Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[shraeye]

Ok, I made a reread of my enormous summary document and pulled this on people's relations to grujah.

0th point:
I'm not good at reading into these things, but anybody who enjoys making meta-based arguments might find Grujah's list of players' metas in #253 interesting.

1st point
Watno gets town credit in my eyes for being an early person on Grujah's wagon but mostly because in addition to voting, he was one of the players (along with eevee) who was initially bringing grujah's lurkiness to people's eyes.  In posts 744 and 749 watno points out that Grujah's lurking was one of the more extreme examples of it.

DSell is added to a suspicious list, based on watno's argument in #749.  What happened was in #745 Dsell analyzes Axxle's thin posting record saying that this was out of character to post such minor content.

Also, Dsell, dont you think the behaviour your pointing out with Axxle is even more extreme with Grujah?

So Dsell points out a common characteristic of Axxle but doesn't focus on Grujah enough to realize that that description also fits scum-grujah.  In #750 Dsell says he'll have to reread grujah.  Did that reread ever come?  I definitely missed it if it did.

Cuzz also gains minor town cred in #758 for pointing out that Grujah's lurking really stands out.  All of these actions were long before real steam picked up on Grujah.

2nd point
Grujah in post #784 points out oddness in cayvie's proclamation that she'll lay low on voting, and also that ashersky struck a weird nerve for being wagon-jumpy-friendly.  He then votes cayvie instead of ashersky.  Not that either case was super solid, but it's important to note who he does vote for and who grujah doesn't vote for.  (Can anybody collect his voting record for us?)  After ehunt disagrees with grujah's interpretation of cayvie (787) grujah immediately unvotes (788).  It strikes me as very strange to vote/unvote so quickly, based solely on this

I think your vote is based on a misinterpretation of cayvie's post about her role. I don't want to argue the finer points of this.

In post #933 after Voltaire analyzes everyone's information contribution (grujah was in 2nd to last category) cayvie says that she would also put grujah in a low-information-output category.  I'm really not sure which way I lean on cayvie in relation to grujah.  "Suspicious but not sold on it" is probably the best descriptor.  In regards to ashersky, grujah comes back in #972 to say this

What can I do for you guys? Comment on what? I got a few spare hours right now.

Ashersky who did seem scummy seem less on re-scim, he did jump on two wagons (O and shareye, and shareye was one of misguided wagons ever) but I don't find it as bad as it seemed right away, he seems as scummy as any other who voted on shareye based on sarcasm. Sigh.

and this feels much more suspicious to me.  A thin case on somebody saying their "odd" but no vote, and then saying "oh, i was wrong, i guess that wasn't suspicious...sigh" feels like grujah's trying to slightly distance asher from himself without threatening asher's safety based on more piercing arguments.  Those are the words that stood out to me here.

3rd point:
This is really a minor point because I don't get a read on it in either direction, but in #897 ftl discussed some of the people being accused including grujah:

eHalcyon: hm. I don't see what Voltgloss is seeing in eHalc's posts. The cult-hunting instead of mafia-hunting? Slight scumread based on that. 
ehunt: Definite townread. FoS at his wagon: " Jotheonah, TheMunch, Eevee, O". Though that was really early.
Grujah: started the discussion of metas with his list. Then vanished. No read, but he's definitely lurky. Scumread then.
yuma: Started an O wagon based on a threat of his from a previous game. Voted cayvie because of misunderstanding her post, and this turned into a yuma wagon? Yuma explains but gets wagoned anyway. I *really* like his questions-for-lurkers thing. Townread.
Watno: was a little all over the place for a while; after rereading his posts I didn't actually get a good idea of who he suspected, other than I guess shraeye for a bit.  No read.
shraeye: kerfuffle with actilurking. He's on the yuma wagon for a bit and argues there. Joins the O wagon. Joins the O wagon. Joins the O wagon. Joins the O wagon. ...continues arguing for other people despite constantly voting O, which confuses me. He also skips between being sarcastic and abrasive and being helpful. Idunno, I get the impression that everyone thinks he's town, but I don't agree, it could be good Mafia play. Hedging by voting for O while arguing against others. Though I guess O attracted a lot of that. Either a scumread or a townread, not quite sure yet.
...
Or, maybe not. Vote: shraeye .

