California Trilogy - Dantès in Fresno (Game Over!)

[Adele]

Hi. I'm very here.

[Adele]

activity much?

There's really only one thing that strikes me so far this game.

I don't ever like people who "say" that random.org affected their diceroll. I feel much more relaxed when people use the dice function (as it cannot be editied, and you're aware of that.) Now, I find people can "fake" random.org or "dicerolls" as such. How did you handle repeat rolls? Especially when you had only 2 or 3 names left? Did you keep on rolling? over and over again? How long did this process take you?

I am questioning if your random votes were truly arbitrary.

Wow, I feel pretty much the opposite. What's the point of truly random votes, and especially of proven random votes? The accusation of divestment of responsibility is something I very much agree with. Prior to this trend of dice-tags (even if this is an imaginary time period), a "random" vote meant "vote that I am claiming is random, but could possibly be merely arbitrary, or even- ooh! - malicious". When a few of these stacked up on someone, the question as to whether there are scumzars on the wagon, either to harm or (yay wifom) clear someone is a kickstart for discussion.

(Seriously, MOS, why not just say it's random, rather than that whole easily-fakeable demo??? There is no level on which I get that, and it even seems a slight "honestly, guys, I'm honest!" move, you know?)

For wilfully ignoring this and saying instead that people should just tick the "good, safe townie" boxes rather than do anything productive... yeah.

Vote: LoudmouthLee

, Mastermind of Sin.

[Adele]

Sorry, mgm, is that approval of or disapproval of dice-tags (and, more to the point, the pseudo-dice tags presented by MoS)?

[Adele]

...

are you just posting to say "meh"?

You're annoying.

[Adele]

(Seriously, MOS, why not just say it's random, rather than that whole easily-fakeable demo??? There is no level on which I get that, and it even seems a slight "honestly, guys, I'm honest!" move, you know?)

Are you saying that you agree with me? That was the point that I was making exactly. I don't understand your reason for voting me.

My belief: dice-tags and proven-random votes have no place, while arbitrary and possibly-random votes have a place.

I don't ever like people who "say" that random.org affected their diceroll. I feel much more relaxed when people use the dice function (as it cannot be editied, and you're aware of that.)

Your belief: the opposite (this may simply be my delusion of what you're saying; if so, please clarify).

I've decided to coin a term today.
Metascummy (Adj)
definition: behaviour that is unhelpful to the town but defended as supposedly unscummy due to the user's universal use of the tactic.

MoS is being metascummy, LmL was (in my opinion) defending him. I'm choosing to make a big deal out of it.

Once more: my problem isn't that MoS didn't use the dice tags - he couldn't. It's not that he did - he didn't. It's that he pseudo-used it, and tried to "prove" that he had (see his later explanation and overuse of the term "retarded" for further details).

[Adele]

I was

attacking

him for being metascummy. I questioned the validity of his dicerolls.

God, Adele. Please read those posts again.

Then we

do

disagree. Not that MoS is weird - we seem to agree there - but on whether dice tags are good or bad. I maintain that they are bad (that is, they might have a place in-game, but not in the random-voting stage). You appear to prefer them to people saying they used random.org - and I personally would rather people switched to saying "arb vote" than maintain any pretence of or (worse)

actual

randomness in their initial vote.

but thank you for using "metascummy"

Tag fixed. - Mod

[Adele]

(Seriously, MOS, why not just say it's random, rather than that whole easily-fakeable demo??? There is no level on which I get that, and it even seems a slight "honestly, guys, I'm honest!" move, you know?)

What incentive would scum have to fake random rolls or votes?

I like that question. I have a couple of ideas. The following scenarios are set in a typical mini.

Scum 1 and scum 2 could arrange before the game to "random" vote scum 3 so that anyone else voting scum 3 would be attacked.
Scum 1 and scum 2 could arrange before the game to "random" vote townie 3 so that they could unvote and defend the townie upon the third vote so, should that that townie ever die, they'll be considered likely GGs be association.

And so on.

Look, the difference between the action and the motivation behind the action is a major pillar of mafia play. Making it crystal-clear is anti-game; it's like pm-quoting (though obviously much less so).

[Adele]

LML's not being given any credits here, Skruffs - he's actually having a relatively tough time of things according to the Votecount. I can say at least one of those votes was not placed with any kind of eye to lynching, but nontheless; he's not feeling very comfortable right now.

Whereas I, who've probably not contributed much of anything, seem to be mostly slightly trusted. Things are random at this stage - just try to play tight and things'll even out.

