Mini 836: Commie Mafia (Game Over)

[Cyberbob]

Vote: Hoopla

How many days in a row has it been your birthday now?

Mod's Note: This post is non-cannon and therefore not part of the game

[Cyberbob]

Yeah, I struggle to see how using dice is any more of a cop out than a "Hi everybody" or a "Die, die, die" accompaniment to an early day 1 vote. But I'm happy to be enlightened.

I believe the argument is that using dice eliminates the possibility of someone pointing to your vote and saying "oh that wasn't random, your "reasoning" is masking something else!". Especially with a night start like we had in this game.

Mod's Note: This post is non-cannon and therefore not part of the game

[Cyberbob]

Uh, what's the deal here? Is this because Hoopla's the one who made Kublai restart?

[Cyberbob]

I think both sides of this argument are overreacting. I'm not sure that "Oh look this person is overreacting...SCUM" is entirely applicable when you have so many new players around (who, I've found, tend to be a tad more emotional in their posting).

The wagon was kind of dumb but I don't think it was scummy. These things happen.

Dang it, I need to get a random vote in before discussion starts:

vote mathcam

because I suck at math.

This is a pretty terrible vote. "Before discussion starts"? You're only two pages late on that score... are you sure that it's the only reason?

Vote: Peabody

[Cyberbob]

This is a pretty terrible vote. "Before discussion starts"? You're only two pages late on that score... are you sure that it's the only reason? Vote: Peabody

Yup, I'm sure its the only reason.

Yeah that question was (obviously) kind of rhetorical. I'm really after a response to two questions: firstly, why you made the "random" vote in the first place when there had been 2 pages of discussion already on which you could have made a "real" one and secondly, given the aforementioned 2 pages of discussion, why you thought "before discussion starts" was an appropriate thing to say when that boat had clearly sailed.

Charter, I fail to understand your reasoning for calling both Hoopla and Vaya town. I hardly heard anything from hoopla, and the Vaya reading seems a little weak. You said you agree with everything Vaya said so far? Honestly, I find some of Vaya's posts a bit disagreeable. Can you please point out which post exactly you are referencing when you say you agree with Vaya?

Unvote; Vote Charter

This is another questionable vote. Are you always this jumpy?

[Cyberbob]

coco/vaya/mathcam/charter argument is a giant mass of red herring, overreaction and nulltell

[Cyberbob]

coco/vaya/mathcam/charter argument is a giant mass of red herring, overreaction and nulltell

How so?

Gut, mostly. It feels like a bunch of townies getting really caught up in shaking their fists at each other without anyone really having done anything scummy.

This is my first game where I'm not a replacement on this site. I wanted to experience the RVS.

The best thing you could possibly do for any game is to do your utmost not to contribute to random voting. The "RVS" is something that's become almost codified and while a couple of random votes are usually the only way a game can be started the best thing for the town is to get away from them as quickly as possible.

Besides, even someone who likes the concept of an "RVS" could have seen that it was well and truly over by the time you voted.

The only events that transpired was the questionable argument back and forth between Vaya and Coco. Many of you have already said the conversation was useless.

The argument was useless in the sense that neither of them really had anything scummy on the other but it was plenty useful in forcing people to react to something "serious". Those reactions are very useful.

I was applying pressure to Charter to hear an explanation, not much unlike many other player's jumping around.

You were asking him to point out a post he was referencing because you find some the person's points whom he was agreeing with "a bit disagreeable". I really can't see how you could justify voting for him to raise the pressure with a question as mild as that.

[Cyberbob]

Chalking it up to a gut feeling that it's an all-townie argument is a pretty strong statement -- you think all 4 of us are townies, and have made no valid points? Perhaps you could explain CoCo's behavior that I'm questioning him about above then.

I didn't say that you're all townies, I said that that's what the argument

feels

like. I consider that kind of an argument to be a null tell. This may seem a bit contradictory but there you go.

As for CoCo, your point about SensFan

is

a valid one and I think a suspicion of him is in order. Your post, however, is distinct from the sorts of things I consider nulltells: all those posts where everyone's splitting everyone else's posts into dozens of quotes and responding to each and every one of them with a one liner and nobody's really thinking about what they're saying and it's all just getting out of hand and what was the original point of contention again?

[Cyberbob]

Gut, mostly. It feels like a bunch of townies getting really caught up in shaking their fists at each other without anyone really having done anything scummy.

I don't think much of anything that anybody has done with regards to the argument in question has been a scumtell.

(haha, I've got all sides of the argument coming at me because I don't agree with any of them)

[Cyberbob]

Since we're only talking about what you're thinking in the first place (and not demanding you have absolute certainty before speaking), isn't the latter the relevant piece of information?

Okay, sure.

And okay, I can sympathize on the line-splitting, though I think you use the term null tell a little too loosely.

Most likely. I can tell that I'm being a wee bit incoherent, but I'm not really sure how to rectify it.

[Cyberbob]

I don't mind recaps so much, though I think they're more effective when they focus on analysing the most important posts rather than simply summarising every single one with perhaps a few comments in parentheses along the way - whether it's been 5 pages or 50.

[Cyberbob]

Honestly, I don't understand why my vote has to be "justified".

Brilliant.

It is a pressure vote at best.

And an attempt to find an excuse to move your vote away from charter in order to try and divert suspicions at worst.

I don't like your word choice. It "feels" like a bunch of "townies". If I were to take a wild guess, I could see how a member of the mafia could 'feel' that there is an argument among townies. Word choice is crucial in detection of mafia. Obviously, its not the best point, but something to pay attention to.

What, would you have preferred it if I'd used the word "know" instead? Yeah, I'm sure you wouldn't be jumping all over me if I had.

As a side-note, Harumafuji's posts are hilarious. They look like the end-result from something from Translation Party.

I honestly wouldn't mind betting he's an alt of someone, and that they're doing almost exactly this.

[Cyberbob]

I like the cut of your jib... depending on Haru's response I might change my vote, but for now I am happy with my vote on Peabody.

FOS: Harumafuji

[Cyberbob]

I don't know, just the whole wording of the post seems forced. The post gave me a bad feeling in the gut. I did tell you all that it wasn't the best point. I feel that I ought to contribute my observations if I believe something isn't quite right, don't you agree?

So you might say that it... "feels" wrong?

[Cyberbob]

EBWOP:

i dont find Harumafuji's account-imposed posting restriction to be scummy. i assume it was something he decided he would do before he received his role and therefore is just a Harumafuji-tell not a scum-tell. It seems like an easy lynch to push for, though. hmm!

I don't necessarily think he's

scummy

for doing it, I just really want him to stop. Having a person being so ridiculously hard to understand hurts the town.

[Cyberbob]

I would like to hear from Vaya

at all

, I'd like to see a response from Harumafuji to all of the recent stuff (preferably involving an agreement to stop using the translation site) and I'd like to see le Chat say something of value as per charter's post.

The activity levels in this game have been kind of disappointing, especially considering it only started a few days ago.

[Cyberbob]

A page a day is disappointing? I agree that a few of us need to step up a little more, but as a whole, I think we're doing fine. I'd also point out that

you

were the one being very dismissive of the earlier conversations.

Cam

Yeah I know. I suppose it's because I've been more or less refreshing every few minutes, having had a lot of spare time and not a lot to do over the last few days.

[Cyberbob]

a player that made a lame RVS joke.

I guess this is where we disagree; I didn't read it as a joke at all, particularly given his defence of it as a serious "RVS vote" when called on it.

[Cyberbob]

In other news I'm also interested in mathcam.. I think he could easily be scum.

Can you elaborate? I haven't really been getting any sort of a read off of him.

[Cyberbob]

Could someone point out the post in which Peabody says something such as "The RVS vote was a joke"?

I thought the point was that he never said this, and has consistently gone for the "I was seriously taking part in the RVS stage for the first time because I am a newbie" line of defence?

[Cyberbob]

Orddung! You weren't reading because

you thought the 4-way argument was based upon null tells

. You STILL have yet to comment on that.

That

was

, and still

is

, my comment. I've seen one point in either direction come out of the whole argument and that was mathcam's questioning of why you never mentioned SensFan when he was on that wagon too.

Even that point was fairly well countered by your post 129, so I'm left with nothing. I'm sorry if you can't accept that someone might not actually be in agreement with either side of an argument, but that's just how it is.

[Cyberbob]

Post 1: Shouldn't that have been obvious? He separated it with a line and everything. I am certainly not going to reach at straws for a lynch around that. I'd rather look at how a player behaves.

Oh, a

line

!! Well that changes everything.

Post 2: Blatant fence straddling. I don't expect you to agree with me, but you must have other thoughts about the situation. Who in that tug-of-war looks the scummiest?

Oh yes, clearly I'm trying to play both sides here. That's why I've been defending myself rather vigourously against a bunch of people who were involved on both sides of the aisle.

If I absolutely life-depending-on-it had to choose a scummiest player to come out of the argument I would choose you for overreacting the most.

[Cyberbob]

This is a non-answer. I think you can do better.

Don't really see how, seeing as I think you know perfectly well what I mean.

And now I'm asking. You should be just as proficient at answering my inquiries as you were to theirs.

I don't really see why I should have to pointlessly repeat myself when you can see the answers to the vast majority of these questions already in my previous posts.

Can't say I didn't see that coming. How about explaining my overreactions? Go on, quote posts.

Fine (bolding mine):

Oh for fuck's sake! L-2 right out of the fucking gate is a scummy wagon. Stop digging for an explanition. There's nothing more to say.

I'd say the same about any wagon like that starting up right away.

I singled you out because you voted third and allowed the wagon to take off. I've said this.

The fact that you continue to carry on and ask me to explain something that is as plain as day furthers my resolve that you're scum.

Ha ha ha! That's an OMGUS vote.
I refuse to believe

you don't see anything scummy about someone going to L-2 during the random phase.

All of these bolded parts are rather combative, and in the last instance you even go so far as to be derisive.

[Cyberbob]

Here's something; does one not think I might have been watching for reactions while attacking Vaya?

Oh dear, please not this defence... anything but this defence.

[Cyberbob]

Lol, you missed my following post, didn't you, Cyberbob?

No, I didn't.

It may (emphasis on "may") even be as you say, that you managed to draw some reactions from people that will be useful later on. However to try and claim that that was your intention all along is a pretty blatant falsehood and an attempt to retcon some form of rationality into your earlier posts.

[Cyberbob]

Read 201 and get back to me.

Read the first part of my post and get back to me. I'm not saying that you definitely did not draw any potentially useful reactions, only that it was pretty obviously not on your mind at the time.

[Cyberbob]

I'm sorry I don't offer a play-by-play. Suffice to say I keep many of my motivations secret in order to trap scum later.

I'm sure you do; plenty of people do. I just don't buy it here; you were getting pretty genuinely angry IMO.

[Cyberbob]

Yes, during that time I WAS genuinely

frustrated

.

And, perhaps, showing a bit of it now?

I'll have a look at charter.

[Cyberbob]

I'll have a look at charter.

Okay, so I did this and I'm really not seeing anything that might justify a non-OMGUSy vote. You never answered his question about why you were attacking Vaya but not him. You did - eventually - talk about why you didn't go after Sens, but you never said anything about charter's wagon-vote.

I looked at your vote for him, and your posts leading up to it, to hopefully aid in my search. I found nothing except a couple of emptyquotes in the post with the FOS and a "he's scummy" in the one with the vote.

Not something I would consider to be in your favour, sorry.

[Cyberbob]

You're one to talk about content, CoCo. The vast majority of your posts have been pithy one-liners.

[Cyberbob]

Woah, lots of stuff to comment on. I'm off to uni in a few, but I'll come up with something this afternoon when I get home.

