Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[cruelty]

Oh here I am. Sorry, timezones etc + working = L(ish)A over wed/thurs US time.


Anyway, I want my RV so

vote: Chinaman

for continuously being in all my mini-normal games.



Not sure if Almaster is serious or not, but when I first signed up to the site I read through a couple games before I played. If this is a serious case it's ridiculous.

Having said that, I agree that an early bandwagon is dangerous; that's exactly what scum want. Something they can hide in and hopefully push a mislynch through quickly. If that happens, town is immediately down 2 barring a lucky doctor save (which would be luck if this hypowagon moved quickly).

[cruelty]

It makes sense, to me at least, for a town player to research a player they're suspicious of, but to go and look up everyone or even random people at the very beginning?

@f13: Would you agree that it makes sense for a new player to read through some games before jumping into a game of his or her own?


As archaebob said, Almaster leaped to the assumptiong that Gamma researched [at least him, possibly all of us]. Gamme actually said nothing of the sort, so this is a point of massive misrepresentation.



@everyone (you don't need to reply, just think about it); did you register and immediately start playing in a game, or did you register and flick through a few games before you started playing?

[cruelty]

What was the purpose of this question though? Are you suggesting that he might have encountered Almaster before? Maybe, but that is extremely unlikely, especially if he is a relatively new player.

Seems pretty straightforward to me..

All I wanted to know was if you thought it was reasonable to read through games before jumping in - you said it was. It's not

that

unreasonable to think that someone in one of those games ends up playing in this game - Chinaman has been in my last 3 mini-normals.

[cruelty]

I'm here, been busy during the weekend and the little time I did have I put into another game, because this one was harder to read.


Yeah my RVS vote is still there, so

unvote

.


I'm skeptical of AGM in general, I thought that he came out of the gates like a bull and it almost seemed deliberate, the amount of attention he was drawing to himself. Then he presents a ridiculous case and disappears, I thought it almost seemed like he was behaving scummy on purpose, creating a WIFOM defence or something.

I'm not really down with foilist, I think that you're scrambling, I don't entirely agree with your epic wall post (I think Muffin tends to waffle (get it?) on a bit but I wouldn't say he's entirely devoid of content) but I'm not sure that it makes you scum. I think that you're making it easy for us to lynch you, but I also think that you could be explained away as an irritatingly stubborn person. I'm undecided as to which.

[cruelty]

@ cruelty - I want to avoid any more arguments about whether or not it's necessary to always be voting, so I'll just say this: can you please indicate who you overall find the most suspicious right now?.

Foilist, but as I said I'm not 100% decided, and I don't want to contribute to a quick wagon.

I don't like scumlists, I think that it's an easy way for scum to work out who to target - take out the people that everyone thinks are town, and then you're left with a bunch of shady characters. Stop posting them please, they should really be only used at the end of the day by a player who is a likely lynch (so he or she can get his feelings/info out for town).

Also not really sure why you're all over me for activity; it's been the weekend after all.

How would you determine which it is? I'm wondering myself whether foilist13 is just stubborn (to the point of looking horribly scummy), or scummy and scrambling. I'm not sure how to separate it, though, as instead of a mea culpa, every answer foilist13 gives just retrenches himself.

At this point I don't think you can. If he's scum he's obviously worried and will slip up sooner or later, if he's town he'll plateau. I get the impression that scumfoilist does not have the blood of an assassin running through his veins, he aint ice cold.

I also think foilist is running a huge OMGUS game here. He's basically getting scummy vibes from anyone who dares question him, this isn't really a tell as such, just a general observation that his opinion of who and who isn't scum seems to be relatively worthless at this point.

[cruelty]

@ cruelty - can I assume then that you do not find Muffin at all suspicious?

You can assume whatever you like.

[cruelty]

@ Cruelty - I'm saying that only because you said foilist's suspicions were entirely worthless. Muffin is his top suspect, so I extrapolated. Is this incorrect, or not? I don't understand why you are hostile to me.

Not hostile.


I just don't want to show my entire hand - it's related to my stance on scumlists. If I find someone suspicious to a point whereby I think everyone should look at them, then I'll post.


And no, I wouldn't rule Muffin out because he's at odds with foilist. Like I said, I'm not 100% on foilist for a start, and you can never ignore bussing, or potentially 2 anti-town factions (eg: mafia/sk). That said, I'm not going to speculate about partners/bussing/multiple factions, I only bring them up to show my line of thinking.

[cruelty]

Mordy and Spyrex: please don't post a response to AGM yet. I want to see afatchic, Chinaman, Muffin, and cruelty stake out their positions, based on everything that has happened so far.

You know what I want to hear? YOUR position.

This.



I've already stated I'm not going to give away my hand just because you asked me to. This isn't anti-town, it's quite simply the fact that the more information the scum have the easier their NKs (and their pushes for mislynches) become.




I saw the softclaim in AGMs post, not really sure why it's there given a lack of relative heat in your direction, but whatever.

My current top

three

suspects are MordyS and archaebob

Was that meant to say two or is there a third player you suspect?

I think this is an attempt by Mordy to recruit followers to the bandwagon on me

Really? I have a couple issues with your Mordy case (most notably the hypocrisy of bringing up an old case when you pinged archaebob for doing the same thing) but I'd prefer to let him defend himself before I weigh in too heavily.

[cruelty]

I'd appreciate if you could at least vote. You've mentioned that you think foilist overall is the most suspicious. Any reason why you haven't voted yet?

Yes. I'm not confident enough in my read to want to help the wagon gain steam. I'm not one to throw my vote around; I'll pressure vote but that's not necessary at this time. I also don't like being asked to vote when there's no current urgency. Rest assured I won't be sitting on the fence at the end of the day.

I'm also intrigued by the recent AGM developments; I'm questioning whether or not to elevate him in my (not to be openly discussed) scumlist.

defending another player is not necessarily scummy. We're trying to find the scum and avoid lynching town, so if we see someone we think is town be accused of scum it would be logical to defend them if you think the argument is faulty.

I tend to agree with this in general. However.

Defending someone is fine, assuming they get the opportunity to defend themselves first. Town has no reason to pre-empt a defence for someone else; often how someone defends themselves is more telling than an attack so by defending someone before they defend themselves, you're effectively coaching them with how they should (assuming you make a good defensive case) defend themselves - they can basically quote you and agree.

That's not to say pointing out logical flaws in an attack is scummy; there's a difference between "argument x is illogical and this is why" and "player x is not scummy and this is why".

[cruelty]

Couple things.


1: That quote wasn't the softclaim. I quoted it to agree with AGM.


2: At the time, I was seriously considering voting archaebob; I didn't want to say anything about it because I didn't want to cause him to feel pressured - I tend to think that you're more likely to get a scumslip from an overconfident scum than a worried one who's turtling.

I'm going to do this.

vote: archaebob

This is why.

1: Constant pressure on people to give up info. I think the type of info bob is looking for is information that can ultimately damage the town.
2: Extreme activity. I know how that reads and I'll be probably crucified for this, but 75 posts in 12 pages is abnormal. I don't think activity itself is scummy (Muffin would find it ironic if I did, I'm sure), but I think that in this instance we have a lot of short posts, a lot of questions (a LOT) and not much in the way of original thought. Given that the content he's requesting is in my mind more beneficial to scum than town, and you can (maybe? please?) understand my thinking here.
3: This.

peanutman, whether or not you like me, trust me, or think I'm scum, don't you agree that at this precise moment it is a good idea to pressure Muffin?

Don't let your personal issues with me prevent you from making a good town move. I'll still be here after, when Muffin posts, you can switch your vote back to me if you still think I'm the best target.

Do this peanutman, it's right, I said so. This isn't swaying someone via a beautifully constructed argument, this is a veiled order. I have a huge issue with this post - he's telling someone what to do; this is not a town thing. Throw in a little manipulation ("making a good town move") and a little reminder that a vote isn't final (it is if you can push a bandwagon through) and you have yourself a grinning puppetmaster pulling strings in front of everyone.


This is actually a trend with him:

I do know for sure that we're not lynching at all until everyone in this game has clearly staked their positions out

There's no way we're going to lynch AGM or foilist until

Mordy and Spyrex: please don't post a response to AGM yet

depending on how things turn out, we're going to lynch either you, peanut, or one of the non-posters

I'm sure there's more, can't be bothered going further back.



I guess what I need is for bob to post more meaningful content. When the vast majority of your posts are questions and orders, rather than case building, then I begin to wonder about your alignment. Right now, I'd be happy for you to be lynched because I think that you're controlling the game and I'm not at all convinced that you have the best of intentions.




As for my activity, I'm posting about once a day; not really sure that's it's reasonable to ask for more (one player accounts for over a quarter of the posts) and it's kind of ironic that it's you doing the asking. That said,

Mod: I'll be VLA over the next 4 days, going out of town and I'm not sure if I'll have internet access

.

[cruelty]

With only 8 posts in the thread he's at about 1 post every 3 pages, and here they are.

What kind of shitty maths is that?

[cruelty]

I have about 5 minutes before my taxi gets here so a really brief response.

Mordy - yes I was kidding with the maybe, please etc. I think the point is valid (what better way to hide than being way out in the open). I get the irony, I think I acknowledged it.

Pretty sure his intentions switched to lurkers after someone looked sideways at him earlier in the thread. I might have that wrong. He -is- controlling the game; people aren't doing things based on his say-so, he's giving orders.

I'm actually not necessarily deliberately playing my cards close to the chest, I'm having a hard time figuring out who I actually think is scum. If you looked at my meta you'll see I tend to flounder around day one and zero in day two. That said, I resent being asked for constant opinions because they will come.

[cruelty]

Mk, the second two posts were earlier, and am I alone in thinking that they implied he had a hand to play? That being said, how is it pro-town not to post your information? Its not like there are any secrets here that you know and we don't. We're all seeing the same content, so if you have some interpretation, or something we haven't thought of, please either post it, or explain why you aren't going to beyond "you can't make me."

This will be short and dirty, very limited access.

Re: the first sentence - you're going to condemn me for something I never said?

I never claimed it was pro-town to withhold info, I said (and still believe) that it's scummy to constantly try to gain information from other people (in the manner that bob does). Basically, I got the impression that bob was trying to jigsaw a scumlist piece by piece, which I am obviously against.

[cruelty]

unvote, vote foilist

I'll make a detailed case when I get home, for now, don't like what I'm reading, and am happy with bob's recent contribution.

Not really liking AGM, more concerned with foilist. That's two people I'm declaring suspicious in one post.[/b]

[cruelty]

Too many big posts, will catch up when I get home tonight/tomorrow depending on flights etc.

[cruelty]

@archaebob, you asked for my thoughts - on anything specifically? I'm back home and will start to go over the thread in more depth over the next day or two, but if there's anything pressing then I'll definitely get it done tonight.

[cruelty]

Brief answer (I've just read through the bob/peanut exchange), tired.


I'm not at all convinced by you bob. I think that you've consciously adopted a policy of putting yourself right out there for everyone to see, and I'm not convinced your motivations are pure. I also think (as has been stated) that your case is shaky - it's virtually entirely dependent on foilist flipping scum. If that's the case, then there's very little point focusing on peanut - if we lynch foilist and he flips scum, suddenly your case becomes a LOT more valid.

I am not at all sure why you're pushing for a peanut lynch when a foilist lynch (and scum-flip) would boost your town creds immensely.

I should probably also note that I don't get a huge scum-vibe from peanut - I can see some of your points (not all), but I'm not positive that what you have is ironclad.

