Fugazi Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 .... To "ally" themselves to scum as a sting. Um... yeah. Besides, a jailkeeper is normally used to hide the identity of scum, in my experience. Unknown certainly means neutral -- like in the simulation. Or are you thinking that there might be a third faction involved?
Rufus Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Why are you so convinced that Wright was neutral. He was reported as "Unknown". Could this not have been a jailkeeper and Wright was actually town? Um... yeah. Besides, a jailkeeper is normally used to hide the identity of scum, in my experience. Unknown certainly means neutral -- like in the simulation. Do you mean a janitor? A jailkeeper is a protector/blocker. I'm not sure the admiral would have bothered with all that 'leaving this vessel' stuff if Wright had been janitored.
AwesomeStar Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Personally although I also recognise the points made against Hornby I have to say that he has presented a pretty solid case when it comes to Holloway. I don't wish to split the vote here but I can't help but think that we should perhaps go along with the theory. If Holloway turns out to be town, then we all know who to turn too tomorrow. Vote: Ensign Robert Holloway (WaterbrickDown)
fhomess Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Do you mean a janitor? A jailkeeper is a protector/blocker. Yes. Because as far as I was led to believe Wright claimed neutral himself. Is that not true? Why would a townie claim neutral to anyone? Ah yes, that's what he claied as reported to me by McAndrews. Or are you thinking that there might be a third faction involved? I wouldn't expect a third faction to be nameless as "Unknown". One thing I will say is that the eagerness to lynch a claimed protector is a bit disturbing to me. Those of you voting for Hornby don't think we should investigate him first? We still have ways to validate his claim, no?
Fugazi Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 One thing I will say is that the eagerness to lynch a claimed protector is a bit disturbing to me. Those of you voting for Hornby don't think we should investigate him first? We still have ways to validate his claim, no? I think that a number of credible arguments have been made against Hornby. If all scum had to do to avoid lynching was to claim a role, they would always win. Of course, were it possible to validate Hornby's claim it would be much simpler. How do you suggest that we verify he's truly a protector? I wish he had been investigated already. Would you rather have him investigated tonight while we think about other candidates? Who do you think we should look at?
Bob Posted August 3, 2012 Author Posted August 3, 2012 Vote Tally: Ensign Holloway / Waterbrick Down: 3 (Shadows, Dragonator, AwesomeStar) Lieutenant Hornby / Shadows : 6 (Rufus, Capt.JohnPaul, Waterbrick Down, Fugazi, Masked Builder, swils) 12 hours left. Since there are eleven players, 6 votes are needed for a lynch.
Waterbrick Down Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 One thing I will say is that the eagerness to lynch a claimed protector is a bit disturbing to me. Those of you voting for Hornby don't think we should investigate him first? We still have ways to validate his claim, no? Truthfully, I think the main crux of the argument is built upon what happened night 4. As you said, either the scum converted on night 4 or Hornby is the actual town-protector. There is no other way around this fact, no matter how scummy we think Hornby's jumping the gun against York is, or his "apparent" slip-up in the day thread, or the matter involving Gordon role-copping Hornby, we have to deal with the results of that night. I will admit my original vote against Hornby was made by giving more credit to these arguments and than the risk of losing a town PR, but I really don't know where else we can go with this. There is still my process of elimination theory, but the comment has been brought up about William's in-the-dark attitude and Hornby has claimed protector.
