M1034: SOLE SURVIVOR: GAME THREAD

[damo666]

@Damo:

From your Bozosurvey; which players voted *differently* to their survey response?

Three out of the 4 Food voters {darg, dip, sf} went against there previous declaration.

So did I (ghug=>red) and food (darg=> ghug).

Red (ghug) hadn't made a prior declaration.

Bona was locked in on ghug early.

Only two players stuck with their declaration; ghug on food and Jamie on Dip.

Observations anyone?

[dargorygel]

@Damo:

From your Bozosurvey; which players voted *differently* to their survey response?

Three out of the 4 Food voters {darg, dip, sf} went against there previous declaration.

So did I (ghug=>red) and food (darg=> ghug).

Red (ghug) hadn't made a prior declaration.

Bona was locked in on ghug early.

Only two players stuck with their declaration; ghug on food and Jamie on Dip.

Observations anyone?

I did not see the %%votes as promises. But as declarations of where we were at that point. Any more than having a 'first vote' be a declaration. It was a way for us to feel like we're still able to vote as the day progressed.

I wondered if the timing had something to do with it, as well. But really, more voting took place later anyway. Regardless of $$ breaking.

I voted off my $$ vote because the situation changed.

I was protecting my top town read, ghug, because it felt to me like he was being voted for iffy reasons. I chose food because I was suspicious of a damo/food connection... not strong. But i did not really like any of the other wagons. It seemed dangerous to me to start a new wagon at the late time that I was in. I sounded out ghug, as my town read, and found a willingness to join in saving himself by voting on food.

Keeping in the %% was not a factor for me... and probably won't be in the future, either. Any more than in a regular game, the 'first vote' influences any later votes.

I am not opposed to using %% tomorrow. It is useful (thanks damo) for a non official vote count. But it is not a lock in.

[Jamiet99uk]

I'm in profit as long as there are more than 2 goals so that will do. I'd rather see them both lose but there you go...

Why are you watching a game you want both teams to lose?

There's other football on.

Free beer

Hey my prediction was pretty close. Spurs took the lead but ended up losing by one goal!

[Jamiet99uk]

well there weren't many posts but i usually read in order

I like to catch up in a longitudinal fashion myself, sure. However I always find it extremely odd when people come to catch up, presumably knowing the deadline must have passed, and yet behaving as if they are unaware, and not bothering to check to see the flip before they start reading and responding.

In general, yeah. Me, too, Jamie. I don't mind it when they (like flav) comment as it goes across their screen. But it is odd when it happens at EoD.

Exactly.

[Jamiet99uk]

@Damo:

From your Bozosurvey; which players voted *differently* to their survey response?

Three out of the 4 Food voters {darg, dip, sf} went against there previous declaration.

So did I (ghug=>red) and food (darg=> ghug).

Red (ghug) hadn't made a prior declaration.

Bona was locked in on ghug early.

Only two players stuck with their declaration; ghug on food and Jamie on Dip.

Observations anyone?

Only two people stuck to their original voting intention.
Interesting.

[dargorygel]

I like to catch up in a longitudinal fashion myself, sure. However I always find it extremely odd when people come to catch up, presumably knowing the deadline must have passed, and yet behaving as if they are unaware, and not bothering to check to see the flip before they start reading and responding.

In general, yeah. Me, too, Jamie. I don't mind it when they (like flav) comment as it goes across their screen. But it is odd when it happens at EoD.

Exactly.

Although it is an exaggeration to say "I don't mind it." I do not like it. I've just gotten used to it.

[dargorygel]

@Damo:

From your Bozosurvey; which players voted *differently* to their survey response?

Three out of the 4 Food voters {darg, dip, sf} went against there previous declaration.

So did I (ghug=>red) and food (darg=> ghug).

Red (ghug) hadn't made a prior declaration.

Bona was locked in on ghug early.

Only two players stuck with their declaration; ghug on food and Jamie on Dip.

Observations anyone?

Only two people stuck to their original voting intention.
Interesting.

Did you see it as a promise? I was not surprised by that stat.

[dargorygel]

Jamie... did you see scumstuff in dip? Or was it more an annoyance vote?

[dargorygel]

Admittedly, one of the most astonishing thing about re-reading D1 is that ghug said I kept my cool with dip's shenanigans. I did not FEEEL like I kept my cool. For me, my language was quite intemperate. I over-focused on it for far too long.

But I reacted to him also as a misguided townie. You saw it, jamie, as scum. I am interested in why.

[damo666]

@Damo:

From your Bozosurvey; which players voted *differently* to their survey response?

Three out of the 4 Food voters {darg, dip, sf} went against there previous declaration.

So did I (ghug=>red) and food (darg=> ghug).

Red (ghug) hadn't made a prior declaration.

Bona was locked in on ghug early.

Only two players stuck with their declaration; ghug on food and Jamie on Dip.

Observations anyone?