[cruelty]

@SpyreX - Can you tell us who your suspects are in order? I assume your top one is Almaster based on your vote, but who else has raised your suspicions?

Goddamn.

Super re-vote @ foilist.

In order too. Why not just ask for a comprehensive scumlist?

[cruelty]

I'm just going to wait for a wagon to formulate and then decide whether I like it or not.

Haha. Massive FOS @ AGM.

I don't understand why you'd say that, it's almost like you want to be lynched.

[cruelty]

A joke huh. Writing that shit down for future use.

[cruelty]

Yeah my bad, I was trying to stay active with limited computer time.


I'm not going to flood the thread with quotes/words, I'll try to concisely summarise why overall I am not hugely thrilled with foilist because most of it has been said before. All references are in foilist's iso posts. Also, this will be chronologically chaotic.

- Firstly (and most obviously) the voting fiasco. This has been done to death, don't need to argue that case.

- His reaction to bob's peanut case. I've read over his posts several times (notably post 40) and I think it's fairly clear that he's defending peanut, by trying to push the attention onto either himself or AGM. He addresses this in post 41 (noting that he's trying not to be associated with peanut). This is followed in post 54 by a formal declaration of suspicion against peanut. Overall I find this unsatisfactorily contradictory.

- His post 20. The way he words his town read on peanut. He doesn't agree with the general feeling and is therefore town? This is actually WIFOM. Applies to me as well (I'm scummy because I generally agree with what most people say?).

- I got the feeling early on when there was a lot of heat directed his way that he was very flustered. This hasn't really been that obvious lately, but I think reached its zenith in his big Muffin-case- post (11). That post (I didn't say anything at the time, but re-reading now) really reads to me like he was in crisis mode, saw an opportunity to jump on someone else and did his level best to shift attention. This point is highly subjective and may just be the way I'm looking at him though, someone with a more neutral feeling towards foilist might completely disagree here.

- His post 15. Related to the previous point. Strange thing to say.

- Interest in scumlists. Particularly today. I

hate

when people ask for them, I think that it's hugely scummy, I think that regardless of what's actually being asked - who you think is scummy/townie - that top 4 scum = 8 probable town = dangerous. I'll always have instant doubts about people asking for them (eg: archaebob).







I'm interested in how you've (foilist) arrived at the conclusion I'm not cooperating with town. My playstyle is different to most of you I guess; I don't really like to throw around suspicions/votes/FoS's unless I feel I have a genuine point to make (as I've constantly and consistently stated) but that aside, what exactly is making me un-cooperative?

[cruelty]

@ Cruelty -

Some questions:

- You've said in the past that you don't like letting wagons gain steam until you're sure about your scum read of them. Does this mean that you are ready to lynch foilist now?

-If you knew that both AGM and foilist were town, which one of them would you consider to be the least costly mislynch?

I'll answer the Spyrex one when I get home from work, don't have time to re-read and give you a definitive opinion.

Yes, ready to lynch foilist. In the event that I'm wrong about him (don't think I am), it'll give us a tonne of information, most notably about you and peanut.

If I knew they were both town, I'd consider AGM the least costly mislynch. I'll outline why when I get home. Basically to do with activity and attitude though.

[cruelty]

Anyone incapable of detecting the obvious falsity of that statement is either a) tunneling really hard b) scum or c) really, really, really bad at detecting sarcasm. I don’t care how hard you think it is to read the Internet – that statement was obvious. I also disagree with your analysis that my “joke” was anti-town – to the contrary, it has told us that:

-Peanutman, Foliist, and cruelty are willing to cling to any shred of evidence to get me lynched

Ha.

I don't want you lynched, my vote is on foilist - I haven't even tried to push a case your way. This is fairly blatant opportunism given the recent shifty glances I have been receiving.

I find it interesting that a large part of your defence is basically subjective -'I was joking, and the people who commented on it are obvscum'. It's just poor logic and relies on popular agreement that you were in fact bringing the chuckles and not just being a dumbass. Flaky.

I will also note that I disagree with you Mordy - a foilist lynch will be much more illuminating.

(this is from my iPod at work, spyrex read will follow when I get home).

[cruelty]

I don't want you lynched

Oh really?

I'd consider AGM the least costly mislynch.

Haha. Massive FOS @ AGM.

Not really liking AGM,

I find it interesting that a large part of your defence is basically subjective -'I was joking, and the people who commented on it are obvscum'. It's just poor logic and relies on popular agreement that you were in fact bringing the chuckles and not just being a dumbass. Flaky.

Once again, oh really? Using logic and not just assertions, explain to me how my logic is poor. The point of my statement was not to "bring in the chuckles," it was to see who jumped on it. Also, explain to me how popular agreement is irrelevant given that popular agreement is what was used to disprove my Gammagooey argument in the first couple of pages. Finally, what does subjectiveness have to do with anything?

First quote is a response to a

hypothetical scenario

. Irrelevant, and lol @ using it as ammo. Scrambling much?

Second quote, eh, guess you could argue that my radar blipped. FoS is not a vote.

Third quote is from a post where I voted for foilist. That is, there's no way you can claim that specific post as an example of me trying to lynch you.



The reason I call your logic poor (your logic being the people who commented on your wagon post = obvscum) is because it's entirely invalid as a point unless other people are willing to accept that your post was a) not serious and b) deliberate baiting. I could probably concede point A, but I highly doubt that you entertained any thoughts of baiting when you posted it, and I absolutely think that you're trying to paint it as scumhunting (via baiting) in

retrospect

. Despite this, I still think that foilist is the best lynch candidate for today.



I also said I'd outline why I consider you the least costly mislynch (predicated on the hypothetical assumption that it's between both you and foilist, and I have inside information that both are town). The reason is quite simple - I think your activity and contribution in terms of both relevant opinions and actual content is questionable at best. I think that you tend to go missing when the hard questions are being asked and I don't think that you're as likely to actively pressure people as foilist is.

Basically, I think that townfoilist is more likely to contribute in a positive, consistent manner. This, however, is a moot point, because I believe foilist is scum. Double moot, because I'm leaning more and more towards both being scum.

[cruelty]

And what do I think of Spyrex?

I re-read his iso, and initially thought town - I got the impression that he was a fairly experienced player with some early reads that seem to be echoing through the majority now - specifically this:

Its Foilist - Ala - Peanut at the mo.

That's fine, basically along the lines of what most people are thinking. But,

I don't even know what to think about this. Every bit of it reeks scummy.

This was in response to peanutman's 4 (in iso). Spyrex finds him scummy.

Then:

Oddly enough peanuts last few posts make me feel LESS worried about him.

This was 4 days later, okay, no issue. Opinions change.

Then (following a massive wall post by Spyrex establishing a case vs Gamma):

but the earlier posts by peanut didn't have that itchy feeling I get from both GM and foil.

The thing is, if you actually read the posts I've snipped from, there's a fairly big inconsistency. He obviously DID find peanut VERY scummy at one point.

This basically sums up my feelings; I'm not confident enough in that single issue to even try to build a case, but I feel like there is a distinct possibility of something being rotten in the state of Spyrex. The read I get from him is a very experienced and capable player, but his contribution isn't what I'd expect. It's hard to articulate, I'll think about it and try to come back to this.

[cruelty]

@Cruelty:

Yes, my game is off this game. However, my issues with peanut and scummy/not scummy are a function of his interactions with Foil / GM who I find both to be individually scummy and collectively sense making as partners.

#7 was my reference to a peanut post in reference to foil. That was super scummy.

Then there was a break in his posts, then activity that made a lot more sense and gave me good vibes.

Then there was MEGABUS the vote after GM's :explode:

(And I made a case on GM, not Gamma)

Just so we're clear, you're not really on my radar at this point. Not town, not scum, I think you're sort of weaving drunkenly between the two. Although I'll concede context is important, I'm not entirely sure that you've satisfactorily resolved the contradiction. There are, however, more important matters at hand (foilist/AGM).

Gamma, sorry, didn't see it.

cruelty, i can see why you'd think a list of people who someone thinks is town is a problem, but just the top 4 scum? Giving the mafia have a vague unordered top 8 townies from someone is nowhere nearly as useful to them as a top 4 scum is to the town for knowing where people stand, finding inconsistencies in scum stances, and most importantly having a confirmed townies outlook on the scum should they die.

Given your opinions on this, how would you suggest that the replacements/lurkers make their opinions known?

First, let me respond to the first paragraph. To do so, consider this hypothetical (and admittedly highly unlikely) scenario: everyone in the game lists their top 4 suspects. Whilst it's fairly likely that the same names will keep popping up, there'll be two or three who are equally conspicuous by their absence - it's less about what is said, and more about what can be inferred from the names that aren't there. If you're never mentioned, then scum can reasonably assume that by eliminating you, they're ensuring that chaos runs that little bit more rampant.


Now the second - If I was to replace into a game, with my approach (that is, someone who is highly dubious of lists), then I'd discuss my top one or two suspects, why I find them suspicious etc, and then try to assimilate myself into the general back and forth that everyone else is already involved in. Never, ever an outright list.

I mean, I understand that it's simple enough for people go go through in iso and compare who everone thinks is scummy, but why make it easy?

[cruelty]

First quote is a response to a hypothetical scenario. Irrelevant, and lol @ using it as ammo. Scrambling much?

I'm using it to disprove a previous statement you made, "I don't want you lynched" - not as ammo. What does it being a hypothetical have to do with anything? Obviously it's going to be a hypothetical - we aren't lynching anyone just yet.

Second quote, eh, guess you could argue that my radar blipped. FoS is not a vote.

So you're willing to FoS me but you don't actually want me lynched. Right...

Third quote is from a post where I voted for foilist. That is, there's no way you can claim that specific post as an example of me trying to lynch you.

Just because you voted foilist doesn't mean you wouldn't also lynch me. Your attitude seems to suggest you are willing to do so.

Ok.

1: You're using my reply to a hypothetical scenario whereby you're NOT scum to disprove a statement I made (in a reality where I suspect you probably ARE scum). This isn't rocket science - in the event that you and foilist were BOTH town and I somehow knew this, I would prefer to lynch you. This has nothing to do with me wanting to lynch you in REALITY.

2: I think you're suspicious. I don't want you lynched today.

3: You used a post where I

voted for somebody else

as evidence of me wanting you lynched. Can you not see the contradiction here?

re: 1, 2 and 3. I think you are suspicious.

I do not want you lynched today

. I have said why, and I'll say it again. I think we will gain more information from foilist's lynch (with regards to his interactions with peanut, archaebob and yourself) than we will from lynching you. This is why I'm opposed to your lynch today.

YES I find you suspicious.
NO I do not want you lynched today. Seriously.


And now your last paragraph.

snipped for space

First, why do my intentions at the time of the post matter? Even if the logic is applied retroactively, it still works. Second, what is so dangerous about accepting my statement as-is? Obviously I could be lying scum, but if that's the case, everything I say is going to be false, which would contradict your whole demand that I "be pro-town and contribute something." You're giving me no way to win here.

1: Intentions matter because if you were not trying to bait at the time you posted (which you are implying here) then your argument is highly opportunistic and you've contradicted yourself. Let me explain.

Anyone incapable of detecting the obvious falsity of that statement is either a) tunneling really hard b) scum or c) really, really, really bad at detecting sarcasm.