swils Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Okay then, let's get into this. Why did I pop in to vote for Hornby when there's still plenty of time? Simple! I had a few spare minutes to check in and did have reasonable suspicions about Hornby (see below), but didn't have time to elaborate on them right then. On the other I didn't want to give Holloway another hollow (heh) point against me, in the form of 'voting late' or bandwagoning, or similar. That explains the timing, I hope, before anyone asks. Now, as for the reasoning: I can understand and appreciate the cases that Hornby has made against Holloway and Jones. For a fairly important town role to shift hands midway through this crisis, it's ever so slightly suspicious, moreso when none of the results can actually be confirmed without having to kill off a supposed Loyalist. Then there's the alternate source of the leak (from Hornby's view), Holloway, whose fishing the other day warranted not only my, but plenty of others' suspicions. And when you consider that Holloway tried to have Wilder kill off Hornby, well, it doesn't look good for Holloway. But, maybe, just maybe, Holloway had the right idea. Of all the many roles a purist could claim, it seems to me that the protector is, by far, the easiest to emulate. Hypothetically speaking, for Hornby to maintain the guise of protector each day, all he'd have to do would be to make sure that his team's killer doesn't target the person he is supposed to protect that night. It'd be as easy as that. Person lives? No reason to question his claim! There are ways to test it, sure. Maybe he's supposed to protect Wilder one night, but can't/doesn't, and Wilder tries to kill da bomb. There's some ways to get around that one though (I was blocked! comes to mind). Even if he gets exposed through the previous situation, the town had to lose their vig to prove it. Unless Hornby is the Purists' killer, then that trade was horribly tipped in the Purists' favor. What if Hornby is instructed to protect a specific player, but to test his role, Wilder chooses to also try to kill that person without telling Hornby? There's very few outcomes which could be beneficial for the Loyalists. It really is just a near-perfect claim for a Purist to make. Especially at this point, it will be very difficult to verify the claim in any sort of efficient manner. An investigation might not even really help; what if Hornby is the godfather? It's still as simple as him telling his team "Okay, I'm supposed to protect _____ tonight, so don't kill them." I'm very open to being convinced otherwise, but of the three potential leaks (assuming that Wilder isn't sabotaging his own agenda), this seems like the least stretch of a case to be made. Holloway, let me turn back to you. I still don't understand why you're jumping down my throat. You don't seem to have any tangible evidence against me, just your personal analysis method. I could almost just swap your name for my own in your accusations thus far and they'd still 'work', just against you instead of me. While just the other day you were complaining about being a vanilla townie out of the loop, it seems as though you knew a lot more than you were letting on (and that seems to have gotten you entangled in a fair bit of trouble, what with this mole business). But now that there's actually a fair bit of information out in the open, I really can't see the rationale behind your case. It's like you've got a bad case of tunnel vision. As has been mentioned, there's a chance that a conversion happened on N4. How many people on your list would that affect, how many investigation results could have been nullified by that? You don't have to actually answer that or tell me, but think about it. And there's the chance that one of those confirmed loyalists is actually just the godfather who investigated as town (I'm pretty sure that's been mentioned before, but it bears repeating). For you to ignore the fact that a reasonable chunk of your list might well be un-cleared by two likely scenarios, just to bear down on Hornby and I? And to say that I'm the better target just because I'm vanilla? I'm not trying to discredit your suspicions, you're entitled to them. But please, help me understand why you're so hellbent on me, beyond just "my analysis method", so that I can try to alleviate some of your concern.
Waterbrick Down Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Holloway, let me turn back to you. I still don't understand why you're jumping down my throat. You don't seem to have any tangible evidence against me, just your personal analysis method. I could almost just swap your name for my own in your accusations thus far and they'd still 'work', just against you instead of me. While just the other day you were complaining about being a vanilla townie out of the loop, it seems as though you knew a lot more than you were letting on (and that seems to have gotten you entangled in a fair bit of trouble, what with this mole business). But now that there's actually a fair bit of information out in the open, I really can't see the rationale behind your case. It's like you've got a bad case of tunnel vision. As has been mentioned, there's a chance that a conversion happened on N4. How many people on your list would that affect, how many investigation results could have been nullified by that? You don't have to actually answer that or tell me, but think about it. And there's the chance that one of those confirmed loyalists is actually just the godfather who investigated as town (I'm pretty sure that's been mentioned before, but it bears repeating). For you to ignore the fact that a reasonable chunk of your list might well be un-cleared by two likely scenarios, just to bear down on Hornby and I? And to say that I'm the better target just because I'm vanilla? I'm not trying to discredit your suspicions, you're entitled to them. But please, help me understand why you're so hellbent on me, beyond just "my analysis method", so that I can try to alleviate some of your concern. My point on focusing upon you was not based upon eleminating who was scum, but who was the scum killer. My method verified two players as town and our investigator received two townie results, thus yielding 4 players who in my opinion are not the killer: Myself, York, Francis, and Harper, also remember god-father does not equal scum killer. McAndrew's blocking results further cleared, Vanderbilt, Daly, Rockford, and Wheeler from being the scum killer as the scum kill still went through on their respective nights, note Wheeler was blocked last night. Wilder claimed vig, Jones claimed investigator, and now Hornby protector. You are the only one who is left. Godfather or conversion, does not make a difference, neither of them create a scum killer. After a lot of thinking, the hinge of the argument against Hornby is there had to be a conversion. I'm not willing to bet the town's survival on it, call me chicken, call me signing my own death warrent, but I'd rather live by the maxim of a once great crew member, "verify, verify, verify". Unvote: Lieutenant Hornby (Shadows)
Dragonator Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 I strongly disagree with those voting against Hornby. I do not think enough thought has been given to the reasons behind that. Remembering that some of those currently discussing the accusations are themselves scum, I find it interesting that a sudden turn towards Hornby has been made after a vote was tendered against Holloway, particularly when this turn was made by Holloway himself. Personally I still feel that his actions raise far more suspicion that those of Hornby, particularly in light of the fact that there is evidence that Hornby is our town protector, a role which would be disappointing to lose on top of losing a town member. Personally my vote will remain for the person I find most suspicious and feel we should be voting out. For the time being that is Holloway. We cannot risk losing our town protector on the vague possibility that there was a conversion, when there isn't even any evidence to suggest conversion is possible. Remember that conversion isn't a normal thing for groups like the Purists to be able to do, and none of the listed scum roles from the simulator was "converter".
