Mini 707: Cops and Robbers Mafia (Game Over)

[Green Crayons]

....Wait, are you being serious, Fuzz? Or is this still being said in jest/true page one fashion?

I'm not good with detecting sarcasm over the internet. Help me out here.

[Green Crayons]

So your argument is that she made a comment that your name is somehow connected to "towniness" and since she was connecting

you

with

town

... that this statement is scummy, and, by extension, so is she?


That's like, two steps away from saying "Don't you dare call me town because I'm not you scumbag!"

[Green Crayons]

Never mind, in reviewing the thread I see that I took some posts out of order.

[Green Crayons]

Shutting down bad theories in a triple post. Awesome. Triple posting.

Vote remaining on Ether, because of possible attempts to make a good image for herself via the use of the word, "townish,"

Not sure how saying a word - much less when that word is townish - makes the speaker look good. Such logic would dictate that simply by saying "rich" would make you so.

even though it's fairly obvious that there is little to be gained by analysis of usernames. In fact, on that note, what tells, if any, do you get from my username, Ether?

Says that there's nothing to be gained by action X, then requests Ether to perform action X, all so he can...

>:O Didn't I just say that I wanted people to vote based on things other than usernames?

...admonish her for acquiescing to his request.

People who do X are bad! Hey, Other Player, please do X for me? Thanks! ...Other Player is bad because they did X!

I realize that the others are voting off of names, but these are only joke votes. Yours is different because it attempts to associate a given name with townieness; the other people simply said something stupid and irreverent.

Her mentioning the word town doesn't sell me that her comment wasn't "stupid and irreverent" or not a joke vote. Not quite sure how you make that leap, would like to hear it (I guess, it seems pretty weak) since it seems to be the only pillar you currently have for keeping your vote on Ether and establishing that it's a serious vote.


Now, for my wild, game-beginning theory.

Mafia traditionally likes third or fourth on a bandwagon. Why not for other trends - maybe this third/fourth place thing sometimes works even on a subconscious level? As has been pointed out, people were "random" voting because of names. The third and fourth to do this were Tisp and Mizzy. Mizzy then turns around to vote for Fuzz who looks like he could easily be an early bandwagon because he's really reaching. Like. Exceptionally so. Beating everyone to the punch so she won't have to be vote three or four? Maybe.

Vote: Mizzy

. Yeah, exceptionally shaky foundation, but it's better than name voting. You scallywags.

[Green Crayons]

I'm not convinced by your analysis. I understand the logic in what you're saying, but to me, it seems much too shaky to base a vote on.

Yeah, exceptionally shaky foundation, but it's better than name voting.

I agree with Corvuus's reasoning on Green Crayons's theory. It just seems way too shaky ... Honestly, like I said, there is some kind of logic, but that doesn't make it useful.

Yeah, exceptionally shaky foundation, but it's better than name voting.

I mean, I know I put a disclaimer out there after making the vote that it was made on some pretty soft grounding, but that doesn't mean you should go repeating it. Twice. Like you're trying to knock it down (feel free to do so) with overstating that it's made on shakey basis without making it look like you're trying to knock it down (scummish) with saying that it's logical. Granted you were asked to recite your ideas for Ether, so this is pretty much a null and void point - at least at this time. ...I just like to type.

and by his analysis, he could be scum for placing the first vote on Mizzy, so it's just a WIFOM.

Uh, only if you took that one aspect of my critque (putting a first vote on someone) in a vacuum void of any context and without the other aspects of my reasons for voting her. Other than that, my own vote falls exactly into my analysis. So, if you put some pretty big blinders on I suppose you're right.

I'm not sure what you mean about not liking Corvuus.

-snip-
Oh, Ether posted while I was previewing my post. She had actual reasons other than much internet <3'in. My theory was shot down!

[Green Crayons]

We need to get these quotes-within-quotes tag issues fixed. It's bothersome.

Ending the random phase in and of itself isn't scummy but I find the way he did it to be scummy. He found the first remotely questionable thing (which was a huge stretch and taking things seriously that probably shouldn't have been) and used that as his excuse.

Using something remotely questionable as an excuse to step away from entirely random voting isn't a bad thing - though that seems to be your sentiment here. It isn't what a lynch should be based off of, by and stretch of the imagination, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. For example, his bad logic and questionable reasoning have supplied us with plenty of quasi-useful posts that are moving us away from random voting. I would like to see your argument as to why stretched logic to move the discussion towards something productive isn't as good as randomness on page one.

Firstly, it seems that he has no clue about random voting and why it's useful and then tries to use his flawed understanding as reasoning.

Rereading post 18 readily displays his apparent disdain for random voting, but I don't see how you're pulling out from that post that he doesn't have a clue about beginning game random votes. Furthermore, I would appreciate if you would flush out more your contention that he uses this "misunderstanding" of random voting as reasoning. What misunderstanding? Reasoning for what? As far as I can tell, he's keeping his vote on Ether not because she was random voting (so any misunderstanding he may have re: randomness doesn't come into play), but because she was allegedly attempting to slip buzzwords into her rhetoric to make her look like town.

Secondly he uses a "vote for me" play which is a terrible thing to do this early in the game, or at all in my opinion.

I agree with this point, to an extent. I'm always suspicious of "vote for me" tag lines or any incarnation of the sentiment/tactic. However, taken in context it looks like he was trying to tell Ether (specifically) that she should vote him if she has an actual reason, not just because of random name crap. It falls in line with the rest of his posts and what apparently is an extreme dislike of random voting.

He said to vote for him (even if the reason why didn't match up) and so I did.

Admitting to turning a blind eye to circumstance, and willfully taking the snippet of his post out of its context - just so you could put a vote on him. Odd.

Oh, and by the way, I feel Ether is town because she called out my flimsy vote, voted me, and then asked about it. That's scumhunting, folks.

Does this strike anyone else as a cousin to the "congratulating the doctor" tell? A "congratulating the successful scumhunter?" Also, it just seems weird that she would immediately undercut her previous post by stating her vote was flimsy in the first place.

Semi-strawman here. The point that I was trying to get across was more that Ether could have been trying to attach substance onto a jokevote.

Hardly a strawman, but while I would love to argue semantics (no, really, I would), I don't think the paragraphs devoted to this tangent would really help anyone. I get that you were saying Ether was secretly making a non-substance post with subliminal substance (and pro-town substance at that) messages hidden in the jargon used. I just don't understand how you have convinced yourself her actions actually live up to your accusations.

No, I wasn't yapping at her for telling me that "Fuzzyman" had a town vibe, but rather that if it wasn't my name, she would be voting for me.

If it wasn't for your name, she would have been voting you "for your insolence." You didn't want her to not joke vote you because a random/joke reason to not vote you got in the way? I'm sure there's something to be said about forests and trees right about now.

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayons: I'm going to answer your questions but I want to ask - why are you asking these and not allowing him to do so? Curiosity? If you wanted the answers, you could have instead pointed him out to ask these and not done so yourself, which would have been a lot more beneficial, I think.

...Uhm, because he can't read my mind and the only way I could have "pointed him out" to ask my questions would be to state them. Openly. In the thread. So he could, what? Repeat word for word what I just posted, but directed at you instead of himself?

This isn't a two person conversation, it involves all twelve of us. I don't see how hoping he would read my mind or become my parrot could be more beneficial. Your post leads me to believe that either you were assuming we could somehow speak out-of-thread (a potential scum slip up) because nobody truly makes posts based off of the belief of mind reading, or that I could somehow manipulate the guy from over the internet to make exactly the right points and ask exactly the right questions... which doesn't seem to be pro-town. At all.

For the record, I'm not defending him or his actions. I think his logic is broken and he should move on to greener pastures. However, I have (semi-)serious issues with what you're putting out there as sound reasoning and so that's why I'm speaking up.

Actually, I don't mind when one person pulls away from random voting, or even a few, for valid reasons, but the way he did it was a pretty big distraction.

A big distraction. From random voting. The horror. It's not like the random stage was exactly going anywhere. If there are any small nuggets of wisdom to find, they're preserved for everyone to see. If Fuzz didn't speak up, we could potentially still be discussing why names are or are not indicators of scumbags and which ones are more so than others. Darn it all to heck, why aren't we still in that stage?

I don't feel that his reasons for doing so were even remotely justified. Taking something obviously meant to be a joke an trying to make a big deal out of it isn't a good reason at all. It's like he took the first thing even remotely possible to finger someone for and went with it, whether it be helpful or not. It also had the air of being defensive, also unhelpful.

This is the only valid point you have seem to have: his logic was unsound. Fair enough, I agree with you on that point. Making it a big deal? It wasn't like he was screaming bloody murder at the top of his lungs, just simply trying to find something other than randomness for a reason to vote. You seem to be the one who is blowing things out of proportion. You also pad this one point with a lot of crap, such as:

Random voting is useful because it isn't random (unless you use some sort of dice roll or randomizing algorithm to do so.) We get information from the people we pick to vote for and the bullshit (or not) reasons for doing so. It's psychology. Any information we get is integral and should be valued, if taken with a grain of salt. That's why I think he doesn't understand random voting; because he doesn't really value the results.

You're putting the random voting stage on such a high pedestal ("we get info," "any info we get is integral and should be valued," he misunderstands the inherent "value" of the random stage) relative to the actual stage (a time when you can pretty much make any thing to look how you want it and is good - at best - for icing on the cake in later stages in the game when making a case against a player), but then also seem to undercut your own praise by admitting just how craptastic the stage really is - it should be "taken with a grain of salt." Grains of salt, joke voting, all around silly behavior: the tried-and-true characteristics of a random stage. Are there grains of salt? Sure. Are there minefields of meatier stuff in post-random stage? Yes. Your overvaluation of the random stage stinks. Your dedication to not moving away from the random stage - which Fuzz managed to do for us, regardless of the craptastic logic he used to do so - and your insistent decrying of Fuzz for doing so stinks even more.

I was going to vote him anyway, it might as well have some shitty reasons as well as some good ones.

So you were predisposed to voting him anyways, prior to any reasons - good or bad - whatsoever?

I mean, hell, Fuzzy shouldn't be allowed to be the only one who votes for craplogic.

The problem isn't so much that you have "crappy" reasons alongside "good" reasons to vote for Fuzz (at least as classified by yourself). It's that you originally voted him because of crappy reasons. Then, when you were prodded and with no new material to mine from you came up with "good"/better reasons. That's what strikes me as so odd, and that's why I brought it to everyone else's attention.

It's a charismatic plea for anyone who will listen that provides its own answer. It, in short, is a leading question.

It's charistmatic because... you say so? Because I'm just that affable? And, yes, it's a leading question but, really, boo hoo. Leading questions aren't inherently evil. It leads any other player to answer yes or no to a question that I'm asking myself. I'm not trying to trick people into seeing the parallel - they either do, or they don't.

It calls upon the all-poweful "hey look, a scumtell!" which is just plain bullshit because scumtells rarely work.

Do you break a sweat digging that hole for yourself? "Scumtells are BS because they are the antithesis of why they are scumtells!" Scumtells exist because they are the general rule, e.g. usually work. Not rarely. Commence the breakdown of logic!

It also contains manipulation of what I have said to fit his own thoughts/needs

Funny you should say this but you don't actually explain what you meant by what you said. You're not defending against the argument, you're not explaining how it is that I'm manipulating your words, you're just calling me a manipulator (ironic, since you were pretty much suggesting in your previous post that I should be manipulating Fuzz to get what I want) and hoping that the ad Hominem works.

and is really a call to action and a request for permission and justification all in one.

A call to action? If another player sees the parallel, then yes, they should be put into action to vote. A request for permission? Hardly. I'm already voting you. A justification? Heh. Usually justification for a vote is a

good

thing. You know, they usually occur outside of the random stage.

No, my vote wasn't flimsy...one reason for my vote was flimsy but the rest of the reasons for the vote are sound.

