Invitational 10: 2005-2006. Game over! before 624

[elvis_knits]

If I had to say one person who tipped the scales I would say DGB. I think she's done more than others about pairing people. Also pretty sure she has had little or no evidence when she draws these connections. Which makes it worse.

She's done a bit of it, though I'd like to point out that you're suggestion that she was connecting you and PJ is false; if anything, it seemed like the opposite to me, since she floated a possible

disassociation

between the two of you.

I am indeed suggesting that any connection between me and Pj is false. I noticed you mentioned it in one of your posts as me "parotting PJ" and I had no idea what you were even talking about. I had to read through my own posts in isolation to figure it out.

I realize you are referring to PJ voting DGB and then me voting DGB for the same reason. There's not much I can tell you except that I had that reaction to her post before I even read PJ's. If you think that was an unreasonable reaction to DGB's post, then I somewhat understand you problem with my vote. But if you find my response reasonable, then why can't you believe two people would have the same reasonable reaction to it?

It kind of makes me mad that you used the word "parotting" though. It smells like spin. Just because two people happen to agree on something doesn't mean they are parotting each other. And you said it like parotting was a fact.

Here's the part of your post with parotting, for reference:

Why is it strange that she dislikes elvis just parrotting your reason?

[Sarcastro]

@chamber, just dipping into your thought process here, I don't have any problem seeing Sarcscum speaking for bluesoultown early in the game. Not that it sticks out to me as scummy, but it's quite plausible. Scum trying to make friends in the town is very common.

Sarcscum trying to make friends in the town is not common, because Sarcscum never tries to do that. What I did (answering for Bluesoul) is something I would do regardless of my own alignment and regardless of the other person's alignment (if I knew it). It's just something I do. If people have questions and I can answer them, I generally do. If people make mistakes and I can correct them, I generally do. This goes beyond even the usual "I never consciously do anything as scum that I wouldn't do as town" that I always talk about (and nobody ever seems to pick up on). It's not something I even

think

about. It's part of my personality, and not part of my conscious play.

Anyway, I'm sorry to go off on it like that, because I know you weren't even calling it scummy. It just bugs me when people misunderstand my motives. And it might actually help Chamber's speculation that I'm scum and Bluesoul is town, because I can say that if that were the case, I wouldn't even think twice about answering for him (I wouldn't even if he were scum, for that matter).

[Patrick]

I am indeed suggesting that any connection between me and Pj is false.

That's not what I meant. You're claiming that she tried to connect you to PJ, I'm saying that's false -- if anything, the opposite is true, since she gave a reason why the two of you might not be connected.

I realize you are referring to PJ voting DGB and then me voting DGB for the same reason. There's not much I can tell you except that I had that reaction to her post before I even read PJ's. If you think that was an unreasonable reaction to DGB's post, then I somewhat understand you problem with my vote. But if you find my response reasonable, then why can't you believe two people would have the same reasonable reaction to it?

Eh. It could the late hour, but this post sounds like you think I was attacking your vote. I was actually probing PJ's thought process there. (I don't think DBG's buttering up thing was scummy, so I wasn't wild about your vote, no).

It kind of makes me mad that you used the word "parotting" though. It smells like spin. Just because two people happen to agree on something doesn't mean they are parotting each other. And you said it like parotting was a fact.

*Shrug* I used it to say that you just agreed with him and copied the vote, as that's what I understand it to mean. Definitely no spin intended.

[chamber]

@chamber, just dipping into your thought process here, I don't have any problem seeing Sarcscum speaking for bluesoultown early in the game. Not that it sticks out to me as scummy, but it's quite plausible. Scum trying to make friends in the town is very common.

It's kind of interesting how much you wrote there. For someone who found it scummy how I was explaining my thought processes, you're doing it far more than is usual for you. I like the increased participation and hope it continues, but I'm curious as to why you're doing it, since I know you generally like to keep thoughts to yourself.

Honestly? the fact that i disliked the question was in the open, so I may as well talk about it. By the end of that post I probably should have deleted it all and replaced it with "I really dislike that vote" cause thats basically what my 3 paragraphs summed up. But I wanted to see how some people reacted to me posting more then usual, and at least it would make people maybe realize I don't just post shit without thinking (when I do you get posts like the one I made instead of posts like "i really dislike that post").

