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

[HackerHuck]

Having said that, I'm gonna dish out a

FoS: HackerHuck

. You're evidently around, and yet you too are ignoring my repeated request for an answer.

Stop making hay. I don't really see a repeated request for an answer. When I reread your posts, here's what I see:

Let's talk about CDB, for example. You pointed out something about his play that bothered me as well, but it didn't seem to register as scummy enough for you to consider him a suspect. Why do you think Elias' play is worse than CDB's glaring inconsistency?

CTD - Are you referring to my comment about CDB falling off the wagon or something else?

What I was referring to isn't really relevant to the question. but you happen to be correct. Read my analysis of CDB.

I guess I still don't see what the glaring inconsistency is either. That's more what I was asking in my response to you. I would actually consider that relevant.

To your point about CDB - I gather you're commenting on how he believes DGB's case and then later doesn't believe it. Considering I was also swayed by DGB, I'm not sure what I should find so problematic about that. You seem to be concerned by inconsistencies, which is reasonable, but I'm not seeing enough from CDB to push him past Elias - who I find to be just doing enough not to get replaced and to try and appear helpful. I figure if he's townie, he wouldn't go to all that effort to appear helpful and he would rather just get replaced. CDB's lack of effort is more laziness, which is a null-tell in my book.

[CrashTextDummie]

Having said that, I'm gonna dish out a

FoS: HackerHuck

. You're evidently around, and yet you too are ignoring my repeated request for an answer.

Stop making hay. I don't really see a repeated request for an answer. When I reread your posts, here's what I see:

What about this one:

And I actually still want to know how my predecessors ended up on your top 3, because your comments on them have been sparse in relation to other people you suspect.

Was that question confusing for you also? I get incredibly annoyed when people don't answer direct questions. I find it rude at best and scummy at worst (in the case where people are avoiding because they're afraid of giving an incriminating answer). When half the people aren't posting, and

the other half

ignores questions, I get doubly annoyed. So excuse me for being snippy.

I guess I still don't see what the glaring inconsistency is either. That's more what I was asking in my response to you. I would actually consider that relevant.

It should have been obvious from my analysis of CDB what

I

meant by "glaring inconsistency". The fact that this wasn't clear to you tells me that you were too lazy to reread, which again is annoying. You say you didn't consider it as such, which is fair enough, if a little baffling. It's true that being swayed by DGB's case wasn't that problematic (even though I still don't understand it). The problem is that he was willing to put someone at L-1 over it (and presumably was willing to lynch), and later dropped off the wagon because he wasn't sure he was on it "for the right reasons" anymore.

That

is what I call being inconsistent.

And him dropping off the wagon is what

you

mentioned as being concerning about him as well. By the way you're downplaying my issues now, I have to assume you didn't find it concerning for the same reasons I did. In that case, I want to hear your reasons.

[quote="HackerHuck"You seem to be concerned by inconsistencies, which is reasonable, but I'm not seeing enough from CDB to push him past Elias - who I find to be just doing enough not to get replaced and to try and appear helpful. I figure if he's townie, he wouldn't go to all that effort to appear helpful and he would rather just get replaced. CDB's lack of effort is more laziness, which is a null-tell in my book.[/quote]

If you think Elias is trying to appear helpful, you must not be playing the same game as I am. I'm not agreeing with your analysis of him here at all, and it bothers me.

Another post in which I try to reason with Elias forthcoming.

[CrashTextDummie]

I'm gonna try to be civil here.

Ok. Well here is my response to everything recently. MBL, you can call me a crybaby all you want, but in this game I am given a choice; I can choose to make an effort to reinstate myself in the game. The response to this was derision at my late arrival, criticism of my large posts as a whole without anything specific to defend, and I really dont think it's worth making an attempt at contributing to the game if my only contributions lead to nothing more than a digression from the current conversation to tut-tut and call me a disgrace to mafiascum.

Don't act like people weren't entitled to being annoyed with you. You were gone for a solid month at one point, and upon coming back stated upfront that you were bored with the game and lacked the motivation to get into it. Is it really that surprising to you that people were upset to the point of voting you over this?

You then promised an increased effort and started doing some analysis, yet some people were sceptical if this was an honest showing of you seeing the light, or you just throwing some shit together to lose the lurker stigma, which is

not

the heinous act you paint it to be. And instead of continuing playing, you threw a hissy fit and thus ended your "increased effort". You went AFK for a week and came back with a post that was simply offensive to me (who actually made an effort of reading you despite your complete no-show during large parts of the game), and everyone else who is taking this game seriously. And that's where you deserve being called a disgrace.

What do you think the point of these site-sanctioned invitationals is? To gather the biggest slackers of a given time period in order to create the most mediocre game possible as a demonstration of how lame this site is? I

wanted

to be in this game because I thought it was something special, and I wanted to contribute to that. Boy was I owned when I actually read the game. Why did

you

want to be in this game? Because you wanted your name attached to what could be perceived to be a list of the best players of 2005-2006? It certainly doesn't look like you actually wanted to play, and that makes everyone who nominated you look like an idiot. Is that your intention?

"Playing the game" includes trying to help your side win over the other. And that includes contributing to discussion, getting reads on people and scumhunting (or faking it if you are scum). You have done that for about a week, and you've been in this game for over two months. This game, like any other, has participation rules, and just because they're apparently not enforced, doesn't make it okay to ignore them. This doesn't just concern you, because others are guilty as well. But you're the most visible of them because you've been gone the longest without getting replaced. It is

not

unreasonable of us to expect you to make good on this fact by

actually

making an effort. One that lasts longer than a week. And it is

not

unreasonable of us to ask you to get the fuck out if you're unwilling to do that.

