Open 81 - The New C9 - Game Over

[The Fonz]

Hi guys. Readthru coming.

[The Fonz]

Well, some thoughts:

Some people appear to be quite blind to what seems quite obviously a protown attempt to get the game moving by rofl with the arm/strife thing.

On rofl/armlx: Mafia players are an inquisitive bunch, rofl. You can't make a statement like that which begs the question 'how can he say such a thing at this stage?' and then attack anyone who asks you for rolefishing.
@Arm: re your list of three reasons, it's also possible he's a townie playing in the BJ/JDodge manner. More people should do this, actually, so that cops can feel free to breadcrumb.

(Incidentally- I tend to think that it might be a good meta, in games where there's no scum RB, for everyone to post each morning, 'If i were a cop, last night I would have investigated [Name], and got a [guilty/innocent] result.')

Don't like Iron Man random voting when there's actual discussion going on.

SC's 45: Apparently, you're not familiar with the scumhunting-by-assertion method.

armlx's 48: Disagree in the most fundamental way, but we've had this out enough times in MD.

BlakAdder's 49 looks very much like a piling on vote, to me.

52: No!

IM's 54: Stating that someone should claim is not rolefishing. Well, unless you fish with dynamite.

Arm's 56 basically says what i think re: Mason claims.

Rofl 62: WTF? No reason whatsoever to claim like that.

65: Actually worse is that mafia/SK now have the names of two players they know not to be cops.
Arm's 69: Why? It's a bit effing obvious who Rofl's partner was.

74: Yeah. With an SK out there, even if they were scum...

GS' 83: *headdesk*

87 Pings my scumdar like crazy

TV's 88:

Anyway, anyone suggesting roflcopter for today's lynch, under the circumstances and given his claim, should be hit in the head with a baseball bat.

/volunteer

93: Yes, yes you can say that. Very easily in fact.

In regard to all: still attempting to attack the claimed masons is a nulltell, on the grounds that it's never going to possibly work.

109/110: These posts make me happy.

115 is a reach, imho.

117: WOW. Really?

119: It can never be 'obvious' a vote is not omgus, since players never think reasons given against themselves are good.

120: Don't like SC's repeated use of FOSes and the like. Just a stylistic thing really- I just see them as a substitute for real content.

142: I'd normally see this as trying to shift, were vamparific not so blatantly scummy. But the VT claim? WTF? Totally unneccessary. Great job, guys. If FL is town, we now have three different players the mafia know aren't cop/doc/vig.

144: No, Greasy, no. Because were they ever wagonned, they could have claimed then, and we wouldn't have lynched them. So them claiming now doesn't actually reduce the chances of mislynch at all.

151: Or D), you find something scummy about their actions, but can't quite put it into words yet.

153-7: I'm having the same discussion in another ongoing game.

170: Not sure what to make of an opportunistic-looking vote on an opportunistic-looking player.

180: Vamparific clearly needs to be policy-wagonned into contributing properly.

195: I am amused by GS accusing anyone else of idiocy.

198 is good. Pissed off at her claim, but not actually feeling the FL wagon at all.

232: Korts should post in MD more. On the subject of his 'mistake' in general... well, i've been known to chastise people in-thread for giving away that they don't have a particular role. Unless something else comes up, inclined to believe him for now.

Rofl 242:

translation: pssst. hey scumbuddies, remember there might be a second doctor.

Yes, because he couldn't, you know, tell 'em that at night or anything.

244: Don't like how the Vamp wagon's dissipating without Vamp actually DOING anything.

250: WRONG! There is a time and a place for policy lynches. Also, Vamp's play is actually scummy.

279: is correct. THere's nothing at all wrong with saying, i think X and Y have a connection, and we should look at Y if X is scum. The 'setting up lynches' tell works like:

Well, X and Y have been arguing a lot. One or other must be scum. Let's lynch one, then if he comes up town, lynch the other!

281: Good point.

288: My God, I hate the easy lynch argument.

FL 303-304: And I also hate posts like this. TL;DR. Blinding us with text, a la vollkan. FL, we don't need a summation of everything everyone's done in the game. Give us your top couple of suspects, and why. Also, if necessary, point out a popular wagon you disagree with and why.

305: Oh come off it.

316 is the first piece of genuine-looking scumhunting i've seen from strife.

338: Yeah, i see what Iam's getting at. If Greasy felt there was no case on

either

of them, why didn't he say so?

341: You're also a likely person to buddy up to, for the same reason.

362 is a VERY good point. Explanation, please, strife.

364: You really think it's scummy to disagree with the majority? Besides, vig-directing is not really scummy at all, as opposed to doc directing.

369: No, no we're not.

And after all that-

Vote: Sun Tzu,

for posting just enough not to stand out as an obv lurker, but doing very little in the way of moving the game forward.

[The Fonz]

Coug:

1 Why are you HoSing someone for a game theory opinion?
2 Why are you HoSing at all when your vote is currently sitting idle?
3 Would you say it is fair to describe your play today as jumping, tarzan-style, from popular wagon to popular wagon?

[The Fonz]

1. If it's an opinion, it's a harsh one, and he didn't explain why he thinks so.

And the reason for this is we're trying not to get into a discussion of whether vigging like that is good, to avoid outing the vig!

2. Because I don't feel that the comment, in and of itself, warrants a vote.

Then what does? At this stage of a game, you should be voting your top suspect.

3. I have admitted to bandwagoning, so it makes some sense.

Bandwagonning is a lot more effective when you use your vote. Like so:

unvote, Vote SC

What you seem to have been doing is throwing FOSes around like confetti, which I don't think is helpful to town.

[The Fonz]

FL 303-304: And I also hate posts like this. TL;DR. Blinding us with text, a la vollkan. FL, we don't need a summation of everything everyone's done in the game. Give us your top couple of suspects, and why. Also, if necessary, point out a popular wagon you disagree with and why.

You should know how much a summary opens people's eyes. It's as much for me as it is for everyone. The fact that I SEPARATE my thoughts from the summary, .

Well, quite obviously, when I said that it was too long and didn't read it, it meant that I didn't read it, so I didn't see your 'thoughts.' But regardless- if you want to take notes, do it in a notepad file. Life is too short to read megaposts, and also, there's this insidious habit on MS of going, 'Oooh, (s)he made a really really long post, she's clearly analysing deeply, must be town then.' Which is a) wrong, and b) deeply annoying, since it causes them to proliferate. Lingustic dreadnaughts suck all the fun outta mafia imho.

Beyond that, I just don't think it's protown to make a list of all the players. Think about it- if everyone did it, then the mafia would have a perfect picture of who isn't really under suspicion from anyone, to make a better informed nightkill.

362 is a VERY good point. Explanation, please, strife.

364: You really think it's scummy to disagree with the majority? Besides, vig-directing is not really scummy at all, as opposed to doc directing.

Disagreeing with the majority is fine, but trying to over-ride the majority is not. It looks like a defense to me when 5 players say "Vamp is definitely the best vig target" and IAUN says "GS is a very good vig target" afterwards. It's defending Vamp by trying to convince the vig to follow his suggestion over the majority's.

So, again, you're taking issue with expressing a different opinion to a number of other players (not actually a majority).

And I do think that directing the vig is bad. The vig knows that he is town, and thus any decision he makes should be pro-town. Unless an exceptional case can be made that the vig might not have seen himself, or a town majority advices it (in which case the vig doesn't have to worry if he's being mislead by scum), the vig should be plenty capable on his own. If he does listen to others, he's at risk of being convinced by scum to kill the player of his choice, which leaves said scum's hands blood-free of that townies death.

Sure, but what's wrong with expressing an opinion on who needs to die? It's not like the vig is bound to listen. The only real problem i see with it is that if everyone expresses an opinion on who to vig, the vig basically has to either lie, or gives himself away by his choice. For instance, if, say, armlx says that Greasy Spot would be a horrible vig choice, and the vig then kills GS, it's pretty obvious it isn't armlx, isn't it?

You can paint this how you like, but your argument still boils down to 'It is scummy to express a preference for the vig kill, but only if you disagree with the most popular opinion.'

So, why is a single person directing the vig kill (when a 'majority' has essentially been decided) pro-town?

Again, how is he in particular 'directing' it? He is giving his opinion on who a good vig target would be. There hasn't been a majority, and furthermore, in this game of mafia, it is the EFFING IDEA that people attempt to convince a majority that their ideas are correct. Majorities are not static things. What if Vamp's replacement comes in and does some really sound scumhunting? Is the vig to be bound to still kill the replacement because a handful of people voiced support for the idea earlier?

A rather more pertinent point, I think, is why Iam is suggesting a vigging, and not using his vote and tryin to convince people to wagon greasy.

On a different note,

FL 303-304: And I also hate posts like this. TL;DR. Blinding us with text, a la vollkan. FL, we don't need a summation of everything everyone's done in the game. Give us your top couple of suspects, and why. Also, if necessary, point out a popular wagon you disagree with and why.

I don't like this kind of attack. Do you think FL typing out a summary before her suspicions was scummy? Anti-town? She did give her top suspects and nailed down an opinion on just about every player. I find it to be more than 'reaching' to attack her for that.[/quote]

I hate those kinda posts. I think they are detrimental to the town, and i will say so. Sue me.

[The Fonz]

I hate those kinda posts. I think they are detrimental to the town, and i will say so. Sue me.

Will do. If its a large post saying nothing, its scummy for being active lurking, if its a large post thats relevant, grow a pair and read.

There is basically nothing you can say in a post taking up half a page that you couldn't say in one which

doesn't

make the reader lose the will to live before they're half way through.

Or the chance the vig listens to people who aren't really playing for the town's best interest.

Sure, but who someone recommends for vigging is worthwhile information in the same manner as who they vote.

