Mini 344 - Sesame Street Mafia (Over!)

[Mackay]

C is for Confirm!

[Mackay]

Oh, come on now. I haven't even started ranting yet!

[Mackay]

Ohhhh, I just realised you meant "confirmation" as in "confirming my presence in the thread", and not "confirm vote: Mackay". Never mind.

My mock-indignance stands, though.

[Mackay]

One page... TWO PAGES! AH AH AH AH AH!

*lightning crashes*

(slightly tipsy, nothing to add yet)
(ok, more that "slightly")

[Mackay]

Wow, stuff!

OK, reading through the jumble of events which have occurred since I last read the thread, here are my impressions (not guaranteed to make sense, I've been promoted from bar wench to part-time bar wench, part-time bar-supervising wench, and I've had about two hours of sleep followed by a very stressful day. OH THE PERFORMANCE ANXIETY!):

The Kain wagon interests me, particularly with regard to DiabolicalPenguin. Penguin (shortening the name to "DP" will just confuse me) stated that one of his reasons for suspecting Kain was that he was "behaving like Cookie Monster", and that he suspected Cookie Monster of being scum/SK.

Two things pique my interest here. The singling out of Cookie Monster as a villain, despite there being many characters with equally/more unwholesome traits (Scram!) or "creepy" demeanours (AH! AH! AH!) , and many who are just plain annoying - this is suspicious to me. Why Cookie Monster, when justifications could be made for almost any character being evil?

The second is simple curiosity:

C is for Confirm!

C is for Confirm!

And that's good enough for me!

C is for Confirm!

And that's good enough for me!

Oooooohh, confirm confirm confirm starts with C.

To the "why single out Cookie Monster?", which is admittedly shaky, I now add a rather stronger "why single out Kain?" There were several people making Cookie Monster references. Why choose one of several people behaving like Cookie and vote for them particularly, under the suspicion that they are indeed that character? Particularly given the fact that you would think scum would be trying

not

to behave like their character. (Though as I said before, there are any number of justifications which could be made for any character's being evil, so in this particular game, that sentiment does not stand so strongly).

I cannot decide whether this makes Kain look more or less suspicious, to be honest, because it turns into WIFOM the minute I try to mull it over. I could imagine a scum setting up his buddy to make himself look more innocent, or I can imagine people just throwing out ideas for villains, or I can imagine scum trying to cloud the judgment of the town by proposing incorrect villains, or even betraying inside information by inadvertently revealing the kind of character who is in their group. Either way, in my mind, there are more scummy explanations for Penguin's behaviour than non-scummy regardless of Kain's alignment, and I shall

vote: Diabolical Penguin.

I tried to write more here, but it's turning out as babble. More to come after I get a good night's sleep.

[Mackay]

-Why you don't like what Glork called apathy on Kain's part. I thought it was pretty obvious and merited...

Really? Because I thought it was slash who was being apathetic, just like Thok (and Glork) said. Kain is being a lot of things (defensive, erratic, downright nonsensical), but "apathetic" is certainly not one of them - his earlier defensiveness alone speaks to the contrary - and I don't think Glork said anything of the sort. If I am mistaken, please point me to where he stated that Kain was being apathetic. Otherwise, I shall be forced to modify my "

FOS Quagmire

for agreeing with something I don't believe was stated" (seems like an attempt to blend in with Thok and Glork, two of the more experienced/prolific players here) to become an "FOS Quagmire for

misrepresenting what somebody said

, and then agreeing with it in an attempt to perhaps pass the blame for a mislynch".

The rest of the post is valid, though the ending is a little WIFOM. =)

Other things:

Foolster's behaviour is becoming increasingly puzzling and suspicious. I do not understand his comment about the "apathy" - Foolster, do you mean you don't like it as a reason for voting, or you don't like that slash is apathetic? It seems his meaning was the former, and that makes me uneasy. He seems to be doing a lot of attempting to thwart bandwagons/suspicions, without really giving us anything new to work with. I was suspicious of a connection between him and Kain, but now he's defending(?) Slash as well, and I don't know what to think. I just know I don't like it. =)

If I were to suspect Glork of being in league with anybody, it would be Penguin, not Thok. This is mostly due to an offhand, almost chastening comment he made in Penguin's general direction, when Penguin was voting for the same person he was. Aha, found it.