Those

are your two options, and nothing else.

At this point I've made the decision to essentially sit this day out. For one, it needs to end. And soon. 33 pages is more than enough for Day one, and plenty of info can be taken from what has occured today. So I'm adopting the DGB style of posting until day two. Anything of quality that I post today will only extend a stagnant and drawn out day one. Lynch me or dont. Since no one values what I say at all, I cant really say it would be a bad play to get rid of me. But seriously, end this day. But at the very least, stop being so ridiculously hypocritical about the evaluation of my play as compared to DGB's.

So that's the plan? We lynch you today, and then CDB tomorrow, and Ether the day after, and finally DGB to get rid of all the people who aren't playing (I am including DGB in this list because you've likened her play to yours, something I disagree with), and then we see if the game is over or not? Is that your idea of mafia?

I simply refuse to go into night without a replacemet for CDB and Ether. That is all.

[DrippingGoofball]

DGB, you say that, but your last significant action was the move your vote from Elias to e_k. Why be so hypocritical?

You created a situation where we started to slow down and reversed the trend of progress we could've had. Now that you've seen how the votes went...ie you voted and Huck decided to actually vote, what do you think of so called progress??

I consider THAT a good investment of time. It will be much more informative than if we pile votes of the Elias auto-lynch wagon out of weariness.

If things are slowing down, it's probably because the scum doesn't know whether they should bus, or vote for the townie. Thus the slowing of the wagon is indicative of one of Elias and elvis being scum.

[elvis_knits]

If things are slowing down, it's probably because the scum doesn't know whether they should bus, or vote for the townie. Thus the slowing of the wagon is indicative of one of Elias and elvis being scum.

You conveniently ignore that fact that your wagon also stalled.

[MrBuddyLee]

I suggest that everyone reread the game from each player's perspective, see what they might have missed, and make a list of top four suspects. Then, maybe we can narrow things down from there.

The major problem with this strategy is it'll be tough to weigh the slackers against the actives, because the more you say, typically, the more likely people's skeptical natures are going to find you scummy. But we have to do this now--before the game dies.

11 players to read, two people a day, we'll all be done by the weekend. Let's roll.

[Elias_the_thief]

Don't act like people weren't entitled to being annoyed with you. You were gone for a solid month at one point, and upon coming back stated upfront that you were bored with the game and lacked the motivation to get into it. Is it really that surprising to you that people were upset to the point of voting you over this?

I never acted as if people weren't entitled to be pissed. I apologized profusely, on more than one occasion. Yes, I stated that I lacked motivation, but I also stated very clearly how I planned on increasing my effort over the next week to get back into it, to GIVE myself motivation. Its not surprising that people voted me for this, but I find it surprising that out of those two statements, everyone decided to focus on the first one and not my promises of content, despite my lack of motivation. And I hardly think there is a point where a good protown player should vote out of anger at another. I figured that in an invitational, we could be civil and actually put my mistakes behind us and focus on what I was putting into it. Sure, past lurking can be used against me in cases if you really think its that much of a tell, but to the point of completely ignoring what I have to say? Yes. That is surprising.

You then promised an increased effort and started doing some analysis, yet some people were sceptical if this was an honest showing of you seeing the light, or you just throwing some shit together to lose the lurker stigma, which is

not

the heinous act you paint it to be.

Youre right that its not heinous to be skeptical, but again, it was more than skepticism. It was an outright refusal to look at what I had to say. Simply voting me and providing no reason as to why made it kind of difficult to find anything to say. If I post content, I get voted. Theres nothing to defend against, so I try to ask for reasons, I get voted for being annoying. That, I do consider fairly worthy of the response I put forth.

And instead of continuing playing, you threw a hissy fit and thus ended your "increased effort".

There was no way to continue playing. I simply got voted for my analysis and there was nothing to defend against. Any time I posted I was under attack and I didnt really feel it was worth it.

You went AFK for a week and came back with a post that was simply offensive to me (who actually made an effort of reading you despite your complete no-show during large parts of the game), and everyone else who is taking this game seriously. And that's where you deserve being called a disgrace.

Its not my fault if you found it offensive. For one, it actually did have a point, it wasnt just a useless post. I seriously wanted to point out how ridiculous the collapse of the DGB wagon was. My imitation of her posts was trying to illustrate how useless she's been since the collapse of the aforementioned wagon. Seeing as no one values my cases and my vote was already on DGB, how else would you propose I promote a DGB lynch?

What do you think the point of these site-sanctioned invitationals is? To gather the biggest slackers of a given time period in order to create the most mediocre game possible as a demonstration of how lame this site is?

You have to understand that I underestimated my summer obligation, and I apologized multiple times. It was unforeseeable how little I'd be able to post. Say whatever you want, but it wont change my mistakes. Nor will anything I say. Clearly no one is willing to put it behind them, so I dont have much of a choice except be a slacker.

I

wanted

to be in this game because I thought it was something special, and I wanted to contribute to that. Boy was I owned when I actually read the game. Why did

you

want to be in this game?

See above. I wanted to be in it to give it my all, but when you come into it 20 pages in at the beginning of the school year its somewhat difficult. I was trying to get in it anyways but immediate derision discouraged me after the first week of trying.

"Playing the game" includes trying to help your side win over the other. And that includes contributing to discussion, getting reads on people and scumhunting (or faking it if you are scum). You have done that for about a week, and you've been in this game for over two months. This game, like any other, has participation rules, and just because they're apparently not enforced, doesn't make it okay to ignore them. This doesn't just concern you, because others are guilty as well. But you're the most visible of them because you've been gone the longest without getting replaced. It is

not

unreasonable of us to expect you to make good on this fact by

actually

making an effort. One that lasts longer than a week. And it is

not

unreasonable of us to ask you to get the fuck out if you're unwilling to do that.