I don't get any read either way based off of that.

I'm pretty sure that this is what Munch is referring to when he says that our lynch wasn't so informational.  I mean, we can look all we want at people on/off wagon or whatever, but this is basically every interaction grujah had with various people on day 1. (I omitted all the glooble/grujah or grujah/eevee action since i'm pretty sure we should all have a "town read" on those dudes)

Summary: 
Here are people I saw interacting with Grujah: watno, Dsell, cuzz, cayvie, ehunt, ashersky, ftl, voltaire
These are the people I'm suspicious of because of grujah-interactions: ashersky (quite a bit), Dsell (slightly)
these are the people I have town reads on because of grujah-interactions: watno (medium-strong), cuzz (slight-med), voltaire (slight)
here's a weird interaction that I can't seem to figure out which way I lean on: cayvie
here's some interactions that felt purely neutral: ehunt, ftl

Based off this, I will
vote: ashersky

[Robz888]

Vote Count 2.3

ashersky (3) -- Cuzz, watno, shraeye
TheMunch (2) -- eHalcyon, ftl

Not Voting (16) -- sparky5856, Insomniac, Dsell, Jotheonah, Young Nick, Voltaire, Axxle, Cayvie, Yuma, theorel, Morgrim7, Galzria, Captain_Frisk, ehunt, TheMunch, ashersky

With 21 alive it takes 11 to lynch. Deadline is Sunday, October 15, at 10:00 PM (EDT).

[shraeye]

Hah, hilarity.  I was surprised to see that there were already votes on ashersky, I don't remember any cases on him yet.  Checking now.

[sparky5856]

Skimming ashersky's posts very quickly, haven't skimmed them all yet but I don't see a whole lot of beefy content from him, I saw a whole lot of "sorry that I haven't been here"; that reminds me of MY behavior when I'm scum.

[jotheonah]

Nice analysis shraeye! I don't think you're giving this part enough credit:

DSell is added to a suspicious list, based on watno's argument in #749.  What happened was in #745 Dsell analyzes Axxle's thin posting record saying that this was out of character to post such minor content.

Also, Dsell, dont you think the behaviour your pointing out with Axxle is even more extreme with Grujah?

So Dsell points out a common characteristic of Axxle but doesn't focus on Grujah enough to realize that that description also fits scum-grujah.  In #750 Dsell says he'll have to reread grujah.  Did that reread ever come?  I definitely missed it if it did.

Combined with his scummy offwagon, pro-Morgrim position at the end of the day, I think I'm comfortable with a Vote: Dsell. I see him scumhunting with a Grujah-shaped blindspot.

[eHalcyon]

@shraeye #1650

I don't put much stock in your point 1.  It's easy to call out lurking.  As scum, I generally would be very happy to point out how all of my teammates are suspicion in some way.  The key is not making a big deal of it.  Pointing it out when there is no momentum on a case gives an iota of town cred in my books.  Actually pushing through the case means more to me.

Point 2 is fair and point 3 is null.

I disagree with your thought that the lynch isn't informational.  Review my initial big post of today (#1585, and some in subsequent posts, especially #1590).  I point out lots of interactions, many of which you have missed.  And still almost nobody has commented on any of it.  You keep on accusing me of tunneling, but I respectfully disagree.  I picked on a bunch of players for scummy interaction with Grujah (that is, mild defenses and such) and suspicious behaviour when the wagon picked up speed (trying to slow down the wagon, trying to start a different one on a terrible target).

I am not at all tunnelling on Munch.  I looked at many players and Munch is simply the one who comes out looking scummiest.  shraeye, what is it about Munch's play that gives you a town read?  Galzria expressed town read on him on day 1 but now he says that town read is gone.  You say you have a town read on him too.  For what reason?  I don't see any.





I guess I'll respond to #1608 now, since people don't seem to want to speak up.



I'm not sure who was taking Munch's post as an "attack on the wagoners", but I did not go that far.  My point was that Munch was analysing the wagon and complaining there was no info to be gleaned... and that's wrong.  There is tons of info, and analysing the wagon is the wrong way to get at it.  You look around the wagon.  I already did a bunch of it.  But Munch's sentiment seems to be that those on the wagon should get no town cred at all, and that's plain backwards thinking.

