Jack of All Trades Mafia -- OVER!

[Fuldu]

vote: Mariyta

With day starts, I'd just as soon lynch the people with names I'm going to have difficulty typing, and that Y really wants to come in in front of the I.

[Fuldu]

???

Nothing too surprising. DGB had indicated that she was requesting replacement and, if I had to guess, I'd say Mariyta didn't appreciate her treatment by Fritzler.

[Fuldu]

FOS: Ibaesha, Babyjesus, and Fritzler for doing a 3 post 3 vote bandwagon with only one, weak reason.

unvote; vote mlaker

I'm not entirely opposed to the viper wagon, but mlaker's eyecatching post can't be dismissed. It looked to me like a fabricated reason to join a quickly growing bandwagon.

Bogre: I'd like to point out that FoSing me for the actions of the two people who voted for you after me is pretty nonsensical.

I haven't seen a reason to change my vote yet, but if I did, it'd be to Spamwise.

I find it odd that Bogre backed off of ibaesha after this last post, because to the extent that he's characterized the bandwagon as having "only one, weak reason," that reason is ibaesha's, and Fritzler and BJ are, as is their wont, just bandwagoning. In fact, neither of the other suspicions she puts forth in the above two posts are supported by any argument at all. Is a viper bandwagon acceptable because he's suspicious or just useless? And the Spamwise comment comes rather out of nowhere. This strikes me as someone trying to cover all the bases without having to work too hard, which is usually better for scum.

unvote: Blackberry; vote: ibaesha

[Fuldu]

Sorry for my absence, I was at a wedding the first half of the week and have been catching up since then. My first inclination was to read through the mlaker/Bogre bandwagon, but that, itself, wasn't as useful as I had hoped. However, it did turn up the following when I went through the posts of each of the bandwagoners individually.

unvote: viper0933

vote: DGB

I'll unvote when the mod replaces. Never trust anyone within the thread. If DGB is scum, I'll FOS ibashea and MoS. This could all be a ruse.

Cesspit was on the "Well, we have to kill

someone

" viper wagon at the beginning of the day, and then voted DGB when she posted that she had asked to be replaced, claiming that it might be a ruse. I have to ask, a ruse aimed at accomplishing what, precisely? Drawing attention to herself with something that would eventually be shown to be a lie? It actually surprises me a little that no one else has jumped on this for the obviously horrible argument that it is.

unvote: ibaesha; vote: TheCesspit

[Fuldu]

"Just stupid" implies that it was a reasonable mistake, and therefore arguably not scummy. "BS" implies deliberate misrepresentation and is pretty nearly always scummy. I will grant that it certainly could be "just stupid," but that requires a reasonable argument as to why Cesspit thought DBG might have taken such an action, and I just can't see one.

[Fuldu]

I'm back from my weekend away. While I think the lordy bandwagon is unjustified, what with it largely being because he's being stupid, I can't find anyone specific on it to be enormously suspicious of. I think the silent speaker's read on Colonel Kurtz is a little strong, since, again, I'd just be inclined to call him stupid. My main suspicion yesterday was TheCesspit, but he's posted a couple of times today and didn't jump on the easy lordy bandwagon, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, for now. So no vote, for now.

[Fuldu]

I'm saying did your role change when you moved room

I know what you are asking, I'm just wondering if there's any benifit to the town in me saying what role I have now, if any. Unless there's a reason to do so, no sense in letting the scum know if I'm a good target or not.

I think the question Max is asking is not a totally unreasonable one, but unless I'm misinterpreting the opening post, it doesn't actually apply to Yosarian. Max, Yosarian doesn't appear to have "moved" rooms, it's just that the state of the room that he's in has changed. And for that, I agree that he shouldn't share that information with the group (and, in consequence, scum).

[Fuldu]

Huh? I don't understand BMQ's argument against Yosarian and I

really

don't understand bluemonick's jump to that bandwagon. It seems like BMQ is suggesting that Yosarian's playstyle is different from past games, which I don't see, but if he'd care to elaborate a bit more, I might. But bluemonick is new enough that that can't be what he's saying. And the comment about "less of an investigator" and "more like 'laying back'" is, frankly, nonsense. Yosarian seems to me to be pushing as hard at the issues he finds important in this game as he usually does. I happen not to find the particular issue he's chosen to be especially noteworthy, but I can see the logic behind it. Coupled with the fact that he got himself blowed up, which seems likely to be a scum mechanism, I think this looks like a scummy pair of votes.

vote: bluemonick

[Fuldu]

He was just on to make a post that merited this bandwagon in the first place (plus another post shortly before that), Masterchief. Whether he has gone back to lurking/not paying attention is a valid concern, but saying this bandwagon isn't going to go anywhere because he hasn't been on in a while is both factually and logically incorrect. And suggesting a prod is ridiculous, given that bluemonick

was

one of the players just prodded.

