Mature Mafia: Game Over

[Glork]

Vote: Phoebus

for the usual obvious reasons.

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Axelrod

Hunch.

[Glork]

For some reason, I feel like we're in the middle of the movie

Clue/

. There's going to be a lot of running around between the kitchen and the attic.

I'd like to hear something stronger against DGB, and/or a response from her.

Cam

One plus two plus two plus one...

[Glork]

Holy crap.

I just now realized that we can edit one anothers' posts.

I was operating under the assumption that one specific player had this abilty.

Unvote

[Glork]

Yep. Trailless. See 52, logic.


This may go without saying, but I think we all need to agree that no protown player should edit any posts from here on out. That way, any reported/confirmed edits are known to come from scum.

[Glork]

Exactly.

[Glork]

FYI, I'm really interested to see where this RAJ/Axel thing goes. My hunch was not what RAJ saw.


I would absolutely be interested in a binding agreement as

forum members

(as opposed to players/roles in this game) that would tie us to the same rules one typically sees in a conventional mafia game.



Also, Fun Fact:

Mafia Specific Rules

• Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where allowed to do so by your role. Likewise, do not use bbcode to hide secret messages - this equates to discussion outside the thread.
• Do not edit/delete posts.
• Do not quote communications with the moderator (in particular, your role PM). Paraphrasing is usually ok.
• Do not talk after you are dead or replaced. Some moderators do allow contentless "Bah!" posts, but you should never reveal information once you are dead.

Note especially "Do not edit/delete posts."

We may bend (or waive altogether) the last rule, if it is up to a dead individual to reveal one's own role. If this is the case, I would strongly suggest we create a binding rule that players must reveal their alignments and roles truthfully. Failure to adhere to this rule really invalidates the game as a whole, and it creates a very empty victory for the eventual "winners."

[Glork]

EBWOP: In fact, as somebody has already violated that rule, I strongly suggest that they fess up and allow us to modkill them. That was seriously not cool. At all.

[Glork]

DISCLAIMER: The upcoming post does not necessarily reflect what my own role may or may not be/include. I am merely using it as the simplest example I can think of off the top of my head, so as to make a point to Axel.

Consider the case of a mountainous game (aside from "mod powers" such as VCing). At night, the Mafia could simply PM their target saying something along the lines of "We are killing you. Please open the thread and reveal your role to the other players" -- perhaps even from an alt/anonymous account. The deceased player (n this case, Zu_Faul) complies, and the rest of us move on with our lives.

In the absence of a "killer" alt for PMing purposes, a situation such as the above example would create an interesting scenario in which the scums would have to rely on victims' honesty to not reveal their identities while the town relies on the scums to reveal themselves truthfully and to adhere to conventional game rules.

[Glork]

EBWOP:

A "pledge" that everyone is going to be honest is pointless though. Either you agree that the game just can't work at all without a certain amount of honesty, in which case no "pledge" is needed, or you don't, in which case your pledge would be worthless.

Rather than a pledge, simply have each player acknowledge that they need to be honest. That's what the point of the suggested "pledge" is, anyway. I think you're making a big deal out of nothing here.

[Glork]

Rather than a pledge, simply have each player acknowledge that they need to be honest. That's what the point of the suggested "pledge" is, anyway. I think you're making a big deal out of nothing here.

I'm not making a "deal" out of anything. I just don't understand why you think this would make any difference at all. Do you actually think the scum (if they don't already agree with this position) are going to have any compunctions

saying

that they agree with it?

I want to completely, 100% avoid any possible scenario such as what happened witih Vollkan in the nightless, mod-abandoned game. So yes, I do think that it would have a difference. It's important to make impress upon everyone that we are speaking not as our roles, but outside of the game. Feh. Maybe I'm the one making a big deal out of nothing.

[Glork]

p sure that list needs some more Glork on it.


fyi

[Glork]

Dude, I'm so protown right now it isn't even funny.


FYI, I am definitely feeing a rajwagon right now.

[Glork]

EBWOP:

Vote: raj

[Glork]

*makes note to bold more often*

Vote: Raj

[Glork]

Hm.

Vote: Glork

[Glork]

That's the whole point, EK.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Some mods require that one unvotes before re-voting. Others do not. I'm curious to see what the next VC looks like, so that there will be no confusion going forward. (Incidentally, I am also curious to see how Adel's script reads a re-vote without an unvote.)

[Glork]

FoS: Macros

The whole "well we can't enforce it aside from lynching, so what's the point in harping on about it" thing reads, to me, that he's trying to egg the scums on into breaking rules that appear to be unenforcable.

[Glork]

Fair 'nuff.


I'm pretty pleased with my rajvote, bee tee dubs.

[Glork]

I more or less agree with Logic. I don't see anything malicious out of Cam's posts, and I'm not particularly fond of the backing of votes behind him.

Over/Under for number of scum on Cam's wagon right now is 1.5... Let's place some bets.

[Glork]

Macros: Over or Under on # of scums on Camwagon?

RAJ: Over or Under on # of scums on Camwagon?

[Glork]

Cam and Axel need more Over/Under.

[Glork]

The point of the over/under is to get people to weigh in on the five people voting for Mathcam and make a gut-call on whether they think 2 or more of the people on that bandwagon are scum.


Anybody who does not provide an answer is either unwilling to try to analyze the first bandwagon of the game, or they are simply unwilling to provide an answer to my question.

Of

course

there could be zero or all scum on Cam right now, Macros. I'm not asking what you think is

possible

. I am asking what you think

is the case

. Out of {Macros, phoebus, talitha, pooky, elvis_knits}, do you think there are more or less than 1.5 scums?

[Glork]

EBWOP:

FoS: Logic, Axel, EK, Macros, Cam

for obvious reasons.

[Glork]

I'm not squashing the wagon. I'm trying to get an understanding of what people think of the wagoners.


Why are you avoiding placing an Over/Under bet?

[Glork]

The wagon has crested and is already beginning to fall. Why do you want attention back on Cam?

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: DGB

Putting faith in a lynch is one thing. Pushing wagons blindly or with no reasoning whatsoever, for its own sake, is another. DGB should perish immediately.

[Glork]

DGB, give me five reasons, based on Mathcam's posts alone, that contribute to him being scum.

[Glork]

Alternatively, give me five strategic reasons why shamelessly pushing wagons in which you don't believe makes for good protown play.

[Glork]

DGB, answer one of my questions. Now.

[Glork]

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaach.


Happy with DGB-vote.

[Glork]

To elaborate:

1) Is a stretch because Cam downplayed the possibilty of faking one's own death. DGB failed to quote Cam's full post, and doing so mitigates even Cam's own belief in his theory.

2) Isn't too much of a stretch; it is one of two points I consider legitimate.

3) Is a stretch. Players agree with one another ALL THE FUCKING TIME. That does not inherently make it buddying. You failed to include

ANY

of the context of Cam's post (another example of selective reading/quoting):

I agree with Adel, at least as far as how unclear the rules are. If we're in the "It's up to us to follow the rules" mode, then editing a post is modkillable.

Are honestly you saying it's scummy to agree that:
A) the rules are unclear (given that the rules post says "You know the rules" or something along those lines); or that
B) sabotaging gameposts in the thread is modkillable

I'd like to know your own personal thoughts on A and B. Do you agree with them?

4) Is a stretch. No player, Pooky or otherwise, should be excused for their behavior. I see no reason not to probe Pooky on why he's following Tally so unquestioningly.

5) Is mostly legit. Both town and scum complain about being run up for stupid reasons, but that kind of reaction is something I'd expect more from scum than from town.

