Analysis 3I just doublechecked my vote-tally spreadsheet and it appears I wrongfully assigned Imp's vote on Nerjin ("I don't see him as being able to play out of the situation he is in") to Cmega, so in my
earlier analysis it should have looked like:
# people voted not counting RVS & FOS:
1: Max, Caz
2: Tiruin, Cmega
3. Jim, NQT, Nerjin, Persus, Toony, Toaster, Imp
This lessens my suspicions of Imp slightly, but it should be noted that this isn't the tell-to-end-all-tells and could potentially be gamed. Also, her vote-rich behaviour Day 1 is in marked contrast to her Day 2 behaviour, so perhaps she was converted by the cult?
Here's the current voting record, fully up to date. This hasn't changed much from before. Persus switched between people he'd voted previously (Cmega and Caz) and Imp put a late day boot in on Caz. And today I've voted Max for the first time. I've left dead players on the list coloured in for comparison.
# people voted not counting RVS & FOS:
1: Max,
Caz2: Tiruin,
Cmega3. Jim,
Nerjin, Persus, Toony, Toaster
4. Imp, NQT
For your edification, here are the Day 1 and 2 votes compared:
# people voted not counting RVS & FOS:
0. Caz (His RVS was on Nerjin)
1. Persus, Max
2. Tiruin, Cmega, Jim, NQT, Toaster
3. Nerjin, Imp, Toony
# people voted not counting RVS & FOS (including people previously voted the day before):
0. Nerjin, Cmega! (Both appeared to give up playing the game due to excessive levels of weaksauce in their system)
1. Tiruin (carrying over from day before), Imp (at the last possible moment!), Caz, Max
2. Jim, Toony, NQT, Toaster
3. Persus
# votes for fresh targets on Day 2 (not including RVS):
0. Nerjin, Cmega, Tiruin, Max,
1. Caz, Jim, Imp, Toaster
2. Persus, Toony, NQT
Conclusions:
Persus appeared to up his game, Toony and NQT were least prone to tunnelling, Nerjin and Cmega gave up and so their behaviour shouldn't really be compared to active players. Tiruin tunneled Caz for two days straight but was vindicated: not sure there'd be much incentive for scum to do this, obviously let's see how she plays today. Caz left his RVS vote on Nerjin until the latter's death then left his vote on Persus and was scum before giving up and leaving, Max has yet to vote for anyone other than NQT, making him Arch-Tunneller of the game and my Day 3 top scumpick.
Additionally, how many scum do you think could plausibly have been bussing on Caz's lynch? Is it correct to assume there's three scum? If we don't think two scum would have bussed their mate, at least one scum is in NQT-Toony-Jim-Max. I know I'm not scum, not convinced about the others.
(For clarification, Max's, Tiruin's and Jim's posts appeared after I'd already written the analysis.)
TiruinBut I'm reading up on why people would mention a cult in the first place. Is this..some kind of foreshadowing or just guessing out? WIFOM territory, perhaps, but I'm looking back into the game to check on where the roots come from.
A lot of previous Supernatural games have had cults so it was probably a reasonable thing to discuss. It'd be interesting to see who mentioned it
first. Get back to us on this Tiruin.
She did so in her closing post. She rationalized several cases-and my own (which does confirm I was being silly confusing) and then remarked on how the focus dwindled until she felt satisfied to hit the vote button down.
...I mean, she did get where I was going-and I had thought that the case of 'if you accuse someone of lying then its quite an accusation' was apparent until..well, checking it out.
Yes: she made her vote in The Closing Post. Well after it could have had any possible effect. She had no votes all day and then suddenly kicked Caz in after he already had enough votes to die and no other lynch candidate was viable.
And you're FoS'ing Jim along with asking him a pertinent question? Isn't that counterproductive?[/transparency]
Why're you asking Jim this and what brought it about? Specifically what you're thinking about priests and all that.
Jim had a bogus case on me yesterday. Part of his case was that he claimed to think I was scum. Given that I am a Priest and the scum Priest Caz has now flipped, I wanted to know whether he thought that it was in any way plausible that the scum team would have two Priests. Now that I've pondered it a bit more, he might well think that I'm not a Priest and claimed because I knew Caz was a Priest (it'd be very clever of me to do this from my second post of the game, but I am capable of leaps of cleverness). I'd like to hear his perspective on this in any case.
While I'd LOOOOVE to say..well, keep silent and let this slide and be happy at myself, I'd point something out that I'd do the same as scum if scum, and town if town--meaning: If someone does such an act as doing a really technical error at me, then I'd hunt 'em out regardless.
It seems you're basing your townie points on me because my case is long, yes? Why so. That's quite an easy leap there. What're you following here. Vote pattern or...something else.
You're right to be suspicious. We should all be suspicious of each other. Still, it strikes me as a pretty counterproductive scum-strategy to endlessly tunnel then bus your team-mate all day when you could easily have pushed an alternative lynch.
MaxWell my turn to claim today. I'm a Seer, capable of detecting if a player is benign or malevolent. I'm not exactly sure how that works for third parties though...
Last night I found Persus13 to be malevolent.
For those wondering night 1 I did inspect NQT and found him benign. It was enough to convince me to rethink my stance, at least in regards to his day 1 play, but then he started role fishing and wanting to lynch somebody for being a Monster Hunter, and apparently inspects come before converts making him as potentially scum as anybody else... Then Caz flipped cult instead of vampire and it kind of settled that.
Well this changes things a bit. If Persus flips malevolent 3rd party I won't consider you cleared, but if he's scum then I guess you're not. Still, part of me thinks that you're scum willing to sacrifice yourself for a mislynch today. You'd kill the Knight and get another nightkill in before being lynched the next day. Persus appears a lot more town than you. Tell us more about your investigation PM descriptions.
Thats bullshit and you know it. Don't pretend my entire case rested on that single point, you were role fishing. You might be so exceptionally bad that you don't even realize that you were committing a subtle form of it, but you were and I pointed that up long before Jim.
Now you know I'm not scum, how could I have been rolefishing? I merely acted in a way that you misinterpreted as rolefishing. Rolefishing is a deliberate attempt to discover the roles of others (implied for malicious purposes) how could someone do that without realising it?
Also, I find it implausible that you couldn't come up with any other possible targets on Day 2 than the person you'd cleared as most-likely-town. You have the gall to suggest I might be exceptionally bad when you (as a supposed seer) have been incapable of any productive scum hunting.
If you are a town-seer then you're going to die in the night, there's no two-ways about it. If we flip you (the otherwise most scummiest player) today then we can confirm whether you were right and avoid the situation whereby a scum-player tricks the town into mislynching a town night.
JimProbably not. But I don't like how quickly you bring this up in your own defense. Why, you didn't even know if I was going to continue my case today or not.
But whether I like it or not doesn't change that I don't think you were on a team with Caz.
I wanted to see where you were at Day 3. I undermine the No-Double-Priest theory as a defence in reply to Tiruin above.
Toony— Do you still think Toaster is scum?