Open 21 - Friends and Enemies (Game Over), before 453

[Aimee]

OMGUS vote: Ryan

*waves*

[Aimee]

OMGUS vote: Ryan

*waves*

*waves back* You little........*beep* (j/k girl)

Oh you so better be jokin'!

[Aimee]

I agree. It is super wow amazing woot!

[Aimee]

unvote

Whilst I would love to oblige, Adel, I will be on holiday from Monday through to Sunday. No access at all. Mod, you know I will be back. Replacement not needed.

[Aimee]

And by the way, I love pretty pictures.

[Aimee]

Firstly, great diagram.

Secondly, you all rock. But this is gonna take me ages to respond to. Last time I looked it was about 4 pages. Yikes. Post tomorrow.

[Aimee]

I will have a bigger post by the end of today. I have read this once, yet not really analysed it fully. Response coming later.

[Aimee]

First of all, I would just like to say I am very disappointed with some of the things that occurred in day 1. When I first read day 1, I was absolutely appalled at the name calling, the rudeness, the "nastyness" and some things that people said about others, that I would say are border-line personal attacks. So, if the same things happen on day 2, I will be most displeased, and I hope all the players, and the mod, control the offensive language. Whilst I know that Mafia is a game of lies and deceit etc. it is also primarily a game. Those involved know who they are.

[Aimee]

I am going to do a post focussing exclusively on Adel. I think that is the best course of action. I will then do another post focussing on other players.

Adel's early game policy can be summed up entirely from this quote:

Lurking is an anti-town action.

In the same post, she refers to "lynching all lurkers", and from this point on, an intense lurker hunt was established, and followed, by Adel, Ryan and Lowell. Speaking of Lowell, an early connection was formed from Adel to Lowell. In the same post as the above quote, she comments:

Lowell: from your post I take it you agree with me- am I correct in this assumption? I think it will take a group of active players cooperating to pressure the lurkers, and that may mean following "lynch the lurkers" to succeed. I am not sure how far we can safely take it though.

I am immediately uneasy here. Not only is it clearly apparent she is seeking to form a connection with Lowell, she proposes a sort of bizarre alliance system. A group of active players pressurising the lurkers. Sounds far too structured and tactical, and merely like alliance play.

After then voting against Theo for lurking along with Lawrencelot, she immediately takes her vote off after he posts. Her post when she says this is interesting though:

unvote: theopor_COD that is what i would call a content-filled post. One lurker flushed. Next up: let's flush A Papaya. I'll place the second vote again.
vote:A Papaya for not posting. I'll move it once some real content is shown under your by-line.

BTW: I am totally going to qualify for that Wishy-Washy tell. I'm expecting to move my vote two or three more times over the next few pages, so long as there is a lurker left to be flushed or until I am totally convinced that someone is scum. More information is better for town, and I can't think of a better way to flush lurkers than being Wishy-Washy like this.

Two things here are established. Firstly, the lurker "flushing out" scheme is shown, when she immediately moves towards a new lurker, A Papaya. Also, she attempts to give an excuse for her vote hopping which may occur in the future. Excuses here are irrelevant - what is clear is that Adel is attempting to open herself up to allowing her vote to freely move between all lurkers.

A diagram is posted in post 93. Whilst I do love my pretty pictures, I do find them a bit pointless. It is like players doing vote counts (one of my pet hates). Players doing diagrams and vote counts just annoys me. It is just an attempt to look active, without actually doing much. In this case, the diagram wasn't useful, because it focused heavily on random voting and not on real votes, as it was too early for this. As a result, it has basically no use.

Lowell: we are on the same page. That is a great metric to track. Are you willing to track people's time since last post and list them in order here periodically, say every three or four days? It would save several of us from having to do the same work, and quality assurance would not be a problem. FoS: Sir Tornado

As well as moving onto another lurker, she focuses again on the link she seems to desire between herself and Lowell. Whilst Lowell doesn't seem to be saying anything Adel, Adel is almost leading Lowell - in the above quote she is seemingly coaching him and leading him into following her "lynch all lurkers" scheme. It seems again like an attempt to form links with active players so she can achieve her personal goals.

Adel's playstyle does seem very strategic. As Ripley argues:

The last time I saw a player like Adel, he was scum. The resemblances are uncanny: the bounding enthusiasm, the helpfulness, the taking charge, the quirky approach illustrated by posting charts and diagrams in thread. Maybe he (the other guy) always played that way, but I can say for sure that it's a most effective cover for scum.