[Fuldu]

Townies would put a clear reason why they vote someone. No clear reason = bandwagoning.

And, to illustrate the extent to which this isn't generally true:

unvote, vote bluemonick

unvote, vote: bluemonick <3 Yosarian2

I feel sleazy for trying to shake things up in that way. Using weak arguments to set up bad traps isn't what I like to do, and I realize that it could come back to bite me in the ass, but it's only Day 2 and things were already going stale.

I don't think this bandwagon is going to do much, but whatever.
Unvote Vote:bluemonick

and, for that matter,

I agree with Fuldu. vote: bluemonick

Which, while I'm flattered, isn't any more of a reason than that provided by someone who posts with just a vote.

[Fuldu]

I can't speak for the others who were prodded, but I was waiting for mathcam to say something for me to evaluate before I posted. If there's a replacement who's under suspicion, I always prefer to wait for them to talk rather than moving the conversation to other topics.

That said, I think mathcam's response to the various issues raised against Spamwise is about what I had expected. The guitars and surfboards thing had the sound of someone just chattering rather than providing actual information. His comment on Spamwise vouching for ibaesha goes to his point three later on, and, again, I had always assumed that to be the mistake that Spamwaise was making. As for Spamwise unsubtly trying to get a bandwagon off of viper (scum), I still feel that that's a reasonable thing to hold against him, but at the same time recognize that it's going to be practically impossible for mathcam to respond to that suspicion in any useful way. Spamwise clearly had something going on in his head that mathcam isn't privy to, and there's no real way for us to know whether that was 'viper is pro-town because of the alignment of the planets' or 'this will be a great way to defend my scum buddy.'

I'm not enthusiastic about a Baby Jesus lurker lynch, but don't presently have any other leads I prefer, either.

[Fuldu]

One thing about that kind of trap, is that

it can only work if I'm not in Blue's scum group

. The primary scum tell that Blue committed for was that he was trying way to hard to attack me and to get me lynched with absolutly no good reason.

tags fixed

Actually, done properly, this can be a very effective scum gambit. Wait for someone to make a poorly reasoned argument against a scum buddy. Reiterate the argument in a way that makes the flaw in the argument a bit more apparent. Wait for someone to notice and point out the flaw. Remove vote from scum buddy and apologize for not seeing the flaw in the original argument. Wait for town to turn against the maker of the original argument. Instead of just focusing attention on someone outside the group, you've now both distanced yourself from your scum buddy

and

focused attention on someone outside the group. It's riskier, certainly, but with a much higher degree of reward.

Of course, whatever bluemonick was trying to do, it clearly wasn't done properly.

[Fuldu]

Well, I suppose that would be a possibility if it was an experenced player. Does Blue really look like the kind of player who would try something quite that complex?

No, he doesn't. There wasn't a vote to go with that argument. I just wanted to point out that that piece of your defense wasn't very strong.

[Fuldu]

4. You voted mathcam earlier today, why? If you can call me a mason buddy, then mathcam would be a former mason buddy, wouldn't he?

I think this is the only one of the points against BJ that merits any discussion. How about it, BJ? If you were trying to use "mason buddy" as a defense, then how does this vote on mathcam make any sense? If you weren't trying to use it as a defense, then why bring it up at all?

[Fuldu]

Please bump where I ever said you should not vote for me because I am a mason.

If trying to get people to not vote for you wasn't the goal of the claim, then what purpose did claiming serve?

[Fuldu]

Or, put a slightly different way...

Please bump where I ever said you should not vote for me because I am a mason.

If trying to get people to not vote for you wasn't the goal of the claim, then what purpose did claiming serve?

[Fuldu]

Fine, BJ. I gave you two opportunities to answer my question and you've ducked it without comment both times.

vote: BabyJesus

[Fuldu]

That speaks more to my question than it does to mathcam's, so I'll respond. What more there is is that normally one claims when one is being run up in order to deter people from voting you. As a full mason in a normal game, this would be a reasonable strategy. But, as has been noted several times, it doesn't mean anything in this game. And you yourself said:

it's not a defense. It was a claim.

and

Please bump where I ever said you should not vote for me because I am a mason.

So even you didn't think you were claiming in order to prevent a lynch. So your argument that you claimed because you were being run up makes no sense. The question is not simply "Why did you claim," any more. It's closer to "Given that they would be equally effective strategies in preventing your lynch and that you've said that you knew it, why did you claim instead of, say, dancing around while wearing a funny hat?" Because I'd be happy to institute a "standard practice" of dancing around while wearing a funny hat if I'm being run up, but given that I wouldn't expect it to help things any, I probably won't.