[Cyberbob]

Too tired to work up the energy to write paragraphs (chem prac was an absolute shit of a thing), so will write in short sentences and dotpoints. I like dotpoints anyway for mafia because of their brevity, so nothing lost.

• Peabody's post 235 strikes me as either unconvincing or terribly lazy - how could anyone
  not
  have noticed CoCo getting hot under the collar?
  
• Having finally figured out what CoCo meant by "early reports", I have come to the conclusion that he is reaching like a pro.
  
• I like mathcam's idea of how to deal with Haru (if he refuses to stop using his translation thing).
  
• Don't buy into the "hmmm he doesn't think peabody's vote is scummy??? SCUM" deal, but I agree with mathcam's criticisms of Cathart's lack of real input.
  
• Kind of agreeing with whoever made the point about CoCo's possible normal style of play being this emotional, but I don't place too much stock in arguments by meta because of how easy one's meta is to manipulate.
  
• I like pretty much everything about that long post of le Chat's and I'm really happy that he finally pulled the proverbial finger out.
  
• CoCo's post 215... I dunno if this is just me but I really really don't like it when people talk about their own metas - especially if they're being used as a defence in of themselves. I do think mathcam is barking up the wrong tree a bit on the SensFan front however.

[Cyberbob]

I was on CoCo side there,

but didn't actually back him up

, because in my opinion he was making mess.

FOS: Col.Cathart

I can think of no reason not to back someone whom you genuinely believe to be on the right side of an argument that is pro-town. Hanging back just because they're "making mess" is incredibly scummy - it makes you look like you're trying to go under the radar and leaving yourself a degree of plausible deniability later on.

[Cyberbob]

I only avoided taking active discussion there, because I just didn't liked the way CoCo made his arguments

Ah, so you didn't want to be associated with someone who was coming off poorly even though you agreed with them. That kind of fits 'flying under the radar' to a tee.

and Vaya clearly stated his mind, so I didn't had reason to ask him any more questions.

So don't ask any questions; make assertions based on your perspective of the argument. Give people something to think about when

they

are looking to make up their minds as to who is right.

[Cyberbob]

That, or I was just afraid of false scum accusation because of it. Just look what happened when I decided to state my different opinion about Peabody - Charter immediately cried 'SCUM!'. I saw already a tide coming in CoCo's direction, so going against it would be the same as with Charter and Peabody, but in much more extreme version.

This is

still

"flying under the radar". If you really think your opinion is the right one, then it is the pro-town thing to do to try as hard as you can to push it. Hypothetically, let's say you were indeed right: the town now has less of a chance to win because you didn't do enough to persuade the other side of your argument.

I'm getting a weak town read from this particular issue however. Townies that are overly scared of being accused of scumminess are just as prone to doing this as scum are (I did it myself a bit in my first few games) and you strike me as being the former rather than the latter.

In short - Yes, I don't want to be lynched, but for different reason than scum Do you?

I think you'll find that not contributing anything is often just as (if not more) likely to land you in hot water with the town than contributing a "bad" opinion.

[Cyberbob]

I haven't been able to pay much attention to this game lately, but I have at least skimmed through it.

Unvote
Vote:Col.Cathart

I should be able to read through this game more thoroughly and post more this weekend.

You must be the world's best skim reader if you were able to not only come to the conclusion that Cathart was deserving of a vote, but also that your previous target was less so, in a single glance.

[Cyberbob]

I remembered what you said earlier wrong, I thought you did say that you thought he wasn't scummy earlier. I guess I really should take a closer look at this game soon. Since I was mistaken about that,

Unvote:Col.Cathart

The dangers of skimming-based votes rear their ugly head!

[Cyberbob]

I agree with Cathart's thoughts on Haru/SC, Hoopla & le Chat.
Partially agree with those on mathcam, charter, Talitha & CoCo.
Disagree with those on Peabody:

Random vote after random voting stage - I still don't think it's a really big deal. More like a poor attempt at humor. Why people are making such a fuss about it is beyond me.

This point has been dealt with already. The argument that the vote was (or conceivably might have been) a joke is rendered null and void by the fact that, when challenged on it, he defended it as if it was not.

[Cyberbob]

EBWOP:

Because it went to the dead end. He said he finds it weird, I said, it doesn't look weird to me at all. What's more to say here? Cyberbob also left this alone after it, because there was nothing more to follow.

What are you referring to here?

[Cyberbob]

I'm referring to Peabody's post 160. After that, his point I thought 'whatever' since I knew we were going nowhere. You made on more post about it, and topic was never picked up again if I recall correctly.

Oh, that.

I was kind of hoping someone would pick up on my insanely-clever calling out of the irony in him essentially saying that something "felt" wrong with my usage of the phrase "it "feels" wrong" but nobody ever did. I left it alone because I didn't want to look like I was tooting my own horn.

I do hold it as a valid point against him though. All humour aside, using functionally the exact same language you are attacking someone else for (

in the attack itself

, no less) is extremely hypocritical.

[Cyberbob]

I'm referring to Peabody's post 160. After that, his point I thought 'whatever' since I knew we were going nowhere. You made on more post about it, and topic was never picked up again if I recall correctly.

Oh, that.

I was kind of hoping someone would pick up on my insanely-clever calling out of the irony in him essentially saying that something "felt" wrong with my usage of the phrase "it "feels" wrong" but nobody ever did. I left it alone because I didn't want to look like I was tooting my own horn.

I do hold it as a valid point against him though. All humour aside, using functionally the exact same language you are attacking someone else for (

in the attack itself

, no less) is extremely hypocritical.

[Cyberbob]

Whoops.

[Cyberbob]

I'm not seeing the charter wagon at this time. Cathart's being super incoherent and CoCo is kind of coming across as being more interested in scoring cheap "wit" points than anything else. I'm far more inclined to take a case seriously if it isn't full of "haha

got you scum!!!

"-type comments, so perhaps consider approaching it again from a more detached angle?

I'm prepared to accept Sens' explanation of his extended absence, as well as Hoopla's one of her vote on him.



I would like to see some kind of a response from people to my point against Peabody in post 280. His wagon is flagging and I haven't seen too much of a reason why.

[Cyberbob]

Hoopla - Going with Sensfan's point, I'm starting to see a pattern. You are pushing cases consistently based on "policy" votes. Haru did translation party, Sensfan for lurking...

I'm so happy with my vote on you it hurts. The response to the charge against Hoopla having "pushed a case" on Haru and Sens has been covered multiple times already. I really don't know why you would pretend as though it hasn't been (I'm making this assumption based on the fact that you didn't actually mention it).

Everyone, what do you think of Col.Cathart's using 'charter is active lurking' as a reason to vote me while admitting he is doing it himself?

The fact that I'm not active lurking is besides the point, but I touched on this in 290 saying I find him scummy for it.

I don't think either of you are actively lurking at the moment, so not a whole lot I guess?

[Cyberbob]

Ah, I read those votes as pressure ones. Guess I was wrong.

[Cyberbob]

(was replying to Hoopla with my last post)

It's not the accusation that I'm active lurking, it's the fact that he is voting me for something he admits to doing. Pot. Kettle. Very black.

I agree (especially after going back and reading the post you're referring to again - Peabody that is not the right quote), but I'm unsure as to whether

he

is able to see the similarities between his behaviour and what he is accusing you of. I really can't see anybody - whether they be scum

or

town - making such a blindingly terrible move unless they genuinely don't see it as such.

I'm not saying he isn't being a hypocrite - because he is, and I'm certainly taking a dimmer view of him than I was before. It is definitely possible that this is a genuine slip and his rationalisations of his earlier admission are lies, but I can also see how he might go "oh but that's different" in his own mind.

FOS: Col. Cathart

(did I do that already?), but I'm not

quite

at the stage where I'm prepared to vote him. IMO Peabody has been more consistently deserving of it for pretty much the whole game.

[Cyberbob]

Peabody having an RVS vote is in no way suspicious.

Here you are more or less admitting that haven't read the thread very closely - if at all. Peabody having an RVS vote is not scummy; Peabody having an RVS vote when serious discussion had well and truly gotten underway is a huge copout and incredibly lazy. He might have dodged any major suspicion for it if he had played it as a joke - but he didn't. He defended it as a "serious" random vote, which - given the aforementioned discussion that had already taken place - is completely bogus.

The early bandwagon wasn't scummy. There could well be scum on the wagon, but 1/5 is meh odds anyway.

Only 1/5? How do you know?

[Cyberbob]

Hmm, maybe it's just a

natural

response to someone pointing a finger at you.)

I think what people want is for you to post even when you haven't been explicitly mentioned or asked to.

[Cyberbob]

MORE. *cracks whip*

(wasn't saying I agree with them, just that that's the way I'm reading their criticisms)

[Cyberbob]

SC: I don't have a huge amount of time to make my posts each day because of study concerns, and I'm not the best at analysing positions and all that anyway. My discussion of Peabody's defence of his "RVS" vote and the one of CoCo's emotionalness are about as far as I can go without a cardflip on which I can anchor my readings.

I'm just really not too flash at following "the big picture" of someone's play without

something

to set the groundwork first. It's certainly an aspect of

my

play I need to improve but it's pretty much always been how I play whether I'm scum or town.

With regards to the pursuing thing, that's entirely true at all. I

do

remember the little oddities and such that I pick out early in the game and I do use those later on, but I'm not about to go on the warpath over something like your 1/5 comment alone. My initial vote on Peabody wasn't too strong; I would have in all likelihood unvoted if he'd passed it off as a joke or something. But he didn't - he defended it seriously as a "serious" random vote and went on to pursue a rather OMGUSy attack on me besides that ended up being one of the biggest contradictions I've ever seen. I see you passed that one entirely off; I honestly don't see how.

By the looks many of your problems with my play have to do with charter, and I agree that I have not been looking at him very much - or at least not as much as I could have. I did have a go the other day but gave up. Would it make you happier if I was to try again now?

Bottom line: "big picture" discussion generally makes my head spin, sorry, will try to improve in this regard once we have something solid to use (like a cardflip or a possible investigation), do think you're coming close to misrepresenting me with some of your points however. Particularly with that one about active lurking; I said in Post 330 that I did not think that either one of charter and Cathart were actively lurking about as explicitly as can be.

[Cyberbob]

I'm currently prepared to lynch anyone not in my town or leaning town group, so I don't want to get too tunneled on someone,

This is pretty funny, just saying.

[Cyberbob]

Your interacton with charter make you likely to be scum together if one of you flip scum. It's not a masive part of my read, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on him anyway, if you would..

And if one of us flips town the other one was buddying, amirite? I haven't been looking to give him a free pass or anything of the sort; he just hasn't captured my attention as much as some others.

I'll give him a read free of any contextual framework and post my thoughts. Not sure that I'll be able to get it done today, but definitely tomorrow afternoon sometime if I can't.

Oh - as for the misrep, don't you change your opinion that they are both doing it in post 334?

No, I didn't - I was going by Cathart's admission of having actively lurked (in his opinion) earlier in the game and was talking about why it was scummy of him to turn around and go after charter for doing the same thing (in his opinion).

My position on their posting habits is irrelevant. As long as Cathart believed himself to have been actively lurking, his attack on charter for "active lurking" is pure hypocrisy.

[Cyberbob]

To expand on the word careful, I mean careful that anything he attacks he is unquestionably right on. By that I mean there's almost no gut read, almost no sweeping declarations, almost no theory that can be argued with. His point always start at a minor scummy sentence and regularly stay there, never becoming something even mildly controversial.

Counterpoint: my position on the initial wagon. Even in its "second form" (describing it as having changed is completely bogus, as it actually didn't - but whatever) it was both a sweeping declaration and a gut read.