I agree completely with the above quote, which emphasises completely the ways Adel is acting.

After Ripley's post, which was also against Lowell, Adel replied with this defence for Lowell:

I don't buy the anti-Lowell argument for a second. Everyone of his actions has been pro-town...

This is, of course, far-fetched to the extreme. Lowell's actions have hardly all be pro-town. Note on page 2, for example, when he seemingly wanted to hide and make all the masons do the work. So this is clearly a blind defence of Lowell. As Albert later argues:

I find Adel too quick to rise in support of Lowell with lack of evidence and little explanation for her rejected proposal.

Adel then replies to Ripley with:

Fos: Ripley for trying to derail the lurker hunting, again.

Again, she argues the importance of her lurker hunt, placing suspicion on those who actually look at other actions.

Isn't that slightly hypocritical? Adel wants the lurkers to post so she can get real content from them. But when Ripley utilises previous content from Adel, she plants a FoS on them for "derailing the lurker hunt". Isn't that actually derailing the

real

discussion, though, which is clearly more important? Suspicion should be able to flow naturally.

Ripley then makes an excellent point:

Adel, you are sounding somewhat obsessive about lurker hunting, and I'm also starting to question your following Lowell so blindly and uncritically. It's not something I've seen before, especially so early in a game.

I fundamentally believe that Adel's lurker hunt actually prohibited discussion during the early pages. It was attempting to bring lurkers into the light, and meant Adel wasn't actually focussing on the actions that had already happened. Raradoxically for Adel, who was arguing she was helping the town with her lurker hunt, in my opinion it was a detriment to the town and its discussion.

On page 6, Adel has a bit of crap logic:

The player who thinks like me and acts like me is likely to be playing the same alignment as me, therefore I will think Lowell is likely town until some real evidence comes to light.

Wrong. Absolutely ridiculous. The problem is she seemingly bases her argument around this. She seems to presume Lowell is innocent, with absolutely no reason for doing so.

Promoting a system that would facilitate a scum victory is indeed scummy...

Why are you doing it then? You understand that lynching lurkers

benefits the town in no way whatsoever

. Only scum benefit from lynching lurkers. Therefore by attempting to lynch the lurkers, you are acting scummy, something you freely admit is scummy. Therefore, you admit you are scummy. Argument is therefore flawed.

Also, at this point, Ryan seemingly latched himself onto Adel. Oh no for Adel. Especially since now Ryan has been proved to be scum. Although initially Adel ignores Ryan's linking, just like Lowell ignored hers. This, to me, suggests that she is scum trying to link with town (Lowell), and Ryan is an idiot scum trying to link with his partner.

After this, Adel seemingly "calls" the scum as A Papaya and Albert. Oh dear. How this occurred I don't know. But it fits with her whole "Lynch all Lurkers or die" approach.

Not much occurs until page 10, where Adel and others' forceful play pushed a mason out of the closet (although not in that way). She then refers to Ryan as "part of the posse", which indeed shows that links do exist.

Adel then makes a fatal blow.

...if nothing convincing and serious comes up my vote goes back to A Papaya. I'm mostly convinced that he is scum; if he is town or mason he isn't much good to us as town or mason.

Horrible idea. So you want to lynch a claimed mason on day 1? That is a horrible horrible idea. If I had been there I would have pounced on you for that. And saying he is useless doesn't help - if he is a mason, he is a mason, and they are incredibly useful to have. Lynching a mason would be horrible.

I've got to page 11, but I am missing things and stuff, so I am giving up now. I will be back for more later. But it is clear, Albert and everyone, that Adel is who I suspect today.

[Aimee]

I agree 100% with Lowell. I am so mad I wasn't there when all this happened.

[Aimee]

Easy. A Papaya and ABR aren't killed because otherwise they would be 100% confirmed. It is a way for the mafia to perhaps question what they are doing. Otherwise that would fully confirm them, although they are pretty much confirmed anyway.

Plus, I vaguely remember Adel identifying Theo as the still unnamed mason buddy. Clearly they are attempting to oust the third unknown mason.

[Aimee]

His sig says he could be away until the 16th with potentially no access...

[Aimee]

Note that Lawrence is now at L-2.

[Aimee]

Well, I guess I can put my vote on, for now.

Vote: Lawrencelot

Although I will remove it, if necessary.

