Open 83 - Polygamist Mafia (Game over!) before 628

[eldarad]

Vote Count

Adel (1) -

Cyberbob

Skruffs (1) -

Harvey Pew

Erg0 (1) -

SpyreX

Shy Guy (1) -

Nameless

Nameless (1) -

Adel

Not voting (5) -

Shy Guy, Skruffs, forbiddanlight, armix, Erg0

With 10 alive, it takes 6 to lynch

[Adel]

I'm leaning towards Scruffs and Anix being town.

[forbiddanlight]

Anix isn't playing. I take it you meant armix?

[Adel]

yes.

[Nameless]

Give me a good reason why exactly I should be claiming that and I will. You and Shy Guy have failed to do so thus far.

Because everyone else has.

That's actually a pretty bad answer compared (obv. thus everyone already knows anyway, and see also: if everyone jumped off a bridge etc.) compared to better ones available but I'd imagine somebody probably feels like strangling Cyberbob regardless right now.

Your arguments feel like a strawman.

I don't think a strawman is what you think it is.

Well, actually I do. You are ascribing a position to Shy Guy, that he found Firestarter scummy enough to try to trip you up, that I don't feel he really intended. And you are arguing against this. Thusly, it's a strawman.

I think it's pretty obvious that Shy Guy 'intended' to trip up Cyberbob if he were scum, but still knew that it was unlikely to directly work. Also, how is 'attempting to trip up the replacement for somebody you found scummy' a bad thing to be attributing to someone anyway?

And ... 865, Shy Guy is reaching again.

[forbiddanlight]

That's actually a pretty bad answer compared (obv. thus everyone already knows anyway, and see also: if everyone jumped off a bridge etc.) compared to better ones available but I'd imagine somebody probably feels like strangling Cyberbob regardless right now.

It was the most expedient one and the first one to come to mind. Could also shed some light on some things

I think it's pretty obvious that Shy Guy 'intended' to trip up Cyberbob if he were scum, but still knew that it was unlikely to directly work. Also, how is 'attempting to trip up the replacement for somebody you found scummy' a bad thing to be attributing to someone anyway?

It's not bad per se, but it's still a strawman because it's narrowing the field of possibilities to something you feel you can answer, even if it wasn't the original concern.

[Adel]

here is a nice global question: who has been holding thier cards close to their chest?

[forbiddanlight]

here is a nice global question: who has been holding thier cards close to their chest?

Like, in context of ourselves, or who we think has been doing so?

[Adel]

eh, I was glancing through nameless's recent posts, and noted that he hasn't been saying much. Who else isn't scumhunting?

[Shy Guy]

I'm actually fairly pleased with the result. I'd have expected a townie to claim who his lover was, and you didn't.

A

stupid

townie, perhaps. Why do you want a claim so badly? Has Firestarter's play really been so bad (I'm up to page 20 so far in my reading)?

Hm. You've read up to page 20, so you know who your predecessor claimed was his partner. Yet you say it would be stupid for a townie to claim. Why?

Instead you were quick to point out exactly how the scum roles work, and to criticize me for trying to get hypothetical you-scum to slip up. Why is trying to get scum to slip up ever a "really, really poor effort" no matter how low the percentage of success is?

I'm criticising you because the attempt was really rather clumsy, not because of the play itself.

k

Does it annoy you that I tried to get hypothetical you-scum to slip up?

No, though I find it a little disconcerting that Firestarter was obviously playing such that you think I stood a good enough chance of being scum that you would a) see if you could get me to slip up and b) immediately lay on all this pressure. There isn't a lot I can do to defend myself, not without being able to see into Firestarter's mind and tell you why he did the things he obviously did.

Hm. I wasn't really piqued by FireStarter himself at all, really. I just decided to pressure you and see what would happen. Why do you assume I was suspicious of him?

...You do seem to be straw-man-ing me. I've never said you were suspicious, yet you defend yourself from me thinking you are suspicious.

And ... 865, Shy Guy is reaching again.