[Cyberbob]

Being "wishy-washy" is in no way playing it safe as you run the risk of

both

sides of the argument attacking you - which did happen with CoCo and mathcam both questioning my read of the situation.

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob - your stance on the inital argument WOULD be a good argument in your favour had you stuck with your town read, but it eventually boiled down to 'the entire thing is a nulltell, which is barely better than not commenting on it at all. If you'd said the four participating are likely to be town - that'd be taking a stance. Saying it's taught you nothing about anyone isn't.

I also expressed a frustration at my inability to effectively put into words what I meant. "Null tell" was the closest term I could come up with, but saying that it taught me nothing about anyone is incorrect. You'll note that mathcam suggested that I was using "null tell" too broadly; I agreed with him. I still do.

[Cyberbob]

M'okay - could you give me an idea of what it did teach you about the people involved?

Well, I thought CoCo came out of it looking a bit "off" due to his being a bit emotional for early Day 1 (this was before the his-usual-playstyle discussion), and there was also a question mark hanging over his handling of SensFan.

Based on that, I thought mathcam and charter came out of it looking "good" because of their having questioned the aforementioned inconsistency with regard to SensFan. Vaya was a bit of a nothing.

(Neither of the points against CoCo became scumtells in my mind until I questioned him and found his response to the former lacking. His response to the latter was a good one however.)

When I said "null tell" the idea I was trying to get across was that I didn't think either side of the discussion was "right" or "wrong". It all came off as a bunch of people getting really caught up in trying to score points against each other and making accusations willy-nilly rather than trying to have an actual debate. I've seen both scum and townies get involved in such arguments, so I was not prepared to declare anyone "town" or "scum".



OK, here's something odd I noticed while reading back over those posts that I'd like to clear up. How do you reconcile these two posts by you as Harumafuji with your current stance of the case against him being totally unfounded? You appear to be agreeing with it there - am I reading this correctly?

[Cyberbob]

Please read my vote again. Within the same post, I contributed to the discussion about the bandwagon. Please tell me how this is a 'huge copout' and 'incredibly lazy'. I think you are overexaggerating your point, giving it more validation than it deserves.

The vote was lazy because it allowed you to "get on the board", so to speak, without actually having to make a concrete statement on the game up to that point.

I'm assuming that this post is what you are referring to as my contradiction, le Chat and Cyberbob?
Someone please explain to me how this is a contradiction. I wanted to point something I saw as suspicious, even if it is a weak argument, and this is consistent with my gameplay the entire game so far. If I notice something, I mention it. I hope that answered your question in post 337, le Chat.

You're being incredibly obtuse here. You used almost literally the exact same language in your attack on my position as I did in that position. You came out swinging against my usage of terms such as "feels" rather hard, then - when questioned - immediately switched to "oh it just

feels

suspicious to me".

That's hypocrisy.

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob, cut the crap. Peabody made the late RVS vote, made a ------ line and then commented on the game.

Comments can be taken back far more easily than votes.

You should probably - how you say? "Cut the crap"?

[Cyberbob]

But you're saying he did not comment on the game up until that point, and his post shows he did.

This post does not make a single lick of sense, sorry.

[Cyberbob]

The vote was lazy because it allowed you to "get on the board", so to speak, without actually having to make a concrete statement on the game up to that point..

Show me where he didn't comment on the game.

I said he didn't make a

concrete

statement. A non-random vote is a lot harder to back away from than one or two lines of opinion.

You're also forgetting this:

Dang it, I need to get a random vote in

before discussion starts

:

[Cyberbob]

Yes, but he separated it with a line.

Oh, a

line

!!!! Well, that changes

everything

.

I honestly think your line of attacks are incorrect. I don't see it as being scummy. Some of his other behavior? Maybe. But don't reach for straws when you could evaluate his later play.

I'll agree to disagree about the random vote issue, but I'm only talking about this now because he (and now you) brought it up. Most of my recent pushing of his wagon has in fact revolved around his later play - his previously-mentioned hypocrisy in particular.

[Cyberbob]

Well, I'm not arguing with you about his later play. I just think calling him scum over a late RVS vote/joke is awful.

*sigh*

This will be the third or fourth time that I've had to point out the fact that it was

not a joke

. Peabody defended it as if it was serious. I have said repeatedly that if he

had

passed it off as a joke I would have accepted that - but he didn't.

Conversely, the way so many people accepted the wagon is something that should be examined in detail.

This is actually a very good point. Once I get done with my charter-read that I promised le Chat I will investigate this one further.

[Cyberbob]

Quote me. Where exactly do I do this?

Your initial reaction to my post:

I don't like your word choice. It "feels" like a bunch of "townies". If I were to take a wild guess, I could see how a member of the mafia could 'feel' that there is an argument among townies. Word choice is crucial in detection of mafia. Obviously, its not the best point, but something to pay attention to.

Then, when Cathart made a very good post questioning this line of attack, you responded with this:

I don't know, just the whole wording of the post seems forced. The post gave me a bad feeling in the gut. I did tell you all that it wasn't the best point. I feel that I ought to contribute my observations if I believe something isn't quite right, don't you agree?

Asking people to quote you in order to prove their point only actually works as a defence if you didn't in fact say what has been attributed to you.


@SC: Could I have an answer to the question about your play as Haru I posed you at the bottom of my post 406, please?

[Cyberbob]

The reason I ask is that I am not voting charter and never has been. Kublai's mental facilities have been undernourished from the last game where he claimed miller as scum and was never suspected till he won, I think

Haru was voting charter when you "replaced" him. Did you forget?

[Cyberbob]

You realise that when I said Haru was me, I didn't mean we were the same person behind the posts, I mean I replaced him, right?

No, I didn't realise that.


im dumb

[Cyberbob]

PROMISEDREADONCHARTERGO.

Won't be a genuine PBP, but it will be consisting of dot points because I'm not in the mood for paragraphs.

• Got into a bit of a skirmish with CoCo early on concerning the wagon. Didn't come out looking particularly town or scum, though CoCo kind of looked a bit skittish.
  
• Defended Vaya in post 89 against CoCo.
  
• Is attacked by CoCo for his use of the phrase "early reports", comes out looking good though that isn't saying too much considering how awful the attack was.
  
• Suspects Cathart of being scumbuddies with Peabody in Post 123.
  
• Voices a suspicion of mathcam - in agreement with Talitha - in Post 193 concerning an apparent unwillingness to stand out from the crowd. I agree, especially with the point about the unvote that wasn't followed by any attempts to start new lines of discussion.
  
• Continues to spar with CoCo, agrees with me about him in Post 199.
  
• Reiterates his opinion that Cathart and Peabody are scumbuddies in Post 225, goes on to vote Cathart as well as poking at CoCo some more in Post 237.
  
• FOS's mathcam for opportunism in Post 273. I agree.
  
• Argues some more with Cathart in his next few posts, criticises mathcam some more too until eventually he calls a scum team of Cathart, Peabody and mathcam in Post 357.
  
• Switches to Peabody in Post 383 while disagreeing with most of SC's initieal reads.
  
• Defends himself against CoCo
  again
  . Does pretty well, but again; it's not as though it would have been hard to come out of that one on top.
  
• "Is pretty sure" that Peabody is scum in Post 481, posts a list of people that are currently not voting for him as potential scumbuddies.

I'm not seeing anything particularly scummy about him. His early defence of Vaya is something that should be remembered for later but apart from that I'm not seeing too much of anything that might make me suspicious of him.

[Cyberbob]

I recant that argument I posed against you, although I don't believe that will change your vote on me. I was just pointing something out that I had a gut feeling on.

Given that your gut feeling was that

my

gut feeling was scummy purely because of its status as a gut feeling... you're right. It won't.

[Cyberbob]

Welp, I see I've allowed another bunch of posts pass by (was out all last night and was terribly hungover this morning).

Will post some stuff tomorrow, assuming nobody drops the hammer while I'm asleep.

[Cyberbob]

Alrighty.

I'm not too keen on the timing of Talitha's unvote/vote on SC; I get the whole wanting-to-have-your-suspicions-on-the-record thing but you could have done it in a far more appropriate manner than abruptly getting off an L-1 wagon.

There have been a couple of people suddenly jumping ship to place rather useless votes, actually. Talitha's one with her vote on SC, but CoCo and charter both did as well with their votes on charter and mathcam respectively. If Peabody does end up being lynched his cardflip will be

most

informative.

Apart from that...

CoCo's gone back to his early self and there must have been some pressure building up between those ears because boy is he letting rip. I sorta-kinda agree with his suspicions of the people who jumped ship from the Peabody wagon but would like to remind him that in moving his vote to Talitha he has made himself guilty of just that as well.

Also, this game of Outguess The Mod people are playing is utterly useless. Stop it.

[Cyberbob]

Oh, my mistake. Replace that instance of "Talitha" in my post with "charter" then.

[Cyberbob]

Okay, but why would I want to be on a wagon in which two obvscum jumped ship?

Assuming that they're scum for a second, their motivations for jumping ship could go a couple of ways. They might not want to see scumbuddy-Peabody lynched, or they might not want to be seen on a town-Peabody wagon.

(Reminder that you fit in with that equation too - you've jumped ship as well)

Besides which, D1 is a little early to be making "obvscum" calls.

[Cyberbob]

If Peabody is town my unvote would've been extremely appropriate.
This is the first reason I've had to suspect Cyberbob.

I was talking about the

timing

of it rather than the action itself - I understood that you were going to come back to Peabody eventually but abruptly going off just as he hits L-1 was kind of iffy.

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob, what do you think of mathcam?

I think he's been flying under my radar a bit and I have been considering doing a read of him lately. Going by your post alone I agree that his behaviour towards CoCo has been weird and certainly scummy in parts (especially the "Having to wait and think about if he wants to continue voting Coco" part; I believe I commented on that at the time too) but I don't see very much in his Post 505 vote. He didn't say that he thinks Peabody is town, merely that CoCo would've been his first preference for lynching. That leaves a lot of room for suspicion of Peabody.

[Cyberbob]

And no I don't think settling on a less preferred option after 23 pages of day 1 is particularly scummy.

This.

[Cyberbob]

Not cool.

Hey you know what else is not cool?

Shit like this:

her appeals to emotion (I gotz 3 kidz, yo!)

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob: Why was the timing iffy? If he wasn't at L-1 (or 2 or whatever!) I wouldn't have needed to unvote to stall the lynch!!!

Any unvote from a wagon is going to slow it down no matter how advanced or vestigial the wagon is at the time.

[Cyberbob]

FFS.

[Cyberbob]

Or do you now not find him scummy, now you're off Peabody's wagon?

Seriously, I have no idea where you are in regards to Peabody.

Well, based on this...

-Peabody is probably town.

I'm going to go with the conclusion that he's flip-flopped yet again. It's becoming harder and harder to think of CoCo as erratic town; this recent bout of posting is completely off the charts.

Talitha and Charter jump off citing craplogic reasons. Makes me think they are scum. Especially the line concerning scum trying to save a scum buddy by stopping the wagon.

Talitha's "jump" was only ever going to be temporary, and don't you think it might be a good idea to actually ascertain whether Peabody is scum first before jumping to any conclusions about scumbuddies?

FOS:CoCo

- if Peabody flips scum you're going to be very high on my list tomorrow. You're muddying the waters with all of these terrible votes that are not going to get us anywhere - you are being far more detrimental to the Peabody wagon than the people you say are "obvscum" ever were.

[Cyberbob]

So, what are you going to do should I get lynched and flip town?

You are not going to be lynched today. Stop trying to pre-empt a wagon forming on you.