[The Fonz]

A rather more pertinent point, I think, is why Iam is suggesting a vigging, and not using his vote and tryin to convince people to wagon greasy.

Here, I'll answer this for you. He knows his argument against me won't hold water. He twisted what I said around and interpreted it into things I didn't say. When I didn't respond to some things he then twisted my no responses to mean whatever he wanted it to mean.

vote: iamausername

Can you give a specific example of something you've said, where you feel he has twisted it?

so, guys, which of {armlx, blakadder, iamausername} are we lynching today, and which of them is getting vigged tonight? these are important questions, and i need the rest of the pro-town majority to help me answer them.

You know what you're doing. Now, stop it.

Whether or not it's pro-town to direct the vig is becoming one of those 'my god take it to MD' topics.

I don't understand this (this is not the only post that includes this kind of complaints). The discussion about whether it is protown affects
- whether the vig will be directed in this game
- whether the directers/anti-directers have been trying to harm the town

If discussion about how this game should be played and has so far been played is forbidden, what IS ok to be posted? Claims, votes, that's it?

Other 'noise' arguments (arguments that become distracting after the first few posts) include whether or not lynching lurkers is pro-town, whether or not policy lynches are acceptable... when no-lynching is a good move,

I have to disagree with this. Any attempt to lynch a lurker or no-lynch is likely to lead to these topics being discussed, and there are undeniably scenarios in which either is a good move.

like confetti, which I don't think is helpful to town.

I'm trying to be as cautious as possible at this point, and voting Lowell just for speaking his mind about a power role, whether I like what he says or not, is making mountains out of molehills. [/quote]

Apart from 'trying to be cautious' is not in keeping with your earlier admitted bandwagon. Look, it's fairly simple: was Lowell your top suspect or not? If so, why wouldn't you vote him? HoS is stronger than FoS: I would only ever consider using it when i think i've found two scum, and only have one vote.

If Lowell wasn't your top suspect, why didn't you (pardon the French) stop dicking around, work out who was, and vote them?

All right, I honestly don't know who's the scummier bandwagoner anymore—you or me. I know what I am and I'm already voting for you, but I'd like to make this loud and clear for everybody:

AAARGH! FFS, you don't run around, going 'tee hee, I'm so scummy!' You do something about it. Or die. You know, whichever.

If discussion about how this game should be played and has so far been played is forbidden, what IS ok to be posted? Claims, votes, that's it?

Strawman.

Muerrto replaces Vamparific.

Dude, long time no see!

[The Fonz]

unvote

[The Fonz]

Well I can't let all the other claimers have

all

the fun. I am the Mafia Godfather. I will always show up innocent.

Actually, if some people would be willing to vote armlx, that'd be all kinds of great.

I will

vote: armix

. This is standard armix scum play.

The top part is clearly a joke. Period. Wagonning him on it makes no sense.

The actually interesting part of this post, which few people seem to have picked up on, is the second half. Given the amount of energy he's put into calling IAAUN scum so far, why is he unvoting him and going after someone else, with only one line's worth of explanation?

vote: Greasy Spot

I like the idea of taking out the masons first so we don't potentially lynch a Doc or Cop, or worse yet them claim on Day 1 for fear of being lynched.

So you think having a cop claim is worse than him being lynched? Eh? (This isn't scummy, just dumb).

But being the sucker I am for WIFOM, I'm not sold that he'd take such a ridiculous stance (kill masons) and pursue it for so long were he scum.

This stance is weakened by the fact that Muerrto himself pointed it out before anyone else.

And by the fact it's being made by Lowell, who was pushing an equally ridiculous suggestion earlier. Possibly providing himself with cover?

Basically, Muerrto is completely wrong. But so are those who are wagoning him for his game theory views. These are almost never tells (in fact, i'd go so far as to say that those who want to find scum tend to do it more than those who want to survive, since taking a controversial position will get you a lot of heat).

[The Fonz]

No, it really isn't. It's very hard to see how you could have dropped your suspicion of IAAUN so easily if it were genuine, and as strong as you seemed to be making out.

Also, you never did answer my question...

[The Fonz]

Name a specific instance in which you felt IAAUN distorted what you said.

[The Fonz]

I've read the case. I can't find a single instance where it seems obvious or even particularly likely that he misrepped you.

Look, you said there was no case on Strife. Then you said there was no difference between them. This, surely, means there was no case on armlx either? But then if that's what you thought, why didn't you say that? There is a contradiction there.

[The Fonz]

Korts never had more than three votes, and currently had one. So in short, a couple of people who were voting Korts voted someone else.

[The Fonz]

I'm here. Still waiting on GS to answer.

OK, so let's get back to the original point; why say you can't decide between armlx and strife when you did, in fact, think armlx was scummier?

Alternatively, if you didn't think either was scummier than the other, why specifically say that there was no case against strife?

PS, thanks for the OMGUS, I shall treasure it always.

I never said armix was scummier. What I said was at the time there wasn't even a case against strife so how could I possibly choose.

But if there's no case on Strife, either there's no case on armlx, or armlx is scummier, yes? someone who there is a case on is scummier than someone there is no case on, right? But you didn't say 'there's no case on either' you said 'There's no case on Strife.' But you also said there was no difference between the two. Ergo, you have contradicted yourself.

[The Fonz]

FOS Fonz

For someone who likes lurker lynches so much, your posts have been fairly sporadic.

14 posts in 13 days, including a five-day period I was v/la. That's hardly lurking, arm.

[The Fonz]

That's not uncharacteristic of my posting habits though... busy for a couple days, only get chance to make a few quick posts, then get a day off and do some hardcore catching up.

[The Fonz]

Again, Muerrto's game theory opinions are not a scumtell.

[The Fonz]

Just to make clear: I do not think the Blakadder lynch is optimal, but it's fine as a deadline lynch. There is some case against him.

[The Fonz]

Please note that Greasy is still posting in other games, so presumably replaced out due to being under suspicion, rather than because he didn't have time.

[The Fonz]

[quote="Lowell"]Assuming ^^^^ is true,

It's not as if it's difficult to verify yourself....

[The Fonz]

I kinda like the notion that Greasy seemed a) not to be able to notice the number of people in the signups, and b) took a month to work out that there were 20 people in the game.

[The Fonz]

I kinda like the notion that Greasy seemed a) not to be able to notice the number of people in the signups, and b) took a month to work out that there were 20 people in the game.

GS has a history of being a prick. See Killer Scarecrows from Vegas. I think ting deserves a chance, at least.

Hmmm. Yes.

Though I do think there's a not small likelihood that GS was deliberately distancing from a buddy, considering how strongly he represented his suspicions, and how quickly he ditched them.

[The Fonz]

@Ting:

There is more than semantics to the GS case. He implied there was a case on one but not the other, and yet said that there was nothing to choose between them. Fairly substantial contradiction imho.

[The Fonz]

I don't see any particular scumtells in muerrto.

That said: I wish you'd not declare your targets, since if they're town it means the scum know they don't have to bother targetting said player. If you keep your intentions under wraps, then the scum might hit the same target as you, wasting a kill.

[The Fonz]

A lot of people keep trying to portray mildly incorrect linguistic choices as scum slips.

Can't say I'm a fan.

[The Fonz]

Um...well that loses any suspiscion I had of GS/Ting.

Really? Because it increases mine. I really thought the manner in which GS pushed IAAUN before dropping it with no explanation looked like distancing.

[The Fonz]

for even thinking GS and IAUN were distancing. GS was ridiculously, stupidly plowing against IAUN. Distancing? C'mon.

But that's

exactly

why it's so plausible they were distancing. After all, who'd follow on IAUN's wagon based on GS's ridiculous, stupid case?

This. Also, the fact that if Greasy really were convinced himself, he wouldn't have dropped it without any comment whatsoever, as if it had been a random vote.

[The Fonz]

Find scum. You?

[The Fonz]

Post 794. I pointed out before that that GS

did

justify his switch. You either didn't read or you're deliberately lying to push the GS case. What are you trying to do?

Yes, and your question was scummy and leading. And frankly, the liar is you. You have never explained the following, a full re-read of all your posts reveal only the following references to GS, and post 794 was made by me.

525: SC, don't, you know, vig me. GS' joke does not sound funny to me, but it is a joke.

Fonz and Armlx start going for GS. The whole, 'iamusername never said..' 'gs never said..' is a semantics argument much like when armlx and korts got heated up over the whole, 'only' thing.

Incidentally, just because you say this is merely semantics, does not make it so. Greasy claimed that IAAUN was repeatedly misrepresenting him, but was not able to provide a single example.

Whew. Done. I think GS was being stubborn, not scum, and I think the arguments on him are nitpicking.

Again, the manner in which he dropped his vote does not indicate stubbornness to me. After all, don't stubborn people tend to stick to their arguments through hell and high water?

@armlx.
Sorry, it was Fonz and Korts who were going for GS, not you and Fonz.

And then the one where you try to pretend the whole 'case on one, but not the other' thing is semantics.

How does this include any explanation of the dropping of the vote on someone he's voted

five times?

The constant revoting indicates a strong belief IAAUN is scum. That he switches to someone else without even feeling the need to justify moving off the person he's been hounding for most of the day indicates that the attacks on IAAUN were not genuine.

I've seen plenty of occasions where someone's been convinced of another player's scumminess- where it's come from a town player, I've never seen the poster in question not at least try to explain why they have dropped the suspicion they held with such certainty.
So, it's plain for all to see that you NEVER pointed out that Greasy Spot justified his actions, it's also the case that he did, in fact, only give reasons for switching off IAAUN

after

I specifically pressed him on the matter. So who's the liar again?

I have below the post in which he unvoted IAAUN. Care to point out the reasoning he gives for switching from Iam?