This post is the one where you tell us exactly what your 'joke' post did (most importantly) exposed 3 players as scum which is fine. However, you note that it's sarcastic (ie: not serious) and you NEVER say that it's deliberate bait. This would have been a fine opportunity to, but highly significant is the absence of that claim. Should also note that there are 3 posts between the original post and this one, again, deliberate baiting is never mentioned (despite having received the supposed desired response).

The point of my statement was not to "bring in the chuckles," it was to see who jumped on it.

This was your next post, and was a response to me saying that I didn't think much of your defence for making a ridiculous post. This is the first time that you imply deliberate baiting, despite having a golden opportunity to do so earlier.

Then this (I already quoted in full above, will do so again for cohesion).

why do my intentions at the time of the post matter? Even if the logic is applied retroactively, it still works

This I read as basically saying that yes, you're applying the logic retroactively. Which is a direct contradiction to your previous post.

[cruelty]

This I read as basically saying that yes, you're applying the logic retroactively. Which is a direct contradiction to your previous post.

It's called a hypothetical - you should be familiar with the concept seeing as you were just talking about it. In any case, you've ignored the actual point -

Why does it matter if the logic is applied retroactively?

It doesn't make it any less true. All you seem to be doing here is trying to make legitimate scumhunting go away based on some technicality. This isn't a criminal trial where the evidence needs to pass a bunch of rules and guilt needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - it's a game of mafia.

I don't believe your claim that it was deliberate baiting. With this in mind, your motives at the time of the post come into question? If, as I believe, it wasn't legitimate scumhunting, then what was it? The logic is, quite simply, ridiculous. You make a stupid post and those that comment on it are scum?it's laughable. It is not a valid point, there is no logic being applied, all you're doing is trying to retroactively justify your own error. The fact that you're backing it up with claims that I'm trying to get you lynched when I'm clearly not further degrades your case.

As for trying to make your "legitimate scumhunting" go away, doesn't the fact that I am attacking you for a poor case and in doing so keeping it in the spotlight completely invalidate that claim?

[cruelty]

Papa Zito why do you feel I'm a better lynch than foilist/AGM?

Best I can tell you disagree with me on a theory point, and you didn't like my foilist case. Given what we've seen from foilist and AGM, why are you more prepared to vote me?

I think I have been a much more useful player than AGM, and at least one of you has already pointed that out, and the mafia could easily take away whatever you might learn from me, or not and use it to try and confuse you. There is not so much to learn here as you might think.

Can you explain a touch more eloquently exactly what you're trying to say here?

[cruelty]

Papa Zito I don't understand your case on me, elaborate.


AGM, you said (in response to who SHOULD be lynched):

Cruelty or foilist. I'm not going to argue why because every time I make arguments it draws more attention to me.

a) I don't understand the case on me. Explain.

b) At this point I don't think you need to worry about the spotlight. This is a strange concern.

[cruelty]

Why do you put so much emphasis on what one person thinks? I think that's the second time you've cited one (other) person's opinion as a foundation for making a point.

[cruelty]

According to Sanjay, I posted a plausible defesne,

and that at least one person has said he is the best lynch choice for today

Admittedly these two quotes are fairly far apart from each other, but they suggest that you're more invested in what other people think than you imply. This is strange for me, given that you're trying to paint me as scummy for the same thing.

(I should note that the second quote is a little out of context, but the sentence from which it's pulled (his post 77) is predicated on someone else's judgement, presumably Papa Zito's).

That according to Sanjay quote strikes me as particularly strange - I'm not really sure why you're using his judgement as a springboard, but I guess one could almost infer that you're subtly implying he's town. Or buddying him, which I guess amounts to the same thing, sort of. It's actually along the same lines as archaebob declaring himself town as per several people, which you attacked him over.

I'd also note that your main case on me seems to be that I'm not straying from the pack too much. I'll ask this - who is? Currently (well, as per last votecount) 7/9 voting players were on one of you two (foilist, AGM), the exceptions being AGM (on bob) and Papa Zito (on me). Given that I agree that the two of you are currently the scummiest players in the game, I don't see much problem with pursuing those lines.

[cruelty]

He's really really nervous about my vote. My one single vote. He doesn't like it, and he's desperate to hear a case from me.

I was more interested in hearing a case from you because prior to that post you'd contributed effectively nothing. I don't think it's particularly scummy to want someone to explain their vote, especially when they have no content to get a read from.

a terrible case on archaebob, and vote, when he hadn't mentioned the guy once before. This case came immediately after Muffin posted his case on cruelty - classic deflection. Even worse, the case was abandoned, archaebob unvoted, and the issue dropped completely when the town didn't follow. Last point on this - Did archaebob have a wagon on him at the time? You bet he did.

It's scummy to drop a case you know is bad? Having said that, I never really expected to get a lynch, my motivation was more to draw attention to what bob was (and still is, to a degree) doing - running the town.

Unvote. Vote: cruelty.

lol.

[cruelty]

Wow.

I'm not entirely sure what the vote count is so I'm not going to change my vote at this point - don't want to hammer if people still want input.

As for my opinion on the matter.. I just hope you're right. I don't have a huge problem with this lynch - I think there are scummier players in the game but I have no issue with the logic of the lynch; there is a legit, unanswered case on muffin out there and the massive inactivity of Sociopath is definitely questionable at best.

I have to go play some football (soccer) now, not sure if I'll be back online before deadline.

[cruelty]

Oh scratch, that got timezones mixed up. Will check back in later tonight.

[cruelty]

Huh, guess I wasn't around for the end of the day.

AGM's last 4 posts have contained 1 inane sentence and 3 unexplained votes, he's been scummy all day and HE gets to hammer? Sigh.

[cruelty]

My other bet for scum is Cruelty. I did not get a warm fuzzy feeling from his post at the top of this page (the "Huh, guess I wasn't around for the lynch today"). It sounded very self-conscious & freaking out a bit that things changed so quickly and he didn't have a chance to make any moves.

Oh. Before football.

Oh scratch, that got timezones mixed up. Will check back in later tonight.

Upon getting home from football.

Huh, guess I wasn't around for the end of the day

More along the lines of not wanting to go dark at the crucial end of the day.

[cruelty]

Archaebob and cruelty, however, both clung stubbornly to the Foilist wagon.

o no :'(


AGM - who do I want lynched? You. I don't believe your claim, I don't like your wishy washy voting (especially at the end of yesterday). I think your play is horribly opportunistic and I think that you've lied on a few occasions (specifically re: "that" post). You also tried to push a case on me based on your misrepresentation of something I said (least costly mislynch). I don't like misrepresentation.

I also still have a lingering doubt over archaebob - I get the impression that his most recent post was an attempt to avoid an obvious scum response to what was a fairly significant wagon shift onto scumbob's buddy. It's hard to articulate precisely, but little things like this (two examples of several from that post)

Think about it from my perspective.

and this

What the hell am I supposed to make of this exactly?

just don't sit quite right. It's entirely subjective I guess, but it feels like a subtle appeal to think of him almost as a victim. That, and I have issues with one player controlling the town - although it looks as though there's been a general power shift as of the end of yesterday I'm not convinced he'll sit back and accept that. I think that political capital is a big issue for him (see his numerous posts re: his town cred etc), and I think that it's constantly at the forefront of his mind. This I'd associate with a mafia frame of mind - the more town cred you have, the greater your ability to influence the voting.

I'm going to bed now, I'll have more tomorrow I think. Specifically, I'll address foilist and peanut.

[cruelty]

Very briefly before work (Zito you're gonna have to wait).

@ AGM: From a information-for-town standpoint, you're probably not a great lynch. From a 'who-do-I-think-is-scummy' standpoint, then you're in a league of your own. Who do I

want

lynched? You. Who do I think is the

best

lynch? I'll answer that later today.

@ Sanjay: Two points I was trying to make.
1: That I wasn't neglecting the game (I said previously that I'd be back prior to deadline).
2: I think (and still do) that AGM is at the very least deliberately anti-town. If you look at his posts prior to the hammer he's switched his voting around 3 times without explanation, ultimately culminating in the hammer. I can't help but wonder if that hammer was an opportunistic bus.

I wasn't enthusiastic about the lynch, no. It didn't thrill me with joy because honestly I didn't think Muffin was scummier than foilist/AGM on day 1. I could see the logic behind the case, but it seemed less than ironclad.

[cruelty]

So I'm "deliberately anti-town" because I move my vote around when it really doesn't matter anyway

No.

[cruelty]

Oh, yeah it was basically a shake of the head that one of the players I dislike most in the game got to pull the trigger.

[cruelty]

Zito prepare to be unimpressed.

If you didn't know that Muffin was scum (in fact, weren't filled with joy over his lynch, because it wasn't an 'ironclad' case <when is there ever on Day 1?? I thought it was pretty damned good>), then why would you care about AGM hammering? You stated you weren't sure at all that the Muffin bandwagon was right, so why would you care if AGM hammered?

If I'm not mistaken, your post came *before* Night 1, *before* Muffin flipped scum. Why would you say that then? If anything, I'd think you'd be *happy* that AGM hammered, if in your mind Muffin could easily turn up town, because that would put even more pressure on AGM, who you found scummiest.

I'm not as positive as I was about Muffin, but I'm getting more and more sure about cruelty being scum.

Sigh, where's your vote then?

You're reading far too much into what I said. I mean, I get that you guys love to read into the tiny little details and try to create glorious cases from them, but I feel like in this instance (seems to happen a lot on this site, I guess it's a flaw I should correct) you're making mountains out of molehills.

All I meant (and by all, I mean all) was that it aggravated me a little that one of the scummiest players in the game got to pull the trigger. That's it. I won't address this issue anymore.

Think about it. If he was scum (which he was), there'd be no reason for them to start a wagon out of thin air on their *godfather* scumbuddy Day 1. If Muffin was town, then what would they have to gain from , again, starting a wagon out of thin air, on someone they *know* is going to be a mislynch, and they *know* there's going to be suspicion on the them the following day if he comes up town./quote]

On the surface of this I agree. Will note the WIFOM, though.

I don't like the painting himself as a victim either, as Sanjay pointed out.

I said that. Didn't quote it, but to respond to the lurking issue, not convinced but I'll let him defend himself. More interesting to me is his constant push for political capital (I think he even specifically mentioned in his last (at least, his last big) post) and the associations I make with a mindset perpetually concerned with that.

Anyway, peanut and foilist.

My read on peanut at the end of Day 1 was essentially null. I didn't find him particularly scummy but I thought that his associations with other players could prove his alignment one way or another. As I said, a foilist lynch would have been enlightening, especially regarding peanut.

So, in light of the Muffin lynch.

I note that he never actually mentioned Muffin at all until his 29th post (3 weeks into the game). That said, I find it hard to believe that scum would lynch their godfather day 1 - he's correct when he says he assisted in widening the town's scope. I also find it interesting that although he can legitimately claim credit for assisting the lynch (or at least helping to get the ball rolling), he never actually voted.

Most interesting for me though, is this:

I'm noting how quickly some people have switched their vote, especially considering their near certainty that Foilist or AGM were the only viable candidates to be lynched today

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. On the one hand, it could be scum realising that a lynch is imminent and subtly trying to push people off the wagon, or it could be a legitimate town concern at a potential speed-mislynch. For me, I tend to think that it's the latter, I think that peanut's play leading into night 1 were more pro-town than anything else (in the light of Muffin's lynch). That said, I'm not willing to discount the possibility of bussing - one would gain a lot of town cred for being involved in the lynch of a godfather and the lack of a vote does bother me a little.