As for attacking you for it earlier, I never articulated myself properly on that manner. It wasn't that you explained how you got to the conclusion you got to. It was that.. you made it seem like you put a lot of effort getting to the conclusion you got to, and that seems anti town to me.

I'm always more then willing to explain my own actions as long as it has nothing to do with where my vote is.

This is news to me. If this is true, what made you decide to explain why you voted me earlier in the game? I didn't even ask you to as such.

My title is what it is for a reason. Or if its that you never knew I was willing to explain other things then.. I don't know maybe I got speed lynched on day 1 in all the games we played together in (it happened a lot around the time you joined). As for giving explanation as to why I voted you: my main concern with cases is late game more then early game. And I didn't want to get speed lynched this game. So I decided to bend my own rules to make myself look better in the towns eye.

[petroleumjelly]

This was going to be in a numbered list of commentaries, but it ended up being so long that I'm giving it its own post.

~~~~~

I don't like Patrick's latest questions to me. They seem way more like subtle attacks on me than they seem inquisitive. I'll answer the questions while also pointing out what I dislike about a couple of them.

Why do you feel that this [DGB's suspicion of PJ +EK] was a weak claim?

DGB was picking out the two people who had just voted her, and claimed we were her top suspects. Her reasoning was that I was "defending her" (a weak claim she has not supported) and then voting her without explanation – a phenomenon I am sure she has seen before, yet she does not bother to say why "unexplained votes" are scummy.

Her "suspicions" were essentially in direct correlation to the players voting her with a reason. I really doubt that if EK and I had voted somebody

else

with our exact same posts (supposing somebody else had made the "buttering up" post) that she would have claimed to have had the same "suspicions". This leads me to think she was just plain OMGUSing, and in doing so, not actually reading the game looking for scum. More on EK below.

You've said that your reason for voting DBG was no good, so why is it strange that she doesn't like it?

My reason for voting her was just fine; calling it "no good" is wrong, and I dislike this characterization.

Answer: She really

did

butter up three people in one post, and for Page 4 of a game that's a good starting point as any for a little pressure.

I don't think her post was externally scummy. But I can definitely see how there could be undercurrents playing in her post. In other words, it did not make her more likely to be scum in my eyes (at least as a standalone post), but there was a fair chance there was still an undercurrent to the post: hence my vote. [From what I understand, this is the same stance MBL took with his 30% post].

I no longer really care about the post precisely because (a) I do not think I will be able to gage DGB's purpose in her post at this point, and (b) there now exists some tangibly scummy things to push on.

Why is it strange that she dislikes elvis just parrotting your reason?

I don't like how you use the word "parroting" (correcting the spelling here); EK had an additional reason for her vote ("alignment =/= whether you like somebody"), and it's certainly not scummy to

agree

with somebody. "Parroting" is really saying the same thing as somebody else, which EK was not doing. Your use of language is overly dismissive of EK's post.

Answer: It's "strange" because it is convenient. Re: OMGUS.

In fact, if this vote was made for reactions, what useful reactions have you gotten from it?

I freaking

hate

questions like this.

FoS: Patrick

. This is basically placing a burden on

me

for something every other player can do themselves. Regardless of whoever makes a post that might incite reactions – which are not guaranteed to be "useful" to begin with –

all players can assess the reactions themselves

.

I keep trying to think of a way to explain what precisely I hate about this style of question, but I'm not doing a very good job of it. The best I can analogize it to on short notice:

Q

: You wear glasses because you can't see very well without them, isn't that right?

A

: Yes, that's right.

Q

: And you were wearing glasses on the night in question?

A

: Yes.

Q

: Well, if these glasses are meant to help you see, then what

exactly

did they help you see that night?

^ This obviously is not a good description because any juror with a brain would come off hating the attorney (as opposed to the intended effect) as a result, but hopefully this illustrates what I'm trying to get across. ^

The question itself has an edge to it I dislike, probably spurred by the fact that it has not been established

whether or not the witness thinks the glasses helped them see anything on the night in question

. Similarly, Patrick skips asking "do you think there were any useful reactions" and goes straight to "what useful reactions did you see"?

