Mini 720 - SPQR Mafia {Game Over}

[Incognito]

Vote: Xtoxm

Extremely

obvious scum.

[Incognito]

vote Xtoxm

for being the only one of you I've been in a game with.

Heeeeeey. We played together in Mini 539 a long long time ago. Am I

that

forgettable? =(

Vote Incog

Oh my gawd ur sucking me.

Quick everyone! Wagon Xtoxm!

[Incognito]

This last page or two has been somewhat confusing. Coriolanus, why doesn't your comment about Glork apply even moreso to Yosarian2 who, if I'm not mistaken, has even more playing experience than Glork does? What exactly did you mean by "Glork death"? A Glork-lynch or a Glork-NK?

Charter is townish.

What is it about charter's contribution so far that makes you think he's townish?

[Incognito]

What exactly did you mean by "Glork death"? A Glork-lynch or a Glork-NK?

obviously a lynch.

I didn't find it to be that obvious actually. I was thinking more along the same lines as dahill1 in that you seemed to be arguing a sort of "Burden of Proficiency" argument as if this game began with a night start. A sort of "what in the world is a player of Glork's calibre still doing

alive

after Night 0? He should be dead!" type of thing.

[Incognito]

I expect they'd check out the flavor, but stay low-key about it. Incidentally, Patrick doesn't agree with this view, though he hasn't specified whether he thinks it says anything either way.

Mmmm. Interestingly I thought somewhat similarly to this about charter's opening post as well. I'd still need to see a lot more content coming from him in order to solidify any kind of a read on him but yeah, I do agree that it could be looked at as at least a minor town-tell.

Incidentally, why hasn't the 'tricky half of Pathetric done any posting yet?

---

Xtoxm, why are you self-voting? Are you admitting to being scum here?

[Incognito]

Xtoxm, your play so far just seems bizarre to me and distinctly reminds me of the type of play I remember seeing from you in NG 581 where you ended up self-voting and admitting to being scum after being called out for non-contributiveness. Why exactly would following the advice of placing yourself at L-2 at the request of someone whose alignment you supposedly don't know be more beneficial than actually commenting on some of the relevant happenings that have occurred in this game? Do you have anything to say about

anyone

so far?

---

I did a reread of the thread and one thing that I do find to be slightly alarming is the fact that both Yosarian2 and dahill1 have mentioned at least once or twice now that they have issues with Coriolanus's reaction to being called an alt:

Actually, no, I don't think that. The subject of "is Corio an alt or not", isn't all that relevent; but Corio's answers, his response, really seem strange to me here, and I think his posting here might be a very productive subject.

again, yos pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. being an alt or not isn't that important, but him blowing up for us accusing him of being one does seem off.

...but neither one have gone forward and placed a formal FoS or vote on the guy as of yet.

Yosarian2 and dahill1, do you find Coriolanus's reaction to be scummy-interesting or some other type of interesting? Why have neither of you gone forward and actually voted for him as of yet? I'm pretty sure the both of you are still on your arbitrary votes from page 1.

Wethever you are town or scum, that's a bold move Glork.

vote: Assmaster

Your position on Glork here doesn't seem to lean one way or the other and ends up pretty much stating the obvious. Is your vote on Assmaster random or does it have any valid reasoning behind it?

[Incognito]

Yay for causing CPUs and still not losing the post!

[Incognito]

dahill1, do you find Coriolanus's reaction to be scummy-interesting or some other type of interesting? Why have neither of you gone forward and actually voted for him as of yet? I'm pretty sure the both of you are still on your arbitrary votes from page 1.

as i said in this post:

it's not necessarily alignment-telling but just the idea of overreacting to this to type of accusation seems strange to me.

i find it to be as you said "some other type of interesting" that i can't necessarily categorize at the moment. and i don't think something piquing my interest warrants a vote since i didn't find it scummy, per say.

Ah, I missed that. My bad.

[Incognito]

About this:

My position which Patrick cited in 104 wasn't strictly at ends with his. It was more about the feel of the Xtoxmwagon. There was never much basis behind it, far as I can tell; it was a "let's kick off the game" wagon when the game had already been kicked off perfectly adequately. Also, I think Xtoxm is the sort of person who's easier to read when left to his own devices.

At least from my perspective, I felt the wagon did have some merit. My vote on Xtoxm wasn't arbitrary nor random; I placed it on him for the reasons I listed because I remember reading a game whose name and number I can't remember where Porochaz page 1 voted Xtoxm claiming that Xtoxm was the SK. In a state of panic, Xtoxm (who really was an SK) ended up voting Porochaz claiming that Porochaz had to be some kind of a Mafia Daytime Rolecop to figure that information out and ended up outing himself as the SK. I wanted to see if something similar would work here where voting him and calling him obviously scum might get him to expose himself as some type of scum yet again. His OMGUS vote reaction to my own vote felt knee-jerkish to me, and I thought a wagon on him might be beneficial to drive some information out of him if he did happen to be scum here.

I, too, didn't notice the Vanilla claim as I didn't know what he meant by "VT btw". I'm still not entirely comfortable enough with his contribution so far to remove the vote as of yet. Xtoxm, I, too, would like to know why you claimed so early. You switched your vote to Glork thereby removing yourself from typical claim territory, so I'm curious to figure out your reasoning.

There was a reason behind my vote. Why ask people to make a wagon on someone? I thought the whole point of wagons was that you watch and see who joins in by own force. Telling people to join a wagon just gives them an excuse to do so. A poor one yes, but stil an excuse. Hence my vote. Do not consider it too serious though. Anyone here could flip either way for me as it is right now.

Interestingly, I actually expected a different reason behind your Assmaster vote aside from the one you've provided here. Does it bother you that I, too, asked people to wagon someone?

Don't think this is a great suspicion reason. Also don't like the hand waving.

What exactly do you think is wrong with my reasoning? Also, what do you mean by "hand waving"?

[Incognito]

Tuberkulos, it wasn't my intent to put you in a bad light, no. I thought there might have been a slight inconsistency in what you were saying, but I just looked back at the Assmaster-post you were referring to and could see the difference in both mine and his posts. I didn't even realize he directly asked for you to place your vote on Xtoxm until I looked back just now.

[Incognito]

I'm just pointing out (in case it wasn't obvious already, heh) that the following two quotes don't entirely jibe well with one another, imo:

No. Just seeing if Ass's idea has any effect...

&

I usually claim by L-2, and way it was going I could see I was always going to end up claiming today anyway. I just felt like it.

If the L-2 situation was beyond his control, i.e. another player did the honors and placed him at that vote count, I could see the above second quote holding some kind of merit. Considering the fact that the situation was self-imposed in this case, I can't see the above explanation holding as much weight. I would think (or rather, hope) his own vote wasn't a serious vote.

Xtoxm, did you ever respond to this?:

Pathetric also looks kinda scummy.

Why?