So slight town lean on peanut.

Foilist.

His first post.

Hello Archaebob and Muffin

Hmm.

Seriously though, I didn't like foilist throughout day 1. I thought he was pretty scummy (this is documented and I won't flood the thread with repetition) and I thought that his flip would give us a lot of information, especially re: peanut and archaebob.

Today he's been interesting.

This first quote was actually yesterday, but relates to what comes later.

I find Cruelty extremely scummy, and to a lesser extent Peanutman, but obviously neither of them is going to be lynched,

Then

I'm much more comfortable with lynching Peanutman right nowbut I'm going to with hold my vote until I get my thoughts in order.

@Phaerie - I can see what you're saying about Peanutman, and I'm still not particularly inclined to vote him

I note the continued suspicion of peanut (it goes further back than any of those quotes) which ends in a weird contradiction in the last quote. I'm not sure what foilist is saying here - is he agreeing with Phaerie (who makes a reasonable case for townpeanut between the last two quotes) or is he just acknowledging her case? That is, has he changed his mind?

@ foilist, can you clarify where you currently stand on peanutman? Why did you want to lynch him at the start of day 2, and do you still think he's a viable candidate?

His second-to-last post is fairly blatant WIFOM speculation about the NK:

In the beginning of the game MordyS said something about him being a very strong player by reputation, so maybe that had something to do with it. Also I think we can take from that that he was probably right about his town list. If I were scum I would not be quick to kill someone likely to defend me.

Don't really think I need to talk about this. Just a lot of unnecessary (and really unfounded) speculation about Spyrex. I will say that town and correct don't necessarily go hand in hand. It's illogical to conclude that because Spyrex was town he was therefore right about alignments.

I still think foilist is slightly scummy, but I'm not as convinced as I was yesterday.


As for who the best lynch for today is... I don't know yet. I think that I could fairly happily lynch either AGM or foilist still, but I think that bob has some questions to answer. I'll place my vote once he does so.

[cruelty]

If I had to vote now or explode, I'd vote bob.

[cruelty]

However, if cruelty is scum I think AGM looks a hell of a lot better given my bussing is suicide theory, making peanutman the last maf in my eyes (doesn't work the other way around:if peanut is scum, either Al or cruelty could be the last maf). I'm thinking cruelty gives us the most info from the lynch and has a high chance of lynching ze scum.

@town, what happens if I flip town? Specifically, what information can you gain from that?

The reason I ask is because there's a lot of speculation about the mountains of information you'll gain from lynching crueltyscum, but I'm not really seeing the positives of my possible town flip? I am concerned that you're all tunneled on an inevitable scum flip which is fine if you're right, but in the event you're wrong, what does town gain?

cruelty and peanut never spoke to each other yesterday.

I never really interacted with you or Mordy either. Not sure how valuable this is as evidence given that a big part of your case is my lack of contribution. This point seems contradictory.

He also has inconsistancies in his reasoning for being irritated at AGM and changing from not wanting to lynch AGM yesterday to wanting him lynched now.

How so?

I haven't changed my tune re: AGM at all. I'm not really sure what your issue here is anyway - you specifically say you find AGM scummy; I'm not allowed to? Prior to the Muffin lynch I thought that foilist was highly scummy + an informative lynch, I'm not as sure as I was about that (although I'd still support his lynch, I wouldn't be as eager to do so as I was yesterday) and instead believe that AGM (someone you also find scummy) would be the better lynch (of the two). How is that a problem?

re: archaebob, shrug. I don't want to get into a battle over his motivations/actions without him actually being present, otherwise it's nothing better than idle speculation.

I'd also question why you only mention me and peanut in your positives from a scum flip paragraph at the end of your post. Would we gain nothing from an AGM flip?

Incidentally re: foilist.

I was generally willing to go along with MordyS and Sanjay

I see what Gammagooey is sayiong about cruelty being the more informative lynch

Phaerie posted her piece about peanut which made him look more townish to me

Are you actually capable of thought? I really dislike your entire post, it seems like you're agreeing with these points and specifically noting them in case things turn sour. It's posts/quotes like these which really make me question you.

I'm not understanding your position on Foilist. Everything you've said in this post about Foilist leading up to the above comment was pointing out his scumminess. You said you thought he was pretty scummy on Day 1, but today he has been "interesting"... and you went on to point out the scummy things he's done today, so I'm not sure what has made you "not as convinced" as you were yesterday. You then go on to say that you'd be comfortable with his lynch even though you're not as convinced about him.

I don't really understand my position on him either. I think he does scummy things, I don't like that he spends a lot of time agreeing with people and I don't really like his play right throughout day 1, but the Muffin flip made me question just how likely he was to be scum. I'm not as convinced as I was, but I think there is easily enough doubt in my mind over his alignment to support a lynch.

[cruelty]

I thought foilist and AGM were about as scummy as each other yesterday (this tended to fluctuate a little depending on their most recent posts, but as a general rule..), I would have preferred a foilist lynch because I thought that he was associated with other players whereas AGM is just a random pinball bouncing around. I didn't think his lynch would be that illuminating.

Now, I think AGM is scummier than foilist (not that I've completely relaxed my stance on foilist, but I can see why you'd think he's a VI) and if it came down to the two of them I'd prefer an AGM lynch.

[cruelty]

This is my one post for the day, it's Thanksgiving (not sure if you're all American's, but it's important over here.)

@Cruelty - You seem to be grasping at straws to shift attention to other players, i.e. me and AGM, who convieniently were by far the most likely lynch candidates yesterday. None of the things you are saying about either of us can be refuted, because they are simply factual statements backed up by opinions, and none of them are things anyone hasn't said before. Have an original thought yourself there mate, and stop telling me to. Its Thanksgiving weekend. Chill out.

First, lol.

Second, I'm not American and Thanksgiving is meaningless to me.

Third, chill out? Really? You make an angry post like that and I should chill out? Chuckle.

Fourth:

None of the things you are saying about either of us can be refuted, because they are simply factual statements backed up by opinions

So you agree that what I'm saying about you is in fact factual (or accurate)?

You seem to be a little disgruntled that I am expressing my opinion (which, btw, contradicts this "Have an original thought yourself") instead of.. well I'm not really sure what I should be doing. Enlighten me please.

Fifth:

You seem to be grasping at straws to shift attention to other players

How so?
Put it this way - if I'm town, how should I react in this situation? Do you think I should focus on defending myself, or should I be attacking the players I think are scummy so that in the event of my mislynch there is information out there for everyone else?

I mean, let's be fair, the case on me is pretty reasonable. It's predicated on fairly heavy speculation about my interactions with other players, but I haven't contributed much (up until now, I think that today I've been absolutely fine) and I wasn't a huge supporter of the Muffin lynch. Oh well. I can't really defend against that, so therefore my only real option is to go on the offensive.

Sixth:

me and AGM, who convieniently were by far the most likely lynch candidates yesterday.

So... you were scummy yesterday, meaning what? I should ignore you today? You're magically absolved by the Muffin flip? What point are you making here? If anything, me looking at you puts me in the spotlight because everyone else seems to think you're innocent. I don't see this as a particularly intelligent play from a scum point of view, so I'm not entirely sure why you see this as a valid point.

It's not that you didn't mention him much or vice versa, it's that neither of you brought up the other, which makes sense for scum trying to lay low.

I don't really buy points like this. It's speculating on why something that never happened, didn't happen. I mean, I understand your point and I realise why you think it's scummy, but I also don't put much stock in trying to explain the reasons that X didn't occur. It means that there's absolutely no fact involved, and you're delving entirely into unprovable territory.

the only time I see you directly state your opinion on him is this:

That's fine. But then, given my day 1 playstyle (lack of contribution), how is this a valid point? I don't believe I stated opinions on many people at all, I don't really think you can point to one person I didn't talk about and condemn me for it.

Pretty much everyone said AGM was scummy in one way or another yesterday. I don't really see what info it would give us except for "AGM is <alignment>"

Right, so why would my flip illuminate AGM's alignment? I don't really understand this - we battled a little but I don't think that was absolutely, positively town vs scum. I think he's scummy as all hell, but I concede a small possibility that he's the worst doctor ever. I think you said as much as well, meaning that my flip wouldn't completely condemn or absolve AGM regardless

[cruelty]

Well I'm in no position to go crying, so sure.

unvote, vote:Sociopath

His sole contribution to the lynch. Hardly steering anything.

He didn't vote until 5 other people did, either, so I think your question is misleading. He was fairly obviously just riding the wagon.

I can see two reasons for that.

1: foilist-town sees safety, both in numbers and from his own impending lynch, so jumps on the wagon.

2: foilist-scum sees which way the wind is blowing and slips quietly on the back of the wagon.

[cruelty]

To take that one step further, I don't think much can be read into foilist's part in the Muffin lynch. I think that there's reasonable justification for his being on the wagon from both a town and scum perspective, so, null.

I don't have a stunning alternative lynch recommendation (I could see Cruelty's posts coming from town, though if he is I hope he takes my calling him useless to heart).

Done.

[cruelty]

Cruelty, I understand that you didn't mention a whole lot of people yesterday. But when two of my top three scummiest players aren't speaking to or about each other, yes, i find that suspicious.

Wait, so you're condemning me for something peanut didn't do? What the...

Anyway let's look at this a touch more objectively. Obviously, regardless of my alignment, I don't want to be lynched. Additionally, I also have to convince you that I'm town (again regardless of my alignment) and that there's minimal benefit to my lynch. Thus, there's a hefty dose of self-preservation coupled with a growing concern that town is tunneling in on a mislynch (yep) present in my recent (and this) posts.

If I flip scum, you can crucify peanut/AGM and hopefully win the game. Unless there's someone smarter pulling the strings, my scumflip probably means an easy town win.

If I flip town, then AGM comes under heavy suspicion and I think will be the next lynch, despite being a claimed doc. Peanut actually gets off the hook a little in this scenario - his not mentioning me becomes a null tell and you're back to hypothesising about his role in the Muffin lynch (which I think will also look a lot less scummy).

I assume that most of you have essentially cleared foilist so I'll ignore him for now - what other information can you hope to derive from my lynch? You get two likely suspects who are already suspicious to a majority of town OR you effectively clear one and retain one. This doesn't seem to me like a hugely informative flip.

I'm going to throw out peanut as the better lynch - even though I'm not entirely sold on the idea of him as mafia (although I do understand the cases being made) I'm willing to get behind his lynch for two reasons - one is obviously to save myself, and the other is I think we'll get genuine information from it. Firstly, as someone said earlier, cruelty/peanut scumteam + bussing at this point = suicide, so I think that by pushing this lynch I can effectively clear myself regardless of his flip. Secondly, if he flips town then we learn that there is a much more devious player at work here - I highly doubt anyone seriously considers an AGM/cruelty or foilist/cruelty scumteam, so regardless of how I look in a peanut-town flip, it becomes obvious that there is another, more dangerous (and possibly already cleared) player out there. I realise that's a fairly bold swing to make and yeah, WIFOM laden, but I can't see a better way out for both myself and for town.

I don't think an AGM lynch is really beneficial - there's the nagging possibility that he IS the doctor, and I don't think he's good enough to be able to win the game as mafia from this point. I think he's the scummiest and I want him lynched the most, but I'm trying to be as objective as possible and I can't see how his flip will be that informative. And I hate that.

@ mod, votecount please?

[cruelty]

Foilist.