I'm not a fan of anybody voting for anyone else because of a supposed role name. That's a little bogus, IMHO.

Seemed like a subtle distancing, or a subtle correction - probably because of the vagueness of its execution, and the fact he removed his Kain vote not long afterward. However, this is probably mainly suspicious to me through association, due to my suspicion of Penguin. Nonetheless, if Penguin comes up scum I'll be looking in Glork's direction, and vice versa.

[Mackay]

But Mackay, I think Quag made an honest typo. Not sure why you'd FoS him there.

Oh sh*t. Would you believe I didn't even consider that?

I'd un-FOS, but "Uh oh, another game with Quagmire". Besides, I'd like him to clarify that it was indeed a typo.

Too tired from work to post anything with actual content (my first official day as a supervisor! Yay!) but I couldn't leave that particular point un-responded-to.

[Mackay]

What is the vote count?

And why does the action always happen when I'm asleep?!

Sorry to be an inconvenience, Glork, but where was the first time Foolster said the wrong person? Considering the fact that I jumped upon Quagmire over something similar, I'm rather embarrassed to have missed it from somebody I find more suspicious. (Also, trying to rule out the possibility that

you

got some people confused. ) The thing that I find most suspicious is the fact that he's apologising for mistakes I don't remember him making. Seems like backpedaling scum to me.

I find Foolster

far

more suspicious if he

didn't

make the mistake twice. A quick scan through his posts doesn't really show me anything, and who has reason to make excuses for something they didn't say? Someone who is willing to take other people's word as truth with regard to what they have or haven't said. Someone who is

lying

, and is more interested in backpedalling/taking the heat off than getting to the facts.

If you were indeed mistaken, Glork, I will be voting for Foolster once we get some info/a vote count. The current main argument against him has a lot of merit. I'd most likely be voting him anyway if it weren't for the fact that I don't know the number of votes he's got on him, and I don't want to speed-hammer.

Off to work again. I'll hopefully read and post in more depth over my days off (the day after tomorrow is my first), because I feel like I'm not involved enough at the moment. (I know I'm making posts of substance, but I've only been responding properly to whichever single point is standing out to me

most

at any given time, so I still feel like a slacker. Anyone who's been in a game with me in the last year or so knows my posts tend to be a LOT longer. )

[Mackay]

It's my day off (yay!), and I'm composing a post as I re-read. Therefore, it will probably not be very coherent, as I'm just starting paragraphs with people who set off alarms and adding to them as I continue reading. Most likely a lot of this will have already been said, so forgive me. I will say it anyway, because they're my impressions, and knowing anybody's thoughts (even belatedly) is of benefit.

I am finding this game really hard to follow, I'm not sure if it's that I'm not able to check up as frequently as I would normally do or simply the fact that every time I go to sleep the current discussion and bandwagon are derailed and hauled off in a new direction by the time I wake up again. Yes, Glork, I'm looking at you. It's good, though, I get the feeling that today's discussion will yield some excellent results later on.

Glork still makes me uncomfortable, though. I get the feeling he's leading the town, or at least attempting to, which is an Extremely Dangerous Weapon in the hands of a mafioso. I love day 1 chaos with a passion (and perhaps my discomfort is simply petulance at my not being in the thick of it), but the very... erratic style of his attacks is making me uneasy. I have not yet relinquished the idea of a connection between himself and Penguin, particularly given the relative inconsequence of his attack on that front.

This quote is niggling, also:

@ Yos regarding the pariings/vote thing... I'm glad someone followed through on the loose implication I was making. ++ points for you, sir!

Unvote Yosarian2
Vote: Foolster

GO GO BANDWAGON!

Throwing out suspicions/implications, then coming back to vote after someone's picked up on them? Ouch. This makes me paranoid. It really feels like someone trying to get a bandwagon started without being the person who actively

"started"

it. Even as I'm writing this, I'm thinking of a counterargument: this is Glork, he's already started about fifteen bandwagons on his own. It would be

more

suspicious, then, coming from somebody else, but is suspicious nonetheless.

One more Glork quote, of no relevance whatsoever.

Amend my opinion on Mackay. She's neutral right now... she's a very logical poster, which appeals to me, but that doesn't mean she isn't scum.