---

Anyway, outside of Xtoxm, the Erratus Apathos/Yosarian2 thing seems somewhat interesting considering the fact that I haven't really formulated much of a read on either one of the two players as of yet. I'd also really like to see some more content from Rally Vincent. Outside of his EA-vote post, I haven't really seen much else from him to be able to formulate a read off of.

has the "chainsaw defense" actually been ever proven to be a reasonable meta?

It probably depends on the type of chainsaw defense Erratus Apathos is talking about. I personally think the Tarhalindur version is actually a pretty reliable tell.

[Incognito]

Cross-posted with a couple of peeps. x_x

[Incognito]

Hm. A lot of stuff happened since I last posted here.

About Yos2's Vanilla-claim-more-likely-coming-from-scum thing, I happen to agree with Patrithetic; in my experience, premature vanilla claims (from raw newbies at least) happen to be extremely reliable pro-town indicators and have in pretty much every instance I've seen have

always

come from town. Also, I've seen scum fake-claim pro-town power roles on D1 often enough that I used to give D1 Vanilla claims extremely high credence. Recent experience has made me feel differently about this though. Yosarian2, does your experience suggest otherwise?

Granted, Xtoxm isn't a new player, so I don't think this tell that I have found to be useful is as applicable here, but I'm still interested in you elaborating on your experience with this.

On Patrick - He said he spoke with Ether about finding me scummy for meta reasons, and Ether disagreeing. I have never played Ether, so I see no reason why she would overrule his opinion on my meta, whcih makes me think they are scum and were infact discussing whether to attack me for my play fitting my scum meta.

And btw, I think it's too early to say whether i'm fitting my town or scum meta, given how little has gone on.

So those we be my top 3 atm. Glork today, imo.

You played with Ether in PYP3, and she's well aware of your meta. She "overruled" me for basically the reason given in your second paragraph, I think.

This strikes me as odd coming from Ether. In that very same game you're referencing, it felt like, to me at least, Ether couldn't pick up on Xtoxm-scum any sooner than she did; I felt like she nabbed him almost immediately upon his entry to the thread, and she pretty much gave me hell for it the entire rest of the game because I didn't pick up on him soon enough. Why does she now believe that we haven't seen enough from him to be able to come to a definitive conclusion about his alignment? Further, I'd say in NG 581, figuring him out 3 pages in is hardly a large stretch of time to give someone to become involved in the game.

The people i'm calling scummy are all voting me...

I'm assuming this wasn't in reference to me? I don't recall you mentioning that you found me scummy in this game. I'd also like for you to elaborate on how Yosarian2's post seemed to leak implied knowledge that you're town. I've read it a number of times and haven't been able to arrive at the same conclusion.

Xtoxm-hate aside, I do have to admit that I'm not completely fond of Yosarian2's or dahill1's votes on him. I realize that Yosarian2 had mentioned prior to his vote that he could see himself voting Xtoxm, but his quick vote on him after what could have easily been miscommunication doesn't sit very well with me. I think the more practical way of dealing with it would have been to ask Xtoxm how his post has implied knowledge that he's town rather than just laying the vote down so quickly. I also need to look into dahill1's past town games to see if he does happen to play the way Yosarian2 indicated he does, though dahill1 himself mentioned that his forum play is different from his face-to-face play. I could've sworn he was in a game that I took over modding before, but I could be mixing him up with someone else.

[Incognito]

Sorry that I haven't posted for a bit. I haven't had access at home for the past two days (that's been resolved now), and I spent the limited time I had at work yesterday catching up to another game (Patrick,

help me

with that, plz).

I was able to do a few quick reads into some of dahill1's recently finished town games, and my general feeling is his play here doesn't feel all that dissimilar from the play that I've read in those games. His posting rate feels about the same, and I did notice a general tendency for him to sheep off of other players' votes in those games. The caveat to this is there isn't really much of a gold standard to compare this to since the only completed scum game I was able to find of his was one of his much earlier games on here, and I'd think a lot may have changed in his playstyle from this point until then. Right now though, I'm thinking he might just be weird town, and I probably wouldn't support his lynch today.

I'm also slightly miffed by the apparent double standard that has seemed to exist in this game -- dahill1 has seemed to receive a good deal of flak for sheeping off of other players in this game but Assmaster, a player who has done similar in my opinion, hasn't even gotten a mention by anyone.

What exactly is the difference between dahill1's behavior in this game and Assmaster's behavior?

---

I don't agree with Assmaster's FoS of Pathetric; I think Ether's play here has been more consistent with her town play, while Patrick has fallen into more readable behavior as of recent, therefore I'm leaning towards thinking Pathetric is likely town at this time.

Assmaster, could you please respond to this:

Don't think this is a great suspicion reason. Also don't like the hand waving.

What exactly do you think is wrong with my reasoning? Also, what do you mean by "hand waving"?

Xtoxm already provided an answer to the second question, but I didn't notice if you responded to the first one.

---

Coriolanus's reveal as Simenon really bothers me as I know Simenon is an experienced player and therefore I'm really questioning what it was he was trying to get at earlier when he mentioned that the lack of Glork death "really disappointed" him.

Simenon, how much experience do you have playing with Xtoxm? Are you in any way basing your read of him in this game off of the single Freedom Force game that the two of you played together? What was it about Xtoxm's reactions make you think he's "obviously town" as you mentioned below?:

because i think his reactions, while being very bad, seem obviously townie to me, and as i said before there is absolutely no reason to rehash this wagon unless you genuinely want xtoxm dead today. xtoxm is a dead end unless you want the day to end now.

Also about this:

i admit that i haven't really considered vincent and incog, and that is probably a mistake of mine. but i think on the whole those players were not worth engaging.

Why do you feel like I'm a player not worth engaging?

I need to read the more recent stuff a bit deeper when I get a chance later today. Does anyone have any questions for me or anything though? I'm finding myself having to create my own content in this game so far, and I'm not really sure how I feel about that.

[Incognito]

Urgh I was kinda banking on this game having a deadline extension considering the holiday. I'm catching up still on the recent stuff.

I'd like to see Incognito really strongly attack somebody. But I also need to know him better. Right now, he seems fine, but a bit distanced for me.

I don't think I've been completely devoid of attacking others; I haven't exactly tunneled on anyone in particular like I feel a few others in this game have but for the most part, I think I've mainly been gathering information and trying to feel people out.

No. If you want Xtoxm to serve as bait, it doesn't matter if he is town or scum, especially since he already draws so much suspicion on him.

How exactly would this work if Xtoxm is scum? What exactly would he be drawing out as a hypothetical scum bait?

With the deadline approaching, I could see myself leaving my vote where it is or switching it to either Coriolanus or Assmaster if a wagon develops on him. I haven't really mentioned much about him, but I've been receiving really strange vibes from him, and I'm still bothered by the apparent double standard that's existed with him in this game.

[Incognito]

Coriolanus's reveal as Simenon really bothers me as I know Simenon is an experienced player and therefore I'm really questioning what it was he was trying to get at earlier when he mentioned that the lack of Glork death "really disappointed" him.

