Mini 720 - SPQR Mafia {Game Over}

[Glork]

Vote: Pathetric

It is good to be back.

[Glork]

Vote: Pathetric

just in case my super ninja awesome post didn't count.

[Glork]

FoS: Yos

Only scum want to trick the town.

[Glork]

Because that's not generally how this game works?


Durr.

[Glork]

Also, the fact that I only FoSed Yos clearly indicates that I'm not convinced dahill is town.

[Glork]

Also, I'm smarter than the average bear.

[Glork]

So is an Octopus.

Trust me, an octopus would be FoSing Yos, too.


I know these things.

[Glork]

Part of me wants to know whose alt you are, but most of me doesn't care.

[Glork]

considering the player list, i'm disappointed by the lack of glork death. apparently experience doesn't count for much.

Elaborate?

[Glork]

That's what I want you to elaborate on.

How does "experience counts for something" translate to "Glork should be dead"? I don't understand that statement at all.

[Glork]

Corio is obviously also an alt.

[Glork]

That's what I want you to elaborate on.

How does "experience counts for something" translate to "Glork should be dead"? I don't understand that statement at all.

I can think of a couple of ways that make it make sense. Both require peculiar p.o.vs and both are wrong, but they aren't implausible beliefs for someone a bit deluded about a particular point. You seem angrier in some way since you came back, though, so you can correct him.

Well, I can sort of see scenarios under which Corio would make sense, but I want to hear the words straight from his mouth.

In other news, I think I'm entirely too hung up on trying to figure out who these stupid alts are. Ass's post history doesn't give enough to work with, but he's likely a ScumChatter. On a somewhat-related note, I could very easily see Shea alting his way into this game.


Finally, Ether: OMGUS hardly counts as non-arbitrary.



Preview Edit:

experience is praised because a greater experience means a greater ability to hunt scum/whatever. if you're scum, then the experience failed to help. it's a deliberately stupid argument.

It was page one of the game. Of course it was a deliberately stupid argument. Do you know what the "random voting stage" is?

(And of course you'll deny being an alt. I'm still fairly certain that you are, and I'd be willing to bet that Ether noticed the same thing that I did.)

[Glork]

I don't know. What argument are you referring to?

[Glork]

Oh. No, the argument *I* was referring to was my FoS of Yos and subsequent "explanation," which prompted Erratus' switch and that comment.


Obviously there was a major miscommunication, but I think what we're getting at here is "we were both dicking around, neither of our arguments were serious." Correct?

[Glork]

Well, after this:

I don't even know anymore. *sigh*

I got confused and thought you were just joking about being Primate because of the Thin_Man/Primate signup thing. First day on the job, I'm a little slow.

[Glork]

Well, after this:

I don't even know anymore. *sigh*

I got confused and thought you were just joking about being Primate because of the Thin_Man/Primate signup thing. First day on the job, I'm a little slow.

I was drunk and signed up to spite what I thought was a bit of an unnecessary move by you. I know it annoys you, though, that's why I outed myself once I was a little more sober, just so it was less of a dick move. Still probably shouldn't have joined though. That post was just a premptive response to the inevitable question 'why did you do it in the first place?, that was really dumb'.

So anyway, lets get back to the proper game.

My post was like 95% a joke to begin with, since obviously "Thin Man" and "Primate" are known to be the same person. It'd be like me signing up for a game as Gaspar, or Thok signing up for one as Thok Thok. I didn't actually mean for you to un-sign-up in any way. :/

[Glork]

but that you seem to know about a lot of the people in this game in general.

That's exactly how I feel. You said "judging from this playerlist..." in one of your posts.

So unless you're a raw newbie who happens to have his shit down pretty well and spent some time researching the playerlist before actually diving into the game, you've obviously been around the block before.

Furthermore, you harped on me and went on about my experience in that "Glork should be dead" thing, which I believe was interpreted as you knowing that I have a reputation.

[Glork]

I just find it beyond fascinating that Corio seems so vested in protecting his identity as a "non-gimmick."

Also, my comment about researching the playerlist is in direct reference to this:

considering the player list,

It implies that you knew coming into this that there were several reputable players, which I don't see the average (or even the above-average) brand-new-player being likely to make anything of.


That said, I know you're an alt, and you can deny it all you want, but it won't change a damned thing. If I thought that your behavior made you more likely to be scum, I'd be calling for your head right now. But as things stand, I think this is becoming more of a distraction than anything else, so I'd like to drop it and get back to finding scumbaggoes.

[Glork]

Where'd you play mafia before Scum? Link to your profile and at least one game, please.



And my vote is exactly where I'd like it to be. Believe it or not, it was neither random nor arbitrary, even as the first post in the game.

[Glork]

The vote isn't about not liking them, though you're right in that it has to do with the fact that they're a double-head. It has a real, functional, productive purpose. I'm sure that you and at least Ether know exactly why I have a vested interest in determining Pathetric's alignment.

[Glork]

Because I started off the game by voting for them? I haven't even had a chance to prod at their gameplay yet, how can you POSSIBLY accuse me of overreacting?

[Glork]

I don't know if this is what Yos means, but I personally have used this grilling of Corio to try to feel out his behavioral and thought processes as much as possible. I've probably gotten more out of these first four pages than most.

I want to hear a substantial post directly from Patrick.

[Glork]

Ass, I think it depends almost entirely on the person. I know I'd have done my homework already if I were a scumbag, but truth be told, I haven't looked at a damned thing. There are multiple reasons for this, none of which I feel are particularly helpful to divulge at this time.

[Glork]

Could anyone tell me what exactly a double-head does, please? Do they alternate posting on odd/even days or what?