What you originally said (my emphasis): "Oh, and by the way, I feel Ether is town because she

called out my flimsy vote

, voted me, and then asked about it. That's scumhunting, folks." You originally called your whole vote flimsy. Stop trying to rewrite what you said.

Major FoS: Green Crayons for asking questions that weren't his responsibility to ask and in doing so indirectly protecting Fuzz, giving Fuzz easy-outs by arguing my attacks on him for him, manipulating what I said, and in the span of 3 sentences, cramming in some of the scummiest play I've seen in ages.

Heh. I think there's something to be said about pots and kettles at this point. Let's get this straight: Assuming everything you just said about me is true (which it isn't), you're still voting for Fuzz because he made a leap in logic to move the game away from the random voting stage instead of me because...? Talk about requesting permission to vote.

As for your points, they're just scarey. One by one:

for asking questions that weren't his responsibility to ask

Uh, it's the responsibility of every townsperson to ask any and all questions that come to their mind. Your policy dictates that all townspeople should shut up and cross their fingers someone else speaks their mind for them.

in doing so indirectly protecting Fuzz

Protecting Fuzz only from the crap that you spout. I've already voiced my criticism towards Fuzz, so your insinuation that I'm hoping a blind eye will pass over Fuzz is DOA.

giving Fuzz easy-outs by arguing my attacks on him for him

I was noting your crappy logic. Sorry, involuntary craplogic attacking has been a problem I have been coping with for a long time. There are no easy outs against genuine points (of which you had one, but which you are blowing out of proportion and padding with crap).

manipulating what I said

Still failing to explain how I was manipulating, what original meaning I'm somehow obfusticating all while managing to attack me instead of the argument.

and in the span of 3 sentences, cramming in some of the scummiest play I've seen in ages.

Subjective hogwash. Who is trying to make the charismatic appeal, again?


Summary: Spouts craplogic to pad her one decent point, hates scumtells because good signs that you're on the path to catching scum is "bullshit," attacks players for actions that she's committing, uses logical fallicies instead of reasonable arguments and fudges the history of what she has said. Add that to my previous reasons for my vote and I'm happy to say I'm quite content with it at the moment.


I just previewed my post and saw that Ether has posted. I'm not going to read that post - if there's anything I feel like adding/commenting/arguing with, I'll do so later. I'm sure you all have plenty of text to make those eyes bleed as it is.

[Green Crayons]

Oh, as to when to respect a response, I am hoping that I can do that at some point in the next few days but I may have to break things apart into small chunks to answer them. If you have anything you want responses to before other things, can you let me know which?

Feel free to respond to my post in chunks - or even just make a response to each paragraph as its own post, if that helps you out.

I don't begrudge anyone work overtaking their life. Mine does it quite often.

And Corvuus

should

reconsider. Ether is truly a kind hearted soul who rescues kittens, feeds the homeless and ocassionally will even make the sun come out and play. Any slight one reads in her posts should be disregarded because it's an obvious misinterpretation.

[Green Crayons]

Hey, I gave a summary. You can look at that and then if you doubt any of my claims skim the post for where I back it up.

Ugh. Before long I'll have to number-code my posts.

[Green Crayons]

Heh? Because you did it in alphabetical order?

[Green Crayons]

If anyone has any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer.

How about listing players in terms of least suspicious to most with corresponding reasons?

"What part of piece by piece, very little real time due to IRL so tell me which parts are most important so I can answer" do you fail to understand?

I was serious when I said you're more than welcome to take up a paragraph at a time from the post.

I do, however, agree that Fuzz's vote is premature for the reasons he stated.

[Green Crayons]

Actually, at this point, I think I have addressed everything in the big post of yours whether directly or indirectly. Did I miss anything or do you want clarification?

I'm confused. You're saying that you think you already addressed everything in some form or fashion, but earlier today you admonished Fuzz for voting you on the grounds of not answer my points. When you criticized him, the basis behind it wasn't because you had already responded to my points, but because you haven't had time to do so yet. It took only a 12 hour time frame to reverse this philosophy of where you stand/what you have and have not said - with no posts made by you dealing with substative in-game material between these two posts.

I mean, I don't know if I would qualify this as scummy. But definitely as weird. I might consider it as an attempt to sidestep legitimate points, but only after mulling it over some more.

Summary: Spouts craplogic to pad her one decent point, hates scumtells because good signs that you're on the path to catching scum is "bullshit," attacks players for actions that she's committing, uses logical fallicies instead of reasonable arguments and fudges the history of what she has said. Add that to my previous reasons for my vote and I'm happy to say I'm quite content with it at the moment.

This is what I wrote at the end of the wall post. Reading through your posts after page two, I don't really see you answering any of these points in any fashion, be it direct or indirect. By all means, point me out to where I missed your responses.

but the top two on my radar are mizzy and ether, but that may be because they are two of the most vocal and that leaves more chances to misinterpet. im

Care to point out where specifically you find them suspicious but seem that way potentially only because you may be misinterpreting something?

I find it odd how a basis of your suspicion for them is that they're vocal but somehow I'm least suspicious. I think I'm at least as vocal as Mizzy, at least in terms of actual in-game discussion... and certainly, I am in the pool of more vocal players over all. I dunno. "Excessive" quantity of contribution is just a crappy basis of reasoning, especially when you don't apply it unilaterally.

I also find it odd that you fault Ether for immediately "buying" Mizzy's busy work problem but find no grief with me when I have expressed similar sentiments since Mizzy's work-load announcement. More double standards. Oh, and only really shitty people use fake real life excuses for their inactivity/dodging of questions. Mizzy may be scum but that doesn't make her a shitty person, and I think any insinuation of some sort of sinister motive without actual proof that her claim is bogus is unsportsmanlike, slanderous and, in that it relies on wholly speculative material out of the scope of the game, not useful to finding scum.

[Green Crayons]

You haven't really proved that my logic is crap, just that you don't agree with it, but my real reasons (note the plural) for thinking Fuzz is scum are quite valid.

I've noted the plural, and also noted that all except one relies on bad "reasoning." That said, if you want to leave your original assertions as self-explanatory against my criticisms, far be it from me to say otherwise.

I hate the majority of scumtells because they are often used as excuses to pull bad plays. Scum can cry "scumtell!" just as much as town can and quite frankly, scumtells can point to town just as much as they point to scum. Better to use cold, hard evidence than to just shout "scumtell!" and expect me to agree.

Now, see, this is a great rhetorical sentence to throw out in a Mafia Discussion thread, but this is an actual game. With actual examples and "cold, hard evidence." We're not talking about theory, we're talking about application. I didn't just shout "scumtell!" as you're attempting to rewrite the thread. I pointed out action I found suspicious in and of itself, and then inquired if anyone else noted a parallel to a scumtell. Whether or not the parallel exists (though it does, in my opinion), the action was scummy. The scumtell parallel just sealed the deal for me in marking it up as a scummy action.

I hope this helps, let me know if I missed anything else.

The abundant hypocrisy and frightening rhetoric spewed forth in post 47 as noted in the last half of my post 49.

i dont have to tell every thought i have. like the fact crywolf does make me uncomfortable since he appears to be lurking. but obviously it didnt make me uncomfortable enough to rush to point that out yet.

This rubs me the wrong way. And you're right: no, you don't

have

to tell the town all your thoughts, but sharing your thoughts with the town enables us to use our best and most reliable tool in catching scum: ourselves in open discussion. So, if you're a towns person, I don't know why - outside a highly selective few scenarios - you would want to hold back if you have suspicions against another player. Especially on day one. The last half of the quote I pulled is a horrible basis of reasoning: it didn't bother you that crywolf is apparently actively doing the thing you're accusing/admonishing Mizzy of/for doing, but with no indication that she's actually doing it you're all about getting your panties in a twist that Mizzy might be lying about external circumstances.
(Side note, since I'm writing these points as I read through the thread: post 129 doesn't explain this bad logic, it just sort of reiterates it. Still not buying it.)
(Second side note: in post 129 corporate says, "im not using double standards i have a fos for cry wolf as well" I did a quick skim of the thread and didn't see where this FOS against crywolf was. Did I just miss it or is this a blatant lie?)

Also when canyon argues against her post...

Crayons. Not canyons.

Ether:
After voting Mizzy and having some pressure on her, he turns and defends Mizzy

Ether's a lady.

vote ether

Care to throw some reasons around with that vote?

[Green Crayons]

There’s your answer GC. I don’t necessarily believe that it was a true FOS.

That's what I was afraid of, and since corporate didn't correct you in subsequent posts, I'm assuming this is what he was referencing. So, basically, he's saying that "im not using double standards i have a fos for cry wolf as well" is a valid statement because of "i could put a FoS at almost everybody." Two things that bother me about this. First, he's saying a specific action (a FOS on wolf) is true because it falls under an exceptionally large umbrella statement (a FOS on all). The umbrella statement is so rediculous because it could be used to back-date any suspicion he holds towards another player that he wants to take up. Relying on that statement for this reason is incredibly scummish to me. Secondly, however, is to note that he says that he

could

FOS "almost everybody." Not that he does. So not only is this nearly universal claim an ass-cover, it's a non-committal ass-cover that doesn't actual say anything. At all. Nothing. Well, it does say corporate looks scummy for using a non-committal ass-cover, but I don't think that was intentional.

I think Ether’s trying to get complete control of the town, and I’m not about ready to just hand it over, which makes me pretty suspicious.

So far Ether has been prodding people to be active and to answer her questions. I don't see her saying nobody else is allowed to ask questions. I don't see her manipulating the questions so she gets answers that she wants to use to her advantage. In short, I don't see how she's "tryin to get complete control of the town." Feel free to try to convince me otherwise, but so far I'm not buying it.

again, i have no double standard.

Simply saying that - even if you repeat it a whole bunch - doesn't automatically make it true. You haven't directly addressed the situation, only shied away from it by using the above tag line as a cover.

and to those who dont like my vote.

tough cookies.

You didn't even give reasons for your vote, you just thew it out there. How am I supposed to like a vote that was made without comment by the voter? It's unhelpful at best, scummish at worst. Your quarrelsome rhetoric seems to hint at some sort of defensive nature, which when paired with expressing a desire not to share your thoughts with the town makes me uncomfortable of your potential alignment. It's like you're taking pride in being unhelpful to the town.



I really, really like my Mizzy vote, but I could potentially get behind a corporate vote - especially if he continues in the same line of action (combative, secretive, unhelpful, ignoring points) as he has settled into. I'm waiting to see his next response and if it isn't anything different I'll be switching.

[Green Crayons]

Bite me. I need my Bio class for my career. I think that it's a little bit more important than a game, but I'm caught up now am I not?

Uh, the issue that Ether is pointing out isn't that real life is keeping you away from MS, it's that real life is keeping you away

just from this game

, while you are still quite active in others on the site.

Willfully misinterpreting the criticism?

unvote: Mizzy; vote: corporate

. That was quick. For starters, I don't like people who FOS/vote themselves - or suggest that others should do the same. Even when said in a joking/sarcastic manner. But that's low rung on the ladder of issues that I have against corporate, so it doesn't really bother me as other things... just thought that I would note it. The fact that he ignores the good points made against him (e.g. the double standard thing is pretty bad, but still ignored), harps on the bad points made against him (e.g. the bad punctuation) in an attempt to invalidate the rest of the arguments and the fact that he

still

relishes in being a town outsider who is playing by his own crazy rules means he's willfully being unhelpful if he isn't a scumbag.

[Green Crayons]

Let me know if you guys want votecounts more frequently. A lot of times there's barely any changes on a page, so I just don't do one for that page.

For my own presence of mind I would enjoy a count on the top of each page, regardless of what has transpired. But that's just me.

[Green Crayons]

Corporate, please review the thread and the accusations leveled against you. Take the twenty minutes to respond to them in full.

[Green Crayons]

In other news, no one's commented on my Simpor vote.

Your main point, as much as I can tell from simply skimming the thread, is that Simpor asked Wolf to clarify her point that she thought you had a power role. Did I miss anything else?

