433: Dry, bland, generic mafia: Game Over

[inHimshallibe]

Well, having read only to page 3 in a quick effort, I really feel like Dodgy (CES) was just all flippin' over the place, that Eletriar is suspicious for her comment about the 2 votes and seems to be trying to play it off, and that pete d is probably scum because of what I think is some scummy mediating.

I'll dive into the rest later on, but for now

unvote; vote: pete d

.

[inHimshallibe]

Up through page 8, and I think I have a pair o' scum:

pete d and The Fonz

What I have read from The Fonz concerning his support of a Lynch All Liars based lynch of CES really speaks of a mafia hoping for an easy lynch or some type of outright doc claim from someone. The Fonz has backed pete d a couple times randomly, and with my suspicions of pete d already floating around my mind, I think these two are up to no good.

Kudos to gorckat for saying something about this earlier, too. I'm writing him down as a good guy at the moment.

[inHimshallibe]

OK, weekend was very much go-go-go. I'll pick up with the rest of the thread later tonight. Sorry about that.

[inHimshallibe]

@Inhim: mind explaining "scummy mediating"? It seems like a sketchy term to use.

Ha, I make up terms all the time, though this is one of my favorites. "Scummy mediating" is a more active form of fence-sitting. Fence-sitting is fairly passive, apathetic play while being a mediator requires some more dialogue. Up through what I had read at the time, I think you ran back and forth about opening Day 1 bandwagon votes being helpful to questioning the Southpaw bandwagon's direction. To those saying I "refused" to answer this question, I am very adamant when I replace into a game with my first read-through. pete d's question was posed to me on the most recent page, and I had stopped short of that when I left off a couple days ago.

The Fonz, you called my arguments crap, but went on to answer my questions, indicating that they are indeed valid. The "someone" I have referenced did not point to CES, else I would have said "CES." Vocal players do exert more pressure on the less active, and I still feel that your arguments about lynching CES had the ulterior motive of outing the Doc, one way another (by lynch or by claim).

Ha, and there you go with backing up pete d again.

a) he pressed the scummy Thorgot

You shifted the load that you were bearing for pete d right on top of Thorgot. As you can tell, I don't always hunt after the explicit. The implications of a couple of The Fonz's posts have been to shun people from attacking pete d.

One more thing you said that bugged me, The Fonz:

and attacks the one person who made the case against his predecessor

I attacked you because I think you're scummy. I'm not going to even attempt to explain any of SweeneyTodd's actions, and if you expect me to do so, I'd call that unrealistic and even scummy. I didn't even read Todd's posts unless I needed to for context. But this paragraph is becoming more meta than I'd like so I think it's at a fine ending point.

Gorckat, sorry that you feel that the most lovable of inHims is trying to buy you over; I'll say it again: I agree.

[inHimshallibe]

@ The Fonz: you're answering questions better than I think scum would at the moment, so for this Day I'm going to have to let you sit on the back burner.

@ pete d: what was said on those first few pages haven't changed, have they? Yes, I still think shady stuff was happening there early on.

But.

I think this Day has ran its course.

unvote; vote: kilmenator

- I like this vote better than the other, but with fair warning, I'll hammer Off the Mark.

[inHimshallibe]

Heh, I'm pretty certain pie was referring to his very own post 303 instead of yours, Nanook.

I'm going to let all the replacements weigh in before I really say anything else. Maybe I was premature in thinking we were at the bandwagon to lynch part of Day 1, as the newcomers are pretty highly regarded by myself. Although, they'd be even more highly regarded if they came to their conclusions quickly .

[inHimshallibe]

Alright, so the replacements have had a lot of their say as far as review goes.

And, even with it, I still want to lynch kilmenator. IH, I guess fault me for not knowing The Fonz "uses metas more," but I think in this game he's scummy for pushing his argument for so long. It just cries of a desperate attempt.

But, I have been wrong before, and kilmenator just seems to be the better choice for Today because of some coattail riding, which I will gladly take care of with a Day 1 lynch. That's why my vote is where it is.

[inHimshallibe]

Yes, it seemed desperate, yet the whole time he did not use an illogical argument, he did not back down and stood by his stance, did he not? Not to mention that points and arguments he brought up in the beginning of the game.

He didn't back down, true, which is part of why (as I mentioned with my unvote) I backed off for

Today

. But, anyone can make a logical argument, not just the Town.

If we're talking blindly following experienced players, try Sweenytodd on for size. I unvoted upon his replacement, but combine InHim's 'I think this day has run its course' when the mod had just told us there's another replacement coming who won't be able to contribute immediately, and saying he would be happy, albeit with warning, to hammer someone on whom he hasn't even attempted to state a case, and he looks scummy as anything. He stated that he found me more town now due to my responses, but what on Earth happened to his suspicions of pete d?