See what I did in that last paragraph there, talking you you like a newbie?
Yeah, that was fun.

And seriously, come the weekend I'll be able to contribute as much as I've been wanting to so far (downside of having a "real" job).

[Adele]

I disagree with Jeep about his thing against people explaining why they don't think they'd like to do a certain thing (ooh manipulation). I have a right to say "I don't like mushrooms" and if anyone here stops eating mushrooms because of it, that's their stupid fault.

I dont get this at all, Adele. Whether or not the dice rolls are good are bad are not even germane to this debate. You accused him of defending MoS, he refutes it and then you respond with this meaningless statement.

Whether or not dice rolls are good or bad are a part of this debate. I voted LmL because I believed he was defending MoS' bad play. "He refutes it" is a bit far - I don't think he attained actual refutation (I considered his earlier posts vague and ambiguous), but what the heck. I decided, due to his stance on dice rolls, not to unvote him at that time.

So, let's assume I am scum 1 or scum 2. Where are the second and third votes on logicticus?

I wasn't actually accusing you of either of those. I was posing hypotheticals plays. I'd like to point out, though, that it's not a dichotomy between me figuring out what you're doing and you being innocent. You could be scum with a gameplan I don't know.

Making my motivations obvious is not anti-game. It's allowing you to see what motivations I have without having to make wild guesses.

And... what game do you think we're playing? Wouldn't giving people your login so they can access your account and see your role pm allow them to see your motivations without wild guesses?
Are you gonna do it? No, because it's against the rule.
Why is it against the rules? Because it's anti-game.

Random voting is never helpful to the town. It only serves to distract the town as they chase after people for making "random" votes. My point is, you cannot say that I am scum based on this. The logic doesn't work out, at all. If I am scum because I tried to make a truly random vote, then I am scum in every game, and this is already proven false. It doesn't matter whether or not you like the tactic

I'd like "Random voting is never helpful to the town" noted for the record, first of all.
Say you were a major-ass lurker. You just never posted anything of use. Ever. Whether town or scum. If challenged, you'd say... well, exactly what you said in the abovequoted post. I'd vote you until you changed. I'd lynch you (when better lynches didn't present themselves) until you changed. It's called metagaming, and it's what you do to the metascummy.

What is to be gained by "faking" a random vote? What is "contrived" about it? What would I, as scum, be planning that would require that I "fake" a random vote, when I could've just complained about not being able to use dice tags and done something else?

Well, for one thing, it's given you plenty to talk about without commenting on other players much (you can deduce from this that I don't think much of the remainder of your post).

In any case, like I say, just because we don't know your play doesn't mean you don't have one.

Re: Jeep... I do also kinda think he could be scum. I just haven't felt the townie conviction from his posts, I guess.

QFT

Scum 1 and scum 2 could arrange before the game to "random" vote scum 3 so that anyone else voting scum 3 would be attacked.
Scum 1 and scum 2 could arrange before the game to "random" vote townie 3 so that they could unvote and defend the townie upon the third vote so, should that that townie ever die, they'll be considered likely GGs be association.

And so on.

Do you think either of the scenarios you've presented here have potentially obtained?

I don't undestand that sentence, I'm afraid; If you're asking if I'm saying one of them is the case here, the answer's "I don't think so". If you're asking if I think they are really possible plays in games generally, then yes, absolutely.

Everyone in this game has the same chances of being scum. To say "Yay Thesp! You have a lot to bring to the table here!" basically means, to me, that Scruffs is giving some sort of power to thesp... The feeling of Gospel.

Have people become more fraidy-cat in the last couple months? Paranoia's all good and well, but "Oh no! This person's been complimented we're all going to LOSE FREE WILL to think for ourselveses!"
Come on.

At the moment I'm mildly distrusting MoS, jeep, and LmL a little bit.

vote: Mastermind of Sin, Jeep, LmL, Cubsfan4ever, Thesp, PWS, [everyone else], no lynch.

[Adele]

The only reason MOS's random vote is 'contrived' is because the mod wouldn't let him use dice tags. He could be faking, but so could every other random vote that can't be verified to be random.

Who is this aimed at? And, what's it got to do with anything? The rules of the game are what they are. Mod=God.

[Adele]

Whew! Where to start... first off, sorry for my absence; I had out-of-town work coinciding with a public transport strike, and lacked the freedom to go online.

However Adele sticks to this chat on random voting rather than looking at the real issues. Says in post 181 "Things are random at this stage" which I think we're way past.