I agree that the "he's not happy" argument is dumb.

On the third paragraph -- shraeye, you're wrong.  You just put together a post looking at the subtlety of Grujah's interaction with ashersky.  He voted and then unvoted, then later said that ashersky seemed less scummy on re-read.  You called it distancing, and said it was suspicious.  But note that Grujah didn't just say, "ashersky totally doesn't look scummy anymore!"  Grujah said "ashersky looks less scummy... only as scummy as other people who did slightly suspicious thing."

This is exactly what Munch was doing in the post I quoted.  "He doesn't seem so scummy, though I don't have a townread either".  It's distancing.  It's subtle defense, but it's still defense.

To give another example -- in MVI I was Mafia with Ozle and Captain_Frisk.  Early on day 2, Ozle came under fire.  It was pretty bad.  Did I jump to his defense?  No.  But I tried to ease suspicion on him.  I tried to make him seem less scummy, tried to come up with explanations for weird behaviour.  But I always prefaced that I wasn't sure, that I could be wrong.  I never expressed a strong town read on him, but I tried to cast doubt on arguments against him.  Closer to the end, when it really looked like Ozle was going to go down, I changed my tune.  But I was reluctant and I still acted very cautious about it.  (It all got very messy soon after, but that part of the story isn't relevant.)

Does all that sound familiar?  It should.  I'll let you connect the dots.



I take issue with your last paragraph.  Have you actually read through my posts, or are you just shying away because it's bigger than most?  I say again, I have not been tunnelling.  I have looked at many other players, presented plenty of info, and the result of my analysis leaves Munch looking the most suspicious.  He is not the only one I have mentioned.

I don't know why you are making it seem like Munch and I are at each others' throats.  As far as I can see, Munch has not levelled any case against me.  That's because there isn't one.  But there is a strong case against Munch, which I have presented.

Likewise, you call my arguments

the longest "you mischaracterized me" "No, you mischaracterized me" "NO, you mischaracterized me!" hissy-fit i've ever been a witness to.

I disagree completely.  Munch has not only mischaracterized me, he has also done the same to several other players.  Several times.  Even after they clarified themselves.  I also don't believe I have misrepresented Munch's statements.  Can you point out examples?  The only one I can think of is the Grujah defense, and I have explained clearly why I interpret it as such.




I am all for looking at other players.  I have provided a good starting point for examining the info we have based on the wagon.  People have not yet to take it up or pursue those cases.  For myself, I think there is an excellent case against Munch and I'm not going to drop it because someone says they have a town read on him without any backing reasons.

[Dsell]

Nice analysis shraeye! I don't think you're giving this part enough credit:

DSell is added to a suspicious list, based on watno's argument in #749.  What happened was in #745 Dsell analyzes Axxle's thin posting record saying that this was out of character to post such minor content.

Also, Dsell, dont you think the behaviour your pointing out with Axxle is even more extreme with Grujah?

So Dsell points out a common characteristic of Axxle but doesn't focus on Grujah enough to realize that that description also fits scum-grujah.  In #750 Dsell says he'll have to reread grujah.  Did that reread ever come?  I definitely missed it if it did.

Combined with his scummy offwagon, pro-Morgrim position at the end of the day, I think I'm comfortable with a Vote: Dsell. I see him scumhunting with a Grujah-shaped blindspot.

I actually don't remember if I did a reread of Grujah at that time. I know that I did later on. I remember what I was thinking in the case between Axxle and Grujah, though. I thought Axxle was more suspicious because it seemed that he was truly lurking, i.e. around but not posting much content, whereas it seemed that Grujah was just V/LA "lurking." I'm a lot more suspicious of the former, obviously.

[Young Nick]

Vote Count 2.3

ashersky (3) -- Cuzz, watno, shraeye
TheMunch (2) -- eHalcyon, ftl

Not Voting (16) -- sparky5856, Insomniac, Dsell, Jotheonah, Young Nick, Voltaire, Axxle, Cayvie, Yuma, ibgtennis, Morgrim7, Galzria, Captain_Frisk, ehunt, TheMunch, ashersky

With 21 alive it takes 11 to lynch. Deadline is Sunday, October 15, at 10:00 PM (EDT).

ibgtennis probably shouldn't be included in the vote count?