And, speaking for mathcam, since I think I understand what he's getting at now, your outing of ibaesha as your co-mason is equally incoherent as a strategy. Having done so doesn't, that I can see or that you've explained (or even acknowledged the question), serve town interests in any way. Normally when a player claims mason, they keep the identity of their partner secret. You haven't yet attempted to respond to questions about why you didn't.

[Fuldu]

It occurs to me that it might be valuable for MrBuddyLee to consider whether there is anything to be gained in letting everyone know what was in the office he formerly occupied, that tss died in. For a lot of things, it probably won't make a difference, but if it was, say, a roleblocking office, it might be worthwhile to know that the SK had that ability. Obviously, you're the only one who can make that call, MBL, but better to have thought about it and decided against than to have not thought about it at all.

[Fuldu]

Hell. . .we can't even say for sure that it's all been the work of one person. It's quite possible, though I believe it would be an odd play, that the swapper swapped out of their own office into somebody else's, giving the swapping power to someone else.

I considered that, as well. I actually think it could potentially be good play, since it would mean a whole string of players know somebody else's role as well as their own. But for that to work, one of two things would have to be true. Either ibaesha would have had to start the chain in the Jack Quinn office, and she's already said that, despite knowing what's in that office, she doesn't know why it keeps getting passed around. Or it would have had to have been part of the first, the silent speaker/MrBuddyLee swap. I can't definitively say that that's not the case, but if it started with MBL, it's gone now, and if it started with tss, I can't imagine why he, as a SK, would want to give it up.

[Fuldu]

(What happened to my other post?)

Huh...good point, Uraj. I guess that means that the role probably works like "Move person A into B's office, and then move person B into office C".

I believe it has invariably worked as move person A into B's office and move person B into A's office. The fact that it seems framed as a single swap rather than two moves is the reason it appears to be one role rather than multiple.

[Fuldu]

MoS has just demonstrated that he actually reread the thread. In light of everyone else's apathy, I choose to see that as a pro-town move on his part. Nice work mang.

Particularly in light of the above quote, but more generally because MrBuddyLee has spent the entire game complaining about lurkers, player apathy, and the incoherence of everyone else's arguments without bothering to offer any real substance of his own, I'm increasingly convinced that he's scum.

vote: MrBuddyLee

I agree with MoS's comments on TheCesspit, who I was uncomfortable with back on Day One, but subsequently began to trust again. I may consider shifting my vote over there, but for now would prefer this.

Finally, I'm still waiting to hear from LML. Not so much because I'm concerned that he's lurking and more because he usually provides a valuable perspective.

[Fuldu]

Those top five have lurked HIDEOUSLY this game. Fuldu and Max lurked pretty badly. You've called ME out for lurking three or four times, Ibby, even though I've posted more than all of those people. Now the question is, did you and the others who took potshots at one or two lurkers SELECTIVELY avoid a few other lurkers...

Oh, now this is just precious. I won't deny that you've posted a greater number of times than I have; that's probably true of many players in many games that I've been in. However, I like to believe that the quality of my posts dramatically exceeds yours. If nothing else, the average length of one of my posts is substantially greater than yours. So if you want to call me out as not having contributed sufficiently to the game

in a game where I'm under suspicion

because

I made the argument that lynched our only dead scum

, I think I'm going to have to call bullshit.

[Fuldu]

Proposition 2: If there is a mafia or cult, then alignment swaps would allow the newly town player to out all their old scum partners.

Now think about this carefull -- were you told whether or not any of your partners were pro-town or not? If so, you got a different role than I did. If not, how could you possibly out any of your partners who are scum?

Cam

That's not what I got out of what he was saying here. He's just arguing against alignment swapping along with the offices. Admittedly, it seems like this has been the consensus for a while now, but I don't think he was saying anything wrong (at least with that part). He was just saying that ibaesha is still the same alignment that she started as. The other part of his argument (which, as Uraj points out, relies on a non-randomized initial setup) is that someone who started out with a powerless office is more likely to be scum.

[Fuldu]

Hi STD! I really should start a record of how many games we're in together. LML has disappeared from other mafia games too.

I'm a little confused over what Fuldu said. ArmIx commented on the roles independent of alignment thing (which we all knew about anyway). It's the second part of the argumnet where I'm lost.

Oh, the second part of his argument is rubbish. Uraj covered that. It assumes that the mod set up the scum roles for balance, when the sign-up thread pretty clearly indicated it was all going to be randomly assigned. I was just saying that the argument mathcam was making about the outing of scum by the masons wasn't fair.