Those

are your two options, and nothing else.

Certainly its not unreasonable. But it IS unreasonable to expect me to play a game in which my content is not evaluated but is instead immediately thrown out and made into the vague basis of a vote. At the point that the game is no longer fun, I dont see the point in "playing the game" in the manner that you seem to think is THE WAY to play the game.

At this point I've made the decision to essentially sit this day out. For one, it needs to end. And soon. 33 pages is more than enough for Day one, and plenty of info can be taken from what has occured today. So I'm adopting the DGB style of posting until day two. Anything of quality that I post today will only extend a stagnant and drawn out day one. Lynch me or dont. Since no one values what I say at all, I cant really say it would be a bad play to get rid of me. But seriously, end this day. But at the very least, stop being so ridiculously hypocritical about the evaluation of my play as compared to DGB's.

So that's the plan? We lynch you today, and then CDB tomorrow, and Ether the day after, and finally DGB to get rid of all the people who aren't playing (I am including DGB in this list because you've likened her play to yours, something I disagree with), and then we see if the game is over or not? Is that your idea of mafia?

I'm coming back Day Two. I just dont see the point of throwing in my two cents today to snide remarks and disrespect.

Certainly I earned some hazing and anger in response to my posts, but the response I have received has been way over the top. Theres no reason that my posts should have been recieved with that level of disregard. I'll come back day two and see if you guys feel like listening to my posts. Just answer me this: If my posts simply cause votes against me, why post them? If no one values my cases, why make them? It seems to me I'm better off just voting for who I find scummy in this game, and keeping my reasoining to myself. Did I ever say in my last post that I stopped reading the game? Or that I had no more cases I could be posting? No. I never said that. I have other things I could post. But theres no point.

[HackerHuck]

CTD - I'm a little annoyed with what I would consider an inconsistency of yours. You expect me to divine the intent of your posts, yet you also want me to explicitly state the intent of my posts.

I think with CDB, we're just arguing semantics at this point. I don't see someone changin their mind as being inconsistent. That's rather odd. What you're trying to imply is that if I were to switch my vote now - remember I didn't put E_K at L-1, but I was perfectly willing to hammer - then I would be inconsistent for doing so. I don't really get where you're going with this line of questioning and I'm certainly not going to give you a reason to go after me if I decide to switch votes - which is now seeming more likely.

As for your other question... I gave my reasons for putting your predecessor in my top three (four) and I'm not sure what you want me to expand upon - specifics might actually help in this case. I don't see how the quantity of my comments relates to the scumminess of the suspect.

If you think Elias is trying to appear helpful, you must not be playing the same game as I am. I'm not agreeing with your analysis of him here at all, and it bothers me.

Please reread where I discuss Elias. My comments aren't specifically related to his recent outbursts, but back to where he threw together some analysis. However, even in your most recent post, you acknowledge that Elias was trying to be helpful and people were doubtful to whether it was just to lose the lurker stigma. I'll repeat my earlier comment that it seems like you're trying to make hay right now.

[HackerHuck]

If you don't want to contribute and play, please ask for replacement.

I'm sure the mod can find someone who is willing to replace in and contribute. It's not like we're at the brink of a lynch.

[Elias_the_thief]

If you don't want to contribute and play, please ask for replacement.

I'm sure the mod can find someone who is willing to replace in and contribute. It's not like we're at the brink of a lynch.

We should end the day. I've made my lynch choice clear.

[MrBuddyLee]

Ok guys, hear me out on a theory.

It's in my head that when elias whines about how we perceive his lack of participation, he rarely calls anyone scummy for it. I would expect a townie to be calling this person and that person suspicious for the way they press the issue. But instead, my recollection is that elias doesn't find people scummy for any of that.

So I went back and read his first real post. Here it is, with his evaluative comments bolded:

Sorry for the delay folks, but camp is pretty exhausting. Last week when I meant to reread and write my second post I ended up passing out. So here is my read up to about page 5. Sorry for the block o' text format.

The first post to catch my eye was 28 by bluesoul, in which he completely

overreacted

to a post which seemed pretty clearly to be a joke. The assumption of scumbuddies actually makes sense to me given that he was responding to a post assuming as much. But even if scum are among the non posters, and scum with MBL, wouldnt they already be very aware of the potential for that connection to be picked up? The post just seems

silly

to me. In 31 Sarc seems somewhat

overly cold

in correcting MBL's interpretation of bluesouls comment. Back and forth between PJ and Ether on topic of scumbuddy assumptions is quality, but perhaps

too clean cut

for my liking. In post 77 PJ vote DGB for her post 76 because she "butters up to three people in one post", and

I agree with his vote completely

. In 93 EK makes note of MBL's misunderstanding of Bluesouls 28, and that

it seems kind of fishy and I have to agree

. Post 118 by bluesoul is an entirely

stupid attack

in my opinion, which seems to stem mainly from the fact that he interpretted a different tone in MBLs post than what he ( think) meant. I think that the concept of those percentages being far from exact was pretty apparent in the initial post so

I dislike all the attacks based on this school of thought

.

No vote right now, I want to have a better grasp on the game before I make any decisions I could regret when I return to the game. Please comment and question my post, I will respond to everything next weekend, and I don't want my week long absenses to deter anyone from attacking me.

Top suspect:

Bluesoul for 28 and

attacks

on MBL in 118.

Runner Up:

DBG for post 76

brown-nosing

.