1: You attacked me for having opinions over things the two of you said. Facts. That's an absolutely ridiculous stance to take - my factual based arguments are somehow lessened because they're based on fact? Whatever, I don't really need to discuss how retarded a point this is.

2: I'm looking for things that are scummy. Correct. I'm not trying to make anything look scummy, I'm trying to articulate why I think certain things people have said are scummy.

3: Convenient like your Sociopath vote? Like your attack on me? The thing you keep overlooking is

I have been suspicious of the two of you the entire game. My suspicion is not one of convenience, I have not budged from it. This is a completely void point

.

4: Yes I have an issue with your Sociopath vote. Papa Zito articulated it better than I did, see his post.

[cruelty]

That's interesting, foilist.

So what you're saying is you can't push a decent case on me, and your main reason for lynching me is information? If that's the case, why are you making no effort to gain that information without the negativity of a potential mislynch? Seems opportunistic and lazy, to be honest.

[cruelty]

Yes, archaebob.

[cruelty]

List them.

[cruelty]

vote: peanutman

Don't see how waiting for archaebob is beneficial right now, the game has stagnated a bit.

While it is perfectly understandable that you do not want to be lynched, that is nothing more yhan not a scum tell, and is not a basis for you to defend yourself.

Why would not wanting to be lynched not be a basis to defend yourself? Obviously a mislynch is bad, and scum don't want to be lynched either. You're right in that it's a null tell but regardless of my alignment, self preservation is in the interest of both me and my side.

That leaves us only with your ideas about peanut being scummy, and the info we could get from his lynch, but frankly i think that you are scummier, and there is more to be learned from yours.

If I flip town, what information do you get?

This is my biggest issue; peanut's lynch will give us information both ways, my lynch is only insightful if I flip scum. If I flip town there's a higher chance that AGM is scum, but given his play so far this game I don't think you could really call that extra information. Aside from that... what?

[cruelty]

1: I think I made two votes yesterday, archaebob and you. I didn't budge from you at all. You can make of that what you will, but if we're getting into bandwagon hopping them I suggest you invest in a mirror. Specifically, I'll refer readers to foilist's Sociopath vote.

2: I said one specific thing I said was intended as nothing more than exactly what it looked like. The original quote was probably a dumb thing to say on this site, but it is what it is. But I'm not going to be drawn into a battle over this again.

3: It was a joke. Hence me following it with "Seriously though". Ridiculous point to make, clutching at straws methinks. Although your reaction, hmm...

4: I didn't say I wasn't that suspicious of you, I said I wasn't AS suspicious of you. There's a big (and important) difference.

5: Scum or disinterested town huh. You can't even make your own mind up on this. Actually reads like you're reconsidering your stance at this point.

6: You like it because it clears you. I'll also note that GG only states there's information from a cruelty scumflip. He doesn't even mention what happens if I flip town.

7: Not sure what you mean, quote it.

8: If I'm town, then acting to save myself is inherently pro-town. I don't think the town will get any (extra) info on who is scum from my town flip. I've been over this at length and I find it amusing that

you're

criticising

my

reading skills. Again, what information does a cruelty townflip give you?

Your case isn't solid at all. It's based on hopeful speculation about my flip and the possible information you'll get, a little anger that I'm still suspicious of you and dubious interpretations of my posts. This isn't a case, this is you reading what others have written and trying to paraphrase it with a little personal angst thrown in.


You fail to find another player who is scummier because you're horribly tunneled on me. This wouldn't be the case if you took the time to read through the thread and form your own opinions rather than relying on what others are saying. This can be your homework, for now class is dismissed.

[cruelty]

Sorry for the double post, just noticed this.

cruelty, why don't you suspect/want me lynched anymore?

I haven't forgotten about you, I just don't see the point of pursuing you when you're not active.

[cruelty]

1 & 2: My votes were backed by logic, however poor. You jumped onto the Sociopath wagon without so much as an explanation. This is fairly blatantly hypocritical. I'd also note that you implied support for a peanutman lynch early today (whilst he had votes on him + support for his wagon), voted for AGM, then switched to me when that wagon built a little steam. Also:

I still hold pretty much the same opinion of peanut. He still seems fairly scummy, but there are things about him that seem townish. My biggest suspects, as I said before, are Almaster and Cruelty.

Why the fuck are you taking shots at me about looking for easy lynches when your voting/suspicion history is a) very similar and b) a LOT more inconsistent than mine?

3: You often say things like this, but never address anything specifically. Let's quit the generalisations and quote some specifics hmm?

4: Right. I think I have a fairly decent case on you based on facts - things you've said, your voting inconsistencies etc. I'm pretty sure I have a couple valid points on archaebob, and I think the things I've said in the past re: AGM still stand. Whereas you're completely and utterly tunneled on me.

5: That's not misrepresentation.

6: I addressed everything single one of your numbered points I believe. Why lie?

So what you're saying is you can't push a decent case on me, and your main reason for lynching me is information? If that's the case, why are you making no effort to gain that information without the negativity of a potential mislynch?

I'll ask again. Why are you making no effort to gain the information you think you'll get from my flip? Why are you tunneled solely on me?

[cruelty]

@Cruelty - Go back and read my earlier posts. I've answered all the points you just brought up, except for your OMGUS stabs at me.

Points I brought up? I was responding to you, I think you're losing the plot here man.

OMGUS? Elaborate.

[cruelty]

@ cruelty-

given the option, would you still want foilist lynched today?

It's more along the lines of, if I could lynch 3 people today he'd be one of them. He's not my first pick for a lynch right at this second (as my vote indicates).

That said, I would absolutely support his wagon.

[cruelty]

My response to your earlier post included a small bit:That AGM would be absolutely mafia in my eyes, and if you flip town we also have suspicions from a confirmed townie on multiple players, notably on archae and peanut.

I already addressed both points earlier and I don't think they're compelling at all.

1: As far as I'm aware

everyone is already suspicious of AGM

. Is it really worth two lives (mine + [inevitable] nk) to find that out?

2: I said it in response to someone (foilist? Don't remember who, don't think it matters) but I'd be highly concerned if you took my suspicions and ran with them purely because I flipped town. That's terrible logic and as such makes this point void.

I really think you have to do better than that. You'll get my suspicions and extra scumpoints on AGM? C'mon.

several people have posted why they want cruelty dead.

You have you and GG, plus a couple guys with what really amount to nothing more than retaliatory votes (I'll stop just short of shouting OMGUS because I acknowledge there is a valid half-case against me). GG I don't think has been particularly compelling with his quest for information and AGM/foilist are tunneled. This leaves you.

[cruelty]

If I flip town, what information do you get?

You keep pushing this dumb "information" issue. This doesn't even matter - we should be lynching SCUM, not people who we think we'll get lots of information from.

You're scummy, and are lynchable

. The end.

Bolded = lol.

I'll see your argument and raise you a reflection. You (amongst others) have been consistently more scummy than me, and the case against me is based more on things I haven't done than anything concrete that I have. The information thing is a byproduct of this, and I don't think it's valid.

cruelty, why don't you suspect/want me lynched anymore?

Because he likes shifting his advocacy all the time so you can't pin him down on anything later.

Also, what happened to wanting AGM lynched?

Once again, he likes shifting his advocacy all the time so you can't pin him down on anything later.

Yawn. Been over this, but my votes have been consistent and backed up by reasoning. Yours (again, amongst others) have not.

The problem with you and foilist is that your absolute conviction in my guilt is as much a product of your own scumminess (and therefore the heat that has been directed your way by virtually everyone in the game at some point or another) as it is mine. The presence of both of you on my wagon is a fairly blatant attempt to push the 'easy' lynch and ensure your survival. This is opportunistic.

I also note that you have also been horribly tunneled on me today. In fact, looking through your iso, the absolute entirety of your "scumhunting" has been 99% directed at me. Even your questions re: archaebob have mostly been regarding me.

I mean, I can't be the only person noticing this. The two scummiest players from yesterday (in terms of towns attitude towards both of them throughout the entirety of the day) are both 100% tunneled on me, the easy lynch for the day as pushed by the current player with the most town cred (big Papa Zito). I am pretty damn sure there's scum here.


Speaking of Papa.

I'm willing to eat one of SpyreX's hats if foilist13 isn't town based off of this. There's no reason scum would shift a wagon from Scum Role X onto a Godfather.

Still think this?

Has your opinion on archaebob changed now that he's posting?

Not really. I'm still wary of him and I don't think his big explanation post about town cred, political capital, ego etc really means much (obviously we don't know him personally so...). I also think that he's slowly recapturing the limelight so I guess we'll see what happens there. For now though, I don't think he's a reasonable lynch.

@GG, been over that "inconsistency". Can't explain it any better than I already have.

Bussing for other mafia would also be crazy risky given it would leave them at 1 mafia to 7 townies.

This confuses me. You have your top 3, and I'm voting for one and sparring with the other. Do you think that I'm scum and bussing/being bussed?

[cruelty]

I also think that he's slowly recapturing the limelight so I guess we'll see what happens there. For now though, I don't think he's a reasonable lynch.

What does reasonable mean?

Also who is your prime suspect now then?

I don't think he's a reasonable lynch because I can see his posts coming from town. I think he's a lot less scummier than some other players in the game and I'd be hesitant about (but probably not against) lynching him on what really amounts for me to be a gut wariness.

My prime suspect. Don't really have one. AGM is easily the scummiest (followed closely by my boy foilist) but I'm not 100% sure that he's scum or just special.

[cruelty]

Oh no, cruelty. (Say it ain't soooo...) Why are you voting with me if AGM is your #1 target?

Two reasons. First, given my current (lack of) town cred it's implausible that I can push through a lynch on a claimed doc. Second, I am confident that if I'm lynched and flip town, he's next. Peanut's lynch has the double benefit of clearing me and also incriminating AGM (additionally, if people consider me town, then I believe I will get the support to lynch him), and it's reasonable to believe he's (peanut) scum. I don't think he's hugely scummy in terms of what he's

said

, but I'm currently thinking his actions diverge a little from his words.

Therefore, AGM will die tomorrow once my alignment is confirmed. Lynching him today isn't necessary.

[cruelty]

you still appear hesitant to commit to any one position

How so?

I've made very few votes in the game, and I've stuck with them. I'd say that's fairly committed. Consistent, even. I don't think you have a case here.

I'm not fencesitting with regards to you. That's a laughable line to take. I've explained why I don't want you lynched today. Post 998. I haven't once changed my tune about you and there are valid reasons as to why I think you're a bad lynch.

Your argument that we shouldn't lynch for information is missing the point. I'm (I don't think anyone?) is advocating lynching random townies for information - it's more about a calculated risk that playerX is scum with the caveat that you can gain Y information about other players in the event that you mislynch. I don't think that's hugely unreasonable - given that we're not working with anything even approaching absolutes here, there's no way to be 100% sure you've caught yourself mafia, so you look for additional benefits. This is why peanut is a better lynch than me - we learn more in the event of a mislynch than we do from me. Obviously (OBVIOUSLY) hitting scum is optimal, but there's simply no way you can be 100%, so in the event of two probscums, you go for the one you can learn the most for. I mean honestly, it's not a difficult concept to grasp, doc.


Fallacious dismissal based on appeal to character? More like pointing out the obvious flaw in your white hot anger towards me. You're blind to everything else, you're desperate to get me lynched. This relates to your "So?" further on in the post - you're not bothering to scumhunt at all. You've been solely focused on me since about halfway through day 1 and you're not contributing anything at all otherwise; this isn't pro-town at all, especially if I do get lynched and flip town. In that event, your focus on me looks horribly scummy and if you ARE a doc, then you'll probably get lynched next regardless. That's just bad play.