While scummish, I don't find it worthy of a vote compared to Mizzy, corp or - if I was to just look at people who were throwing out guesses as to who has power roles - wolf herself.

[Green Crayons]

Canary/Crywolf, what do you think about my efforts to learn what the deal with Corporate is? Crywolf actually criticized his efforts to hide his identity.

I don't really care what his real identity is. He's trumping up minor bad points brought against him while dismissing/ignoring other points he doesn't want to talk about, claiming that he's already discussed them when all he has done is said a line or two without explaining further criticism. That's all within the scope of the game before me. I don't think knowing if he generally plays this way or if this is his escape handle so he can get away with playing this way helps us in the least.

This is scummy play. I'm not going to reward scummy play with a "pass" just because he might always plays this way. Scummy play is scummy play. And if he

isn't

scum, he's being purposefully unhelpful by simply not doing anything to change anyone's mind. I mean, seriously. I said that I would put my vote on him only if he didn't address the issues being put to him - not that he had to convince me of anything, just that he had to show me he wanted to participate when some pressure was on him. What did he do? Inflate minor claims while dismissing and ignoring everything else. Even after being criticized

again

for that, he continues with the same attitude and performance.

While there's the possibility that he might not be scum, at least it wouldn't be a lynch for a townie who is at least attempting to contribute in a positive fashion.


And I think wolf's claim of Ether's stranglehold over the town is paper thin.[/s]

[Green Crayons]

Ugh, mulling over my own post I think I have convinced myself that corporate is just a bad player and not scum.

Unvote: corporate

. I need to reread the thread in full to verify my thoughts. That'll be later tonight/tomorrow.


corporate could do himself some favors by:

Corporate, please review the thread and the accusations leveled against you. Take the twenty minutes to respond to them in full.

[Green Crayons]

And by bad player, I don't mean inherently. Just in this game, making some bad performance choices.


Nothing personal. My criticism still stands.

[Green Crayons]

I lied. I won't be making any sort of substantive post for a few days. Holidays and whatnot.

[Green Crayons]

I agree pretty much 100% of Patrick's post 249. The only real stance I can't really get behind is his/Ether's/(apparently now) crywolf's suspicion of Simpor... I just don't see it, at least not as glaring as other players. Also, I would put crywolf as more suspicious of corporate at this point, since I'm pretty sure corporate is just a bad player - which doesn't excuse his actions, but doesn't necessarily make me want to lynch him.


Basically I'm just checking in to show that I'm still here/keeping up with the game/to voice my (quite nebulous) thoughts. I'll post something more worthy of note the next go around. I'm sure it'll deal with why I want to lynch crywolf.

[Green Crayons]

Mish-mash of my thoughts.

You are no better than me, unless you are one of two roles. Mason, you have someone who is knowning on your side. Or Scum, then you know who you should jump onto.
There are some other things that you maybe a tracker/watcher/cop or some other information gathering role and you know something that I don't at this point of time.

Ether seems to think that this isn't a big deal, but crywolf totally made a jump here that I think is pretty big. The above quote is in reference to Ether's comment: "I'm summarizing my behavior toward you: ... getting annoyed because you had the nerve to insinuate that

I was no better than you

." That emphasis was crywolf's in her response, not in Ether's original post. But it should be noted that this emphasized portion wasn't Ether referencing knowing more about the game. At all. She was talking about being productive and active and otherwise helpful. So from that, crywolf suddenly thinks (as seen in the pulled quote above) that somehow Ether was flaunting a power-role status. Or a lack thereof. The whole thing just seems off since Ether was talking about involvement and crywolf started talking about who has (and has not) power roles. And who better to know if someone has a scum power role or not? It just strikes me as funny (in a weird way), and I don't see how it's not as suspicious (if not more so) as Simpor taking this thread and running with it. I'll also note that she picks up this thread even after Simpor, and on 206 comments upon her thoughts re: Ether's power-role status. Because...?

I don't know if I like your vote on Simpor, Ether. Truthfully, I think Ether's acting very scummy, not power-role-y.

The above comes from November 25th. On November 29th, crywolf does her PBP analysis of Simpor. When questioned by Patrick about her apparent heel-faced turn, her response is: "At first he was neutral because he had so few posts, but now with 10+ posts, and the usual expanse between the posts, I have a feeling with his supposed limited experience that he doesn't know how to play town." It should be noted that between her not-comfortable-with-Ether's-vote-on-Simpor stage (she thought he was only a 4.5 on November 23rd, after all) and her PBP (which notably lacked any hard points against Simpor other than a summary), Simpor only posts four times. So within the time span of four days and with four posts, she is confident to say that because of the "usual expanse between the posts" (which simple math averages one post per day during the time period where she had a change of heart) is extensive, she apparently feels that Simpor is second in line to be scum because of his apparently purposeful lack of activity. It just looks like re-positioning.

Add-on: And your last sentence, especially the words "and pointing out that I myself am not lurking is "too far."" is pretty much waving a neon sign saying: LOOK I'm acting town!!!

I chose to ignore this for a reason. Seriously, I don't like when people go spewing "Lookie at meee!! I'm tooooooown!!!!"

Are you really accusing someone for being too townie? Seriously, I think you infected Mizzy. Get yourself detoxed.


So, yeah. I find crywolf suspicious. Somehow makes a leap that Ether is somehow alluding to the fact that she does/doesn't have a power role and faults her for it. Then she faults Ether again for contributing and wanting others to contribute, classifying it as an attempt to "control the town" ...by asking them to contribute by answering questions. Then faults Ether again for being too much of a townie. It's like she has some underlying motive for attempting to heap suspicion on Ether for no good reason. I'll note at this moment in time that Simpor has also kept Ether high on his suspicion list.

And her heel faced turn re: Simpor is super weak.



Ether: Why should I vote Simpor? I'll delve into why I can't currently buy into a vote for him, and you help me see things your way.

Your original assertion was that he was fishing for power roles... but crywolf pulled power roles out of her ass, laid it on the table for everyone to see/comment upon, and then even picked up the conversation later.

You then (post 207) say you dislike the juxtaposition of "How dare you ask me about Ped" and "I like questions," but those aren't quotes, they're paraphrased sentences and you ignore a part of his post entirely... which completely and totally warps what the post was.

You asked: Simpor, what do you like from Ped?

And why the hell

do you care if Crywolf thinks I have a power role? (My emphasis.)
He responded: I could ask you,

why the hell

do you care what I like about Ped? (My emphasis.)

If you don't see that he was mimicking your tone/word usage, you're being willfully blind. Hardly an "overreaction" (as you framed it in your post 246), at least no more so than your original overreacting in phrasing such a statement. He also responds to your question, further showing that he wasn't saying "How dare you ask me about Ped" but saying "Why do you have to be so abrasive and because I'm reacting to your perceived hostility I'm going to be abrasive right back at you." The straw-man argument re: fear mongering is shaky, simply because it was a general statement that is, generally, true.

What I saw about Simpor was more that he seemed to go to some length to avoid explaining why he asked the question in the first place, instead he seemed to throw it back at Ether, then pointing to crywolf with a, "but she did it as well!" type of defence (which I would disagree with anyway). He has actually answered it now, but not especially convincingly;

seems kind of obvious he was asking her for a reaction. Why would it have been useful to get crywolf's take on whether or not Ether's a powerole

?

This is the only real thing I can get behind in suspecting Simpor.


Ether/Patrick: If Simpor turns up town, who should we have lynched instead? If Simpor turns up scum, who is most likely to be the scum-buddies?

Vote: crywolf

, because a no vote is a wasted vote. And she's most suspicious to me at this point.

[Green Crayons]

And empking takes the cake for supporting this stupid idea that acting like a townie makes someone suspicious because they are acting a townie. He managed to flop onto that horrible logic train wreck in his first post!

I'm still blaming crywolf for infecting this game with that psedu-logic.

[Green Crayons]

That makes no sense.

I meant.

I think Ether's actions are scummy and screams like scum trying to convince people she's town.

Deconstruction time!

I think Ether

Here's the focus of your criticism: Ether.

Ether's actions are scummy

Here's the conclusion: That Ether's actions are scummy. To reach this conclusion, one will need to find a reason to come to this point.

and screams like scum

An addendum to your main conclusion, that not only are her actions scummy, but they are something that scum apparently regularly does.

trying to convince people she's town.

Say what? Are you suggesting that she's being helpful, being productive, being

townish

in order to pull the wool over our eyes - to "convince" us that she's town? (Answer: yes, yes you are.)


Put it all together: By acting in the only way that would convince us someone is town - that is, by acting town - you are saying that she is scum.


Unless if I'm sorely mistaken. By all means, explain to me what non-townie things she is doing to make us think that she is town and thereby fooling us all into thinking she is town when really she is scum doing non-townie but not-suspicious and actually really convincing seeming-like-town (but really aren't pro-town) actions.

[Green Crayons]

So you didn't catch the tongue-in-cheek aspect of the fact that Ether was apparently attempting to discern whether or not crywolf could actually get off that fence that she's been on the entire game of being incredibly vocal about her suspicions of Ether to the point of pretty much obstructing crywolf's ability to be critical towards anyone else so that, regardless of how crywolf felt, they could then move forward in a hopefully productive manner?


I'm going to guess that you missed that.

Also, how is that selected quote supposed to be convincing anyone that Ether is town? That quote is asking if a specific player thinks she is town or if she is not town. If that's all it takes to convince someone that you're town, then, well. Shit.

Do you think I'm town or not town?


...Did I convince you yet? I'm curious, does this logic extend to other players? Could I ask if you think Patrick is town or not town, and then expect you to be convinced that he must be town?

[Green Crayons]

In asking a question if someone thinks if she is town or not town. Gotcha.

[Green Crayons]

FoS: GC

He strawmanned the original argument.

Hardly.

I pointed out the logical steps one would need to take to claim that Ether was acting scummish becaused she was attempting to convince people she was town. The most obvious way: by acting town. You actually go for the absurd second option, as I originally detailed, with, "By all means, explain to me what non-townie things she is doing to make us think that she is town and thereby fooling us all into thinking she is town when really she is scum doing non-townie but not-suspicious and actually really convincing seeming-like-town (but really aren't pro-town) actions." The very fact that I left this door wide open in the first place knocks the feet from out under your strawmanning claim, since I was saying if I was getting your idea wrong feel free to correct me.

But, let's recap this absurd second option that you decided to correct me with. And when I say absurd, I do mean absolutely ridiculous. The not-townie action that is none the less not suspicious and even seems townie because it's somehow an attempt to convince people that it's an inherently townie action (even though it apparently isn't) is this: that simply by saying something - regardless of the context, environment and how it was said - makes it an attempt to convince everyone it's the truth.

Why don't you ask Ether whether or not she's pro-town?

But he can't do that! If he does, he'll start planting the idea that she is protown, which is really suspicious.

[Green Crayons]

My argument was "this post is scummy"

He argued against. "asking somebody whether or not your town is scummy" Strawman.

GC - I didn't see your post.

I said scum trying to convince people their town.
You argued against the too townie fallacy.

Strawmanning.

You said scum (specifically, Ether) trying to convince people they're town.
I said it relied on too townie fallacy. Pointed out how I came to that conclusion. Also

left door open for you to correct my misconception

. Not strawmanning.
You correct my misconception with something resembling logic.
I said it's bad logic. Pointed out how I came to that conclusion. Also

asked questions as to how far your bad logic extends

. Not strawmanning.
You don't attempt to explain any of my criticisms. You just say "strawmanning" as if simply saying it makes it true. Bogus.


Reading Ether's latest post, rereading all of Simpor's posts and re-rereading Ether's earlier posts against Simpor, I can firmly get behind suspecting Simpor for 1. fishing and 2. deflecting any sort of explanation as to why he was fishing. The other points Ether makes against him I think are either a disconnect between how the two of them are interpreting the tone of what was being said or weak because they aren't necessarily true (such as the claim that he was attempting to make Ether's vote look purely OMGUS when he had just addressed another of Ether's points in a crossed-wires sort of way).