Maybe this is elias's style, but it doesn't feel like he thinks anyone might be scum, it feels like scum trying to nitpick and find technicalities to hang his hat on.

"overreacted", "silly", overly cold", "too clean cut", "kind of fishy", "brown-nosing" sound like someone reading the game critically, but not with true suspicion in mind.

I'll continue the elias reread.

[MrBuddyLee]

Uh, hi. I've returned from camp, and I am in the process of rereading, but you'll have to excuse me for at least a day. For one thing, this game is full of fun filled text walls that I have to sift through. On top of that, the

level of discussion is above anything I've encountered

in any of the games I've played in recently. So it might take me 1-2 days to be fully caught up. As it stands, I have a fairly solid understanding up until page 10. Hopefully I'll be completely with you by the end of this week. So, heres what I have:

On the MBL-Bluesoul % conv:

The whole thing was

blown ridiculously out of proportion

now that I've read it over a few times. Someone (DGB i believe) speculated that it might have been planned, which I think is fairly

ridiculous

too. That conversation really didnt change my outlook on a possible connection between the two of them at all. It seems kind of dumb as a bus and would be a pretty weak attempt at distancing. The only thing that I took from the whole thing with any relevance was that Bluesoul was

trying harder than necessary to come off protown

at the end of it, which gave me a

slight scumvibe

. Nothing too convincing though.

Um...that was really the biggest event in the game in the first ten pages, and theres not much else worth mentioning besides individual reads. So...

MBL:

came off really protown when explaining the whole percentages thing. Hes spent a lot of time in the spotlight and has seemed pretty consistent in all his points. Perhaps a bit lacking in the scumhunting department (though im not in a position to complain), but this can be explained by the large conversation with bluesoul, which occured more because of bluesoul than him.

Bluesoul:

As I said earlier,

slight scum vibes from the tail end of the percentage conversation

. Reading over the whole thing though,

my earlier suspicion for the conversation itself really isnt too convincing

. So only slight suspicion for bluesoul.

PJ:

Hard for me to get a read on thus far. Looks to be the

prodding and questioning sort of playstyle

. These always appear protown to me at first glance but in actuality I find they're

a good way of avoiding real content and scumhunting

(though PJ is no where near avoiding posting content ). As noted by MBL, PJ has been lacking in scumhunting slightly (though I have nothing to compare it to). The response seemed genuine however and he provided some solid reads and insight into his current position in the game, so a fairly solid protown feeling from him.

DGB:

so yeah, some really

weird posts

out of her thus far, and some

out there attacks

with an OMGUS kind of ring to them. Nothing solid, but

not really liking her too much

as of right now.

Sarcastro:

I feel protown about him, though there isnt really much of a reason as to why. He seemed

unnecessarily cold

in his attacks on bluesouls assumption of no pregame talk, but I have no idea whether this is characteristic of his playstyle or not.

Thats really all I have for now. Hopefully I can get started on 10-15 tonight or tomorrow. In conclusion, I'm the only one whos played with basically no one in this game.

Possible bluesoul-elias distancing, as elias points out bluesoul's trying too hard to look protown. Smelled a lil funky there. I don't get a read off his DGB comments: "weird, out there attacks", "not really liking her too much". Uncertain whether that feels scumpairy.

I'm torn on elias. I have a feeling if he's scum he's handed us some decent evidence of who his scumpartners are via his tone. The analyses feel really different from player to player, and I'm curious to see who he leaves out entirely.

[MrBuddyLee]

STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS THOUGHTS UP TO PAGE 15:

chamber: jumps on MBL BLUESOUL connection and votes Bluesoul over MBL

PJ post 229 in response to patricks questions about reactions and

dgbs attacks bothers me

as it spends more time

attacking

patricks questions than just answering the questions. the post just reads as sort of

evasive

to me. I feel the same about 230, which seems to have more

hypothetical fluff

than useful content.

the "parroting" conversation is

useless semantics

. I doubt that patrick had any ulterior motives behind which term he used.

MBL 232 attacks my initial post becuase I make several points against several players but no vote. These were just very basic things I noted and I didnt consider anything there convincing enough for a vote. to understand my "regret" comment, take a look at the player lists from some of my recent games.

In his following post he makes some nice insights on OGML and chamber and especially on patrick. Patricks responses read to me as indignant town, especially when it comes to the snipping issue.

dgbs posts seem

fairly useless and nonsensical

. 263 is

scummy as hell. asks for votes but finds no one scummy

. very noncommittal. then 278 seems like a

throwaway attempt to lose some pressure without addressing any points

against her. it of course failed, but thats how i read it. 290 is an

idiotic bash

of pjs info gathering. oh yeah, cant forget the

appeal to emotion

near the bottom. It bothers me that PJ basically

ignores this entire conversation

though. He also posts a wall of text addressing basically everyone but DGB.

Weird

.

mbls vote for me in 271 is

ridiculous

given the discussion between DGB EK and patrick going on at the time.

At this point I'm thinking DGB scum, the refusal to claim and defeatist attitude basically sealed it for me. At the very least,

a DGB lynch gives excellent alignment info

. I'll once again refrain from voting until I've read through everything.

Note as a control, elias's attack on pro-town me is to call me "ridiculous". That's not really a word that implies scumminess. So if elias is scum, my hypothesis is that he uses more damning accusations of his scumpartners than he does of the townies he's trying to frame.