This is odd. It ignores the actual likelihood of this playerlist speedlynching Glork--a likelihood Simenon would be perfectly aware of. If anything, this would have been more scummy from a newbie's keyboard.

If I didn't make my point clear enough when I initially said this in 293, the point I was trying to get at is it seems to me that by using the account "Coriolanus", Simenon could have been attempting to

feign

a certain level of inexperience so as to not be held accountable for the types of scummy things he may have said early on. I could certainly think of this as a potential benefit for anyone who may use an alternate account especially if he or she happens to draw a scum role. You're absolutely right that with the player list in this game, a speed-lynch on

anyone

would likely never happen but that doesn't dismiss the fact that he still mentioned this within thread. That's my issue with Simenon's early posting.

A question to Incognito, Glork, Yosarian2, Erratus Apathos, Rally Vincent, probably some other people I'm forgetting:
Are you in fact aware of the full case against Dahill? What do you think of the contrast between this and this?

Yes, I understand the case against him. You're trying to say that there's a contradiction between dahill1's reasoning that he used to vote for Tuberkulos and what he mentioned in the forum topic you found in Mafia Discussion. I don't see the contradiction though; in the Mafia Discussion topic, dahill1 doesn't seem to lean one way or another on Glork's post that he quoted from ZazieR's GTKAS thread. He doesn't mention anything about "endorsing this product and/or service" or anything like that. He seems to just be presenting the alternate viewpoint.

Incidentally, Primate is still town.

What makes you think this?

[Incognito]

Simenon could have been attempting to feign a certain level of inexperience so as to not be held accountable for the types of scummy things he may have said early on.

exactly why i made the account: so i could say what i felt and not have to be meta'd for it.

So then why do you reference past games that you've played with other people in this game?

[Incognito]

Post.

I'll have more later after some targeted reads.

[Incognito]

And actually, while I'm doing that, I do think Glork needs to respond to this as it was something I was curious about also:

Why the need to hammer before we heard from Assmaster?

[Incognito]

Glork, I don't see how Patrick's question was "closed-minded" or why my curiosity about it would bother you, and it wasn't apparent to me that your driving across the country after Monday afternoon would cause you that much trouble to get a hammer in. In your post 362,

I want Ether to answer me first.

I am supposed to be traveling throughout most of the day tomorrow, but I will hammer from my phone later tonight if necessary.

...you specifically mentioned that you would be hammering Xtoxm later that Monday evening, which would likely be a few hours before the deadline. The deadline was set for December 30th, I'm guessing somewhere around midnight EST. Considering the fact that Assmaster made a post on Saturday promising some content, I'd think you could have at least waited until later that evening like you said instead of the afternoon so that Assmaster could finally get an opportunity to insert a comment or two considering the fact that he was rather devoid of content for pretty much all of last week. If I'm not mistaken, Primate's from the UK so I'm pretty sure there was still at least a slight window of opportunity for him to get a post in between the time you mentioned you'd be hammering Xtoxm and a hypothetical evening hammer.

[Incognito]

I don't really see a problem with Glork's hammer, personally. If you're not going to be around before deadline, better to drop the hammer then to not.

This seems odd since it's not really the hammer in and of itself that I have an issue with. I wasn't even

completely

suspicious of Glork until he began responding to my questions in the manner he did today. I have more of an issue with the fact that Assmaster could have had an opportunity to get at least a final say before a hammer was dropped, but Glork completely shut down that opportunity by laying down the hammer a bit earlier than he

himself

said he would. I'm fairly suspicious of Assmaster so the fact that Glork laid down the hammer when he did thereby completely disallowing a possible pre-N1 Assmaster-post really bothers me.

[Incognito]

I haven't read up on the recent stuff or done the targeted analysis yet, but I'll respond to some questions.

Given how little Assmaster has been here all thread, and given that he posted he had been ill, did you expect him to post that afternoon/evening?

Possibly, yes.

If I had not hammered at the time, and failed to hammer later due to being away from the site, would your suspicion of me likely have grown, shrunk, or stayed the same?

I wasn't suspicious of you yesterday so it probably would have stood at about the same level as it was yesterday. I only called attention to Patrick's question today because I thought it was an interesting point that might imply some sort of linkage between you and Assmaster, and I wanted to see your answer to it. At this time, I'm actually more suspicious of your reaction to the question (needless ad hominem remarks towards me and becoming slightly defensive) as opposed to the actual action itself.

[Incognito]

Assmaster, just to clarify, I'm assuming you're talking about this portion of my post?:

At this time, I'm actually more suspicious of your reaction to the question (needless ad hominem remarks towards me and becoming slightly defensive) as opposed to the actual action itself.

[Incognito]

Assmaster, just to clarify, I'm assuming you're talking about this portion of my post?:

At this time, I'm actually more suspicious of your reaction to the question (needless ad hominem remarks towards me and becoming slightly defensive) as opposed to the actual action itself.

Primarily. I think Patricks point against Glork wasn't intended as anything other than just to get a reaction out of Glork, and I think you picked up a very weak point and used it against Glork in a way that feels to me a little arbitrary. The question I asked you more is aimed at the quoted bit though, yeah, that's right.

In that case, I agree that both of those things I'm calling out Glork for are dependent on context but the thinking behind that post is just based off of my previous experience playing with Glork. Mind you, I've only played with him in

one

past game in which we were both town but in that game, I think I went after Glork much, much harder than I have here especially during Day 1 of that game, and I thought his reaction to my attack was more composed than his reaction has been here. He only really flipped out in that game when a Tarhalindur-scum was claiming a false-guilty on him during Day 2. I suppose he could just be frustrated in this particular instance because he had a legitimate excuse of being busy around the time he laid down the hammer, but I still think his reaction is at least notable. Again, I'm not voting Glork, nor am I pushing for his lynch but it is something I will keep in mind as I reread through Day 1.

[Incognito]

Cross posted. I didn't realize you have a history of lurking. I'll keep that in mind when reading.

[Incognito]

Eh?

[Incognito]

Eh?

Saying you were both town as an aside, like thats different from this game, something you'd only know if you were scum.

I think it's a turn of phrase not a scumtell, just a funny one.

How else would you say that? Glork and I played in a completed game together in which we were both town. If he's town in this game also, then this will be another completed game in which we're both town. I don't see how that implies knowledge.

[Incognito]

Checking in pre-prod. I'll have a post in tomorrow while I'm at work.

[Incognito]

Sorry, guys. Work was much busier than I expected it to be yesterday, so I couldn't get a post in while I was there.

I did my targeted reread, and I'll primarily be focusing on both the Xtoxm-wagon AND the people who were off of the Xtoxm-wagon. I wouldn't expect the entire scum team to be found on the Xtoxm-wagon and likewise, I wouldn't expect the entire scum team to be off of it either. The players off of the wagon (aside from Xtoxm himself) were as follows: {charter, Erratus Apathos, Assmaster, Rally Vincent}. I'd venture a guess that at least one of these four is scum, so I've been looking into them individually. Of the four, I find charter to be the most townish. His posts are somewhat few and far between at times, but I think they're direct and to the point and all in all give me a major town vibe. Therefore, I'm least interested in him at this time.