However, the fishing and then deflection of that fishing is a glaring action and I find that I have been so concerned with the scum vibe I get coming from crywolf that I haven't been giving its proper weight.

unvote, vote: Simpor

.

[Green Crayons]

GC - What is your definition of "strawman"

A "Straw man" argument (also called "setting up a straw man") involves mischracterizing your opponent's position in order to present a weaker argument than they have actually given, thereby allowing you to defeat it.

In part. I find this to be most relevant to the actual conversation.

And empking takes the cake for supporting this stupid idea that acting like a townie makes someone suspicious because they are acting a townie. He managed to flop onto that horrible logic train wreck in his first post!

I'm still blaming crywolf for infecting this game with that psedu-logic.

GC was lying about him "left door open for you to correct my misconception"

That's pretty funny. And by "that," I mean how you keep shifting what I'm saying is the strawman. And by "funny," I mean annoying. Your original assertion in 345 was that I strawmanned the "original argument." My original argument was in 339 (as opposed to your above quotation of my post 337 which was my original statement of belief with no argument supporting it) where I did leave a door open for you. Then in 351 you say my strawmanning is not my 339 but instead my 342 which wasn't my original argument but a criticism of your horrible reasoning as to your thoughts. You even underline this new spotlight on my 342 in your 354 were you clarify that your strawman argument is against 342 and then add in that it's also against 339 (my original argument).

Your blender of strawman claims is confusing to say the least, so to come and suggest that I'm lying because I'm pointing to a post where I make an actual argument (339) as opposed to one where I make a statement (337), even though both are prior to your original Strawman criticism (345) and one is specifically built off the other is a load of crap.

are you at all convinced by my defense of Crywolf

No, but I figure we'll get into that tomorrow.

did Simpor overtake her purely on his own merit?

Yes, because his fishing is much more pronounced than cry's own weird role fascination and his deflection leads me to think the cause behind his fishing leads more to scummish than crywolf's.

[Green Crayons]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but previously you saw the only real point against him as fishing (in the post where you quoted me). Now you're voting him because of the additional point that he was deflecting from the fishing when questioned on it. I made that point in the first paragraph of my largest post, which you've certainly read. Did you just miss this or something? Dunno, it would seem like a weird thing to do as scum to pretend you'd missed the other cases against Simpor, but your vote for him surprises me.

It isn't so much that I'm seeing anything new, it's that I'm trying to look at things from a bit more objective stance rather than from a perspective that crywolf is scumdiescum and everything else is periphery. Though I do still hold belief that crywolf is scum (or at least exudes scum vibes), from an objective stance Simpor's fishing/deflection is more condemning than my gut feeling + not exactly the most damning of evidence against crywolf.

[Green Crayons]

Simpor, is your native language English? Alternatively, are you a teenager or of similar age?


I don't mean any offense, I'm just genuinely curious if either is the case.

[Green Crayons]

And by native I mean primary, of course.



"Native language" just sounds so 1950's. Enough to make one's skin crawl.

[Green Crayons]

Simpor, do you have any sort of response to the claim that you were fishing for any sort of role from Ether and that when you were asked about this earlier all you did was deflect the question instead of answering it?

[Green Crayons]

Right, so if we don't like cryscum tomorrow I'll tear up a little.

[Green Crayons]

And by like I mean lynch. Yay fatigue.

[Green Crayons]

Heh.

Fuzz is my number two to go after tomorrow solely based off of this past page or two. Plenty of stuff to reread once the night begins.

[Green Crayons]

Can you not actually see that she's criticizing Fuzzy's actions by using his own logic and wording to point out his inconsistencies?

Seriously?

[Green Crayons]

Patrick is cool because he unvoted to get Simp off of L-1.

Post 421.

[Green Crayons]

Wow.

So, first I'm going to ask why you are arguing a semantical non-issue? Mizzy adding in "er" does not detract from her main point: that Fuzzy found Patrick favorable for doing Action Y, immediately counteracted that favorable action to make it null and void, then failed to have the same praise for Ether for repeating Action Y to nullify Fuzzy's nullification.

Furthermore, dissecting Fuzzy's logic ("If Player X does Action Y then they will be Result Z"), there is plenty of room for assumption (which Mizzy took) in believing this logic train will support the notion that repetition of Action Y might lead to a stronger sense of Result Z (an "er" adjective, if you will). But, wow. Totally beside the point.

Are you saying that Mizzy adding "er" to her point nullifies her criticism - which was basically a repetition of Ether's 420? If yes, please explain. If not, why are you harping on a minute point of logical assumption that actually has no standing on the legitimacy of her criticism?

[Green Crayons]

With you, you were accusing Fuzzy of doing something he didn't do. (having his own logic and wording point out his inconsistencies)

Didn't read 437 where I pointed out where his own logic-train failed as both Ether and Mizzy had pointed out?

You're infuriating.

[Green Crayons]

...What? Cover my own hide from what?

But it's good to know what you think of the criticism of the logic that when Player A claims Player B's action to be good (though immediately nullifying that action by doing something completely contradictory), but when Player C does the same action as Player B, Player A doesn't see that action to be good. Criticism of this failed logical path apparently makes "no sense" and is "complete nonsense?"

Now I can know that I can honest to goodness take your posts with a grain of salt without fear of me being inappropriately prejudiced. When you proclaim "nonsense" on a criticism that attacks a nonsensical train of logic, I know to mistrust anything else you might say.


Just do it, corporate.

[Green Crayons]

Actually, unless if I'm counting incorrectly, Simpor is -2L.

[Green Crayons]

(I'd personally have said both unvotes were null, but Fuzzyman called Patrick's cool and mine a sign that I was trying to distance myself from a Simptown-wagon, which is obviously a double standard.)

This sounds pretty much like complete nonsense to me!


corporate: Were you willing to hammer Simp? Why are you backing away from putting a vote on him now - if you were willing to be vote 6, why not vote 5?

[Green Crayons]

Why are mizzy and corporate not voting?

If there was a deadline, would people consolidate their votes onto specific people - and, if so, who would those people be?

[Green Crayons]

Not caring about the game isn't the case being made against Simpor as to why he looks scummy.

If there's a player who is scummy and is lurking, which is independent of the claims for why he's scummy, the lurking should not exempt that player from a lynch. Especially so if this player is admittedly the scummiest out of the whole player base.

Otherwise, scum who come under suspicion should just lurk and get a free pass.

[Green Crayons]

But lynch first, ask questions later, is not a good way to do things.

I think you successfully completely mischaracterized the situation we're in.

Please reread what I wrote.

Not caring about the game isn't the case being made against Simpor as to why he looks scummy.

If there's a player who is scummy and is lurking,

which is independent of the claims for why he's scummy

, the lurking should not exempt that player from a lynch. Especially so if this player is admittedly the scummiest out of the whole player base.

Otherwise, scum who come under suspicion should just lurk and get a free pass.

And, my goodness. You're making me agree with Empking. I feel all dirty.

[Green Crayons]

When should it have ended?

If there was a deadline, would people consolidate their votes onto specific people - and, if so, who would those people be?

Some time before I not-so-subtly was pushing for a deadline.


Now I'm

voting: deadline

so there's no mistaking. Apparently we need a deadline before we can get together and actually see some progress after a hearty day of discussion.

[Green Crayons]

I don't think we need a deadline

Unless anyone else has anything else they think is warranted for discussion, then we're just basically sitting around with our collective thumbs placed in someplace not entirely too comfortable because we can't voluntarily come to a lynching consensus.

The fact that people have said that they would be more willing to actually lynch someone if a deadline was imposed leads me to believe action will come sooner rather than later if a deadline is in place.

And I'm all for day two at this point. I want to see the results of this lynch and build off of a solid day one from there.

[Green Crayons]

Fuzz was second up on the chopping block yesterday. I don't see anything wrong with a third vote at this point in time.

Did a reread of crywolf. Less convinced today than I was yesterday about her scumminess. Will need to do a reread of Fuzz and Mykonian/Tisp.

[Green Crayons]

Aw, Ether is bored with this game? That's my only guess as to what she's not posting

at all

as much.

To get her back in,

vote: myk

. That should light her face with a smile.



My guess is Myk, Fuzz, Mizzy/q21.

[Green Crayons]

Well, maybe this gets some reaction: GC, could you tell me why you are voting me?

I'd like an explanation from you.

Did neither of you two read my post in full?

To get [Ether] back in

, vote: myk.

That should light her face with a smile

.

Seriously. That's my reasoning.

I skimmed a read through of tisp/myk. I thought tisp was meh in terms of suspiciousness, though myk is a bit more odd in his play style and some of his Day Two postings strike me in a strange sort of way. In all I would say he's about my third/fourth most suspicious, so voting him isn't completely left field.

But that's not why I voted. I wanted Ether to get back into the game. I'm certainly not going to vote for her to get her to become active (because I'm just short of completely convinced she's not scum), so I figured I would do the opposite: give her a bit of encouragement.

Besides, it looks like Fuzzy will be a town lynch today, even from this early stage. I'm happy with that. In the meanwhile, no reason for me to not put a little weight behind whatever suspicions Ether may have (because I trust her judgment over others).

[Green Crayons]

You know, I'm confused. What exactly was I doing yesterday that was pulling the wool over people's eyes? Your suspicion of me hasn't really made sense.



And myk, this is what you can say about it: "Oh, look. GC is taking a breather and not trying to spearhead anything at the moment because the town is already on a good track of lynching Fuzzy so there's no need for GC to get all riled up until the town starts down a path he's not comfortable with. In the meanwhile GC must be wanting to help put some pressure on other targets who are suspicious to people he finds to be exceptionally protown while hoping to simultaneously keep those protown people active and involved."

Yeah, that would just about sum it up, I do believe. Feel free to say that about my play because it would be exceptionally spot on.

[Green Crayons]

You were acting more, superficially, pro-town.

So, by being an active contributor to the discussion all throughout the day as well as providing personal in-depth analysis of two different players is acting "superficial?"

I'd hate to see what your qualifications would be for analytical pro-town behavior.



And I kind of skimmed Fuzz/Emp. Fuzz isn't exceptionally clear (because his argument is... I don't know. All over the place/without any critical points/stilted) and I feel like he's just trying to defend a player who is (nearly) universally regarded as town (me) to make himself look less scummy... but with really bad arguments because he's really reaching to fill this role of "town protector against crazy Emp logic."

I felt like this back when he originally attacked Emp's crazy train of logic.

[Green Crayons]

To summarice, no way I'm going to vote GC.

Well, with an unvote and a no-way vote for me, who are your top three likely candidates?

[Green Crayons]

Wait, what?


Why is Emp rewriting history here (and, more importantly, why are people swallowing this bullcrap and trying to argue in this fantasy world he's created)? Emp has successfully reconstructed what has happened to suit his own warped perspective of reality. Somehow I have become the driving force behind the Simpor lynch when it was Ether and Patrick who had to convince me to switch my vote (more the former than the latter but they both are the most savvy MSers playing and both read town for me from their respective first posts). I voiced my hesitation multiple times before I joined and by the time the day was reaching the late teens in page numbers I was more than ready to see someone lynched - and since the two players who looked (and Ether still does) most town to me were strongly behind Simp, I was all for it.

Furthermore, I would like to say:

His lack of actually helping the town lynch scum.

Is Emp successfully being mind-numbingly thick (nothing new, I know, but he somehow manages to outdo himself as time goes by). Even putting aside the fact that this response actually ignores my post 634 (which I didn't miss), me being on the

Day One

townie lynch is the sole justification for his belief that I had "pulled the wool" over the town's eyes even though five other players were on that lynch. By that same reasoning, if Patrick was still alive, Emp would have no reason to also believe that Patrick was pulling the wool over the town's eyes. Of course, I'm sure Emp wouldn't lodge such accusations towards Patrick (or any of the other four Simp voters who are still with us) because of Emp's impossibly frustrating blind hatred for me.

