Open 99: Mayo Clinic (Game Over!) before 703

[orangepenguin]

Charter: Good job. When the other lurkers post you can vote for them, too. This is really going to encourage a discussion. Also, one of the people you said I left off the lurker list I mentioned with a different abbreviation. The other gave his reason for voting for me and defended it a little while ago. I disagree (obviously) and it could have been more in depth, but it was posted recently.

Orange: We really have too much quoting going on. The lurkers, yourself included, need to let their own ideas be heard. Even if you agree with someone else 100%, you should say it in your own words. That's just my take on it.

Well, yeah, I probably should've said it in my own words. I can agree with you on that. It doesn't bother me that charter voted for me. It will probably keep me around, since I am more involved now this way. I just don't agree with his vote, so..

[Plum]

I've copped to every flaw pointed out in my case. The case itself eventually deteriorated. Being wrong is a scumtell now?

By copped do you happen to mean 'admittted to'? Because you up and admitted to most if not all of my accusations (שתיקה כהודיה, finally quoting a Talmudic logic point here). Basically, you admitted that your case was 'not airtight' (it was much less than airtight) and didn't engage in a defense of any of the points I brought against you. Silence is equivalent to agreement, or, if you want to disagree, start telling me why my points are invalid. Don't say the case has deteriorated. It hasn't, not least because you've barely defended yourself. You were 'fine' with my suspicions, you said. Great, I'm just as up for lynching you as I was when I voted you.

Nameless' post full of quick quotes is decent, but should be looked at carefully. Basically, Wall-E, as I see it you did make an awful, scummy case and fiddled around with how seriously you took and pushed it. However, regarding OP's quick vote (I'll look at his overall behavior more closely tomorrow, as I have to go soon)

Orange: We really have too much quoting going on. The lurkers, yourself included, need to let their own ideas be heard. Even if you agree with someone else 100%, you should say it in your own words. That's just my take on it.

On quick scan, OP's made about 8 game posts, first four were nearly contentless, next was inconclusive and ambiguous, next quotes Nameless, throws in an emoticon and votes, next states little but that there's a case built on Wall-E already.

HOS: OP

[Nameless]

@ Wall-E (re. #266): I made an argument with quoted evidence, that's already more than you did for you entire case against me. You can't put the onus on me for

everything

.

@ OP: Coming out of lurking to jump on a bandwagon without giving reasons? Yeah, that's a

FoS

. What we actually want the lurkers to do here is

contribute to discussion.

How about answering my question from #239?

unvote, vote OP

Charter, is this vote ...

supposed

to be as "ironic" as it actually is?

[Stef]

I've been here.. reading from time to time but didn't really have time. All the time i had yesterday for example i spent writing a 2500 words post in one of my games since it's in endgame. That took me 3 hours. That was too much.

I don't actually see, going back 5 pages, many questions addressed to me.

I was asked what i have to say about the last days and lurkers ( i guess i was one of the people put in that category ). As i said.. i like my vote on GnK and i'll explain why later. Just woke up right now so i can't focus.

[Kmd4390]

Wall-E, it's not a scumtell to be wrong. It's a scumtell to be contradictory.

[Mirth]

"I would like to remind all personnel to stop threatening the free world on hospital time. Thank you."

VOTE COUNT

Wall-E - 4 - [Nameless, Plum, animorpherv, orangepenguin]

GnKoihi - 2 - [Stef, Kmd]
charter - 2 - [Wall-E, GnKoichi]

Nameless - 1- [TonyMontana]
TonyMontana - 1 - [Kiro]
Orangepenguin - 1 - [charter]


Not Voting - 1 - [Mana_Ku]

[GnKoichi]

Okay, so, the tomorrow I mentioned in my last post is now today. Can we start a discussion about a lurker lynch? I'm not entirely sold on the idea myself, but I think a fire needs to be lit for certain people.

Here's my quick analysis:

Wall-E, Nameless, Charter, and Myself have been pretty active all around.

Plum was less active, but recently made some very good posts and really contributed.

Animorpherv is new and should be given more time to catch up. Not a lot, but some.

Orangepenguin is inactive, but recently gave a quick opinion. Give a little time to flesh this idea out?

Kiro has been moderately active.

TonyMontana has been less active and has given almost no analysis. He promised to do so quite a while ago and I don't think he ever delivered.

Stef made the same promise more recently, and should be given a little time.

Kmd... I have trouble viewing without bias. About as active as Kiro, but I think his penchant for quoting leads to less actual content in his posts.

