just to get us a lynch today, but I really can't ignore this. As far as lynching vs. not lynching day 1, I decided to do a bit of a thought experiment on when a day 1 lynch makes sense and when it doesn't. There are two assumptions that I think are relevant: 1. Scum will always kill a townie or neutral party. 2. Town loses after a certain number of mislynches. That number can be affected by SK or Vig kills, as well as blocks or protections. In an extremely simplified model I see two reasonably likely alignment distributions: There are 14 of us here, so: 1. Assuming 10 town, 4 scum, and no vig, we can mislynch 3 times maximum. No lynch gets us an extra day. 2. Assuming 10 town, 3 scum, and an SK, we can mislynch 4 times maximum. No lynch doesn't guarantee us an extra day. I think distribution 2 is more likely, so I'm in favor of lynching.

I don't actually disagree with your reasoning and logic behind the vote. I disagree with this: You're basically telling everyone else to stop looking elsewhere, and that bothers me. There was a LOT of time left in the day to discuss. A lot of time for Dracula to show up TODAY even. If there had been just a few hours left in the day and we were in danger of no lynching, I think it's perfectly valid to get everybody on the bandwagon to push through a lynch. What about Dracula do you find suspicious? We don't need to get the lynch sooner... just to complete it before the end of the day. (FWIW, I'm in favor of lynching today) Actually, that's pretty much the definition of bandwagoning. It's somewhat odd, but it's mostly lazy and looks like an effort to get some heat off his back. It's certainly not the kind of thing that will convince someone to unvote him.