That leaves the following three people {Erratus Apathos, Assmaster, Rally Vincent}. Erratus Apathos and Rally Vincent interested me upon a read-through; they spent a good portion of Day 1 primarily voting for one another, but I never got the impression that either one of them really

pushed

for each other's lynch. To me, they both seemed content to just leave one another's votes on each other without really calling for more votes on their "scummy" player, which is not the type of behavior that I'd expect to come from a pro-town player. Instead, I'd expect pro-town players to provide some sort of summary of the case against the person he or she had problems with or to try to call attention to said scummy person to try and get them to obtain more votes.

Rally Vincent in particular ended the day with a vote on Coriolanus as mentioned below:

Now, as clearly nobody wants to vote EA, and the deadline grows near, I

unvote:
vote: Coriolanus

.

and then began today with a follow-up vote on Coriolanus:

Vote: Coriolanus

. Same reasons as yesterday.

This vote doesn't make much sense to me. His vote on Coriolanus yesterday seemed more like a second choice vote as opposed to a first choice -- his first choice vote was Erratus Apathos yesterday, so I'm curious as to why he chose to re-vote Corio today citing yesterday's reasons when his main reason for voting Corio yesterday seemed to be because nobody else saw the case on Erratus Apathos. Why didn't he re-address the problem he had with EA yesterday at the start of today? Did those suspicions suddenly evaporate?

I also noticed that RV seemed to mildly support the Xtoxm-wagon in a few of his posts but never seemed willing to lay a vote down on him, which also slightly bothers me. I could certainly think of situations where scum would voice support for a certain player's lynch but keep their hands clean by not laying down a vote.

I'm interested in seeing some kind of a summary and content from El Destructo (hi, Elmo and des, btw) before completely deciding what to make of this. Right now, I'm getting bad vibes from this particular role.

---

In similar fashion, Erratus Apathos also seemed to maintain a vote on Rally Vincent throughout Day 1 but again, I never really got a strong feeling that he was really trying to push for his lynch. The mild back and forth between them just seemed to end with no kind of resolution. I also don't understand his pre-Night 1 vote on dahill1 -- the case against dahill1 had been laid out by a number of people a number of times within thread but in his Post 350, he seems to finally understand the case and switches his vote over close to deadline. Since that vote he, too, hasn't bothered to re-address his suspicions of Rally Vincent from yesterday or even pick up where he left off at day's end by re-voting dahill1 when he supposedly began understanding the case against him at the end of the day. Instead, he began voting Glork at the start of today for mentioning that he found dahill1 still townish.

Erratus Apathos:

What are your current feelings about Rally Vincent (El Destructo) and dahill1? How serious is your current Glork-vote?

I'm going to need to take a break for now before I read into Assmaster's posts. I should have another post sometime later today or tomorrow hopefully. I'll then try and look at the votes and activity on the wagon to see if I could draw anything from that.

[Incognito]

Actually,

vote: El Destructo

. Yeah.

[Incognito]

oh, it was killed.

You seriously forgot Pathetric was killed?

[Incognito]

Erratus Apathos:

What are your current feelings about Rally Vincent (El Destructo) and dahill1? How serious is your current Glork-vote?

What do you mean "serious", like I'd cast a joke vote at this stage for no fucking reason?

Your Glork-vote seemed to be based off of a single comment that Glork made about dahill1's alignment rather than a collective of issues that you had with Glork's D1 play. That seems more arbitrary than serious to me and that's why I asked.

[Incognito]

I do think Yosarian2 makes a valid point about Erratus Apathos -- it doesn't seem natural to me for Erratus Apathos to start off D2 with a vote on Glork, end D1 with a vote on dahill1, conclude in his 468 that he's leaning town on both of them, and then vote Yosarian2 shortly after Glork had reasonless voted for him. I'd think if Erratus Apathos was truly suspicious of Glork, he might have questioned his Yos2-vote rather than just following Glork's suit after this stretch of time since EA's second to last post. I don't even remember EA acknowledging Yos2's 447 or Tuberkulos's 448 where they both comment on the Glork-posts EA brought forward.

Erratus Apathos, can you explain your thought process as to how you suddenly arrived at town reads on Glork and dahill1?

[Incognito]

It occurs that Incog has his vote on me, I'll go back and look why sometime, or you could summarise it if you didn't already? I see in the preview part of it's something about RV.. I dunno if I can add anything except the knowledge he's town, I'll go back and look at it though.

I covered this a bit in my previous post, but sure, I can further elaborate if it was unclear.

When I did my reread of the thread, I initially primarily focused on the small sampling of people who were off of the Xtoxm-wagon (charter, Erratus Apathos, Rally Vincent [your predecessor], and Assmaster). I focused on this group basing my thoughts off of the assumption that I think it's highly likely that at least one scum could be found within this grouping; in my experience with mini games, I've pretty much never seen a situation where an entire scum team's members could be found on the D1 lynching wagon. I looked through charter's posts and didn't see much that I didn't like there, so I removed him from the list since I had been receiving a pretty consistent town vibe from him anyway, and I took a look at the remaining three people. Erratus Apathos and Rally Vincent interested me because I felt like and

still

feel like their spat in the beginning didn't really go anywhere; they went back and forth for a little while, each of them only had about 10 posts total during Day 1, and I just never got the impression that either one of them really

pushed

for each other's lynch. They eventually unvoted each other and went their separate ways: EA voted dahill1 at the end of D1 and RV voted Coriolanus at the end of D1.

At the start of D2, it seemed like the two of them pretty much forgot each other existed; Rally Vincent had begun voting Coriolanus citing "same reasons as yesterday", Erratus Apathos curiously began voting for Glork due to Glork's comment about dahill1's alignment, and neither one of them mentioned a thing about each other despite the fact that their D1 spat never really reached a resolution. Their "spat" almost gives me a distancing vibe; it seems unnatural to vote someone for a whole day and then come into the next day and not address the suspicion you supposedly had from the day before. Rally Vincent in particular mentioned that he's voting Coriolanus because of yesterday's reasons but my general impression about RV's D1 vote on Coriolanus was that it was a secondary type of vote since his primary vote (Erratus Apathos) didn't get the attention he wanted (see bolded orange for emphasis):

Now,

as clearly nobody wants to vote EA

, and the deadline grows near, I

unvote:
vote: Coriolanus

.

In short, I'm waiting for more contribution from you, but after rereading the thread, I didn't get particularly good vibes from

neither

Rally Vincent nor Erratus Apathos, so I chose to vote for the one who seemed more suspect to me to see what happens. The main reaction I was probing for was EA's reaction and now that he's gone forward and voted Yos2, I'm becoming more suspicious of him due to the reasons I listed in

my 492

.

[Incognito]

The kill is ridiculous. After Patrick said "If we die, seriously look at Glork no matter what," I instantly felt that any group containing Primate/Assmaster, Corio/Simenon, Incognito, or Yosarian2 (and possibly even Dahill) would have tried to off them. And while I won't deny that I would have if I were scum (believe me, it would have been a no-brainer), I can hardly believe that it points any more or less to me.