[Fuldu]

ibaesha, as long as you're pointing out people trying to frame their status on various bandwagons, consider this, from the Bogre wagon of Day One.

quote="MrBuddyLee"]mlaker was scummy. From Bogre's words, I think he'll turn up pro-town. Just a hunch. His "you'll be sorry" act sounds genuine.[/quote]

This was a comment made while MBL had his vote on Bogre and the hammer had not yet been placed on the lynch. If you didn't think Bogre was scum, why didn't you unvote, MBL?

[Fuldu]

Looks like a decent reason on its face, but ultimately it's not anything more than a shoddy lurker lynch. "MBL demands better from people but doesn't deliver, so he's a hypocrite and therefore scum." Pretty weak, but the best of the four reasons currently on my wagon.

If you look, though, you'll notice a marked difference in the quality of MBL posts from before my vote/post to which he's referring and those after. Partly this has been in response to his ongoing argument with ibaesha, but the uptick in content began before ibaesha started pushing him. So, not that this was the primary intent of the post, my targeted attempt to improve the value of discourse from those I consider suspicious has proven substantially more effective than any of MBL's repeated listing of people he thinks are lurking.

[Fuldu]

Consider the Spamwise quote in its full context, STD.

If that were true, which it could be, then there's a few things wrong with it. Assuming that you can change alignment completely, if ibby were town yesterday and I were scum, after swapping last night I logically should be advocating her lynch. I can vouch that the office of Jack Johnson is pro-town, otherwise my vote would be somewhere else. Still though, it could be possible that some offices have nothing to do with your role.

He was describing a scenario in which swapping offices results in swapping alignments, and since he'd been Jack Johnson, he knew that that office was pro-town. While it's certainly possible that Spamwise was trying to cleverly hide his knowledge that alignment didn't shift with office swaps under the innocent suggestion that it did, I assumed, and I imagine others did as well, that, since that sort of mechanism would be game-breaking, he was just an idiot. Certainly there's other evidence to support that hypothesis.

[Fuldu]

Canada's Thanksgiving is Monday.

[Fuldu]

Well, I was in favor of a Cesspit lynch back on day one, so if the MBL bandwagon isn't going anywhere, I'll gladly change to Cesspit.

unvote: MrBuddyLee; vote: TheCesspit

[Fuldu]

Jesus, MoS, calm down. It's a holiday weekend in the US, too. So a lot of people who can only play at school or their job (depending on where they work) don't have access. And MMoD, who several players have said they're waiting on, specifically said he wouldn't have access until Tuesday.

And besides that, if we had a clear contender for lynch and just couldn't get enough people, then maybe requesting a deadline would be a good idea. As it is, it's not even clear whether we'd go to no lynch at this point. All a deadline is going to do at this point is to force us to ram through whatever lynch is possible and limit the information we can get out of it.

mod:

For deadline purposes, is half of 8 4 or 5?

[Fuldu]

Today's Columbus Day, MoS, which for whatever reason is a federal holiday. Lots of schools are closed, most people with government jobs have the day off. Basically, anything associated with the government is out today, though very little else.

[Fuldu]

stupid private lib arts school not giving me a day off...

I thought Columbus day was the 12th, though...

Well, the official day, maybe. I'm not sure. But it's always observed on a Monday.

[Fuldu]

Spectacularly, the only people Fuldu has expressed suspicion of today have been MBL and Cesspit. With all the mention of other scummy people he's bought none of it and maintained his dogged focus. His last three posts were dedicated to explaining the Columbus Day holiday.

Dogged focus is one of the foundations of my playstyle, MBL. You can call it "looking for a convenient lynch" if you want, but I think that's as good a name for what you've done, list 10 of the remaining 14 players (not including yourself) as suspicious, with the lovely note that you've probably missed one or two. Now, you've indicated increased levels of suspicion for some and not for others, so it's not quite as bad as "expressing suspicion of everyone is as bad as expressing suspicion of no one," but it does leave you open to putting your vote on pretty much any bandwagon that arises and being able to defend it with past actions and views.

The Columbus Day bit I will grant. They weren't the most useful posts. But I didn't like the way conversation was going vis a vis the lack of participation when there were plausible explanations that no one seemed aware of. If you or MoS want to get on somebody's back about it now, I have no problem with that. But doing it during a holiday weekend simply because you don't realize it's a holiday weekend (or, if I'm being cynical, despite the fact that you know it's a holiday weekend, but may be hoping that others don't) isn't good for anybody.

[Fuldu]

Finds cesspit suspicious for voting DGB after she begged replacement. I see dumb not scum but yes, the Cess play is suspect.