fhomess Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 I'm going to go ahead and Vote: Ensign Robert Holloway (Waterbrick Down). In my mind Holloway has done everything he can to appear townie. He's worked hard to share information, he's done his fair share of things to try to make theories that appear town and look like they're helping. That said, I think we need to lynch someone and when I come back to everything, the simplest solution is that there's no conversion, the scum knew that Rockford was the target on night 4, and they failed to kill me because they thought the protection had been switched. Maybe Holloway himself was getting ready to pull the trigger. I encourage those of you on the fence to vote or switch your votes to Holloway so that we can have something productive happen today in terms of moving our knowledge forward.
fhomess Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Crap... I was doing this without my notes and forgot the investigator result on Holloway coming up town. So... Unvote: Ensign Robert Holloway (Waterbrick Down) Vote: Ensign Allison Williams (swils) Instead, I'm willing to go ahead and test Holloway's theory by voting for his target. I don't want to go against the investigator result at this point and I'm not yet sold on Hornby as I said above. If we follow his theory that Williams is the only non-confirmed player who hasn't been blocked, then there's a good chance he's the killer.
Fugazi Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Is there an answer to this? Wait, you're saying that McAndrews blocked Rockford on Night 3 (when Gordon claimed that he was blocked) but we were also told that Rockford was blocked on Night 4 when there was no night kill. Yet... McAndrews was killed on Night 5, so when was Wheeler blocked then?
Rufus Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Is there an answer to this? McAndrew's blocking results further cleared, Vanderbilt, Daly, Rockford, and Wheeler from being the scum killer as the scum kill still went through on their respective nights, note Wheeler was blocked last night. It's debatable whether McAndrews's block of Wheeler would have worked, as he was killed that night. I wouldn't clear Wheeler from suspicion personally. I've been suspicious of Wheeler for a long time; and she's been strangely silent today. It occurs to me that, although Jones isn't confirmed himself, he does seem to have some faith in his own results, or at least some of them. We now know that that the scum knew the identity of the investigator on day 4, which poses the question: why is the investigator still alive? My best guess would be that it is because it's to the scum's advantage to keep him alive, at least for the moment. This would imply that something about the investigator's results is beneficial to scum. There's this conversation from today: I disagree, while the investigator may have gotten only town results so far, that is no reason to believe that they are a scum just lying to protect their team. Personally, I trust Holloway, there are a few other members I am suspicious of. Interesting. I don't recall saying that only getting town results means the investigator is scum, just that it was unfortunate. As a matter of fact, I believe I made it clear that it only meant that they couldn't be completely verified yet and I also made it clear that they were potentially too important to take a risk killing. Did you actually read what I said before the knee-jerk reaction? I'm well aware of your suspicions, you suspect one person the investigator claims is town and not another. It's a little confusing and completely impossible to justify. What isn't impossibly to justify is that the investigator and Holloway are the only two people who knew the vig's target the night he was blocked, so one or the other is scum. Would you prefer we target the investigator today? I think that would be incredibly foolish. Jones trusts his result on Holloway. The implication is that he doesn't trust the other result. Why? I'd be interested to know what led Jones to choose his target on night 4, and whether anyone influenced that decision (and if so, who). While we're at it, I'd also like to ask Hornby whom he protected on nights 1-3, and why.
