If you'd look at the pbp, it's more of a summary of Jenter's posts, and then instead of making any comments or commitments, he just questions the mod about if a lynch really happened (WHich is kind of pointless. It's not like we can take back the lynch)
I did give my analysis, in a subsequent post.
I did the PBP at 1:00am my time. I got side-tracked by the D3sisted thing and then I decided to do the analysis the next day.
More importantly, what is the basis for voting me on the fact that the pbp did not have an analysis with it? I can't see what your point is...
Well, I've been hesitant to move the Jenter wagon along too quickly, but I really don't see any point in that, considering our current rate of content.
Vote:Jenter
"Beware of Zombie Entanglements."
-George Washington
Hello. Doing a second reread, I'll have some thoughts soon, I hope!
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
My analysis is a little late in coming, because this game has been relatively difficult to follow. A lot of jokey, substance free posts. A fun read, but really hard to derive any impressions from it.
Night 0 victim was killed by Mafia. End of controversy.
I'm not ready to clear Jenter yet, but I'm not feeling comfortable with his bandwagon. I did a read on Head Honcho in isolation, and his posts are amazingly content free. I'll need to do a more thorough reread (and this weekend I should have time for that, I think) but I'm fairly comfortable about this:
unvote; vote: Head Honcho
If you think Jenter is scummy enough to lynch, and it's not too much trouble, could you outline your reasoning for me? I'd like to hear various people's reasoning about this, because while I didn't find him voteworthy, I'm open to argument on this point. Thanks!
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
Bookitty wrote:
If you think Jenter is scummy enough to lynch, and it's not too much trouble, could you outline your reasoning for me? I'd like to hear various people's reasoning about this, because while I didn't find him voteworthy, I'm open to argument on this point. Thanks!
My PBP summary and some A:
Vollkan wrote:
As kind of promised....a PBPA of Jenter:
#17: Unbolded random vote for Adel
#21: Random vote for self
#28: Random for for self again
#36: Comments on likely no. of masons
#41:Comments on likely no. of masons
#57: Jokes about lynching himself
#81: Unvotes self. Expresses mild suspicion of d3sisted (vague) and Honcho (based on other people's poitns). Says Trump is lurking and he wants to hear more from
#83: Says "OK" acknowledging an answer by d3s
#104: "I'm confuzzled" (seems to be in relation to d3sisted's playstyle)
#106: "I admit the evidence aginst desisted is piling up, but I'm not ready to vote him just yet."
#129: Says he has nothing to add and unvotes, again.
#139: He is "really confuzzled"
#146: FoSes d3sisted and puffin for the IH wagoning
#161: He is now "veering towards a d3sisted lynch"
#222: Still most suspicious of d3sisted
#230: Votes me because I questioned the people who were jumping on d3sisted without explanation (him being among those people).
#238: He gives a PBPA of d3sisted. Most of it is just fairly mundane prodding questions. He doesn't make any proper arguments from this. Promises a pp. 6-10 analysis which never happens, because....
#242: Votes d3sisted. Deadline. Lynch.
...
Anyway, the results of my PBPA:
Mostly a lot of noncontribution coming from Jenter. His only actions were a few vague FoSes, a vote on me for a very odd reason and a non-vote for d3sisted.
And more A:
Vollkan wrote:
All day, we have Jenter professing to have suspicion of d3sisted. Not once did he articulate any reason as to why, except for #81 where d3sisted clarified things and Jenter said "OK". He FoSes d3sisted for the IH wagoning, but he plainly was not convinced at all by that because he then swung around and attacked me, not for the case against d3sisted, but because I was challenging those people who had made vague suspicion of d3sisted. His PBPA looks like a last-ditch effort to justify a vote for d3sisted, even though there is basically no content to it and it is just him probing d3sisted with questions.
I'm going to FoS: Jenter
And then Jenter persists in this line without explaining so:
Vollkan wrote:
Here we have it again. You felt he was "scummiest". Everything you have said throughout this game is vague. You have failed to make even one decent reason for any of your actions. You swing around and vote me in #229, despite the fact that you had been continually professing how certain you were about d3sisted.
Why did you unvote, Adel? This action makes no sense to me given your previous postings.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
The problem I'm having in doing a player by player analysis on this game is that most of the players in this game are given to one line responses. I noticed IH doing some questioning and voting, but for the most part people have been content to respond jokingly and not to challenge any comments or initiate any investigations.