If you want to frame it that way, this was what I would consider a poorly thought out rationale for a vote. Yes, it could arguably be dumb, but it could also arguably be an attempt to put together a compelling sounding reason for a bandwagon, which would be scummy. I'll return to this topic later.

summary: no real comment on validity of Bogretownwagon

I believe I've said this to you already, but I don't feel the need to comment on everything that's going on. I barely remember the Bogre wagon at this point, but I can't see anything in the thread to suggest that I would have had strong feelings one way or the other about it. Given that, I don't really know what you would have wanted me to say.

Lordy and Kurtz are stupid. No vote yet.

finds bluemonick's "jump to that bandwagon" on Yosarian scummy. (not stupid, scummy.) Says the reasoning is nonsense. Votes bluemonick for nonsense. Curious.

summary: found stupidity in bluemonick scummy but not in lordy or kurtz.

And I don't find this curious at all. As with Cesspit, bluemonick was voting on the basis of poor reasoning. More than that, he latched onto BMQ's bad reasoning trap, and then extended the poor reasoning by relying on matters of experience to which BMQ is entitled, but to which he wasn't. Criminally poor reasoning, and well worth a bandwagon, in my opinion.

Lordy, on the other hand, behaved stupidly, but not in a way that I view as having the goal of getting someone lynched.

Kurtz is a somewhat fairer comparison to make, but I feel that the mistake he made, his reading of lordy's non-claim, is a reasonable one. The comments lordy made were poorly worded, and could appear to be a claim. As such, I'm willing to give Kurtz the benefit of the doubt there.

Day three: disappears for 3 weeks

Apology for absense w/ excuse: "i was waiting for cam the replacement to speak first!" Must reread to see if Spam was so central that he should be waited on there.

I believe Spamwise was the main topic of discussion at that point. Also, more than half of that 3 weeks was the end of Day 2, when I didn't feel any strong needs to reiterate my argument about bluemonick, and Night 3.

If trying to get people to not vote for you wasn't the goal of the claim, then what purpose did claiming serve?

Fine, BJ. I gave you two opportunities to answer my question and you've ducked it without comment both times.

vote: BabyJesus

Hmm, is not answering that question really a serious enough offense to vote BJ? I lean towards yes--BJ looked like he was avoiding issues at the time.

summary: his words never really seem to imply belief that BJ is scummy, just that BJ is making a nonsensical defense. vote stayed to the end though.

How is it that you still don't get that beyond Day One for me the very existence of a vote on someone almost always implies belief that they are scummy? I try to take a measured approach in my voting decisions. Other people have different styles, but I can't see how that difference makes my way look scummy.

Day 4's 6 days old and votes MBL for being a hypocrite (lurkerish d1-3 now calling out lurkers)

because MrBuddyLee has spent the entire game complaining about lurkers, player apathy, and the incoherence of everyone else's arguments without bothering to offer any real substance of his own

For me, the key words there were "without bothering to offer any real substance." You can condense that to "lurkerish" if you want, but "hypocrite" wasn't so much the problem I was trying to get across as was the notion that you had been skating through the game to that point on the

appearance

of contribution. Talking a lot about how no one else is participating and how bad that is for the town is a lot more pro-town-seeming than would be plain lurking, but it's only slightly more genuinely pro-town, which makes it an excellent approach for scum to take.

I'm increasingly convinced that he's scum.

It's curious--this is only the second time Fuldu's actually stated he's found someone scummy. The rest of his mildest of mild suspicions have been very detached and clinical, other than on bluemonick.

Well, yeah. They seemed like stronger arguments to me and so I was willing to make them a little louder than I would otherwise. And, again, just because I don't use the word scum, doesn't mean I don't think the person is scum.

Drops hints that he's happy with MoS's cesspit case and is willing to move.

I'm assuming "may consider shifting my vote" means "if that becomes a safer wagon"? What else could it mean? In case this BuddyLee hypocrisy trend doesn't pan out?

"Safer" wagon? No, but there's always the possibility that no one's going to agree with me, at which point I'd rather put my vote on Cesspit and contribute to a lynch that isn't my preferred one, but of which I approve, than leave it somewhere where it isn't having any effect.

Claims that the quality of his posts dramatically exceeds MBL's. Uses his argument against bluemonick as his primary defense. It's true--that's the only Fuldu post that moved the game forward in a positive direction. The rest of them have diddled around with office logic, not expressed many of his suspicions, and pointed out minor flaws in people's logic but not their scumminess.

What do you want from me, exactly? I feel that my Cesspit argument Day One contributed to the discussion. And while you may feel that it is of minimal relevance now (see below), it was a genuine contribution at the time it was posted.