Actually, if some people would be willing to vote armlx, that'd be all kinds of great.

I will

vote: armix

. This is standard armix scum play.

[The Fonz]

My first ever game on this site, I replaced Muerrto after he blew up due to being attacked based on a terrible case by a newbie player.

He was scum there, but I didn't feel the explosion was due to alignment. Same here.

[The Fonz]

Hmmm. Maybe. Except that he was still well outnumbered. I see a different connection there- with the majority of opinions expressed for a Vamp vigging, IAAUN's voice alone wasn't going to change things if the vig was inclined to follow the herd. I'm more inclined to theorise that username was trying to distance himself BOTH from his partner, without too much risk of actually convincing the vig to kill him, and the possible misvig of a newbie townie.

@Ting:

I have below the post in which he unvoted IAAUN. Care to point out the reasoning he gives for switching from Iam?

Sure!

[snip because not relevant to this discussion]

@fonz.

Well obviously it seems like no one else holds the same feelings about iamausername as I do so my single vote won't do much good.

You deliberately answered a different question to the one I asked. Where, in the unvote post, did he give his reasons? The answer is nowhere.

Later, when

I

pressed him on the apparent absurdity of dropping a vote he'd confirmed four times without even acknowledging that he was doing so, he then gave the weak, cop-out type explanation that no-one else really seemed to be buying his case- even though, iirc, IAAUN was copping significant heat from several people (for his suggestion of vigging GS), armlx I think only had rofl on him when GS switched (so wasn't really any more viable) and the single biggest wagon had just died due to its object claiming vig. Furthermore, all he said of the person he was moving to was that 'this was standard scum behaviour for him' without any explanation at all.

Do I find it scummy to not tunnel? I find it scummy not to tunnel when you're convinced you've found scum, and Greasy's posts prior to the unvote appear to represent himself as convinced that IAAUN was scum. In which case, I'd expect a townie in that position to fight tooth and nail to get the suspect killed, and never let up until a) the suspect was investigated innocent or b) one or both are dead.

In fact, Greasy even SAID that is what he was going to do:

Yes I know I am voting him and will continue to vote him till either he or myself is gone.

vote: iamausername

So, yeah, hypocrite much?

[The Fonz]

muerrto is reminding me of the way that mastermind of sin acts when he is caught red-handed and thinks the reasoning for his being under suspicion is bs, even though he's actually scum.

It's possible he thinks he's being MoSed. It's also possible that the case against him actually is so poor it would cause anyone to get annoyed. Null tell.

[The Fonz]

Uh, not it's not. You can lynch a player for his predecessor's actions, sometimes he may choose to mount a defence, but it can't be expected of them. Are you telling me you've never replaced someone who was town, but where for the life of you you couldn't begin to imagine what they were thinking? I've done that plenty of times.

Also, you flat-out contradict yourself there. You claim he plays the newbie card for Vamp, and also that he refuses to defend him. Obviously, these cannot both be true, since playing the newbie card is a defence, of sorts.

[The Fonz]

You deliberately answered a different question to the one I asked. Where, in the unvote post, did he give his reasons? The answer is nowhere.

o.O You said that he never gave reasons, waaaay in day 1, even

after

he had. I pointed that out - by quoting his reasons.

That's an outright lie. I

never

said that.

Well I can't let all the other claimers have

all

the fun. I am the Mafia Godfather. I will always show up innocent.

Actually, if some people would be willing to vote armlx, that'd be all kinds of great.

I will

vote: armix

. This is standard armix scum play.

The top part is clearly a joke. Period. Wagonning him on it makes no sense.

The actually interesting part of this post, which few people seem to have picked up on, is the second half. Given the amount of energy he's put into calling IAAUN scum so far, why is he unvoting him and going after someone else, with only one line's worth of explanation?

This is my first Greasy vote. As you see, I vote him for 'unvoting without giving reasons' here.

GS has a history of being a prick. See Killer Scarecrows from Vegas. I think ting deserves a chance, at least.

Hmmm. Yes.

Though I do think there's a not small likelihood that GS was deliberately distancing from a buddy, considering how strongly he represented his suspicions, and how quickly he ditched them.

This is post 'reason' post- note no reference to 'never gave reasons.'

Really? Because it increases mine. I really thought the manner in which GS pushed IAAUN before dropping it with no explanation looked like distancing.

I said he dropped the IAAUN thing without explaining why. I did not say he NEVER offered an explanation- after all, it was ME who demanded one, so it's fairly obvious i saw it, even though it's a terribly weak one.

He dropped it without explaining why- he dropped it, and did not offer an explanation as to why he was dropping it AT THE TIME HE WAS DROPPING IT.

And now, your argument is... me giving you his reasons don't matter because you wanted him to give it on a particular post of your choosing? Really?

No, the reason is that you are lying and misrepresenting both me and your predecessor. I said he unvoted without giving reasons. This is true. That he later gave reasons does not entirely alleviate the suspicion caused. It was the manner in which he dropped his case on IAAUN entirely, without even feeling a need to explain the sudden reversal, which made me feel those suspicions were not genuine.

Your attack on him since day 1, and I can quote you - is that he didn't give his reasons. The issue wasn't when, the issue was that he hadn't. I showed you he did. Don't twist this. I can quote your posts and include date stamps of everything if you want me to.

You, sir, are the one who is twisting this. Put it this way, if you leave your house without your umbrella, then later go back and get it, is it the case that you have never left the house without your umbrella? That's the equivalent case to the argument you're trying to push. I did not say- I am suspicious of GS because he NEVER gave reasons for unvoting IAAUN. I am suspicious of him because he

unvoted without

giving any kind of reasoning. Namely, that he dropped his suspicion way too easily given how strong he represented it as being. Now you're trying to get off the hook by twisting and distorting my words and making bullshit semantic arguments. It won't fly.

----

Later, when I pressed him on the apparent absurdity of dropping a vote he'd confirmed four times without even acknowledging that he was doing so, he then gave the weak, cop-out type explanation that no-one else really seemed to be buying his case- even though, iirc, IAAUN was copping significant heat from several people (for his suggestion of vigging GS), armlx I think only had rofl on him when GS switched (so wasn't really any more viable) and the single biggest wagon had just died due to its object claiming vig.

Sure, because one vote, and 'some heat' are obviously going to get a guy lynched when there's already a halfway full wagon on someone else.

IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE THREAD, you would know that the halfway full wagon had just collapsed because its target claimed vig, and that there was no-one else on more than a couple votes. IAAUN was one of a handful of people that were being heavily criticised by a number of other players. Having been there at the time, I can assert that an Iam lynch was at least as likely as an armlx one at the time he switched.

Also, if the existence of this 'halfway full' wagon made IAAUN unviable, how is armlx viable? armlx also only had one vote at the point where GS switched.

The point of mafia is to try and lynch scum. There was no way IAU was going to get lynched that day. He was never the biggest target, and reading through, there was no way a wagon on him would have ever outgrown a wagon on anyone else.

He said he would never unvote IAAUN. He did. He lied. What is your explanation of this?

------

Furthermore, all he said of the person he was moving to was that 'this was standard scum behaviour for him' without any explanation at all.

This is true, yes. I agree that this would go against him/me. I don't know what he saw because I've never played a game with armlx, I don't have a meta on him. I won't begrudge you if you hold this against me.

It strikes me that, given the defence of GS you have presented, the person he moved to would have to be at least as close to IAAUN in scumminess, and more viable. The armlx switch does not really fulfill either criterion.

-----

Do I find it scummy to not tunnel?

I find it scummy not to tunnel when you're convinced you've found scum, and Greasy's posts prior to the unvote appear to represent himself as convinced that IAAUN was scum. In which case, I'd expect a townie in that position to fight tooth and nail to get the suspect killed, and never let up until a) the suspect was investigated innocent or b) one or both are dead.

In fact, Greasy even SAID that is what he was going to do:

So, yeah, hypocrite much?

Can you

honestly

tell me that everyone in this game so far has gone for their first choice in lynching blakadder? Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure I can remember others also making compromises. I think greasy was stubborn, yes, and I think that yes, he changed his vote when he said he wouldn't. I don't think he was stupid. He did everything he could to lynch IAU, even repeated himself here and there. No dice.

Again, mafia is about the town coming to a consensus in order to lynch scum. That often entails that certain members of the town have to make compromises and go for someone else if no one wants to lynch their first choice.

We both know this happens in nearly every game, and we both know that saying townies don't make compromises is a lie.

Oh, town makes compromises. All the time. But tunnelling town don't. I can show you numerous occasions where, as town, I 'locked on' a player like Greasy did, and I only ever shifted with deadline imminent. The way GS represented himself, it seemed like he fervently believed IAAUN was mafia, and no other lynch was remotely as good.

Your argument basically boils down to 'a rational townie would have unvoted there' but Greasy Spot couldn't be further from a rational townie, nor was he representing himself as such. He confirm voted four times, ffs. He promised to continue voting until one of them was dead. Are you telling me it's perfectly normal to represent a suspicion like that, and then drop it without bothering to explain why?

I'd expect a townie in that position to fight tooth and nail to get the suspect killed, and never let up until a) the suspect was investigated innocent or b) one or both are dead.

It'd be a very stupid townie who'd tunnel someone who obviously isn't going to get lynched.

I do it all the time, so...

[The Fonz]

OK, but why should he, then? If all he sees when he looks at Vamp is, 'GRRRR, dumb n00b' then that's all he need say about his predecessor. You seem to be of the opinion that Muerrto should account for Vamp's thought process or something, which doesn't really make sense. You can desire a muerrto lynch because of Vamp, sure. You can't ask Muerrto to defend Vamp.

[The Fonz]

Nah, losing one's temper isn't a scumtell.