His stuff on DGB isn't terrible here, but then again sometimes taking potshots at DGB is low hanging fruit. Note his accusations of PJ.. elias actually takes note that PJ wall-of-texts, referencing everyone BUT DGB. And calls that "weird". That's either VERY protown of him to read that carefully for a relationship between DGB and PJ, or it's scum reading paranoidly and spotting an error by their scumpartner that many others might not notice. Possible elias+DGB+PJ scum trio there.

Elias hits PJ pretty hard. Let's see if he maintains the pressure. We know he maintains it on DGB.

[MrBuddyLee]

*shrug*

This game is uninteresting to me and I lack the motivation to get caught up. I dont think this should have any reflection on my alignment. I'm sorry that I underestimated the task of staying caught up while missing weeks at a time. That being said, school is about to start but I will be making an increased effort in this coming week.

My first task will be trying to decide on someone to vote as I have yet to do so throughout this entire game.

So I'll be looking at the two main candidates, first through DGBs case against Elvis (i ignored a good deal of the connection speculation). I hope that this will give you guys at least some sort of read on me going into day two, and that it will motivate me to get back in the game.

This

isnt really very condemning

in my opinion.


This

isnt particularly convincing

either. Its possible that she posted that with your manipulative intentions in mind, but its just as likely that she saw something unaddressed and decided to bring it to the forefront in order to start up conversation.

I dont think that agreeing with a point is necessarily shielding yourself. The way you word this is

pretty negative

, and you sound

very final

in your conclusion.

I find that more scummy

then the post in question.

Well I cant really agree with the first point unless I'm calling myself scummy, so I will say that it is not necessarily a scumtell, though

worth noting that she hadnt been taking any sides

.


Ok.

Nothing too amazing

here.

how so?

153 has

one bad sentence

. What relevance does the last part have other than reinforce the notion that she hadnt been "hiding" to begin with, and had simply agreed with one post, and wanted to resurface the other?

Eh...

fence sitting is fairly scummy but I dont really see the connection

as very convincing.

I dont really see any "protection" going on here, only denial of the accusation. Not very scummy.

Good point here.

So as I see it:

Elvis has been noncommittal and hasnt scumhunted very much. Thats basically the same as me.

DGB's case is far from convincing, and seems to be mostly speculation about connections (which really arent that useful when theyre made about at least 5 different players). I will further my old evaluation of DGB later this week. I'm sorry MBL, cant touch your questions yet.

This is elias's big analysis post where he uses DGB's case on elvis to point out how weak her play is. Does it make you feel like he thinks DGB is scummy? He says her case on elvis is "negative" and "final" and "not very convincing" but he never really decries it as super-scummy. In fact, the only thing he finds scummy about the case is that it's "negative" and "very final". So why's he post it as his evidence he'll use to vote DGB?

Also note elias hadn't voted by September 5th. I'd already played for like two months, driven to Burning Man and back, put the fire out in my jeep's engine, and made 2 welcome-back posts by then. Lack of incentive to move the game along with votes is suspect though not "final".

[MrBuddyLee]

No Bluesoul, I dont expect that one post to give anyone a read. Thats why I said quite clearly that I was going to look at both wagons, look at cases, and place a vote. I also noted that I was sorry for my mistakes and would make an increased effort in the coming week. I'm sure you're very angry about me being gone the whole time, but the fact of the matter is I'm here now. By continuing to make a big deal about my late arrival, you're detracting from the game. Is it cool if I like try to play now or should I leave again? Just wondering what you really want. Heres my analysis of DGB.

Early Game:

throughout the entire early part of the game she seems to throw in these

little bits of dry humor

as if to

disguise and inflate poor posts

. 239 DGB expresses a high level of agreement with MBL's case on Patrick and ends it by questioning his lack of vote, while

she doesnt vote either

. 263 is

scummy as hell as she asks for votes but finds no one scummy

. very noncommittal. Not to mention that then 278 is a very poor

softclaim

that just comes off as

weak and scummy

. 290 attacks PJ's method of info gathering, which is a

silly attack

, because asking questions is the basis of PJ's play. she also

appeals to emotion

at the bottom.

PJ basically ignores this entire conversation however, and posts a wall-o-text addressing basically everyone but DGB.

More recent stuff:

291 through 393 is just post after post of a

disgraceful defeatist attitude

. Then in 394 she mysteriously turns it around, as if kicked in the shins. I believe this turnaround is motivated by the

realization that she may perhaps not be the day one lynch

. This is

something that would motivate scum a lot more than town IMO

.

If she were town, you'd think she would have been posting those PBP's a lot sooner. This is one of the main reasons I find her scummy.

Analysis posts:

395 mainly analizes possible connections to me and IH, which is

fairly useless

on Day One. Though this provides

more solid opinions from her to help us get a read

, it doesnt change my opinion of her at all. 399 and 401 are covered in my previous post. The case is unimpressive. 410 (analizing sarc) is a

decent post, but it is never elaborated on

, as DGB allows her game (from directly after all her analysis is complete) to be dominated by attacks on Elvis. 414 seems to paint OGML in a lurkerish light, though she claims it makes him scummy. I dunno, I just dont see it. Analysis about bluesoul in 418 is

lacking

. 427 for chamber is much the same.

Summary:

Early posts are very scummy. The

small bits of humor seem to be placed in posts mainly to distract from issues at hand and inflate

posts. As the game progressed DGB made some very

scummy posts, softclaimed power role, and eventually went into complete defeatist mode

. After the realization that lynch was not impending, she posted some analysis, but this was

by no means good enough

to detract from the scumminess of her earlier posts.

So

I've compared the two scummier players out there, according to the town

. Rest assured I will post analysis for other players, but I wanted to get these two out of the way first.

To me its fairly clear that DGB is the scummier of the two

and I'm fairly comfortable with my first vote of the game being

vote: DGB

.

