Mini 673 - Game Over!

[MadCrawdad]

Any opinions from your read Leaves?

Not much ideas. If I speak now I'll just be repeating what people have said before.

Also I haven't understood whether there are two scumgroups or one scumgroup and a sk. Could anyone give me an explanation for this?

hp [leaves], I don't really mind if you're repeating what others are saying. Unfortunately your predecessor wasn't very involved for the past two days... Even if you're just repeating what others say, it will help give us a feel for where you stand on anything. Thanks.

[Darox]

Here's what bugs me about your analysis of the players, Darox... the fact that Sim is on it. I assume this was to show us how hard you really were working on Day 2, even though most of us assumed that your cardboard cutout was standing next to that of Flameaxe.

So you've decided to include Simenon in your analysis (as you claim to have started it on Day 2). Fine. Then where the heck is Gurgi on that list? He was one of your suspects, so it would seem to me that you'd likely pull together information on him first.

Apparently knowing that your time was limited, it would make sense to me that you would pull together cases on your suspects before wasting time and effort to say why you thought others were NOT scummy.

Logically you would want to give reasons to lynch your suspects first. So once again, where the heck is Gurgi on that list?

Also, you think Stark is a man of the people? Stark did nothing at all yesterday...didn't even vote. Then comes back and says that Sim was his biggest suspect on Day 2. Funny...he never mentioned it before.

I don't know Stark's role, but the fact that you find him so pro-town is a little off-putting.

FOS: Darox

Actually I did it in the order listed on the front page.

I had gotten up to strife by the end of day 2 (Yeah yeah, I'm a terrible procrastinator) and decided there was no point in removing what I had already written on Sim.

[strife220]

talking about PEG's post doesn't make any sense at all. Say's he's "not sure if [he's] comfortable interpreting peg's quoted post" but that "it's certainly interesting." What?

Can't recall the specifics of this comment, but I don't see what's wrong with saying something is interesting/relevant but not concrete enough to draw immediate specific conclusions.

Moving on, he thinks discussion should be postponed until hascow reveals his investigation result (What?)

Has needed to reveal his investigation by the end of the day in case he died at night. In general, I believe unconfirmed players should reveal choices at the beginning of the day instead of at night, so that fake-claiming scum can't use information gained that day to pick who they'll say they investigated. I.e. scum-claimed-cop gains a big advantage by waiting until the end of the day to reveal, while actual-cop gains very little. [/quote]

then reveals that his big speech prepared on fuzzylightning boiled down to "He survived Day 1" (Uh, okay?)

Adding 'Uh, Okay?' to the end of comments is not an argument. You asked why I was suspicious of Fuzzy. I gave my legitimate reasoning. You're using the fact that I was obviously wrong to paint me as scum. Now let me flip the attack around - What information could possibly be gained out of requesting a player to make an attack on a confirmed innocent, besides the opportunity to stand up on a high-horse and state the obvious 'you're wrong'?

Goes on to explain a bit more about his points against tomato and on PEG. This is just baffling. He states that PEG clearly ordered his list of the wagons at that time in a specific way (Clearly )

What are you trying to convey with your sarcasm this time? How is what I said scummy or incorrect?

then goes on to say that there is lots of information in the post (Mind sharing some?) but that "Strong Conclusions can't be made" (Que?) and to top it all off, he says people should make up their own minds. (How about telling us what's on yours first, hmm?)
Moving on, in response to further questions about his prior statements on PEG, he responds "I'm not going to answer this question (No change here then), because I don't think such subtle town- tells (Err... I'm at a loss for words at this)" and then goes on with some poorly considered WIFOM questions.

This can be broken down into my belief that scum-tells should always be brought up, but town tells should usually be kept to ones-self, at least until said person is at risk of getting lynched. If you don't understand why, I'm sure there are some lengthy posts in the mafia discussion forum discussing this issue.
The specific issue I was referring to is PEG's defense on Scot, which I considered to be a town-tell for Scot, because scum seldom defend their partners so explicitly. However me making this argument at that time would not have been helpful to the town for the same reason town-tells are seldom worth bringing up. If he was close to being lynched, I would have explicitly brought it up. However, he wasn't close to being lynched, so I just highlighted it so that others could see its significance.

but then ruins it again by saying hascow claimed MadCrawdad as innocent and by delving into the field of utterly pointless maths.