Please tell that to Antrax. He is very set in his idea that I am an emotionally-based person and player.

Quagmire has stated that his post which I jumped on was a typo, and that's fair enough. But re-reading it, it still makes me unhappy. It's just the "obvious and merited" part of his post, I think. If it were that obvious, why was he thinking of the incorrect person? It seemed as though he was just trying to agree with the most verbal section of the town. My suspicions are not entirely allayed by the fact that my assumption was mistaken, because he sounds like he could simply be agreeing with others in order to stay under the radar.

Twito's post here:

Trying to frame some character to be scum is scummy. +That if character actually were really scummy the players wouldn't let others know he is that character. Also you are on the biggest bandwagon with this reason.
Luckily I'm already voting you.

Then again Kain does look suspicious..
But I simply don't like the reasoning behind Pinquins vote on him.

Actually I'm kinda drifting between whether to vote Pinquin or Kain..

is another which reeks of indecision/apathy/follow-the-majority.

Oh, here's one which changes my mind. Emphasis mine:

Shitload of conversation but to me Foolster and Slash strike as mason group.

Or Foolster has investigation on Slash.

Or scum group but I don't think so. I don't see any other reason why he would so directly protect Slash and attack players attacking Slash.

The game started in Day, and I'm going to assume that if he had a night action, he'd have noticed this and realised that cop investigations are not possible. I'm tentatively chalking Twito up as vanilla for now. So... uh... never mind.

Haha, while I'm quoting Twito, I just found this excerpt regarding a post of Thok's.

I always find this kind of posts scummy. You are basicly saying that either direction is fine with you and you will follow the one majority of town agrees with. And you are also giving excuse for you possibly coming bandwagoning.

This made me giggle, given the first post of his I quoted.

Foolster has been overly protective of both Kain and Slash all game, and that has made me suspect him strongly. I've been fooled that way before, though, because I tend to think anyone defending anyone else on day 1 must know something, when it's more just that not everybody is as paranoid as I am. I have just come across his defense against my earlier post regarding him,

What? The only things I apollogized for were things I was pretty sure I had done. What case did I apollogize for somehting I didn't do?

, and I have realised that his apology for messing up the names was not, in fact, in response to Glork's "That's twice you've messed up the names now" (which he didn't do), but in response to a post from someone else regarding his

actual

mess-up of the names. Which was quoted in the same post. So, in conclusion, I'm a huge dork. There is not much left to stand on here, I guess, but I'd still keep an eye on him if

Slash

Kain (modified upon seeing Kain's "small FOS"), in particular, turns up scum. And vice versa.

I wasn't too concerned about Arafax until "Since you all think that there may be a connection between myself and Foolster, then let's vote him off..." and it all goes downhill from there. An "Ernie" claim works for me, though, so I'm not going to vote for him unless there is some kind of counterclaim. The main danger I would suspect is that Bert and Ernie are not, in fact, good guys in this game. But until the game pans out a little, I'm not prepared to risk a potential mason due to my paranoid speculation.

I have no distinct impression of Thok or Joker, I am mildly concerned about Slash, and my suspicion of Penguin has been covered and promptly ignored, though Glork attacked him later on.

The re-read has mostly confused me further, I'll probably go through and filter everyone by user also, particularly those who I barely noticed in the chaos (the couple I mentioned above, and anyone I haven't mentioned at all and therefore obviously have not noticed).

[Mackay]

A question for Arafax and Twito: Who do you find most suspicious, and why? I know you've both mentioned suspicions before, but it's always nice to have them clarified.

While I trust neither of them 100%, I trust both more than everyone else so far for now - one has a believable claim, and the other made a vanilla-townie blunder which seemed, to me, to be ingenuous. This is a good opportunity to get a point of view which is (hopefully) slightly more trustworthy/less clouded by sinister motives.

[Mackay]

Sorry for my absence - I had a busy weekend and you guys are posting like mad - good job and far better than the opposite.

So now I join Arafax, Mackay, Kain, Foolster and Yos as people Glork has voted for day one - we should form some sort of support group

So, Glork, are you saying that as scum you:

Random voted using a crappy arguement,
Pointed out that the arguement was crappy when you made it,
Mentioned that the arguement wasn't even enough to convice you, yourself, to lynch,
and you still got the lynch? I didn't think so. I was not trying to get Kain lynched.