We know who isn't helping. The person who's only target is the (confirmed) Pro-town Simpor. ... GC

Once again ignoring my post 634. And pretty much the entire first half of Day One. And my post 601. Simp was not my only target. Simp was not even my first suspicion. My D1 vote had gone from Mizzy to corporate to crywolf and finally settled on Simp. Each of those votes were given lengthy discussion and thought.

Emp's continued idiocy has successfully derailed (or attempted to do so) our game thread each time he has insisted on blindly following bad or broken logic. I don't intend to pay an iota of attention to anything else he has to say about my "devious" ways - or much else, to be honest. I strongly suggest others do likewise, unless if anyone thinks arguing with a brick wall will actually amount to anything productive. Naturally, if someone else has suspicions of any sort against me in the future, I'll be more than happy to address them at that time.

As a side note, does anyone else know if Emp is always like this? I'm hesitant to suspect him because mainly his adherance to failed/no logic just irritates the piss out of me and I don't know if that is weighing a disproportionate bias in my suspicion towards him.


Anyways, I hope to reread Mizzy and Fuzz during the holiday times. They're still on my top three list.

[Green Crayons]

unvote

, since my attention will be rotating elsewhere momentarily.

I don't like Emp (for a variety of reasons), but I don't like how quickly his wagon grew either. It's an all too-easy lynch and the votes have come even easier - and when we're in the holiday season and any number of other players may be partially MIA because of family situations, I don't like how comfortable you four have been with putting him -1L (it has happened within the span of this single page, after all).


Let's have nobody hammer, please.

[Green Crayons]

care to tell us where your attention can go, without mentioning emp? He is doing a good job of getting himself lynched.

Anyways, I hope to reread Mizzy and Fuzz during the holiday times. They're still on my top three list.

[Green Crayons]

In reviewing Fuzz, I have come to the conclusion that he started out the game as moderately protown but has ended up as highly suspicious.

Fuzz started out with his big stretch vote that was a load of crap but I wasn't going to fault him at the time because he was trying to get us off of the "random voting stage." I stood by his move to get us off the randomness at the time, and I still support that move generally in any game whatsoever.

At the time I was making a big ole fuss about how shortsighted it was for other players (such as Mizzy) to vote people (such as Fuzz) who were attempting to move the town away from random voting and in doing so I was answering and attacking a good majority of points - even those that were not made directly towards me. Because of this, Fuzz wrote in one of his "here's how I feel about the rest of the town" posts:

GC -2- This guy is also a likely townie, but I'd really like for him to stop bailing me out from people's attacks. I'm quitefine defending myself, and don't want to be thought of as someone who was cuddled up with you if you happen to flip scum later.

Now, I wouldn't qualify what I was doing at the time as "bailing [other player] out from people's attacks." I was pointing out shitty logic and calling people out on it. Regardless, this is how he interpreted my action and denounced it for whatever reason. That's all and good and I took minor offense to my play somehow coming across as a personal white knight instead of simply attacking bad logic, but other than that I really just let this statement slide at the time.


From there, Fuzz moved on to greener pastures, voting Mizzy because my infallible logic (har har) and then corporate because he was being a jackass and playing poorly for no good reason other than because he could (and thus not helping with any rereads because all "good" town/scum would vote for the purposefully unhelpful player).


After this feast of null tells all around, Emp decided to crash onto the scene with his logic-defying arguments and liberal definitions of mafiascum jargon. And it was almost immediately after that Fuzz attacks Emp's logic/person/whatever. Now, considering most of Emp's attacks were on me and all of them did not even consider Fuzz, one could easily qualify Fuzz's play as "defending" me/Ether/whoever else was facing Emp's illogical wrath. This is play I don't necessarily have any qualms with, but when one player decides that a certain performance is bad play and then decides to partake in that very same play, the hypocrisy smells pretty bad.

Also, the use of such lines as:

Your 354 was referring to GC's 350? I guess it was just so arrogant and ignorant that I couldn't tell.

...Is more ad hom than legitimate argument. Emp wasn't doing himself any favors in trying to win friends and he was(/is) a guy not easy to like. Comments such as the above that attacked Emp's character rather than the already meaty field of questionable logic seemed to hope for other people to vote against the player based off of how much they disliked him instead of legitimate reasons.


When the thread's focus significantly shifted to Simp, Fuzz pulled this number:

unvote; vote: Simpor

to counter Pat's unvote. I personally feel that Simp needs the pressure. I trust y'all to not make a hammer in bad judgement, and we'll be able to jump on anybody who does tomorrow, right?

Patrick noted at the time how odd this whole thing was ("I'm not sure what the point of [Fuzz's] 279 was. Simpor was spiritually at lynch-1, what does he need more pressure for?"). Fuzz then proclaimed that Patrick was townish because he unvoted to get Simp away from -1L, ignored the similarity with other players doing the same thing (Ether) while ignoring the fact that he undid the qualifier of his perception of Patrick's town-ness by putting Simp back at -1L.

When Ether points this out to him, he confesses about lying re: how much sarcasm he was using/if any at all and revotes Simp, but he fails to explain the disparity between his beliefs in the Player X -1L unvoting/Fuzz -1L voting action. It's a really weird post (424 to be exact) that doesn't actually hit upon the main point, it just seems to focus upon a bunch of minor points to make it look like Fuzz is being productive/helpful when I don't think he really is.

I also don't like Fuzz's 575 and 578. But I've done more reading in the past twenty minutes than I've done for a good week or so, so I'm going to take a break.

[Green Crayons]

Vote: Fuzz

.

Other people should do the same.

[Green Crayons]

Just because she can't remember what the details were to this case doesn't make that case any less useful. It just means she can't remember.

Anyways, people should start a Fuzz wagon.

[Green Crayons]

We already had one.

Doesn't mean that we shouldn't have another. Or does your logic dictate that if a player survives one bandwagon then he must be innocent? Because I can't see why else you would be pointing this out.

How interesting that your new target is the one you know will have support..

So are you suggesting Fuzz

isn't

a good target?

And wouldn't I just help push your sorry ass into a lynch if I wanted something easy - as your post suggests?

yes, and go fast through this day...

fuzzy was already the target, we finally had it at something else...

Whatever you're trying to say here isn't getting through. Please pad your message with more complete thoughts.

I thought you wanted to take a look at mizzy and ether too?

Mizzy, not Ether. Never Ether. I have always been a staunch supporter of Ether. And I'll look at Mizzy later - I looked at Fuzz and didn't like what I saw, for the moment that's more than enough effort from me to put into this game when so many others aren't doing anything.

The case on fuzzy I posted already on the first page day 2.

Yeah, I noticed that once I got to the end of my reading - I was posting as I went through and didn't see your post until I was pretty much done. Also, I noted I didn't enjoy anything about his responses to your criticism. So.. I don't understand. Are you criticizing me for independently coming up with the same issues against Fuzz as yourself?

It is not that hard to get a lynch then, does it?

What? Are you suggesting that somehow the guy with a single vote (now two, with my vote) on him is the easy lynch so I'm trying to push it simply for that reason alone? Not the guy who, with my vote added, would be -1L and with half the town hating his blind "logic?"

I pointed out my suspicions of Fuzz back on Day One. I'm sorry that I was flushing them out, but I'm pretty sure that's part of the game. You'll have to excuse me.

[Green Crayons]

Oh, missed this.

Plz take a look at the other people before we lynch fuzzy.

I have.

I don't want to lynch Emp. His play shows that he's a jerkass, not scum.
I don't want to lynch Ether. She's obvtown.
I don't want to lynch corporate. His playing is antitown, not scummy.
I don't want to lynch crywolf. I reread through my previous suspicions against her, keeping what Ether had to say about her in mind and decided that my suspicions were probably more off base than not. In light of this, I think she's much more town than scum.

I do want to lynch Fuzz. Reasons as stated.
I do want to lynch Mizzy. Reasons as stated way back in Day One. After a while of seeming a little more more town after her work took over, bits and pieces started to strike me as scummish as the thread went on, but I would need to do a reread to smooth out these accusations.
I do want to lynch myk. Ether and Patrick didn't like him. Patrick is a great scum hunter. He was also town. Ether is an above average scum hunter. She is obvtown.

I don't know about q21. I don't really have a read on him, he's just sort of meh. I don't feel like doing a read of him.

[Green Crayons]

Yety its you who has to resort to insults

Strawmanning! Strawmanning!

Show me where I am using

only

insults so that I have "resorted" to them instead of throwing a single one in there to sum up my general belief as to what kind of player you are which has been an evolving notion voiced throughout the game. Furthermore, prove to me that this "insult" is not just an accurate label which you helped to define for me but that you just don't like.

Ah man, this

is

fun. I can see why you do it, Emp. Talking about inane minor points while ignoring the forest does give one an incredible rush!

and lets lynch and bandwagon the people not in our group. (Simpor, Corporate and me.)

I have no idea what you're saying here. I don't want to lynch corporate or you. I have expressed why that is the case. I did want to lynch Simp. Not quite sure why you are grouping those three players together.

Also, yes. I want to lynch the people I find suspicious. I don't want to lynch people I find not suspicious. That's generally good play. Are you suggesting I should do the opposite?

[Green Crayons]

Reminding Green Crayons, crywolf20084, and q21 to post. Also prodding corporate again, if he doesn't pick it up he will be replaced.

I posted on the 31st. Not quite sure as to why I have been reminded to post - I haven't forgotten.



Anyways, I'm going up to North Carolina for the weekend. My internet access will be spotty at best until Monday.

[Green Crayons]

I like how Fuzz goes from super hard-line against Emp (from the very moment Emp joined the game) and then when he realizes his stances are crap he does an aboutface, shifts his positions and becomes conciliatory.

And that somehow convinces Emp. It reeks of scum abandoning a bad wagon.


My vote stands (and I'm back from North Carolina).

[Green Crayons]

Not quite sure why you're bolding. Nobody has shown an inability to address points made to them.

I would much rather have someone go, "Oh, damn, my case is crap. Sorry, I take it back." then have someone continue to argue a bad case.

Except that isn't what has happened here. Nor how I described this situation. Let me show you details:

Once more, I never meant to speak about meta in the first place.

He "didn't mean" to talk about meta, but he did and it didn't play out well for him. Now he's backtracking and repositioning. There's a difference between doing this and saying "I was wrong." He's saying "I wasn't wrong because I didn't mean to do X."

I personally believe we have no reason to believe that he isn't, assuming that we're playing innocent until proven guilty.

This reads: "My position is X. X is right. Oh, unless if we're not going to assume Y, which is what I'm assuming, in which case I can see how X might be wrong." This epiphany comes so sudden and shockingly stilted it screams as scum looking to wiggle their way out of not only this single argument, but their larger position in the game. From the moment Emp stepped into the game Fuzz has been all over him like white on rice, repeatedly "coming to my defense" against whatever current issue Emp had with me (and in doing so breaking Fuzz' own stigma against players coming to others defenses and in doing so being a big fat hypocrite). And with this right here, he's suddenly undercutting the long and plentiful history of his blind, unhelpful and non-constructive attack against Emp because it's like he suddenly realizes that it just doesn't fly and he's got to abandon ship.

1. Am I acting overly hostile? I just presumed that if somebody disagreed with CW's points, they'd have pointed it out.

2. If you're both town, its for your benefit to help me point out false argument.

Agreed and Agreed. You've just earned an unvote.

These two points don't negate the rest of Emp's universe of failings - which was the reason for Fuzz's vote in the first place. It looks like Fuzz is looking for an excuse to unvote because he sees that even if other people think Emp is a certified nutball they don't automatically think he's also scum/needs to be lynched and so this wagon isn't going to be the successful town-lynch he was originally hoping for when he put his vote on Emp.