Mana_Ku is probably about as active as Kiro and Kmd, but she isn't voting for anyone right now, and there's a lot of evidence to work with. I think we need to see a Plum style post from her to see where she stands.


So, if we WE'RE going to do a lurker-lynch, Tony looks like the best candidate to me. But OP, Ani, Stef, and Mana (and maybe Kmd) are close as well, pending what they do soon.

What are people's thought on actually doing a lurker-lynch at all, and where would you disagree with my analysis on who would be a target for this?

[Kmd4390]

GnK, I post every single RL day, so I consider myself pretty active.

And as far as a lurker lynch, I generally don't like the idea on mafiascum. Day 1 lurkers are often replaced or become more active later.

[Wall-E]

you guys are

smurfs

i'm not doing any of the things you suggested

i'm going to keep on playing this game and you can just cry over me not liking my own

smurfing

case anymore

or if you don't like that, pull your lower lip over your head and swallow

play nice please. while the words i replaced werent that bad, i would prefer if y'all laid off the name calling, thank you.

[Kiro]

Wall-E: People are just calling attention to posts you made before. The contradiction itself is mainly a change in attitude from being passive to looking for cases which if anything is a change for the better. My problem with you is a little less on you and a little more on your case which I think is weak because it's based on a scumpair premise. And also the "assheads" comment. I'm not offended, but personal insults under duress trigger my scumdar.

Orangepenguin's definitely suspicious just for the quick vote with no explanation in his own words.

Here are some questions for TonyMontana:
In post 210, you made some comments about Wall-E's case. Given that it's been discussed more now, has your opinion changed in regards to Nameless and how he's acted or his supposed arrogance? Also, what do you think about Wall-E now and his current bandwagon?

Your last post as of this writing was approximately 52 hours ago, saying you were a busy person who cannot provide analysis on command. Yet I do note that you have posted in other Mafia games much more recently. Any reason why this game does not seem worthy of your time? There is a fair amount you can comment about.

[GnKoichi]

unvote, vote: Wall-E

This is with extremely great reluctance, but you're way out of line, man. Either you're actually this volatile a player, which could end up hurting town even if you don't intend to, or you're scum who got really defensive when the tables started to turn against him.

Kmd: I never said you were inactive. My comment about you was in regards to the content of your posts, and I even admitted that might be biased since I'm already suspicious of you.

[animorpherv1]

I

really

think it's Wall-E. For previous reasons stated. He's been contradictory, and from what I found. Unless he can prove me otherwise, I have my scum right there.

[Nameless]

Unless [Wall-E] can prove me otherwise, I have my scum right there.

You personally haven't exactly made much of a case on Wall-E, or given a great deal of commentary to the hundreds of posts made before you replaced in. If the first thing you do after replacing is vote the largest bandwagon without saying much, that's no better than Orange jumping out of nowhere to do so.

Wall-E might be the scummiest player at the moment, but these things are not going unnoted. I don't want to see Wall-E lynched until

everyone

in this game has made a significant contribution.

[charter]

unvote, vote GK

Calling this now, GK is scum and Wall-E is not.

[GnKoichi]

My new theory:

Wall-E and Charter are scum. They've done a good job of distancing themselves from each other for most of the game. The key to this? Charter quickly switching his vote AWAY from Wall-E once there were five votes against him. Then, when I voted for Wall-E, putting the total back to five, he brings his vote back to ME! He's voted for the last two people to put a vote on Wall-E, and now makes a claim that Wall-E (who he was voting for two days ago) is town, without any evidence.

Let's knock Wall-E out, and then when he's shown to be Scum, we can take Charter tonight or tomorrow.

[Kmd4390]

Let's knock Wall-E out, and then when he's shown to be Scum, we can take Charter tonight or tomorrow.

I'd be careful about saying this. If charter is scum, and the scum think that charter will be targeted with a kill, the mafia doctor (assuming we don't lynch them) will end up protecting him. I'm not trying to say that you were definitely trying to get a vig to shoot him, but try to stay clear of this kind of thing. Of course if you are scum, you don't really need to worry about this though.

Serious stretch here but it's possible that you are scum trying to get vig kills wasted with this comment.

[Nameless]

unvote, vote GK

Calling this now, GK is scum and Wall-E is not.

This is the part where you explain why.

[GnKoichi]

To be honest, yeah, I'm tipping my hand a bit here, which is dangerous with all the protection at night. I think it's much more likely that we could make a case and lynch him the next day.