I agree with joth that Dsell deserves more investigation (PPE: he just posted something).

I disagree with those who say Munch doesn't look bad. Dude has been hedging like crazy, which is a newb-tell and a scum-tell. I understand we have other things to look at, but hedging deserves proper investigation.

[Galzria]

I've actually got a few hours to kill, so I'm doing a hyper-focused reread on a handful of people. If I don't get a post out today, I'll at least fill out a chart for me to have reads off of, so I can get a post out in the near future. People I want to focus on:

Dsell, Shraeye, Munch, Voltaire, Cayvie, Frisk, eHunt and Ashersky.

It's a mix of people that I either have scum reads on, or null reads on. It's not exhaustive by any means, and the people not listed aren't going under my radar - but they either haven't stuck out to me, or I don't recall them being heavily involved with Grujah, which is where my focus is around. If I have more time after hitting those 8, I'll move on to others - but that's where I'm starting (not in that order most likely).

My thoughts are that in a standard setup, scum make up 2/9 of the setup. Expanded out, that would be 6/27. We had 25 players, so 6 still seems reasonable. If there are multiple scum teams, that number could certainly go up (because scum teams have a history of blowing each other up), and I certainly think there is going to be a SK. ((Note: I know for a fact that Robz has deleted/modified posts from pre-game. Does anybody else recall him making a statement that it was likely to be one large ~6 man scumteam, and that he didn't want to do multiple? Or was I just dreaming that up?)). Either way, I'm going to go off a rough estimate of 7 scum in 25 players. We now have 3 town dead, and 1 scum. That leaves me with about 6 scum in 21 players left alive. Given the splits we have on the Grujah wagon, I think we can get ourselves pretty good odds on finding another scum.

[Robz888]

Galzria: The only significant edit I made to the intro posts was to change the order of night events resolutions (Items went from happening last to happening first). I never gave public info that would suggest how many scum teams there are, or of what size they would be. I suspect you are recalling a conversation, possibly in the MIX thread after the game ended, where some people weighed in on whether 2 scum teams, or 1 big scum team, would be more fun for future large games.

[Galzria]

Galzria: The only significant edit I made to the intro posts was to change the order of night events resolutions (Items went from happening last to happening first). I never gave public info that would suggest how many scum teams there are, or of what size they would be. I suspect you are recalling a conversation, possibly in the MIX thread after the game ended, where some people weighed in on whether 2 scum teams, or 1 big scum team, would be more fun for future large games.

That's possible. Like I said, that particular reference I wasn't sure about. I just know that there are a handful of pre-game posts that you made that got deleted, and then put into the original post in condensed form. Some of what was in the original posts got left out of being added in though, so I wasn't sure if that had been part of it. You're probably correct that the particular conversation I'm recalling came from somewhere else though (or I just imagined the whole thing. Too much Mafia. >.>)

[shraeye]

Imma try to make this short so that we can get past this issue and move onto real ones.

@shraeye #1650
I disagree with your thought that the lynch isn't informational. 

you misread "I'm pretty sure that this is what Munch is referring to when he says that our lynch wasn't so informational".

Review my initial big post of today (#1585, and some in subsequent posts, especially #1590).  I point out lots of interactions, many of which you have missed.  And still almost nobody has commented on any of it. 

#1590 was Munch's post? I missed those interactions since I was going only off of my summary document, which was written pre-crunch time.  To comment outloud on your post: YoungNick's actions seem suspicious but feel like a drop in the bucket; this does put him in slight scum territory though.  I did totally miss the points you made about Dsell and ashersky, which make them more suspicious to me than they became through #1650.  Ashersky's only a bit, and Dsell's a lot.  Now I'm considering a Dsell vote instead.  I'm unsure how much the ftl-style analysis will gain us, but I can consider it as well.  I still don't understand the Morg-meta argument, if you want to issue me a pass, whatever, but I fully take responsibility for my suspicions on him, which still exist.