As a pure hypothetical though, if you

were

somehow lynched today and flipped town I honestly wouldn't have much of a clue what it would mean simply because you've been so damn erratic that it would be virtually impossible to read anything into your interactions with people.

[Cyberbob]

Should I be lynched and flip town, logically it would follow that I had vague and/or good reasons for the various votes I've made. That, good sir, is valuable town info.

No, it would say absolutely nothing about whether your reasons for your votes were logical or not - just that the motivations behind them were "pro-town". Which would make you stupid and overly jittery as opposed to deliberately distracting.

[Cyberbob]

and instead prefers to insult me as a mafia player.

Fixed. I don't know what you are like as a person, not having had anything to do with you outside of the context of this game.

As for your meta, you could be the best late-game player on the whole site but that doesn't change the fact that your play thus far has been completely atrocious. If you really are town, I would advise doing the

pro-town thing

and not being so emotionally unstable. You have attacked and defended almost every player in this game at one stage or another - try for a little consistency in your reads and don't be so whimsical in how you use your vote.

That's just honest advice.

[Cyberbob]

Like 5 people in a row agreed with Tally about CoCo being a good lynch. Why aren't we lynching him?

I didn't agree with him being a good lynch, in fact I believe I said he would be a bad one (for today) because his cardflip would give us less info than someone like Peabody. Besides which, while his play today has been undeniably horrible I can't quite shake my emotional-town read of him.

I'd rather lynch someone who has been scummy

and

whose flip will give us a nice amount of info than someone whose scumminess can easily be attributed to bad town play.

I will be happy to lynch CoCo tomorrow if the following happens:

- Peabody flips scum. CoCo's latest outburst came right as Peabody's wagon was nearing fruition; he's been declaring charter and Talitha "obvscum" which is dumb for Day 1. Charter's reasoning for unvoting was kind of weak but Talitha made it explicit that her unvote was only going to be temporary and in any case CoCo's new reasoning that Peabody is "probably town" is worse than either of them. Jumping off a wagon so obviously and so incredibly late in the day to try and save a scumbuddy would be absolute suicide. Newbie scum might do it but charter and Talitha are not newbies. Yes I know this is WIFOM but so is everything else about this particular issue including CoCo's reasoning itself.

(that became a lot longer than I expected it to )

- CoCo does not shape up his act tomorrow. Make no mistake; I am just as tired of his antics as everybody else must be. It's just that I am very happy with the Peabody wagon right now, and if we give CoCo a chance to lift his game - and he does - that can only be good for the town.

[Cyberbob]

How so, do you think? I'm going by his having run the full gamut of possible opinions on almost everybody; admittedly I haven't looked too hard at how

other

people have reacted to him throughout the day (at least not in terms of trying to cohesively piece it all together) however.

[Cyberbob]

Anyone notice Col Cathart come in after a sizeable absense to 'third' someone else's point on page 24 without adding any content then disappear again?

That's because he is scum. I'd gladly lynch him today.

He would be my third choice behind Peabody and CoCo.

[Cyberbob]

Would you, Cyberbob, join me in a Cathart vote?

Not at this time, no. Peabody and CoCo are both considerably scummier in my mind as well as being far more likely to have a wagon on them achieve a lynch.

What's wrong with the Peabody wagon?

[Cyberbob]

I only voted Peabody because at the time I thought he was Cathart's buddy. Right now, I think the Peabody wagon is going to result in a mislynch. I think there is at least one scum on his wagon (and yes, I have an idea for the third scum other than Cathart and mathcam, but that's not for today).

Fair enough.

[Cyberbob]

Where did Vaya go?

Not too far, hopefully; he did post yesterday but there are a number of multiple-day time lapses in his posting history so.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that he's being

more

useless than CoCo but he's certainly up there.

[Cyberbob]

Considering I'm off the wagon

and happen to be reasonably against Peabody being scum. I'll go ahead and say claim or die Peabody.

Whoa.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

[Cyberbob]

I'm literally going to sleep as I type this (laptops are the Great Insomnia Enabler ) but I'd just like to reiterate for now: whoa.

[Cyberbob]

My top 3 picks for today's lynch are CoCo, Cathart and charter:

- CoCo for flipflopping to Peabody being "probable town" right when the wagon was looking dangerous and then offering to hammer when it was all-but certain that he was going to be lynched (while still maintaining that he thought he was town? wtf?),
- Cathart for the same reasons I suspected him yesterday with an additional point about his consistent defence of Peabod using some rather questionable arguments and
- charter for hopping off the Peabody wagon when he did.

Vote: CoCo

- I know I said I'd give him a chance to lift his game today but that absurd last post of his was just too much. Peabody's flip was just the icing on the cake.

[Cyberbob]

Not sure about CoCo -- it seemed somewhat likely Peabody was going to be lynched at that point.

You obviously had a lot more confidence in the wagon than I did at that point: I was having nightmarish visions of the day being stretched out for aaaages with arguments arising from CoCo's sudden return to his early behaviour (as well as from the ridiculous discussion about scum:town ratios). That nearly happened IMO until SensFan came along and reminded everyone about Peabody with his L-1 vote.

Hm, thinking about this has got me musing about the possibility of said return to form being an attempt at a smokescreen. That's probably reaching a bit far though.

[Cyberbob]

Yikes. Where is everyone?

[Cyberbob]

Hoopla's reasoning seems pretty solid, though I'm not completely certain what relevance that line of discussion has to the situation at hand. Seems like it's the kind of thing that would be better suited to Mafia Discussion to me, unless someone could explain to me why it's useful to us right now?

Cathart's vote is making me question my own; I'm not entirely sure how comfortable I am in voting for the same person as (to me at least) the second scummiest one in the game at the moment.

Speaking of which, it is very interesting to see how closely Cathart's suspicions have mirrored my own - right down to the specific reasonings behind them. Buddying, perhaps? It's hard to say.

[Cyberbob]

A funny thing about words typed over the Internet, I've found, is that you can make them say whatever you want regardless of whether what they're saying is true or not.

[Cyberbob]

Alrighty, I can buy that I suppose.

[Cyberbob]

(the one minor attack was soon recanted)

He didn't recant until I spelled his contradiction out in explicit detail (he argued back a bit until finally asking me to provide quotes), and once I had done so I find any other course of action on his part than a meek withdrawal of the attack implausible at best.

Apart from that I do kind of see where you're coming from, at least as far as his interactions with me go (I'd have to go over his interactions with SensFan before I can comment there). I

did

notice that he was being rather cautious towards me at the time but I chalked it up to indecisiveness as to how much he could push back without looking overdefensive/OMGUSy - particularly seeing how I was not being viewed with any real suspicion by the majority of the players at the time. It's tough to aggressively defend yourself in a situation like that, scum

or

town.

[Cyberbob]

I'm not too sure about SensFan. I would possibly even help you put together a wagon on him if he hadn't put Peabody at L-1 at a time when he could easily have gone with the flow of the discussion at the time and drawn out the day even longer, perhaps even getting the vote-momentum swinging onto some other object of suspicion. It just seems so unnecessary to bus like that when you have so many other options (yes I know this is WIFOM; my point still stands).



After thinking about CoCo a bit more I think I'll

Unvote

him for the time being. I've still got him in my sights as a serious detriment to the town at best, but with Cathart on board as well I can't ignore the possibility that he might simply be an "easy lynch". For now I guess I'll just wait and see (I am also trying to avoid tunneling).

[Cyberbob]

Not yet, no.

You're thinking I voted him because he's annoying? You could be right I suppose; I didn't even really consider the possibility of scum jumping on him for being an easy town lynch until my number-two suspect voted for him.

Still, even thinking about him a bit more objectively there's still the manner in which he flipflopped on Peabody as well as the manner in which he offered to hammer him. So I'm definitely not letting him off the hook just yet.

[Cyberbob]

An oddity from D1 was Cyberbob who went the entire day without shifting his vote from Peabody. He made two FoS's throughout the course of the day, but made no effort (besides surface-deep enquiries) to pursue any other avenues. Although some consider it a scum-tell, I think town tend to vote-hop more than scum, and I find single-vote days truly bizarre (especially D1, with little to no knowledge). I'd like some explaination from Cyberbob about this.

Two reasons.

Firstly, Peabody never did anything to make me think that he was anything other than scum; disregarding the two Big Points in the case against him (his defence of his initial vote and his self-contradiction) none of his posts were particularly inspiring or salient. Even

Cathart

(I think it was him) managed to come up with one or two good points, but Peabody was kind of lethargic.

Secondly, nobody else did anything to make me think that they were more likely to be scum than Peabody. I

would

have been willing to settle for a Cathart or a CoCo lynch yesterday, and would have also been willing to switch my vote to either of them if it became apparent that I was not going to get a Peabody lynch. I considered switching to CoCo in particular at two points; the first being in the early stages of the day during the discussion about his overemotional play beforehand, and the second being in the midst of the fallout over his second flareup towards the end of the day.

The first time I decided against it mainly because overemotionalness is not a very good reason to vote for someone if that's all you have on them (I see it more as a supplementary point) and I had a fair bit more on Peabody. I came a lot closer on the second time, but for the reasons I outlined in Posts 581 & 595 I felt that Peabody's would be the more useful of the two cardflips. Which it clearly has been IMO.

[Cyberbob]

I'd be down for a CoCo lynch just so we don't have to deal with him any more, otherwise, Cathart still looks the scummiest to me.

Yeah, after thinking about it a bunch it's honestly difficult to see CoCo and Cathart being buddies. I can see each of them

individually

being scum, and I can see each of them

individually

being buddies with Peabody, but either they've done a good job of distancing from each other or one of them isn't scum.

Simply going by probabilities I'm inclined towards the latter option, and if I had to decide which one was "scum" and which one was "necessary lynch" - which I do, mindlessly lynching them both isn't really an option and the "necessary lynch" title can always be shaken off if the person wearing it lifts their game - I would pick CoCo for the latter and Cathart for the former. CoCo is certainly very scummy, and Hoopla's post summarising the case on him is very persuasive, but I am thinking that Cathart would be the better of the two to lynch

first

.

I guess what I'm saying in a kind of roundabout manner is that I agree with the quoted sentence.

[Cyberbob]

As far as both of them being scum together, that is probably the least likely combination of scum imaginable.

Yup, this is the precise reason why I've been a bit hesitant with my vote today. Decisions...

Hmm. I just had a Thought (with a capital T). I'd like to keep it to my chest for a bit later in the day, though.

No takes on SensFan? CoCo and cathart are both reasonable second-bests for me.

Ah, I knew I was forgetting someone. I will have to go back and take another look at the case on SensFan as I've managed to completely forget about it.

[Cyberbob]

Right, so I took a look back through your posts mathcam and all I can see about SensFan that you've been attacking for has been his first vote at the start of the game, and something about his choice of what to focus on after having come off V/LA "feeling off".

Could you elaborate on that second point a bit? It was enough for you to put him in your "Would pick to be lynched" category in the same post (and Sens picked up on this in Post 412), but you don't appear to have touched on it again. Indeed, in Post 537 he didn't even make your top 3...

I'm not having a go, I'm just looking for a bit more information before I can make a decision as to whether his lynch might be something to look at. I've looked at other people's posts too and the only things I've found have been criticisms of his lurking - which should be met with replacement rather than lynching.

[Cyberbob]

lurking

On this note, activity has dropped

right

off today. Are there exams coming up for people or something?

[Cyberbob]

I think we ignore his outburst, I think it's almost impossible he'd give away his partner in that manner.

Do you think it is "almost impossible" that Vaya is scum then?

[Cyberbob]

@CyberBob: My arguments from yesterday on SensFan were pretty weak, and I'm not really citing them as support for my vote. I'm more relying on my discussion today, how I think people showing up in my "medium" list make more natural targets, and then having other reasons for not voting other people in that list. SensFan is someone I don't feel particularly pro-town about who happens to show up in that middle list.