I think things were way more random in the post you're referring to (181) than in this post itself (more than half as many posts again later).

Scum 1 and scum 2 could arrange before the game to "random" vote scum 3 so that anyone else voting scum 3 would be attacked.
Scum 1 and scum 2 could arrange before the game to "random" vote townie 3 so that they could unvote and defend the townie upon the third vote so, should that that townie ever die, they'll be considered likely GGs be association.

And so on.

Do you think either of the scenarios you've presented here have potentially obtained?

I don't undestand that sentence, I'm afraid; If you're asking if I'm saying one of them is the case here, the answer's "I don't think so". If you're asking if I think they are really possible plays in games generally, then yes, absolutely.

I was asking the former. What would be the possible purpose of MoS-scum in this instance to fake random voting? Your answer seems to be, "I don't know, but it looks scummy." I need a higher standard than that, particularly from you.

Why, that's very nearly a compliment! And, frankly, I was never intending to present a game-specific case against MoS for that action, because, as I hope people will one day understand, my problem with dice-tag voting is not game-specific. I don't like the divestment of responsibility, I don't like the fact that it's people pretending to contribute and actually contributing nothing to discussion (apart from this, but that's sooo not the point).
Why might MoS have faked it? I don't know and I don't care. I just think it's worth noting that it

could

be faked for nefarious purposes. The fact of its potential is the issue, not the likelihood of it.

That was not my accusation

.

TheStatusquo is innocent. If you don't believe me, just ask Tamuz

?

Adele:
-109 only 1 thing really strikes here? Minimalize much!
Introduction of null tell- I've never heard of this before, but its something I missed going IA the last few months of mafia this doesn't matter. If its a relatively new term, I'm somewhat concerned of Zindie's overuse of it and PWS
picking up of this term.
- 181

councils

skruffs, advising him how to deflect attention. HUHUHUHUHJUHUHUHUHUH?
- That quote in Adel's siggy calling her misguided realllllly applies to Adel as far as LML defending MoS goes

1. I did

not

advise skruffs on how to deflect attention. I advised him to

play well

.
2. Are you getting me confused with Adel? Adel/=Adele. We are different people.

I agree with Tamuz's post #296 on: MoS, xyzzy and Cubs; I either mildly disagree or have no opinion on his other analyses, except his judgement of me (see above)

Why is everyone voting Skruffs for going ahead to use the list system? It's not like he gets extra votes, it seems it's only used for deadline lynches. How is it perceived as a bad thing to ensure a lynch happens as such? Just curious if this is just a focal point for a random bandwagon or not.

/agree

I've decided to coin a term today.
Metascummy (Adj)
definition: behaviour that is unhelpful to the town but defended as supposedly unscummy due to the user's universal use of the tactic.

By your definition, smileys, jokes, pictures, and anything superfluous is scummy (indicated by the "supposedly unscummy") Which is horribly untrue.

If they're used as tactics (indicated by the "use of the tactic")...
Seriously, though, following the game I'll pimp the concept and I'll get Seol to write a definition that won't get persnickity folks' knickers in a twist.

I think at this point, condorcent voting has been blown out of proportion

/agree

Adele's logic looks like she's been trying to think of a reason why she could make random voting into something scummy.

But, I

always

hate dice-tags, so it can't be a scumtell

btw, if you think that hypotheticals don't have a place in the game, then, sucks to be you. I don't know how not to argue with hypotheticals - they're too big a part of my brain.

Poop, I'm out of time (spent 1.5hrs reading & writing this - sooo out of practise). I'm only up to post 300ish. More to come soon.

[Adele]

First, I apparently don't know how to unvote. I'll try again at the end of this post.

DP, no offense meant, but you are still stuck on page five.

Cubsfan4ever: Few posts and short - consisting of nothing more than some defence of Skruffs. I maintain that he gives off a scum smell if Skruffs turns out to be innocent. Even worse, with his lack of contribution he is already giving off a scum smell now. IGMEOY, likely scum

Skruffs: his defences so far have not really convinced me. Still noted down as likely scum.

You are voting me, and if I come up innocent, Cubs is very likely scum. But you didn't address, what if I come up scum, as you seem to be so sure I am (based on your votes)? Does that make cubs likely innocent? It's not hard for me to theorize that you only did one half of the equation because you already

know I'm not scum

. Error of omission.

If something is black it is not white. If it is not black it is not automatically white. If you are innocent after all, I think Cubs is probably scum (by now I think he is probably scum anyway). Should you be guilty, there is no reason why Cubs should be innocent. He could even be of a second family.