Similarly, I think my arguments with BabyJesus were a positive contribution. I was wrong, but I don't think I was unreasonable in suggesting that BabyJesus's behavior was inconsistent and merited an explanation.

And, maybe you don't see it, but I consider the pointing out of minor flaws in people's logic to potentially be of value to the general discussion. Not as much as the aforementioned points, but of value. Small misunderstandings like that can quickly turn into large misunderstandings like the one exemplified by the lordy/Kurtz exchange. Trying to make sure everyone is on the same page helps to defuse those situations.

Then digs up a decent observation on MBL--noted I posted in mild support of Bogre hours before he was hammered, and didnt unvote. This shows that Fuldu actually went back and reread my post history carefully, implying I was his #1 target for lynch. As I try to determine Fuldu's alignment, I ask whether he's going back and looking for dirt with a fine-toothed comb as scum or as town. I haven't played with Fuldu enough to say.

I can't recall which of those two situations it was in this case. It's certainly true that you were my #1 target for lynch, though I would use the word "preference" rather than "target". I was/am suspicious of you and had expressed that already. I'm sure I reread everything you'd posted at or around that timeframe, looking for suspicious behavior. But at some point back there I went through and reread the entire thread, as well. But I'm not going to suggest that I'm completely able to set aside my existing preconceptions about players when doing that sort of reread.

you'll notice a marked difference in the quality of MBL posts from before my vote/post to which he's referring and those after...not that this was the primary intent of the post, my targeted attempt to improve the value of discourse from those I consider suspicious has proven substantially more effective than any of MBL's repeated listing of people he thinks are lurking.

For some reason attempts to detract from any pro-town motives in my September posts and reassign the credit to himself.

Well, I haven't considered the subsequent material to be exactly overflowing with pro-town motives. But this was said in response to describing my argument against you as "hypocrite," which I've already said isn't an accurate depiction.

Remember above when Fuldu gave signs that if the Cess wagon kicked into gear he'd move back onto it? Let's look at the actual quotes side-by-side:

I agree with MoS's comments on

TheCesspit, who I was uncomfortable with back on Day One, but subsequently began to trust again

. I may consider shifting my vote over there, but for now would prefer this.

Well, I was in favor of a Cesspit lynch back on day one

, so if the MBL bandwagon isn't going anywhere, I'll gladly change to Cesspit.

vote: Cess

1) It's day four. Your day one reason was way weak, particularly now that there're four days worth of posts to work with. Why even make an attempt to rationalize your vote

twice

by reiterating that it's a weak suspicion you dabbled with day one?

You think it's weak. I felt it was a reasonable argument that, by Day Four, was insufficient on its own, but in conjunction with MoS's concerns was worth pursuing.

2) How sincere were his suspicions of me if he moved his vote? He was "increasingly convinced MBL is scum" cause I was hypocritical. Moving off because a "better wagon" appeared is curious.

I guess the important distinction is between "better vote" and "better wagon." As I said above, you were still my preferred target. No one else really seemed to agree with me and I didn't have anything new to say. I could have repeated my arguments in the hopes that maybe no one had been paying attention previously, and perhaps I should have. I don't like to rant about "Why isn't anyone listening to me" unless I really, really think things are taking a bad turn. But as things were, there were a couple bandwagons with the potential to go somewhere, one of which I felt was a good idea, and the others I didn't (or had no strong feelings). Given that, Cesspit was a better wagon, and I don't feel that reasoning is scummy.

Apparently my accusation that he was looking for a convenient lynch stuck, because he counterargued that I listed a zillion people as suspicious. He didn't attempt to defend his vote at all.

The above is my defense of the vote, and I felt I had made it clear in the two Cesspit bandwagon quotes you've included above. And, again, I feel that the Day One argument I made was a stronger argument than you do, so you can disagree with it as a defense of my vote, but you can't say I hadn't attempted to defend it.

Disappears for a week waiting for Oberon to post. This is the second time he's seemed happy not to rock the boat until a replacement had a chance to dig themselves a hole. I'd have maybe asked someone else a question in that time, but that's not how Fuldu's playing this game. He's all about The Cesspit/Oberon.

Well, now you're just being snide. I've talked about a focused approach a couple of times now, and I don't expect to change your view on it, but I don't care to jump up and down just to keep you happy.

Takes a cheap nonsequitur shot at MBL while asking Oberon for a clearer argument behind his mathcam vote. Fuldu won't unvote unless Oberon:

points to the specific arguments brought against him(mathcam) that you felt were strong

This is fascinating, considering the similarity between Fuldu's argument against Cess and Oberon's against cam:

Mathcam seems to stand out as more scummy then most everyone else here. Plus

the strongest arguements have been brought up against him.