Why would any of the players from that group in particular want to off Pathetric just because of that single comment?

[Incognito]

I even SAID that they made themselves obvious targets in my first post today, and NOBODY batted an eye at my comment then... so why question it now all of a sudden?

Hmm.. I just looked back now, and I actually didn't even notice that comment when you made it. I must have been focusing on your early responses to my early D2 post about not allowing Assmaster to get a post in before deadline.

[Incognito]

EBWOP: And anyway, you didn't mention specific people who you thought might have offed Pathetric like you have recently. "Why those people in particular?" was my original question.

[Incognito]

Glork, I wouldn't ask the question if I thought the question was stupid or if I knew the answer to it. I'm pretty sure that the other people who you didn't mention in that list could pretty damn well determine that you, Ether, and Patrick are all high profile players who probably played a bunch of games with one another. Blah blah blah. Hell, even I knew that within a few months of coming to this site. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, so I was wondering why you chose to single out the people in that group in particular. That's all.

[Incognito]

Erratus Apathos, can you explain your thought process as to how you suddenly arrived at town reads on Glork and dahill1?

I'm not going to right now.

Any reason why?

[Incognito]

Reading up from where I last posted, I find destructor's usage of meta-gaming on this page to be really odd. destructor, you and me have played in a number of games before both on-site and off-site and in each and every one, you were always very strongly anti-meta

(Yes, I'm meta-ing your anti-meta sentiments.)

. Why are you using it so vehemently on this page?

Also to Glork, what did you seriously think the town would gain out of the Coriolanus-alt discussion? I'm not asking for an essay, even dot points would be enough for now.

des

Actually, I'd like Yos, Incog and dahill to answer that instead.

I believe I covered this before but the main thing that I was concerned about with the Coriolanus-alt discussion was whether or not Corio was actually an experienced player who was using an alt to try and purposely feign a certain level of inexperience. You and me have talked about alts in the past, and I don't want to go into too many specifics here since it would require exposing an alt or two, but I believe you actually agreed with me that feigning inexperience under an alt account can actually be a powerful scum tactic as it greatly diminishes the expectations that a town can have on you and allows towns to write off certain things as "inexperience tells" or "newbie tells" or "VI tells" or some other such thing. When Coriolanus made the comment about the "lack of Glork death disappointing him" on page 2 of the thread, I began to become curious about whether or not he may have been feigning inexperience as a possible scum tactic under an alt account and therefore, I felt the discussion was at least somewhat warranted.

[Incognito]

Reading up from where I last posted, I find destructor's usage of meta-gaming on this page to be really odd. destructor, you and me have played in a number of games before both on-site and off-site and in each and every one, you were always very strongly anti-meta

(Yes, I'm meta-ing your anti-meta sentiments.)

. Why are you using it so vehemently on this page?

I thought I'd used meta in YOUR game (AoaDA), actually.
I definitely used it in Crackers too. My read of a lot of players was based largely on my experience with them.
I also admitted to using it in one shape or form in MD viewtopic.php?t=8098&highlight=metagaming.
I've probably used it in other games too.

Please point to where specifically you used meta in my game. I couldn't remember off-hand, I just finished scouring your posts, and I couldn't find any indication that you used the same type of meta that you're using here within that game. I haven't looked into Crackers! yet, but I will when I get a chance.

Here are previous posts by you that pretty clearly indicate your stance on meta as town in the previous games that we've played on here:

Yep, Incog covered it.

If it's mafia you might know more about Incognito's playstyle than I do, and part of the reason I've started seeing him as town is that he seems more like how he's played as town in games I've read here than as scum (although I've only found one as scum). I'd be interested to know what leads you to your read of him as town.

My experience with his playstyle probably does have a bit to do with my read on him, but

honestly, I try not to meta players as much as possible so I don't want to refer to it too mcuh.

My town read is based mostly on the fact that I perceive his entry and subsequent posts as sincere and thoughtful attempts to generate content. I haven't noticed anything I'd call unreasonable or deceptive from him.

Well, that was opportunistic. The one possibly unrelated point I bought up was the "incognita twin" thing, but even that had something to do with this game. And of course I've been scum-hunting.

I'd rather a case was built based on posts as opposed to meta-arguments.

And if my playstyle really is bothering you - I make it a point to approach each game in a different manner to the last.

I've also looked at the MD topic that you linked to and here was the final stance that you took with regard to meta:

The biggest issue for me is that I don't think tells based on meta are that reliable. I figure that there's no reason a player can't change their playstyle either subtly or dramatically and so the actual manner in which they provide content isn't very revealing.

I suppose the only out-of-game knowledge of players I'm interested in is how experienced they are and so what level of content I can expect from them.

If that's really considered metagaming then I guess I'm not so opposed to it, but I'm not going to be looking for personal "tells" anytime soon.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then your stance is that you don't think there is much merit to metagaming except in determining a player's skill level or how good a player's content usually is. Is this correct?

You also created a "Metaless Mafia" thread in which you mentioned the following:

Metagaming can help with this but I'm always open to the possibility of changing playstyles, which is why I prefer to play without it - a meta can become redundant (and if you believe change is constant and impermanence is fact meta is always redundant). A change in playstyle doesn't necessitate a decline in tact and knowledge of the game, though, so I would hold a player I know has both as accountable for their play as ever.

Again, further illustration of your dislike for using meta within games to determine a player's alignment.

How does your metagaming in this game in any way coincide with your previous stances on meta that you've taken in various places/games? Also, I'm mildly curious as to why your's and Elmo's reads of players differ so dramatically in this game? I just finished double-heading with Patrick as town in your BSG mafia and our top threes ended up being pretty much the same upon replacing in during Day 1 except they were in different orders.

[Incognito]

destructor, I suppose this is pending?:

Please point to where specifically you used meta in my game. I couldn't remember off-hand, I just finished scouring your posts, and I couldn't find any indication that you used the same type of meta that you're using here within that game.

There not much else for me to say on this topic and I think you were really missing the point of what I was doing as well, which is curious.

I didn't miss the point at all. You spotted something in Elmo's play in this particular game (his defending of dahill1) that you felt was very similar to something that you spotted in his scum play within Weasels Mafia (his defense of Thanatos). You then asked for specific examples of where he may have defended players as town to see if Glork's defending of other players might be a reliable scum-tell for Glork. While you're correct that the two Newbie Game references that I mentioned are rather old and your view

may

have changed since that period of time, I also pointed out your opinion in two Mafia Discussion topics that are both relatively recent, which leads me to believe that this particular view on meta that you held in those Newbie Games might still be a view that you yourself hold. I'm just trying to rationalize how someone who could mention the following as his view on personal tells in an MD topic can then try to use something similar to this against another player in this particular game:

The biggest issue for me is that I don't think tells based on meta are that reliable. I figure that there's no reason a player can't change their playstyle either subtly or dramatically and so the actual manner in which they provide content isn't very revealing.