Okay, I can sorta-kinda buy that. I do question whether it is really enough to place him ahead of CoCo and Cathart, but right now I'd probably place him ahead of charter as my third preference.


As far as Vaya goes, that piece of WIFOM

is

going to have to be sorted out one way or another. I'm inclined to simply not buy into Peabody's cute little play and ignore it as being immaterial, but Vaya is almost certainly going to make it to the endgame (assuming we get that far, of course) if we don't lynch him and depending on who's left alive at whatever point I would be willing to support that option. Not today, though; today there are bigger and better fish to fry.

Vote:Col. Cathart

[Cyberbob]

I disagree.
Vaya's lynch will basically be one of policy. I don't want to policy lynch someone in LyLo.

I'm not seeing any mention of LyLo in my post? All I said was "not today".

[Cyberbob]

The policy being advocated is letting a dying scum pick the lynch for the next day. Why on earth would we want to give scum that power?

This is more or less why I don't want him to be lynched today. We have a far better policy lynch in the form of CoCo and a very decently scummy (IMO) lynch in the form of Cathart to choose from - I'm just not feeling this sudden thirst for Vaya's blood today.

[Cyberbob]

Right now my top 3 are:

1) Cathart
2) CoCo
Distant 3) SensFan

I would be happy with either Cathart or CoCo; I would only vote for SensFan if it became apparent that neither of the other two were going to be lynched. But yeah - we really need to get something happening in the way of a wagon. If nothing else people might be jolted out of this strange (and terribly annoying) lull.

[Cyberbob]

I am voting though, I voted for Cathart in Post 723.

Mod: can you fix that please?

Fixed.

[Cyberbob]

Who's Baka? Do you mean Vaya?

[Cyberbob]

So what you're saying is late November, possibly early December?



(aussie joke)

[Cyberbob]

I honestly can't say whether via is scum or not.

His posting dropped off quite suddenly after the quote war early in this game.
What I can say, is Sens appears to be sticking to what I perceive as a scum plan to lead the town into a

mislynch

.

If you think a Vaya lynch would be a mislynch that kind of implies you think he's town. That opening sentence is cute, and something a Proper Townie might say, but it's clearly not something you actually believe if you're so sure that this is all part of a scum plan to get a townie lynched.

[Cyberbob]

Ummm, no. You're looking way too deep into my words and changing the nature of my point.

Actually I'm not, but thanks anyways. You said you believe this to be a scum ploy to squeeze a mislynch out of the loss of one of their members, ergo you believe Vaya's lynch to be a mislynch, ergo you believe him to be town. It really doesn't get too much simpler than that.

Let me make this simple for you; what do you think of Sensfan after he brought up the WIFOM situation a confirmed scum made for us?

I think that it was always going to have to be discussed at one point or another, and that such things are usually best sorted out (one way or another) as early as possible. I don't like how forceful he is being in his push to lynch Vaya today, but I do think that he will probably have to be lynched at

some

point because without any means of determining whether Peabody was simply being crafty I would not be comfortable having him alive in an endgame situation.

[Cyberbob]

I don't place a whole lot of stock in the meta of a player who is not Peabody, but disregarding that I do think Sens is making sense (hyuk). I am not seeing much of anything new in that post however; these are all points you have made before. I recognise that Vaya will have to be lynched at one point, but I like the Cathart wagon for today's lynch a lot more than I do Vaya.

[Cyberbob]

Because I like Cathart for being Peabody's scumbuddy quite a lot, and I feel like the impetus behind the accusations being levelled against him is going to be lost if they are set aside until tomorrow.

I am also getting bad vibes from how aggressive you are being here; the policy lynching of someone based purely on a single scumpost is not something that I think we should be eager to perform.

[Cyberbob]

I've explained why I'm 'zoning in' on it. I, 100%, will be doing my damnest to get Vaya lynched at some point in this game, since I can't imagine why we would ever let her coast to a Scum win on WIFOM's coattails.

Therefore, I want her lynch today, since there is no point in delaying it.

The bolded part is really the only bit you and I disagree on.

[Cyberbob]

Unh. I was going to agree with mathcam's idea but then Vaya posted and I just don't know what the hell to think.

If Vaya is lynched today I can really only see Cathart's wagon sinking even further into obscurity than it already has. Am I totally off on this one or what?

[Cyberbob]

He's saying that you two are both fishing for a cop, and I agree.

Basically,

OH DEAR GOD. LYNCH COCO AND CATHART NOW. WHY CANT I BE A DAYVIG IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS?

[Cyberbob]

asdf;sagwlkrhjlwrlkwerbhwlkhwh

Dammit Vaya, that was just about the stupidest move you could possibly have made. Never never never never never ever self-vote - if you really are a townie you are knowingly supporting a mislynch, which is just about the most anti-town thing anybody can do. At

least

that vote wasn't the hammer.

[Cyberbob]

Unvote

[Cyberbob]

With Cathart's wagon rather conclusively shut down, I am actually happier with CoCo than before; I couldn't see him being Cathart's scumbuddy but now that we have a believable claim from Cathart I'm happy to have CoCo strung up.

Vote: CoCo

[Cyberbob]

Do you want to take the chance that he might be telling the truth? As scummy as I think he is I'm not

that

sure of his alignment.

[Cyberbob]

EBWOP:

Cathart, do you know if you are able to protect yourself?

[Cyberbob]

Well then, more power to you. Personally, I don't like taking those kinds of chances with roleclaims unless they're

really

obviously fake.

[Cyberbob]

This seems kind of dumb, too. It sounds like you policy unvote claimed power roles. All scum have to do is claim something unconfirmable (doctor for instance, oh look at what Cathart claimed...) and they can skate by the rest of the game.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I "policy" unvote them, more that I look at how plausible it is that a claim could have been made up as well as just how sure I am that the player in question is scum. I am

pretty

sure that Cathart is scum, but his claim does not strike me as the kind of thing that scum would be likely to make up and I am

not

sure enough of his alignment that I would be willing to make that bet.

[Cyberbob]

I can't believe no one thinks Charter is scummy after his recent play.

I don't think he's scummy, because I was very much tempted to go down more or less the same line he is right now. The only thing I see him being is a bit rash.

[Cyberbob]

I've weighed in, but it can't hurt to have it in a form more suitable for a skim read:

A) Very scummy.
B) Somewhat believable, unfortunately.

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob, stop being dumb. By your logic, any Scum that claims something half-decent won't be lynched.

By "not lynched" do you mean "not lynched on the day of the claim", or do you mean "not lynched ever"? Because I'm not advocating the latter and never have.

Thoughts of Vaya haven't changed.

Vaya needs to go today.

welp

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob, when would you consider lynching him? There is no advantage in keeping him alive. If he is town, his role will give us no more info if we let him live longer. If he is scum, like I said, he's probably a roleblocker. It's not like if he was an information role, where we should keep him alive another night. His role is 100% unconfirmable and gives town no information.

My god you're right, we should just lynch every doctor-type role because they're unconfirmable and don't give us any information!!!

I don't see why this claim is believable to you and why you don't want to lynch him today.

I do "want" to lynch him today but I don't "want" to lynch his role even more. His claim is believable

enough

to me such that I want to be absolutely confident that he is scum before voting for him again. At the moment I am just not quite there yet, I'm sorry.

It may be that he says something that sways me back into getting on his wagon today, it may not - but until such time as I am more or less 100% confident that he is scum I will not support killing off his role.

[Cyberbob]

Either way: I want to hear from SC, Hoopla, le Chat and mathcam about this business.

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob, grow a backbone. Are you seriously advocating that you are ok with absolutely never lynching Scum D1?

I'm sorry, what? Are you sure this is what you meant to write?

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob, grow a backbone. Are you seriously advocating that you are ok with absolutely never lynching Scum D1?

I'm sorry, what? Are you sure this is what you meant to write?

Yes. If you were in charge of the Town, you would never lynch Scum D1.

Oh, OK. Welp, guess it must be true then!

[Cyberbob]

I'm with a Vaya lynch today. I see the Sens kill more as being another layer of WIFOM than a definite scum ploy; Vayascum could easily have offed him, thereby doing away with a vote that was almost guaranteed to be on him, in the knowledge that we would probably see it as such.

I would not be happy at all to have him present in the endgame - not just because of the reasoning above but also because of the lurking charter pointed out. I can think of few things worse for a town in LyLo than a lurker.

Vote: Vaya

I don't have time to comment on CoCo/charter right now - I will do so when I get home from uni this afternooon.

[Cyberbob]

Okay, I've got like five minutes to type something out super quickly about CoCo and charter (dot points ahoy!):

- Would prefer it if charter at least made a cursory stab at answering CoCo's posts; if they're so idiotic it shouldn't be too difficult to rebut them in

some

form
- CoCo's claim was really dumb; if it is in fact true that just unnecessarily narrowed the list of potential power-roles even further
- His dodging of Hoopla's question about why he claimed is also noted
- le Chat's point about charter's play with regards to Cathart and Peabody is a

very

good one

Of the two, CoCo is looking worse at the moment but it isn't a sure thing by any stretch.

[Cyberbob]

That's an excellent point. If we have a 2-man scumteam, Vaya isn't scum.

It is a good point, but it is also an extremely big "if".

[Cyberbob]

What I am worried about is if Vaya and/or CoCo aren't scum, it lets scum almost coast to victory unchallenged. Does it not bother anyone else that these convenient lynches are being followed by almost everyone? It just seems too obvious.

Firstly, I don't know where you got the idea that CoCo is a shoe-in for lynching. I would also consider charter to definitely be on the cards, particularly when you take into account his play that le Chat pointed out concerning Peabody and Cathart.

Secondly, I'm not getting the feel that anything is being followed by "almost everyone", and I'm certainly not getting the feel that those that are in support of a Vaya lynch are doing so blindly or unquestioningly. It really only comes down to a judgement call IMO; Vaya is almost guaranteed to be alive for the rest of the game if we don't lynch him. Would you feel comfortable having a lurker with so many question marks hanging over his head alive in a LyLo situation?

I, for one, am not answering this question lightly and I don't think anybody else is either (regardless of their answer). I get why you might a bit skittish, but this really isn't what you're making it out to be.

[Cyberbob]

Wait, so you'd be comfortable having CoCo alive in lylo?

After claiming vanilla town for no reason, and generally being a nuisance, what incentive is there for scum to kill him? This isn't mentioning his scummy antics. He will either need to be lynched or left alive throughout the game. Although they probably both aren't scum, I would personally take my chances on Vaya being town, rather than CoCo.

Either way, I think we almost have to lynch one of these two today before it gets too late. It should be CoCo though.

I could live with a CoCo lynch today, though if we don't lynch Vaya I really do expect that he lifts his game with regards to his lurking. If he is in fact town this is something he should

want

to do anyway.

What are your thoughts on charter, by the way?

[Cyberbob]

Yes, but would you be comfortable with having CoCo alive in lylo? Say we don't lynch Vaya and CoCo back-to-back, it becomes a very real possibility of having either of them alive in lylo, if we don't hit scum.

Would you rather have Vaya or CoCo alive in a lylo situation?

I did say that I

would

be willing to lynch CoCo today, did I not? As for your question, it's tough to say. CoCo is scummier, but Vaya is no paragon of township himself and has considerably more WIFOM-y question marks hanging over his head. CoCo is overly rash while Vaya is a borderline lurker - neither of which are pro-town traits.

I would rather have CoCo alive, I think; he

has

shown that he is physically capable of more rational posting whereas Vaya has been pretty much consistently lurking for the entire game despite copping a fair amount of heat for it from various sources.