As an attempted answer, however: After my post, DGB claimed I was a "top suspect" and then voted for Bluesoul about three hours later. As you can see, I have yet to take my vote from her. I think her reaction was OMGUS followed by latching onto a weaker target with claims she has yet to support convincingly.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Blah – this was a longer section saying how I also thought Sarc's question of "how do you know" could not be read in any way other than rhetorical and thus attacking, but Post 224 addresses this enough that I'll spare your eyes. I originally didn't like Sarc's post, but I think he's explained it well enough that it doesn't bother me too much any longer.

2.)

But maybe I'm not thinking about things in a complex enough way. Does speculating on scum buddies or groups on D1, actually help any of you? Am I being too simplistic?

I actually agree with you; for the most part, I think looking for connections on D1 is just stupid and rarely helps in the long run – there are obviously some examples to the contrary (I can only think of College Mafia off the top of my head), but they are the exception and not the rule. If a connection is legitimately there in the thread, you're going to see it just the same later in the game, except by then that information might actually be

useful

because you'll have a better idea of players' alignments.

I also think it can lead to warped thinking throughout the rest of the game; if you always associate Player A with Player B, that's really just asking to be (a) manipulated, (b) characterized as some variation of a "waffler" (or at least less credible) if you change your mind, and (c) set up for a lynch if you are wrong. I could doubtless make a longer list of disadvantages, but I'm tired.

However, I do often

test

possible pairings on D1. This can range from:

Note to self: Check for X + Y interactions.

to

X, what do you think about Y?

This is a way to avoid the "association" problem, and the nature of these posts is that you might get some sort of reaction from one or both of the players in the question that could be telling.

[Patrick]

DGB was picking out the two people who had just voted her, and claimed we were her top suspects. Her reasoning was that I was "defending her" (a weak claim she has not supported) and then voting her without explanation – a phenomenon I am sure she has seen before, yet she does not bother to say why "unexplained votes" are scummy.

Her stated reasoning seemed more based on the fact that she thought your reason for voting her was "gratuitous", rather than unexplained. I don't think her reaction to the two votes was scummy, although there was some OMGUS to it; I can easily see a townie reacting like that to two rapid votes that come for reasons which they don't perceive to be valid. That's why I question your characterisation of it as "strange".

I don't like how you use the word "parroting" (correcting the spelling here); EK had an additional reason for her vote ("alignment =/= whether you like somebody"), and it's certainly not scummy to agree with somebody. "Parroting" is really saying the same thing as somebody else, which EK was not doing. Your use of language is overly dismissive of EK's post.

You're the second person to mention that word usage, so maybe it did have more negative connotations than intended. I do still feel somewhat that elvis copied you; the addition she added seemed like a non-sequitor (where did DGB endorse the alignment of a player just because she likes them?). If there's something more to that though, elvis can correct me.

Regarding my last question to you, I can understand your comparison to the attorney example, but I really don't understand why I'm being FoSed for that. My question still allows for you to say that you got no useful reactions if that's true. I suppose the wording carries more of an implication that you should have gotten something useful from it, maybe that stems from the fact that I would have expected you to comment on elvis's vote after, and you didn't.

You've said you don't like early pairings strategically, do you find it scummy as elvis does?

I probably have more to say, but I'm out of time.

[MrBuddyLee]

<3 airports and flight delays when there are scum to be found!

IH's first post looks inquisitive and thoughtful, if sloppy and rushed. Since then he's made some insinuations not backed up by argument and left his cases open enough to give him wiggle room and to encourage loose incrimination by others. I would guess he's lazy town right now. I have another problem with IH that could be explained by either hypothesis, so his next post or two will bear significant weight in my mind.

---

Elias worries me. He calls out the following:
* bluesoul for overreacting
* Sarc for being overly cold
* PJ and Ether for a possible staged fight
* agreement with a throwaway PJ vote (odd)
* concurrence with e_k for finding MBL fishy
* bluesoul for a "stupid" attack based on misread of tone