I am not addressing the rest of your post now because I don't have time. I also don't think it will be very helpful to do so now.

OK; this, I think, is the source of the whole "2 family" thing. It's a lot weaker than I remember it, probably because it's been scaled up in everyone's minds as they argued it out. I don't believe Skruffs "straight out lied" and I don't believe that you believe it either, mgm. IGMEOY.

Now to be safe, I'm only going to unvote, and not vote again right now

Unvote

[Adele]

What?!?!? Scum will only do pro-scum stuff that they don't realize is pro-scum. If they do stuff that they think is pro-scum, they are stupid. This has got to be the most backwards thing I've read in a LONG time.

If this were true, there'd be no way to differentiate between townies and scum when it comes to scummy actions as both would have to be unaware of the (pro-scum) consequences of their scummy actions.

ROFL.
When I read Jeep's bit, I agreed: scum don't do stuff that makes them look scummy on purpose, duuuh.
When I read CES's bit, I agreed: scum do do stuff that'll help them achieve their WC, duuuh.
Have I adequately summarised your positions? I think that might be a disagreement caused by confusion over the meaning of "pro-scum".


-and now for something completely different-

I don't like MGM's attitude about the two families thing, which is basically saying that DP was in the right in stating that there are two families in a game like that.

I still stand by what I said earlier today. Show me the proof and quote the post in which he said it.

I've been looking over the DP's posts. Does he state explicitly that he knows there are definately two families? No. If he were, we wouldn't be here. He'd be claiming or under near-lynch bandwagon or in a very tentative spot indeed.

What has he said, then?

The following are from DP's 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th posts.

DP, no offense meant, but you are still stuck on page five.

Cubsfan4ever: Few posts and short - consisting of nothing more than some defence of Skruffs. I maintain that he gives off a scum smell if Skruffs turns out to be innocent. Even worse, with his lack of contribution he is already giving off a scum smell now. IGMEOY, likely scum

Skruffs: his defences so far have not really convinced me. Still noted down as likely scum.

You are voting me, and if I come up innocent, Cubs is very likely scum. But you didn't address, what if I come up scum, as you seem to be so sure I am (based on your votes)? Does that make cubs likely innocent? It's not hard for me to theorize that you only did one half of the equation because you already know I'm not scum. Error of omission.

If something is black it is not white. If it is not black it is not automatically white. If you are innocent after all, I think Cubs is probably scum (by now I think he is probably scum anyway). Should you be guilty, there is no reason why Cubs should be innocent. He could even be of a second family.

Here he appears to be saying that he thinks that Cubs is "probably" scum and Skruffs is "likely" scum, but he doesn't think they are scum together - then he raises the possibility of a second family (

that

is what originally caught Skruff's attention). Although he says "even" (which to me looks scummy in itself), the scenario he presents offers a very likely chance of multiple families; I would say probable, even.

To Skruffs: yes, there might be a second mafia family. That is not unheard of in a 20 player game. I would even bet either two families or one family and a SK.

He'd

bet

that there's not just one family, and I agree that the SK seems like an afterthought, where it usually would be the first suggestion in post 16 above, not second after a seperate family.

3. Congratulations on the astute observation that if I mention a second family, that this implies that there is a first. Excellent. If you think my next comment you refer to (about there also being a possibility of one family and a SK) is backpedalling, then you don't understand the meaning of that word.

Please pay close attention to the wording here - this is a subtle point, a freudian slip. "If I mention a second family, this implies that there

is

a first" - as if he's talking

not

about how things

might be

, but

how they are

.

2. Do not mis represent what I said ("DP says that there are two families.") - I never said that. Another scum tell.

the portion that DP quotes here is way out of context. Skruffs acknowledges that he's not been so overt before and after that sentence, which I think was just a minor slip. It's as if he's looking for anything he can contradict - why's he going after the weakest part of the argument, instead of rebutting the point? All of his defenses centre around the fact that multiple families

do

exist and that he didn't say that there definately was one - he completely fails to deal with the issue of the

plausibility

of him bringing multiple families up without knowledge that the uninformed majority doesn't have.

I've convinced myself. It was the "if I mention a second family, this implies that there is a first" that did it. I'm with Skruffs.

vote: Dragon Phoenix

[Adele]

I am curious about Adele too.

I'm finding it bloody hard to keep up with reading the game, let alone sorting out my feelings for twenty different people. I'm very bright in some ways and less bright in others; keeping all this clear is tough for me and I don't often play large games for that reason. I'm giving my all, and will improve over the next few game days, but this is not a game-specific problem but a game-size-specific problem.

