Although I read pretty much the whole thing, there is way too much in this thread for me to want to go over every post, not to mention that much of it goes around and around in pointless circles. I therefore am mostly going to confine what comments I have to day 2.
===
Imat (334) wrote:However, the third kill confuses me. I really don't want anybody to claim, but I think we either have another SK or a messed up Doc. I have no idea how common CPR Docs are, or if anybody would blindly protect as one, but I don't think the Mod would put in three killing groups either...
This post struck me as a little odd (not necessarily town or scum, just odd). I'm not sure what to think of the fact that you would think of a role as obscure as a CPR Doc (which I've only even heard of because I was clicking random links on the wiki earlier) before thinking of the possibility of a vig. It doesn't seem at all unlikely that there's a vig in a game this size, and it's not really three killing groups given that vigs are protown and forced vigs are extremely rare.
I don't think we have anything to gain by outing the vig at this point, though.
===
Matt_S (335) wrote:I don't think we can learn a whole lot from guessing who killed who. However, I will say that I think CoolBot was killed by crazy_vlad just because I have a hard time seeing a vig kill CoolBot.
Why do you say this, given that there was, although not quite a bandwagon, a decent amount of suspicion being raised about Coolbot by several people during day 2? Admittedly, Tabitha could have been a vig kill too, but the people attacking her seemed to just be annoyed with her erratic voting pattern and desire for the day to end (and after having to read through 13 pages of that, I know I sure wanted it to end too) rather than being genuinely suspicious of her as scum, as they were with Coolbot.
Also consider that vlad was having a little tiff with Tabitha back there somewhere (again, I don't feel like dredging up the quote as at the time I didn't think it would be relevant but it is now that I think about it, but it's back there if you feel like looking) so it seems likely that he might have chosen to kill her. She was voting for him at one point and such, so he might have seen her as a threat (though I can't imagine he could have guessed she was a cop).
===
I'm somewhat conflicted with regards to Khelvaster.
Khelvaster (392) wrote:Yeah, I haven't posted because I've been too lost in this firestorm. Massive/Qman isn't going anywhere. I didn't want to draw their ire by "derailing" their argument.
This post made me raise an eyebrow. It smells suspiciously of "I'm scum trying to divert attention and waiting to attack the side that the argument is leaning towards". Actually, while I wasn't getting a scummy vibe from Khelvaster day 1 (I agree with those who say that a nameclaim wasn't an entirely invalid thing to propose, but the argument is just going around and around in circles and I don't think I have anything useful to add there so I'm not going to rehash why), a lot of his posts day 2 have felt somewhat scummy. It seems as though he was afraid he attracted too much attention and opposition on day 1 and decided to lurk; he hasn't been posting, but it's obviously not because he's unable to, given that he said above that he was just abstaining from posting, and he actually chose not to say anything until he absolutely had to in response to massive's accusations, although posting "chirpchirpchirp" to confirm that he was still around.
The safeclaim argument is frankly giving me a headache at the moment. I'll see if I can reread the last few pages to wrap my head around what you guys are saying with regards to that tomorrow.
Admittedly a large part of what I feel is off about Khelvaster is just bad vibes, so I don't really feel comfortable voting for him yet (I will think more about my position with regards to him once I go over the safeclaim thing again as I don't feel I'm ready to comment there yet). I will, however,
FoS: Khelvaster
.
===
Imat is the one that sticks out to me as particularly scummy. His posts seem to jump back and forth between being absurdly aggressive as though trying to get a bandwagon started and being very defensive as though afraid of looking too much like scum. Here are a few posts of his from while ago (ok I guess I lied about all my commentary being from day 2):
Imat (151) wrote:Ah, finally got the chance to reread CoolBot's posts. His recent posts do seem somewhat...Defensive, would be the proper word, though who wouldn't be when faced with several votes. However, they are not as suspicious as I had first said because he hasn't tried to turn it around onto anybody else, he maintains his own innocence without trying to push blame onto the first person he sees.
Given that we now know Coolbot was the Godfather, this smells an awful lot to me like mafia trying to cover his ass in case Coolbot died so he could point and say "look I was acting suspicious about him" but avoid actually starting a bandwagon or anything.