[Aimee]

Sir Tornado, I will remove my vote, if you want.

unvote

[Aimee]

Soon, I will. For now, I will apply pressure.

Vote: Lawrencelot

[Aimee]

Alright Lawrencelot, you won't be today's vote. Adel either. We have three shots, so you will be the day3 and day4 lynchs, in that order. Lowell, even if we mislynch one, we still have two shots and like you say, its impossible we lose. The game is in our hands. Lowell can you trust me with today's vote ?

Please explain why Adel and Lawrencelot are being let off the hook here. Why are they the lynches for days 3 and 4?

[Aimee]

Oh, and Albert, I thought about it and realised that L-2 isn't particularly dangerous here.

[Aimee]

Please explain why Adel and Lawrencelot are being let off the hook here. Why are they the lynches for days 3 and 4?

What if I told you that Sir Tornado was mason, and Ripley was the most likely scum ?

What if I asked how on earth Ripley was scum?

[Aimee]

I don't agree with this at all.

I don't see

ANYTHING

scummy about Ripley at all. I think his (or is it her?) play has been great so far, and totally townie.

I said I would follow mason's lead. But if that lead includes voting Ripley out, then I put my foot down and say

NO!

I would much prefer to follow my own instincts in this case, which say that Ripley is innocent townie.

I agree completely. No way am I voting for Ripley. Yes, he would be dangerous, if he was scum. So would lots of people. However, the difference is that Adel and Lawrence are basically confirmed scum. Missing a chance to lynch them over Ripley is a horrible, and potentially game breaking mistake.

[Aimee]

Aimee...

Your analysis?

Sorry. I absolutely promise tomorrow morning. For definite.

[Aimee]

WHAT. THE. HELL. Post coming later. Absolutely gob-smacked.

[Aimee]

Firstly to quote Lowell:

I read through the posts. Here's the verdict.

YOU'RE ALL INSANE IF YOU DON'T SEE THAT ADEL AND LAWRENCE ARE THE LAST TWO SCUM!!!

Adel. She's the most obvious. First, her quest to find "the real masons" (post 324), an OJ-esque faux quest for justice, is laughable. Adel, are we supposed to believe that not one, but TWO, scum falsely claimed mason, and yet NO masons counterclaimed???? That makes no sense. I'd trade all THREE masons for a chance to expose two scum. That you pretend to think timid masons might be hiding is laughable. Posts 267, 258, 273 are all awfully bad and suspicious as well. Hell, everything is at this point.

As I was reading the thread that I missed (6 pages in 24 hours???) there was a time when some folks had the trio of ryan, adel, and myself. What was odd about that was that Adel (in particular) seemed to relish the pairing, making no effort to distance from me. She's been buddying up like hell, and it's obvious.

ryan. $10 says I know why he got modkilled. He's almost as obvious. His odd refusal to believe an UNCOUNTERCLAIMED mason pair is bewildering. Almost too dumb to be scum. Ripley nailed it with his post 277. The "suspicion" is fabricated.

Lawrence. The most bewildering of the scum players. By the time papaya and albert claimed, ryan and adel were in a tough spot, whereas Lawrence was not. That Lawrence came out of nowhere to openly support them... even calling them MASONS though both deny, blows my mind for its dumbness. The only thing I can think of is that he/they really thought they might be able to get the votes to sway the balance. As in, be able to convince 3/5 non-mason players. I think Lawrence might have seen Adel's buddying up to me as indication that I might take her side. That's just a huge misread as far as I'm concerned.

This is pretty to-the-point, explaining and mirroring my views on the Lawrence and Adel very well. They are pretty much confirmed scum in my eyes. To approach different targets for lynches today seems pretty ludicrous.

Adel and Lawrence are obviously better targets than me. Their day 2 behaviour is almost worse than their day 1 behaviour. It's like blind following of Albert, to make them seem more "town-like". They have admitted they are just going to vote like him, whatever they did. Oh, and they also immediately distanced themselves, not only from each other, but from Ryan. And Theo's death points to Adel. She heavily considered him to be the third mason, who had yet been undiscovered. They also vote each other to distance. And now, they have just jumped on the bandwagon against me, seemingly without reason. Their reason is that they are just following Albert.


I'll put my comments in blue.

She first makes a post consisting only of Adel, which makes me think she wants Adel lynched.