We've come up on the deadline awfully fast. I can't imagine at this stage that I'll convince anyone of anything, nor that anyone (except, perhaps, the mafia) wants a no-lynch, so I'll sheep. I commit to return within 24 hours and place a vote on whoever's leading, unless there are two people credibly close to lynch, in which case I will judge the case against each and vote for the scummier-looking, with a justification included.

[Adele]

Also, I'd be okay with Adele as an alternate lynch. The whole "I'm going to sheep" thing doesn't sit well with me.

Heh. Yeah, I can see why . Would you prefer "I'll consent to the whims of the town at large in meeting the primary goal, of at least avoiding a no-lynch today"?

"sheep" was more concise, but an maligned term in mafia.

Does the plan

itself

offend you? I mean, I'm not going to turn a majority onto anyone at this stage, so my usefulness is not in my argumentative powers but my contribution of a vote, to my mind.

[Adele]

No. Unless your vote removes us from having a Concordet winner, you should be voting for whomever

you

believe is scummiest. Remember that we don't necessarily need a majority before deadline to secure a lynch.

i'd be more comfortable with that idea if I understood Concordet voting. Has anyone found a good summary of it's likely implications? It seems to fuzz things up. For example:

we don't

necessarily

need a majority before deadline to secure a lynch.

That's fuzzy.

[Adele]

Anyway, Adele, if you're not going to vote on your own, I'd at least like to hear your opinion on some players. You are absolutely not going to slide by without contributing, especially if you're around and we're near deadline.

Which players? I'm not "around" around; I'm posting from a webcafe and if I wanna eat tonight (I do) I've pretty much gotta go now. I can't spend whole evenings onsite in the forseeable future; it's just not tenable. I'll be on again tomorrow and I'll explain what you ask me to explain and stand by my commitment (to vote as needed

if that is necessary to get a lynch

; the important thing is to avoid a no-lynch).

As to now, gtg. Sorry.

[Adele]

activity much?

There's really only one thing that strikes me so far this game.

I don't ever like people who "say" that random.org affected their diceroll. I feel much more relaxed when people use the dice function (as it cannot be editied, and you're aware of that.) Now, I find people can "fake" random.org or "dicerolls" as such. How did you handle repeat rolls? Especially when you had only 2 or 3 names left? Did you keep on rolling? over and over again? How long did this process take you?

I am questioning if your random votes were truly arbitrary.

Wow, I feel pretty much the opposite. What's the point of truly random votes, and especially of proven random votes? The accusation of divestment of responsibility is something I very much agree with. Prior to this trend of dice-tags (even if this is an imaginary time period), a "random" vote meant "vote that I am claiming is random, but could possibly be merely arbitrary, or even- ooh! - malicious". When a few of these stacked up on someone, the question as to whether there are scumzars on the wagon, either to harm or (yay wifom) clear someone is a kickstart for discussion.

(Seriously, MOS, why not just say it's random, rather than that whole easily-fakeable demo??? There is no level on which I get that, and it even seems a slight "honestly, guys, I'm honest!" move, you know?)

For wilfully ignoring this and saying instead that people should just tick the "good, safe townie" boxes rather than do anything productive... yeah.

Vote: LoudmouthLee

, Mastermind of Sin.

I never liked this. I feel that her vote on me was a policy vote and had nothing to do with any of my posts. She has left her vote on me since then.

Um. Remember when I tried to unvote you, but for some reason muffed it? Then the time I did unvote you? Check the votecount, man. I voted you for weak, semi-pointmaking reasons - People do that, early in the game. Then I unvoted you when the reasons I had for voting you fell below the threshold of acceptability of seriousness (in my eyes).

I find it

shocking

that you accuse me of not unvoting you when the latest votecount names Cubsfan4ever, Dani Banani/Mastermind of Sin, IH/Oman, Skruffs and xyzzy as your voters. It's right there!

(Seriously, MOS, why not just say it's random, rather than that whole easily-fakeable demo??? There is no level on which I get that, and it even seems a slight "honestly, guys, I'm honest!" move, you know?)

Are you saying that you agree with me? That was the point that I was making exactly. I don't understand your reason for voting me.

My belief: dice-tags and proven-random votes have no place, while arbitrary and possibly-random votes have a place.

I don't ever like people who "say" that random.org affected their diceroll. I feel much more relaxed when people use the dice function (as it cannot be editied, and you're aware of that.)