I am not at all tunnelling on Munch.  I looked at many players and Munch is simply the one who comes out looking scummiest.  shraeye, what is it about Munch's play that gives you a town read?  Galzria expressed town read on him on day 1 but now he says that town read is gone.  You say you have a town read on him too.  For what reason?  I don't see any.

I realize you are looking at other people too, but really a disproportionate amount of time seems focused on Munch.  Like every post where you write up a list of people, Munch features.  And he gets Munch-only posts as well.  I can believe that you aren't trying to tunnel, but let me assure you that from the outside it definitely looks that way to me.  Munch has been reading the entire game like a new town player.  He has tried to be helpful, but gets derailed whenever suspicion gets thrown at him.  It's hard in our first Mafia game not to worry about getting mislynched when a few votes get placed on you; Munch doesn't seem super great with his words, and often stumbles in his defenses.  People jump on those stumbles as "scumslips" and create more suspicion.  So Munch defends more and makes more verbal stumbles.  So the cycle continues.  Now people point to his "consistent weird vibe".  But looking at all his arguments and trying to make sense of them, I don't see him ever giving any reasons that are scummy reasons.  Just honest reasons that are poorly explained.  I've tried to clarify his posts as I townily interpret them from time to time, and have picked up the "scumbuddy" title for that, ok cool.  But nothing Munch has done has deviated at all from the newbie-tries-hard-but-isn't-that-articulate-townie.  Our suspicion of him have caused him to spend a disproportionate amount of time defending himself, so now the whole town is divided into those who believe him and those who don't.  I suggest giving him a small 2 RL-day pass, see what sort of content/analysis he can add when he's not getting suspected 4+ times per page, and then decide later in day 2 if we still have the same read on him.  Even if nothing changes, at least we'll have better reasons for suspecting him than "defends badly".

I'm not sure who was taking Munch's post as an "attack on the wagoners", but I did not go that far.

definitely yuma, and maybe joth.

On the third paragraph -- shraeye, you're wrong.  You just put together a post looking at the subtlety of Grujah's interaction with ashersky.  He voted and then unvoted, then later said that ashersky seemed less scummy on re-read.  You called it distancing, and said it was suspicious.  But note that Grujah didn't just say, "ashersky totally doesn't look scummy anymore!"  Grujah said "ashersky looks less scummy... only as scummy as other people who did slightly suspicious thing."
This is exactly what Munch was doing in the post I quoted.  "He doesn't seem so scummy, though I don't have a townread either".  It's distancing.  It's subtle defense, but it's still defense.

The reason this makes me suspect ashersky but not Munch is that Grujah is known scum and Munch is not.  So "unknown-alignment new-player hedges on a position over grujah is much less of an issue for me than known-scum grujah hedges on his position over ashersky.  The part I've bolded from your quote is actually one of the main reasons that I suspect asher even more!  Grujah toned down his "scumread" on ashersky, but didn't remove it.  So they're still "enemies" but don't worry because asher isn't bad enough for anyone to vote for.

Likewise, you call my arguments

the longest "you mischaracterized me" "No, you mischaracterized me" "NO, you mischaracterized me!" hissy-fit i've ever been a witness to.

I disagree completely.  Munch has not only mischaracterized me, he has also done the same to several other players.  Several times.  Even after they clarified themselves.  I also don't believe I have misrepresented Munch's statements.  Can you point out examples?  The only one I can think of is the Grujah defense, and I have explained clearly why I interpret it as such.

You're allowed to disagree completely, but I still believe everything I said.  I already pointed out examples and you can search for them.  I'm uninterested in posting them again, because my goal is not just to "prove you are wrong" or "paint you with suspicion".  I don't care if you think you're tunnelling Munch or not, or if you think he's got a case on you or not.  I still stand by my statement that you are both town.

This is beginning to look like the point-by-point absurdity that you and Munch were posting back and forth on day 1.  You're allowed to respond if you want, but don't be surprised if I drop this fruitless debate in favor of continuing actual scumhunting.

tl;dr.  Well do it.  I'm funny sometimes, and cogent often.  Here's the sparknotes anyway:
shray find's eHalc's case on asher/dsell good--scumreads on both.  youngNick less so.  shraeye defends Munch again. gets bored of continuing town-on-town arguments since shray still thinks eHalc is town.