He then refuses to vote, afraid of having an effect on the game without full knowledge. Specifically worries he might "regret" any vote decision a week later upon his return. VERY strange.. what vote in this game full of measured players could possibly be regretted a week later? In my opinion, only a vote on town that leads to a bad mislynch or a vote on a scumpartner that leads to an unintended wagon that spirals. More likely the latter--and bluesoul and DGB were the people Elias avoided voting for. (Then again, if he's scum, it's more likely he's wary of them getting run up for their posts today and him getting caught on a wagon that makes him look bad.)

Super sketchy. Elias is on my super-security-screening no-fly list right now.

fake edit: how tough is it to be "10-1 as scum" when you don't post very often? must be pretty easy to lurk through day one, improving your odds by 25% or so there alone. Will you be proud of your victory this invitational if you lurk through it with a post a week?

---

Speaking of coasting, if Ether is scum she's going to be able to coast for the next five days and then again for much of August. I recommend that she get her ass on the record pronto about as much as possible, allowing everyone to weigh in heavily. Her posts look decent early D1, particularly this:

I don't like the way you've stressed the damage of that post, considering you've never shown any interest in MBL's alignment.

and this

I'm going to assume from the fact that you didn't press me further that my response, which didn't mention Sarc at all, was acceptable.

and this

Yeah, but...that wasn't the entirety of his post.

are all examples of reading for context very carefully. Something scum is much less adept at doing, particularly early D1. (note to scumbags: you only get half credit for carefully reading context from this point forward)

Also, this:

I'll unvote, and I might or might not replace the vote after a good night's rest--that whole "I'll be gone for a week" deal makes it feel less important.

is town attitude that's tough to fake. Bravo if you're scum, Ether, cause you're sounding a lot like chilled-out town.

---

[MrBuddyLee]

The obvious first comment about chamber is that he's 10x as verbose as usual. Absolutely no hay should be made of this, and I will strongly FOS the next person to make said hay. The reasons should be obvious.

chamber draws fine distinctions between Patrick and PJ. I don't like that he thinks I "attempted to make something appear more concrete than it is" but didn't vote me for that.. because deception = scumminess. But he unvoted at the time, almost implying that he found bluesoul unattackable after calling me out, but didn't want to vote me for some reason. He does allow that I might be overzealous town. If that's a genuine explanation for his failure to vote me (knowing also that I had a small wagon he didn't want to be on) that is a modestly protown act.

Consistent with his concern about the issue, chamber presses me for further info on bluesoul 18 hours later. He still doesn't want to vote for me.

The next day, he votes bluesoul, commenting that bluesoul and I finding each other townish seems odd. Would both town and scum behave as chamber does here? Not sure.. bluesoul was the first one to find the other (MBL) townish, MBL followed by finding bluesoul townish, and chamber sees the initial act as scummier than MBL's reevaluation of bluesoul.

Next, chamber accuses Sarc of "MASSIVELY" misrepresenting bluesoul. Doesn't vote Sarc, leaves his vote on bluesoul. Acknowledges that he's voting bluesoul but sees a few specific bluesoul actions Sarc saw as scummy.. as "careless" and townish.

Speculation on why Sarc is acting like this re: bluesoul.. is Sarc scum bs town, or both scum? Doesn't seem to allow for both town.

If you are both town I don't see you having made the rhetorical mark as you did, and more importantly when you saw it attract attention playing it off as having been a serious question is even more telling to me... Interestingly enough this would seem to suggest that your scum regardless of bluesouls alignment in my opinion. But its all dependent on that remark, that seems so unnatural to me as town. I need more time to think.

followed by:

^reason why I shouldn't do more then vote in thread^

VERY nice touch if chamber is scum. Doubting he is at this point, or else he's exquisitely ballsy scum.

---

The hallmark of OGML's play is paranoia or feigned paranoia. He's awfully concerned about MBL finding him slightly townish. STFU already.. if you're town and I'm scum I'm not going to be so blatant as to kiss your fanny on page two or whatever. The question is, is your repeated paranoia genuine...

I really don't like this:

Sarc, are you trying to pretend there's a connection between you and bluesoul?

because it implies that OGML knows Sarc is scum and bluesoul is town. Would OGML really give away the alignments of (count 'em) THREE players in one one-sentence post? In an invitational? Just LOL.. I sure hope not for your sake, ace. And if you DIDN'T, and you're town, then please be more careful with your wording in the future. I think I've remarked on this once already, but it bears repeating. You were attackable in the last game (me scum, you town) for your sloppy posts, so yeah, watch it.