I agree with MoS's comments on TheCesspit

, who I was uncomfortable with back on Day One

Summary: Fuldu demands Oberon lists the specific arguments against cam that were strong, while Fuldu coasts along in MoS's wake without listing a single specific argument against Cesspit that he finds strong.

I can't speak to the cheap non sequitur, since it doesn't appear to be up any longer. My recollection of the post about Oberon was that it was complaining more precisely about the fact that he had replaced into the game and said, "yeah, the arguments against mathcam are strong." Without even any credible evidence that he read the thread any more clearly than would be necessary to find a target, I don't intend to remove my vote.

The comparison you make to me and my Cesspit/Oberon vote isn't entirely fair, but it isn't entirely unfair either. As I've said, I think the arguments I was pointing to are things that you either didn't recognize or don't respect as arguments, but I certainly did take what MoS had said into consideration without commenting on it.

[Fuldu]

I'm confused. You're asking us to try to find your play half as retarded as you do? I'm not sure that qualifies as asking a lot of yourself. It would be asking a little more to try to play better in the first place.

Actually he's asking us to find spectrumvoid's play half as retarded as he does.

Personally, I'm not inclined to agree, because it seems like Coron's point is not that he's not jumping on a bandwagon without providing a reason, but that he's not jumping on a

new

bandwagon without providing a reason. He's been after Spamwise/mathcam for the whole game and the closest to a reason that I can find is:

Mathcam- recently has faded to the background, has keep posting but nothing of consequence for almost as long as I have been not posting.

...which was posted shortly before the crash, long after several votes for 'cam.

[Fuldu]

Which of those lists is the active one, STD? Meaning, do you have a reason for wanting to kill everyone on the one list and the other is just everyone left, or do you have a reason to not kill everyone on the second list and the other is just everyone left. Or, I suppose it's possible that you actually have an opinion on everyone in the game, but that's rare.

I ask because I would assume (just based on length) that the second list is the active one, and I'd be interested to know the reason in each of those cases. I mean, I don't find Yosarian2 especially scummy, but I don't see any reason to trust him, either.

[Fuldu]

I'm here.

[Fuldu]

Looking at the kills for each night, it was 1, 3, & 3. If anything, I'd say that puts slightly

more

suspicion on Spamwise/mathcam, not less.

[Fuldu]

Wait, now we have

two

claimed role-switchers? Uraj, which switches have been your doing? Please clarify with the mod if you don't have pre-replacement data.

[Fuldu]

unvote for now

in light of recent information.

I won't say anything other than that at the moment. Expect a future post.

Interesting. I can't find any piece of information revealed here that should make Uraj less willing to lynch mathcam that Uraj shouldn't have already known. Uraj knew he was the role switcher, so mathcam's claim shouldn't come as a surprise. Uraj knew

he

didn't switch himself with mathcam, so MMoD's counter-claim shouldn't come as a surprise, either. If Uraj said "That's a lie" and reiterated his vote on mathcam, that would make sense. Or, if he said "I've made all the switches so far this game" and moved his vote to MMoD, that would also make sense. Pulling his vote off mathcam in this scenario is curious.

[Fuldu]

I am not a role switcher, nor have I ever been a role switcher. As a matter of fact, I've never even changed offices.

Oh, yeah, mathcam switched with armlx most recently. I'd like to wait for the replacement so fauxarmlx can verify that this isn't just a goof on mathcam's part, but it seems reasonably likely that he's lying.

[Fuldu]

Vote Colonel Kurtz

Something just doesn't tick here.... Lordy I've seen act this way before i think and his role makes sense.

I'm confused, I thought he claimed role swapper. OR did he claim his role was swapped. Or did anyone claim role swappers?????

I'm so confused......

Nope, armlx wasn't the role-swapper. Voting someone (Colonel Kurtz) for voting for someone (lordy) that you (armlx) believe has claimed your own role isn't credible. I still want to wait for the replacement, but this doesn't seem like a plausible claim on mathcam's part.

[Fuldu]

As things stand, I'm in favor of a mathcam lynch, but I'd like to hear from armlx or his replacement first, just to clarify. If people think that that really isn't necessary, they might convince me to move my vote before that happens, but for now it won't be.

[Fuldu]

I'm somewhat troubled with the whole array of role-swap possibilities in the arguments regarding mathcam. Since my recent suspicions against mathcam were based mostly on an array of mistakes and odd information that suggested that he was lying about his role, and that has proven (well, not proven, but as close as can be determined at this point) not to be the case, would one of his would-be lynchers like to try to convince me? Thok's recent argument about why mathcam ought to trust armlx/pablito is certainly a step in the right direction.