And I would also much rather have the other person go, "Oh, good, I'm glad you saw the light." then have a passive-aggressive OMGUS bonanza.

So you would rather take people at their word than reading into what they're saying? Also, I threw this criticism against Emp in here to further underline his blind adherence to his flawed suspicions against me as juxtaposed against his sudden disregard of his legitimate suspicions against Fuzz.

So let me ask this, GC: Why does your brain yell "scum abandoning a bad wagon" instead of "potential distancing" or "good, no more townie squabbles"? Scum aren't the only people who abandon bad wagons. Hell, if anyone abandons a bad wagon, is that anything but good?

Why does your brain yell

Because it's annoying and wants to be listened to.

"scum abandoning a bad wagon"

Because I have already explained why I think Fuzz is scum and the wagon against Emp is bad.

instead of "potential distancing"

Because I don't think Emp is scum. I do think Fuzz is scum. And what Fuzz is doing isn't distancing - he's doing the exact opposite in that he's negating a previous instances of his "distancing" from/attacking of Emp.

or "good, no more townie squabbles"?

Because I think Fuzz is scum as previously mentioned, discussed and explained.

Scum aren't the only people who abandon bad wagons.

You're right, but I didn't extrapolate from these last two pages that Fuzz must be scum and Emp must be town. Those are alignments I already had in mind for these two players, and with those alignments in mind the interaction between these two accurately reflects my beliefs as to their alignments. This play helps confirm my already established notions of their respective roles.

Hell, if anyone abandons a bad wagon, is that anything but good?

Anyone can join or abandon a good or bad wagon whenever they so desire. But just because someone hops off a bad wagon or joins a good wagon doesn't mean that their actions are exempt of criticism or suspicion. Why would you believe that this type of action would be exempt?

[Green Crayons]

The similiarity between crywolf's and myk's pictures will now cause immense confusion when I skim the thread.

Boo. Both of you. Boo.


Also:

oh, sure. It is not like anyone here is very active, so waiting is not such a big deal.

You aren't exactly helping the cause.

[Green Crayons]

and I rather wait for some reasonable input I can react on then to do nothing except to decide between empking and fuzzy.

So you think that the totality of scum is only two and therefore don't want to look elsewhere where scum might be just in case if 1) you are town (which I'm not too sure of) and 2) you get killed before you can voice/explain additional suspicions you may have?

That's the only reason I can think of as to why you believe the only thing you can do at this time is to decide between emp and fuzz and wait for others to speak up. I didn't know conversing about other suspicions was antithetical to getting activity to liven up.

[Green Crayons]

I read myk's post as saying "I'd rather wait for input than decide between emp and fuzzy" but I could be wrong. Grammar does change everything.

He didn't just say that, he said all he could do was either wait upon other player's imput so he could react to that imput, or decide between Emp and Fuzz (which he already has decided, putting himself behind an Emp lynch). While bemoaning the lack of activity in this thread.

I was merely pointing out that he is creating a false dichotomy - it isn't that he can do either one or the other and nothing else. It's one of those two, or he could be proactive and start pointing out who else could be scum since he only mentioned two people (Fuzz or Emp) who are on his suspicion radar. And scum usually amount to a group of three. And since he's complaining about the lack of activity, I don't see why he wouldn't pursue this third option.

[Green Crayons]

GC: I have two suspects: fuzzy and empking. I have read something, but those two stand out to me. After the recent posts from both, they both begin to look better. The other people I mainly have no read on.

I know those two stand out to you. But you made it sound like apart from picking one or the other to vote, all you can do is wait for someone else to talk to react.

What about looking for a third scum player? What about asking specific questions for people to respond to to stir up discussion? What about publishing a list of where people stand on your scum-o-meter so people can discussion and reflect?

These are just suggestions I'm putting out of my butt. Feel free to engage in any of them or none of them. What I don't care for, however, (and what you were doing) is suggesting that there is an epidemic of inactivity and you can't do anything about it except wait for someone else to get the ball rolling. I just reeks of finding a really bad excuse to explain your lurking.

Also, I don´t know what "bloated" and "egregiously" mean, so I'm not getting what the problem is with that point against fuzzy.

Regardless of Fuzzyman's alignment, it bugs me the degree to which he made the case on Fuzzyman seem bigger/more important that it actually is in 564. The best example of this poor play is:

Fixed for you.

[Green Crayons]

Mizzy and Empking, who are your top three?

[Green Crayons]

His adament position that I'm obvscum who is pulling the wool over all your ignorant little eyes (but he has the ray of wisdom that shreds through this dark obfustication that I'm manifesting, so no worries!) should tip you off that it's 1) his scumlist and 2) it should be taken with a grain of salt (and, for good measure, 3) all that bad logic which got him there shouldn't let you get too wound up because high blood pressure is not good for one's health).


So, why is crywolf still voting Emp?

[Green Crayons]

Well, how do you feel about the discussions surrounding Fuzz?

[Green Crayons]

Eh, I didn't see your post when I made my 817. I was actually asking crywolf.


But, in re: 815, I don't feel comfortable voting a player who has been acting so obtuse that he would fail at being scum. Maybe if I thought Emp was incompetent at life I would think he is just bad scum, but he's shown the mental capacity to actually argue and be (semi) rational. It's just that his arguing positions are horrifically bad. Like, beyond face-melting horribly bad. It just seems to me that scum wouldn't harp so long on logic that the whole town has already dismissed as failed because it's just asking for their own lynching. Maybe it's some sort of an ultimate gambit, but I don't buy it. Not at the moment. That's what's wrong with a vote on Emp.

Additionally, I don't see why you're characterizing Emp's play as minimal. He's been pretty vocal on attempting to explain the failings of his logic in the past and his three word post is hardly characteristic of his play at large. Not saying that he's been successful in making his logic legitimate, just that I don't see how you could say he's been anything less than willing to explain why he feels the way he does.

Also, I couldn't help but notice that your reasoning behind a vote staying on Emp is that he isn't being vocal, but you yourself have utilized excuses to explain away your own lack of contribution. Pots and kettles, sir. Hypocritical reasoning behind a vote is bad reasoning behind a vote.


At the moment I would like Fuzz to explain why he originally voted Emp, why he decided to unvote Emp and explain any discrepencies between the two.

[Green Crayons]

When did you get corporate result, why didn't you non-stop attempt to get him lynched and why exactly are you claiming?

[Green Crayons]

I wouldn't feel comfortable outguessing a mod who puts the word "Cops," plural, in the game's title.

I'm surprised this didn't occur to me the moment he claimed. I had a little six o'clock in the morning kick in the pants when I read this, followed by a light bulb going off as to other players. I still would like answers to my questions from Fuzz, however.

I...actually think Fuzzyman's telling the truth. There are just some things about his behavior that Fuzzscum wouldn't explain while Fuzzcop would.

I don't really know what to believe, but I think my play for today will be to set corporate, myk and Fuzz off to the side and just not deal with them. I would like to have Fuzz investigate a third party and see what he gets (the result, not necessarily the player on whom the result was received) so we can determine if he's more likely to be a sane/insane (or a scum pretending to be sane/insane).

unvote: Fuzz

. Assuming Fuzz is telling the truth, that leaves my top three at myk, Mizzy and q21. Since I'm putting myk off to the side for the day, I guess I'll actually have to do that q21 read through.

[Green Crayons]

I don't like breadcrumbing. Any halfway decent scum can put in all sorts of breadcrumbs and then point out whichever ones he wants to at a later date to suit his needs. Your breadcrumbing is a null tell and doesn't help me determine anything one way or another.

That said, I see no reason for me to not follow my already outlined plan for the rest of the day.

I'll post again when I get that q21 read.

[Green Crayons]

Lynching confirms things pretty solidly, I think.


Okay, now for real no posting until I do a read.

[Green Crayons]

I also want to know how your sudden suspicion peacefully coexists with your previous dismissal of my suspicions of her.

[Green Crayons]

Incidentally, I saw Canary viewing the thread earlier and I would very much like to know what he's thinking.

Some of us read the thread while at work and so therefore post when possible.



I started this reread as a focus on q21, but to be honest he hasn't said much throughout the entire game relative to all the other players. I noticed an initial back-and-forth between him and Mizzy, but I can't tell if that's artifical or genuine. I don't like his 228's comparison between Mister and myself - it looks forced and like he was trying to find some way to slip in that he thought I was town. Otherwise, his posting is nothing exceptional and he flies well beneath the radar. I still don't have a real read.

That said, it was Wolf who was once against nabbing my attention and who I ended up focusing on in my reread.

I think Ether’s trying to get complete control of the town, and I’m not about ready to just hand it over, which makes me pretty suspicious.

Ether was trying to "get complete control of the town" by asking people questions and getting them to contribute. Wolf attempting to slander active contribution and discussion that promotes active contribution from other players is scummish.

Bite me. I need my Bio class for my career. I think that it's a little bit more important than a game, but I'm caught up now am I not?

Uh, the issue that Ether is pointing out isn't that real life is keeping you away from MS, it's that real life is keeping you away just from this game, while you are still quite active in others on the site.

Never answered this discrepency as the corporate money train immediately left the station thereafter and attention was diverted away from wolf. I still find it scummy.

I don't know if I like your vote on Simpor, Ether. Truthfully, I think Ether's acting very scummy, not power-role-y.

A great way for scum to look good is to protect innocents. If wolf was scum, she would have known Simp was town. A good indicator, for me, to determine whether or not disliking a vote is genuine is when the person says "I don't like this vote because of x, y and z." Wolf says "I don't like this vote. Ether's scum or a power role!" It positions herself as looking good without any rationale behind it, and then there's the whole Ether is either scum or a power role (and I don't see why Ether's potential power role was even brought up).

Please List {Fuzzyman, Green Crayons, q21} in order of scumminess.

There. Yeah, you're trying to understand where the town feels for them, but to me it just seemed demanding, despite the 'please'.

I think it's just your way of speaking. It always seems to me pushing to mold the town into your ways of thinking.

Back-peddling. I find it hard to believe anyone could see Ether's above quote as an example of her attempt to take over and control the town.

At first he [GC note: Simp] was neutral because he had so few posts, but now with 10+ posts, and the usual expanse between the posts, I have a feeling with his supposed limited experience that he doesn't know how to play town.

Never explained why she didn't like Ether's vote on Simp, but now with two good minds (Patrick and Ether) voting the guy wolf warms up to the idea with the above nonsense.

Mish-mash of my thoughts.

You are no better than me, unless you are one of two roles. Mason, you have someone who is knowning on your side. Or Scum, then you know who you should jump onto.
There are some other things that you maybe a tracker/watcher/cop or some other information gathering role and you know something that I don't at this point of time.

Ether seems to think that this isn't a big deal, but crywolf totally made a jump here that I think is pretty big. The above quote is in reference to Ether's comment: "I'm summarizing my behavior toward you: ... getting annoyed because you had the nerve to insinuate that I was no better than you." That emphasis was crywolf's in her response, not in Ether's original post. But it should be noted that this emphasized portion wasn't Ether referencing knowing more about the game. At all. She was talking about being productive and active and otherwise helpful. So from that, crywolf suddenly thinks (as seen in the pulled quote above) that somehow Ether was flaunting a power-role status. Or a lack thereof. The whole thing just seems off since Ether was talking about involvement and crywolf started talking about who has (and has not) power roles. And who better to know if someone has a scum power role or not? It just strikes me as funny (in a weird way), and I don't see how it's not as suspicious (if not more so) as Simpor taking this thread and running with it. I'll also note that she picks up this thread even after Simpor, and on 206 comments upon her thoughts re: Ether's power-role status. Because...?

I don't know if I like your vote on Simpor, Ether. Truthfully, I think Ether's acting very scummy, not power-role-y.