[cruelty]

I don't want you lynched. I think you're scummy. They can co-exist. I honestly don't know why this isn't sinking in.

[cruelty]

I don't want you lynched. I think you're scummy.

I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around it because generally the point of the game is to lynch the scummy people. Also it doesn't help that you aren't advocating a lynch at all despite the wealth of information in this thread.

AGM will die tomorrow once my alignment is confirmed. Lynching him today isn't necessary.

This is true. Therefore I don't need to really go after him too much, his attacks on me have already sealed his fate (after his day 1 antics). Also, do you honestly think I currently have the town cred to be able to push the lynch of a claimed doc?

I think my time is better spent not worrying about AGM and seeing what else I can uncover.

[cruelty]

@ Gammagooey - first off, I think i'm beginning to agree more than i did before with your theory that AGM bussing out his partner would be suicide. This is making me somewhat more inclined to consider a cruelty lynch than I initially was, but I still don't see enough actual evidence that points to him being scum.

I'd have thought this would work both ways - I haven't exactly been quiet about my doubts re: AGM either, although I've stopped short of voting him. Which I'm getting tired of explaining, but:

Maybe this is a semantics problem. You say you don't want him dead but it sounds like you mean aren't able to make him dead. Putting the credibility issues aside, do you want him lynched?

There are reasons why I don't think I can get him lynched, and reasons why I don't want him lynched. There's even a reason I don't

need

him lynched. I'll list them, hopefully clearly this time.

Can't

: I'm currently one of two main suspects. I don't have the credibility at this point to push a wagon onto a claimed doctor. I've spent basically the whole day defending myself thus far, and whilst I don't think I've done a bad job on the whole, I don't believe I am in a position to lead a lynch yet. So yeah, credibility and general town mindset are an issue for me with regards to AGM.

Don't need

: Lynching AGM today will save me (unless he's town in which case I guess I'm fucked), but my lynch and possible town flip will doom him. I don't need to push his wagon because I think he's effectively done it for me.

Don't want

: I don't think he's the right choice for today (and I didn't yesterday). I'm pretty confident he's scum (or as I've said, the worst doctor ever) but I think of it like having an ugly girl as backup in case you can't score the hot one - we have the numbers and town momentum right now to go after the other scum player. If Muffin had flipped town I'd probably be pushing hard to get AGM lynched (because yeah, the objective is to lynch scum) but the situation is hardly one of desperation right now and long-term, I think removing him early is potentially a mistake.

However, I get the feeling that you, Archaebob, are scum from some of your recent activity. You have recognized that Cruelty has good chances of getting lynched and have found a way to perhaps gain town-cred. If you defend Cruelty and he turns up town, you can see the next day "I told you all he was town, now there must be scum on his BW, let's lynch them", effectively throwing pressure off of you.

I thought about this, and I think it's a valid point. His defence (whilst appreciated) I take with a grain of salt because I can absolutely see why scum would want to be seen to be visibly opposed to a mislynch. Especially scum who wasn't on the godfather wagon yesterday.

@peanut, I notice that you've barely mentioned AGM at all today. Can you give us some thoughts on him? Specifically, his tunneling on me and his hammer.

[cruelty]

Peanut I think you're trying to twist his words. It's pretty obvious what he's saying. But I'll let him clarify.

[cruelty]

And I'm so not feeling a Peanut lynch.

But it seems cruelty's not happening.

?

If I'm not going to get lynched, and you don't like peanut, who do you suggest and why? This (the following quote) still relevant?

cruelty
AGM
archaebob
Gammagooey
peanutman

You've been pretty tunneled on me to the point where I don't think you've paid anyone else serious attention (except when archaebob requested your cruelty-case) today.

[cruelty]

for now,

unvote

.

Been at work all day, going to the beach now. I'll make a more substantial post later this evening.

[cruelty]

Hmm interesting day.

This jumps out at me:

Papa Zito was right about Muffin. Effective scum-hunting goes a long way in my book.

If you actually read PZ in iso (which I did when I read the above), he's done basically no scumhunting at all. His contribution in general has actually been minimal to the point whereby if he wasn't the guy who'd started the Muffin wagon, I think he'd be getting seriously looked at for active lurking.

Papa I am pretty much certain of, since he's the one who began the actual wagon

Dislike. I might be paranoid but I've recently found myself slightly concerned that we're dealing with Palpatine here. I'm more concerned that I made a star wars analogy, though.

P.S. - Voting wise, I still like cruelty.

Yo, can we do another last minute wagon, except this time onto archaebob?

You didn't mention archaebob at all (except to take a short recess) in posts 61, 62, 63 or 64.. what's changed and why? This is another example of you jumping from target to target... explain. (I get that a lot has been said but I'd like you to articulate your reasons for wanting an archaebob lynch, I'm not going to let you blindly jump onto the popular wagon again).

I still like the Cruelty lynch, and if we buy what Peanut is saying, I think that his is best by far.

Why? If peanut is the cop then half the case against me (that peanut and I didn't address each other day 1) goes away. And you're left with your bunch of dubious points and OMGUS.

[cruelty]

What the hell is going on here?

I should say before I actually start writing out this post that I have only skimmed through the archaebob/Mordy battle, I haven't fact-checked so I don't know how valid their arguments are. I'll do this tomorrow, but for now I'm looking at foilist.

Many Archaebob's cases rest on assumptions, which he states in them. That means that there is no contradiction, and they are meant to be conjecture, not damning evidence. So far his cases have been better than yours.

It's hard for me to take this seriously. You think his cases, being based on assumptions, are solid?

Assumptions are weak. WEAK. A case based on an assumption can be backed away from in a hurry. A case based on an assumption can be a huge misrepresentation that can be explained away as "Oh, I misunderstood X, which made me assume Y". I'd be more inclined to find someone making assumption-based cases scummy than I would be to agree with them (again, I haven't seriously examined the cases on either side). That's just me, though.

I don't have time right now to go back and check the validity of Archaebob's statement about you never seriously mentioning Sanjay, but

until I do I will take it to be true.

Ah, blind trust.

Look, this sort of attitude would be ok (I guess..) if you hadn't followed it up with a vote. Why would you do that? I don't see the rational for town to just blindly trust in someone, no matter how much they agree with their assumption-based cases.

I still like the Cruelty lynch, and if we buy what Peanut is saying, I think that his is best by far.

My Cruelty suspicions were never as strong as I would have liked, but they were the strongest. That is no longer the case.

It now seems as though this is realistically between MordyS and Archaebob, and I am inclined to choose MordyS.

Seriously?

Look at your voting history, you're constantly just voting for the target of the (week?). This is either scummy, or very, very easily lead town. Either way, it's not good.

[cruelty]

Things I find amusing that the last two pages have been entirely about MordyS and archaebob, but cruelty comes in and starts talking about Foilist.

Posting from iPod, quick response.

What is wrong with that? I specifically said why I wasn't addressing bob and mordy, I'll do this when I get home. As far as I'm concerned, foilist has displayed bad logic and a willingness to be led. This is post worthy. But let's make this about you, where's your contribution?

[cruelty]

I'm actually finding this whole thing very hard to follow. I don't really know what to think. The thing I'm most concerned about right now is PZ's lack of content today (if he's scum he's flying under the radar right now, if he's town he's an asset we're not getting full use out of), followed closely by foilist's recent post(s). Not really impressed with AGM's contribution today either, he's been tunneled on me and contributed no scumhunting of any value whatsoever.

I suppose I should address the Mordy/bob battle, but I don't really have much to say. I'm reading every post but I'm not getting a huge scum vibe from either (in terms of this confrontation). I was already a little wary of bob and that hasn't changed, I'm still sort of null on Mordy. I don't think either has really made that critical post that would make me sit up and take notice. I guess I'm fencesitting but I just feel like this battle is actually more of a massive distraction than something that will ultimately lead to a scum lynch.

More importantly, why did you ignore any pressure on Cruelty and falsely claim the choice was between only Mordy and Bob?

This.
Foilist you have a whole heap of posts directed at you that you absolutely have to answer. This isn't something I'm going to let you get away with. Answers. ASAP.

I'll take this opportunity to address peanut's cop claim - I'm going to assume he's telling the truth (for now). An AGM flip will condemn or clear him (and vice versa) and I'm not currently too concerned about AGM's ability to win the game from this point so it doesn't really matter. The lack of a counter claim is a problem for me I guess, it tends to exonerate AGM a little (and obviously peanut as well).

@Gamma (and others), I don't like the claimed cop being directed.

@PZ, you didn't actually give us any idea of where you're leaning right now. Who do you find suspicious - still me? bob? Mordy? foilist?


I'm going to do this,

vote: foilist

.

The reasons are twofold, one is my continued (and unchanging) suspicion of him since early on day 1, two is his iso-post 115 (and to a lesser extent 116).

[cruelty]

That does of course leave out the possibility that scum decided Sociopath was a liability (given his inactivity) and that bussing him would give instant and lasting town cred.

I mean, I see and understand what you're saying, and I'm inclined to agree that at that point (Papa's votecount), there was probably at most 1 scum on the wagon. That said, citing it as ironclad evidence of anything doesn't ring true with me. The game isn't about absolutes, and I don't like that you're trying to use a very WIFOMish argument to clear yourself (amongst others) - everyone else please take this with a grain of salt.


Also I should probably note the possibility of two anti-town factions still existing; it's not entirely inconceivable that there's an SK or something out there. They would have no reason to not be present on the wagon. I don't really want to indulge in set-up speculation but I think it's worth holding in the back of your mind.

[cruelty]

I gave it at the beginning of the day and my approach hasn't changed. I feel like an attempt has been made to muddy the waters (damage control) and I don't like it.

I have tried SO HARD to please you.


I will get behind an archaebob lynch. I don't want to right now, because I think there's still a possibility of getting foilist lynched. If it comes right down to it thought, I will get aboard the bob-train.


@PZ (well, everyone, but mainly PZ in light of his vote) - you're now voting archaebob so I guess I can assume he's currently your #1.. if you believe he's scum, then how do you feel about foilist? Especially his post 115.

@GG - I want a foilist lynch. I will be happy if you're on the wagon. I don't really like your logic though - it reads a little like an escape clause in the event that he does flip town.

@Mordy, don't like your foilist vote, but I love your foilist vote.


This is what I'm thinking. I can't push an AGM lynch today (

by the way where is AGM? I have no idea what the hell Phaerie was talking about with regards to his contribution today

) because he's now entwined with a claimed cop. Lynching either would be foolish and peanut's claim has given me a reason to consider my read on AGM, so I'm willing to let that lie. I can and will push for a foilist lynch. He's been horrifically scummy in my opinion today - I don't really need to go over why at this point as it's all extensively documented, I will if asked.

I'm still not convinced that either of Mordy and bob is scum, I can easily see both being town and I think that it's just a huge distraction. I find Sanjay's sideline participation a little odd too, but I need to re-read to double check that.

Gotta goto football now so I'm cutting this short, I have a little (not much) more to say, it can wait.

[cruelty]

I have tried SO HARD to please you.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Joke.

@PZ (well, everyone, but mainly PZ in light of his vote) - you're now voting archaebob so I guess I can assume he's currently your #1.. if you believe he's scum, then how do you feel about foilist? Especially his post 115.