ChronX, you said you didn't like Jenter for town from day one. Was it the stupid multi-voting on himself stunt, or something more? Who do you think his scumbuddies might be?
I'm not comfortable with Paradoxombie voting for Jenter when he doesn't give any reasons. I'm NOT voting for Jenter and I could give a better justification for doing so than the "current rate of content".
My vote is on Head Honcho because he's made statements indicating his wish never to go to night, his desire for harmony, and his hope that we could all get along. While these are admirable sentiments in real life, they hardly seem believable in the context of this game. Thus I find them insincere and overacted to an extreme degree, nearly a caricature of what he thinks town would act like. My vote is staying here for now.
Vollkan has put a fair amount of content up, and while I don't completely agree with his analysis on Jenter, I can understand his vote. He's explained it, which is (in my view) a very pro-town thing to do.
I'm finding Adel's lack of content, along with her unexplained votes and unvotes, to be very suspicious. And, when Jenter questions her about it and votes her, I REALLY don't like Paradoxombie answering for her: "Adel has simply been posting minimalistically. " So has Paradoxombie, and how is that pro-town, helpful, or constructive of EITHER of them?
My vote is on Head Honcho, but I am seriously considering changing that to Adel, for reasons I've just explained.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
@Bookitty: I'll need to reread to recall. I think I thought everyone on the d3sisted wagon had the potential to be scum. I also seem to recall IH and Vollkan forming a tag team to argue with someone, while Jenter just kind of joined the wagon for the ride.
I'm involved in a game which is deadlined (26 hours or so to go) and probably LyLo so I've had my head mainly there.
Fair enough, I'll be patient, then. Thanks for the reply.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
Bookitty wrote:
Vollkan has put a fair amount of content up, and while I don't completely agree with his analysis on Jenter, I can understand his vote. He's explained it, which is (in my view) a very pro-town thing to do.
Would you mind explaining what it is that you disagree with?
I don't agree with your conclusion. I find both Head Honcho and Adel more suspicious, and that's why my vote is on one of them, and not on Jenter.
As always, I could be wrong.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
Bookitty wrote:
I don't agree with your conclusion. I find both Head Honcho and Adel more suspicious, and that's why my vote is on one of them, and not on Jenter.
As always, I could be wrong.
This doesn't really answer my question...I asked you to explain why you disagreed and your response is that you find other people more suspicious. I meant, what about my conclusion do you disagree with?
Jenter changed his mind a lot, without too many explanations. He's not alone in that in this game. I find his behaviour pretty suspicious, but I have explained my reasoning for suspecting both Head Honcho (who seems improbably naive, quite honestly) and Adel (who has given NO reasons for her changes of heart).
I am not clearing Jenter of suspicion. I am saying that based on my own observations, and the information other people (mainly you) have given, I don't find him most suspicious, so he's not getting my vote at this time. If I see better evidence, that could change, but I find the other two more suspicious.
I hope this is more helpful. I get the sense I didn't really understand what you were asking... but I hope I at least got closer this time.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
Bookitty wrote:
I'm not comfortable with Paradoxombie voting for Jenter when he doesn't give any reasons. I'm NOT voting for Jenter and I could give a better justification for doing so than the "current rate of content".
I had only meant to justify the timing of my vote with that statement. The actual reasons for my vote are Jenter's opportunistic posting and his response when questioned about his vote by volkan.
Bookitty wrote:
I'm finding Adel's lack of content, along with her unexplained votes and unvotes, to be very suspicious. And, when Jenter questions her about it and votes her, I REALLY don't like Paradoxombie answering for her: "Adel has simply been posting minimalistically. " So has Paradoxombie, and how is that pro-town, helpful, or constructive of EITHER of them?
Well I wasn't trying to justify Adel's play when I said that, but since you ask, it seems to me like Adel has just been posting solely to illicit responses so far, which doesn't seem like such a bad thing with so little going on in the game in general
"Beware of Zombie Entanglements."
-George Washington
Posting minimalistically isn't helpful when there is "so little going on the game in general". Posting and making something happen, trying to figure out connections and making arguments is helpful.
And what responses have Adel's "minimalistic" votes, unvotes, and revotes elicited? I haven't seen one constructive thing.
So, for her complete refusal to provide any actual explanations:
unvote; vote Adel
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