I also detect that someone has never replaced DrippingGoofball...

[The Fonz]

I'm going to address this alone right now, since it's the crux of the matter. We can continue arguing the rest btw.

Is English your first language btw?

I'm not getting how these bits are different again. To clarify:

'never gave reasons for unvoting' and 'unvoted without giving any kind of reasoning'

What are you trying to say? I thought you must have typo'd/slipped the first time round, but you've said it twice now, so you must be trying to say something. I'm getting that this is integral to your point, so could you clarify for me?

No, they're completely and utterly different things. Let me argue from example.

If I say 'John went out to bat without putting his helmet on' it doesn't imply that John batted the whole time without his helmet on, merely that he walked onto the field without it. (Someone may have run out to him).

If I say 'My Dad went for a walk without checking the weather forecast' it DOES NOT MEAN he never checked the forecast. It means that he did not check it before or concurrently with going for a walk. Checking it later that day would not alter the truth of the previous sentence.

If I say 'I bought a car, without considering the effect it would have on my bank balance' it DOES NOT MEAN I

never

considered what it would do to my finances, say, when I got my statement at the end of the month. It meant I did not consider it AT THE TIME.

If I [Read the paper without speaking] it means that i was silent for so long as i was reading. Again, still true if i start speaking the second i finished.

Therefore, if I say

Greasy Spot unvoted without providing an explanation

It means that Greasy Spot did not provide an explanation prior to, or concurrently with, his unvote.

See?

[The Fonz]

You wouldn't be so hard on a player for not defending his predecessor if you'd replaced her. Ms Goofball's thought process is utterly unique and entirely unfathomable, and anyone trying to explain her actions invariably goes insane.

[The Fonz]

This is pretty much my thinking. I also favor Ting in the argument, but I also kinda skimmed it.

We could deduce the second from the first...

[The Fonz]

We could deduce the second from the first...

The favoring Ting from agreeing with Korts? Korts didn't take a side I don't think.

No, FL. The second thing in the quote from the first.

[The Fonz]

Yeah, really wasn't that hard.

Then again, I thought the meaning of 'Did X without Y' was obvious and unambiguous...

[The Fonz]

I didn't quote anything that said 'I agree with Korts' though, did I?

*HEADDESK*

[The Fonz]

And I cut out the Korts quote, leaving two points...

[The Fonz]

fonz, what do you think of muerrto?

I don't see any particular reason to think him scum at this point.

[The Fonz]

Busy today, expect me to post something good over the weekend.

[The Fonz]

i agree with you that after username flipped scum, gs pretty much can't be scum,

Why? Drawing that conclusion makes no sense whatsoever.

which is what got me looking at fonz in the first place. it seems like he's trying his dardest to undermine the status gs earned as obvtown. in my experience, only scum try to unconfirm people as town, because the more people become confirmed, the faster the scum lose.

HE WAS NEVER CONFIRMED! Or anything close to it. I said AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE DOING IT that the behaviour of the pair of them looked like scum distancing. If you feel the 'argument' they had made them mutually unlikely scum, the onus is on you to explain why here. Because what I see suggests a bus is as likely as genuine antagonism.

and if you are town, it really really looks like fonzie is buttering you up. he's even been answering criticisms against you in your stead.

unvote, vote: the fonz

I've attacked retarded arguments wherever I've seen them. Here, and in other games where I'm town.

364: You really think it's scummy to disagree with the majority? Besides, vig-directing is not really scummy at all, as opposed to doc directing.

Disagreeing with the majority is fine, but trying to over-ride the majority is not. It looks like a defense to me when 5 players say "Vamp is definitely the best vig target" and IAUN says "GS is a very good vig target" afterwards. It's defending Vamp by trying to convince the vig to follow his suggestion over the majority's.

So, again, you're taking issue with expressing a different opinion to a number of other players (not actually a majority).[/quote]

I attack a retarded argument aimed at IAAUN...

The top part is clearly a joke. Period. Wagonning him on it makes no sense.

Here, I dismiss a retarded argument aimed at Greasy.

FOS Fonz

For someone who likes lurker lynches so much, your posts have been fairly sporadic.

14 posts in 13 days, including a five-day period I was v/la. That's hardly lurking, arm.

Here, I attack a bad argument made by armlx, targetted at me.

Again, Muerrto's game theory opinions are not a scumtell.

Here I attack a bad argument made against muerrto.

A lot of people keep trying to portray mildly incorrect linguistic choices as scum slips.

Can't say I'm a fan.

Here I attack a retarded argument made by (amongst others) Jordan, against (amongst others) StrangerCoug.

So your suggestion that's there's any particular connection between me and muerrto is ludicrous. I have consistently attacked retarded arguments where I've seen them. That you insist on making lots of retarded arguments against Muerrto in particular isn't my problem.

i seriously hope strife and all the other people saying i should just be ignored aren't ignoring the stuff i've said today...

I hope for the sake of their sanity they are...

No, I'm saying Fonz's 'case' on Ting/GS is that GS could've been distancing IAUN. Since I've yet to see anything scummy from Ting I wanna see more of a case from Fonz on GS.

Asking Ting to defend GS's actions would be more like what people are asking me to do with Vamp.

Yes, but I'm not asking Ting to defend GS. My suspicion of GS exists, and there's nothing Ting can do about it, really, not being GS. However, he hasn't helped himself by consistently misrepresenting my argument about Greasy. He doesn't have to defend his predecessor- but if chooses to do so, and in a scummy way, I will find it scummy. Simple really.

armlx please stop protecting the fonz by making me feel stupid
.

Not hard. Again- I disagree with your arguments against muerrto because they're incredibly dumb.

I like how you used feel instead of look here.

i like how you don't deny protecting fonz

Yes, because town worry about what's correct and incorrect, valid and invalid, scummy and not scummy, not what things look like. Best case I ever saw of this was in Alcoholics anonymous. SlySly (town, alas) was pushing a retarded case against Iammars (town). I defended Mars. SlySly was all over 'don't you think there's a connection between Mars and Fonz?' And my response there, as here, is that I couldn't give a monkey's what it

looks

like. I care about whether the argument's any good.

orangepenguin, what do you think of armlx?

I think the over-defending of The Fonz is slightly suspicious, now that it's been pointed out.

See the above. I consider this a strike against OP.

. From what I can tell, Fonz's case is "GS was distancing IAUN," which is not a case whatsoever. Calling something Distancing is belittling a town-tell, but is hardly ever a reliable scum tell - GS/IAUN interaction was no exception.

Disagree. Firstly, scum often try to distance on day one. In fact, on this site, whenever there's a scum

wagon

, it seems that people's first thoughts are 'who was bussing?' Secondly, it is possible to spot things that make a particular player's actions more or less likely to be sincere. Greasy's play vis-a-vis IAAUN screams insincerity to me, and also seems somewhat ooc of what I know of his playstyle.

Korts is right here. Without a tracker/watcher or RB the mod would not need to keep track of who is doing the killing.

^^^
This.

<snip>

If you don't mind, I'll respond to this later- many of your points, i believe, are covered above, and this is becoming enough of a megapost already. As you know, I dislike megaposts.

[The Fonz]

Sorry I haven't posted in a bit. Relatives came in and stuff.

Greasy suddenly dropping his constant vote on iamausername was quite odd, considering how hard he was pushing it. Even if it was a while since his last vote, he was pretty persistant. IF he and username were distancing though, that would pretty much clear the other if the other ended up dead. ting though hasn't been really suspicious though, but I am gonna FoS: ting =) also.

See stuff I said to Fonz.

Him dropping his vote wasn't odd because, like he said, there was no point leaving his vote on IAU. It accomplished nothing.

I've already refuted this. The biggest wagon had just broken against a claim. No-one had more than one or two votes, and several different people had expressed suspicion of IAAUN, such as, for example, strife. The IAAUN wagon

was

100% viable, and the armlx one only had one person on it at the time GS switched.

@fonz.
Okay, I want to check - your case on GS is:

1. He did not give reasons for his unvote

when

he unvoted, not that he didn't give an explanation, ever.
2. You expected him to tunnel vision IAU, but he didn't. You think that because he acted like 'tunneling townie' but didn't fit the profile, he must have been distancing.

Did I miss anything? Misrepresent anything?

I just want to clarify before making a defense because I think we've been arguing about slightly different things.

I'm kind of waiting for a reply to this question.

The way in which you phrase the case feels misrepresentative to me, like your tone is overly dismissive, though nothing you actually say is untrue.

My case, as I've said repeatedly, is that Greasy Spot's attack on IAAUN doesn't feel genuine. Reasons for this are:

1. His claiming that he is being 'misrepresented' but refusing to say how, and insisting it is obvious and accusing me of being lazy and failing to look it up when I pressed him on it. If you're town, and you feel someone is misrepping you, it shouldn't be too hard to explain why. See, as a good example, me here.

2. The dichotomy between the way he represented his suspicions, and the ease with which he dropped them, whilst not even acknowledging that he was doing so, without giving even half-decent reasoning on the person he was moving to. His repeated confirm votes give the impression of someone who is absolutely convinced IAAUN is scum, to the extent that he's not willing to listen to anything else. See, in particular, his PROMISE that he would NEVER move his vote until one or other of them was dead.

He then moves off, as if he'd never made that declaration, giving the impression of someone for whom IAAUN is just one of a handful of acceptable suspects. There's a clear contradiction there. It suggests to me that his earlier 'IAAUN IAAUN IAAUN AND NO-ONE IS EVEN CLOSE' attitude was merely posturing, and not genuine. If you say you will not move off a person ever, and then go back on it, it indicates you didn't mean it in the first place.