So many things to say about this post:

1) He found PJ really weird, but as I expected, never came back to him, instead choosing to "analyze" the "two scummier players out there according to the town".

2) He never really compared DGB to anyone. Was elvis the "other scummy player out there"? If elias is scum, the way he approached the elvis case leads me to believe elvis is not scum with him. I think scum would have gone after their partner a little when their partner was on the ropes. This is pretty much blatant defense, and using DGB's words not his own. And relying on the fact that DGB has to be "bad" in order to clear elvis using DGB's case.

3) Elias admits DGB posted some good analysis, just not good enough to overcome previous scummy posts.

I'm interested to know which of DGB's analyses were good, elias.

Perhaps ones where she spotted your scumpartners?

4) Note the repetition. Elias's first analytical paragraph pretty much just copies and pastes his previous analysis. And then he does the same for much of the next two paragraphs. He's phoning it in, hoping to slide by (as town or scum) by making a choice between the first two big wagons.

Big whoop.

[MrBuddyLee]

Oh yeah, I made part of the above quote red because it's interesting that elias thinks DGB's drawing connections to elias and IH will give "us" opinions to help "us" get a read.

elias, what kind of read do you get when DGB draws connections between you and pablito, patrick, bluesoul and IH?

[CrashTextDummie]

I'm gonna answer some stuff that directly concerns me, other things (like MBLs recent proposal and analysis) will have to wait until tomorrow.

CTD - I'm a little annoyed with what I would consider an inconsistency of yours. You expect me to divine the intent of your posts, yet you also want me to explicitly state the intent of my posts.

The annoyance is mutual then, at least we have something in common. I didn't expect you to divine the intent of my posts, because I wasn't aware that there is anything to be confused about. And yes, I expect you to clarify certain statements if I feel they are subject to interpretation or (intentionally or unintentionally) vague. I have no problem explaining my posts, and I don't mind questions. So as long as you keep answering mine, I'll answer yours.

I think with CDB, we're just arguing semantics at this point. I don't see someone changin their mind as being inconsistent. That's rather odd. What you're trying to imply is that if I were to switch my vote now - remember I didn't put E_K at L-1, but I was perfectly willing to hammer - then I would be inconsistent for doing so. I don't really get where you're going with this line of questioning and I'm certainly not going to give you a reason to go after me if I decide to switch votes - which is now seeming more likely.

It's too bad CDB isn't around to actually defend himself, because it's perfectly possible that your read is correct and that he had legitimate reasons to leave a wagon he was previously prepared to see to the end. Changing your mind is not something I find inherently suspicious, it's all about the underlining motivation. And from what little CDB posted about the matter ("being on the wagon for the wrong reasons"), I can't see a pro-town motivation for the change of heart.

I'll reiterate my question though: If you didn't have a problem with that, why

did

you find him dropping off the wagon "concerning"?

As for your other question... I gave my reasons for putting your predecessor in my top three (four) and I'm not sure what you want me to expand upon - specifics might actually help in this case. I don't see how the quantity of my comments relates to the scumminess of the suspect.

Here is the sum total of your comments on my predecessors:

Out of the three - Elias, IH, and Sarcastro, I had a mildly scummy read from Sarcastro because he seemed to avoid any discussion around him and would reappear once the dust settled a little. I feel that townies who lurk are more likely to pop up when something about them has been said.

You had him in your toss-up group, "leaning scummy" following this.

Bird’s entry looks pretty solid to me. I got a little turned about at the end though – his wrap up didn’t seem to follow the rest of the post.[...]I usually find most players give me townie vibes when replacing in - I may have said that already - but I feel that Bird might be trying to be townie with his line of questioning in his recent posts.

You had Bird1111 in your top 3 after this (your second highest suspect, I am presuming from your wording of the list).

I note your choice of words: "mildy scummy", "pretty solid", "got a little turned", "might be trying to be townie". That all just sounds extremely soft to me.

Compare that to Patrick, who you said had "bothered [you] for much of the game". That sounds a lot more like actual suspicion. I note that you haven't really mentioned him since, and he didn't appear on aforementioned top 3. What changed your mind?

Compare that also to MBL. You said you found parts of his play "very scummy". Of course, your analysis was a lot more balanced than that, but my point is about the choice of words. Obviously you felt quite strongly about MBL, and not so much about Sarcastro/Bird 1111.

And then of course, there's this post, which might explain some of my concerns, but raises a different question:

I kind of see your point about Sarcastro. I didn't realise that I hadn't posted everything I had in my notes, because I referenced it a little bit indirectly. It goes back to his comment about Bluesoul somehow knowing the scum could/couldn't talk before the game started. He was very overdefencive about that, continuing on for way too long for a supposedly non-serious comment. Additionally, he seems to be pretty jokey throughout and is using that to back off of any of his more controversial comments when called on them.

So you

did

have further reasons to suspect Sarcastro, you just forgot to post them. Now this I just find odd. Usually, when I forget to post something from my notes, it's either stuff on people I'm generally not very interested in, or when I'm building an already extensive case and some stuff falls through the cracks. I certainly don't forget to state my reasons for someone being one of my top suspects, because I generally want to lynch, or at least pressure them.

For me, this is a further indication that you were not as suspicious of my predecessors as your Top 3 makes it seem. Wouldn't you have wanted to build a case? Wouldn't you have wanted to actually accuse him of the stuff you found suspicious about him? Alternatively, it could be an indication that you're generally not very suspicious of anyone, hence why I've asked the question in the first place. Hope I'm making myself clearer here, I wouldn't want to burden you with divining my posts again.