It never would occur to me to leave a backdoor out on a random vote, and that's 99% of what that vote was, random. I put as much stock in the cookie theft as I did in the cookie-monstering. Were any of you actually persuaded by that arguement?

And by what voodoo gorilla math is 4/7 close to a lynch? That's ~57% - barely more than halfway to a lynch. The discussion was interesting and Kain was never in danger from my vote.

I'm going to try to catch up with the rest of the game, and hopefully have more to add later today.

Penguin, if you were not trying to get Kain lynched, why did you suggest both Kain as Cookie Monster (particularly given the number of people making Cookie jokes), and that Cookie Monster was probably evil, in the post containing your vote?

In response to your question, no, I was not persuaded by your "argument". However, the speculation did

not

strike me as lighthearted or non-serious. It contained a lot of disclaimers, but I feel that you were making the suggestion in seriousness, possibly hoping for people to pick up on it.

You will notice that my vote has not yet moved for this reason. Your latest post does not improve the situation:

a) Attacking Glork's behaviour does not make yours look any better.

b) Downplaying the significance of your vote 1: in terms of your seriousness regarding the "reasoning" you used behind it.

I voted Kain because he stole my cookie - anti-social behavior if I've ever seen it.

That, and he's behaving like cookie-monster. All the muppets are lovable, and none really bad, but if I had to guess, I'd pick cookie monster for scum/SK.

Of course this was not and is not a vote to lynch, but the mini-bandwagon is generating some interesting discussion. I don't know if Kain is cookie-monster, or if cookie-monster is bad, but it's slightly better than random.

I'll leave my vote where it is for the moment.

This does not read as though you were putting no stock in it, particularly your speculation regarding Cookie's alignment. Why make such a speculation and tie it specifically to one person if, as you stated, you were not voting to lynch? Particularly when the one potential Cookie you chose from several happened to be the one with three votes already upon him?

c) Downplaying the significance of your vote 2: in terms of danger to the victim. While you may feel that the danger was slight, "...Kain was never in danger from my vote" is certainly a lie.
"Barely more than halfway to a lynch" is misleading, as is your use of percentages in the first place. In a game this size, there are simply not enough people to pull that crap. If you want to put it in your terms, just one more vote would have put it up to ~71% of a lynch. "Barely more than halfway" in a small game is a pretty serious thing. What if it were only 5 to lynch? 60% is

barely more

than 57% - is three votes when it takes five to lynch also no danger?

It was three to lynch. Not particularly dire, in a mini, but far from the danger-free situation you make it out to be. My apologies for using "voodoo gorilla math", but your little statistics strike me as

incredibly

disingenuous.

Yes, I am happy with my vote.

[Mackay]

Penguin:

My apologies - my mistake on the voting pattern, I had it in my head that you voted around the same time you made the post I quoted above (regarding the "Cookie Monster" theory). I maintain my beliefs from the previous post, but all allusions to your having voted should be amended to your having retained said vote.

My issue with your 57% was not that you used percentages. My issue was that you used the percentages in an effort to downplay your behaviour, naming 57% as "barely more than half" and stating that "Kain was in no danger from [your] vote". I do not oppose people's number-crunching, but I take exception to your calling your behaviour "proper application". There was no benefit to your numbers, they were simply used as an instrument to aid in your exaggeration of Kain's 'safety'.

Again:
* If you put no stock in the Cookie Monster theory, why present it in a serious manner at all?
* If your vote "was not and is not a vote to lynch" Kain, then why did you present a tenuous theory which painted him as scum, while you were on the bandwagon?

[Mackay]

One more Glork quote, of no relevance whatsoever.Quote:
Amend my opinion on Mackay. She's neutral right now... she's a very logical poster, which appeals to me, but that doesn't mean she isn't scum.
Please tell that to Antrax. He is very set in his idea that I am an emotionally-based person and player.

Are you talking about me here???...If so, what are you talking about?...I don't understand what you're saying...Thanks!

As for now, I still find Glork the scummiest...He has attacked a ton of players...However, this may just be his play-style...I'm not sure.....If Glork were to be scum, I would quickly look to thok...He has followed Glork a ton without his own thinking...Very scummy IMO.