6) Is a stretch. If Cam is indeed scum, then he is deflecting which makes him scummy. HOWEVER, if he is protown, then it is safe to assume that he genuinely suspects Pooky. Thus, his attempts to get people to vote for Pooky are nothing more than attempts to try to get a lynch on someone he believes is scummy. DGB's point here does not follow logically -- she just makes a flat assertion with no backup whatsoever.

7) Is a stretch, possibly moreso than any of the others. I asked EK why she suspected Cam, she made a statement, and Cam asked her to elaborate on why "resistance to self-modding" implied "scum." Asking somebody to elaborate on their thought process is perfectly reasonable.




I am 95% sure that you wagoned Cam first and then sought reasons to suspect him once I asked you if your "suspicion" was legitimate. This is almost always indicative of scum seeking a mislynch.

[Glork]

I like that you call it Page 4.


I find it interesting that after making seven points, you agree with me that five of them are stretches.


I find it annoying that you actually use "do you think I would out myself as scum by going for a mislynch on the first real wagon" as a defense. I think that scum are just as likely to jump the first wagon of the game as town, so that does not play a factor into my read of you at all. You will not WIFOM me here, missy.

[Glork]

Lynch-1? I guess Cam should claim.

[Glork]

Silly Pooky.

I wanted to see what out DGB would take... i.e., whether she'd actually make up reasons to "suspect" Cam or not. That was the whole point of my interrogation. So I guess that fits into "D" if you want to think of it as maliciously as possible. I see DGB being at least as likely to say that she doesn't have five actual reasons to suspect Cam. If she's town, I see this being more likely the case; if scum, less likely.

To "answer" your request, I'm going to respond probably exactly as you expect me to:
I don't have five made up reasons to suspect DGB. I have two good, solid, legitimate ones.
1) She wagoned Cam for the sake of trying to achieve a quick lynch based on her recent "FIRING SQUAD" notion, when I think this that her behavior in this instance is seriously detrimental to the town
2) As I explained earlier, she fired first and then went looking for reasons. If she'd named her two good reasons up front and settled on a Camwagon, I would have been absolutely fine with that. If she'd thrown down the two good reasons and one or two of the bad ones, I may or may not have given her leeway. She didn't do either of them.


Pooky, if I were the "so scum" that you claim, I imagine that I'd've crapped all over her admittance that most of her points weren't very strong. In reality, I'm just not sure what to make of it. It could be DGB actually playing off this Firing Squad shindig with little regard to the immediate consequences of her behavior; it could be her backing off to avoid getting torn to shreds.

Either way, I am reasonably content with my vote right now.


By the way, B) is utter crap. Having "a rep on the site" doesn't mean shit in this game, because none of the players here are players whom I would expect to wagon DGB for being DGB. If this game had MoS, JD, Quag, and Jath... yeah, you'd probably have a point. In this game, with this playerlist, B is moot.

C) is debatable. I'm not sure I have a firm opinion on it.

A) is more or less true, but I do think there's value to be gained from putting pressure on DGB. I feel that I can accurately read her based on interactions (including self-defense) at least 80% of the time. I like having 80% certainty on a player's alignment ASAP (which also explains C well enough).

As far as D goes, see above. Yes, I wanted to see if she'd put out five reasons or not. I will admit that I did not expect her to be able to put out five good reasons. The answer I would expect would be exactly what I said above: "I don't have five reasons, but here is what I

do

have." The answer she gave indicates something I generally expect scum to do.


Also, Pooky, Jathan isn't in this game. He's not nearly mature enough.

[Glork]

Btw I find it cute that Macros is voting DGB for "blatant bandwagoning"

when he is doing the same thing.

I noticed this, too. Macros is def on my bad list.

[Glork]

Adel is prolly protown.


fyi.

[Glork]

@Glork

The tone of your post was not a questioning one,

"DGB, give me five reasons, based on Mathcam's posts alone, that contribute to him being scum. "

that's a command tone, considering your persona on this website is very much forceful, I don't find it surprising that you issued a command and she buckled under.

You also told her in the follow up upon her initially ignoring you

"DGB, answer one of my questions. Now."

I emphasize the Now part of that as being particularly forceful.

It wasn't so much of a "Do you have 5 reasons to suspect cam and if so what are they?" as much of a "Give me 5 reasons.. NOW"

I'm not quite sure why you imagine she would've been just as likely to deflect with fewer reasons. Also, how do you know she "made up" her reasons post=vote?

I was trying to make a point. Here's how I expected the conversation to go:

"5 good reasons now."
"I can't do that."
"Then how are you being condusive to helping the town or finding scum if you're just shamelessly wagoning?"
--response by DGB--

The point I was trying to make is that, even with this "Firing Squad" mentality that DGB has apparently adopted in the last day or two, she should still be using that mentality and her behavior to out scum. Since I did not expect that she really believed mathcam to be scum, I wanted to point out that her wagoning in this instance was :nothelpful:, or I wanted her to convince me that her behavior *was* helpful. When she actually

made up reasons to 'suspect' Cam

, I was surprised and suspicious. When she backed off and agreed that most of her own points were overblown, I was floored.

Furthermore, I'm surprised that you seem to think that being forceful ("abrasive," even, as Phoebus put it) is a big deal. Remember KM2, when I was browbeating PJ D1 because I wanted him under pressure, and he started cracking and appealing to emotion, then you (his scumbuddy) bailed him out by launching an extremely focused attack against me and my behavior towards PJ? I am very much reminded of that here and now. I would expect you to know that I throw my weight around, because that is very often how I like to operate. You yourself even noted that I have a rep for being forceful. What exactly makes this instance different from the dozens upon dozens of other times when I start throwing the

book

entire library at someone?



Cam, you still need to claim, as you are still at Lynch-1.

[Glork]

Hey Glork I think that would make it flimflam reason that cam is scum #8.

You mean valid reason #3, right?

So we have a Glork-mathcam-Macros scumgroup, wow, you guys must have thought "Dream Team, woo!" when you got your PMs.

So Glork, Cam, and Macros have gotten the most suspicion in general so far and now you believe we are a scumgroup. How unbelievably original and insightful.

[Glork]

DGB, aren't you the same person who, not more than 24 hours ago, said "I wouldn't out myself so obviously this early in the game"?

[Glork]

I wouldn't, but you did, haha.

....uh-huh.

I can't honestly tell if you're
A) A complete idiot
B) Scum
C) Just getting wrapped up in this whole Firing Squad thing
D) A and C
E) A and B
F) A, B, and C

[Glork]

1) I have a habit of attacking really bad reasoning. I wasn't going to sit around and let DGB's crap reasons seep, whether Cam was around or not.

2) Raj I've sortof skipped over. His vote on Axel intrigued me, because I was pretty certain he didn't see what I thought I had seen. But yes, he has wagon-hopped, and I've just missed him, probably because he's been less active/vocal overall.

3) As I stated, I believe that I can get an accurate read on DGB's alignment most of the time, once I see her get involved in an extensive debate. DGB and I butt heads in-game at least 50% of the time, often over something tangential or seemingly insignificant, but if it helps me read someone, I'm all for it. (Of course, this game happens to be one of the instances where I'm just baffled, rather than having a firm, strong read on her. I'm still working on it.)

[Glork]

i buy the cam-glork-macros scum team.

I know this is going to be called OMGUS by at least one or two people, but this is ridiculous.

Unvote, Vote: RAJ

[Glork]

EBWOP: Yes, Adel. That's exactly why I think there's some kind of self-balancing "honor system" both ways.

[Glork]

WIFOM much?

I don't think you honestly believe that the three of us are scum together either.

[Glork]

On a related note, I'm very suspicious of Glork, raj, and DGB for pushing for a claim.

Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently where you're from,

people don't claim when they get run up to Lynch-1.