Hascow made an explicitly incorrect statement, which I corrected. He essentially called me an idiot, which my ego clearly can't tolerate, so I explained to him (apparently ineffectively) how percentages work.



Madcraw's point about including Sim but not Gurgi is interesting, so I'll second a request to comment on that.
I'm also interested to hear that you were apparently following along with the game, but keeping all the comments to yourself. On Nov 3, the day of the deadline, you make a 'promise to catch up' post. You clearly had opinions on several players at that point of the game, yet chose to abstain from commenting on the obviously pressing matter of 'should we lynch a claimed doc or not,' until you jump in to hammer at the last minute. Why wait until you have a comprehensive post on all players to actually contribute to the game when there was an urgent need for contribution yesterday?

[strife220]

^^ The above post was written before I read Darox's post 426

[MadCrawdad]

Actually I did it in the order listed on the front page.

I had gotten up to strife by the end of day 2 (Yeah yeah, I'm a terrible procrastinator) and decided there was no point in removing what I had already written on Sim.

There's a pretty good reason for removing what you had written on Sim....he was dead. Much had transpired between the time you had started your analysis and Day 2 ended, so it would make sense that you would UPDATE your analysis accordingly.

Based on what you're saying, you decided not to revise any of your thoughts based on the later part of Day 2...otherwise you would have included analysis on the most current information available for ALL living players.

So given that some of your analysis is apparently just 'old' crap, what's the point? Seriously. By putting out just any old crap, it sure looks like you're just trying to prove to people that even though you're not posting, you're actually doing something.

[Darox]

I don't think you're getting it.

Since I had already written stuff on Sim, I saw no reason to delete it. I figured there was no point in not sharing what my thoughts on sim were when I had already written them.

I'm not sure how you can think the section on Sim, which you call "'old' crap" (In scare quotes no less) makes the rest of the evaluation irrelevant.

[MadCrawdad]

I don't think you're getting it.

Since I had already written stuff on Sim, I saw no reason to delete it. I figured there was no point in not sharing what my thoughts on sim were when I had already written them.

I'm not sure how you can think the section on Sim, which you call "'old' crap" (In scare quotes no less) makes the rest of the evaluation irrelevant.

Maybe not irrelevant, but not current... apparently you claim to have finished your analysis (through Simenon) sometime earlier on Day 2. So anything on Flameaxe or Scot would not include any of your observations from later in day 2, right?

[MadCrawdad]

Hello...

Hello...

Hello...

Hey, there's an echo in here.

[dahill1]

Vote Count

strife220 (1): (Darox)

Not Voting (5): (stark, strife220, scotmany, [hp]leaves, MadCrawdad)

5 alive, 3 to lynch

Deadline is Nov. 22nd
I'm disappointed with the activity level...still..

[strife220]

So with 3 mafia dead, we're presumably after a SK for the town win. In light of the recent debate with Darox, I've become unsettled with how he handled the deadline last day. Given he was reading the game, making notes/cases, and was active during the deadline week, it's very strange that he wouldn't make any comment on Gurgi's doc claim, nor make any attempt to help town find a better lynch. Jumping in at the last second for a hammer is also awfully convenient.

I've given his lurking a closer look to see if it was true lurking, or just inactivity. Darox made a posts in this game on Oct 20th, 25th, and Nov 3rd. In between the 20th and 25th, he made 19 posts on the site. Between the 25th and 3rd, 10 more posts - 26 if you count the 25th and 3rd. Given he had just subbed in to this game, had already done a full read-through, claimed to have opinions on players/events, and was faced with a deadline, it's very suspicious that he didn't have Anything to say the entire day. This is certainly a case of genuine lurking. It also matches the M.O. of a serial killer. Joining the game to see a mislynch was right around the corner gave him no reason to speak up and present any controversial opinions. By lurking through the day, he got to see Gurgi mislynched without bringing any attention to himself to survive the night.

Faerielord didn't contribute either, but was inactive on the entire site for October, leading to him being replaced in several games. I'll say this is a null-tell, but Darox's behaviour has been exactly what I'd expect from someone replacing into a SK role in the midst of a mislynch.

Vote: Darox

Darox, I believe I brought up several points in my post 427 which warrant your address.