I did not see the %%votes as promises. But as declarations of where we were at that point. Any more than having a 'first vote' be a declaration. It was a way for us to feel like we're still able to vote as the day progressed.

I wondered if the timing had something to do with it, as well. But really, more voting took place later anyway. Regardless of $$ breaking.

I voted off my $$ vote because the situation changed.

I was protecting my top town read, ghug, because it felt to me like he was being voted for iffy reasons. I chose food because I was suspicious of a damo/food connection... not strong. But i did not really like any of the other wagons. It seemed dangerous to me to start a new wagon at the late time that I was in. I sounded out ghug, as my town read, and found a willingness to join in saving himself by voting on food.

Keeping in the %% was not a factor for me... and probably won't be in the future, either. Any more than in a regular game, the 'first vote' influences any later votes.

I am not opposed to using %% tomorrow. It is useful (thanks damo) for a non official vote count. But it is not a lock in.

Yeah I agree it's a declaration, not a promise or lock-in. Probably worth continuing just to provide a basis for quasi vca.

[dargorygel]

@dip (others, too... but iirc dip particularly commented on this in game) do you see the %% as a promise? Why or why not?

[dargorygel]

This seems like a more quiet night. Did someone predict that in this setup?

[dargorygel]

Positive: it will give us a lock place for discussion. Our discussion after our votes would help us tomorrow.

Negative: It might be of some benefit to scum... who know more than we do.

Postive: it might help our idol carrier to hide.

Negative: Everyone never agrees to these things.

Negative: once everyone's voted, the next thing that "happens" is the nightkill
well other than the idol potentially being played
but that discourages discussion by the same logic that discussion is discouraged during the night
better idea:
%%Vote Dargorygel
also, third

Not a prediction... just a comment here by dip. Sort of.

[Jamiet99uk]

Three out of the 4 Food voters {darg, dip, sf} went against there previous declaration.

So did I (ghug=>red) and food (darg=> ghug).

Red (ghug) hadn't made a prior declaration.

Bona was locked in on ghug early.

Only two players stuck with their declaration; ghug on food and Jamie on Dip.

Observations anyone?

Only two people stuck to their original voting intention.
Interesting.

Did you see it as a promise? I was not surprised by that stat.

No, but it's still interesting.

[Jamiet99uk]

Jamie... did you see scumstuff in dip? Or was it more an annoyance vote?

It was a number of things:

1. The punctuation nonsense seemed (and still seems) like something some people would do as scum to create filler content that can be argued about and cause a large amount of posts, but which are actually rubbish.

2. He said he wanted to vote for a lurker, then voted for Damo, who at the time was a mid-tier poster. I questioned him about this, and he ignored my question (or, at the very least, did not respond).

3. His scumread of me did not appear to be grounded in any particular reason, other than that I was voting for him.

Now on re-read, I have noticed something else VERY interesting:

4. On Page 16, Dip&War provided a reads list in which he listed the following people as most likely scum, headed "I would like to see this player dead today":

Jamiet99uk
Ghug
Red Neurax.

He also had a list of people headed "I will vote to save this player"
, which was:

Bonatogether
Dargorygel
Damo666
Foodcoats

Shortly after, on Page 17, he saw that Red Neurax had caused a tie between Ghug, and Foodcoats. Seeing this, what did he do?

He voted for Foodcoats and not Ghug, despite having just one page earlier said that he wanted Ghug to die, and would vote to save Foodcoats if needed.

He included Ghug in his scumreads.
BUT THEN WHEN GHUG WAS A LEADING CANDIDATE, HE VOTED TO SAVE HIM.

Looks like a Dip&War / Ghug scumteam to me!

[Jamiet99uk]

Dip&War: "I want Ghug to die today, and Foodcoats must be protected!"

The Vote Count: Ghug (3) vs Foodcoats (3)

Dip&War: "Yikes! Better kill Foodcoats!"

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

[Jamiet99uk]

I should probably have left this "eureka" moment until the very EoD.

Now Dip&War will probably NK me.

[damo666]

I should probably have left this "eureka" moment until the very EoD.

Now Dip&War will probably NK me.

Or you just have saved yourself by posting the theory.

[Jamiet99uk]

Here are the posts that demonstrate D&W's guilt.

First:

readlist
town

dip(me)
StraightFlush

"Will vote to save this player" line

Bonatogether
dargorygel
damo666
foodcoats

"I would like to see this player dead today" line

Jamiet99uk
ghug
Red Neurax

scum

I should probably move my vote off damo given that my main accusation was lurking
%%VOTE GHUG

But then, a short time later, WHEN THE VOTE WAS TIED BETWEEN GHUG AND FOODCOATS:

##vote food

YIKES.

[Jamiet99uk]

In a small game with only two scum, having one of the scum voted out on Day One is a huge wound for the scum team.

I seems very likely that D&W was bussing Ghug in his reads list, hoped to get a wagon going on me (because D1 wagons on JamieT are traditionally popular with boys and girls of all ages), and then when Ghug was on the block, he panicked.