Inconspicuous Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 It's debatable whether McAndrews's block of Wheeler would have worked, as he was killed that night. I wouldn't clear Wheeler from suspicion personally. I've been suspicious of Wheeler for a long time; and she's been strangely silent today. As I've told Wilder in private, I was not informed of a block, but then again I have no action to block. The fast-paced conversation has made this day very difficult to follow. It's likely that this difficulty in choosing a lynch candidate means we're on the right track and someone is pushing back against us.
swils Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 My point on focusing upon you was not based upon eleminating who was scum, but who was the scum killer. Ah, okay, I must have missed the emphasis on that. My method verified two players as town and our investigator received two townie results, thus yielding 4 players who in my opinion are not the killer: Myself, York, Francis, and Harper, also remember god-father does not equal scum killer.McAndrew's blocking results further cleared, Vanderbilt, Daly, Rockford, and Wheeler from being the scum killer as the scum kill still went through on their respective nights, note Wheeler was blocked last night. Wilder claimed vig, Jones claimed investigator, and now Hornby protector. You are the only one who is left. Godfather or conversion, does not make a difference, neither of them create a scum killer. Humor me... what if I was making that same statement about you? In my opinion, I am town, and since you weren't blocked, you could very well be the only one who is left, yes (well, alongside me, I suppose)? As per the godfather theory, the investigation would turn out as a Loyalist, so your clearance by investigation would be nulled. Additionally, if you combine the list of Purist roles from the simulation, provided by Burbank a few days back, with the fact that Wheeler claimed he was the godfather in the simulation, well, there's a distinct lack of non-PR roles in that Purist line up, so it seems unreasonable to assume that the godfather couldn't be the killer, right?
Dragonator Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Instead, I'm willing to go ahead and test Holloway's theory by voting for his target. I don't want to go against the investigator result at this point and I'm not yet sold on Hornby as I said above. If we follow his theory that Williams is the only non-confirmed player who hasn't been blocked, then there's a good chance he's the killer. See, the problem I have with this theory is that it has cleared everyone except one person, yet there are still three scum left. That doesn't add up at all to me, and I dislike that we're so ready to follow a supposed "theory" that is clearly not accurate just on that fact alone. I mean come on, we may as well be following the Rule of Threes. Did you consider that Holloway might be the godfather? Investigation results are not a 100% given fact that can be completely relied upon, this has been proven time and time again.
Shadows Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 It occurs to me that, although Jones isn't confirmed himself, he does seem to have some faith in his own results, or at least some of them. We now know that that the scum knew the identity of the investigator on day 4, which poses the question: why is the investigator still alive? My best guess would be that it is because it's to the scum's advantage to keep him alive, at least for the moment. This would imply that something about the investigator's results is beneficial to scum. I've wondered that myself, but at the same time, they knew the vig before I was protecting him and the blocker before he died, so I have yet to understand what the scum are doing in their target selection. Jones trusts his result on Holloway. The implication is that he doesn't trust the other result. Why? I was directly told that and couldn't make any sense of it either. While we're at it, I'd also like to ask Hornby whom he protected on nights 1-3, and why. Fair enough and harmless. I've actually been surprised that no one has asked previously. To make it easy, here are the actual PMs for each night, along with some commentary. Night 1 Action I would like to protect ... ugh, the whole lot of them look like either scum or useless space debris. I can't risk protecting Dragonator, they'll probably kill him. Hmmm... Protect Hinckley. And watch what he does. And go through his stuff. And bug his cabin. Seriously. At this point, I obviously had no means of identifying a good target to protect, so I was hoping to get some kind of investigative side-effect in the process. I've done it in previous games, but it didn't work here (and the reply was funny, I'll post it after this game of life). Night 2 Action Protect First Officer Commander Cameron Walters (Scouty) This was my first real alliance. I'd gotten the impression from his posting that we were beginning to see things the same way and I hoped it was an indication that he was town. He was. His death still annoys me tremendously. Night 3 Action Protect Chief Astrophysicist Lieutenant Arnold Daly (Rufus) For the life of me, I can't remember why, but I think it was something you said that day that made me think you could be trusted. Night 4 Action Protect Chief Engineer Lieutenant Commander Matthew Wilder (fhomess) This is the point where I finally started to learn some of the structure of the town, and the day that he announced his role to the world, a decision I was not involved in, nor one that I approved of. All the more reason to protect him, though, so that's what I did. Night 5 Action Protect Chief Engineer Lieutenant Commander Matthew Wilder (fhomess) Nothing really changed here, there was no reason to stop protecting him. And that is the summary of my nights. All returned a successful result with no details, leading me to believe that I was never blocked or interfered with in any way. so it seems unreasonable to assume that the godfather couldn't be the killer, right? It wouldn't be the first time that happened in one of these situations.