And yes, we know that everyone has separate quotes for alignment and role. How does that make your claiming any less useful than in a traditional game, where there can be both protown and scum variants of pretty much every common role? Do you refuse to claim in regular games when you're about to be lynched?



ShadowLurker (aka Jathan) is not anyone's alt, and as far as I know, he's not in the game. I'm pretty sure he's posting in the thread just to fuck around with us. He never posted in the sign-up thread, and his name is not listed in the playerlist in the signup thread. (Note that none of us have mod powers in there -- except Tally, I guess, as she's a List Mod, but that's beside the point.) I've PMed the mod to ask if he is in the game. I suspect I'll ether get a non-answer, or confirmation that he's not. But seriously, I would ignore SL's posts.

[Glork]

1. Shadowlurker posts in games he is not playing. He's rude like that. That is my current assumption here as well.

That's currently what I'm thinking, but I'm going to ask a few other not-in-the-game people if they have mod powers or not. If so, I'm going to ask for replacement, as I feel the game would be compromised (because I could see SL screwing around with posts). If not, SL continues to be an annoying-but-harmless little boy.

2. I have not been assuming that everyone has Mod. powers (or rather, Mod. duties). Completely vanilla townies seem very possible.

Bzzt. Seriously, guys. Use the signup thread. I think it's the most guidance we're going to get in this game.

[Glork]

Okay, I just spoke to Mizzy, and here's what she gets:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot moderate your topics in this forum

I just logged in as Gaspar, and here's what I see:

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
You cannot moderate your topics in this forum

I am going to ask Mizzy to try to post here. I am also going to make a test post with Gaspar, and then I will try to edit it.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Fixing tags

Okay, I just spoke to Mizzy, and here's what she gets:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot moderate your topics in this forum

I just logged in as Gaspar, and here's what I see:

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
You cannot moderate your topics in this forum

I am going to ask Mizzy to try to post here. I am also going to make a test post with Gaspar, and then I will try to edit it.

[Glork]

I'm reasonably certain that ShadowLurker can't moderate anything. I would suggest that, for archiving purposes, we leave the posts he has made thus far and simply delete all future posts of his on sight.

[Glork]

Oh, I see. Sorry, I misunderstood. In that case, yes; I agree with you.

[Glork]

Also, Gaspar can't edit anything. 99% sure that SL is harmless. Let's get back to playing the game now.

[Glork]

I suggest we don't reread anything in this game as it can be easily tainted.

I would feel okay about going forward off memory. I don't like rereading anyway (and prefer not to do it).

Yeah, that's going to be hard for me. I tend to read back an awful lot. I just plan on playing as though nobody is going to cheat; if somebody does, I will consider the game a draw, or cancelled.

Phoebus seems quite protown to me.

I understand where Adel is coming from regarding DGB's misrepresntation of votecounts, but I don't see that as being out-of-the-ordinary for DGB. I am also still trying to evaluate DGB's behavior, although I will say that she's reverted to her typical stubborn self. She seems content to build and stick with factions, which is not unlike her behavior was in Famous Cats. Naturally, the difference here is that in Famous Cats, she and Pooky were dead in the water after I'd gotten a guilty result on Pooks and had debunked her fake claim. I don't find it all that likely that she'd draw battle lines so distinctly this early as scum, which is a point in her favor.

On a pseudo-related note, I find Cam's stance on not-claiming to be ridiculous. Whether alignment and role/ability are distinguished in different quote tags, different lines (such as here), or not at all has

NEVER

been a deterring factor in claiming one's role in my ~4 years of playing mafia. At this point, I do feel that Cam's defense is an excuse not to claim, as opposed to a reason. Naturally, I suppose that it comes down to the nature of "abilities" that we're talking about here. Supposing Coron were to bite the dust: Would we never have an official vote count again? Would we be unable to lynch? Hardly. I'd give 95% certainty that if a player with a "mod responsibility" dies, one of three things happens:
A) The responsibility is transitioned to a living player;
B) The deceased player continues to fulfill their responsibility;
C) We carry on without the "official" responsibility

Cam, do you honestly believe that this game is set up so that if players with mod responsibilities die, the game would become crippled or nonfunctional?
Do you expect that having a mod responsibility will make a player less likely to be lynched? More likely to be nightkilled (if town)?

[Glork]

...idk, Cam still seems pretty legit to me, guys.

[Glork]

EBWOP:

I am also not a fan of Glork's #277 above. Glork, please look back closely over what you just wrote, go re-read your role PM, and tell me if you made a mistake of any kind.

p sure I meant everything I said. I really don't know what you're getting at as far as me "making a mistake" goes.

I refuse to acknowledge "typical for DGB" as an excuse for anti-town behavior.

I will never acknowledge ti as an excuse either, but I am willing to take meta into account when reading people. I do not, for example, play PJ the same way I play DGB.

The crucial detail in reading something like DGB's "misrepresentation" of the vote count is in examining context of the alleged offense. It is true that Cam was at Lynch-1 for a short time. It is true that I pointed this out, and --

even though I have consistently maintained that Cam is likely protown, I asked for a claim from him

. It is true that DGB can, at times, get wrapped up so tightly in her own arguments that she fails to realize how the game has changed around her. Given those three factors, I do not find her behavior out of the ordinary. To insinuate that I simply gave her a free pass for "being DGB" is ridiculous. But given the context of the game, the comments you questioned do not particularly bother me.

[Glork]

So wait, you are voting for Raj., but you don't want him to claim?

You just want him to be lynched?

I think it's too early to say I want him to be lynched. I want him to convince me why he shouldn't be lynched, or fail miserably in doing so, so that I can tell whether or not he is the right lynch. His role claim seems pretty irrelevant, and if he ends up not being lynched, I'd rather it remained secret, so no, I don't want him to claim.

Cam

I DID NOT WRITE THIS.

Misattributed quote. Axel said it in Post 258.

[Glork]

Ok, good. I thought I was being screwed with.

Yeah, I nearly flipped a shit until I looked back to see where it had been written.

[Glork]

Protown:
EK, Cam, Adel, Phoebus, Glork, probably Axel

Scum:
Raj

So our other two scums are among:
DGB, Macros, Pooky, Coron, Logic, Tally



Good deal. I think we've had a very productive first day. Can we proceed with lynching RAJ now?

[Glork]

Are you taking the position that these things are also useless and pointless to claim? That we cannot learn anything?

I'm pretty sure I have a very relevant response to this, but I'll wait for Cam to answer first.

[Glork]

I think it's too early to say I want him to be lynched. I want him to convince me why he shouldn't be lynched, or fail miserably in doing so, so that I can tell whether or not he is the right lynch. His role claim seems pretty irrelevant, and if he ends up not being lynched, I'd rather it remained secret, so no, I don't want him to claim.

so you dont want me to claim. you want the town to be in the dark about my role? this doesnt sound very pro town.

dont we want the town to have all the info that we can get out of a scummy player?

If you bothered to read Cam's stance on claims in this game, this would make perfect sense.

[Glork]

yah, not to mention the only person i feel that confident with is phoebus. and is it me or has glork been sucking cams ass since he called glork out?

Actually, I've been "sucking cams ass," as you so eloquently put it, since that complete bullshit wagon first formed on him.



If you want a lesson on "sucking ass," let's take a look at

YOUR

posts, RAJ, as you have shown yourself to be the king of shameless, scummy bandwagoning so far.