As for charter, I still have a town read on him, but certainly not as strong now because of the Cathart/Peabody ties on D1. He's worth looking at, but we

really

need to make some clear, solid plans on what to do with CoCo and Vaya.

I would personally say that in the absence of any major revelations we should lynch Vaya today. As for what course of action to take tomorrow, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

[Cyberbob]

It would be immensely funny if after the game it turned out that Sens did not in fact target

anyone

last night (assuming he was allowed to).

Even then, I'm pretty sure I'd be most uncomfortable with, say, SC and Le Chat, who I feel I have the weakest reads on, than I would even with a mathcam/CoCo/Vaya endgame.

Really? I agree with you about SC, but I've been feeling le Chat as being rather townish. If I had to pick two people for my weakest reads they would be SC and Hoopla.

Charter would be a very distant third on my list of preferred lynches. Hm, thinking about it it seems as though that's where he's been for pretty much the entire game. Not sure whether that says more about my ability to prioritise or his play though.

[Cyberbob]

CyberBob, charter still third? I think he'd be my top choice if I had to pick right now.

Mmmm. I still like CoCo for Peabody's scumbuddy due to the manner/timing of his getting off the Peabody wagon near the end of Day 1, but SC's voting analysis is very compelling evidence against charter too (post 928 owns). I'd put him at a close second right now.

[Cyberbob]

I got off the Peabody wagon?
Didn't Charter do so as well? For more ambiguous reasons?

Yes, but he hadn't gone after Peabody nearly as hard and his about-face wasn't nearly as abrupt and sudden as yours. You got on the wagon after I pretty much left you with no reasonable excuse not to, and jumped straight back off not too long after for no real discernible reason.

[Cyberbob]

But then why the Peabody vote that was on him for pretty much ever? Just distancing? I'm not convinced..

Ah, I forgot about that.

You have raised a pretty salient point. I will have to go back and see again how hard Peabody pushed that vote; if he just sort of let it sit there for the day then I would consider that distancing, but if he appears to have been genuinely pushing a CoCo lynch then yeah - I would agree with you.

[Cyberbob]

OK, so I went back and took a look at Peabody's attitude towards CoCo.

Firstly, he in no way had his vote on CoCo for "most of the day" - Post 431 is where he voted him. That's on the 18th page of the thread; over 2 weeks since the start of Day 1 and

only 5 days before he was lynched

.

Secondly, the vote itself was backed up with no more than "I'm willing to jump on this bandwagon", basically QFTing mathcam's suspicions and then a few sentences about CoCo's play that echoed almost every single point that had been raised previously. He also qualified his vote with a statement that he would be willing to switch to SensFan "if it proves worthy" (ie. if a wagon built that he could have slipped into). He did keep up

some

degree of pressure after having made the vote, but it really only came in the form of "answer these questions plz".

I'm not feeling this one as being anything other than distancing (also note the lame duck attempt at fending off accusations of buddying when CoCo was defending him early on in Post 235), sorry. He was a lot more consistent in his criticism of charter IMO.

Still happy with my vote on CoCo.

[Cyberbob]

477 means Coco is likely to be town. He definitely looked to me like Peabody's scapegoat lynch.

See, I disagree. This line that Peabody inserted:

Maybe he's not seeing them or reading them?

Looks very much to me like he's givng CoCo a not-so-subtle "out".

[Cyberbob]

Is that really all you have to offer, Vaya?

[Cyberbob]

Damn you, ninjacharter.

---

Okay, just finished reading charter's post (my last one was only a kneejerk in response to Vaya's) and now I just don't know what the hell. His points about SC and le Chat (Hoopla's on the latter too) are pretty good, but on the other hand so is SC's point about charter's voting pattern. Then there's CoCo, who I think has been pretty consistently scummy for most of the game and towards whom Peabody only made a very weak attack that really does look like a distancing attempt to me.

Oh, and Vaya's vote on top of everything else to do with him that has come before.

...

I'm going to stick with CoCo for now, I think. Next in line would probably be Vaya, followed by charter; SC is bumped down the list further than he otherwise would have been if Vaya had not made that awful vote. I am still pretty happy with my CoCo vote, though.

[Cyberbob]

I'm voting for Vaya? I could've sworn I was voting for CoCo...

*checks posts*

Hm, guess not. How strange.

Unvote, Vote: CoCo

[Cyberbob]

EBWOP:

Actually, let me re-open a discussion. Given that there were only 2 scum the first time around, why aren't we taking the default position that there are 2 scum this time? Certainly Kublai probably re-worked the game a little between the two runs, but changing the number of scum seems like it would be cause for a major re-balancing, and take a lot longer.

I personally would tend to agree with you, but attempting to outguess the mod rarely ends well no matter how "certain" one thinks one is. If we do proceed under the assumption that we started with 2 scum that might make us a bit too complacent with our lynches. It's safer, IMO, to act as though the larger scumgroup is the one we're playing with.

[Cyberbob]

I really hate the phrase "outguessing the mod" -- it's only Bastard mods who think of themselves as being in a guessing competition with the players.

Every

time we make an inference about the game (there's probably not 6 scum, or 4 cops, or a cult, etc.) we're "outguessing" the mod in that sense.

There's no sense in throwing our hands up in the air and bemoaning the fact that we can't know for certain anything about the setup

-- we use facts and inference to create plausible scenarios (keeping fully aware that our scenario is only one possible scenario), and then make decisions based off of those deductions.

I'm not suggesting that we do anything of the sort, actually. I'm saying that we should

consider

all possible situations, and that we should come up with a plan of action that minimises the risk of causing too much damage to the town in case we get it wrong.

That the original setup had 2 scum is an incredibly important piece of information at our disposal, and you would have us completely ignore it.

See above. I think we're in agreement, but either you're misreading what I'm saying or I wasn't being clear enough.

Well, good, at least this is an actual reason. But really? You think our standards for lynch will be different? Regardless of how many scum there are, don't we always want to lynch the scummiest person? And it's

not

safer to assume something if it leads us to worse decisions. Say I was absolutely positive (which I'm not) that the scum group has size 2 -- then I would be sure that Vaya is not scum. But then I figure to be safe, I'll assume that there's 3 -- then I note that Vaya's done some scummy things, and end up lynching a (say) townie Vaya. Isn't that complacency just as bad? In fact, I think the only potential complacency going on is in regards to avoiding making hard decisions in the name of "not outguessing the mod."

I think that we might be a little more willing to settle for "policy lynches" and the like if we proceeded under the assumption that there is only one scum left as opposed to two. That's just me, though, and I do see merit in some of your points here - particularly concerning Vaya.

The only thing, though, is that apart from the Vaya situation I can't think of anything else that would hurt the town more if we were to proceed as though we were dealing with a 3-scum team. If you or anyone else could, I would feel a lot more comfortable in leaning slightly more towards the other option.

Wow, that was supposed to be a 2-liner. Sorry about that.

Happens to me all the time.

[Cyberbob]

I've seen a few games with only two scum, but these are usually off-set by weak town powerroles.

Something against the idea of a two-man scumteam this game, is the power that has already flipped for the town so far. A hider can be quite a useful role to confirm town, and a doctor/RB is something that can be more than useful. The 2:10 games I've seen have either been all vanilla, or at max one town powerrole.

For this game to have 2 scum there would need to be some detrimental town-roles (think PGO, paranoid/naive cop etc.) or the two scum would both need to be powered. Both are unlikely, despite the original game starting with only two.

This post is a good post.

Where is my SerialClergyman?

So is this one.

[Cyberbob]

For people interested about my vote on Peabody being there for the whole day, I did give some explanation for this (as well as talking about the points at which I nearly moved it) back in Day 2 when Hoopla asked me about it then. I do think it's kind of lame of her not to have made any more noises on this front until now - by her lack of response to the aforementioned post I assumed that she had accepted my reasoning - but whatever.

I don't have time right now (posting from uni and I have a lecture in 15) to say much else apart from noting the high quality of mathcam's last post. Will try to comment further this evening sometime.

[Cyberbob]

Alrighty.

Hoopla, please make up your mind about someone. Almost every read that you've posted has been qualified into oblivion; chronic indecision helps nobody except scum as it contributes to stagnation (even your most recent one on the guy you're voting for was basically "not sure, must reread"). It would be really helpful if you could come up with

some

kind of a definite stance. Preferably one that involves voting or otherwise putting more pressure on CoCo (I agree - his activity pattern has been completely dodgy), but I'll take almost anything at this point as long as it isn't more of the same old wishy-washiness.

Vaya... what charter said. I also seem to remember saying (or at least seconding) this before: you're in too many games.

I like the cases on charter and SC (I like the one on SC a bit more), but I like the one on CoCo even more right now. As far as le Chat goes, I don't think he's scum; he just needs to post more. Vaya has made a few more posts overall, but le Chat has given us a lot more content as well as (IMO) generally being less scummy.

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob, you keep talking about how great a Coco vote is, but can you point me to your posts where you explain it? I'm not really seeing your fascination with it.

I've been pointing out scummy things he's been doing for pretty much the entire game thus far. I don't really want to have to link the majority of the posts I've made, so I'll pick out the more relevant ones from today (as I really only began to see him as a "most" viable target today.

If you're interested in the full story you are welcome to read my earlier posts in isolation.

- In Post 897 I call him out on his stupid claim and also his dodging of a question put to him by Hoopla about it
- In Posts 930 and 932 I talk about the timing and manner of his jumping off the Peabody wagon
- In Posts 937 and 939 I post the results of a reread of Peabody's behaviour towards CoCo in Day 1 after SC pointed out that he had been voting CoCo for pretty much the entire day. This turned out not to be the case, but if it had been that would have made CoCoscum a lot less likely. As it turned out, I actually found things that

reinforced

my confidence in my vote.
- In Post 946 I sort of summarise my position on a few people, including CoCo (this is, I think, the point at which I start assuming that I've voted for him when in fact I was still voting Vaya).
- And finally (at this stage), in Post 973 I agree with a point Hoopla made about CoCo's activity pattern being pretty dodgy (when he isn't under the limelight he seems to post in a manner designed to keep it that way as much as possible).

We should totally pick up activity, a deadline would suck. We can definitely hammer this out and lynch scum today.

I agree. I would be willing to settle for an SC lynch if nobody joins me on CoCo.

[Cyberbob]

If you have already decided that you're likely to be voting le Chat next, wouldn't you need to have at least

some

form of reasoning in your mind?

[Cyberbob]

Fair enough.

[Cyberbob]

Do you mind if I ask why you see Vaya as being protown? I would put him at neutral at best.

[Cyberbob]

I disagree with a le Chat lynch. I don't really get how he has managed to pick up so many votes when as far as I can tell the only points that have been raised against him heve been based around either speculating on SensFan's choice of hiding target or criticising his activity pattern. I don't place a whole lot of stock in the former for similar reasons to those behind my stance on guessing the number of scum in the game, and the latter is hardly unique to le Chat. Vaya has been inactive for the vast majority of the game with only a few people holding it against him for only a small amount of time before letting it drop, SC has done almost exactly the same thing as le Chat and even mathcam has had his dry spells.

CoCo has been working a scummy activity pattern too. He has slacked off a

lot

recently compared to his early frenzy, which I would place this as being a probable attempt to fly under the radar for as late into the game as he possibly can. When you take this into account as well as all the other points against him that I summarised in Post 976... yeah, I can't condone a le Chat lynch. I've said this a few times before today, but the only other lynches I can realistically see myself supporting at the moment would be SC and charter with a preference for SC.

[Cyberbob]

My vote on Le Chat is not based on inactivity. In fact, none of my comments were based on inactivity, I don't think.