The above comes from November 25th. On November 29th, crywolf does her PBP analysis of Simpor. When questioned by Patrick about her apparent heel-faced turn, her response is: "At first he was neutral because he had so few posts, but now with 10+ posts, and the usual expanse between the posts, I have a feeling with his supposed limited experience that he doesn't know how to play town." It should be noted that between her not-comfortable-with-Ether's-vote-on-Simpor stage (she thought he was only a 4.5 on November 23rd, after all) and her PBP (which notably lacked any hard points against Simpor other than a summary), Simpor only posts four times. So within the time span of four days and with four posts, she is confident to say that because of the "usual expanse between the posts" (which simple math averages one post per day during the time period where she had a change of heart) is extensive, she apparently feels that Simpor is second in line to be scum because of his apparently purposeful lack of activity. It just looks like re-positioning.

Add-on: And your last sentence, especially the words "and pointing out that I myself am not lurking is "too far."" is pretty much waving a neon sign saying: LOOK I'm acting town!!!

I chose to ignore this for a reason. Seriously, I don't like when people go spewing "Lookie at meee!! I'm tooooooown!!!!"

Are you really accusing someone for being too townie? Seriously, I think you infected Mizzy. Get yourself detoxed.


So, yeah. I find crywolf suspicious. Somehow makes a leap that Ether is somehow alluding to the fact that she does/doesn't have a power role and faults her for it. Then she faults Ether again for contributing and wanting others to contribute, classifying it as an attempt to "control the town" ...by asking them to contribute by answering questions. Then faults Ether again for being too much of a townie. It's like she has some underlying motive for attempting to heap suspicion on Ether for no good reason. I'll note at this moment in time that Simpor has also kept Ether high on his suspicion list.

And her heel faced turn re: Simpor is super weak.

I still stand by all of this.

Crywolf strikes me as town who realized deep in her heart that I was telling the truth but is too proud to admit it. I can try to defend her more later, but long story short, I'm just not feeling it.

This is the extent of defense wolf made for herself. Oh, wait. It wasn't made by her. She just sort of disappeared into the background when Emp hit the scene and he and I started going at each other's throats.

no i was not willing to hammer him. i was trying to bring attention to what i thought was a L1 situation.

i dont want to vote for him cuz i think fuzzy and cry are more scum then he is.

Do you even have a reason why you think i'm scum???

I think it's pretty silly/scummy that she's critizing someone for not laying his points out against her in an orderly fashion while simultaneously ignoring my issues with her conduct which were laid out in an orderly fashion (per my post 331).


aaaaaaaaaaaaaand I stopped at page 20. Another 15 pages of read through would just kill me.

You sound annoyed. Why?

Personal naivety and stupid assumptions on my behalf.

Alive (9/12)
crywolf20084
mykonian
Fuzzyman
Empking
q21
Mizzy
Green Crayons
corporate
Ether

Fuzz, corp and myk are out for today.

1.

I don't know if Fuzzscum would be crazy enough to do this gambit. I'm disinclined to think of him as scum because of this reason.

2.

Myk pretty much confirmed corp as town. Either myk's telling the truth (would come up guilty) --> makes Fuzz insane --> makes corp town; or Myk is lying (thus must be scum; would come up guilty) ---> makes Fuzz insane ---> makes corp town.

3.

Myk could be a scum trying to throw out an early role claim to pre-emptively throw off the suspicion wagon, but I don't really want to mess with him right now. Alternatively, Myk and Fuzz could

both

be scum with corporate being a godfather. I don't think that's a large possibility (if it ends up being true, three cheers for Fuzz for picking two scumbags two nights in a row).

Emp is super strong town candidate.

His play screams anti-scum to me. The end.

I still like Ether's play.

I'm not as sure as I have been in the past, but I'm still leaving her in the town column for now. She's been more beneficial to discussion than many other players... at least when she deigns to play these days.

That leaves crywolf, q21 and Mizzy for today.

crywolf I could go for. Mizzy I could go for. In that order. I don't know if I could see them being scum together, though.
q21 I have a shitty read on, and would appreciate other people's comments about him to better form my own opinion.

[Green Crayons]

Actually, I reverse my order. I think I might want Mizzylynch over wolflynch.

So indecisive

!


I'll think things over. Myk should be happy now, there's plenty for him to talk about.

[Green Crayons]

Doing this in sections by player:

I got the result on Night 0, and I feel I gave a good attempt to get him out Day 1. I'm claiming because q21 was worried that he would kill a power role by voting Emp.

So by claiming you're proving that Emp doesn't have a power role? Such as maybe another cop, or a doctor, or a watcher, or a role blocker, or a double voter, or a seer, or a prostitute, or a mayor, or a bank manager, or a pizza deliver guy? (Okay, I pulled a few of those roles out of my butt. But my point stands.)

Ether.

I would generally see your crywolf vote as cause for concern, but I kind of feel the same way about her.

Why would you normally see the crywolf vote as a cause for concern? What are these feelings towards crywolf that you feel that Ether also shares?

Out of three perfectly viable explanations one points to corp as scum. Two point to Myk as scum. Therefore I voted Myk. I mentioned Option 2 with my vote because it seems the more likely to me.

Your option two has a GF putting his neck out for a fellow scumbag. That would take an incredibly gutsy/stupid GF to do that - especially when that GF claims miller, and millers are frequently lynched. It's an across the board anti-scum move. You're right: "There's nothing to say that this can't be the case." But then again, I tend to give my fellow players the benefit of the doubt that they first and foremost attempt to win the game. A GF removing himself from a comfortable position of being cleared and putting himself with his neck on the chopping block is the antithesis of a GF scum helping to win a game where the scum are still at full strength.

As it stands, only options 3 and 4 are the only reasonable scenarios that should be considered.

What made you find them an unlikely scumpair in 855?

I don't know. I was delirious from my 20 page straight through read. Mizzy's vote push for crywolf helps this notion for me.

And the conclusion to this story, in post 849: votes between ether and crywolf. Ether doesn't bother to post a case, crywolf reacts on that. While crywolfs reasons (apart from the vote on her) can only come from Ethers early play, Ethers reasons could only be lurking: so who is the person that makes the OMGUS vote here? Crywolf, while all day, ether was high on her scumlist. I'm on crywolf's side here. Ether makes no sense, she just voted to be earlier then crywolf (mizzy, why are you so eager to scream OMGUS here?)

Your thoughts get a little muddled here, can you please rephrase some of this? Reviewing crywolf's post:

Unvote/Vote: Ether

You went from being way lower on my scum list to the top. You voted me without a case, and I have a very big feeling that you're scum. You went from leading the town, all while you kept saying you were town, and then you've turned over a lurker leaf. Now you are (thankfully) back and with this BS vote on me, while most have decided that I have actively been actively scum hunting. I have this major scum vibe coming from you and I would like to see you get lynched.

This is where my vote is gonna stay until you're gone.


PS: Is this noticeable enough for you??

I don't see how you can't think this is pure OMGUS. Wolf gives no explanation as to why Ether went from low on her scumlist (which I find to be crap, since Wolf has been giving Ether grief since Day One re: wolf's suspicions of Ether) to the top of that list except for the insinuation that it's solely because Ether voted her without stating her reasons. And thus Ether's vote must qualify as a "BS vote." Is Mizzy's vote a BS vote?

Vote: crywolf

. Is that a BS vote? It looks like to me wolf is throwing up a super OMGUS vote while throwing around variations of previous accusations she has used while continually failing to back up those accusations when critically questioned (e.g. Ether controlling the town, etc). I also don't see where she was able to pull "...While most have decided that I have actively been actively scum hunting" from. Did I miss the poll?

Like I said with crywolf, who OMGUS-votes here?

I have no idea how you would qualify Ether's vote OMGUS against wolf. It was made first.

But that last crywolf vote really makes no sense, and makes her scum nr.1 to me.

So a single vote from a player supercedes the issues you have with crywolf, the mountain of material I have posted against crywolf and the fact that crywolf has yet to address any of it (many of the things I pointed out to in my 855 are from Day One, so it's not exactly the freshest of material)?

I tried to find what made you look towny, and if that really makes you town. An important thing seems to be the prodding. However, scum could do that easily.

Apart from the prodding, what about the actual meat and material of her discussions in Day One? Did you not find that to be helpful/pro-town?

...crywolf's vote is natural. There was already suspicion...

How do you marry this with crywolf's "You went from being way lower on my scum list to the top." Wolf claims that there wasn't suspicion, or, if there was any, it was minimal.

Ether, you spent half the game AWOL without notice, you're playing by gut right now (which you admitted) and you voted someone without a decent case (which you also admitted.)

Weren't you the one who, as soon as I made a big case against you, you had to go semi-AWOL because of work? Pots and kettles, they're everywhere!

You've done very little in this game. You can Pfft all you want, but it's still true.

And I accept that you were helpful day 1, but that time has long since passed.

These two quotes do not add up. She either has done very little in this game, or she was helpful in Day One but has since dropped off the map. Your first claim is that she's been completely useless, the next claim shifts that position and instead says that she was completely useless beginning Day Two but Day One she was pretty awesome. So which is it: was she useless Day One and Day Two, or did she only become useless in the beginning of Day Two when she went AWOL? Also, is she useless now that she's becoming active again?

Wait, I just saw this. How can you even ask that question seriously? What major event happened between list #1 post and #2 post? Just two role claims, that's all. You really didn't read my post at all, did you? You just skimmed it.

I fail to see how those claims would affect your view of Emp v CW though?

I also fail to see how those claims would affect your view. Feel free to also give q21 and myself shit for apparently just skimming your posts as well, but I would ask that you would also explain in further detail.

Normally I'd agree but this set-up seems like it'd have roles that relate to cops such as millers.

I agree.

...Stop it you, you're making me blush!

[Green Crayons]

Mizzy: Maybe we should do a recap so instead of you being very obviously miffed you could actually help me understand.

What's your own vote for, anyway? We all know how I feel about hypocrites.

Ether fishing for reasoning outside of what you already have posted via 850. Or she didn't read 850 at all.

Try reading my post.

Legitimate response.

(Credit for voting Crywolf over Empking, though. Hmm--Mizzy, what changed between those two lists?)

Wait, I just saw this. How can you even ask that question seriously? What major event happened between list #1 post and #2 post? Just two role claims, that's all. You really didn't read my post at all, did you? You just skimmed it.

You overreact to a legitimate question (one that's actually separate from the above quotations), since you're only reasoning for not voting Emp is "And Emp I think is just a crappy player but not necessarily scum (I'm leaning town on him.)" You didn't give any reason as to why your opinion as formed as such.

Then you ignore the question entirely (even though q21 also expressed confusion as to how you came to this conclusion re: Emp) in your post 873.

It actually really ticks me off that I took the time to post my reasoning and then it gets ignored. You want further detail? Then here's all the detail you're getting:

But you didn't post your reasoning as to why you formed a town opinion on Emp.

The claims, because I have no reason to disbelieve them, completely shifted my unknown/neutral reads on the players involved. Based on those changes, via process of elimination coupled by prior play and evidence, I was able to get off the fence, as it were, about several players.

Yeah, this is nice but it's not explaining what our confusion is about. We're not asking about how and why you nixed Fuzz, Myk or corp from your list of pool of potential lynchees today. Emp wasn't involved with any of the claims - he's altogether absent from that little trio of affected players. We're asking why you think Emp is a poorly playing town and you've failed to given an adequate explanation.

The in-game happenings had nothing to do with the fact that I had no time to play, and I warned folks ahead of time that it would happen. I didn't need a prod, and in fact, did my best to stay active even when I was working 16-17 hour days. I did not drop off the face of the earth for no reason and no warning. So no, I don't consider the two things equal.

My point was that people have different legitimate reasons for dropping off the face of the earth. Disinterest in the game isn't a pro-scum tell, it's an anti-town tell. The similarity between your real life complications and Ether's real life apathy towards the game is that they both made you inactive (to a certain extent) but that alone doesn't suggest either of you are scum.

I stated an opinion and she argued against it. Her argument was correct and my original opinion wasn't. I accepted that fact. What's wrong with that, exactly? I was wrong, and I admitted it.