I am also always keeping an eye on those who do not post...I will check later, but I am curious to see how much slash & quagmire have posted elsewhere on the site, but have conviently forgotten to post here...I lynch all lurkers!

Promise to post more later...Thanks!

Antrax is a separate person. He's very well-known on the GL, but I'm not sure how much time he spends on scum anymore (except when he shows up to mod awesome games). Sorry for the confusion - I just kinda assumed he was well-known here.

I appreciate the input and will take it into account...Thanks!

[Mackay]

I think you mean slash, not Penguin, as Penguin posted directly above you.

Speaking of whom:

I can't see why you think I was lying when I said it was not a vote meant to lynch.

Because you made what looked to me like an attempt to push the bandwagon along when he was already at four votes. Your original reason for voting was that he stole your cookie (pseudo-random), yes? Adding additional speculations slanted toward Kain's guilt was unnecessary, and yes, seemed geared toward an attempted lynch.

[Mackay]

Arafax, you will find the main content of my suspicion higher up on this page - post 206 and onward.

However, a light bulb has just pinged on above my head regarding Penguin. I actually think I am going to

unvote

.

Penguin defended himself to my satisfaction and was reasonable about it, my last post from earlier was simply responding to his question than any fresh feeling that he needed to be attacked. His responses have come across as quite honest in tone, and something suddenly tells me I'm fairly well on the wrong track.

I might go do that filter-by-user now.

[Mackay]

I do not explicitly trust Penguin, and I found his earlier behaviour very suspicious. But an idea/suspicion just occurred to me that makes me think that he is not the best choice for my vote. I would rather not clarify any further, sorry.

[Mackay]

You choose not to clarfiry yourself right now? RATHER CONVENIENT. You have been a rather logical poster however so Im assuming there is really a PROTOWN reason behind this hidden clarification you hold.

If I have a suspicion about someone's role, is it my place to publicly state it? What if someone hints at being the doctor? Should I say "HAY GUYZ I TIHNK X IS DOCTOR SO DONT VOTE HIM KTHX"? Read the thread. You might reach the same conclusion I did, I fear I have made it too obvious already. (note: I don't think Penguin is doc. I'm not

that

obvious.)

Come on people- Glork probably isnt scum. There's no way he would be this bold as a scum player. Its just rightly insane enough for Glorks playing style right?( polling people that have played with glork b4)

Oh geez, Kain. As if I wasn't suspicious enough of Glork already, you do this just as you're starting to look evil to me. Puts a whole different spin on our day's first bandwagon if the two of you are paired up.

Glork, exactly what was it that made you decide to remove your vote from Kain at the beginning of today? (I just had to delete the majority of this paragraph, I had thought you said somewhere toward the end of his bandwagon that his struggles appeared pro-town. Evidently it was someone else, as a quick filter-by-user did not bring this to light.)

Anyway, Kain, I disagree. Not due to Glork's aggressiveness, which I believe is equally likely to manifest in either scum or town, but what still appears to me like an attempt to lead the town, particularly in the early stages of today. I think that that is the single thing today which has most rubbed me the wrong way. I'd also like to know why, of the bandwagons today, he has only requested/suggested a claim from Arafax.

I think... I will...

vote Glork

. (I've changed this line from Glork to Kain to Glork to Kain... etc, about twenty times in the last five minutes. My gut finds Glork scummier but a Kain lynch yields more info. Ah, now I've just changed it back to Glork after reading that sentence. As someone said, day 1 lynches should be about who one finds scummiest.... Argh.)

[Mackay]

I'd like you to explain, completely yet concisely, why my level of aggression is scummy.

Agression just comes off as scummy...I'm sure that I am not the first or the last person to tell you that...It's as simple as that to me...You also come off scummy with Thok following you...It's not like Thok is a noob who would just blindly follow, so my thinking is that he is trying to reinforce what you're saying...That's why you're scummy IMHO.

Honestly, I disagree about a link between Thok and Glork for this very reason. I think that both are experienced enough that a) Glork doesn't

need

another player to support/reinforce his views, and b) Thok is DEFINITELY experienced enough not to tie himself to his partner so blatantly.

This is... actually, it speaks far worse for Thok than it does for Glork. I wish I had seen this before I made my last post. I am reminded of the mafia tactic of tying themselves to someone for this very reason, which I've seen played out by some very experienced players, it works particularly well for avoiding the suspicion of

other

experienced players, as everyone gets a

bit

of a blind spot when someone is agreeing with them.