Welcome to the game Cyberbob... Can you confirm which

three

players are your lovers? We are trying to decide which lover group is the most suspicious.

That was a really, really poor effort. How can I claim three partners when the only people who could possibly do that are scum?

I'm actually fairly pleased with the result. I'd have expected a townie to claim who his lover was, and you didn't.

Instead you were quick to point out exactly how the scum roles work, and to criticize me for trying to get hypothetical you-scum to slip up. Why is trying to get scum to slip up ever a "really, really poor effort" no matter how low the percentage of success is?

Is it in your opinion better to not try to get the scum to slip up when there is ZERO risk of backfire and getting a townie to slip up? Or is trying to take a long shot to catch scum "really, really poor" play? Does it annoy you that I tried to get hypothetical you-scum to slip up?

That was a really, really poor effort.

I think Shy Guy is playing in rather too many games....

What makes you say this? What is your motivation in saying this? What justification do you have for saying this, if you have any at all?

I make exactly three statements in this post that I can see. Which of them is reaching, and why? You say I am reaching again... when was I reaching before? Why do you say this?

I'm fairly certain that the scum are Adel-armlx or Nameless-Zeel.

I have no freakin idea how to decide which right now, though I am leaning back towards Adel because after first move clear Shy Guy, second move is start to clear armlx, third move lynch someone other than armlx-Adel, who I came in thinking was the most probable pair. It is unsettling from my perspective, I think that Spryex and Adel have consistently pushed for lynches of anyone but Adel & armlx, and aside from Skruffs's attack on Adel, the pattern appears to be the same from the other side..

It seems I will never get the time to re-read, so I will just put it out there: my initial impression on Spryex vs. Zeel was that Spryex hedged a lot about Zeel and when Zeel started attacking Spryex Spryex OMGUS'd Zeel. Zeel's posts seem pretty reasonable, but the one thing that leaves doubt in my mind is how he explained he "felt comfortable" or something about coming out after I started attacking Adel. Spryex, it seems awfully like your suspicions of Zeel came right after he attacked you because he attacked you... You say it is the manner in which he did so but... hard to trust for me.

I'd stake money that it is armlx-adel or nameless-zeel... decisions decisions...

[Adel]

do you want to test if I will blink?

unvote, vote:Skruffs

I'm tired of waiting for that big post.

[Shy Guy]

do you want to test if I will blink?

unvote, vote:Skruffs

I'm tired of waiting for that big post.

This seems like it directly contradicts your last thought that Skruffs and armlx were leaning town, and also seems like you did it immediately when you read my post because I pointed out that you have a trend of buddy buddy with Skruffs.

[Adel]

it does directly contradict my last post about them, but fuck it, if they are town their lack of participation is killing us, and if me refusing to lynch them prevents you and FL from colaberating with SpreX and I, then we aren't going to get the lynch I would prefer.

[Cyberbob]

Hm. You've read up to page 20, so you know who your predecessor claimed was his partner. Yet you say it would be stupid for a townie to claim. Why?

Because there's no reason to. As you say, you already know who my partner is - why do you ask me to claim again?

Hm. I wasn't really piqued by FireStarter himself at all, really. I just decided to pressure you and see what would happen. Why do you assume I was suspicious of him?

...You do seem to be straw-man-ing me. I've never said you were suspicious, yet you defend yourself from me thinking you are suspicious.

I'm sorry if I got your intentions wrong, but you really did look as though you thought I might be scum - I've never encountered pressure just for the sake of pressure outside of Day 1 before.

I make exactly three statements in this post that I can see. Which of them is reaching, and why? You say I am reaching again... when was I reaching before? Why do you say this?

Well, for one I was operating under the misconception that you were pressuring me for a reason other than to just see what would happen. I found the leaps of logic you were making (mostly regarding your interpretations of the reasons behind my criticising your attempt to catch a jumpy Cyberscum out) to be rather fantastical.

[Erg0]

Adel: could you please clarify exactly what you're looking for? In 645 you're asking for the names of two couples, but later it becomes two players. Is it two players from different couples? Do you want four people that I could see being scum together, or two pairs who may not be linked to each other but that I find suspicious in their own right?