While I understand your objections, CyberBob, it's also just not true that anyone who's scum automatically does something scummy in the first couple of days (especially if there is a decent amount of inactivity on that player's part). Thus process of elimination has to be considered as an alternative technique. The paragraph before my vote explains how I narrowed in on specifically on Le Chat. I'm not trying to oversell this case as airtight, but it's less...air-loose... than just randomly picking someone that satisfied a particular criteria (responding to your "hardly unique to le Chat' comment).

I don't really get how he has managed to pick up so many votes when as far as I can tell the only points that have been raised against him heve been based around

either speculating on SensFan's choice of hiding target

or criticising his activity pattern.

I don't place a whole lot of stock in the former for similar reasons to those behind my stance on guessing the number of scum in the game

, and the latter is hardly unique to le Chat.

[Cyberbob]

Bugger, screwed up mathcam's quote. Pretend there's a [/quote] tag at the end of that second paragraph.

[Cyberbob]

Yeah, I got your post, Cyber. I was responding to "the latter" argument, since we had already discussed "the former" argument when we discussed the number of scum.

Ah, cool.

You said this in response to my complaint that it was silly to dismiss pieces of information relevant to the game, even if they aren't slam dunks, 100% guarantees of finding scum. But it doesn't sound like "not putting much stock in" is really any better than dismissing them outright.

"Not putting much stock in", to me, means that I would only ever use whatever it is that I'm "not putting much stock in" as sort of a secondary point to bring up against someone; the point exists, to be sure, but I don't have enough faith in it to use it as a lynchpin in a case - let alone using it as virtually the

whole

of a case. If you could find something else on le Chat, or a slightly more solid indicator from Sens about his target, then I would be more open to a le Chat lynch. With players like CoCo and SC running around, though... not right now, sorry.

Is it that you don't think wondering about Sens is worthwhile since his actions are inherently unpredictable, or that you disagree with my conclusions? I'm certainly open to the latter, but can't really see the former as a tenable stance.

I certainly think that wondering about Sens is worthwhile, and I do (somewhat) agree with your conclusion; it's just that in the absence of anything substantive (such as a breadcrumb) it's all just guesswork and supposition.

Wondering

is worthwhile, but without anything more than said wondering we should be careful to

act

.

[Cyberbob]

In the end, I guess maybe it just comes down to how much faith you're willing to place in a scum read you get off of someone. For me, not a lot. For you, a lot.

Yeah, I guess. I just don't really like thought experiments as a primary generator of suspicion unless they are able to be backed up with something more solid.

[Cyberbob]

On a different note -- what do you think about the argument that, inactivity aside, Le Chat's stances in this game have been rather mellow? Would you agree that it's easier for scum to hide behind such a playstyle?

Now

this

is, to me, a significant point against him; I do indeed agree that a wishy-washy playstyle is easier for scum to hide behind. I also see that charter picked up on this same thing, and his post is rather persuasive...

I would like to reread him for myself before possibly changing my vote; this should be done by tonight. Also note that charter's vote put him at L-1, so I'll definitely be trying to make any possible decision to hammer as informed as I can.

[Cyberbob]

OK, very very quick reread of le Chat (I was planning on doing this last night when I would have had more time, but the forums were down):

- "Does not know what to think about Vaya v CoCo" in Post 109
- Doesn't see Peabody's initial vote as a scumtell, also continues to "find it hard" to get a read on CoCo
- Next couple of posts are whitenoise
- Big Post 241; writes a

lot

of words yet in effect says nothing
- Next few posts after the above one continue nothing, only thing of note is an unvote of Cathart and agreeing about Peabody's contradiction (no vote though)
- Nope, in Post 337 he reverts to not finding Peabody scummy and in fact finding him town?
- Votes Vaya after another bunch of largely empty words for "not contributing much" (lol)
- Doesn't re-vote Vaya at the beginning of the next day despite having had his vote on him at the end of the previous day and deliberately not allowing the Peabody WIFOM thing to make him "any more or less suspicious" (surely if you didn't feel any less suspicious of someone you were previously voting for you would vote them again?)
- I'm noting a slight theme of buddying towards me; his strongest statements seem to be complimentary of my play
- Is suspicious of Hoopla in Post 686 for being reticient
- Is V/LA from the 26th of September to the 1st of October; this is like the third (or something) time he's been away
- "Hates" Vaya's attitude but provides an out, also claims that he had been suspicious of Cathart previously but his only mention of him that I can find up to that point on Day 2 was a QFTing of a charter post
- Eases off Cathart after the claim, "fears" that his roleclaim was true despite agreeing that he was scummy

Thus far on Day 3 his contributions have consisted of:
- A Vaya vote that has since been retracted
- An attempt to push the possibility that Sens might not have died from targeting scum (which in light of mathcam's list does indeed take on a new significance)
- Posting a town/scum list (charter and SC were listed as scummy) which he was

still

wringing his hands over
- ...



I reckon I could count the number of definite positions he's taken on one hand. I'm still holding out for someone to join me for what seems to me to be a no-brainer CoCo wagon, but yeah - I could live with a le Chat lynch.

I want to hear from Hoopla, CoCo and I want more from SC.

[Cyberbob]

Honestly, I think le Chat's actions are lynch worthy and unless his replacement finds some undiscovered gold mine, I'm probably still going to want to lynch him.

This describes my thoughts about CoCo almost perfectly, and with all these replacements I can see today dragging on for a very very long time; I fear the possibility of one or more of them getting bored and flaking as well if we don't pick things up.

[Cyberbob]

It is good to see that Socrates has already done his reading, though.

[Cyberbob]

Can you please explain in a bit more detail how can possibly find SC to be more scummy than CoCo's replacement?

[Cyberbob]

Can anyone explain to me how my behavior has been scummy

Certainly. What charter said above, and the fact that you wrote these words:

and not just a source of butthurt?

[Cyberbob]

bob, I'd love to see your theory on how that phrase furthers a scum wincon.

I'm more interested in the fact that posts like that actively work against the town's "wincon" (this is a really stupid neologism), which indirectly works towards the scum's "wincon".

[Cyberbob]

Meh, I guess I was still thinking in only terms of CoCo and not his replacement.

So was I, at least for the most part. SC is scummy but he's nowhere

near

CoCo or even le Chat.

[Cyberbob]

Pointing out irrational, emotional reactions doesn't hurt the town more than voting based on them does, no matter how much you dislike the phrasing.

If you're going to try and turn this into an actual line of discussion, I will require examples.

most of everything else is plausible VI behavior to me

Two things.

- I'm not going to let you get away with making a wishy-washy catchall dismissal of the majority of the play from one of the scummiest players in the game. I want you to rebut each of the dot points in this post with as much detail as you can.
- VI?

[Cyberbob]

Ah, ok, I see what you're saying. Yes, hiding behind Coco doesn't seem possible without an obvious breadcrumb.

This line of attack is entirely dependent on there only being 2 scum in the game (including Peabody). How do you know there aren't 3?

Or maybe you

do

know?

[Cyberbob]

1) Why would scum claim here? It's a stupid play all around.

Scum are more likely to be overly quick on the draw with their claims.

2) This is Peabody stuff, which I said I agree with
3) More Peabody stuff.

OK.

4) This is just you rehashing that you think CoCo is scum?

4/5 is close enough for me.

5) Meh, I'm willing to bet most people become more active when people are loudly professing suspicion of them, and CoCo is obviously more easily agitated than most. Look at Talitha in this very game.

Scum are far more likely to follow an activity pattern like this than town, as they have more of a vested interest in slacking off when they aren't under the microscope. Town should be posting as often as they can all the time.

I never said I would resist a Raskol lynch, and I admitted that I am probably overvaluing my SC read. I still am more confidant about Le Chat though, and would rather DDD be lynched.

And Raskol STILL absolutely refuses to speak about any suspicion about anyone other than DDD.... I am about ready to change my mind about which lynch I would prefer.

I'll agree to disagree with you about le Chat (at least as far as

most

preferable lynches go; I agree that he is a viable lynch) for the same reasons as I did so with mathcam. As far as Raskol goes... I'm not too sure what his deal is but if he thinks he's going about digging himself out of the hole that CoCo created in the right way he's seriously delusional.

[Cyberbob]

Scum are more likely to be overly quick on the draw with their claims.

Maybe for a power role, but eager to claim vanilla? That doesn't sound right to me.

Why would scum be hasty in claiming powerroles? Those carry the burden of confirmation and also carry the risk of a counterclaim. I was specifically talking about vanilla town claims in my post.

[Cyberbob]

Why would scum be hasty is claiming Vanilla? It does nothing to make the town think they are more valuable and it is well known that doing so is antitown as it helps the scum find the actualy powerroles. Not to mention it needlessly draws attention to them.

If they feel they are getting pressured - or are about to be pressured - they think it will draw some heat off of them without them having to actually supply a detailed defence of the case being made against them.

I'm not saying that they're

right

, and I'm not saying that town can't do it either (obviously they can). I'm saying that - at least in my experience - scum tend to be

more likely

to be the ones jumping the gun a bit. I would be more likely to call CoCo's particular case as nervy town were it not for all the other scummy things that he's done.

[Cyberbob]

What a bunch of bullshit. My first post in the game was a case on my top suspect, and I've I haven't sat back for a second since. I did say that people who wanted info out of me beyond what I'm already volunteering independently would have to ask questions in order to get it, but I've in no way been "hanging back"

just waiting

for questions. True, I've had to spend a good amount of my time defending myself, but even in that I think a lot of information has come out, and not just about me.

In any case, such an accusation as "hanging back not actively seeking scum" is hilarious coming from a guy who was waiting on le Chat before he was willing to contribute

anything

, and has been in the game from near the start and says he doesn't have much of a read on anything. I'm finding your sudden change of heart extremely fishy, especially after your last few mentions of CoCo were things like this:

His (Peabody's) exchange with coco in this post and this post is indicative of him not being partners with coco, I think.

477 means Coco is likely to be town. He definitely looked to me like Peabody's scapegoat lynch.

So before now you thought CoCo was town.

But now, you come in and see me under attack, and you think to yourself: mislynch ahoy! So you conjure up a few sentences about me pretty much echoing charter's BS (which I think may be genuine, if wrong, unlike yours) and cast your vote, confident of being supported.

Well, fuck that. I may in fact get lynched today, but if I do, you're not going to come out of it clean. I've understood, if not agreed with, the other attacks on me, but as far as I'm concerned, your last post is the vote of an opportunistic mafioso.

Unvote
vote: SerialClergyman

Pointing out irrational, emotional reactions doesn't hurt the town more than voting based on them does, no matter how much you dislike the phrasing.

[Cyberbob]

What do you think of SC's little change of heart, there?

I think it's reasonable given that he appears to be basing it more on your play than some sudden epiphany he's had about CoCo's play (if he had tried to play this card I would definitely be calling him out on opportunism).

Don't really have much else to say right now. I would like to go on the record as absolutely hating anything that excuses scummy play just because it's "too scummy", which is essentially the whole idea behind the "VI" construct.

[Cyberbob]

Other than butthurt

Next time you use the word butthurt in a derogatory fashion, or any other sort of thing along the same lines I'll be PMing Kublai. Personal insults have no place in mafia.

[Cyberbob]

DDD's lazy defence of Raskol/CoCo is noted.

And no he wasn't; certainly anti-town and pretty useless, but not scummy.

Here's a helpful hint for you: being anti-town and useless is more or less the primary mechanism by which scum win.

----

How is that a personal insult, exactly? Would you have preferred that I use a longer phrase that means the same thing, like "a desire to spite me because of your emotional overreaction to my refusal to do your exact bidding"?