If you think Elias is trying to appear helpful, you must not be playing the same game as I am. I'm not agreeing with your analysis of him here at all, and it bothers me.

Please reread where I discuss Elias. My comments aren't specifically related to his recent outbursts, but back to where he threw together some analysis. However, even in your most recent post, you acknowledge that Elias was trying to be helpful and people were doubtful to whether it was just to lose the lurker stigma. I'll repeat my earlier comment that it seems like you're trying to make hay right now.

That's fair enough, re Elias trying to be helpful.

I would like to point out though that you seem to use the phrase "trying to be helpful" predominantly as something scum would do, and that I didn't use the phrase at all. So you reading this as us being in agreement is not accurate. Perhaps it wasn't obvious (I'm sensing a theme here), but my last post towards Elias did not take his alignment into account at all. I was appealing to his honor as a mafia player in general, and hence there was no judgment of his acts, merely an attempt to explain to him why he's being treated the way he is, because inexplicably, he doesn't seem to understand.

I've stated previously that I don't see particular reason to be suspicious of him, and you stated previously that you're "not certain whether he’s scum pretending to be helpful/present or whether he’s tired of getting called out and is just trying to do anything to get the pressure of himself". Apparently, you've made up your mind in the meantime, and I'm not entirely sure based on what. But perhaps this is another thing you can explain to me, while we're in the habit of explaining things to each other.

[CrashTextDummie]

I figured that in an invitational, we could be civil and actually put my mistakes behind us and focus on what I was putting into it. Sure, past lurking can be used against me in cases if you really think its that much of a tell, but to the point of completely ignoring what I have to say? Yes. That is surprising.

Do you think "completely ignoring what [you] have to say" is scummy, or just bad form? Do you think 5 people voting you (I think that was the peak of your wagon) equates to

everyone

completely ignoring what you have to say? Do you think your contributions were substancial enough to make good on your excessive lurking? Do you think 1 week of increased posting, which contained pbpas of 3 people and a whole lot of bickering was enough to convince people that you were really, truly back in the game?

I'll help you with the last question, the answer is "no".

Youre right that its not heinous to be skeptical, but again, it was more than skepticism. It was an outright refusal to look at what I had to say. Simply voting me and providing no reason as to why made it kind of difficult to find anything to say. If I post content, I get voted. Theres nothing to defend against, so I try to ask for reasons, I get voted for being annoying. That, I do consider fairly worthy of the response I put forth.

Did you get voted for posting content? The way I remember it, you were voted for being needlessly antagonistic (remember not posting your bluesoul pbpa because your own game was more important to you, you know, that kind of thing).

There was no way to continue playing. I simply got voted for my analysis and there was nothing to defend against. Any time I posted I was under attack and I didnt really feel it was worth it.

Because being under attack completely absolves you from having to contribute in any way at all. Getting attacked is a normal part of this game, for mafia and for town, and in the case of the latter, the attacks are never "just". If you felt you were attacked unfairly, you should have continued stating as much. And you should have continued analysing the game in order to help your side, as is your purpose in this game.

(side note: this will be my last post of this sort. I feel like I'm giving mafia 101 lessons here, and it's starting to seem silly considering the ramifications of this game)

Its not my fault if you found it offensive. For one, it actually did have a point, it wasnt just a useless post. I seriously wanted to point out how ridiculous the collapse of the DGB wagon was. My imitation of her posts was trying to illustrate how useless she's been since the collapse of the aforementioned wagon.

See, this is the kind of stuff that makes me not want to play with you anymore. It is absolutely not my fault that I found your post offensive, because it was clearly designed to be a slap in the face, i.e. offensive. If you have a point, make it a fucking point. If you seriously want to point something out, do it fucking seriously.

Seeing as no one values my cases and my vote was already on DGB, how else would you propose I promote a DGB lynch?

Uhh... find someone else to lynch? I currently want to lynch bluesoul, but I'm not getting much support, so I'm investigating other candidates. Is this concept that foreign to you? Of course, it would probably require you to actually play and read the game, something you don't find fashionable anymore.

You have to understand that I underestimated my summer obligation, and I apologized multiple times. It was unforeseeable how little I'd be able to post. Say whatever you want, but it wont change my mistakes. Nor will anything I say. Clearly no one is willing to put it behind them, so I dont have much of a choice except be a slacker.

I don't follow this logic at all. You know why it's such a huge fucking deal that you were gone for so long? Do you?

Any further comment on you being in this game at all despite your circumstances will have to wait for post-game, because they're of no relevance to the current situation.

At the point that the game is no longer fun, I dont see the point in "playing the game" in the manner that you seem to think is THE WAY to play the game.

Do you see the point in getting replaced at the point where the game is no longer fun? What you're doing is not a "different way" to play the game, you're not playing at all.

I'm coming back Day Two. I just dont see the point of throwing in my two cents today to snide remarks and disrespect.

Unless you get lynched today, as you so graciously suggested. You don't think your contributions are getting valued as you think they're supposed to be. They will be once your dead, to the point they're actually usable.

And let's be perfectly clear on this:
I want you out of this game unless you start behaving like an adult

today

. That won't change if you still happen to be alive tomorrow. By acting the way you are right now, you're tarnishing your reputation as a player and your standing in this game beyond repair.

That is all for today.

[MrBuddyLee]

I'm coming back Day Two. I just dont see the point of throwing in my two cents today to snide remarks and disrespect.

lol, I guess you're planning on killing the snide and the disrespectful tonight?

[DrippingGoofball]

You conveniently ignore that fact that your wagon also stalled.

That's different than when having two equal-size wagons.