This was fantastic:

To make this post seem more weighty I will now use arbitrary percentages. I am bad at math.

This theory is 70% gut, 20% something that just popped out to me while reading what I'd missed and rereading some earlier material, and 10% just plain awesome.

until you added:

(The percentage thing is a joke.)

Has left his initial appropriate vote on Sarc the entire game, doped himself up on Vicodin, and played XBox for a week with his toe propped up on the couch. Slight town read here, but not so much anymore, and not much to go on. Could be scum paralyzed with fear.

note: not proofreading--flight leaves in a moment

---

[chamber]

Just trying to clarify some mis-communications.

chamber draws fine distinctions between Patrick and PJ. I don't like that he thinks I "attempted to make something appear more concrete than it is" but didn't vote me for that.. because deception = scumminess. But he unvoted at the time, almost implying that he found bluesoul unattackable after calling me out, but didn't want to vote me for some reason. He does allow that I might be overzealous town. If that's a genuine explanation for his failure to vote me (knowing also that I had a small wagon he didn't want to be on) that is a modestly protown act.

At this point I was thinking it unlikely that you were scum together and was undecided as to which of you i should pursue so i unvoted in the mean time.

The next day, he votes bluesoul, commenting that bluesoul and I finding each other townish seems odd. Would both town and scum behave as chamber does here? Not sure.. bluesoul was the first one to find the other (MBL) townish, MBL followed by finding bluesoul townish, and chamber sees the initial act as scummier than MBL's reevaluation of bluesoul.

As I tried to explain earlier (though apparently failed) I equally disliked the act from both of you, but at this point I had decided bluesoul was the more scummy of you two, that comment aside, so I went after him.

Next, chamber accuses Sarc of "MASSIVELY" misrepresenting bluesoul. Doesn't vote Sarc, leaves his vote on bluesoul. Acknowledges that he's voting bluesoul but sees a few specific bluesoul actions Sarc saw as scummy.. as "careless" and townish.

I never meant to imply "townish" here. just that what he had done would be careless as both scum and town and thus attacking him for it seemed foolhardy.

Speculation on why Sarc is acting like this re: bluesoul.. is Sarc scum bs town, or both scum? Doesn't seem to allow for both town.

At the end of it all my conclusion was that I found sarc to be scummy regardless of bluesouls alignment, I did briefly discuss them both being town but sarc seemed so damn scummy at that moment, or rather his question and the way he reacted to it being attacked did. I should take time to point out this post was intended as an investigation in to sarc, as such i was ignoring stuff from bluesoul. He also seems extremely scummy and my most likely result with that in mind would have been both as scum (for independent reasons). Sarcs response since then has confused me more though and I'm still trying to figure out if i can see anyone having said that as a non rhetorical question.

If you are both town I don't see you having made the rhetorical mark as you did, and more importantly when you saw it attract attention playing it off as having been a serious question is even more telling to me... Interestingly enough this would seem to suggest that your scum regardless of bluesouls alignment in my opinion. But its all dependent on that remark, that seems so unnatural to me as town. I need more time to think.

followed by:

^reason why I shouldn't do more then vote in thread^

VERY nice touch if chamber is scum. Doubting he is at this point, or else he's exquisitely ballsy scum.

I don't even know why that would be ballsy so I guess you should consider exquisitely stupid scum as another option.

[DrippingGoofball]

Nice rebuttal, chamber, but what is your opinion on MBL's alignment?

[MrBuddyLee]

I don't like this from Patrick:

Elvis gives me mildly bad vibes, not sure why.

considering that e_k had only posted six sentences at that point.. should be relatively easy to pin down what you don't like.

Patrick is DEFINITELY stretching in an attempt to cause conflict and communication, and I doubt he'd play that loose as scum on D1 but I need to read up and see if he has in the past.

Later, e_k calls Patrick out for voting her.. his response:

Not in itself, you just seem to be on the sidelines a fair bit.

A little unusual.. this is 24 hours after Patrick said e_k gave him bad vibes.

His clarification a day later:

You haven't done much scumhunting.

Then this, which seems a bit manufactured:

After MBL's first analysis post, Ether asked you to comment on it. You've also not commented on bluesoul's wagon/alignment, which seems like a notable event in the game. Chamber's accusation against me, the suggestion of a bluesoul/Sarcastro link and the suggestion that Ether voted bluesoul whilst ignoring others who did the same as him all spring to mind as possible things to talk about. Any of those seem more relevant than what you highlighted.