Your belief: the opposite (this may simply be my delusion of what you're saying; if so, please clarify).

I've decided to coin a term today.
Metascummy (Adj)
definition: behaviour that is unhelpful to the town but defended as supposedly unscummy due to the user's universal use of the tactic.

MoS is being metascummy, LmL was (in my opinion) defending him. I'm choosing to make a big deal out of it.

Once more: my problem isn't that MoS didn't use the dice tags - he couldn't. It's not that he did - he didn't. It's that he pseudo-used it, and tried to "prove" that he had (see his later explanation and overuse of the term "retarded" for further details).

Whereas I feel like I was ATTACKING MoS for it, not defending him. I call bullpoop.

I thought you were defending him. Whether you were ambiguous or I grossly misinterpreted, who cares? The whole talk's been done to death. We've talked all that out.

You won

.

I was

attacking

him for being metascummy. I questioned the validity of his dicerolls.

God, Adele. Please read those posts again.

Then we

do

disagree. Not that MoS is weird - we seem to agree there - but on whether dice tags are good or bad. I maintain that they are bad (that is, they might have a place in-game, but not in the random-voting stage). You appear to prefer them to people saying they used random.org - and I personally would rather people switched to saying "arb vote" than maintain any pretence of or (worse)

actual

randomness in their initial vote.

but thank you for using "metascummy"

Tag fixed. - Mod

But here, She basically says we disagree on the use of dicetags.. and we obviously DO NOT have dicetags in this game.

Yes, I know.

So, why is she voting for me again? It's manufactured.. since there was a rather ignorant growing bandwagon on me.

Then why did I unvote you? Is this entire post founded on an untrue premise?

LML's not being given any credits here, Skruffs - he's actually having a relatively tough time of things according to the Votecount. I can say at least one of those votes was not placed with any kind of eye to lynching, but nontheless; he's not feeling very comfortable right now.

Whereas I, who've probably not contributed much of anything, seem to be mostly slightly trusted. Things are random at this stage - just try to play tight and things'll even out.

See what I did in that last paragraph there, talking you you like a newbie?
Yeah, that was fun.

And seriously, come the weekend I'll be able to contribute as much as I've been wanting to so far (downside of having a "real" job).

This feels like a blantant coaching post and seems scummy to me. It's not even if skrffs is scum or not. I could make cases regardless of Skruff's alignment that Adele is scum posting as such.

I was being smug and condescending. It was fun. I regret nothing. If it seems inappropriate for me to suggest to someone that they play tight, then I'm sorry. I was just trying to contribute to the discussion in hand.


The CPU quota thing pulled on me and I'm about to run out of time at this cafe. Sorry there's not more & for the errors in this post. It was not intentional

Vote: Cubsfan4ever

Tag fixed. - Mod

[Adele]

Sorry I've not checked in yet - I'm loaded down with study like I've not experienced before, and it's difficult for me to justify my 1 hour online being here when I'm meant to be taking tests online. I'm invested, though, and not going anywhere.

Seems like suspicion at this point is mostly on mgm and me - me because I got hung up on the wrong stuff yesterday and mgm... well, I'll have to check that out. I'm not prepared until I've studied the case against him to turn on him. More later today.

[Adele]

Sorry, it seems as though we're now officially trusting mgm on the understanding that he's claimed Eugenie (note to self: read the book) and he at least knows that Dante's in the game? That's not nearly as good a claim as it originally appeared. I did trust him, relatively speaking, because he wound up just seeming trustworthy yesterday, but that's not set in stone.

Now, perhaps I'm a little slower than that, but to read MGM's post (almost exclusively), ignore all other posts, look at his posts in the filter, and find the correct name on wikipedia, with their posts 8 minutes apart is just not innocent to me.

qft, actually. That does seem hella unlikely.

Are you trying to suppose that Logiticus and MGM are Scumbuddies who worked out MGM's claim so that they would be online at nearly the same time and Logiticus could 'find' information that was clearly present to all of us in an attempt to clear him?

Because thats ridiculous.

Yes, it is. Somewhat unridiculous, though, is mgm planning N0 to claim Eugenie if challenged, and mentioning that he'd do so in the way that he eventually did. Logic,

happening

to be online when mgm claimed and noticing the "E" and checking from there, naturally realised that mgm claimed as planned immediately and alerts the world to make his buddy safe as fast as possible, while giving the external-validation thing. hmm.

(smallish) FOS: mgm, logic, tamuz.

because it is, after all, very much circumastantial.