The 'it was rational' argument doesn't make sense- as I noted, IAAUN was perfectly viable at that point, the deadline was not impending, and he doesn't even explain why it is that armlx was apparently scummy in his eyes.

See my behaviour in BM's Judgement Day Mafia, where I was town and adamant ABR was scum, misrepresenting me, and so on, and compare it to GS' play here.

Bah, if you're convinced someone's scum, it's your duty as a pro-towner to do everything in your power to get 'em lynched.

I wrote this there, and I firmly believe it. GS clearly did not do everything within his power to get IAAUN lynched. Therefore, he's either not town, or was not really convinced IAAUN was scum. Problem is, the repeated confirm votes very much do seem to suggest GS was convinced IAAUN was scum. Hence, there's a contradiction there, which implies to me that Greasy Spot was not being 100% genuine. If someone's not being genuine, it makes me think there's a decent chance of them being scum.

[The Fonz]

Except I used it as a descriptor of his actions in thread.

to what end?

and, also, why do you want to wait for a final analysis from Muerrto, when you seem to be his top suspect?

BM

It's protown to allow players to get all the analysis they can out there, in case the victim is town. I don't see for a second why armlx being his top suspect should stop armlx doing what he usually does as town.

You summed up my only defense right there. I wouldn't do what you're claiming I did. I'm not that stupid. Your whole case is either 'Vamp did this' or 'IAUN's actions can be seen like this'. Do you even have a case on me or was I screwed before I even read the thread?

Muerrto- sometimes replacements are just screwed before they even read the thread. See dcorbe replacing Oman in Open 60. Everyone thought Oman was scum, rightly, and there was nothing dcorbe could say or do. I've replaced in for a scum who'd been counterclaimed by a player who had an innocent on him from an uncounterclaimed cop in an open setup in the past. It happens. There's nothing wrong, at all, with lynching a player based on predecessor's actions. I've done it plenty of times, and usually as town.

If you are town, self-preservation should be an important enough issue in itself. In fact, that applies regardless of affiliation. Which is why i find your behaviour odd. As far as an explanation goes, i can wait until tomorrow, as it seems the consensus for today is with Muerrto anyway.

BM

That self-preservation

matters

doesn't mean it should take precedence over doing things that are important for town success. Your entire side of this argument with armlx is, frankly, ridiculous, BM. I don't see where armlx assumed Muerrto was town, anyway.

[The Fonz]

I've already refuted this. The biggest wagon had just broken against a claim. No-one had more than one or two votes, and several different people had expressed suspicion of IAAUN, such as, for example, strife. The IAAUN wagon was 100% viable, and the armlx one only had one person on it at the time GS switched.

Again, GS had has vote on IAU for nearly two weeks, and the wagon hadn't gone anywhere. It was clearly going nowhere. Also, there was never as much conversation on IAU as there was on the other people who were also viable lynch targets. I don't agree with GS's choice of armlx, like I already said.

And again, that

just isn't true.

Sure, there hadn't been much progress on IAAUN (though there may have been more if GS had, YOU KNOW, GIVEN REASONS- which is part of why I think GS wasn't genuine). But there were plenty of people expressing suspicion of him, as much as anyone else who wasn't StrangerCoug- so immediately after SC claimed is pretty much the last time i'd expect anyone to think the IAAUN wagon was viable. And again, there is no more reason to believe the armlx wagon was viable at that point than that the IAAUN one was.

You can argue that IAU would have been a possible lynch, but the fact that his vote count never even rose to half the needed amount kind of speaks for itself(I'm not going to check now, but it topped at two votes if I'm not mistaken).

No! *HEADDESK HEADDESK HEADDESK*

Greasy Spot unvoting

made

the IAAUN wagon unviable. Again, at the time he unvoted, the only wagons which had EVER gotten more than two votes were on players who had made strong claims, which had caused those wagons to subside, and Korts. Plus Vamp, who was a) inactive and in obvious need of replacement, and b) the guy most people were saying should be vigged.

If he'd gone to Korts, I could have seen the point- he went to armlx, who had never had more than one vote on him. You could argue that rofl's vote on armlx was far more hopeless than Greasy's on IAAUN. Are you purposefully ignoring all the people who jumped on IAAUN for suggesting GS was a good vigging? Not only was the wagon not unviable, he jumped off at

precisely the point where it might have started to gather speed

if he hadn't.

Misrepresent anything?[/b] I just want to clarify before making a defense because I think we've been arguing about slightly different things.

I wasn't trying to represent your case in any way, I was asking for a summary of your case, which is why I asked if what I thought was your case - was your case. I don't think my tone was dismissive, it was just me typing what I understood to be your case and asking you if that was it.[/quote]

No one ever thinks their tone is dismissive. It sounded it to me- it's not a major point anyway. It seemed like an oversimplification. My case on GS is that his pattern of behaviour fits perfectly with a bus.

Look up some of GS' games. I hate people who use meta defenses, and I don't like the fact that I'm having to pull one, but this is just how he is. I really can't say any more on this.

But this is precisely it. I feel like GS is playing contrary to his meta. The GS I'm familiar with is not only stupid, but incredibly stubborn and bullheaded, ala early Battle Mage. It's why i feel your 'rational thing to do' defence doesn't work- I've never known GS to be rational when he's got a bee in his bonnet.

He's been calling for an IAU lynch since early day 1. His switch happened two weeks after. He would have had to had been really dense to not pick up by then that IAU was not going to get lynched.

He is very dense. But even so, that's just not true. At the point where he unvoted, the chance of an IAAUN lynch was as high as it had ever been. Have you ever been in an OMGUS war, Ting? People get angry, they get stubborn. Greasy Spot indicated this kind of mindset, but then took an action completely contrary to it. Which is why i think it might have been faked. Roflcopter pushed armlx for longer than that. Why was it 'obviously not going to happen' here, but viable enough to reconfirm his vote

He's was harping on and on about IAU from July 3 until July 16 - nearly two weeks. I would have stopped attacking someone way sooner than he had if it was clear that a wagon was clearly not going to build. [/b]

Two weeks in a large is not that long. Posting in general was in a lull for a lot of that time. And again, what made the wagon so much less viable than at the time of his previous post, when he confirmed his vote again? That's a big turnaround for one post, no?
[/quote]

Would you have rather he kept on voting IAU all throughout the game? Really? How is that optimal play? I get annoyed by people who don't want to switch their votes because of how 'convinced' they are. I don't agree with tunnel visioning. He chose not to tunnel.

Do you not think it's better play for townies to keep their word? He broke a promise. Which indicates either he wasn't taking the promise seriously, in which case he's dishonest, or he felt he had strong reason to shift- but he NEVER GAVE ANYTHING REMOTELY APPROACHING A GOOD JUSTIFICATION. This is what I'm getting really chuffing annoyed about. You're saying it might have been a better, more rational move to unvote IAAUN there. You're probably right. But nothing about Greasy Spot's earlier play was good or rational, so why would we expect him to start there all of a sudden?

I already gave my explanation why he unvoted IAU. You ignored it and chose to highlight instead on the fact that he previously said he wouldn't but did. Again, I think he was smart not to stick to the whole, 'not going to unvote IAU' thing.

And again, I've already told you why i don't buy it. 'It wasn't going anywhere' is like THE most obvious, scum unvoting scum without good reason, excuse there is. And it's not true.

I think being unwilling to make compromises is not the best play in a game that obviously involves working with other people.
[/u]

Yes, but THAT'S NOT WHAT GREASY'S LIKE.

Also, do you honestly believe Greasy did everything in his power to try to get IAAUN lynched?

It cuts both ways btw. See my comment on day one:

A rather more pertinent point, I think, is why Iam is suggesting a vigging, and not using his vote and tryin to convince people to wagon greasy.

[The Fonz]

Just back from holiday, re-read coming.

[The Fonz]

No.

IAU was never going to get lynched to begin with. Again, no one ever had IAU as their top suspect except for GS, and again there was never as much conversation on IAU as there was on any of the other players.

Just untrue. If no one else had IA as a top suspect, why did Rofl

vote for him?

Are you purposely ignoring all the people who weren't even talking about IAU?

Or the fact that there were less people jumping on IAU as there were jumping on other people?

See earlier bit of this post.

I just don't know what to say here. This is simply untrue. There were like, 2-3 pages when the discussion was centred firmly on IAAUN.

337, IA says that Greasy 'would make an excellent vig kill.'
Strife 360: Attacks IAAUN. Makes four points, though notes that Korts remains a stronger suspicion. (

This, actually, looks scummy itself from a scumbuddy second angle).

Korts 363: This isn't firmly anti-IAAUN (accuses strife of hypocrisy, but also says IAAUN is scummy for vig-directing).
365: Rofl votes IA.
367: Korts expresses strong disagreement with IA, claiming that 'undermining the majority' is a scumtell.
369: Korts suggests that IA is forcing his view on the town.
372: SC makes a kinda bethedging post on IA.
378, 388 are both Ia-related.
437 Rofl lists IA as one of three to lynch today/vig.
466, SC claims. At this point, there is

one

player other than SC himself with more votes than IA, and five votes to be re-allocated.

Strife had JUST placed a single vote on Lowell. There had been far more intensice recent discussion of IAAUN than of armlx, at the time that Greasy unvoted to go to armlx. Also, there were a handful of former SC votes looking for a new home.

495 is the last votecount before Greasy's switch. The only wagons bigger than one were Korts,' and silence (which were two holdover lurker votes). The guy who

actually got lynched

had NO votes at the time.

It's quite false to state that there was somehow plenty of players being discussed more than

My case on GS is that his pattern of behaviour fits perfectly with a bus.