Attacking people for not piping up on particular issues is not entirely logical. I see the wider point that e_k is going after a seemingly lesser issue, but.. still feels weird.

Says DGB's vote for bluesoul looks overhyped and fake, but hasn't voted or FOSed DGB. This implies that his feelings on e_k are as curiously strong as an Altoid.

This is REALLY weird:

Not much I can point to unfortunately, just the way I'm leaning at this stage. I'd like her to rejoin the game in a timely manner when she gets back from vacation, so I can hopefully decide whether I'm right about this. It's never failed me before, but I'd hate to be careless.

Is this over the top or for real, Patrick? What exactly has never failed you before?

For someone who found it scummy how I was explaining my thought processes, you're doing it far more than is usual for you. I like the increased participation and hope it continues, but I'm curious as to why you're doing it, since I know you generally like to keep thoughts to yourself.

Did you realize this might deter posting? Do you realize that would be a scum play?

Patrick is noting good details, but I would absolutely expect Patrick to do so as scum. The question is--will Patrick's details help him find scum, or are they intended to make him look good?

Patrick on his use of the word "parroting":

*Shrug* I used it to say that you just agreed with him and copied the vote, as that's what I understand it to mean. Definitely no spin intended.

It's pretty clear to me that parrotting is intended to convey mimickry without thought. Your explanation here stretches credulity, no offense intended.

I agree with Patrick's suspicions somewhat. I was expecting to get a much cleaner read off him, but he seems a bit on his heels and possibly a tad nervous. I wouldn't lynch him today. I think he will be a rich reservoir of alignment info in the days to come.

---

I'm fine with DGB's play up until this:

I'm not sure how likely it would be for two scums to both go after a townie, one after the other. Thus I will refrain from voting either for now.

DGB missed an opportunity to pull her vote off chamber and onto PJ or e_k. Weak indication that if DGB is scum, chamber is town.

DGB posting without proofreading. Fearless. Does she do this as scum? Doubt it.

Her post voting bluesoul is bothersome. Says his posts can be helpful but also use craplogic. Does one trump the other when used to pin alignments?

Once again you are misrepresenting people.

Who else was bluesoul representing besides you?

MBL FOSes bluesoul, DGB asks why. She seems to really want help placing the focus on bluesoul. Her next 9 or so posts involve bluesoul.

Says she wants help from MBL telling fake PJ scumhunting from true PJ scumhunting. I'm thinking this is intended to be humorous, so I won't overplay it, but I don't think she really thinks I'm scum after I read that post. She could be town though with a read on me, what's the story, lady?

Then poking at Sarc and bluesoul. Nothing special there.

Tough read. As always.

[Patrick]

considering that e_k had only posted six sentences at that point.. should be relatively easy to pin down what you don't like.

Not really. I saw Ether's vote for elvis and didn't really agree that elvis's second post of the game was scummy in itself, but just something about how she was approaching the game gave me mildly bad feelings. I didn't try particularly hard to put it into words, no.

Later, e_k calls Patrick out for voting her.. his response:

Not in itself, you just seem to be on the sidelines a fair bit.

A little unusual.. this is 24 hours after Patrick said e_k gave him bad vibes.

A few bad vibes before, and that post made it enough for me to want to vote her. I don't understand what you're calling unusual.

Then this, which seems a bit manufactured:

After MBL's first analysis post, Ether asked you to comment on it. You've also not commented on bluesoul's wagon/alignment, which seems like a notable event in the game. Chamber's accusation against me, the suggestion of a bluesoul/Sarcastro link and the suggestion that Ether voted bluesoul whilst ignoring others who did the same as him all spring to mind as possible things to talk about. Any of those seem more relevant than what you highlighted.

Attacking people for not piping up on particular issues is not entirely logical. I see the wider point that e_k is going after a seemingly lesser issue, but.. still feels weird.

That wasn't an attack. Elvis asked what I wanted her to comment on, so I gave some suggestions. I wasn't saying that everyone should have definitively weighed in on every single issue, I was demonstrating why I thought she was ignoring the meat of the game. Did you read the context of that post?

This is REALLY weird:

Not much I can point to unfortunately, just the way I'm leaning at this stage. I'd like her to rejoin the game in a timely manner when she gets back from vacation, so I can hopefully decide whether I'm right about this. It's never failed me before, but I'd hate to be careless.