Random Vote, nothing to see here.
"Gut/Cap Logic on Vote/Bandwagon Time"... translation: Shamelessly wagoning, but claiming to have some "gut" behind it to "justify" it somewhat.
I think this post has been edited, because it originally had RAJ agreeing with my hunch-based Axelvote. Raj claims to see/agree with it, but not enough to jump a second time.
Reiterating his gut-vote on DGB... He asserts that his vote was due to her interactions with others. The extent of DGB's "interactions" at this point were a random-vote on Logic and a tongue-in-cheek comment towards him. I find it HIGHLY unlikely that you could've possibly formed a remotely solid "gut" opinion based on that. Somebody seems triggerhappy.
Throwaway post
This post was a response to a request to explain his Axelhunch. In his three-post PBPA, he openly criticizes Axel's

joke/random vote on Coron

. Axel's second post was still one of the FIRST FIFTEEN POSTS OF THE GAME, and the third post was an elaboration on the second. How could RAJ possibly expect to see meaningful analysis of "current voting trends"? The answer, plain and simple: He couldn't.
In his seventh post, Raj continues his attack on Axel, but states he won't vote for Axel. Axel's response was absolutely justified, and RAJ tries to pass it off as "the worst OMGUS in the world".
After some more heat, Raj backs down. He does throw out the comment that those defending Axel are "his scumbuddies."
Kiss and make up with Axel.
The next post is a doozie. Here, we see RAJ actually FoS Adel all on his own. Then he comments on how he wants to jump the Camwagon but won't so as to not "rush a lynch." Awww, how considerate.
Raj implies suspicion of Macros, and throws out a wishy-washy noncomment about how he "wants" to believe Pooks/EK are town but knows he shouldn't trust them. For somebody who eariler ACCUSED AXEL OF MAKING COMMENTS THAT DON'T ADD VALUE TO THE THREAD, this surprises me.
Macros unvotes, and Raj sees only 1 on th Camwagon
Less than 29 hours after saying he'll "hold off" putting Cam at Lynch-1, Raj puts Cam at Lynch-1.
After Pooky went after Glork/Cam, and DGB posited Glork/Cam/Macros, RAJ "can uy" the scumteam
RAJ mentions WIFOM to debunk EK's defense of me. Not really much to see here.
More WIFOM discussion, strengthened by RAJ claiming he'd reveal exactly what I did. I should also point out that RAJ points out that everyone in the game is a "good player." This comes up in the next post.
Raj asserts his confidence in his scumgroup. He points out that all three people he picked out ended up voting for him, and accuses us all of mere OMGUS.

FIRST

off, I voted for you long before you accused me of being scumm, RAJ... back when you were trying to "suck my ass" (if I may use such a term). I switched off in the interim, but moved back after your

atrocious

"I buy the cam/glork/macros group" post.

SECONDLY

while asserting that we're "good players," RAJ twice implies that we're making extremely obvious/rookie mistakes. First, our agreement with one another apparently makes us a scumgroup. Secondly, we ALL commit the SAME "scumtell" of "OMGUSing" Raj.
I call bullshit. Huge, enormous amounts of bullshit.
Raj goes after Cam for not claiming, which I can't really say is especially out of the ordinary. He also defends against EK, claiming that his play here really isn't all that different than usual. (Incidentally, I think that this type of defense is a scumtell in and of itself, but that's neither here nor there.)
Another throwaway
Again, Raj asserts that both (assuming a single scumgroup of three, which I am tentatively assuming) of Cam's scumbuddies are going out of their way to defend him D1.
Pseudo-defense of DGB (not getting "the same scummy vibes" he did on page one).
Throwaway re: editing of Jathan's posts.
"oh i agree" Note also that Raj keeps leeching my interrogation of Cam's behavior even as he claims that I'm Cam's scumbuddy. He'll respond with "distancing, naturally," but I find that hard to swallow.
Misread/Misrepresentation of Cam... obviously I'm biased at this point, so you know which one I think it is.
And, most recently, he agrees with coron that my posting of a list is a point against me.



So there you have it:
-Overblown weak (if not nonexistent altogether) arguments.
-Shamless sheeping, leeching, and outright stealing from other people
-Contradictory and hypocritical statements
-Throwaway comments

That's really all I've seen from Raj.



Somebody please explain to me why he's still alive.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Oh, and to respond to Coron... this post in Lights Out 2 was made on Day One. I also happened to be right about all seven (nonglork) people on that list. I see nothing wrong with flatly stating whom you believe to be protown.

Sometimes

, if you ask

reeeeaaaalllyyyy

nicely, I might even find it in my heart to explain why I feel that certain people are so protown.

[Glork]

Actually, DGB, if you'd bother to read my PBPA, a number of the posts I didn't have a problem with:

Random Vote, nothing to see here.

...

After some more heat, Raj backs down. He does throw out the comment that those defending Axel are "his scumbuddies."
Kiss and make up with Axel.
The next post is a doozie. Here, we see RAJ actually FoS Adel all on his own.

...

Macros unvotes, and Raj sees only 1 on th Camwagon

...

RAJ mentions WIFOM to debunk EK's defense of me. Not really much to see here.
More WIFOM discussion, strengthened by RAJ claiming he'd reveal exactly what I did.

...

Misread/Misrepresentation of Cam... obviously I'm biased at this point, so you know which one I think it is.

None of these posts were 'spun' to make it look like he was scum.


Do not misrepresent me again.

[Glork]

Raj hasn't shown the insight I expect from a protown player. I'm not going to sugar-coat a case to make it look as though I think he's done something protown. Because he really hasn't. All of his sheeping and leeching do not look as though he is sincerely trying to find scum. They look as though he's just looking for somebody to lynch.

And the last one isn't spin. If I'd just flatly stated that he was misrepresenting Cam, that'd be spin. I pointed out what he did and gave my opinion of the matter, noting that I myself am severely biased by that point.

[Glork]

EBWOP: That's interesting, Pooky, and not something I had really thought about. I'd like Cam to cite his alignment exactly.

[Glork]

PS, add Pooky to my obvprotown list.

[Glork]

Cam, would it matter any more or less to you if you were told that Zu's original post included the exact word-for-word alignment quote and the word "vanilla" from his role quote? (It doesn't anymore, obviously, so there's no sense in looking -- but it did, originally, in its unedited form.)

[Glork]

I never said (or even suggested) that the wording still existed anywhere. I just stated that it

used to

exist in Zu's original post. I also think this is important so as not to "confirm" any scumbags who remembered Zu's post (such as whomever edited the post to begin with).

[Glork]

Sorry for being harsh earlier ellvis_knits, but I was trying to apply psychological pressure to get additional information out of you. I was trying to add stress to your life, which I have mixed feelings about, I can only apologize and hope that you understand.

This bothers me. Perhaps it's because it feels insincere coming from Adel.

I put players under psychological pressure from time to time, and I don't think I have ever regeretted or apologized for it.



By the way, how come nobody else has jumped the RAJwagon yet? It's quite awesome, I assure you.

[Glork]

Pssst.


It's 'cause she's scum.

[Glork]

I couldn't help myself.

Plus, I don't consider it a no-no in my games. It is most certainly visible (especially when it is the only content of any given post).

[Glork]

I do.

*shrug*

[Glork]

Incidentally, I'd give at least 25% that this is a 12-2 Mountainous setup (aside from modpowers, obv). I'm still trying to assess balance, given all that has happened.

[Glork]

Oh. Crap, I don't remember it exactly; should've written it down.

It was along the lines of:

Cam's taking the position that claiming modpowers is pointless. This implies to me that he doesn't have any "regular" powers, which would make him effectively vanilla (if protown).

It all fits in quite nicely with his responses, my own musings on possible game setups, and Cam's language up to that point. One reason I believe Cam is legit is because the "alignment" part obviously tells alignment, but if his only "ability" were the modpower, that'd fit perfectly. You stated that he was "completely ignoring" traditional 'roles,' and the reason for that should already have been painfully obvious -- Cam doesn't have a "traditional role," and he correctly asserts that claiming his modpower will not help anybody discern his alignment. As far as Cam was concerned, "Replacer" was his "traditional role," even if it is rather.... unorthodox.