I can't deny that your play today is a marked improvement over yesterday. Whether that's because yesterday's behavior got you so much negative attention or otherwise is meh.

Archaebob's been really chaotic in this game, and yesterday's points are still there. He's not a bad secondary choice at all. Again, I feel the optimal play for town is to reduce the off-wagon pool.

I addressed Foilist... was there something else you wanted?

Yep. I feel like foilist and archaebob are circling each other. I think it's weird that nobody else seems to want to look at this.



Also, I'm really unconvinced by this on/off wagon stuff. You lynched a guy based on lurking - I can't argue with the results but I don't think you can really justify calling me scummy because I didn't really want to move off someone I thought (think) was (is) genuinely scummy. It's not as though I've been flip flopping or inconsistent in any way. Genuinely don't understand.

AGM hasnt contributed much in the last couple of days, but what he has contributed over this game day has been well thought out and helpful

Huh?

He tunneled on me, then tried to guide the cop. I don't think he made a particularly good case on me. You said this earlier in the day (on Nov 25th):

I'm not sure about you being scum, and I'm actually more sure of Archaebob being scum than I am you.

This was post 894 overall. Then on December 7th (post 1107) you said this:

I'm really not sure about the cruelty/sanjay cases

This to me reads like you don't like the cases against me (correct me if I'm wrong..) and retained this attitude for about 200 posts (I consider that a significant amount) - this is basically all AGM did up until peanut's claim. So please answer; if you don't like the cases against me, and AGM did basically nothing but attack me and THEN tried to lead the cop, how can you consider AGM to be helpful.

[cruelty]

It's hard to articulate, Sanjay. The foilist side of things is obvious, his post 115 just set off alarm bells. You could go through his entire history and find multiple examples of him agreeing/siding with bob, defending him, whatever. This in and of itself isn't necessarily scummy, but the way he's gone about it is. Post 115.

The bob side is different, it's basically entirely gut but I get the impression he doesn't really want to talk about him. I was hesitant to say anything because I don't think there are specific examples in his play (it's hard to point to someone that by it's nature doesn't exist), but this:

Not sure what the hype is about, besides the fact that he's the only one who agrees with me. I agree that his saying that this is down to just me or Mordy is stupid, but being stupid is consistent with his play. How is this suddenly a big deal, when he have long gotten over all the stupid things he said yesterday?

Basically, the Muffin lynch gave us a buttload of town reads. Unless there was some pretty masterful manipulation (on Papa Zito's part), sloppy play (PhaerieM's part), or sage wisdom of when to bus (my or MordyS's part), it seems to me like we are pretty likely town. Also, archaebob and Gammagooey seemed very townish day 1. AlmasterGM and peanutman aren't great lynch candidates. I can't tell the difference between foilist town and foilist scum and, thanks for nothing, now you've given me a town read.

So, process of elimination by way of WIFOM?

[cruelty]

Continuing with your helpful contributions I see.

[cruelty]

Hmm Mordy. That's damning. Going to goto bed now but I'll vote bob in the morning (I'd like to read his response first).

[cruelty]

You don't think Papa Zito is obv. town based on the Muffin lynch then?

Assuming you're town, then is it really good play to consider anyone obv. town?


I mean, you've changed your tone re: me, you say I'm now giving you a town read - if this is the case can you conceive of PZ being the most badass busser in Plainview?


I mean, if you really read his initial post/vote for Sociopath, it doesn't actually say much and there wasn't really a whole heap that followed leading up to the lynch. I don't really think that there's a huge obv. town read for him in day 1 at all. It's entirely based on his instigating the Muffin lynch. I'm not saying he's scum by any means, I'm saying I don't like that there are two players (PZ and GG) who are basically immune to scumhunting at the moment - nobody is even looking sideways at them.

[cruelty]

So tempted.

[cruelty]

Cruelty, do you have nothing to say about Mordy trying to hammer me just now? I've said explicitly that I need more time, as I have RL commitments (which I am currently procrastinating on, with very poor judgement). How can Mordy's vote possibly come from town?

I don't think it was particularly intelligent but I'm willing to let Mordy play himself into a hole (or to make himself a hero). I would have liked to have seen your big post (which is why I didn't vote this morning) but I had literally no power here - I'm not on the wagon so I couldn't unvote to stop his hammer.

[cruelty]

How so peanut? I'm not particularly invested in either player, I would have liked to see archaebob's post but I didn't feel hugely compelled to prolong the inevitable either.

[cruelty]

Mordy and Sanjay, you are both now going to die. I have been putting soooo little of my potential effort into this game, which is a large part of why I have appeared scummy due to my laziness, but right now I am going to replace out of all my other games and focus the entirety of my attention and mental capacity on this one game, which is something I have never come close to doing on this site.

I don't expect you to believe me, I expect you to wait and see.

lol

[cruelty]

This is hardly the other-game-quitting balls to the wall forum phenomenon that I was expecting, foilist.

Peanut/GG will sort themselves out, one is obviously mafia. I guess the issue is the 3rd scum.

Apologies to AGM, I guess you're just a loose cannon rather than scummy.


Gonna go read GG in iso and see what's what, I'm more inclined to believe peanut at this point but I'm not going to commit to a side before I've done the research.

[cruelty]

Also, Cruelty hasn't said anything yet. He has posted twice this evening (about half an hour ago) on another game. I suspect that he's panicking, not knowing what to say just yet and trying to think up a contingency plan.

lol.

I live in New Zealand, I've been at work all day. I find this game to require a bit more effort than the others, and don't like trying to make posts here from my ipod.


Your case on me (such as it is) is based on someone else's actions. This isn't in anyway reflective of how I've played the game and as such I'm not sure how much merit it has. There's more to be said about this, but I'll come back to it.



pre-submission-edit: I don't want to commit to a side because I can conceive of you being scum. I think it's more likely that GG is but are you asking me to choose a wagon without doing the research first? It's not like there's a huge rush here.

[cruelty]

Wait hang on.

For the rest of you, could you re-read Gooey with this new info and see what you read of it?

Gonna go read GG in iso and see what's what, I'm more inclined to believe peanut at this point but I'm not going to commit to a side before I've done the research.

Quite weak of you Cruelty. Please explain to me why you can't commit to one-side at this point.

So... for some reason I'm not allowed to re-read with all the other children? Not liking the discrimination.

[cruelty]

But there isn't much research to do. I've claimed to be cop, I am sure of my sanity (given AGM's flip, my N1 investigation), and Gooey came up guilty. You either believe my claim, and find him guilty. Or you believe this set-up has a Godfather with no cop, you believe Gamma's roleblocker claim, and you vote me. It's not a question of re-reading the entire thread. At least, I don't think it is. I ask anyone to correct my logic if I'm wrong here.

I didn't say I wanted to re-read the entire thread (why would I?), I wanted to re-read GG (and probably you) before I decide whose claim I believe. How is that in any way unreasonable?

[cruelty]

I didn't really think about it, to be honest.

Reading GG in iso is kinda interesting - he's very opportunistic, most of his attacks are on the easy targets; myself, archaebob (especially towards the end of yesterday, when he quite quickly changed his tune from paranoid-bob to scum-bob), AGM and foilist. There's really very little regarding anyone else. I guess that's ironic given where my sights have been set (and more than a little concerning, too, from my point of view) but I think it's also important given that of the 5 of us, 2 have flipped town and one is all but confirmed cop. You can consider that me taking your side, btw.


Also, your "case" on me - it's entirely founded on what GG has (or hasn't done), or what he might (or might not) have done. This isn't actually a case on me, this is speculation about how the two of us interacted based on how one of us behaved. This is an argument that I seem to come up against quite often, so I guess it's a flaw in my play, but I think you're just tilting at windmills here - there are still a couple of players (most noticeable Mordy) who I haven't really had much to do with even at this late stage of the game. I don't really understand what makes me so scummy aside from this, perhaps you can enlighten me.

[cruelty]

I don't really know how, to be honest. So long ago I don't recall my specific thought process.

My change in opinion I'll chalk up to a bunch of posts between mine (it's not like there was only 3 posts in between my two). My observation of foilist was based (I think, reading over his early game in iso) my belief that he was simply reacting to accusations with accusations of his own (OMGUS).

I'm just going to go ahead and claim VT, I don't really see any reason not to at this point - I'm not scum and I don't want town tunneled on me because at this point I can see that if foilist isn't scum, then there's a player who has been essentially confirmed town (someone on the Muffin wagon) out there who's currently slipping under the radar. Obvious suspects are Mordy and Sanjay.

[cruelty]

Sanjay if it's so damning then vote me. You've basically quoted the line I've been taking with foilist the entire game - this has nothing to do with scum and everything to do with foilist. The fact that you found one quote that has me "ever so subtly (by the way that's fucking laughable, by all means search for other examples, preferably after page 7) defending" two people who turned out to be scum is just an unhappy coincidence. I don't think I would have to work too hard to find quotes where other people inadvertently defended scum, and did so in a much less subtle way than that one quote.

Mordy, I've been defending myself all game and I grow weary of it. I'm not an idiot, I can see which way the wind is blowing and I don't really see how a claim now is any different to a claim at L-1.

why did you say that at this point "if foilist isn't scum..." as though it's a foregone conclusion that he isn't? Sanjay has some good evidence that points towards him being town, but I don't know why you'd just roll with that

I said

I don't want town tunneled on me because at this point I can see that if foilist isn't scum, then there's a player who has been essentially confirmed town

I implied nothing of the sort. Let me explain for you.

cruelty isn't scum
AND
IF foilist isn't scum
THEN
someone on the Muffin wagon MUST be scum.

I have no idea if foilist is scum or not. I think he's scummy but he's been consistently so throughout the entirety of the game. In fact, I've thought so since page 7 (cheers for the reference, Sanjay), so this is hardly an earth shattering revelation.

All I know at this point is that I'm town. If I'm town, and foilist is town (which again, I don't know to be the case), then someone who has been considered obvtown must be scum.

[cruelty]

The thing is, I never really got massively scummy vibes from either of the two flipped scum. In fact, I said something along those lines right around that time -

I don't entirely agree with your epic wall post (I think Muffin tends to waffle (get it?) on a bit but I wouldn't say he's entirely devoid of content)

Out of my top 3 suspects (overall, for the entire game), 2 have flipped town, one (foilist) is still alive. I've just been completely wrong this entire game. I thought (think) foilist was (is) scummy, I didn't have an issue with Muffin (or GG) so why wouldn't I say that? It's not a case of me trying to defend my scumbuddies, it's just me being wrong. I'd love to be infallible, unfortunately it's not the case.


Basically, I'm going to dismiss your case as a misinterpretation of my bad reads. Do what you will.

[cruelty]

lol foilist, continuing with your trend of thinking for yourself I see. Is there even a single original thought of your own there? Is this is the avalanche of badass scumhunting you replaced out of other games to provide?


Sanjay how is that post not self-explanatory? AGM was trying to paint a picture of GG as scum for doing something I thought was completely reasonable. I think other people took issue with that too.

[cruelty]

Guess that depends on how you define interesting.

I said I don't recall my specific thought process re: page 7. Interpreting something else I said that is as you agree self-explanatory is somewhat different.

[cruelty]

Hahaha. If you're town you're going to be SO disappointed with my flip.

vote: foilist

[cruelty]

Why?

What can I do, I've been under attack right throughout the game with arguments that are really, really fucking poor. I'm scum because peanut thought GG didn't mention me much? I'm scum because I said something that might be subtly defending scum on page 7?