Is this over the top or for real, Patrick? What exactly has never failed you before?

Wow. You've done it AGAIN. You've snipped the part of that quote that makes it reasonably obvious what I was referring too. Here's the full paragraph:

It's difficult to explain because it's largely my gut/metagame that I have on her. There's not really that much else on reading her posts in isolation, except that the worry about PJscum in Post 113 makes me think we're on a similar wavelength, since I was starting to get the feeling around that time. Not much I can point to unfortunately, just the way I'm leaning at this stage. I'd like her to rejoin the game in a timely manner when she gets back from vacation, so I can hopefully decide whether I'm right about this. It's never failed me before, but I'd hate to be careless.

The first sentence, which you snipped, mentions my meta on Ether, which has never failed me before. Why did you snip that? And while we're at it, what the hell is over the top about any of that?

For someone who found it scummy how I was explaining my thought processes, you're doing it far more than is usual for you. I like the increased participation and hope it continues, but I'm curious as to why you're doing it, since I know you generally like to keep thoughts to yourself.

Did you realize this might deter posting? Do you realize that would be a scum play?

I disagree with the whole approach you've taken to this. Chamber is a player who I've nearly always known to be lurky and unhelpful, practically refusing to explain anything. His play is notably different in this game, and that was definitely worth asking about, especially since I thought I'd seen something that potentially went against his philosophy on how to play mafia. I said that I liked his increased participation and hope it continues; I suppose I can see how you might read the quote as a subtle attempt to deter participation, but I don't see how else I could have questioned him on the matter. I don't think he's scummy, but I don't think the reason for his increased participation is "obvious" at all (I'm assuming you were referring to the fact this is an invitational).

It's pretty clear to me that parrotting is intended to convey mimickry without thought. Your explanation here stretches credulity, no offense intended.

I still feel that she pretty much copied PJ's vote. Again, although she added an extra line, I didn't (and still don't) see that as an additional reason for voting. I'm not sure what else I can add, I didn't use the word to intentionally distort what was going on, and I feel it's being blown out of proportion.

[MrBuddyLee]

Snip, snip. Ah, I thought you meant your gut's never failed you before, not specifically your gut on Ether. That doesn't strain believability.

And I agree--e_k agreeing so readily about PJ's observation about DGB "buttering up three players" looked fishy. But I also think you should have stood pat on calling it parroting, so it was odd to see you tap dance around it when there was no retraction/clarification necessary.

What I found unusual about your early e_k interaction is that you couldn't qualify your gut, then suddenly you could.

I also thought you WERE attacking e_k for being on the sideline and not commenting on relevant issues. Why would you not call that an attack? A press on a player you believe to be scum based on oddities in their interactions?

[DrippingGoofball]

MBL, while reading your case on Patrick, I was exclaiming, in my head, "brilliant!" "OMG!" "I could never catch so many tells in a million years! What a stellar string!"

"I'm totally voting Patrick now!"

Then YOU don't vote Patrick.

Erm, why not?

[Patrick]

Sometimes, my suspicions start off as gut feelings then become more tangible, either over time or because of a single post. I see what you're calling unusual, but simply disagree that it is.

I also thought you WERE attacking e_k for being on the sideline and not commenting on relevant issues. Why would you not call that an attack? A press on a player you believe to be scum based on oddities in their interactions?

Let's see if I can make this coherent. I disliked her play because she seemed to be ignoring the meat of the game in favour of something irrelevant. I wasn't attacking her for not commenting on one particular issue (I think it's fine to miss out one of them, or even several). I listed those only as a reply to a question, it wasn't really meant as an extension of the case.

After preview:

MBL, while reading your case on Patrick, I was exclaiming, in my head, "brilliant!" "OMG!" "I could never catch so many tells in a million years! What a stellar string!"

"I'm totally voting Patrick now!"

Then YOU don't vote Patrick.

Erm, why not?

I'm not entirely sure he was making a case against me, it seemed more like a balanced analysis of my play. If you think he was, and he pointed out so many good tells, why didn't you vote me? It kind of feels like you're asking for his approval, in a way.

[DrippingGoofball]

I'm not entirely sure he was making a case against me, it seemed more like a balanced analysis of my play. If you think he was, and he pointed out so many good tells, why didn't you vote me? It kind of feels like you're asking for his approval, in a way.