[Fuldu]

Well, Coron, (and this is part of the reason I asked for people to post reasons instead of going back and looking for them myself) you have presented almost nothing that even approaches an argument against mathcam. You've been adamant in your push for a lynch against him, based on almost nothing whatsoever. Looking back over your posts, you've accused him of posting little of content, and now you've presented the Day One roleblock argument, something which, since I pointed out the impact that would have on suspicion toward mathcam, I clearly don't find compelling. And, also, something regarding which you initially said:

[quote="Coron"]you do realize how little that means at this point? I suppose it means something still but very far from decisive evidence of anything.[quote]

And that's all the arguments you've presented. Everything else has been "Hey you know what would be a good idea, voting mathcam." In short, my total uneasiness with you and the approach you've taken to this bandwagon is right now the primary obstacle to my voting mathcam, so if you want me to vote for him, you're going to have to do some work to convince me that this isn't just an unjustified vendetta that you've managed somehow to turn into a serious bandwagon.

[Fuldu]

Coron,

I gave you some modicum of credit for the "posted nothing of consequence," when I said that you'd argued he "posted little of content."

Your other argument is just crap. mathcam was using the phrase "the only thing I can think of" to reference his suspicions about what point ibaesha was trying to make. He wasn't guessing at the characteristics of the roles. He was guessing at what fact ibaesha was hinting at that made her suspicious of Baby Jesus. Read the quote again in context:

The only thing I can think of is that Jack Johnson, Jack Ryan, and Jack Yates all have the ability to communicate at night. This is the only thing in the role that has yet to be revealed, and I don't see any harm in doing it now. BabyJesus sort of implicitly claimed that Jack Ryan wasn't part of the picture, which I think is the lie to which Ibby is referring. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why this makes me more scummy.

As for stuff lost in the crash, if you're so fired up about getting mathcam lynched and have all these points against him, why not post them again, especially after I've asked.

Thank you Thok, for actually responding to my request with content. It's not so much that I needed your arguments to convince me as I wanted Coron to convince me. He didn't, but that doesn't mean the mathcam bandwagon is wrong, just that I want to have further discussion of Coron's place in this town tomorrow.

unvote: Oberon; vote: mathcam

[Fuldu]

He's suggesting that, were he a member of a scum team, he would have selected a different team member to make the kill, under the circumstances.

[Fuldu]

One of the reasons that I was trying to push Coron yesterday for his reasons for voting mathcam was that while his actions seemed to suggest "I know something you don't" (e.g. cop investigation), his approach seemed to be drawing far more attention to him than a cop normally would. But since he was never able to articulate an argument, I came to assume that he must just have been doing a bad job of hiding it and that he really did know something. Otherwise, it's hard to justify his profound insistence on lynching mathcam on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Now that we know mathcam wasn't scum, and that Coron therefore didn't know anything of value, I'm inclined to attribute it to scummy behavior.

vote: Coron

[Fuldu]

I was not trying to out a cop. I felt that if he was a cop he had already outed himself and I was trying to get him to clarify his behavior, because I didn't think it likely that that was the explanation in play. Once he consistently failed to provide an adequate explanation of his behavior, I chose to believe that maybe cop was the explanation, but with mathcam's turning out not to be scum, that isn't the case, either.

[Fuldu]

I didn't think Coron was

trying

to come out as a cop, just that if he was a cop, he was doing a bad job of hiding it. I don't think asking him flat out would have been a good strategy under those circumstances and, frankly, don't generally care for it under most circumstances. If Coron had been able to provide a cogent argument for why he'd been pushing on mathcam for so long, I would have been less confident of my assessment of him as a cop, which would mean that anyone else who had reasoned as I had, probably would as well. That seemed worth pursuing, right up to the point where Coron was totally unable to justify his views on mathcam. At which point, I assumed he was a cop, and cut the conversation short by ending the day.

[Fuldu]

So my options are voting for spectrumvoid, who I largely believe is pro-town, or getting deadline lynched myself? Frankly, I'd rather see STD lynched, since his posts against spectrum have been pretty much unjustified, and spectrum was one of the few people he felt he had reason to trust the last time he went through the players and indicated his views. Or Coron, for reasons I've already stated and that have apparently gotten me in trouble.

unvote: Coron; vote: Save The Dragons

[Fuldu]

I've had to wait a full year to post this:

If you think Bluemonick is scum and will rat out his scum partners, then you're hoping for the game to be ruined. That goes above pro-town and anti-town, and it just ruins the fun of the game for everyone (ignoring the whole WIFOM concept). I'd rather hunt for the scum myself then get free victories by having frustrated scum give me the easy way out.

QFFT. The game as a whole went on just fine, but it pissed me off something fierce and dug me a hole I was surprised I survived in as long as I did.