That's not the main thing that strikes me as off about Imat's posts, though. The main thing is his dogged persistence in attacking Matt_S, which comes from... I don't know, actually, it just seems to come from nowhere. First we have this post:
Imat (126, emphasis mine) wrote:
<snip>
As it stands I haven't really seen scummy behavior, at least, nothing that guarantees scum, from any of the players. I, personally, don't like the bandwagon approach, it seems to me that it can be taken advantage of too easily.
Therefore I won't vote for either Matt_s or Khel without a good idea of their scumminess.
I need further evidence, particularly from those who aren't posting, before deciding.
<snip>
Then, with only a few posts in between (just Ting and Matt expressing suspicions of Coolbot, nothing to do with the bandwagon on Matt), he suddenly changes his mind:
Imat (132) wrote:FoS: Matt_S
Despite large amounts of evidence, all of which he agrees with, saying that CoolBot is Scum, Matt still maintains his vote on Khel, whom he used to agree with and recently bandwagonned against. He had a rather pitiful excuse to vote for Khel too, considering right before he said he wouldn't vote Khel for the lynch because he believed him to be Town, and, correct me if I'm wrong, a power role. This seems suspicious to me, and I'll let Matt answer to that.
What
large amount of evidence? Absolutely nothing was brought up with regards to Matt since his last post, where he said... that there wasn't enough evidence.
Afterwards he says he didn't realize Matt wasn't voting for Khelvaster and removes his FoS, and then a few posts later changes his mind and puts it back. I'm not sure what to make of this.
Then...
Imat (166) wrote:Ting, why do you think Matt is unnamed? If he were scum, he'd want to break up a potentially game winning name claim long before it showed his guilt. I believe he rejected the idea of a mass claim on the first page, mere posts after it was suggested. It may not matter to an unnamed scum because they can claim unnamed, not their role, and the claim will, luckily for Matt, die down quickly. However, a Named scum will be just as likely to claim unnamed to move attention from himself. Also, he seemed to want to reel others onto the Khel wagon before swapping with a flimsy excuse, one which I've already explained, onto the wagon himself. He wanted a majority to make sure Khel's lynch went quick. If that doesn't scream Scum, I don't know what does. He wants Khel to burn for trying to oust the Scum right away using what was, at the time, not too bad a plan. We know now that it wouldn't have worked, but neither Khel nor Matt knew this at the time, Matt just seemed to want to end it quickly.
CoolBot, following the same logic, also claimed unnamed. Its possible we've just uncovered two Scum. However, I've convinced myself that Coolbot isn't Scum, a dangerous position to have on any player, so I won't take action on him yet.
In the meantime,
Vote: Matt_S
All of a sudden Matt "screams scum"? Neither he nor anyone else has brought up anything particularly new or interesting. The way his position just suddenly keeps getting more and more angry baffles me. Also note his re-mention of his wishy-washy thing about Coolbot, pointing out again that he has already expressed suspicion of Coolbot without actually starting a bandwagon which, again, really just reeks of ass-covering to me.
Anyway, jumping ahead to his post 454 today (which is enormous so I will not quote the entire thing, only the bits I want to point out), this is what
really
made me think "hey, this guy looks like scum to me". The rest of what I've pointed out could have been excusable but this post is just ridiculous. It reads as though he went "ok, I've put too much into attacking Matt_S to be able to back down now, so I'm going to comb through and nitpick for as many little reasons as I can". Some of what he says is somewhat valid (although I do tend to think that Matt_S is town especially given the whole deleted post thing). However, a lot of his analyses are just blatant stretching and nitpicking:
Imat wrote:Post 89: Not much here really, just speculation on my part: You feel the need to summarze your argument against Khel once again. Was this to try to get others to believe your case? Or were you havng your own doubts about it? The action seems Scummy, but not terribly so. And once again you ompletely miss Khel's point in asking for people outside of the Fellowship. You seem to do that a lot.
Some of them don't say anything at all, as though he just wanted to say as much as possible:
Imat wrote:Post 285: You want to drop the whole name thing. I can see this from an Unnamed Vanilla, or from Scum in general, unless they do have Safeclaims.
And then some try to use logic that just doesn't follow:
Imat wrote:Post 340: "I could have quoted my safeclaim." Now we know why you believe Scum to have safeclaims. Its because you have a Safeclaim! Which inevitably implies you are Scum.
These are just the most obvious examples; I could keep going, but I really don't feel like it.
Vote: Imat
.
PS. Also, Imat, I would appreciate it if you would clarify exactly what Matt's strawman argument in post 431 is, as you weren't really specific about it.