It looked like a case against you. You don't think it was?

[Patrick]

He made some points against me, but also some in favour, and concluded that he wouldn't lynch me today. A case is usually more one sided. Regardless of whether it was a case or not, I don't get why you didn't vote me if you think it's so good and made you "totally want to vote Patrick now!" Why did MBL not voting me mean that you didn't vote me?

[bluesoul]

Just curious, does DGB have to play any scummier before we can start lynching her?

[Sarcastro]

No.

[chamber]

I don't' really find anything dgb has done to be scummy. Nonsensical perhaps, but not scummy.

[elvis_knits]

Then this, which seems a bit manufactured:

After MBL's first analysis post, Ether asked you to comment on it. You've also not commented on bluesoul's wagon/alignment, which seems like a notable event in the game. Chamber's accusation against me, the suggestion of a bluesoul/Sarcastro link and the suggestion that Ether voted bluesoul whilst ignoring others who did the same as him all spring to mind as possible things to talk about. Any of those seem more relevant than what you highlighted.

Attacking people for not piping up on particular issues is not entirely logical. I see the wider point that e_k is going after a seemingly lesser issue, but.. still feels weird.

That wasn't an attack. Elvis asked what I wanted her to comment on, so I gave some suggestions. I wasn't saying that everyone should have definitively weighed in on every single issue, I was demonstrating why I thought she was ignoring the meat of the game. Did you read the context of that post?

Considering you were saying you had bad vibes from me, and were voting me, I of course considered it an attack. I think it's odd that you didn't consider it an attack since you were voting me. I assume when people who are voting start to criticize me, that it's an attack.

[Patrick]

I was attacking you overall. I'm saying that the bit MBL quoted there and called "manufactured" wasn't really an attack, but a listing.

[chamber]

this games activity feels low to me. IH needs to post more (unless hes got a short term reason I missed) and I'm pretty sure times proven elias needs to be replaced.

[petroleumjelly]

*birthday-bites-Patrick*

1.)

Regarding my last question to you, I can understand your comparison to the attorney example, but I really don't understand why I'm being FoSed for that.

My FoS is spurred from the whole of your post. You ask me four questions in that post, and I explained why I did not like questions #2, #3, and #4; as it happens, it was #4 (where I officially FoS'd you) that I liked the least, because that sort of question is a personal pet-peeve of mine.

All of those questions had some element to them I did not like. Mafia is all about subtlety, and I feel your post subtly painting me (my reason is "no good", "you haven't said what useful reactions you've gotten yet") or trying to establish something up in the air as a fact (such as "my reason was no good", and "EK was parroting"). Worse, if I had simply answered your questions I would have implicitly agreed that both "my reason was no good", that "EK was parroting", and so forth.

If your post was truly inquisitive, it seems like you would have asked the simple intermediary questions:

• Do you think your reason was any good, even if you don't care about the post?
  
• Do you think EK was parroting?
  
• Do you think your post spurred any useful reactions?

Now:

You've said you don't like early pairings strategically, do you find it scummy as elvis does?

Not in itself – like just about everything in mafia, it usually depends on how an action is being conducted more than the act itself. Different players scumhunt differently.

2.)

MBL, when you are doing your "reads" on people are you isolating the posts, or reading them as they occur during the game? [Or have you done a mix of the two?] Which method is more common for you?

What makes me ask is that you criticize the post where Patrick list things Elvis has not commented on, but do not seem to realize that this came directly after Elvis asks "what would you like me to comment on?" in Post 88.

[Gah, Patrick mentions this as well in Post 237, but I would still like the questions answered].

3.)

MBL, both Ether and Elias essentially said "I'll be gone for the next week, so I will not vote anybody until I get back". Whether Ether said so or not, the action of unvoting (what Ether did) implies "in case my vote affects the game while I am gone". However, in Ether's case you claim that makes her seem town, and in Elias' case it makes him seem like scum. Could you explain how you differentiate these two actions side-by-side?

Note: Go ahead and disregard the fact that Elias claimed to have only read up to Page 5, and instead assume he

could

have made the most possible informed vote at the time (this way both Elias and Ether would be "up to date" when they made their respective posts).

4.)

A question I've been saving for the right moment:

Patrick, are you scum?