what's your theory about why a tracker is more likely given the mason/neighbor setup?
You said that it was more likely, but didn't say why.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Jagged has shown himself as not an avid poster, and I doubt that will improve as the time go on, and therefore he will be comparatively harder to read.
Because Jagged has been mostly pursuing one and only one scumread at a time, which suggests a defensive play, which benefits scum more than town.
Because that's what Anatole suggested between Jagged and Dougal lynch, and I want to do a litmus test on Anatole.
You make a fair point about the tracker, and I hadn't really thought the implication through that if another investigative role does indeed show up before Boon is dead, then Boon's going to get lynched.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
I hear you on Jagged's lack of enthusiastic posting, but it sounds like you're suggesting it as a basis for a policy lynch rather than a lurker lynch, and I'm not keen on a policy lynch after the heartache that has been D1.
I ISO'd Jagged to bring myself up to date with his game play. He came into the game and voiced criticisms of a multitude of folks, including Flubber, Dougal, your slot, and myself. It was only until his reread that he produced a slew of null reads, and then a single scum read on Dougal that he retracted in his next post.
I credit that this could align with defensive scum play. Fair. It could also align with a player who replaced into a VT slot overwhelmed by the really bad, circular conversations that weren't particularly insightful in sussing out alignments. And reading Jagged's posts feel more like the latter than the former.
Also, I'm not convinced as some of the other folks in this game that GreyICE-scum would have made up an easily figured out lie to justify a vote, and his long silence and subsequent dropping speaks like embarrassed town to me.
My alternative would be either TTH or Dougal.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
"but it sounds like you're suggesting it as a basis for a policy lynch rather than a lurker lynch" -- I mean that in it does not appear that you're suggesting he's active lurking, just that he's disengaged from the game.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
However, there is a notable difference from the usual lurker tell:
his precedessor
.
GreyICE also lurked, managing a total of 10 posts before replacing out.
Because there are two independent players who lurked in the same slot, I would guess that lurking is stemming from the role, rather than the playstyle.
I had to go wash some dishes. A great, mindless activity allowing one to ruminate about mafia.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
I agree, Boon, in the sense that I would prefer pursuing TTH over Dougal.
VOTE: TTH
- The neighbor thing. Not going to escape it for the rest of the game. Her jumping right out of the gate and pursuing the vote-her-neighbor strategy sounds like an easy to justify mislynch for scum to use. (Also, while I'm not particularly fond of trying to outguess the setup, but a neighbor setup where each member is also a member of another night-talking group of different alignments sounds like something someone thought was cute when coming up with the neighbor/mason idea.)
- Several folks have noted her lack of assertiveness. I liked what Boon said about that:
In post 962, Boonskiies wrote:The confusion and lack of knowing what to read sounds like new scum, and considering it's her first game here, I could see it.
- She got defensive in Post 1215 and Post 1406 about scrutiny shining on the BBT wagon if BBT was in fact town and Csareo was in fact scum. The defensiveness was unwarranted considering that is the logical place to look should that scenario actually exist, and the defensiveness was using overblown rhetoric ("witch hunting"). TTH, of course, was on the BBT wagon.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
However, there is a notable difference from the usual lurker tell:
his precedessor
.
GreyICE also lurked, managing a total of 10 posts before replacing out.
Because there are two independent players who lurked in the same slot, I would guess that lurking is stemming from the role, rather than the playstyle.
I just touched on this:
In post 1935, Green Crayons wrote:Also, I'm not convinced as some of the other folks in this game that GreyICE-scum would have made up an easily figured out lie to justify a vote, and his long silence and subsequent dropping speaks like embarrassed town to me.
The game started on Sunday, September 7. From that point until GreyICE's LAL vote against Anatole on Tuesday, September 9, he made 8 posts out of the approximately 100 game-related posts. Out of 13 players, that isn't lurking.
GreyICE made his LAL vote against Anatole, and the thread collectively explained just how bad he was at reading a previous game. GreyICE then doesn't say anything for over 300 posts, finally chiming in on Friday, September 12 to state that he's not really doing anything with the game. Then, complete radio silence, and he's finally replaced one week later on Friday, September 19.
So, you mentioning the total number of posts GreyICE had in the abstract completely ignores the context in which those posts were made. GreyICE was average active until his really bad LAL vote. He then effectively dropped out of the game, but a replacement didn't show up for another week.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
[/area]