[strife220]

On a side-note, I don't see Crawdad's argument against Darox. Doing it in order on the first page makes sense, and I don't see much motivation for scum to do ... whatever you're accusing him of doing.

[Darox]

It's hilarious because you're assuming my actions in this game can be related to my actions in other games in any way, or that my posting levels can be related to my alignment in any way.

My posting in this game has been low because I didn't have anyone I really suspected. Crazy huh?

Also I hammered Gurgi because I don't believe doc claims out of hand. Is that really so hard to infer from my vote on him that I didn't believe his claim?

I'll get onto showing why your 427 doesn't provide any points later.

[MadCrawdad]

On a side-note, I don't see Crawdad's argument against Darox. Doing it in order on the first page makes sense, and I don't see much motivation for scum to do ... whatever you're accusing him of doing.

So someone says that they have limited time and no time to post, but it makes sense to write up analyses on those you think are innocent? Wrong. You analyze and post info on those that you think are scum, and get that information out there, if you want to help the town...

[strife220]

It's hilarious because you're assuming my actions in this game can be related to my actions in other games in any way, or that my posting levels can be related to my alignment in any way.

They can - it proves you were lurking.

My posting in this game has been low because I didn't have anyone I really suspected. Crazy huh?

Scummy

Haterade/Strife220
IH/Lord Gurgi

Cardboard Cutout

Flameaxe

Contradiction. You said you had 2 suspects over a week before deadline, but chose to let the heat stay on Gurgi without any of your own input before and after the doc claim.

Also I hammered Gurgi because I don't believe doc claims out of hand. Is that really so hard to infer from my vote on him that I didn't believe his claim?

Why didn't you speak up about the issue before deadline hit? Did you think there was a real doc in the game that chose not to counter-claim?

So someone says that they have limited time and no time to post, but it makes sense to write up analyses on those you think are innocent? Wrong. You analyze and post info on those that you think are scum, and get that information out there, if you want to help the town...

I can agree with that, I just don't think he's lying when he says he was following the order off the front page.

[MadCrawdad]

Mod, please prod Stark, scot, and Leeves. Thanks.

done

[stark]

MC:

Who's more likely to be scum?

Darox or Strife?

[stark]

Actually, you know..

With half the players dead, I think it's time for a massclaim.

I'd be happy to go first.

[scotmany12]

Hi. No time to do anything yet. I have no problem with a massclaim though.

[strife220]

MC:

Who's more likely to be scum?

Darox or Strife?

False dilemma here

Actually, you know..

With half the players dead, I think it's time for a massclaim.

I'd be happy to go first.

Why would we mass-claim when we clearly have a vig alive and aren't in lylo?

[stark]

MC:

Who's more likely to be scum?

Darox or Strife?

False dilemma here

Jumping to conclusions here

The two of you seem to be the most popular, so I figured I'd get a perspective.

Actually, you know..

With half the players dead, I think it's time for a massclaim.

I'd be happy to go first.

Why would we mass-claim when we clearly have a vig alive and aren't in lylo?

The game is at a standstill and I'm bored.

[strife220]

The game is at a standstill and I'm bored.

You haven't said who you think is most likely to be scum yet today.

[hp [leaves]]

So with 3 mafia dead, we're presumably after a SK for the town win.

Why would we mass-claim when we clearly have a vig alive

Contradiction much? Saying we must find the SK, then converting it to a vig.

[stark]

We can certainly afford a massclaim with so many dead anti-town.

I also think it'll guide us to the path of victory.

You haven't said who you think is most likely to be scum yet today.

I have no idea.

[dahill1]

Vote Count

strife220 (1): (Darox)

Not Voting (5): (stark, strife220, scotmany, [hp]leaves, MadCrawdad)

5 alive, 3 to lynch

Deadline is Nov. 22nd
I'm willing to extend the deadline if activity keeps up

[scotmany12]

So with 3 mafia dead, we're presumably after a SK for the town win.

Why would we mass-claim when we clearly have a vig alive

Contradiction much? Saying we must find the SK, then converting it to a vig.

Strife thinks that there is an sk and a vig, which is plausible. I don't know why he jumped to that conclusion, however. Strife, did you even consider the possibility of there being two scum groups, which one gone and the other with only one member remaining?

With that said, I support massclaim at this point.