I suppose it is still possible that his alignment PM said he was mafia and his role PM said he's a Replacer. For some reason, I just find that to be very unlikely right now.

[Glork]

Dear RAJ,

Please respond to the case I made against you.
Then, please claim.
Then, please die.

XOXO,
Glork

[Glork]

your case is no better than my case against DGB. but i didnt want her to die. it was only a hunch.

ill claim when there is more votes on me.

ill die when you can trick enough people into voting a townie out.

Listen to me, son.

My case is backed by evidence from posts over the course of seventeen pages and the better part of a month.

That alone makes it better than your "let me analyze three Page-One posts then accuse Axel of not doing enough scumhunting" bull. I am not attacking you "on a hunch." Not by a longshot. I'm attacking you because you've been consistently useless, making bad attacks and stealing other people's points for a long, long time. And when you finally got called out on it, point-by-point, your response is to just state that my case isn't very good?

Don't you dare lie to me, boy. You know damned well that my case is better than yours. If you don't want to defend yourself, that's fine by me. It'll make you that much easier to bust.

[Glork]

Macros, you should jump ship from DGB and vote for RAJ instead.

[Glork]

Well, Adel.

I think based on my own observations that EK and Cam are both likely town. I don't buy into your theory at all. For the time being, I am willing to believe that your theory is well-intended, but I don't agree with it one bit.

[Glork]

I sort of thought RAJ would have SOME power, seeing as he was like "should I reveal it now????"

And then he reveals he has no power.

I thought this, too. This post in particular made me think RAJ had an ability:

yah i dont see why we shouldn't reveal those.

i can go first since im one of the highest on the vote count.

[Glork]

I got nothin's. 'Nilla Wafer here.

[Glork]

Post cleaner.

Tags and double posts.

Minor FoS

[Glork]

Why the fatalism, Phoebus?

[Glork]

+ points to Axel

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Macros

Wagon wagon wagon

[Glork]

I'm content to wait for an explanation.


Then I could go back to voting for RAJ if I'm convinced that Macros has a valid reason for changing deathposts.

[Glork]

Ugh. I hate how Macros and Pheebz seemingly want to throw in the towel. I'm not willing to lynch Pheebz right now, and I'm not sure about Macros. I've never played with him before, but if Pheobus and Pooky are vouching for him, I'm suddenly less willing to lynch him than I was this morning.


Adel's vote is particularly worrying, which flies in the face of the earlier read I had on her.


For now, I'm going back to my Rajvote.

Unvote, Vote: RAJ

Incidentally, Tally: Did Emp give any rules or guidelines for deadline rules? Player with the plurality of votes? No lynch without a majority? Something else?

We may have to decide on deadline rules as a whole if we don't have any specific guidelines from the "moderator."

[Glork]

Whoever is leading - screw plurality and other such fanciness!

It's the same thing, Sherlock.

[Glork]

Fair 'nuff, Adel.

I've noticed that the DGB/RAJ bloc has taken to damning Macros (who now has... five votes? by my count).

[Glork]

I am certainly not in love with the way Glork jumped on and off that wagon either.

Oh? I'd love to hear you elaborate.

[Glork]

Now that ^^ is my job!

Adel - I'm pretty sure that Macros meant that his job was to confuse people.
Happened enough already, eh?

I could be wrong...

No, his job was to write death scenes.

This I can absolutely 100% believe.

I just don't understand why he didn't write a death scene which

still included Zu's revealed role information

.

[Glork]

Macros' rant made me lol pretty hard.

P sure he's innocent, guys, even if he did bungle the first death post completely.

[Glork]

EBWOP: BTW, Those two sentences are unrelated. I'm not saying "him making me lol" implies him being protown.

[Glork]

Woo!


Die scum die!

[Glork]

Oh, boys and girls, I am so PROUD of you all!

[Glork]

IDK, I think rusty eyeball spikes are pretty mature.


Macros, please make a hilarious lynch scene that includes RAJ's admitted scumbagginess.

[Glork]

Now thinkin' Feebz/DGB.

Logic, what exactly prompted you to cite that D2 began?

[Glork]

Either that or an SK pretending to be a Vig.

Regardless, our job right now is to find scums. DGB is a very good place to start.

[Glork]

Hahahahahahaha.

Axel's using nightkill choices to define his suspicions.

[Glork]

Here is where I am coming from to start the day: Glork and Coron are probaby scum.

Pooky was suspicious of two people yesterday - Mathcam and Glork. Mathcam is dead and was town. I do not believe the scum would kill Pooky if he was that wrong about both of them.

Vote: Glork

This totally ignores the matchcam kill simply for your case. How do you know the scum group killed pooky and not cam?

Winner winner chicken dinner.

[Glork]

DGB, a huge portion of your case against me was that I was scumbuddies with Cam. How does this change with Cam having been Vanilla?

[Glork]

That's ridiculous.

Your justification for me being scum was that I was protecting my scumbuddy.

With that justifcation gone, what else do you have right now?

[Glork]

I'm still miffed that Axel tried to use the "Pooky wouldn't have been killed if he were wrong about both Glork and Cam" bit. That's a complete joke.

[Glork]

I think he psuedo-confirmed himself during the whole alignment/role discussion, he had hardly picked up any flak/suspicion, and he was going out of his way to try to break down logic and find scum.


Those all seem like pretty dangerous things to a scumbag. Even if he had been left alive and I had gotten mislynched today, I sincerely doubt Pooky would have had his credibility shot.

[Glork]

Any thoughts/response regarding my answer to your question, Axel? Or Coron's, for that matter?

[Glork]

Axel's lower on my list, naturally. Phoebus' claim is iffy.




Can we prod Tally? Has she even posted today?

[Glork]

Phoebus: There's somebody in charge of replacements, IIRC.


I myself feel very out-of-touch with the game right now. I plan on re-reading before the end of the week so I can get a bearing for what I think of everyone right now.

[Glork]

EBWOP: In fact, yes. It was Cam.

[Glork]

Sorry if my tone is a little on the grumpy side. I should go post in the period thread.

[Glork]

...just got a prod from Logic; will re-read and post tonight.

[Glork]

(FYI, I completely forgot about this game; been on LA for the last couple of weeks as well, as indicated here.)

[Glork]

In airport. Flight delayed. Trying to re-read and post now. This game was such a damned chore throughout D1 that I just don't feel that I've played much mafia yet. Aside from running up Raj, which was hella fun. But anywho, this is the first game I have ever even

considered

replacing out of due to complete apathy. I'll try to change that, because I don't think it's fair to the other players.

OK, Vanilla Townie =/= no mod powers.

FOS: all those claiming no mod powers

. For cripe's sake, I'm a tag-fixer-and-double-post-deleter. And I can't even do that, with no editing powers, but it's OK, I can handle it, I'm a big boy. No weight jokes here.

Seriously, DGB, Glork, and Adel have all claimed "no mod powers". On the main post, are two dead who never claimed, but odds are at least the first victim had one. Hmm. Did raj actually claim no powers, or just not say anything about a role until his surprise lynch? I can't remember at this point. But at this point, if there's someone suspicious WITH a role, and someone suspicious WITHOUT a role...

This makes me cringe. First, RAJ

did

claim to have no mod powers. Secondly, as a protown player with no mod powers, I cannot fathom how "not having more powers" is FoS-worthy. Would you mind explaining, Werebear?


Oh, completely off-topic comment. I was actually thinking about this game the other night, and I've come to the decision that if I am to be lynched or nightkilled at some point, I would gladly take over as "mod" of the game full-time, so as to take the distraction of handling mod-related duties from the players. This stems from the whole "I feel like I'm too busy trying to figure out what we're supposed to be doing and not really playing mafia" sentiment I've held up to this point.