The "contradiction" is interesting, although you took it rather out of context, which never fails to make me suspicious.

Two thoughts about the claim

First

We'll be starting in Day. I'll send out roles here in a few minutes. Please confirm in thread and begin talking!

NOTE:

That means that mafia can't talk till after today. Plan accordingly.

This may or may not mean that we have masons, as GL didn't specifically mention that masons would have to wait to tonight to talk. I'm not sure whether GL would specifcally choose to either mention or not mention a mason group in such a post (or alternatively make a comment that specifically makes such things ambivalent). I don't think I'm ready to try to outguess the mod on such a subject yet.

Second, I'm not entirely convinced that keeping your "mason" partner hidden is a good thing, since much of the case against you was based on connections between people.

This is his first quote regarding the situation, and I feel that this is a very valid idea. You

were

behaving scummily, personally I felt even moreso after you made the mason claim.

Here are the next two posts.

On the one hand, he seems scummy, on the other hand I'm really worried he may just be playing badly and risking a loss of a mason group.

Can you tell me what exactly you think that I am doing that is so bad?...Thanks!

Well let's see. From my point of view there's the obsession with lurkers which seems almost a higher concern then what's happening in the thread. There's the constant attempts to link me with Glork, even though I've clearly fought with Glork in the thread. You've claimed I've blindly followed Glork without reasoning, although I've provided reasoning for all of my nonKain votes, I didn't follow Glork in attacking DPenguin, and I was the one who initated the attack on slash, which was how all of this started. (Also, why are you more willing to vote the leader then the follower?)

Finally, I've checked and everybody in the game has either asked if your mason partner will come out, or has attacked you, or has been attacked by you. So who's your mason partner?

Finally, I've checked and everybody in the game has either asked if your mason partner will come out, or has attacked you, or has been attacked by you. So who's your mason partner?

I fail to see how it's advantageus for the town to out his mason partner this early in the game.
I can see the advance for scum though. Through eliminating less important roles they can find out the important pro-town roles.

I'm pointing out a potential flaw in his mason claim. If Arafax is a mason, his partner shouldn't come out. But we shouldn't just assume that Arafax is a mason.

(I've been known to attack people if I feel their scumminess overwhelms their proposed claim; I attacked broomhead even after he claimed hero in Kingmaker and Echo after he claimed doctor day 1 in Newbie 241. Both times I was town and the person I was attacking was scum.)

(Also, why are you more willing to vote the leader then the follower?)

You seem to be the follower and I'm more willing to vote the follower.

You'll notice that I'm not attacking you for that Twito. I'm quite happy with what I see of your play.

The first questions the honesty of your claim. I'm not even particularly sure that he genuinely wanted you to reveal your partner, I think that it was more reinforcing the fact that he is absolutely not going to trust you simply upon the basis of that claim.

The second is simply stating logically that a mason partner

shouldn't

come out.

The thing which makes me uneasy about this pair of posts - related, but slightly different - is the underlying logic, which seems to be something like "don't trust him unless his mason partner comes out - which they shouldn't", and reads as though he is basically instructing the town not to trust the claim.

However, he actually does state that blatantly. It doesn't seem like some kind of hidden agenda, he's publicly said that he doesn't trust you. And that makes it seem less dangerous to me, as does the fact that you, Arafax, quoted Thok in a dishonest fashion to get a cheap "contradiction". You get off this time because of your claim, but if you make another dishonest argument you will have my vote. It's a policy of mine. I do not feel that pro-town players should have the need to slant people's posts/beliefs/actions in order to achieve a lynch, if they genuinely feel that it is the correct action to undertake.

So basically: the shadowing of Glork makes Thok suspicious, the "contradiction" is mostly BS. I am glad I went back to look for myself, because I was beginning to doubt, there.

FOS: Arafax

. Don't do it again.

[Mackay]

Whee simulpost. I think by "they", he was simply being non-gender-specific.

Though I think I'm the only girl in the game.

[Mackay]

My above post was directed at Twito.

[Mackay]

Mackay: I've read back through my posts and I think I see what I think you saw, but if you are thinking what I think you're thinking, it is inaccurate. But that was some impressive fine-toothed reading.