Pretty sure my suspicions of pete d have been right where I left them. But good job trying to clear your partner's name, again. Also, I don't believe I said you were "more town" but rather that I'd let you be for Today.

Yeah, I'll hammer pretty much anyone. I don't feel it's necessary to have a case for the sake of gaining information. I do make exceptions... sometimes...

@InHim: Please put in order of most-least likely to be scum and why:

Me
Pete
OTM
Kilmenator

Eh, maybe if I feel it's justified.

[inHimshallibe]

Alright, so I feel the list is justified now. This is because my thoughts have changed with the new input from kilmenator.

Before, I was looking something like:
pete d
The Fonz
kilmenator
Off the Mark

NOW, I think my list is:
kilmenator, Off the Mark


pete d
The Fonz

As soon as

kilm makes a post of any substance, Off the Mark accepts it at face value and unvotes. He broke down several posts before, and just lets the one by kilm, who he had been suspecting, just pass? That's a quick change of play, and I find those two all the scummier for it. So, moving down the list, pete d still hasn't done anything to improve his standing with me, it's just that kilm and OtM have gotten worse. The Fonz's consistency is why I've got you listed on the bottom, even if I think you're being consistent scum.

[inHimshallibe]

Of course, I have no proof that I'm just voting in retaliation to my accusers other than my suspicions for them now.

Y'know, I'm not one for usually specifically pairing off people as scum, but I've really felt the need to in this game, as I think some of the interactions have really stood out to me.

Why haven't I ever voted The Fonz? Well, it seems like I've always been on the catch-up lagging in to just write my thoughts on the previous posts instead of being in the thick of things and proactive about it. I read scummy stuff on him, but then again he seems to have redeemed himself just enough in a post later on to holster my vote.

My thoughts stand as they are. The utter disregard OtM gave to kilm's post besides the "meh, seems good" after the callout is still my sticking point.

[inHimshallibe]

Of course, I have no proof that I'm just voting in retaliation to my accusers other than my suspicions for them now.

OtM's going a little ad hominem, now. Scumerrific!

[inHimshallibe]

Crazy weekend (moving in a month or so).

I read up late last night and this morning. I also found it curious that even though it was OTM's jumping off of kilm that made OTM so much more suspect, inHim still voted kilm. I would think you'd vote for the person most likely confirming themselves.

kilmenator still had the biggest bandwagon.

The circumstance of this is curious, though. I guess I didn't really think through a replacement accusing his buddy right away. But, that doesn't seem too wild of an idea anyway. To me, the grander context of things is much more applicable in later Days. Right now, if I see something scummy happening, I'll jump on it, as asking a question like, "Would a scum replacement do this?" seems too WIFOM of a path for my liking.

[inHimshallibe]

He is scum and no one is putting pressure on him to claim, so he isnt posting...

And yet, you still are not voting for him.

Very noteworthy, although I'd have to be really tempted myself to leave a big bandwagon towards the climax (?) of a long Day 1.

[inHimshallibe]

Oh, look at gorckat come out of the woodworks...

I'm not claiming because I feel it's not in the Town's best interest.

[inHimshallibe]

I guess you're no longer looking at Gorckat as a 'good guy,' then InHim?

I still find the 'I'll hammer pretty much anyone' thing too much to get past. However, should you come up town, I do think that OTM/Kilm thing might be worth looking at.

Is my hammer comment something you want to lynch me on out of principle? Because, I'm reading you're starting to express some doubt about your vote on me. I've said this recently elsewhere, but you just can't objectify everything in this game and get very far. If I'm starting to seem Town to you, why keep your vote on me? You can get past the hammer quote, I promise.

And my take on hammering: if no one gets lynched, I consider that Day pretty much a wasted opportunity to get information more quickly. The Town has a very limited time to gather all the data and find the scum, therefore you've absolutely got to lynch early on in the game.

As for gorckat, his comment did surprise me, as I had him pretty solidly in the good guy camp. I hope he's just misguided.

[inHimshallibe]

Your initial refusal to respond to my request for scumminess rankings and your baseless AdHom accusation don't sit right, either, I'm afraid. Also, I found Sweenytodd v. scummy, I know you can't be expected to answer for him, but it doesn't change that the combined vibe I'm getting is extra-scummy with nachos.

If it were just the one thing, I could maybe overlook it, or more likely read old games of yours to see if that kind of attitude's consistent. But there's far more scummy than not there, and I don't think one decent point is enough to change that.