Perhaps your view really did change from that particular time period, but I'm sure you could see why your change in stance on the actual worth of meta might catch my attention in this particular game.

What do you think it means that Elmo and I would have different reads of the same players?

I don't really know. Like I said, it was something that only mildly interested me. I didn't think it was definitely scummy since I could think of countless examples where pro-town players' views can differ from one anothers' when reading a thread for the first time upon replacing in, but the fact that I know that you and Elmo seem to be fairly like-minded individuals (I'm thinking of your's and Elmo's stances on players in AoaDA where the only time you seemed to disagree with one another was on the topic of Kairyuu/TCS) it was something that I felt was worth questioning about.

Incog: Hi. Why're you focussing on Des? I feel left out ._.

Elmo

I was under the impression that you were still having computer issues, and I felt like destructor might have taken primary lead of the "El Destructo" account since it seems like his views of the game are spilling out the most as of recent. Have those issues been sorted out? Are your's and destructor's notes and feelings of the game beginning to match one another's?

I'd like to see Yosarian2's response to El Destructo's case before commenting on it myself.

[Incognito]

EBWOP:

You spotted something in Elmo's play in this particular game (his defending of dahill1) that you felt was very similar to something that you spotted in his scum play within Weasels Mafia (his defense of Thanatos).

That of course should be "Glork's* play in this particular game".

See, Elmo? Even though I'm not directing content towards you, you're still on my mind. <3

[Incognito]

Quick post. El Destructo, what do you think of Pathetric's 136?

[Incognito]

Quick post. El Destructo, what do you think of Pathetric's 136?

I'm not sure if there something specific you're asking about. Is there?

des

I was getting at the fact that the final portion of your

case

against Yosarian2 seemed to be in reference to you finding him suspicious because he found me pro-town enough to unvote me at the time, but the Patrick-half of Pathetric noted something similar to Yosarian2 about me even earlier than Yos2 did, and I wanted to get your feelings about whether or not you would have found Pathetric suspicious for similar reasons to Yosarian2 if he (they) were still alive.

About Yosarian2, I pretty much agreed with at least the beginning to middle portion of your case in 575; I, too, found him suspicious early on because despite the fact that he mentioned that he was scum-hunting, I never really felt like he was completely pushing the issue with a number of players early on. A few of his early posts gave me somewhat of a spectator-y vibe that usually makes me feel uncomfortable about a person, which was why I questioned him about some of his stances early on (notably his stance on Coriolanus). On Day 2, I do agree that again Yosarian2 has seemed to take somewhat of a backseat role with regards to discussion and only seemed to come alive when Erratus Apathos began voting for him.

The thing that's really bothering me about my read of Yosarian2 though is I feel like his push of the Xtoxm-wagon really gave me a strong pro-town vibe -- I wouldn't expect scum to push as fervently as Yosarian2 did on Xtoxm. Instead, I would expect scum to waffle on a player like him or show some off-wagon support for his lynch much the same way Rally Vincent, El Destructo's predecessor, seemed to during Day 1. I'm actually somewhat worried that my posts went largely unnoticed.

charter, Assmaster, Coriolanus, dahill1, EA:

What did you think of my posts in relation to Rally Vincent/El Destructo? Why is El Destructo not vote-worthy?

I also feel like my thoughts about Erratus Apathos pretty much match Yosarian2's as well like I mentioned previously in my 492 -- I find that when I think similarly to another person about another player or about certain game situations, it's more likely that the person I'm thinking similarly to has a higher chance of being pro-town.

In short, I'd vote Yosarian2 in order to prevent a No Lynch, but I still think El Destructo stands a very strong chance of being scum, and they're still my preferred lynch. I also still don't see the case on dahill1 and still feel like his play here (at least early on) matches fairly well with the play I read through in his past town games.

[Incognito]

Also,

mod:

at what time exactly is the deadline?

[Incognito]

I believe he was prodded already, but I too would like to see what he and Assmaster have to say.

[Incognito]

I'm cool with a mass claim.

[Incognito]

I don't mind going first and doing popcorn from there, or we could just do random order using dice and the front page:

1. dahill1
2. charter
3. El Destructo replaced Rally Vincent D2
4. Incognito
5. Tuberkulos
6. Erratus Apathos
7. Glork
8. Assmaster

When a person is chosen by the dice, the person underneath him shifts up one notch. So for example if the dice land on 1 first for dahill1, then charter shifts into the number 1 spot for the next dice roll, El Destructo moves to the number 2 spot for that dice roll, etc. going from top to bottom below:

Original Roll String: 1d8

1 8-Sided Dice: (6) = 6

Original Roll String: 1d7

1 7-Sided Dice: (5) = 5

Original Roll String: 1d6

1 6-Sided Dice: (2) = 2

Original Roll String: 1d5

1 5-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

Original Roll String: 1d4

1 4-Sided Dice: (4) = 4

Original Roll String: 1d3

1 3-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

Original Roll String: 1d2

1 2-Sided Dice: (2) = 2

There's probably an easier way of doing this that I'm overlooking lol.

[Incognito]

That would be El Destructo, Assmaster, me, dahill1, Glork, Tuberkulos, Erratus Apathos, and charter if I did that correctly.

[Incognito]

Bumping past thread locks. I'm guessing we're just waiting for Assmaster and El Destructo to check in.

[Incognito]

I'm a conspirator.

[Incognito]

charter, you've been pushing for a dahill1 lynch since like Day 1. If you feel like this is some kind of inverted AitP, why did you never choose to investigate dahill1?

[Incognito]

charter, you've been pushing for a dahill1 lynch since like Day 1. If you feel like this is some kind of inverted AitP, why did you never choose to investigate dahill1?

Night 1 I didn't because I assumed that after the idiocy of Xtoxm we could just lynch dahill. Night 2 I didn't because (largely the same reason) I wanted to see if Yos was on to anything.
I really have no idea as to the setup, that was just an idea I threw out.

So walk me through your thought process. At what

exact

moment did you begin to speculate that this might be some kind of AitP variant? You mentioned that you asked for clarification during

pre-game

. Did you speculate about it during that time or some other time?

[Incognito]

That makes slightly more sense and seems to better explain why you wouldn't investigate dahill1 from the get-go.

If charter's telling the truth about his claim, I'm thinking that a 2:1:9 set-up probably makes the most amount of sense. A 3 scum set-up would seem too overpowered against town in my opinion against a large cluster of vanillas, a neutral, and what seems like a sole town power role. Further, if charter's telling the truth, I really don't think a bunch of neutrals against town makes much sense either since that would seem to imply that one of those neutrals would likely be Caesar just like Coriolanus was Cicero. If a charter-Caesar cop got a Caesar-result from the get-go, that would pretty much be game over after the first night, which really doesn't make for an interesting game. Therefore, yeah, I'm thinking that the 2:1:9 scenario suggested by Assmaster makes a lot of sense here probably regardless of whether or not charter's telling the truth about his role, which means we're likely not at LyLo.