swils Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 It wouldn't be the first time that happened in one of these situations. Sorry, between your wording and mine, I'm not entirely sure which way you're leaning/suggesting. Could I pester you to clarify what exactly it wouldn't be the first time for?
swils Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Oh my, I just re-checked myself and saw that the list of simulation scum, as presented to us, included both a godfather and a killer. I guess you can discount that point. Well, maybe not entirely discount disregard it, but at least not consider it a solid part of the point I'm trying to make.
Shadows Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Sorry, between your wording and mine, I'm not entirely sure which way you're leaning/suggesting. Could I pester you to clarify what exactly it wouldn't be the first time for? I was saying that situations have existed where the godfather also had an action that could include killer. Oh my, I just re-checked myself and saw that the list of simulation scum, as presented to us, included both a godfather and a killer. I guess you can discount that point. Well, maybe not entirely discount disregard it, but at least not consider it a solid part of the point I'm trying to make. But this is not the simulation, it's sort of a remix of things, so there's no telling what we can expect and we would be wise to stop trying to use the simulation as a guide to the present situation.
swils Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 I was saying that situations have existed where the godfather also had an action that could include killer. Okay, so you and I were on the same page at that point. Then I had to go back and double check my facts and get myself all confused, heh. But this is not the simulation, it's sort of a remix of things, so there's no telling what we can expect and we would be wise to stop trying to use the simulation as a guide to the present situation. Using the simulation-godfather-claim and the reported scum-list from the simulation was just my response to his assumption that Godfather or conversion, does not make a difference, neither of them create a scum killer. As he was saying that godfather must be mutually exclusive to killer. Of course, since it turns out I was remembering things wrong, I think we should definitely stop using information from the simulation to judge the current situation! Yup! Really though, I still don't think we should assume that a town investigation (read: godfather) is 100% proof that the investigated isn't a killer.
Dragonator Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 It would be worth noting that one of the two scum we have killed already could have been the original killer, and the action has since been passed on. These sorts of things are never easy to "calculate", there are always unknown factors.
swils Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 It would be worth noting that one of the two scum we have killed already could have been the original killer, and the action has since been passed on. These sorts of things are never easy to "calculate", there are always unknown factors. Didn't even think of that, but with the investigator role supposedly changing hands, I definitely wouldn't rule this out as a possibility, either.
Rufus Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Fair enough and harmless. I've actually been surprised that no one has asked previously. To make it easy, here are the actual PMs for each night, along with some commentary. Thanks. I can't argue with that. I think if you were scum and faking these, it would have taken longer than half an hour or so. The timestamps match perfectly with the end of the day threads, and if you had edited the PMs from a scum action, I doubt they'd have been sent so near to the end of the day. If they're fakes, they are brilliant fakes, but I don't think they're fakes. I'm glad I asked you now. I'm only suprised you didn't bring this forward sooner. Unvote: Thomas Hornby (Shadows) For the life of me, I can't remember why, but I think it was something you said that day that made me think you could be trusted. Now we have a slight problem. For myself, I'm not keen on lynching Holloway, as he has a town result for him, and his comments in the day threads look town to me. There have been allegations that he's behaved oddly behind the scenes, but as I have not been privy to these discussions, I can't attach any suspicion to them. I'm not entirely convinced there's anything against Williams, except the possibility of her being the scum killer; and would include Wheeler in the list of suspects for this role. There is the argument that the scum kill might have changed hands, but we can be fairly sure Scumba was indeed a role cop (a very difficult role to fake), and I still think it's likely Rockford was the scum blocker. If this is true, that leaves just Williams and Wheeler (assuming McAndrew's block didn't go through because he was killed). I'd support a lynch on either; though at this late stage it might be difficult to achieve.
Recommended Posts