[HackerHuck]

OK CTD, it is much easier to answer your questions when I understand what you're getting at. I think where we differ in our opinions on CTD is that you are honing in on the flip-flop, I noted it more in isolation of his unvote. To me it was more due to the fact that his unvote seemed to come out of the blue and I didn't - and still don't - understand why the Elvis wagon unraveled.

As for your predecessor, you're also trying to compare my comments on him to my comments on Patrick and MBL - both of whom posted mountains of content in relation. I'll admit that I had stronger scummy vibes from Patrick when I did my reread. I warmed up to him a bit once I was actually playing in realtime and our interaction made me feel more like he was really looking for scum and not just trying to find a nice townie to lynch.

As for leaving out something from my notes, when I replaced in, I was on vacation and read through the game in a rather odd manner. I'll admit that you're right that my suspicions are rather soft at this point. It's day one and putting together a top three was only done at MBL's request. That said, they are all people I wouldn't be opposed to lynching

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at regarding my comments on Elias. I do believe that scum are the only people that really try to be helpful, but I did point out that Elias is also in an unusual situation where a townie might also "try to be helpful" to avoid getting lynched as a lurker.

I hope I've left you satisfied. Now I've got to focus my attention on the others.

[HackerHuck]

If you don't want to contribute and play, please ask for replacement.

I'm sure the mod can find someone who is willing to replace in and contribute. It's not like we're at the brink of a lynch.

We should end the day. I've made my lynch choice clear.

Are you serious? I had to look at your posts in isolation and go back 18 posts (more than two weeks) to see who you are really trying to get lynched. If you really think she's so scummy that she should be lynched, then why would you make this comment? - in response to CTD saying your playstyle is a disgrace.

I'm just curious as to why DGB isnt. Shes acted almost exactly the same as me this game.

I took a look at MBLs presentation on Elias and found some things I like. I did notice the comment Elias made about PJ and how it was just dropped like it was unimportant. I actually took that as some evidence that PJ might be scum. Even more interesting is the interaction between Pablito and Elias. Pablito is voting for Elias, but there are some possible signs of bussing. Elias barely mentions him except to rebut his reasons for voting him. Another interesting comment:

People voting me...why?

Bluesoul:

claims the vote was to start discussion, acknowledges that it did its job, leaves vote. Huh?

Pablito:

says my wording is wrong and scummy. I explain that its my style and that I use those phrases a lot, and dismiss a lot of his points. His rebuttal accepts most of my responses but leaves vote. again, huh?

DGB:

Gives no explanation other than that she believes I'm buddies to elvis. Scummy as hell.

MBL:

never fully explains. I would appreciate a definitive reason.

His commentary is rather strange. With the two "non-existent" reasons for votes staying, Pablito and MBL seem like they should be the scummiest. DGB's case might be weak or unbelievable, but she made a case, stuck by it and that's who Elias calls the scummiest. Why not MBL since he supposedly didn't say anything? Then when you look at Pablito, this comment could be telling:

I'd like to see more votes on Elias, but I hope it's not out of sheer frustration with him.

First, Elias made the next two posts, so it's not like he didn't see it, but he didn't even bother to comment on it. If Pablito's arguments were fully rebutted, then why Elias not care that he's calling for more votes? Secondly, it's interesting how Pablito softened his statement. He's pressing for an Elias lynch, but he wants people to be cautious for it. Normally I would expect town who wants someone lynched to be interested to see who gets on a lynch for the wrong reasons, because that would be telling if Elias turns up town. Instead, he's warning people off the lynch a bit. Now as much as I can see those two as a scum pair, there was one thing that makes me hesitate. Elias' PJ comment came in his analysis of DGB. If anything, that comment attempts to pair those two up but doesn't really further a case against DGB. I don't really see any value for him to pull a scumpartner into a case that didn't really need him. That puts Pablito higher in preference on my lynch roll than Elias.

[DrippingGoofball]

Please note that I will have NO INTERNET ACCESS between Oct 5-11.

[Patrick]

Regarding CDB: I don't see his unvote of elvis as actually inconsistent. The feeling I got when he voted elvis was that he thought elvis was a very good information giving lynch compared to DGB, and that pushed him towards voting her. I believe his later unvote and "I'm not here for the right reasons" refers to those reasons. I think CDB has more likely flaked rather than strategically lurking, and I agree he needs replacing, considering how little we have from that role. I wouldn't feel comfortable lynching him based on what I've seen - my only real issue with him is what I feel might have been attempts to defer responsibility to others when he voted elvis, but it's not really a big one.

Regarding elvis's case against MBL in 755: I think this reads way too much into a type of comment that really isn't that unusual. Town would have to be pretty daft to be actually "manipulated" by something like this into thinking better of MBL's alignment. (I find bluesoul's praise for this post to be weird, possible buddying here).

Pablito has been seeming more protown to me - his stance on elvis really makes more sense to me than it did before. I'm going to give CTD's comment about PJ's meta some weight because I don't think he'd say it lightly and because I really doubt CTD would have entered the game and declared that if pablito was a scumbuddy of his, but he could still just be town and wrong.

I feel less shitty now and will continue to catch up and comment on things tomorrow.

[CrashTextDummie]

HackerHuck:

I find your answers satisfying for the most part. Glad we're finally speaking the same language. Only one thing:

It's day one and putting together a top three was only done at MBL's request. That said, they are all people I wouldn't be opposed to lynching

Wouldn't be, or wouldn't have been? If the former, make a case. Analyze me.

Patrick:

Glad you're feeling better. LoS, please.

I'm having guests, so consider this my post of the day. Might be able to slip another in a bit later, but I doubt it.