Personally, I prefer "butthurt". It doesn't take nearly as long to type.

The correct response to a request for you to stop being insulting is not to question why you are being seen as insulting. I do not care about your preferences with regards to the amount of time it takes to write something; if you make another insult during the duration of game I will be going to the mod.

[Cyberbob]

quit wasting my time

I am less interested in wasting your time than I am in ending it.

[Cyberbob]

Bob: I think you're way over-reacing to butthurt. Are you interpreting it as a gay slur? I took it as a synonym for "pain in the ass," which is a fairly mild epithet.

I'm not picking on the word (it is a gay slur btw) so much as I am picking on the fact that he seems to think that making any kind of personal attack is acceptable behaviour if it's done in the name of "saving effort".

I'd rather not spend any more time focusing on this issue, so I will leave it at that. My threat regarding Kublai does still stand though.

----

DDD - le Chat's replacement, remember - is pressing forward with his "too scummy to be scum" defence of CoCo/Raskol I see. Not a good defence at all I'm afraid, especially when you look at how CoCo seemingly realised that he was posting so horribly and attempted to drop off the radar. He did it a few times; the middle of Day 1, a good chunk of the start of Day 2 and possibly one more that I can't pinpoint off the top of my head.

Throwing around the "VI" word so liberally is showing a complete ignorance of the game. Sorry.

[Cyberbob]

I'll also note that stupid scum are every bit as possible as stupid town. I don't see any qualification in DDD's posts that acknowledges this possibility; how can he be so sure?

[Cyberbob]

Avoiding mislynches is helpful, don't you think?

I 100% agree with the quoted sentence.

[Cyberbob]

Well, that's sort of a no-brainer. I agree as well. But I didn't quite catch your point -- are you arguing that the charter/Raskol interactions are productive?

That specific post wasn't really commenting on the productivity of their interactions, though I do think that they are heavily unproductive.

EBWOP for Bob: Or was the "mislynch" directed toward my wanting to lynch DDD? I thought you were in agreement that he wasn't looking so good today.

I was being facetious and talking about mislynches in general. *shrug*

[Cyberbob]

DDD's modus operandi appears to be chalking as much scummy behaviour as he possibly can up to "useless town" and falling back on his "extensive experience" when his judgement is questioned. He really is le Chat 2.0.

[Cyberbob]

He really is le Chat 2.0.

Lol.

Okay, the last few posts seem to have everyone in agreement -- why aren't we lynching DDD?

Cam

As long as I think there is a valid chance of getting Raskol lynched - and given that he is currently sitting on L-2 there certainly is one - I'm going to be sticking with him.

[Cyberbob]

Don't think mathcam will... Socrates and Hoopla might. *sigh*

Need more posts from these two.

[Cyberbob]

Process of elimination is a really horrible strategy unless the game is something like a Smalltown, where you have a lot of roles and you know where all the roles are. You can't just lock the town into a set course of action based on current knowledge, and you can't plan for every eventuality (as much as you might try with your "contingencies").

I will be more than happy to lynch you today, but I'm not going to be railroaded into only looking at a specific few as viable lynches tomorrow.

[Cyberbob]

I can't force anyone to do anything. I'm just making suggestions---it's your job to evaluate them and make up your own mind.

I'm not saying that you are

trying

to force anyone to to anything, just that that is what your suggestion more or less involves. In role-heavy games where the locations of the roles are also known (late in a themed game, or a smalltown) a process-of-elimination is a valid approach because you are getting a lot more information from the mod than in a more vanilla game.

1. Assume, for the sake of argument, that you had a town flip from either Danny or myself, and good new reason to believe that the remaining player is also town. In this hypothetical situation where Danny and I are both cleared, who besides charter and SC would you think is a viable contender for being our remaining scum (ie, better than random chance, as opposed to worse than random)?

So basically you want to know I think is most likely to be scum out of Hoopla, Socrates and mathcam?

In a situation like that I would be looking hardest at Socrates and Hoopla. Socrates replaced Vaya, who had a fair amount of baggage hanging over his head before the thing with the roleblock setting him as more likely to be town in many people's eyes. Hoopla hasn't been as active as I would prefer, though what posts she does make are generally on the mark.

2. Besides Danny, who would you be willing to believe is my scumpartner?

If you were lynched now flipped scum, and there was some magical force preventing us from lynching DDD tomorrow... I would have to do a fair amount of rereading but off the top of my head I would probably be looking at Socrates.

I just want to point out that comments like this are a major scumtell.

Forming reads as scum is always more difficult than doing it as town, as scum already know everyone's alignment and have to spend a lot of mental energy creatively coming up with false reads, while making sure those reads don't interfere with their goal of staying concealed and getting mislynches.

I'd also like to call attention to the sharp rise in SC's activity levels around the times when I've expressed suspicion of him. Make of that what you will

le Chat did both of these things - the former one in particular - and CoCo was a big fan of the activity levels thing. Just saying.

[Cyberbob]

To be clear, I don't think it's absolutely certain myself---

which is why I'd personally be happier lynching him first

Well, of course.

Actually, how about this: in your opinion, would my town flip clear Danny more than Danny's town flip would clear me, or vice versa?

I don't like making this kind of judgement in advance simply because of the fluid nature of the bases (I

think

that's how you pluralise "basis") on which they're formed. If I absolutely had to make a choice between the two options, though, I would go with your (hypothetical) town flip clearing DDD more - if only because I don't feel like he's been under as much pressure as you and thus has less reason to go for a risky defence of his scumbuddy.

I do want to stress that I wouldn't see him as "cleared", just a bit less likely to be scum. There is always the chance that one of you is going for a risky buddy-gambit; defend the townie most likely to be lynched, and if they

do

get lynched you can then turn around and point to your defence as being a point in your favour.

I'm not saying that this is definitely what's going on here, or even that it is highly likely; only that there do exist valid scenarios where one of you could be scum and the other town.

[Cyberbob]

Ninja'd by Hoopla... ugh. I can see reasons for voting DDD over Raskol, but none of the ones she chose to go with are ones I agree with.

[Cyberbob]

Ninja'd by Hoopla... ugh. I can see reasons for voting DDD over Raskol, but none of the ones she chose to go with are ones I agree with.

What are your reasons?

Most of my suspicion of le Chat/DDD stems from this reread I did of le Chat, wherein I saw for myself just how wishy-washy he was for pretty much the whole game, as well as this read I have on DDD:

DDD's modus operandi appears to be chalking as much scummy behaviour as he possibly can up to "useless town" and falling back on his "extensive experience" when his judgement is questioned. He really is le Chat 2.0.

[Cyberbob]

I don't think it will/does make him 100% confirmed, though, just a lot more likely to be town than he would be if he hadn't been defending me.

Even if I did think he was 100% confirmed town, his lynch would have the same advantages as my lynch does (and you'll note I'm willing to be lynched, despite being 100% confirmed to myself)---so I'm willing to lynch him for the same reasons, which you'll find I've explained pretty thoroughly over the past few pages.

Of course, none of this is optimal---I'd really prefer, in an ideal world, to lynch you right now. But I have to consider not only catching the sccum, but

convincing the town that I'm right

.

I think that getting a town flip today from one of us is the only realistic way for me to do that, since I'm under such a high degree of suspicion. And since a mislynch today won't lose us the game, I'm willing to make a sacrifice in order to secure the eventual win.

Cyberbob---that's completely reasonable. I'm not in any way suggesting that any of this is certain. Things rarely are in this game. What I'm trying to do is set things up so we can play the odds to our benefit in the best way possible.

Er, is this whole post directed at me? It kind of looks like you're talking to someone else in the first bit.

[Cyberbob]

Plus, he keeps saying a DDD townflip will clear him while condemning me and Serial. Seriously? Sounds to me like he knows DDD is town, sees he is going down, and is planting seeds in everyone's head for his coast to victory.

I really really strongly suggest that anyone who finds this even the slightest bit credible should vote for me today. I am absolutely 100% serious.

I mentioned this exact scenario in my last post, and I do believe that I am voting for you already.

[Cyberbob]

The last few posts from SC are some of the dumbest I have ever seen.

[Cyberbob]

It seems like you've now shifted to charter/Hoopla because you can't come up with a plausible buddy for Raskol. That's really not a good reason to write off Raskol as town, which is what I think you've done.

SC's dancing around like water on a hotplate. My guess wpuld be either that he's protecting his buddy or that he has finally found an excuse to not be on a town wagon that's likely to result in a lynch.

[Cyberbob]

The last few posts from SC are some of the dumbest I have ever seen.

It seems like you've now shifted to charter/Hoopla because you can't come up with a plausible buddy for Raskol. That's really not a good reason to write off Raskol as town, which is what I think you've done.

SC's dancing around like water on a hotplate. My guess wpuld be either that he's protecting his buddy or that he has finally found an excuse to not be on a town wagon that's likely to result in a lynch.

That was hours and pages of discussion's worth of content from pretty much every player in the game, but the two quotes above are Bob's entire contribution to it.

I've had a bit of a rough week thus far IRL, both personally and in terms of workload. I've been keeping as active as possible considering my circumstances; I will have something more substantive on Friday afternoon.

[Cyberbob]

It's OK, you couldn't have known.

[Cyberbob]

I would much prefer a Raskol lynch, but SC would be an acceptable alternative given their interactions today.

I've got a bit of time to post, so I will make a stab at proper a proper rebuttal to SC's plan. It won't be hugely verbose, but I will try to cover all of the major points.

I have two major problems with his ideas. The first one is that I really don't like all the assumptions he's made from the outset with regards to certain people's alignments. This has nothing to do with whether or not my feelings lean in the same direction as his, mind: even if I agreed with his reads I would still be disagreeing with the fact that he is taking them and turning them into ironclad predicates. I don't feel like I need to explain why this is a bad idea in a game of mafia.

My second problem is related-ish to the first one. I disagree in the strongest possible terms with his willingness to pronounce "If Player X Flips This Way, The Scumteam is THIS". I'm all for attempts to come up with a

most plausible

list of scum based on a hypothetical flip, but once again SC is turning his subjective reads and stating them as Fact.

I would suspect that at least part of the reason Raskol and DDD haven't spoken out against SC's idea is because any plan that involves declaring them town from the outset is a good one from their perspective regardless of its actual soundness.

(I know DDD is voting SC but he hasn't done very much pushing of the wagon and he hasn't mentioned the whole plan thing at all)

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob I could change my mind on, that'sjust in general basedo n how he played with

low activity at the start of this day.

You're joking, right?

[Cyberbob]

DDD reads dead straight town to me. What can I say? He's shown no deception or self-preservation or anything that makes me think he's scum.

Raskol I could be wrong on, but I jsut get the feeling that it's real. I don't think his self-vote was a gambit. We were so hounding him for so long that self-voting and the martyr stuff was scummy, then he went and did it anyway. Did he expect it was some kind of zany double bluff? To me, that looked like someone prepared to die for his belief. So I unvoted to give myself room, and then started wondering who his partner was. Now I'm here.

So basically you're using your gut to work your way through a bunch of WIFOM. That's fine, but at least be honest about the fact that it's all still WIFOM and

please

don't express your gut reads as fact.

Why would I go through this grilling from every man and their dog to try to seperate from a mislynch? I knew I was going to cop some flak, you knew it, it was always going to be MORE DANGEROUS for me to move away from the mislynch than just sit on it.

I've often seen scum try to loudly distance themselves from a lynch they know to be on a townie in order to try and score points with the others if that person ends up being lynched. I have also seen scum do the same thing with a wagon on their buddy to try and swing the momentum onto a townie.

The latter of the two usually works out worse, but if we mislynch today we will in all probability be in LyLo tomorrow so I can see something like it being tried.