[Incognito]

@ Incog, Ass, Tuber -

What do you make of charter's claimed results and do you think it's wise to consider them when deciding on where to look/who to lynch today?

For the moment, I'm leaning towards believing the claim. I initially thought there was a slight inconsistency in what charter was saying when he speculated that this might be an inverted AitP set-up: I thought his speculation happened

pre-game

as opposed to recently like he claims to have speculated after all the claims were gotten in. If he had speculated during pre-game about this, I couldn't think of any reason why he wouldn't have just investigated his top suspect (dahill1) in those back to back nights that he claims to have drawn investigations on Glork and then Erratus Apathos.

Further, it seems reasonable to assume that we likely have a scum team of 2 people so that if we work under that logic (and yes, some of this is subject to WIFOM), it would seem somewhat suicidal for a charter-scum to claim power role Brutus when this wouldn't even be considered a LyLo situation -> if we mislynched today or even lynched correctly today, a charter-scum would still be alive tomorrow and would have to explain away how he survived through the night when it doesn't even seem like any protective roles exist in this set-up.

Glork's traitor theory sounds interesting, but I think it fails to account for the fact that while Brutus was indeed a traitor, he was a traitor to Caesar

himself

-- according to my role PM, Caesar's the exact person we're trying to kill. I still remember that famous line

"Et tu, Brute!"

that I learned back in high school English or History that Julius shouted after Brutus stabbed him in the back. If you ask me, I'd think Brutus would be the absolute

last

person a potential Caesar character would want to recruit into his scum team lol.

---

Aside from that, even though charter got non-Caesar results on EA and Glork, I don't think that means that neither one of them can't be scum. I'm sure there's potential there for at least one of them to be a Caesar henchman, so I don't think they should be exempt from any kind of scrutiny today. As of right now, I'm still very suspicious of both El Destructo and Erratus Apathos for the reasons I listed yesterday. I'm beginning to think that early spat between EA and RV looks even more contrived than ever now that this much information about the set-up has been revealed. I need to reread from Day 1 though to see if this changes anything about my current reads.

[Incognito]

Glork's traitor theory sounds interesting, but I think it fails to account for the fact that while Brutus was indeed a traitor, he was a traitor to Caesar

himself

-- according to my role PM, Caesar's the exact person we're trying to kill. I still remember that famous line

"Et tu, Brute!"

that I learned back in high school English or History that Julius shouted after Brutus stabbed him in the back. If you ask me, I'd think Brutus would be the absolute

last

person a potential Caesar character would want to recruit into his scum team lol.

Hmm... though now that I think about it, I guess Caesar wouldn't have known that at the time, now would he? Maybe that's what Glork was getting at.

[Incognito]

It's time to put my money where my mouth is.

Vote: Erratus Apathos
Huge FoS: Glork

715 and 716 are terrible. If you can't see why, please go jump off a bridge.

[Incognito]

ass, incog: Make a point, or just

shut the fuck up

. I put up with more than enough unwarranted condescending douchebaggery coming from Yos2 yesterday, I'll be god damned if I'm going to put up with any more.

I am making a fucking point. After your post 715, I'm really beginning to think you're scum, hence my vote is on you. I dislike how you've now repeatedly voted for people you've previously had no suspicions of over such ridiculously minor offenses and have

inflated

your reasoning to make it seem like the offense you're calling out is something major. In your 715, you pointed out what seems to be a minor contradiction in what charter had mentioned in the wording of his 683 and his 710 and you've used that contradiction to justify the vote mentioning the following:

I'll reread them, and probably everyone else too,

but it'd take one hell of a tell for me to prefer any lynch other than charter.

Do you honestly feel like that contradiction you've pointed out is enough to ring charter up for? What do you think about the rest of charter's play in general?

I don't even recall you mentioning a word about the set-up speculation that has been going on as of recent. Do you seriously think charter is fake-claiming a Brutus power role given the probable 2 scum set-up and what seems like a lack of protective roles? To me, your contributions in this game look like pseudo-scum-hunting; you haven't seemed to make an effort to analyze the thread and question people about their motivations -- you seem to just point out minor inconsistencies in people's play and vote them for it only to drop them at a later time for completely unexplained reasons. I even mentioned something about this during Day 2 after you ended up voting Glork and then out of nowhere shifting your vote to Yosarian2 without even commenting on what it was about Glork's play then that made you suddenly feel like he was town. That particular instance just didn't feel natural to me.

A similar thing happened during Day 1 when you had your back and forth with Rally Vincent for pretty much the entirety of the day, which again, you seemed to drop out of nowhere during Day 2 in favor of your sudden Glork-vote. I questioned you about this to which you replied with the following:

I haven't changed my mind on RV since unvoting him.

Why exactly haven't you bothered to comment on El Destructo since they replaced into the game? What are your current thoughts about them?

[Incognito]

Everyone but EA and Glork, what do you think of posts 13 through to 20?

Not sure. I think it's a weird series of posts to look back to though given my current thoughts about the game and current suspicions. At the time I thought it was random chatter, but now that you've re-pointed it out, I think it is at least mildly interesting. What are you seeing in it?

Incog, I found EA's play to be pretty similar to what I remembered from him in your game, Cog City. I saw him play scum in Lovers Multiball for a bit before he replaced out and don't have a great memory of that (it was a big game). Besides this, I've never seen him play scum. Do you think EA's meta is relevant in this game?

des is meta-ing again? Have you seriously seen the light or is this really an inconsistency from the typical des I know?

With regards to this meta you're citing, I don't think Erratus Apathos's play looks anything like his play in my game, Mini 601, at all. If I remember correctly, EA was Vanilla in that game, pinned avinashv/Oman-scum on like Day 1, and pretty much tunneled on him for the remainder of the game until Oman got lynched on like Day 4. Comparing that to his play here, I've noticed a pattern where he seems to just vote, stick with it for awhile, and then drop it without further comment. If anything, I'd argue that his play here looks much closer to his play in Mini 577 where he was scum and had a tendency to distance/bus his buddies in that game making his voting pattern much more flippant than it was in 601, similar to how he's played in this current game.

[Incognito]

Corio:

What did you think that you saw?

i don't think i should say (and honestly, it's not much.)

i like how dahill waffles on the EA/Yos argument, and ends up barely choosing the most popular argument.

this game could really benefit from a wagon right now. i say dahill.

I don't understand why you shouldn't say anything. If it isn't much, I can't see how it would harm in anyway. Also, could you specify what exactly you thought would come out of a wagon at that point?

Hate to be the bringer of bad news but... Coriolanus is dead. x_x

[Incognito]

With regards to this meta you're citing, I don't think Erratus Apathos's play looks anything like his play in my game, Mini 601, at all. If I remember correctly, EA was Vanilla in that game, pinned avinashv/Oman-scum on like Day 1, and pretty much tunneled on him for the remainder of the game until Oman got lynched on like Day 4. Comparing that to his play here, I've noticed a pattern where he seems to just vote, stick with it for awhile, and then drop it without further comment. If anything, I'd argue that his play here looks much closer to his play in Mini 577 where he was scum and had a tendency to distance/bus his buddies in that game making his voting pattern much more flippant than it was in 601, similar to how he's played in this current game.