A question for Arafax and Twito: Who do you find most suspicious, and why? I know you've both mentioned suspicions before, but it's always nice to have them clarified.

While I trust neither of them 100%, I trust both more than everyone else so far for now - one has a believable claim, and the other made a vanilla-townie blunder which seemed, to me, to be ingenuous. This is a good opportunity to get a point of view which is (hopefully) slightly more trustworthy/less clouded by sinister motives.

What was it about Arafax's claim that put him in your top-2-trusted?
Since then, you've FOSed him - has your opinion changed?

Penguin, I'm sorry to do this, but

unvote: Glork, vote: Diabolical Penguin

. If you're not what I thought you were, I have no reason to think you're innocent. And after you were so goshdarned honest about it, too.

Because I'm being berated for saying that I had a suspicion (apologies for that, but Foolster asked me to elaborate upon my sudden unvote, and I didn't know what else to say except the truth), may I now tell the town what I believed?

Re: Arafax - it was the fact that I would think Ernie is likely to be in the game, and a very bold claim for an evil person to make, because at some stage he's going to need to be backed up. That is why I trusted the claim.

The FOS was for dishonesty in his posting. He quoted Thok out of context in order to gain ammunition, which is something I feel that no pro-town player should ever need to do. My opinion of the

claim

remains the same, but I am suspicious of Arafax himself, and to be honest I wouldn't mind hearing from his partner myself. I'm not going to support an Arafax lynch, and I'm not going to push for the partner reveal, but I no longer trust in his innocence, and will not do so until we have his confirmation.

By the way, Arafax? Do what you want, sorry it hurt your feelings so badly to be called out on cruddy behaviour, but just know that any dishonest behaviour

will

get a vote from me, no matter what your claim is...THANKS!!!

Thirding the prodding of Slash.

[Mackay]

Whoops, I read Glork's post this morning before I went to work, and therefore didn't think of it as a "post since I was last here". I'll respond now.

Why did I move it from Kain? I think the answer should be obvious. It's because I had gotten the reactions I wanted to see. Kain sorta freaked out and thought he was honestly being lynched with no basis whatsoever. Foolster calmly and repeatedly asked why I was so insistent that Kain was scum. (In retrospect, now that I glance over his posts, he does a little bit of fishing -- he asks how I could be so certain of Kain's scumminess if we haven't had a night, and he wonders if I might have some role information.) Thok wagoned with me, and Yosarian affirmed his vote based on Kain's reactions. I had no intention of forcing a claim out of Kain or having him lynched... like Fool pointed out, possibly outing power roles over nothing is pretty stupid. So once I got the info I wanted, I moved away from Kain and onto Yos.

Yeah, this was fairly obvious... I should have deleted the entire paragraph. The question made more sense when I thought you had said Kain seemed pro-town.

Leading the town? Hmm... like Arafax's "aggress this isn't really an argument I can combat one way or another. Sometimes I get aggressive and push people towards my agendas. Other times I sit back and observe patiently. Since I don't believe we've played a game together, all I can really do is point to Cultural Revolution Mafia (still ongoing, but my part in the game has long since been over). CES and I took a very aggressive style and it helped out four scumbags -- an SK, a scum recruit, and two scum recruiters. We definitely pushed the lynches we wanted to see and got players bandwagoning. It's a viable pro-town strategy, and it's one that I employ from time to time.

I am not against aggressive play. My own playstyle is hugely variable, and seems to mostly depend upon the mood I'm in when the game starts (I tend to maintain the same tone most of the way through).

What makes me think you are attempting to lead the town is the way you have set yourself up with quotes such as (My apologies in advance, these are not entire posts, but as snippets go they are fairly irrelevant, so I hope I don't take anything out of context. Also, I hope it doesn't offend):

Yosarian is more likely to be scum than Thok is.

Talking in certainties. Stating things as fact. It sounds silly, but speaking in this way

does

tend to make people believe things more easily, presumably because they're being stated so confidently.

Yes, being apathatic in early-game is a reasonable scumtell. Nice catch, Thok.

Patronising. "Rewarding" Thok for agreeing with him.

Yes, Yos, it can be a scumtell. Note how I explained why Foolster's post was shoddy and proceeded to FoS him at the end of my post. (I decided it was FOS-worthy as I continued writing my post.)