My defense on GS is that his pattern of behaviour also fits perfectly with exasperated townie. [Insert quote here mentioning two weeks, number of posts.. yadda yadda]

But he didn't have any reason to be exasperated. Because he didn't appear to do everything in his power to get IA lynched, such as, to pull a random, slightly insignificant detail out, ACTUALLY EXPLAINING HIS CASE.

I honestly cannot believe anyone who actually read the thread believes GS went out of his way to get IA lynched, nor the contrary. Instead, he stated his suspicions with a ton of ferocity and no explanation (which has only a handful of explanations, the most common of which is bussing), then dropped them for a case which, again, he didn't appear to have particularly good reason to support, without thinking it necessary to explain why.

When pressed, he said 'it wasn't viable' which in my experience is like the number one cop-out excuse used by scum dropping a bus. Basically, the behaviour of the pair of them ticks pretty much every box on the 'things to look out for that might signify a bus' list, and I noted that it looked bus like on day one (thus giving the lie to roflcopter's moronic assertion that I was trying to 'unconfirm' Greasy- since I'd been suspicious of the pair of them for apparent bussing on day one, as anyone who bothered to read would note).

Furthermore, you're simultaneously suggesting that Greasy Spot was just being his idiotic self (with the repeated confirms) but contending that he was acting as a rational townie would in dropping the case. This is contradictory. (As is your recent claim that your defence is that he 'acted like an exasperated townie' when previously you claimed the move was rational. So, rational, or born of frustration?)

RE: 1037. I disagree. I have significant GS meta too, and this seems at odds to his prior town behaviour. And there's no double standard: no-one's asking you to provide examples of rational behaviour and expecting him to be dumb.

You yourself brought up the 'this is just what Greasy is like' defence, whilst also claiming his action was rational. This is a masterpiece of craplogic- you contradict yourself, then try to misrepresent others as forcing you into it. You can try the 'Greasy is just being himself' defence. You can try the 'it was the rational thing to do' defence. You cannot use both.

given that muerrto is probably telling the truth about being town (no reason to lie post mortem) i think that makes fonz and armlx much more likely to be scum.

I love this. You push a retarded case with zero validity on a townie, I point out that it is a retarded case with zero validity, and that apparently makes me scum. No-one with half a brain and protown motives could possibly have agreed with your case.

Why not?

I only skimmed, but it was part misrepresentation, and a lot of stretching. Honestly, I don't think GS was distancing.[/quote]

Do what I demanded of Greasy, and he was unwilling to answer. Name a specific thing you thought was a misrep or stretch.

having just reread iamausername i'm pretty sure he was trying to bus korts d1 while at the same time making up connections between him and other townspeople, most significantly strangercoug before he claimed, which would have allowed for several mislynches to follow a korts lynch.

I think he appears to be far more genuine in his attacks on Korts than those on GS. Please explain why you think bus.

Before I claimed, The Fonz voted me for throwing FoS's like crazy when FoS'ing is something I do.

And attacking people for FOSing when they could have voted is what

I

do. I have a more extensive meta than you- you cannot expect me to know your meta, and at the same time attack me without knowing mine.

He also attempted to paint Greasy Spot's replacing out in a scummy light.

Greasy Spot was still posting in other games. Therefore, he was not replacing out due to leaving the site, vacation, RL issues, or basically any of the reasons that are acceptable. That only left 'due to being under suspicion.'

When I said this, he then (having been replaced, which frankly isn't on) claimed he was replacing out due to the game being too big. I knew for a fact he was still alive some way into a game bigger than this at the time. Therefore, that couldn't have been true either.

I need to look at Korts specifically. But I didn't get a bus feel from IA/Korts D1, and it's kinda ironic to me that y'all suspect me for accusing GS of bussing, when you're now pushing Korts on what I think is likely to be demonstrated to be a similar, but much weaker case.

[The Fonz]

Just a quick note here- my access isn't going to be limited per se, but will likely be condensed into a one-hour window every day from hereonin. Should be able to post in most games, just don't expect instant replies all the time.

[The Fonz]

ust untrue. If no one else had IA as a top suspect, why did Rofl vote for him?

Wee!

One

vote.

You're missing my point, and you know you're missing it. IAM wasn't going to get lynched.

You're deliberately ignoring mine, which is that that is not true. Were you around at the time? I clearly felt at that point that IAAUN was a viable lynch.

GS could see that he was not going to get a majority concensus.

Again, there was at least as much chance of getting majority consensus on IAAUN as on the guy who

ended up getting lynched

.

Just because people discuss someone, or even vote someone, doesn't mean that they're willing to actually lynch him.

Eh?

---

urthermore, you're simultaneously suggesting that Greasy Spot was just being his idiotic self (with the repeated confirms) but contending that he was acting as a rational townie would in dropping the case. This is contradictory. (As is your recent claim that your defence is that he 'acted like an exasperated townie' when previously you claimed the move was rational. So, rational, or born of frustration?)

False dichtomy. You can have exasperated but rational people. They're not mutually exclusive things.

In one breath, you're telling me that GS has to behave irrationally in order to fit with your meta of town-GS (tunneling townie), and here, you're telling me that you expect rational cases from him.

Obvious, blatant, and outright lie. I NEVER EVER EVER asked ting to demonstrate that Greasy Spot's actions were rational. You volunteered the 'it was rational' defence.'

When you stop making contradictory accusations, expect me to stop making forced defences.[/i]

You're just being dishonest here. I said Greasy's and IAAUN's actions with regard to one another looked like bussing. You volunteered the defence that his actions were rational since there was no chance of an IAAUN lynch. You also raised the contradictory point that he was just acting erratically as per his meta.

The contradiction was introduced by you, not by me, and saying otherwise is blatant mendacity.

Vote: Ting

Willing to switch to strife at deadline. The BM case doesn't seem to be more than 'has gone inactive.' We have another method to deal with that, if you catch my drift.

[The Fonz]

Because of how over-the-top it was. Somebody else said it well earlier - the argument was bordering on personal.

That's precisely why I think 'bus.' Ramping up the animosity levels, without actually adding actual content likely to lead to a lynch, is a very common way of distancing two players in the minds of the town, without actually endangering either. I suggest you read the Fonz-Ryan interplay from [url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5704]This game,[/quote] then tell me that scum don't get personal.

You're deliberately ignoring mine, which is that that is not true.Were you around at the time? I clearly felt at that point that IAAUN was a viable lynch.

Not ignoring, I just don't believe it. We're not going to agree on this. No way IAU was getting lynched.

Yup. You're just wrong. Or lying, whatever. There was more chance of IA getting lynched there than THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY GOT LYNCHED. Any remotely impartial reader of day one would draw that conclusion, imho. Hell, there was probably more likelihood of an IAAUN lynch at that point, than there was of a Ting lynch at many points today- but unlike Greasy, I actually stuck to my guns, because my suspicion is genuine, and it now looks like your lynch is a serious possibility.

Eh?

discussion != will to lynch. Just because people are discussing someone doesn't mean they intend to lynch him.[/quote]

They were discussing him, and saying that his behaviour was scummy.

Obvious, blatant, and outright lie. I NEVER EVER EVER asked ting to demonstrate that Greasy Spot's actions were rational. You volunteered the 'it was rational' defence.'

Uh huh, asking me to point out GS' reasons, or GS' case against IAU obviously don't count as asking me to rationalize his actions. [/quote]

I asked you to point out where GS made a real case against IAAUN because I claimed that he never made one, and you disagreed. That's clearly not asking you to rationalise his actions, it's disputing a point of fact. I can't possibly expect you to know what was going through Greasy's mind, if indeed anything was, and one can never be sure.

You however, volunteered the defence that Greasy Spot's actions made perfect sense from a town perspective because of X Y and Z. When those things CLEARLY AREN'T TRUE, of course I'm going to point it out. Greasy Spot was only one of several suspects at that point- your incredibly scummy, mendacious defence of him has put you into clear number one position.

You have REPEATEDLY LIED about me.

You're just being dishonest here. I said Greasy's and IAAUN's actions with regard to one another looked like bussing. You volunteered the defence that his actions were rational since there was no chance of an IAAUN lynch. You also raised the contradictory point that he was just acting erratically as per his meta.

The contradiction was introduced by you, not by me, and saying otherwise is blatant mendacity.

No. That was one of your arguments - they looked like they were bussing, yes. BUT, you also raised the points that:

1)His actions don't fit your conception of his irrational-tunneling-town meta. (I can quote this if you want.)

THAT'S A (PARDON MY FRENCH) FUCKING LIE.

I raised the point of 'well would we really expect Greasy Spot to act rationally.' This was A RESPONSE to your 'it was rational' defence. You did not offer these defences in response to contradictory accusations- you made contradictory defences, and I attacked those.

2)He didn't bother to rationalize his actions with regards to IAU. (I can also quote this.)

My argument, as I'm sure you know and are simply lying about, is that HE DID NOT EXPLAIN OR INDEED ACTUALLY PRESENT A DECENT CASE AGAINST IAAUN IN KEEPING WITH THE LEVEL OF SUSPICION HE EXPRESSED.

The point of this was to demonstrate that his actions are entirely consistent with a desire to distance himself from IAAUN, but not to get him lynched.

To this, you offered two contradictory, and also weak, defences, based around the idea that Greasy was acting rationally. In response to this, it is entirely appropriate to ask both whether this is true, and whether, even if it is true, you would expect Greasy to act perfectly rationally, given both who he is, and the very strong conviction he appeared to have in IAAUN's scumminess- right up until the point where he abruptly dropped it.

I don't think I've ever seen a townie who appeared that convinced drop a case for another that they barely explained, with so long left in the day, and a real prospect of actually still getting suspect number one lynched. If you see something you can't conceive of an actual townie doing, there's a big chance it's an indication of scum.