Okay. Big analysis post by Axel. But now we are boarding. More to come.

[Glork]

Prodded again. If you guys feel I ought to be replaced, I understand. :/

[Glork]

Just looked at the posts since I last posted, and it's interesting that I have the most posts (112) in the thread.



I know it probably won't convince anybody of anything, but my activity site-wide (and in scumchat, and online in general) has dropped dramatically in the last couple of months. The only game I've posted regularly in is the one game with strict posting requirements.

There are a handful of factors which contributed to this -- the most prevelant one being that my meatworld life has gotten... well, "unbelievably hectic" would be putting it mildly. My next posts will go into catching up on and analyzing the game and trying to be a presence here. I'm not going to waste any more of your time throwing out excuses or explanations for my absence. My burden to bear, and I'm at least as upset with myself as any of you may be with me.

[Glork]

I don't think DGB is necessarily scum. Axel almost certainly is. I'd put money on one of {Werebear, Logic} as well.



Seriously, analysis post coming tonight or y'all can lynch me dead.

[Glork]

(Actually, I can't 100% promise that -- the hotel's internet was down all of yesterday evening -- but it was back up this morning while I was getting ready for work, so I am expecting it to be functional when I get back tonight.)

[Glork]

btw, Nonny is like 99% town, too. fyi.

[Glork]

Nonny prodded me tonight again asking to post. I think if she were scum, she'd let me die off quietly, as I p much expect to be vigged tonight. Seriously, EK, nonnylynch is BAD.

[Glork]

EBWOP: And I mean "vigged" because the killer is obviously either a vig or is posing as a vig. I don't know whether I think vig or SK is more likely. *shrug*

[Glork]

Meh. I'll knock off DGB to save my own ass, but Axel's the bg here. Trust me.

Unvote, Vote: DGB

[Glork]

Trust me.

[Glork]

Trust me.

Why?

'cause I'm smart?


Seriously, though. Did you see the false incredulousness with which Axel responded to my "Trust me"? The case he pushed against somebody whom he knows has not been around and who picked up flak D1 for defending Cam (who I still maintain was VERY OBVIOUSLY PROTOWN).

But, for shits and giggles, I'm going to risk the wrath of my boss and try to respond to his big angry post against me. Shall we?

[Glork]

His first "position" is that players should all agree not to edit each other's posts - so if it happens we'll know it was done by scum.

That's not a "scummy" suggestion. It's just more like a pointless one - if you assume people are going to be trying to play the game fairly to begin with.

Obviously it is not a pointless suggestion if SOMEBODY HAD ALREADY EDITED A POST IN THE GAME. Given what we did (or did not, rather) know at the time, there seemed to be no reason for any protown player to edit any other player's post. Thus, I wanted to establish a precedent that would both maintain the integrity of the game and potentially make it easier to spot scum.

He pushes that position a bit harder in #62. Fine, I suppose. Still think it's pointless.

The first truly interesting post comes at #66 where Glork speculates about the Mafia method of killing in a hypothetical game without a Mod. Scum would just PM their target and tell them "your dead - post your role info in the thread." He further speculates that the scum might even do this from an alternate account, presumably to prevent the victim from identifying his killer in his death post (which I think we all can agree would be rather unsporting, yes?)

What's interesting here are 2 things - first, how unremarkable a speculation it really is. I mean, in a Modless game how

else

would the scum kill their targets? They'd pretty much have to PM the target directly, wouldn't they? And of course, in that situation, all sides would have to rely on the "Maturity" of the other to not ruin the game by revealing information that they would not normally have.

Whether it's "unremarkable" or not is up for debate -- and probably largely dependent on one's alignment. I do not think, to a protown player, that the speculation I provided is obvious at all. Perhaps it was obvious to

you

(*coughdirtyscumbagcough*), but

The second interesting part is his "Disclaimer" at the top. What's that all about? Why did you feel the need to put a big "Disclaimer" saying that the following speculation has nothing to do with any role that you might or might not have? What were you afraid that people might think? That you were showing too much knowledge about the way the scum kill works in this game?

I launched into a discussion about how a modless mountainous game would work. I did not want anybody jumping to the conclusion that I was a vanilla townie based on the posted hypothetical. I've seen people jump to those kinds of conclusions before, and I wanted to avoid it if at all possible. What on earth makes you think I would post a disclaimer as scum revealing how we killed?

It's especially interesting in light of his later reveal that he has no role or ability. I'm trying to envision why/how a vanilla townie feels the need to say something like that and having trouble. Presumably, from your own role, you would have no basis to think that this game was without a Mod. You would have had to gather that information from other people's posts.

I don't see how that makes anything more or less interesting. If people only tried to obfuscate their roles by speaking in hypotheticals and disclaimers when

power

, it would create a very obvious meta. And your presumption seems off. There are SEVERAL clues which led to me -- a Nilla Wafer -- concluding "Modless." Behold:
-Zu's posting of his own role upon death
-The editing of Zu's post
-Me having mod powers in the thread -- which NEVER happens in any other game
-EK's Post 8
-The whole "You're a big kid, you figure it out" reaction from the mod.
-Adel's Post 48
-My test edit of Post 52 and the surrounding discussion.
-The first sentence of
EK's Post 64

To insinuate that "Glork concluded we were modless" implies "Glork wasn't just a vanilla townie" is beyond ridiculous.

I think the first person to explicitly speculate that we were without a Moderator at all in this game was Adel in #45. Elvis Knits earlier had "speculated" that various Mod. duties had been assigned to players as early as #8, and then says she thinks it's a modless game in #64.

So, did you think we were playing a Modless game when you posted #66?

See above. OBVIOUSLY I thought we were playing in a modless game at that point. Anybody with half a brain should have thought that. My Post 66 was an attempt to extrapolate the most likely mechanics of this game, so that we could get them out in the light and move on with the game itself.

Glork then makes the first of his two "serious" votes of the day, on Raj at #87/88. No reason given at this time except that he's "feeling" the Raj. wagon. Okay.

Check that. My vote for you may have been on a hunch, but it was still serious.

His next action is to press people to give an opinion on the number of scum on the current Mathcam wagon (consisting of Macros, phoebus, talitha, pooky, elvis_knits). Wants to know if people think there are more or less than two scum on this wagon.

Frankly, I found that whole line of inquiry bizarre. I mean, if you

knew

Mathcam was a townie, you could look at that wagon with suspicion - hell, looking back at it

now

might provide something of use. But at the time, it was very early, and we knew nothing. It was the equivalent of asking all the players "Do you think Macros is scum?" "Do you think Pooky is scum?" "Do you think phoebus is scum?" etc. At a time when no one is going to have well formed opinions about any of them. And for the reason, apparently, that you personally just didn't like the wagon?

*shrugs*

I don't believe I've ever done an over/under on scum on an early wagon before. I realize full well that my inquiry was roughly the equivalent of asking players to evaluate five people in one fell swoop. I realize that it was unorthodox (or "bizarre" as you put it).

What I contest, though, is your reaction about its utility. You sit here saying "Why would you do this when nobody has well-formed opinions of them?" I say that gives me that much MORE reason to make people talk about them. I've said this probably a dozen times in the past, and I'll say it a dozen more times before I go my way:

Forcing people to interact with each other on limited information is incredibly useful.

Note Macros' response to my question and my response to his response. He sat here and said, effectively, "hell if I know, it could be none or all." Glork's response:

Of course there could be zero or all scum on Cam right now, Macros. I'm not asking what you think is possible. I am asking what you think is the case. Out of {Macros, phoebus, talitha, pooky, elvis_knits}, do you think there are more or less than 1.5 scums?