[Wall-E]

You're setting up lynches without giving a good reason.

[GnKoichi]

Wall-E: I assume you're referring to me. Charter is the one who hasn't given reasons for his last two votes. My reasons were made extremely clear in posts 285 & 289. They're on this page. They may not have been lengthy arguments. They were concise. Pretending they aren't there isn't helping yours or Charter's case.

[Plum]

unvote, vote GK

Calling this now, GK is scum and Wall-E is not.

I agree with Nameless that I'd like an explaination of this, and personally find votes without decent cases scummy. While I think I see where you

might

be coming from about GnK being scum regarding the placement of his vote (after Wall-E reached four and while his case is among the principle ones the town is discussing at the moment) - though I notice that it came after a post by Wall-E which was apparently so volatile (using a phrase from GnK) that the mod felt it would be appropriate to edit it. Will reserve judgement on both his vote and Charter's vote and call until I hear a bit from both of them.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how likely it is that Charter and Wall-E would have acted the way they have towards each other if they were scum. Yeah, that's slightly WIFOMy and not conclusive, but I personally don't see that sort of bussing if they were scum. Interesting note on the placement of Charter's votes, though, again would like to hear more about them before comment.

Lurker lynch? Don't think we should do that when we have decent discussion happening anyway. I see policy lurker lynches as not better than random lynches in most cases. Granted, some of the lurkers have acted moderately scummy. Also, setting up lynches/vig kills? This is the second time you've done that sort of thing (earlier you said 'If charter turns out to be scum, Kmd is likely a partner'). Furthermore, while Charter hasn't really explained his votes, I still don't fully see your case on Wall-E aside from 'he was defensive' and having said at one point that he'd started acting 'like [he isn't] even trying'. If you're voting him to L-2 with only that on him, I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on the case.

[Wall-E]

Lurker lynch? Don't think we should do that when we have decent discussion happening anyway. I see policy lurker lynches as not better than random lynches in most cases. Granted, some of the lurkers have acted moderately scummy. Also, setting up lynches/vig kills? This is the second time you've done that sort of thing (earlier you said 'If charter turns out to be scum, Kmd is likely a partner'). Furthermore, while Charter hasn't really explained his votes, I still don't fully see your case on Wall-E aside from 'he was defensive' and having said at one point that he'd started acting 'like [he isn't] even trying'. If you're voting him to L-2 with only that on him, I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on the case.

QFT!!

[GnKoichi]

Something interesting happened here. My vote against Wall-E was meant as a warning. I still had a somewhat town read on him at that point. I really appreciated his sticking up for me a little bit earlier in the game. I wanted to help him shake off this mood he had gotten in. I was worried he was going to draw more votes and get himself knocked off. So I voted for him, hoping that him being L-2 would get him out of the funk he's been in since his case against Nameless failed.

Then Charter voted for me without any reasons. This was the second time in a row Charter had voted for someone who had just put a vote on Wall-E, and directly before that HE had been voting for Wall-E himself.

Suddenly it made sense. I still believe Charter is scum, and now he had revealed his partner. He and Wall-E had set themselves up as against each other over the issue of, well, me, very early. They voted for each other to seal the deal. Why would scum vote for each other? But it probably looked like a safe bet back then, since I was a good candidate for our first Lynch. Then, Wall-E got a little sloppy in his Nameless argument, and drew a few votes. Ani's vote put Wall-E at L-2, so Charter pulled his vote, and tried to throw a quick vote at Ani (perhaps to scare the new player away from voting that way). Then I put my 'scare' vote on Wall-E, and Charter was forced to try to return the focus to me.

I'd much rather take Charter out, but it seems like the group is more willing to take Wall-E right now, and I'm very confident that they are scum buddies now.

[GnKoichi]

EBWOP: OP's vote, not Ani's. I got the order mixed up in my mind.

[Wall-E]

You're wrong. It's coincidence. I defended you because I agreed with you. I built a case motivated by an instinct I felt upon reading the thread once through. I've done it before to great success, and 100% of the times I've done it I caught scum. This time it was revealed to me that I'd made two critical reading comprehension errors which had expanded the relationship shared by Nameless and charter into a more convincing reality, but upon posting the case Nameless offered a new perspective, so I withdraw now my case.

I will continue to discuss this at length with anyone who wishes to continue the discussion.

GnKoichi: If I'm reading you right, you set up a trap for me by switching to my bandwagon to provoke a reaction?