It's gotten to the point where town is overly confident, to the point whereby you've got two people who are more or less lurking (zito/phaerie) absolutely confirmed town, you've got a guy who heavily pushed a mislynch under no heat whatsoever and you've got another guy who's promised to bring the fire, hasn't delivered and has been scummy all day. At this point if you're that determined to lynch me with ludicrous arguments then I'm just going to throw my hands up in frustration, I don't think there's really anything I can say or do that will convince anyone of my innocent.

[cruelty]

(Scum would know that AGM is innocent, and might be willing to throw an inactive scumbuddy to the wolves for townie cred)

[cruelty]

There's no scum meta.

I've never been under suspicion for the entire game so this is a little different for me. Usually I play fairly aggressively so the position I'm in right now has me floundering.

And I don't think Zito is scum. I know I'm not, therefore one of you must be. He hasn't actually contributed that much (which I keep saying and nobody seems to see) so I'm really, really against ruling him out, regardless of his position on the Sociopath wagon. I guess my feelings towards him are more wary than suspicious - I don't think he's done anything scummy but at the same time I don't think he's therefore obvtown.

What do I think right now?

I think you need to be cross-examined for the bob lynch, I agreed with several points you brought up against him but ultimately you aggressively mislynched. There should be an inquisition and I'm a little concerned that there hasn't been. I'll try to find time to put a post together regarding this over the next few days, work schedule permitting.

I think that Sanjay is exaggerating bad points against me. I guess they're legitimate, but the fact is you're not bringing up anything from the last 50 pages. You're going to try to condemn me for some things I said way back in early game when nobody had a clue about anything? I should note that bad doesn't necessarily mean illegitimate, I just mean that the case is fairly fragile and depends a lot on other (dead) people's testimonies, specifically peanut (who also presented a poor case).

I think Zito and Phaerie are being given easy rides for no good reason. This is something that everyone needs to look at and address - they are NOT confirmed town and I don't understand why nobody is even looking sideways at them. There's very little contribution coming from either corner and being on (or starting??) the godfather wagon does not disqualify them from suspicion. In the event of my mislynch this is something town really, really needs to look at.

I think foilist has failed to deliver on several counts, but mostly he needs to make the amazing case that he promised, that he dropped out of other games to make. Summarizing other people's points against me (btw lol @ the avatar thing) is not contribution, that's parroting, something you've been guilty of all game.

[cruelty]

mordy

I have no idea how I'd play if I were scum. Probably very similarly; I haven't played well this game but I doubt I'd change my approach.

1: Sociopath, didn't really feel it, never got a massive scum vibe from Muffin and I didn't really think Sociopath's lurking was scummier than foilist/AGM. GG, wasn't sure of the vote count and didn't want the day to end that early, I thought GG had cracked and might let information about his pal slip.

2: I think that once the heat died down he's had a fairly easy ride, so it's hard to tell. I've really been the only player questioning him since night 1.

3: Not really. Not by itself, anyway. I don't put much stock in wagons because I suspect that as scum I'd vote more or less as I do as town. I'd be more inclined to look for vote justification rather than votes.

Don't have time for more, gotta goto work.

[cruelty]

I don't think it was particularly intelligent but I'm willing to let Mordy play himself into a hole (or to make himself a hero)

At that point I had a null read on you, I appreciated your arguments (particularly the lurker-voting contradiction) but you were making me a little uneasy (gut) - I figured that the outcome of the battle the two of you had engaged in would basically expose your (both of you) alignment. Turns out that peanut hit scum with his investigation and you managed to climb out of your hole in the background.

I am aware I have more questions pending, I'll try to answer more later tonight, gonna watch some tv and relax a bit right now.

[cruelty]

cruelty, when you get back, can you tell me why foilist is scum?

I think right now that is the most important information to be had, and even though I personally think Mordy is more likely to be the next scum, Cruelty is a close second. With that in mind, unvote, Vote:Cruelty

Do you believe that aggressive mislynches are scumtells?

Nope. Think they deserve to be questioned, though.

[cruelty]

I will when I have time to go over everything. Don't at the moment, hopefully after Christmas.

[cruelty]

I'm not lazy scum, I'm super frustrated town.

I'm too tired after work to care much about this game at the moment (I work retail, it's exhausting this time of year) so gimme 3-4 days and I'll try to get back into it.


Also, I fail to see why I have to be central to the town's activities here. You DO deserve to be questioned - someone else should be able to pick up the ball and run with it. For some reason I seem to be expected to defend myself and do the majority of the scumhunting at the same time (because you gimps are either SO convinced of my guilt that you can't even see anyone else as being scum or you're horribly apathetic) which just isn't going to happen right now.

[cruelty]

happy holidays all, i haven't forgotten this. will be 100% back within a day or two.

[cruelty]

Actually I'm going to self-hammer I think.

I've been trying to think how to post in a way that would prove my innocence, but really I don't think it's possibly at this point. I'm going to open the floor to outstanding questions which I'll do my best to answer before the hemlock takes effect.

[cruelty]

Right.

If I'm scum, then anything I say is meaningless anyway.

If I'm town, then everything I have already said will finally be looked at the way I intended it to be.


I'm not going to do it yet, I'm giving you the opportunity to ask the questions you want answered.

[cruelty]

Do you believe cruelty should be the lynch of the day, or are you just positive that he *will* be the lynch of the day? You say you're content with the fact that he looks scummier to more people. Content? What would you prefer?

Actually yeah, to further that, that post looks like reticence to do any scumhunting and more of a desire to drift along with what town wants.


Aw Sanjay, but I so badly wanted to...


Look, if I self-hammer, either your suspicions are confirmed (I'm scum and town wins) or they're destroyed. Either way you'll know exactly what you're dealing with. If we lynch someone else, I'm just going to be a distraction tomorrow. I don't see the point of my continued presence, it's in no way beneficial to town at all.

[cruelty]

Added to that, there's no way I'm the NK tonight. It'd be the height of stupidity to keep me around.

[cruelty]

I told you, ask me questions and I'll answer them.

[cruelty]

Yo how about you tell me exactly what you want me to say and I'll say it.


I don't really know what more I can say at this point. I never got huge scum vibes from either Muffin/Socio or GG. I have literally been wrong all game.

I don't recall what I was thinking when I said that - maybe I was talking in a general sense (ie: the entire game rather than specifically the last couple pages), maybe I made a mistake, maybe I read into something that wasn't there. I just don't know. I don't even think it's relevant (it certainly won't be once I flip) so I'm not sure why you're even pushing this line of questioning.

I've said I'll self hammer (I'd be satisfied if someone else hammered at this point too) and that'll instantly absolve me and wreck your line of questioning. As it stands right now, my presence is distracting. Nobody is looking at anybody else and the single scum is sitting there cackling with glee. This is a bad situation.


You (town) really have two options here.

1: Lynch me (or let me self-hammer) and go forward with the game. I'll flip innocent and everyone will be able to move on.

2: Believe my claim and focus attention elsewhere. This would be the poorer of the two options.


I -know- I've played badly this game and I apologize, I never really managed to get into it. That said, a self-hammer is the most pro-town solution I can come up with. I have to die because if I'm around, town won't get past it.

[cruelty]

Actually why are you so keen to keep me around Sanjay?

If I'm scum then getting rid of me is the best policy.

If I'm town then getting rid of me is the best policy.

[cruelty]

lol

If I'm your top suspect then lynch me - why bother with this charade?

Sanjay your questions are bullshit, I'm not gonna bother answering ridiculous questions about page 7 or whatever. There's simply no point. My flip will illuminate this.

Player analysis? I'll indulge ya.

Phaerie- had no real dramas other than the lack of content following her Muffin case. No alarm bells, but she's hardly been consistently around with constant contribution. Probably town.

Zito - Has contributed basically nothing the entire game. His #1 suspect (myself) will be proven innocent whenever someone finally pulls the trigger, I don't think much of his contribution to the Sociopath lynch (very little besides "hey guys let's do this"). I don't think he's been anywhere near as obv town as everyone seems to think. That said, he hasn't been scummy, just vague and absent. I don't think him particularly scummy, but I don't think he's been some sort of pro-town wizard. Null, leaning town.

Foilist - My opinion of him is clear. I think he's scummy, but recent events (AGM + peanut flips) have made me question whether or not he's scum or just VI.

Mordy - Had no problems up to the archaebob lynch. My suspicion towards him comes and goes. I think that his aggression towards archaebob is actually fairly townish; it was a reasonable case, but something was a little off about it. I can't pinpoint exactly what (I've tried), so I presume it's just a vague gut feeling. Because of this, null.

Sanjay - Thought I was scummy, then got a town read on me, then thought I was scummy again based on peanut's case, then brought up some retarded shit from page 7, then delved into GG's mind and extrapolated my guilt from his memories. I dunno, I don't understand his mindset. He wants me lynched, but he doesn't want me lynched? He thinks I'm scum, but won't allow me to self-hammer?



I know two things.

1: There is 1 scum left (this is obviously an assumption but 4 scum would be horribly unbalanced so I'm fairly confident).
2: I'm innocent.

It is logical given these two things and the current suspicion (and ENTIRE town focus) on me that scum would want to keep me alive as long as possible, because I'm effectively shielding them. It's also logical that scum would want to be on the mislynch wagon along with the rest of town.

Sanjay has probably been the most active in trying to get me lynched, but curiously he's also the most vocal in trying to get me to a) participate and b) stay in the game. The two are at odds and it's a strange contradiction.


So m'man, I'll give you the opportunity to hammer me right now and win the game. It's obvious that your case is watertight and I'm scum (right??) so I'll expect the hammer vote next time you're online and town will chalk up a cool W.

unvote, vote cruelty

also mod, if I'm still alive, I'll be VLA over new years (the next 3 days from this post), going out of town.

[cruelty]

Ok.

So what I can ascertain is that you're unwilling to hammer me despite having a scum read on me. And despite having the backing of town (hence the wagon on me). Why?


You said I've been freaking out. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, is it a scumtell?

You said I'm being evasive - this is true, but it's a function of the fact that I know my flip will answer all your questions. They'll generally become redundant (and your possibly fake scumhunting will be illuminated) or I'll just be exposed as horrifically wrong throughout the entire game. Either way, this isn't a bad thing for town.

You said the only important thing is that I don't get lynched. Well, I've changed my tune. I think my lynch is absolutely critical at this point. Do you disagree? If so, why?

You said I'm not scumhunting. On the surface I guess it's true, but my strategy today ran a little deeper. We're standing on the precipice, you and I.

[cruelty]

The woe is me thing was deliberate - I was fishing, my thinking was that scum would defend me so as to take me to lylo. I had a very uneasy feeling from zito and in mordys place would have voted him, but at the time of my lynch I was seriously wondering about sanjay, who was very eager to keep me in the game.

Was well played zito, you palpatined the shit out of us.

[cruelty]

My credibility was shot to pieces (due to my own bad play) so I couldn't really go toe-to-toe with anyone and expect any sort of posse at my side. I thought that the best way to help town would be to try to lure scum into going hard at me and hopefully my flip would put a spotlight on them.

Also, the reason I gave up answering your questions was because you'd made up your mind - there was nothing I could have said that would have appeased you, and I really, truely, honestly can't recall what I was thinking way back on page 7.

I mean my strategy failed dismally - I was hoping to balrog the last scum (in this version the balrog is the good guy) and pull them down into the abyss with me - zito didn't bite, sanjay did, the mod killed me early.. was a horrific shambles.