I didn't see where you admitted your incorrect assertion. And my issue with it is that this has been your (most recent) line of attack against Ether: "You have been useless all game!" changed to "You have been active but useless all game!" changed to "You were active and helpful Day One but since then you have been useless all Day Two!" It's a perpetually shifting claim about why exactly I should think Ether is scum, but the core of the claim - that Ether unplugged for a short while because she lost faith in herself or somesuch crap like that - isn't a scumtell. If anything, it's null.

what bothers me after that, is that people use the word OMGUS to vote crywolf, suddenly not needing reasoning behind there votes on a less active person. You didn't look at the situation. You just see the response to a vote, with a vote; you call it OMGUS, and you think your vote is justified. It isn't.

...Are you really saying my vote against crywolf is solely because I think she OMGUSed Ether? Really? Did you ignore my post 855?

Unless we're in one of those idiotic, "Everybody has a power role," games, if one person has a power role, it's more likely than any other person doesn't.

So it is your belief that you are the only town player with a power role? You know, there's a nice little balance between a town having a solitary power role and every town player having a power role. Any reasonable assumption would be that there is two or three town power roles in a 12 person game. Your claim has not affect on the potential for Emp having (or not having) a power role.




Crywolf continues to ignore highlighted issues that paint her in a less than favorable light.
My vote continues to push for her lynch.
You should notice a correlation between these two facts.

[Green Crayons]

how do you want to tell me this is not accusing cry for lurking?

No, it's accusing cry of

lying

. And with good cause, because she has lied

[Green Crayons]

Lied about what GC?

Now you are (thankfully) back and with this BS vote on me,

while most have decided that I have actively been actively scum hunting

.

I must have missed the poll where you were able to confidently make this claim. Because filtering the thread for your posts alone does now show what I would consider "actively scum hunting." Quasi-acting in the sense of contributing, maybe. I don't think anyone can reasonably call your play today as active scum hunting, and the fact that you exaggerate your own conduct in a positive manner is a lie.

Even if I were to strike Option 2 from my list of options and only look at 3 and 4... one of those two which points at Mykscum, none at corp scum... therefore I'd still like my vote.

Why are you creating a dichotomy of either a Corplynch or Myklynch? Do not the other players who are currently gathering much needed attention (crywolf, Mizzy and Ether) strike your fancy for a vote?

[Green Crayons]

I generally don't tolerate players who lie about their own accomplishments to make other players look bad in comparison.

[Green Crayons]

As a total side note, I think the past few pages further cement for me the notion that Wolf and Mizzy are not on the same scum team.

[Green Crayons]

So, myk is comfortable lynching one player (Mizzy) who called OMGUS on another player (which has been backed up by two other, additional players) instead of another player (Crywolf) who has continually ignored all points put to her while bold-face lying to the town to make another player look scummy in comparison. Town don't lie to make other players look scummish. Scum do that.

Call me oldschool, but why are we just not lynching the bad lying liar?


And I don't think Mizzy is -1L. I only see Ether, Wolf and Myk on her wagon. Did I miss the fourth?

[Green Crayons]

unvote

, just to get allow the new blood some time to mull things over. I'm still perfectly happy with a wolf lynch at this point.

[Green Crayons]

Not sure this is needed. Nobody was going to hammer.

Apparently you're a mind reader? Neat. I could see either q21 or Ether having hammered while you did a read through.

This screams "Look at how town I am!".

I refrained from throwing out a smartass remark, though it was tempting. But I don't think I need to endure an Emp 2.0 by starting off on the bad foot with another replacee. Instead, dwell upon the notion that maybe I just wanted to hear someone's fresh take on the thread before we lynch Wolf.

I'd like to get that over with once and for all.

And how do you suggest this would come about?

[Green Crayons]

So you refrain from a smartass remark by making a smartass remark (emp 2.0). I am impressed with your restraint and townieness!

That doesn't qualify as a smartass remark. It accurately described a scenario I did not want to redo within a single label that was not derogatory or snarky. And your sarcasm is flat.

I simply can't really understand why everybody is so sure about crywolf.

Read the issues that were brought up against her. Then read the utter lack of any real response on Wolf's behalf to these issues.

You misread me. I'd probably enjoy hammering her, but alas, I wouldn't actually do it.

You would never hammer her or you're just giving her a pass until she finally responds to all the issues that have been placed at her door?

What are you getting at?

Within this context? I was showing bio that I did not fall in line with his thought that nobody was going to hammer Wolf by providing examples.

Keep confronting him again every time he fails to respond, picking up right from where we left off, until he acknowledges that he's being stubborn, that nothing he finds scummy from me does in fact make more sense under a scum motivation, and he's probably wrong about me. What are you getting at?

Oh, I didn't think of that option as it sounds incredibly... frustrating/futile/etc. I was curious as to why you were suggesting confirmation-by-mod-through-player-death (the only scenario I could see your finalization occurring), and figured that I must be missing something. So I asked a question. And apparently I was.

And stop with the gushy nicknames, Ether. You're making me blush. I know you're sweet on me, but the PDA has got to end at some point!

[Green Crayons]

What are you getting at?



(No, really.)

[Green Crayons]

I'm guessing that you're one of those people who doesn't like the use of the word "tell."

Wait. Before I become too thick to converse with: to whom was 997 directed?

those two words: so sure. I can see crywolf is not beyond doubt town. But I can't also see it the other way.

I'm not entirely sure how you're qualifying "so sure." I wouldn't say with 100% certainty that crywolf is scum - but it's pretty hard to say that in any mafia game.

I would say, however, that a number of her actions/reactions are highly suspect and should easily qualify her as a potential scum candidate. Certainly more so than numerous other players, which helps to make me more comfortable in being sure that she's scum. Since we're using a sort of normative/factual hybrid in determining who we believe to be scum, I'm not really how I can more accurately describe my certainty of the semi-abstract notion that Wolf is a scumbag.

[Green Crayons]

To be honest the above list is what I keep coming up with. If I was to exchange one of them, it would be either to take out Mizzy or CW in order to put in Myk there, since his scum buddy q21 was so keen on fingering him as the GF.

And since myk wants to lynch Mizzy, I'm inclined to vote CW. Just in case if that's the scenario. Also, CW still hasn't posted anything worthwhile so I'm just that much more in favor of stringing her up.

[Green Crayons]

Might as well get this out in the open, especially since q21 has taken a sudden interest in blatantly lying.

I'm a cop.

Night results:
1. Ether - town.
2. Crywolf - town.
3. q21 - scum.


When Fuzz was reveled to be insane it dawned on me that since this is cops and robbers it would only stand to reason that there would be more than one cop and with differing insanities. It was at that point that I started to question the legitimacy of my results. You will notice up until Fuzz's reveal I had placed Crywolf on my "innocent" list because of some ambiguous "night time rereading," which was very obviously another way of saying "I investigated her and it turned up innocent." Also post-Fuzz reveal, you will notice my die-hard conviction of Ether's innocence seemed to waver somewhat.

I ultimately psyched myself out and was convinced I was naive after Fuzz's reveal and, since the only thing that stopped me from revisiting my (obviously poorly formed) strong feelings towards Crywolf's apparent scumness was my result on her. Hence I started to revisit my Crywolf voting once Fuzz revealed.

It was only at the end of the day when Ether kept saying she was tipping her hand and whatnot that I was convinced that Ether was a cop and had investigated CW with a town result. If that were the case, then Ether and I would have both been cops, and though one of us was naive and one of us was sane, it pretty much cleared CW. That, myk, is what I unvoted.

Some poor play on my part has led my own reveal with only a single useful result: that q21 is a scumbag. This was a growing sensation towards the end of Day 2 and even obvtown Ether noticed it. His incredibly scummy hammer helps confirm.

vote: q21

. I am well aware this puts him at -1L. However, this reveal either makes q21 scum or me scum and since I'm quite convinced of my own sanity at this point, I don't think we're really in danger of one of his scum buddies performing a super-fast hammer.


Empking
q21
Mizzy

Assuming myk is actually a miller and not a godfather and assuming Fuzz is a cop and not a scum performing a balls to the wall gambit with myk, the above would be the scum group. However, because a sane and insane cop can work in tandem (and ultimately prove to be quite powerful), I wouldn't think a miller and a godfather (or one or the other) should be ruled out. But that's for another day.

Am I right in thinking that we're probably in LyOL?

Yes, that's my thought as well.

[Green Crayons]

What GC says bothers me. The fact that there is likely a godfather makes cops way less usefull. We can't trust our inno's anymore, and that makes the game much less simple. More scumhunting and less trusting the cop (I know that makes a good game from a different viewpoint, but I wouldn't mind an easy win).

Outside of a legitimate miller, it's the only thing I can think of that would balance out a sane and insane cop working side by side. Even assuming there is no doctor, it's two fully functional cops once the quirks are worked out which makes the town super powerful in a 12 person game.

That said, I still think Emp and Mizzy need to be given a strong look over in future days. I much more comfortable with a Mizzy lynch come Day 4 now knowing all the issues Ether was having with her was coming from a purely town point of view, not to mention the issues you have pointed out as well as my own issues I have had with her play back on Day One.

If Emp would turn up scum, I would be entirely surprised just because of how belligerent he was upon replacing and how stubborn he was regarding his failed logic. I just really couldn't conceive a scum being that tied to a self-destruct play style... and, to be honest, that's why I think there may be a potential for a godfather. But maybe I'm just giving Emp too much credit and it's just so easy to vote for him because he's great at giving himself away as scum.

I dunno. Something to think about.

[Green Crayons]

Frustrating, but fun.

And yeah. Fuzzyman, what the hell don't do that again.

I agree with the above.

Also: what the hell, Emp.

[Green Crayons]

And when I was watching on day 2, I was convinced Green Crayons had to be either a cop with an innocent result on crywolf

Going from "I'll cry if we don't lynch crywolf tomorrow" to "I reread crywolf during the night and I don't want to lynch her" and then hardly mentioning her again for quite some time really screamed "cop result!" to me. But I did it anyways. Meh.

When he returned to crywolf after Ether suddenly started on her again, I was leaning towards the latter case.

What changed my opinion of my innocent result was actually a throw away line Ether put out there, something along the lines that there could be multiple cops with different sanities. I basically convinced myself that I was naive (CW's refusal to chip in at any point in time helped cement this notion) and thought that maybe Emp's incredibly bad arguments were founded off of paranoid cop results. Before q21 hammered, I was starting to fall away from this notion and was going to try to refocus a lynch on q21 because - as Ether pointed out - he was the common scum denominator in all of the scum lists.

I think GC played a really good game and that the timing of Myk's claim was perfect.

I disagree. Only one person I seriously suspected ended up being a scumbag and, as was pointed out to me by Ether once I bought it, I totally took the quick/lazy way out of the q21 lynch by revealing my role instead of using the plenty of useful lynch fodder. Not to mention I let Ether/Patrick talk me into a D1 lynch that I wasn't really behind, so I let an appeal to authority get to the better of me. Damn their reputations!

Things might have been different if Fuzz chose better targets, but as the game stands I think Myk was mvp for the game. Miller claim was made at an excellent time and it was a long term gambit that might have withstood a 3 person stand-off with two cops floating about. I think this previous day had a lot of scum tells from the appropriate people (moreso than the other days), but that could just be because I knew their roles. Or maybe it's because they were anxious to win. Who knows.

[Green Crayons]

I disagree. Only one person I seriously suspected ended up being a scumbag and, as was pointed out to me by Ether once I bought it, I totally took the quick/lazy way out of the q21 lynch by revealing my role instead of using the plenty of useful lynch fodder. Not to mention I let Ether/Patrick talk me into a D1 lynch that I wasn't really behind, so I let an appeal to authority get to the better of me. Damn their reputations!

Oh yeah, and I was exceptionally opinionated in seeing to it that one of the scum weren't lynched because, seriously... Scum can't be that bad at being scum, right? Le sigh.