If you can't understand what I'm going for after that, try my response to EK:

I'm not squashing the wagon. I'm trying to get an understanding of what people think of the wagoners.

If you still can't understand what I was going for, you are an ignorant cad.

I also note that you, Glork, did not answer your own question that you were so gung-ho to get other people to answer, and never gave any opinions about any of these people on the Mathcam wagon. You certainly didn't vote any of them for waggoning 'Cam. (you voted Macros very briefly later for an entirely different reason).

Nobody asked me to give an answer. Plus, the person calling the line shouldn't be placing bets. It skews the whole betting process.

The person Glork

does

vote next is DGB, who comes along in #133 and jumps right on the 'Cam wagon. It is not my intention to defend DGB here, but I do note that this vote is entirely in keeping with her publicly expressed opinion that people should be wagoned early and often to make things happen in Mafia games. Which I believe is something you are aware of. So it really can't be considered much of a scum tell

for her

(which is not to say that it's pro-town play, or that I agree with this particular philosophy).

Early in D1, I don't see the harm in throwing my vote around when I see anti-town play.

Despite knowing this about her, you vote her in #135. You say that pushing wagons blindly is (something anti-town). This appears to be as much a policy vote as a vote because you find her scummy.

Yes, it's part policy. It's also part her being scummy. Way to state the obvious, champ. Now, what does that mean with regards to my alignment?

Glork then makes the post that Pooky will criticize him for in
#139. Give me 5 reasons why Mathcam is scum.

DGB responds to this request in #144. Actually gives 7 reasons.

Glork's response to that is "REEEEEEEAAAAACH."

This is all :goodposting:

He elaborates in #148 where he seems to acknowledge that at least two of DGB's given reasons are actually legit, whereas the others are a stretch. This doesn't change his opinion on DGB. Now he thinks she waggoned first and went looking for reasons later, which = scummy.

That is probably the most legitimate point he has made in the game up to then. It certainly seemed like DGB was voting 'Cam just to make something happen - not because she had any particular suspicion of him, but when pressed, she comes up with a boatload of reasons for the vote, as though she actually found him suspicious before she voted, but just hadn't said so.

Also :goodposting:

It does remind me a tiny bit about what Raj said about myself early on, however. He mentioned he saw "something" suspicious about me, and when pressed suddenly decided that every post I had made in the entire game up to that point was suspicious to him for one reason or another.

Hm. I went after RAJ for pushing a wagon then coming up with reasons for it. I went after DGB for pushing a wagon then coming up with reasons for it.

Well golly gee willikers. It's ALMOST like I'm

trying to find people who are being scummy and calling them out on it.

Who fucking knew?

Pooky attacks Glork next for "setting up" DGB with his questioning and Glork responds Here. This post feels like a bit of deflection. Glork says that if DGB had declined to give him 5 reasons to suspect Cam - basically said "I don't have 5 reasons, I've got 2" or whatever, he'd have been satisfied. But it's the fact that DGB actually attempted to give 5+ reasons, including weak reasons, which has made him even more suspicious.

Pooky's response is that Glork was more or less "commanding" DGB to come up with 5 reasons, not asking if she had five reasons, so he should hardly be surprised when she gives them to him, and if some are consequently a stretch.

Information Instead of Analysis. Nothing to report here.

Glork's resolve appears to be weakening as of #179. Although he thinks he can usually get an accurate read on her, now he's just "baffled" by DGB. It's unclear to me why he should be less certain than he was before based on what's happening in the thread.

Why should I be less certain?

When I accused DGB of being reaching scum, it's because she had just made a post in which she made up 5 reasons for suspecting Mathcam.

I called her out on this and then she

agreed with my analysis of her

. That is a reaction that I completely would NOT expect anyone to make -- regardless of alignment.

That is why I became baffled.

Then he makes what I consider his weakest vote. DGB had made a rather sweeping statement that she was seeing a "Glork-mathcam-macros" scum team, and Raj. posted that he "buys" that grouping. Glork instantly switches his vote off DGB and back to Raj.

The question is, if the person you are currently voting for is the one proposing the ridiculous (in your opinion) scum team, then why would you jump

off

that person and onto someone else for agreeing? How does that make DGB less likely to be scum and Raj. more? I can see where Raj would move on up the suspicious list, but not where it would make you want to jump your vote - except in as much as a DGB wagon was going nowhere at the present time and Raj. seemed to have more suspicion on him from others. Making it very much a vote of opportunity.

Raj followed me onto you, claiming to see the same thing I saw on you early in the game. Here, he completely 100% bought into a proposed three-person scumgroup, which was flawed with several respects (I can get into these if absolutely necessary, but won't do so right now). DGB claimed to have found a three-person scumgroup on D1 based on interactions that I could only describe as being indicative of very novice scum. Her "Glork/Cam/Macros" group was simply

awful

and while I could tell right off the bat, Raj's reaction was "this is good, I agree, vote." That's terrible. Just terrible. Of course that's where my vote went.

This vote sticks almost the rest of the day. Glork doesn't really talk about much else. There's some discussion about SL and if we think he can edit posts. Some diuscussion about DGB and if how she is playing is typical or not.

He maintains that he think Mathcam is town, without really going into it at any length. He's really not defending Cam

too

strongly for someone he thinks is town and who got pushed very close to lynch. What he does do is steadfastly maintain that Raj is obviously scum.

This sounds about right. In retrospect, I wish I'd been more vocal about defending Cam. I'm not upset about being wrong about Raj.

His PBPA of Raj is Here. It's not exactly an unbiased objective look, which Glork freely acknowledges.

True story.

I really don't like the patronizing tone of This post either. "Listen to me, son..." ?

You obviously don't play with me enough. I like rhetoric, and I like being in control.

And then, the last thing, which was his momentary diversion onto the Macros wagon, after it was revealed that Macros was the person who edited zu_Faul's death post.

It's "wagon, wagon, wagon" in #489. But then, unvote and back to Raj in #499. And what's the reason for the switch? Very hard to tell, but it

appears

to be because Pooky (and phoebus) said that Macros was a "terrible" player, and nothing more. Phoebus' post was not much of anything at all in point of fact. Just "oh dear, have none of you played with Macros before?" While Pooky more explicitly said "He's terrible."

That's p much what it was. I trusted Pooky's alignment by that point (though he was wrong about Glork and Cam), and was willing to give Macros a pass on the whole "Editing Zu's post" thing.

What I don't like is why Glork would abandon the vote so quickly based on that kind of information. Macros does what is objectively an anti-town thing, and gets your vote, but when someone says (in essence) "well, he's terrible, so he might could do that and still be town," you immediately go (in essence) "oh really, well if he's

terrible

then I guess I won't vote him any more...." Which is just weird.

Player X votes Player Y for doing A, because A is a scummy action.
Player Z says "I could see Y doing A as protown."
Player X's reason for voting Player Y immediately diminishes, provided X accept's Z's statement.

How the fuck could you possibly find this "weird"?

I found This post, after we realized Raj had been lynched, to be insincere and over the top. Who goes "Woo, die scum!" especially before we have even seen an alignment reveal?

And his next post "Oh boys and Girls I am so PROUD of you all" is more of the same.

Again, you havent played with me enough. This is another one of those "if I had more time and if I cared more, I could pull examples from dozens of other games" things.

[Glork]

So, like... why exactly DO you want me dead, Axel?

[Glork]

Also nice how you decided DGB was expendable ~ 5 hours after declaring her "not necessarily scum." Didn't you say we could lynch you if you didn't put up something? Change your mind on that too?

DGB is not necessarily scum.
Glork is necessarily not scum.


There's a pretty fucking vast difference there. I probably won't get you lynched in the next twelve hours or whatever, but I can make sure you get killed tonight or tomorrow.