Alright, so I feel a lot better about The Fonz now.

Ugh, and this looks like I'm trying to buddy up. Sigh, I'm just getting my final words in order if in fact no one is going to be backing down.

For the record, the whole ad hominem comment was spawned from "I'm not surprised." I didn't like the tone of that whatsoever.

[inHimshallibe]

Oh, and as for the rankings, I merely withheld for the time being to see what type of response I'd get for that. Wasn't much of a response to it though, lacking a comment from Dasquian, and now your reasoning here.

[inHimshallibe]

Claims shouldn't make or break your arguments, so I won't claim - if you think I should be lynched, then you think I should be lynched, right?

[inHimshallibe]

Ok, then.

I am Spartacus.

[weekend]

[inHimshallibe]

[/weekend]

Ha, I am helping. I guess I'm a little less graceful in some areas compared to others, but I'm positive I'm making the right decision here.

[weekend for realz this time, y'hear?]

[inHimshallibe]

Claims shouldn't make or break your arguments, so I won't claim - if you think I should be lynched, then you think I should be lynched, right?

Wrong. Claims quite often DO make or break arguments - claims provide much more solid and testable facts than post analysis.

I'm not doubting that they

do

. I'm saying that they shouldn't, and if you're attacks on me are so flimsy that the hint of a claim will knock them over, I've got a problem with it.

[inHimshallibe]

How am I squirming? I've said I don't want to claim. I don't have a problem with people who are willing to lynch through my actions and not my role (Dasquian, for example). I'm more concerned with the others who have seen my lynch stall and are ready to jump on over to the next main dish.

Speaking of which, it's about time I moved my vote.

unvote; vote: Off the Mark

- for doing what I was talking about above. I'm open to him not being partnered with kilm, of course (although that

would

be a nice twofer). Maybe it's not that he let kilm go so easily that makes them linked, but instead just makes OtM scummy.

gorckat - The Fonz and I have different playstyles, and quite obviously I'd say. What's good for me to catch scum is more than probably not the same for him, and so I was trying to put myself in his shoes and see if there might be other avenues than myself. Of course I'm trying to preserve myself - I want to continue on in this game and hunt 'em down. If the Town sees fit for me to go, so be it, but I'm not going to roll over and hang.

[inHimshallibe]

Hmm, your post brings up a point I probably need to make, again...

When I talk about my willingness to move my vote around any and every which way, it's not that I support the lynch of the candidate so much as I support a lynch in general. In the later Days, you'll definitely see me zero in on specific players.

[inHimshallibe]

inHim - I still don't like the fact he hasn't claimed. I like the fact he appears to be getting away with it even less. If he's town, and he gets away with not having to claim, more power to him. If he's scum, and he gets away with not having to claim, shame on us.

All I'm asking is for people to take a definitive stance on an issue (which happens to be lynching me). Those that cowered from this are the ones to note.

What worries me about inHim is that it is a bandwagon that has gone to -1 under a deadline, and it feels like we've simply been distracted away from it. Really, inHim should be the talking point and we should either lynch him for not claiming, lynch him for a crap claim, or accept a claim and move on. In addition, I don't see a good alternative lynch at this point - OtM said some odd things recently but for the most part stood out as making good logical contributions. Kilmenator or superstring I could be persuaded to, but the point stands - why are we backing off of inHim?

First of all, logical contributions != pro-Town. I'm much more of the mind that logical contributions that are kept consistent = pro-Town, and even then it's easy for scum to skate by on thin consistencies.

[inHimshallibe]

If we don't lynch you, we will still need time to properly pressure someone else, so dragging it out longer than necessary would be anti-town.

True enough.

I really don't want to claim at all Today. I haven't thought about claiming in later Days. If this happens again Tomorrow, I'll probably claim so the Town can just get this issue out of their way; I'm sticking with my mission for Today, at least.

[inHimshallibe]

inHim, we are stuck until you claim. Waiting to claim until closer to the deadline is anti-town.

Not if I've said I'm not going to claim Today. I'm not

waiting

to claim, I'm flat out not claiming.

We need time to evaluate an alternate target if your claim holds up - or is worth testing.

Why not do that now? Lazy scum, that'd be why. Now you're just stretching whatever you can to seem helpful. You took Dasquian's argument, which I responded to, but messed up a little. Haven't you been evaluating everyone?

Dasquian, I completely understand the reason you wouldn't want to unvote me. I've answered the questions posed to me in my defense (please call to my attention any that I haven't). I don't

want

to be lynched, obviously, but the deadline doesn't threaten me.

[inHimshallibe]

Dasquian, you don't think there are enough reactions to read through already?