In other news, this re-read is crushing my soul. I'm part way through day 2 and I'm thinking that Chelseafan/chenhsi are looking like my best suspects. Chelsea's opening post on day 2 is particularly dodgy.

[Adel]

Is it two players from different couples?

yes.

[Erg0]

What about the second question?

[Nameless]

I make exactly three statements in this post that I can see. Which of them is reaching, and why? You say I am reaching again... when was I reaching before? Why do you say this?

A sentence doesn't have to be a literal statement to say something, does it? Isn't it possible that questions themselves can carry implications (ie. be rhetorical) or a barrage of such hoping for some telling answer also count as reaching? Do you believe that responding to (eg.) a simple observation of Harvey Pew's was really worth an interrogation over any more than one request for clarification? Do you remember post 658? Would you believe that I know you are mafia and hope to persuade the others of this fact?

[armlx]

I'm actually fairly pleased with the result. I'd have expected a townie to claim who his lover was, and you didn't.

WOWIE. Stretch much? I'd expect anyone to go "OMG LOL U SAID 3 I IZ NOT DUMB" like Cyber did.

Cyber's lack of "X is my partner" is irritating however.

Skruffs needs to post that big post.

I don't like how Shy Guy tries to make his last scum group analysis look relevant but its really "Of A, B, C, and D, any of them could be scum".

[Adel]

What about the second question?

individual scummyness I suppose, but you could give the award for "best group effort to appear scum" if you like,

[SpyreX]

It seems I will never get the time to re-read, so I will just put it out there: my initial impression on Spryex vs. Zeel was that Spryex hedged a lot about Zeel and when Zeel started attacking Spryex Spryex OMGUS'd Zeel. Zeel's posts seem pretty reasonable, but the one thing that leaves doubt in my mind is how he explained he "felt comfortable" or something about coming out after I started attacking Adel. Spryex, it seems awfully like your suspicions of Zeel came right after he attacked you because he attacked you... You say it is the manner in which he did so but... hard to trust for me.

What did I hedge about Zeek? My thinking he was town then, due to the day 2 events, seeing a very scummy pattern in it?

If you really think all of that is an OMGUS case (especially considering I have provided about all the evidence I could) I am not sure what else I can say about it. Still, most of that was built off the hypothetical "They are scum, therefore" instead of looking at what happened in the game.

And, yes, it IS the manner of his methods Day 2 that caught my attention - timing is everything and being consistently there to "me too" while building flimsy cases to try and build steam does it.

[Shy Guy]

armlx, you say I am trying to "make it look" relevant. is it not relevant? why?

how the crap am I stretching, when you say that him not claiming is irritating you as well?

Computer troubles may hurt my posting in this and my other game.

[armlx]

armlx, you say I am trying to "make it look" relevant. is it not relevant? why?

You make it look like you are coming to a conclusion, when your posts says "Of the other 8 players, any of them could be scum". Pairing them out means nothing.

how the crap am I stretching, when you say that him not claiming is irritating you as well?

Your attack was before the refusal to claim, only in response to the "Nice try brah".

[Shy Guy]

armlx, you say I am trying to "make it look" relevant. is it not relevant? why?

You make it look like you are coming to a conclusion, when your posts says "Of the other 8 players, any of them could be scum". Pairing them out means nothing.

?? I did come to a conclusion. It is you and Adel, or the other four.

how the crap am I stretching, when you say that him not claiming is irritating you as well?

Your attack was before the refusal to claim, only in response to the "Nice try brah".

No... my

inquiry

came before his refusal. People keep assuming this was an attack...

[armlx]

?? I did come to a conclusion. It is you and Adel, or the other four.

And what does that conclusion even mean? Absolutely nothing. You have not said anything that helps anyone figure out who is scum, just made arbitrary pairings amongst everyone that isn't you.

No... my inquiry came before his refusal. People keep assuming this was an attack...

No, your attack based on his response to your inquiry. His refusal came after that.