That is correct. Today, my main target is Adel. If this cannot be achieved, then Lawrencelot is my second target.

Then there's this:

Note that Lawrence is now at L-2.

I'm not exactly sure what this proves. In a post beforehand, you had made it clear that you didn't want Lawrence above L-2. I was making this clear so no-one else votes for her.

This, when I tell her to put her vote on Law:

Well, I guess I can put my vote on,

for now

.

Vote: Lawrencelot

Although I will remove it, if necessary

.

I really don't see what there is to say here. I was perfectly happy with an Adel or Lawrence vote. I meant that if, for example, you had changed your mind, Albert, and picked Adel for the lynch, I would happily move forward. Although note that I am not blindly following you. This is shown by my later concerns about choosing Ripley for a lynch.

Removes her vote at the first opportunity:

Sir Tornado, I will remove my vote, if you want.

unvote

And then finally puts it back when I say that Lawrencelot isn't the vote of the day:

Soon, I will. For now, I will apply pressure.

Vote: Lawrencelot

Notice how she criticizes me after putting her vote, knowing full well that most of the town is behind me, and if I say we shouldn't vote Lawrencelot, the town will probably not vote Lawrencelot.

Firstly, I didn't criticise you. I asked you why on earth Lawrence and Adel were being let off the hook. Oh, and I have already said I am not simply going to blindly follow you, or anyone. If I vote for someone, it is because I genuinely believe they are scum. Thus today, my vote will not be going to anyone other than Lawrence or Adel.

This is too easy,

Vote Aimee

I really don't see why I am being voted for. I voted for Lawrence, then Tornado expressed discomfort, then after realising that was too cautious, I put my vote back on to -2. That is a fundamentally weak case, which should not even be considered as lynch-worthy.

I was never planning on deviating too far from you, Albert. But recently, this is just too much. Considering me a lynch target for almost nothing, outing Ripley for no reason and blatantly ignoring the obvious scum tells from Adel and Lawrence have really shaken my confidence in you. Although, I know you are a pro-town mason. Of course. And I would never dream of voting for you in this game.

However, Adel and Lawrence are both scummy as hell.

Vote: Adel

, although really there isn't much difference. Either should be lynched, and my vote won't stray on anyone except these two today.

Albert, please reaffirm the reasons why Adel and Lawrence are not the lynch targets today. So far the only reasons I have seen are completely and utterly WIFOM.

[Aimee]

Lowell, please stop pretending me and Adel are scum for sure. I voted Adel now, and I will keep my vote on her to prove I'm not scum with her. Now that Aimee is the target, and people think Aimee is scum with me, I think I might vote for her to prove that I'm not scum with her. And the difference with distancing myself from someone is: I will keep the vote, and only remove it if town wants it.

So, this is my question for the town: if you believe I am not scum with Adel, can I put my vote on Aimee now? Or will you think I am scum with Adel when I do that? In other words, I don't mind that Adel is lynched, and I don't mind that Aimee is lynched. You tell me who to vote. Here are my possible scenarios:

Aimee/Adel
Adel/Bird
Aimee/Bird
Aimee/Lowell
Lowell/Bird

I think Lowell is scummy because he still wants to lynch me because he thinks me and Adel are both scum. If you think that, I will keep my vote on Adel if you like. Bird can be scum because we know nothing about him, it's just less likely he's scum than that the others are scum.

So, for the last time: don't vote me if you think both me and Adel are scum, because I will keep my vote on Adel if I have to. Don't vote me if you think both me and Aimee are scum (which I wouldn't find very likely if I was in your position), because I will vote Aimee and keep my vote on her if you want.

As expected, just blind following, yet again. Do you actually know the reasons why I am being considered, and who do you consider scummy? You have just said "I am happy with voting Aimee" yet given no reasons why.

Adel is the same. No reasons are given at all. This is just shameless bandwagon and emphasises, yet again, why they are most definitely the main targets today.

[Aimee]

Lowell, please stop pretending me and Adel are scum for sure. I voted Adel now, and I will keep my vote on her to prove I'm not scum with her. Now that Aimee is the target, and people think Aimee is scum with me, I think I might vote for her to prove that I'm not scum with her. And the difference with distancing myself from someone is: I will keep the vote, and only remove it if town wants it.

Scummy as hell. So you are only going to put your vote on me to clear yourself?