[eHalcyon]

Your tone in that post sure seems like you're agreeing with Munch:

I'm pretty sure that this is what Munch is referring to when he says that our lynch wasn't so informational.  I mean, we can look all we want at people on/off wagon or whatever, but this is basically every interaction grujah had with various people on day 1. (I omitted all the glooble/grujah or grujah/eevee action since i'm pretty sure we should all have a "town read" on those dudes)

But if that's not what you meant, then mea culpa.

Oops, not #1590 but #1604, which was a response to 1590.  I assumed you had continued updating your personal document -- you implied it in your post when you said "this is basically every interaction grujah had with various people on day 1".

So you are giving Munch the newbie pass.  I suppose that's fair.  But I've kept that in mind myself and it doesn't cover enough, imo.  I also don't think he has spent so much time defending himself, but whatever.  He already got plenty of days pass from Mafia Day 1, so I don't see why we should give him a longer pass.  Suspicion on him does not stop him from making other analyses.  He already had a go at it earlier, though I stated why I felt the analysis was going in the wrong direction.  I would still be interested in his opinions on others (likewise, I am interested on opinions from everyone else).  And the case on Munch is much more than "defends badly" -- if that's all you're getting out of my arguments, you are not reading them at all.  It's much more about behaviour.

The reason this makes me suspect ashersky but not Munch is that Grujah is known scum and Munch is not.  So "unknown-alignment new-player hedges on a position over grujah is much less of an issue for me than known-scum grujah hedges on his position over ashersky.  The part I've bolded from your quote is actually one of the main reasons that I suspect asher even more!  Grujah toned down his "scumread" on ashersky, but didn't remove it.  So they're still "enemies" but don't worry because asher isn't bad enough for anyone to vote for.

It works both ways, shraeye.  But the point was that Munch DID defend Grujah.  It was not an overt defense, but it was a defense.  Whether you find it suspicious or not is up to you.  From my perspective, it looks a lot like how I tried to play scum in MVI.




Look, I think the biggest problem I'm having today is this idea that the wagon on Grujah is not useful.  Several people have complained about how it lacks info (the players that stand out on this front are Ins and Munch, and you've hinted at that feeling too -- can't remember if others expressed similar sentiments).  That is so, so very wrong.  The wagon gives TONS of info, and it's weird that players who had been pro-info lynch are not now contributing to interpreting all this data, or looking at the least productive areas (i.e. "who had the weakest reason for successfully lynching scum?").




Seriously though, why are so few others giving analyses?  Busy IRL?  It's like everyone is lurking even though there is lots to talk about now.  If it were only a few of you, I'd find it suspicious.  As it is, it's just very frustrating.

[ehunt]

Seriously though, why are so few others giving analyses?  Busy IRL?  It's like everyone is lurking even though there is lots to talk about now.  If it were only a few of you, I'd find it suspicious.  As it is, it's just very frustrating.

For me -

1. Yuma took a useful leadership role yesterday and has been largely absent (for previously explained IRL reasons) today.

2. Digging up cases on the players I don't understand is such a chore and I'm feeling lazy. A consequence of the laziness is that it's very tempting just to vote for one of the more vocal off-wagoners, i.e. munch or shraeye, especially because I'm pretty convinced of ehalc's townitude, but I feel like on principle this is a mistake (it gives the lurking off-wagoners a pass). Anyway, vote: Insomniac for now  (my case is above); I will do my homework on munch and shraeye over the weekend, and then figure out the others.

3. Yesterday I had extra information to go on (I was pretty certain Glooble was town because of the wine-business). Today I have none.

4. I get way more into the game when I am on the hotseat. (I am not saying y'all should put me on the hotseat).

Really 2 and 4 (laziness and apathy) are biggest. Sorry.

[eHalcyon]

Another reason why it might seem like I am on Munch's case all the time is simply because others are not offering cases of their own.  I have gone forth and examined, and I have presented a case.  It would be excellent if others could go forth and examine and present their cases, so we have more things to discuss.  Props to those who have done so already (ehunt has a bit of a case on Ins, shraeye posted some thoughts above -- did anyone else really make a case?) but there needs to be more discussion.