When did you notice this?

The game itself I had been aware for quite some time (let's just say I was a rantbuddy to one of the player's in the game). I didn't have much of a problem with EA's Day 1 play in this game, so I wouldn't have mentioned it then. It was only when Day 2 arrived and I noticed that he had completely dropped both the Rally Vincent AND the dahill1 issues he supposedly had during Day 1 that I began to look through both my old modded game and that Mini 577 game to see if either one matched what I was seeing here. I had commented on this switch during Day 2 as well but mostly had my attention on you at the time. It was only now that EA decided to vote for yet another player that he previously hadn't mentioned before in charter and after you referenced your own meta on him that I decided to bring this previous game up. Admittedly, I haven't looked through others to see if this is consistent completely across his play.

I'll respond to EA's post probably tomorrow. I have a really bad headache and the last thing I need to be looking at right now is a Mafia game.

[Incognito]

Sorry, I've been away for a bit. I know I haven't responded to EA's post, but I've reread the thread and still strongly believe that EA is scum. I'm quite content with where my vote is right now.

With two days to deadline, people should really be voting. The last thing we need right now is a 'No Lynch'. This day's been rather pathetic.

[Incognito]

Vote: Incognito

Why doesn't this surprise me?

I haven't responded to your response yet because even after reading it, I still pretty much feel the same exact way about you and simply haven't felt up to responding to it at this time. Like I mentioned in my second to last post, I haven't been feeling well, I still

don't

feel well, and the fact that a grand total of 11 posts (7 of which were pretty much non-game related) had been made since my second to last post, I still didn't feel up to responding to it. I was also hoping to draw at least

some

reactions to the vote when I placed it but apparently half the game's gone absent. I like how you call only

me

out about my inactivity but not anyone else. Why is that exactly?

In response to this:

And what the SHIT is "inflated your reasoning" supposed to mean? I get a strong feeling that you're just pulling all this stuff out of your ass here.

you mentioned that "it'd take a hell of a tell for you to prefer any lynch other than charter" over what seemed like a very minor inconsistency in what he was saying about the Conspirator role PM. If that's not an inflated reason to not only vote for someone but also to decide that you weren't going to switch your vote for the entire remainder of the day, then I don't know what the hell is. How do you justify this not being the case?

Re: Thinking Glork and dahill1 were masons. I find this rather interesting actually. Glork specifically had the following to say about dahill1 during Day 1:

I feel very "meh" about dahill.

And then during Day 2, he eventually mentioned the following:

(For the record, yes, I still firmly believe that dahill is protown.)

Why did you come to the conclusion that dahill1 and Glork were likely to be

mason buddies

as opposed to maybe Glork being a Cop or something of that sort? (And yes, this is a very relevant question.)

Comparing my play in this game to my play in the one or two games you've seen me in isn't meta, it's statistically insignificant horse shit. If you're not aware of my tendency towards frequent vote switches, you definitely don't have enough to make a reasonable comparison.

Fair enough, but I wasn't only using those two games to solidly form my opinion of you. I've been reading your play in this particular game and still strongly feel like some of your tendencies here match the tendencies of scum play as opposed to town play. I don't need meta to determine that one.

[Incognito]

Stole the words right out of my mouth.

Also, there's so many other things terribly wrong with that analysis... I don't like how you keep mentioning that I "avoided commenting on your Glork-meta analysis" and are saying that this was somehow a "chainsaw defense of Glork" when I was already

voting

you by the time you made entrance into the game over actions that your predecessor made over the course of time he was here. That's kinda the wrong way around, ain't it? Clearly I was and still am suspicious of you and when I noticed something as inconsistent as knowing you have always been so hard-pressed against meta-gaming and then noticing you using it to the level of detail you did on those previous pages, I'm obviously going to question that before looking at the actual content of your meta-analysis, aren't I?

[Incognito]

So deadline's in about 2 hours. El Destructo, Tuberkulos: Either of you care to hammer?

[Incognito]

First of all, good game, everyone, and I apologize for all my lies.

This game was scary. And I mean REALLY scary. When I first opened my role PM, I cursed because I'm usually not very fond of scum roles. And with the Ether/Patrick hydra in the game (Ether and Patrick are two players who know my playstyle extremely well), I thought I was doubly screwed. Interestingly, I did find myself enjoying this game and feel like I played OK throughout it, though there were moments where I thought we were completely screwed. The biggest challenge we faced was that our entire scum team was completely dependent on one another. If dahill1 died, we would lose the ability to NK so when he got rung up during Day 1, Glork and I were pretty much forced to try and protect him and deflect attention away from him because he really was unbussable. So yeah, that was that. I felt bad for Xtoxm because I enjoy playing with the guy but it was either him or epic lose and well, it had to be him lol. Sorry, Xtoxm.

Then Glork and I were also dependent on each other because at least one of me and him needed to be alive at endgame in order to win the game. So yeah, again, neither of us could really bus one another except for maybe further along in the game. I enjoyed playing with everyone, I was really happy to have Glork on my scum team since I was familiar with him from Mini 594, Satin Doll - he pretty much called the entire set-up from the get-go in the QT - and I'd love to play with any of you again, except hopefully next time I'll be town. Oh and when El Destructo replaced into the game, I thought "SHIT, that better not be Elmo and destructor" and well, it was haha. destructor knows me better than anyone else on the site and Elmo knows me very well too so yeah, I figured they would know I was scum and yeah, they pretty much did.

Good game, all and thanks for modding, OGML. =)

[Incognito]

Also, Incog was *incredible*. Best performance by a scum in a while.

Wow thanks a lot, Sim!

I was really quite surprised when you flipped as a Survivor. We thought that of the remaining what we thought to be pro-towners, you were the most town-ish and this was the reason we decided to kill you off (plus you along with charter and Tuberkulos were pushing for a dahill1-lynch during Day 2 but by that time, you seemed to have slightly more "voice" in the town when compared to those two, which was terrifying).

you guys are morons

Seriously, town was really bad this game. I would have won, too, if the bastards didn't dick me over: either I would have helped push a dahill lynch, which would have given the town a great chance, or I would have won with the scum.

Also, Incog was *incredible*. Best performance by a scum in a while.

In all fairness, if you had given us any reason to believe that you were a survivor, we wouldn't have touched you.

This is probably true -- Sim would have made the LyLo situation a bit easier numbers-wise, but I'm afraid he probably would have just continued pushing a dahill1-lynch, which would have made it more difficult for us to win in practice.

[Incognito]

Incog was good, though. I thought he was scum and tried to make a case on him day 2ish, but there was just nothing there that would have been convincing.

This actually worried me at first. I was quite shocked/relieved when you seemed to just drop it and was even more shocked/relieved during Day 3 when you began agreeing with some of the points I was making.