That just shows the difference between myself and Lawrencelot. I have given reasons why I would vote for Adel and Lawrence, because I believe they are scummy. Lawrence, however, would vote for me or Adel because it might prove he isn't scum, although it doesn't actually prove that, just shows that you mindlessly bandwagon to save yourself.

Sir Tornado, do you believe I am the lynching target today? Or do you believe it is Lawrence/Adel?

[Aimee]

Well, here is my much awaited analysis, of all the players.

Adel

and

Lawrencelot

I see firmly as scum, as I have previously explained.

A Papaya

is obviously a confirmed Mason. His play is also consistent, despite his lurking. Obviously pro-town.

Albert

is very pro-town, after a re-read. His play is... unorthodox, shall I say, for example, threatening to reveal the last Mason on day 1 was incredibly rash. Whilst it is risky... I am not going to deny that it has worked so far. Again, obviously pro-town.

Bird1111

has basically posted nothing. Waiting for a substantial post by him.

Lowell

is also clearly pro-town. Whilst Adel previously tried to form links with him on day 1, it is important to note that he didn't join them. He was independent from them all the time. Obviously pro-town.

Ripley

is, as usual, incredibly pro-town. No doubts whatsoever.

Sir Tornado

is still obviously pro-town, but slightly too cautious for my liking. It is okay to be daring when there is such obviously grounded suspicions today. Pro-town.


As you can see no one is in any doubt in my eyes other than Lawrence and Adel. It is therefore obvious that they should be the next two targets, unless anything untoward occurs.

[Aimee]

Albert, please state the entire case against me. After that, consider that case and then consider the cases against Adel (half of which I have already done) and Lawrencelot, and then come to a conclusion. After that I will be perfectly happy to defend myself.

[Aimee]

I'm not exactly sure what this proves. In a post beforehand, you had made it clear that you

didn't want Lawrence above L-2

. I was making this clear so no-one else votes for her.

This is incorrect. I said I wanted at

least

2 votes on Lawrencelot.

Wrong. To quote you on post 527:

I encourage everyone to place Lawrencelot at

at least

-2 to punctuate the urgency of the situation. A Papaya, do us the honor of exposing our case on this suspect - in other words, cut the cake

[Aimee]

I'm not exactly sure what this proves. In a post beforehand, you had made it clear that you

didn't want Lawrence above L-2

. I was making this clear so no-one else votes for her.

This is incorrect.

I said I wanted at

least

2 votes on Lawrencelot.

Wrong. To quote you on post 527:

I encourage everyone to place Lawrencelot at

at least

-2

to punctuate the urgency of the situation. A Papaya, do us the honor of exposing our case on this suspect - in other words, cut the cake

?

In post 527, you said you wanted Albert at Lynch -2. This means 2 away from lynch, which means three votes. So you didn't say you wanted only 2 votes. You said three.

[Aimee]

Lowell's recent arguments favoring a lynch of Lawrencelot seem sensible to me. I personally think we would be making a mistake to lynch anybody before bird either returns or is replaced, and I would like to get input from Papaya's replacement too, but I'm afraid that in this game any pleas for patience and caution will be trampled over, so:

Vote: Lawrencelot

What would you think about an Aimee lynch (yes, I know I just referred to myself as the third person.)

[Aimee]

Albert, please state the entire case against me. After that, consider that case and then consider the cases against Adel (half of which I have already done) and Lawrencelot, and then come to a conclusion. After that I will be perfectly happy to defend myself.

Let me answer your question with another question: if you were looking at this from an objective PoV, and didn't know your alignment, what group of four people most likely contains two scum ?

Sorry, I don't understand this.

[Aimee]

Argh, damned typos.

EBWOP


Make a group of four people which is likely to include two scum, not considering your knowledge of your own alignment.

I really don't see the point, frankly. The only people who have any alignment doubts in my eyes are Lawrence, Adel and Bird111 (who is only in doubt because of his lack of posting).

And bear in mind for day 1 I was basically an outsider because I didn't post at all due to vacation. So I have observed a lot of the game as an outsider.

To summarise, any group of four which includes Adel and Lawrence pretty obviously in my opinion includes two scum.

[Aimee]

Argh, damned typos.

EBWOP


Make a group of four people which is likely to include two scum, not considering your knowledge of your own alignment.

I really don't see the point, frankly. The only people who have any alignment doubts in my eyes are Lawrence, Adel and Bird111 (who is only in doubt because of his lack of posting).