Instructive.

@ Yos regarding the pariings/vote thing... I'm glad someone followed through on the loose implication I was making. ++ points for you, sir!

Patronising, and also taking credit for ideas, or people's having stated them. He is praising Yos for agreeing with him.

Day One is all about lynch the scummiest individual player, especially when we have no night information to go on. It is not about "find a possible connection and see if we were right." You know what I was the only two times I remember doing that? Scum.

Instructive/imperative. Discouraging talk of connections (sorry to burst your bubble, but it's a huge part of how I play, scum or town, and by Thok's posting it seems that it is a large part of his too. In my experience I've found Day 1 to be one of the

best

for making connections, as people try to find their place in the game).

Arafax is the play today. Based on that result, we progress and figure out who is scum.

Instructive/imperative, and I stopped finding examples right here because

HOLY CRAP DID YOU READ WHAT I JUST READ?

I'll post the entire post for context, bolding the part that caught my eye.

They think there is a connection. I am not ready or willing to make that connection yet. But I affirmed that I understand why *THEY* are making that connection.

Maybe I missed this, but could you answer the question that I directed to you in post #151?...Thanks!

I said to Thok when he asked me about a possible Fool-Ara connection: I re-read the thread, took a special look at Foolster's posts, and decided he was probably innocent. It's the style of his posting, the way he's interacted with others, and the way others have attacked (or at least posted) about him.


I think that Arafax is probably scum who was hoping to get a lynch on Foolster earlier. I definitely think that Arafax-scum leans heavily towards ThokScum. The whole "I think Fool/Ara might have a connection. I'd rather lynch Fool, but if you want to lynch Ara, I can go along with it" bit bothers me.... on one hand, if we lynch Fool as town, we lose a townie. On the other hand, if we lynch Arafax as scum, Thok's already planting the seeds of what he wants to be the next lynch.


Arafax is the play today. Based on that result, we progress and

figure out who is scum.

Meaning

you know Arafax isn't?

unvote: Penguin, vote: Glork.

[Mackay]

I had thought that Penguin was Arafax' mason partner. That is why I removed my vote so abruptly. Something in the tone of Arafax' post where he mentioned that he's "not seeing the DP scumminess" made me think it was a subtle-but-not-too-subtle allusion to this connection.

Not much else to say, it's past my bedtime and I work in the morning. (Not relevant, but seeing as I've been updating anyway, I'll probably be asking to be demoted again tomorrow. Sadly, it's nothing to do with its interfering with my mafia play. )

[Mackay]

Mackay, you're reading far too much into that line. I said that based on Arafax's result, we could progress and figure out who is scum. Does that exclude the possibility that Arafax is one of the scum identities we would discern from an Arafax lynch?


Absolutely not.


If Arafax was scum, we'd know that he was scum and follow the appropriate leads. If Arafax was not scum, then we'd likely be looking at the people who pushed and/or wagoned Arafax's lynch.

Perhaps I misread it. I have just noticed that I made one interpretation of many that could have been taken from that phrase. My apologies. But could you clarify the last section of the quoted post for me? I'm not sure I understand (admittedly my brain is not currently at its clearest) (not drunk this time - just sick and sleepless). I am content with my vote though, I hope that the examples were of some aid in explaining why I find you suspicious before I hit that one quote and flipped out - my original intent in making the post was to hopefully make it easier for you to defend against my perception that you were trying to take control of the town.

[Mackay]

I said that after we lynch Arafax, we could learn who the scum were.

Arafax is either scum, or he is not scum.

• If Arafax is scum, we have learned that Arafax was scum, and I'd be going after Thok most likely (though now Joker is an obvious secondary choice, given he claimed to be Arafax's mason-mate).
  
• If Arafax is not scum, we look at the people who fueled his wagon. Admittedly, I'd be one of those... but we could still figure out who is scum.

So that's how, regardless of Arafax's alignment, I thought his lynch would be good. It definitely would give us a lot of direction. (And I'm still not entirely sold on his mason claim. Joker's asking if the mason would come out, then his subsequent claim as Bert makes me a little uneasy.)

Alright. Just in the first one you didn't clarify that you meant "after the lynch". My insomnia-addled brain was crying "But how would we

know?

" Gotcha.