[shraeye]

Props to those who have done so already (ehunt has a bit of a case on Ins, shraeye posted some thoughts above -- did anyone else really make a case?) but there needs to be more discussion.

Word.  I'm going to take a break in posting until I hear more arguments from more people.  Off the top of my head, I don't recall much Axxle, Voltaire, watno, morgrim.  Maybe they said something i missed, maybe there's others i missed.  But hey, you four, make a case against someone.

[Galzria]

It's interesting doing this reread by spreadsheet. I won't be able to post it, but if others wish to follow this design, I find it quite helpful:

Across the top I list each player, with their names colored to match faction association (So O/Eevee/Glooble/myself are Green, Grujah is red). People I'm suspicious of I make orange.

Underneath each persons name I list their posts by #. I fill the background of each cell using light red if the post associated with known scum, light green if associated with known town, and for those I'm researching, light orange if the post just felt scummy to me.

At the end, I've got a visual representation of how people have interacted with known alignments, down to the posts in which they did so. I could probably take it a step further to bold post #'s that contain votes, so that's easyto reference as well.

It's not perfect, and it takes a little time to produce, but it's leaving me feeling good about where people stand and how I feel about them. Unfortunately, I've been dragged away by the GF, so it's still a work in progress for me. But I encourage others to do something similar. In a game this size it's really helping me sort things out.

[Insomniac]

Seriously though, why are so few others giving analyses?  Busy IRL?  It's like everyone is lurking even though there is lots to talk about now.  If it were only a few of you, I'd find it suspicious.  As it is, it's just very frustrating.

For me -

1. Yuma took a useful leadership role yesterday and has been largely absent (for previously explained IRL reasons) today.

2. Digging up cases on the players I don't understand is such a chore and I'm feeling lazy. A consequence of the laziness is that it's very tempting just to vote for one of the more vocal off-wagoners, i.e. munch or shraeye, especially because I'm pretty convinced of ehalc's townitude, but I feel like on principle this is a mistake (it gives the lurking off-wagoners a pass). Anyway, vote: Insomniac for now  (my case is above); I will do my homework on munch and shraeye over the weekend, and then figure out the others.

3. Yesterday I had extra information to go on (I was pretty certain Glooble was town because of the wine-business). Today I have none.

4. I get way more into the game when I am on the hotseat. (I am not saying y'all should put me on the hotseat).

Really 2 and 4 (laziness and apathy) are biggest. Sorry.

eHunt - Any chance to vote Insomniac is a must for eHunt. I've been talking eHunt so I don't see your case on me.

[Galzria]

Is it just me, or is Voltaire's last post on Sep. 25th (#1371)? The lynch happened in #1506 on the 26th. We unlocked on the 30th. We're now closing on 4 days since unlock. Is he under V/LA, or do we need a prod (or have I just missed him somehow? I'm searching by Username: Voltaire)?

[Captain_Frisk]

Maybe I am crossing the streams (on phone) but did he place out? 

[Galzria]

Maybe I am crossing the streams (on phone) but did he place out?

Voltgloss was replaced by Sparky.
IbgTennis was replaced by Theorel.

Was Voltaire replaced out too and I missed it?

[cayvie]

he replaced out in RMM3

[cayvie]

i have a few theories as to why this day seems to be going more slowly

1) we lynched scum d1, so the scum are being extra cautious

2) we lynched scum d1! this ruins our usual D2 routine of attacking the players who were most vocally pushing for whichever townie got lynched d1.

3) d1 is dauntingly large to analyze. i'm gonna try a full reread tonight, with context. but it's big.

[yuma]

1. Yuma took a useful leadership role yesterday and has been largely absent (for previously explained IRL reasons) today.

Yes, I am still very busy (starting rotations and our basement apartment flooded! super gross), but am able to keep up with reading new posts, but dont' really have time to go back and reread. Hopefully I will be able to do so over the weekend.

I will certainly respond to anything specifically addressed to me, or alluding to me as other cases have been, asap. But solid analysis may be a way off yet. However, given how successful our soft deadline was previously, I think it may be wise to implement another one. Yes we are down 4 people, but it will still be difficult to come to a solid majority with such a large group.

[Axxle]

I haven't posted much at all Day 2.  I'll reread at least Day 2 and get back to you guys in a few hours.