And bear in mind for day 1 I was basically an outsider because I didn't post at all due to vacation. So I have observed a lot of the game as an outsider.

To summarise, any group of four which includes Adel and Lawrence pretty obviously in my opinion includes two scum.

If you weren't playing in this game, only observing, say you were Aimee#2 or Glorkette#1 or something. Would Aimee be included in that group of four people ?

To be perfectly honest, I can't answer this. Personally, I would say no, but I know my alignment so of course I am biased. I really couldn't answer this objectively I am afraid, because, to put it mildly, I am Aimee#1, and I am actively in the game, and I know my alignment, so of course I know I am not scum, therefore wouldn't put myself on a list of four people.

Sorry, I really don't know how to answer this.

PS: How do you know about the Glorkettes? And would you like to join?

[Aimee]

I am perfectly happy to move my vote against Lawrence

Vote: Lawrence

And that does indeed put Lawrence at L-1.

[Aimee]

Albert that is correct. Although far more evidence for Adel as scum than Bird1111, for as long as he posts and isn't scummy then I would just be looking at Adel really.

[Aimee]

If that's a lynch I may cry.

[Aimee]

If that's a lynch I may cry.

Why ? Your not scum ?

You will soon find out.

[Aimee]

Drunk with power. Bastards.

[Aimee]

I have to say I am rather relieved this game is finally over. It wasn't exactly a crowning moment for myself.

I'm pretty disappointed with the overall level of play here. All the masons claiming on Days 1 and 2 was pretty bad, and I think this was pretty unorthodox. I would be interested to see what happens if this setup was played differently.

I was a bit disappointed with the level of play coming from the town in this game. I didn't, and still don't see the logic of Lawrencelot's play, and would have been in the same situation as Lowell. I was pretty sure that he and Adel were both scum. Similarly, Albert, don't let power go to your head. That's clearly what happened here, and your cockiness did lead to some very fatal mistakes.

As for the scum, it was a rather disasterous Day 1 from Adel and ryan. When Masons claim here you cannot doubt their claims. I'm sure that will definitely be a lesson to remember here. After Day 1, Adel's play was remarkably better. I was rather impressed with your play on Days 2 and 3, Adel. It was Day 1 that was your major stumbling block here. Also, I did notice what you did on Day 4 (as did Sir Tornado). Trying to cut deals with Jalyn and Ripley at the end there was very suspect, and I would have been all over you for that. Yet it's pretty obvious that Adel is the Woman of the Game here - the way she managed to almost single-handedly (albeit with some help from Sir T) survive all the way to the end and win after being really scummy Day 1 is something that definitely surprised, and kind of impressed me.

I was disappointed to be lynched in this game. I can understand the scum on my bandwagon. For the town, there was no reason whatsoever to be on my wagon. I had done nothing wrong. I've kind of patched things up with Albert, but a piece of advice - when someone asks you for a PBPA, you don't just start wagonning them, and you don't just refuse, especially when they have been not at all scummy. Give a PBPA. I hope those on my lynch (minus the scum) realise that lynching me was a fatal error that probably turned the balance entirely against the town.

[Aimee]

Aimee I <3 you for getting lynched in this game. It was so unexpected but it really let me breath a sigh of relief. I actually thought ABR was going to get Law quicklynched the next day, and I would stand a 50-50 shot against Lowell after that for the win. I was totally optimistic.

You are right though, I totally blew it after A Papaya claimed. I thought it really

was

a fakeclaim. ABR's actions after he claimed didn't seem very believable to me either, and so long as Law kept on pushing along with ryan and I, I thought we stood a chance of getting a A Papaya lynch. I figured that a A Papaya lynch + ABR nk, with ryan and I trying to buss each other from the first post of Day 2 would cause enough confusion for Sir T to slip through to the endgame win. I think Theopor_OCD is the reason A Papaya wasn't lynched before ABR made his claim or after. I think we did have a chance of getting A Papaya lynched after ABR made those demands after he claimed. Then the day went pretty sour. When ryan was modkilled I remember wanting to try to introduce as much noise as possible to prolong the day as much as possible.

Yeah, but you really have to remember in a setup like this that casting incredible doubt like you did on Mason claims is going to come across as incredibly suspicious. Add to the fact ABR claimed with him (supporting their claim), as well as the fact that the Masons are the only power-role in the setup meant things were a bit pear-shaped for the scum after Day 1.