This is not based on a meta of Greasy, but on a meta of like EVERY TOWNIE I'VE EVER SEEN who demonstrated that strong a suspicion. The fact that Greasy himself also has a track record as town of being extremely bullheaded a la early BM when he gets a bee in his bonnet only reinforces it.

Again, for the millionth time, the contradiction is yours and not mine. My case is consistent- Greasy Spot's behaviour towards IAAUN, and IAAUN's toward Greasy, make perfect sense to me as a bus. You have offered contradictory defences.

i know. i also think that, korts lynch<no lynch<ting lynch.

You'd prefer to lynch a claimed doctor? Wow, just wow. Why is this scum not dead yet?

GS was vehement to the point of being personal, he was a far cry from distancing, and his switch to armlx obviously reads like plain exasperation if you bother to re-read.

As I've said many times, this to me is a bus sign, not a sign to the contrary.

Obviously, being dead won't make mean I'm right, and I'll admit that even I felt that Fonz was town for most of the game. I could very well be wrong, and I'm nowhere near certain, but if I had to pick someone, I'd pick Fonz for scum simply because I know GS wasn't distancing.

This reads to me very much like an admission of OMGUS. Whether you 'know' *ahem* that GS wasn't distancing is irrelevant. The question for everyone, is the very low-probability instance that you come up town, is whether it was reasonable to consider GS-IAAUN distancing a strong possibility. I believe so, for all the reasons I've been outlining throughout. (You never really addressed the IAAUN -> Greasy actions, which I also think add to the case).

[The Fonz]

This is the link that was supposed to be in the post above.[/url]

[The Fonz]

Why not?

It helps catch opportunistic scum.

That said,

vote: deadline extension

Because there are still things worth discussing. I'd like to see what all those saying 'Well, there's a deadline' would do if there was suddenly time for a new wagon.

[The Fonz]

Yeah, I actually agree with ting here. I can't keep arguing with him any further- I'm finding his arguments so dishonest that it's completely enraging me, to the point where it's starting to harm my health.

[The Fonz]

'm finding his arguments so dishonest

that's bull. i even quoted your contradictions, but i'm honestly just so tired of going back and forth with you i'm not going to try to hinder my lynch.

Which were themselves bull. It was you, and not me who contradicted himself.

So, you've actually

read

the GreasySpot-IAUN interaction from Day 1 and really think it's distancing? Please go read it again...

What, you mean when the amount of aggro is disproportionate to the strength of the actual case, you mean? Like how is a really common bussing technique?

[The Fonz]

o.O You said that he never gave reasons, waaaay in day 1, even after he had. I pointed that out - by quoting his reasons.

That's an outright lie. I never said that.

Actually you did state that. Not word for word, but yes you did:

I said he dropped the IAAUN thing without explaining why.

Look, I've said this enough times. There's a full explanation later.

But basically, it comes down to:

Only A COMPLETE FREAKING MORON could think that those two things you quoted are the same thing.

[The Fonz]

VT.

Btw, I suggest everyone read silence in isolation and see if they can spot anything.

[The Fonz]

TS, you were pretty much confirmed since Day 1, since the first couple of threads. We're just waiting on the people who haven't claimed now.

TS is also

dead

.

[The Fonz]

OP. You voted BlakAdder with the following justification d1:

unvote silence

,

vote:BlakAdder

- He has contributed nothing to the game, jumping on several big wagons, and post things irrelevant to the game, and doesn't even back up his posts when he does post anything significant.

You then made an 'I'm here' post, and then a post promising a re-read, naming some of the people that had been most discussed by other people, and then four or five posts talking about how you were in the middle of your re-read, and how you thought you'd posted more than you had. The conclusion of your re-read, such as it was, was that the most popular suspect, Muerrto, looked like he might have been distancing, which then caused you to jump his wagon.

You also FOSed ting, whilst saying

ting though hasn't been really suspicious though but I am gonna

FoS: ting

On the basis that his dropping of his vote on IAAUN was 'odd.'


Then your next few posts were:

Still happy with my vote. The game kind of stagnated though, so I have just been reading, instead of actually posting.

Sorry. I haven't posted in a while. Was catching up in another thread I replaced into, but I have been following along with new posts. Still content with my vote.

Still here. Been busy today, and will be busy tomorrow. Don't expect comment from me until late wednesday, or thursday.

Alright, so I'll probably have more free time tomorrow. I'm sorry I am contributing to the non-posting.

You follow this little stretch of filler with a post asking Toaster if she's finished HER re-read, an excuse for why you have been too busy to post, and the following:

I probably should do a re-read, but with my busy schedule and procrastination, I have been putting that off. Being September now doesn't really help though.

So, to recap, promise of re-read, promise of re-read, promise of re-read, re-read that results in you jumping on the biggest wagon, apology for not contributing enough, apology for not contributing enough, apology for not contributing enough, apology for not contributing enough, ask someone else if they've finished their re-read combined with more excuses.

Another excuse post, and then attacks strife for forcing a claim (from a player who was facing lynch).

Filler, filler, couple of FOSes at deadline that aren't going to do anything. Jumps ting late on, when he is the leading wagon.

So, here's a question, OP:

How does EVERYTHING you said made BlakAdder scummy on day one not apply to you many times over? The biggest attack you've made on anyone who wasn't the leading wagon at the time was 'armlx overdefending Fonz looks kinda suspicious, now it's been pointed out.' A point which, surprise surprise, you didn't follow through on.

Before i re-read you, I couldn't remember a single controversial position you took. Now I have, i realise that it's because you haven't.

You're at lynch -2, and you can sure as hell be willing to believe i'll support your lynch on lurkerhating grounds if you continue as you are. So, IF you're town, you've got very little to lose. Read. Work out who your public enemy number one is. And then explain why. We'll probably lynch you anyway- but at least you might be able to shed some light on the situation.

[The Fonz]

ANSWER THE MOTHERLOVING QUESTION.

@Fonz: I do believe the biggest attack I made on anyone was Muerrto. And then he flipped town, so I was really lost. I thought I had made a good case and found scum, but then it turned out I didn't, so I just stopped going by what I thought at that point. I don't like making controversial decisions simply because I don't know how.

You don't know how to hold and state an opinion? And forgive me, but

you stopped going by what you thought?

What exactly where you going by? What the monkey with the typewriter handed you? (No wait, that's farside's schtick. Er, what the mothership beamed down to you)?

After all my games I played, I still don't have a solid idea on what to vote on and how and where to find scum, except at looking at there posts, and interpreting them.

Except that you haven't actually done that, have you?

Call it scum or not, I just do the best that I can personally do. And yes, that is me appealing to emotion probably, right?

Actually, I'd call it the newbie card. But whatever, i still hate it.

[The Fonz]

I would like answers to the following from all the claimed VTs, actually.

1. Do you believe Korts is town?
2. If so, and given that we have a mason and a confirmed vig, that means that ONLY ONE OTHER CLAIMED VANILLA IS TOWN, from your claimed perspective (and mine). Who do you think that is?

[The Fonz]

I'll put the -1 on, in case I don't get back in time.

vote: Orangepenguin

[The Fonz]

Er... you already claimed. Die plz.

[The Fonz]

Okay... After OP's claim yesterday I think I'm more or less confirmed, which should mean that with two confirmed (SC and me) the two remaining scum are in the {farside; Fonz; strife} group.

Hang on? How the hell does that confirm you? That would only work if you thought OP actually believed that his attempt to 'counterclaim' you might work. Now, it's possible he actually is that stupid, but it's also equally possible he was just trying to bus (with the caveat about how wrong my previous bus read was).

Well okay, so now I'm convinced that strife is one of the two scum

Why, besides OMGUS?

Grrrrr. Ban that acronym. Now.

You've been pushing the notion of me not being doc with far too big conviction. Occam's razor is, in my irrelevant opinion, applicable here.

Well, hang on, Occam's razor also suggests that the most likely reason for a claimed doc to survive multiple nights is that he's scum, surely?

Which do you think is likelier, me being doc and OP trying a last-ditch attempt at saving his ass, or OP counterclaiming and trying to bus one of his two remaining scumbuddies in a last-ditch attempt at saving his ass?

Objection. Leading question. If it were a bus, it wouldn't be an attempt to save his ass, but to distance. Again, it depends on how stupid you think OP is.

My reread of the first quarter or so of the game gave me town vibes from strife220, but the fact that he's still trying to pin suspicion on a confirmed doc doesn't look right.

Again, please explain how he's confirmed?

Re-reading to re-assess my confidence on Fonz and Farside's alignment:

You're at lynch -2, and you can sure as hell be willing to believe i'll support your lynch on lurkerhating grounds if you continue as you are. So, IF you're town, you've got very little to lose. Read. Work out who your public enemy number one is. And then explain why. We'll probably lynch you anyway- but at least you might be able to shed some light on the situation.

This was said to OP. Fonz, given we were just about in lylo, what was your intention with this comment?

I'd quibble with virtually lylo- after all, we did have the vig. But, to answer the more general point, to get him talking. Everyone should be aware of my position on noncontributors by now. The more people speak, the easier it is to get a read on them. Plus, if he's town, there's always the possibility he comes up with some fresh insight that I've missed, and if he's scum, there's the chance he'll incautiously let slip something that points to the identity of one or more buddies.

SC - why oh why would scum let the doc live this long?

This is WIFOM, and even if it weren't, I still wouldn't know.

It's not necessarily WIFOM. I'm trying to work out under what circumstances scum would dare to leave a doctor alive this long, with a vig as well. Running the numbers, if Korts' claim is genuine, then scum HAVE to get him lynched today, or the best they can do is a draw. Given your apparent attitude to his claim, that's not a bet i'd take if it were me. But then, iirc farside can be pretty bold as scum, I don't have a meta on strife.