[Glork]

Nonny prodded me tonight again asking to post. I think if she were scum, she'd let me die off quietly, as I p much expect to be vigged tonight. Seriously, EK, nonnylynch is BAD.

Isn't this widely believed to be an all-vanilla game?

Then we'd have to lynch you, no? What's this vig'ing nonsense?

There were two deaths last night. YOU explain to ME how this is an "all-vanilla game."

[Glork]

Glork, what are you doing? We can't get an axel lynch at this late hour. Why not do an analysis on a player that might die?

My response was more defense than anything else.

Plus, DGB and I are the ones most on the chopping block and while I'd obviously prefer that she get lynched over me, I'd still push for a lynch elsewhere.

[Glork]

Glork, why does nonny prodding you make you think she's not scum? Maybe she's hoping you help get someone ese lynched other than her.

She prodded me at 2:34 PM ET. At the time, Glork Adel and DGB all had more votes than she did (unless I just fail miserably at counting). It wasn't a "save my ass" prod. It was a "get your ass in here and do something" prod (although it was far more polite -- she said "please").

[Glork]

I feel like he's reversed himself a lot for no reason at all. Like now he says Axel is scum... and I thought all along he's been saying Axel is town.

ONCE on day one I called Axel "probably town." His coming out of the gates and voting me for Pooky's death changed that, and I haven't found him protown since.

Logic: Explain and justify the "Glork is all over the place" stance. Your sheeping of EK's erroneous statement is MAJOR minus points.

Of his counter argument, he just says "true that" to all the points I feel make him the scummiest (policy on DGB, skewed PBPA, the hunch vote on Axel) and counters the ones I could care less about (how he arrived at the game being modless, semantic arguments about "woots").

'kay, let's tackle those.

Re: DGB -- I went after somebody who was clearly behaving in an anti-town manner and then proceeded to MAKE UP ARGUMENTS after voting somebody in order to "justify" their stance. Explain how

MY

behavior is scummy.

Re: The PBPA -- I thought RAJ was scum. I was extrapolating the points that led to me believing he is scum. Obviously that's going to result in an analysis that makes RAJ look scummy. Are you saying that when trying to build or explain a case on somebody, you'll sugar-coat it to seem "fair" or "objective"? I call absolute horse shit.

My hunch vote on Axel was just that -- Hunch. His first posts re: Zu and the edit didn't seem right. It was a serious vote, but there wasn't a hell of a lot grounded in it. I'm floored that you could find this scummy.

His posting is interesting, some makes sense but when he says axel will die tonight or tomorrow that makes me wonder. Is he claiming to be a vig? Or just making threats?

No, I'm vanilla. All I'm saying is that when I go down as protown, you folks had better take a long, hard look at the likes of Axel and Logic (who is now taking potshots at me from a distance but isn't joining the wagon).

Here's another question: You said yesterday saying you thought DGB was scummy. You started this game day saying DGB was a "good place to start."

Then, right up against the deadline, you came back with "I don't think DGB is necessarily scum."

Then, you voted DGB to "save your ass" while still arguing she's not the best choice (which would be me now, yes?)

Why the shift in opinions on DGB? What did she do that struck you as townish? Vote for you, maybe?

DGB was a good place to start. Her "Cam is scum and thus Glork is scum with Cam for defending him" theory blew up in her face. Her D1 play was still abominable. I don't back down from what I said earlier.

I don't think she's necessarily scum. DGB has the annoying habit of looking terrible when she's protown, too. (Read: Lights Out.) That doesn't mean I won't rap on poor play, but obviously, other candidates have surfaced.

Yes. I voted DGB because I was at 3 votes, she was at 2, and the deadline was about a day away. I've already dug my grave by having a life. I should have requested replacement outright, rather than leaving it up to you. Instead, you've managed to finagle a mislynch on a player who has, as I've stated multiple times, been too busy to properly pay attention to this game. Coron got replaced outright. I did not, and I'm just being lynched instead. It's interesting to note, to say the very least.

Nothing has struck me as particularly townish, except her self-vote. (The whole "let's put both of us at three and see where this goes" thing seems more likely to come from town and less likely to come from scum.)

Pro-town players already know not to edit posts, Glork. I would think that's the default townie mindset. The fact someone DID edit a post is completely irrelevant. I (and others I presume) made the early assumption that the person who would edit a post like that would be scum. Period.

But your suggestion appeared to be saying that you were concerned that it might have been a TOWNIE who edited the post, and you felt the need to tell the townies that they shouldn't be doing such a thing. Which was pointless.

Incidently, this is what will make me think Macros/Nonny is really town if you come up scum. Because you would have known as scum that it wasn't one of you guys who edited that post.

You'd be surprised at how little common sense people tend to exhibit around here. Even Macros, the claimed death post editor, EDITED OUT THE RELEVANT ROLE INFORMATION. How can you possibly assert that my caution was for naught? Based on this response, you are implying that Macros is scum. Is this true or false?

If you are concerned about being called out for demonstrating knowledge of something you are not supposed to have any knowledge about - which happens from time to time, you know, and scum get caught that way - then you could easily say something like that.

That's moronic. The smarter play would be "say nothing and let the nightkill victims figure it out as they go along." There is NOTHING to be gained by flaunting "Look, I'm telling you information that you wouldn't know normally, but this disclaimer will tell you not to suspect me for it!!" Seriously. Play that over in your head a few times and tell me how idiotic that sounds.

So, you have come to this conclusion that "anyone with half a brain" should have already thought by that point (even people not blessed with Mod. duties). Why didn't you just say that? Why did you engage in this "hypothetical" discussion with loud disclaimer preceeding it? If it was so obvious already?

The hypothetical dealt with the kill method, saying "if we're in a modless game [which I suspect is the case], this is how I would expect kills to work."

This is what Pooky was all up in arms against you about. You demanded DGB give you reasons for voting 'Cam (5 reasons), then you attacked her for them. It's not at all the same as Raj.

No. I've already explained my stance on this. I would expect a reasonable player to say "I don't have five reasons. I have two." I do not expect players to make up suspicions because somebody else asked them to.

(1) Player Z has already said he thinks you are scum. One would think that might make one less deferential to his opinions; (2) Saying "he's terrible" and inferring "he is so bad that he could do something like that and still be town" is hardly the same thing as saying "I think he's protown." Pooky certainly didn't express any such opinions about Macros. As a reason to unvote, it's incredibly weak; (3) since when do you not form your own opinions about such things? Question: have you ever played with Macros before?

What Z thinks of X is irrelevant here. All that matters is whether X accepts Z's argument. Also, I neither said nor implied "Pooky thinks Macros is protown." Pooky was obviously saying "Macros could have done something this dumb as protown" which makes "Macros did something which would be dumb as protown" a much weaker reason to vote for somebody.

[Glork]

Seriously. Once I'm dead, the vig/SK needs to kill one of Axel/Logic.

[Glork]

Bah. Okay, I have to get back to work, and if the deadline is in ~2 hours, I probably won't get to say anything else.



Seriously, guys. Axel/Logic. And somebody else.



G'luck town. Sorry I didn't just ask to be replaced like 6 weeks ago. <3

[Glork]

Oh, and

Unvote, Vote: Axel

. Mise well.

[Glork]

(Also, I've never played with Macros before this game.)

[Glork]

Oh I thought the deadline was sixteen minutes ago.

i implied it was a scummy action, i never said how scummy and its not like i changed my vote to him.

All I'm saying is that when I go down as protown, you folks had better take a long, hard look at the likes of Axel and Logic (who is now taking potshots at me from a distance but isn't joining the wagon).

Unvote, Vote: Logicticus

[Glork]

Go town. Kill those two scums.