If it isn't Korts, it's farside-strife. I need to re-read that pair to see if it makes any sense before i comment further.

[The Fonz]

Two. It's a semi-open setup, and the number of scum is known.

[The Fonz]

Running the numbers, if Korts' claim is genuine, then scum HAVE to get him lynched today, or the best they can do is a draw.

I don't understand how this is true. If Korts is town and lynched today, scum win regardless of SC's night action since 1 town + 1 scum = scum win. If Korts is town and we mislynch someone else, scum kills Korts tonight for the scum win.

1 town 1 scum DOES NOT equal a scum win when the town still has a killing capacity. The scum WC is

You win when you are the only faction remaining or when there is nothing to prevent this from being the case.

A living vig is a pretty big something to prevent it being the case. If it goes to 1-1 and both can kill, it's a draw.

[The Fonz]

So, I'm scum because I'm pressing that you're scum despite clearly having no one on my side?

Not a good argument.

, and my most recent reread on you came off as town, which means that, if I'm right, the scum pair is either The Fonz and farside22 or The Fonz and Korts.

Why? I mean, name one thing any of the holders of that role have done to draw attention to themselves...

The Fonz, the lack of a Mafia nightkill is what I think confirms him. Since the Mafia kills after that seem to want to stop making sense to me, I'm having second thoughts at this time.

I can see the mafia nokilling to set up a doc claim. Or I could see lurker mafia failing to send in a kill at all. In isolation, it's most likely that it was a genuine docblock- but then, it's also likely that a genuine doc claimant dies by now.

If it isn't Korts, it's farside-strife

You apparently being a vanilla, this is the only thing you could say as to your suspicions, so why say it? If it isn't me (it isn't), SC is confirmed, and it's two scum out of three, so naturally everyone would be pointing at the other two. I can't phrase why that seems scummy to me to state.

Precisely because it's the only other possible scumpair? I'm not seeing your problem here. If it isn't you, it has to be the other two, therefore it makes sense to take a long, hard look at Farside-Strife, and see how much sense that specific scumpair makes, and then to use that information to re-evaluate Korts. Because, by the same token, if it's not those two together, it has to be you. Basically, we're down to three possible scumpairs from the position of everone but SC, so the obvious thing to do it to take a look at each potential grouping, and look at their interactions, which is what i'm going to do next time i log on, assuming there hasn't been another several pages of posts i need to respond to.

Willing to switch to strife at deadline. The BM case doesn't seem to be more than 'has gone inactive.' We have another method to deal with that, if you catch my drift.

What was your drift?

That the inactive BM/Jordan role would make a pretty good vig target, obviously.

[The Fonz]

Precisely. It's unusual that the nokill happened if Korts is untruthful, but it's also weird he's still alive if he is.

So basically, we should stop the WIFOM at the second iteration and try, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY READING PEOPLE'S POSTS AND LOOKING FOR CONNECTIONS BETWEEN OTHER PLAYERS.

[The Fonz]

I don't get BM's point at all. Armix said he wanted to wait for Muerrto's analysis before considering the hammer. I would have considered it scummy for him to hammer without letting Muerrto have a final say, regardless of what Muerrto flipped.

This is strife's first mention of the Jordan/BM/Farside role- he never mentions Jordan. There's not much in this one, except that 'I don't understand your point' can easily be 'your point doesn't make sense' when you're looking for an excuse to attack someone. So strife wasn't, at this point.

Vote definitely needs to go somewhere, so I'm going to

Vote: BM

. I think his case against Armix for allowing Muerrto to respond was contrived. His predecessor, Jordan, had suspicion quite wildly all over the place D1 as well.

There's the obvious 'why did you not mention it at the time' factor here, both with Jordan (didn't mention) and BM (didn't phrase accusingly, rather, as if BM had laid out his argument confusingly or something).

Strife deadline-jumps Korts, which I can see working any of a number of ways- as scum trying to lynch a townie, as a townie trying to avoid a no-lynch, or as scum thinking he has to bus.

Once Korts wagon goes down, goes to BM as alternative lynch, then also stresses willingness to vote me, or OP, to preserve Korts/Ting.

Switches to OP at deadline.


I don't see this 'hardcore bussing of BM' that Strife seems to be postulating. It's a luxury of scum to be able to vote for their partners with deadline impending- and it's telling, in that respect, that you return to

Heck, I'd say your would-have-to-be-a-bus attacks on OP are more likely to indicate innocence than your relations to Farside. Then again, it was only a matter of time before the rest of the town noticed that OP hadn't said ANYTHING all game, and it looks better to get in early.

Basically, from my POV there's a few options here:

1. You have been bussing BM
2. You have been, and are currently, bussing Korts
3. Jordan/Bm/Farside and Korts decided not to bus whatsoever.

This is a really tough call. Need to look at the posts of the various holders of the farside role to see if that sheds any more light. My recollection, though, is that that role was never hardcore against anyone here, largely due to the procession of inactives.

[The Fonz]

Voting to save your own ass? Is that pro-town?

Well, if you're a doctor... kinda, yes. You should generally prefer any lynch to the one of the one player you know for sure is town. So that makes perfect sense either as scum or town.

Mindless bandwagoning, is it not?

The fact that it is on a scum is relevant, though.

[The Fonz]

Hmmm. I'd rather you'd have waited to hammer at least until I got to post farside analysis, but oh well. I'd probably have come to the conclusion she's always scum, like usual.

Regarding vigging tonight: obv if Strife flips town it's a no-brainer. Kill whoever you're most sure is scum. If Strife flips scum, then town cannot lose if his partner is farside (or me), since at worst it goes to 2-1 with a living vig- the best case scenario for scum there is to get a townie lynched in endgame, and even then it's a draw. The only possible way for town to lose this game in that scenario is if scum shoot SC and SC shoots a townie.

Which makes me think that, if Strife is scum, shooting Korts is the percentage play. If he's town, the town still can't lose, and has a 50-50 shot at winning. If he's scum, then... well, it's obvious why it's a good move.

[The Fonz]

Now either Fonz hasn't calculated in the factor that there'll be TWO NKs if SC shoots, and that town will be going into D6 with 1:1 scum:town ratio if SC misses and scum pull off a kill,

OR

he's scum and wants SC to kill me, through this faulty logic. SC, I say that if you shoot tonight, shoot Fonz.

Wrong on both. I DID factor in the scenario where SC kills Korts and the scum kill another townie? Like I said, that's the worst case scenario, and it ends a draw.

The town cannot lose going 3-1 into night with a doctor and vig alive. Think about it:

Either it goes to 1-1, and the game's over, draw.
Or, you're scum, it's over, town win.
Or, the scum try to kill you too, and it's the same as if he never fired.

Those are all the possibilities if you are shot. None result in even the possibility of a town loss. Therefore, IF he shoots, he should shoot you. (If I were him, I'd probably flip a coin- since if you're town, then scum won't be able to risk not shooting you if there's a chance SC won't, since that would be auto-town win).

I had all this typed out in a massive post with probabilities, and it got lost to a blue screen. Apologies if the above summation wasn't as clear as the full post was, but the logic clearly wasn't flawed.

[The Fonz]

No need for numbers, I get your point now. Guess I overreacted a bit.

If strife flips scum, we can do much better than a draw. We don't need a potential miskill ruining our chance at a town win.

It's probably an 'attitude to risk' thing. I want to ensure there is no chance of losing (first do no harm), you want to make the chance of winning as high as possible.

Plus, of course, the fact that you know your own alignment, so no matter what shooting you won't help you win.

[The Fonz]

Interested to hear why scum chose to kill off the masons instead of the doc/vig. Did you think SC was more likely to work to your advantage - killing townies?

Absolutely. We (or I, at least- more on that later) decided that we had no chance of getting enough mislynches on our own, so decided to leave the vig alive to shorten the game. Basically, i was far more confident of our ability to get Korts lynched, or to side with us against strife, than we were of taking strife down with two confirmeds left.

Of course, this was partly because I was actually convinced until we killed the first mason, that we had not submitted a kill the night of Korts' protect. I PMed BM before i went on vacation, asking him to kill Iron Man, and arrived back to find a pm sitting in my inbox saying 'I'm not playing anymore, you want to try Jordan' and the morning having come with no kill. I'd deleted the pm with the address of our quicktopic in it, and despite pming my goons to ask them for it, none of them answered.

[The Fonz]

Oh- and strangercoug, bizarrely, saved the game by quickhammering town. We were hoping that we could get strife to vote Korts, I would eventually come down on strife's side after sufficient agonising, leaving farside to switch for the lynch and the win.

[The Fonz]

Also, a note: I don't know why, but of all four New C9s that have been started, all seem to have come down on the side of town, balance wise. The '0-2' doc/cops have come up, i think, 2 four times, one twice, and 0 never. If you look at this setup (two docs, cop, vig, mason pair) then I'm quite proud to have gotten a tie out of it.

Btw, next time anyone brings up the 'when should a vig shoot' issue in MD, I'm citing this game as an example of why Pie is utterly wrong.

[The Fonz]

Well, me and farside tried to take out the doc, but someone send in the kill for a mason.

As opposed to the time in the early game, when that someone put in a kill for a mason, and someone else put in a kill for the vig (who that someone wanted to keep around ANYWAY).

[The Fonz]

Yeah.. nobody talked that day, so I thought nobody sent in a NK. I waited in the daytalk, and nobody responded for the several days of night.

Like I said, I was on vacation, and didn't have the thread address. I PMed BM with my preferred kill choice, but of course he didn't think he was playing anymore (not surprising he didn't talk, then). Meanwhile, Jordan believed he had been replaced.

@ Strife: No, OrangePenguin did put in a kill on StrangerCoug at the last minute. We got horribly crossed up as a scumgroup, unfortunately.