It's just two users (in this case, Ether and Patrick) make a single joint account to split time in a game. It was originally used so that people with limited access could still participate in a game with stricter posting requirements. Unfortunately, an increasing number of people seem to be doing it for shits and giggles.

The two "heads" can communicate at any time, and either person can post under any time. They share one role and count as one player.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

[Glork]

Dibs on the hammah.

[Glork]

It's less effective when you do it to yourself, because we know that vote won't really stick around for very long.

Xotx, do you think we gain information by you putting yourself at L-2 or by somebody else putting you at L-2?

[Glork]

What makes you think this?

Elementary. The odds of there being a Jester are unspeakably minute, which eliminates the most plausible reason for you to keep a vote on yourself.

And what makes you think you know this any better then anyone else's vote?

Experience. Skill. Foresight. Hacks. Observation. Intuition. Take your pick, really.

I don't know.

I didn't ask what you know. I asked what you think. I know you're capable of taking a guess as to which scenario you find to be more helpful. So do it and explain it.

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Xtoxm

[Glork]

I could lynch Tuber fo sho, peeps.

[Glork]

I'm just mucking about, it's the random phase.

I think GLork's vote was pretty and opportunistic, I think he was hoping someone would hammer, with the fallback of "I was asking for it".

Unvote Vote Glork

VT btw.

I wouldn't be adversed to hammering someone on page 4.

A few things here.

First, you've already proven one of my earlier points. You put yourself at Lynch -2, and I pointed out that your self-vote wouldn't stay there very long. You questioned me, and I basically replied by saying "been there, seen it." After you continued to be argumentative over nothing, for no reason, I went ahead and put you at Lynch -1, at which point you very promptly removed your vote.

Secondly, you behaved in a deliberately outlandish manner and then jumped me as soon as you had successfully provoked me, which makes me wonder if you were trying to bait somebody into putting you at Lynch -1 so that you'd have a reason to jump them.

Thirdly, the odds of somebody hammering here were pretty slim. Six were voting for you. Based on past experience, I would have been absolutely floored if Pathetric, dahill, or Yos2 had hammered you. And as I already stated, I knew that if things got real, you'd remove your self-vote. So either Tube, Rally, or Erratus would have had to decided to hammer you before you had even posted (without permitting you to claim). Just because you play like a complete donkey doesn't mean that you should expect everyone else to do so.

Fourthly, I feel like there's a small contradiction in the two posts I quoted, but I'm not sure I'll be able to articulate it very well. You expressed that you were "just mucking about" in the random-phase, then go on to say that you personally could have seen yourself hammering somebody if you were in a position to do so. What gets me is that, if you're protown and you could see a player hammering on Page 4, then A) why is it so unreasonable to see a protown player put you at Lynch-1; and B) Why would you put yourself at Lynch-2 to begin with?

I really don't see any reasonable protown justification for the self-vote, especially when coupled with the fact that you were intentionally ignoring my questions (which I still expect you to answer). It seems to me that the much more reasonable explanation is what I mentioned earlier -- that you were trying to bait me by OMGUSing me after being deliberately :nothelpful:. It's like MBLscum, only not nearly as subtle or refined.


In other news, Tuber's recent posts have me feeling much, much better about him. I didn't like the contentless "useless four pages," but he seems to be rectifying that with real contribution.

[Glork]

if he is scum, he'll be easily taken care of later.

MAJOR FoS: Coriolanus

[Glork]

Interesting point Yos makes against Erratus.

Needless to say, I'm happy with my Xtoxm vote. I feel very "meh" about dahill. And Corio definitely needs to die sooner, rather than later.

[Glork]

Interesting point Yos makes against Erratus.

Needless to say, I'm happy with my Xtoxm vote. I feel very "meh" about dahill. And Corio definitely needs to die sooner, rather than later.

Do you think that Xtoxm is scum?

I'll give you two guesses there, champ.

What's interesting about it?

It's a Pot/Kettle thing. FWIW, I had gotten the impression that Yos2 has been involved in the game, so I'm curious to know how you can justify attacking somebody based on "lack of contribution" when you yourself hadn't done anything but a couple of random-votes up until that point.




Corio, would you care to respond to my FoS, or do I have to bump it up to a vote before you start talking?

[Glork]

Holy balls, thread explosion. Don't you people have better things to do with your Saturday nights?


Regarding Erratus: Now I understand the subtle difference that he (and Patrick) are trying to make here. Nowever, I do not agree with it

at all

. "Can't say anything wrong if I don't say anything at all" is what I'm getting out of that, and that really irritates me.


I still think Xtoxm is reasonably likely to be scum, but Corio is pinging major hard right now.
First, I still can't find any protown reason for the "if X is scum, we can lynch them later" comment. Why the fuck would you want to keep a suspected scumbag alive? It really sounds like a way of saying "yeah, he should be scum, but we should lynch elsewhere." He mentions in his original post that "Xtoxm seems harmless," but no scumbag -- no matter how good or bad their play -- is harmless.
Now, he's going ridiclous out-of-his-way to defend Xtoxm. It's interesting that, just after telling me he'd rather hunt for scum than "defending himself over one comment." Yet he just spent an entire page defending Xtoxm, rathar than hunting scum. Now granted, there are some differences there (namely, that there is more substance behind the Xtoxm wagon than there was behind my FoS of him).
Thirdly, I actually thought exactly what dahill thought about the whole "post restriction" comment... I'll just QFT Post 185 here.


I will say that in spite of Yos's known "claimed vanilla townies should die" theory (something with which I still disagree, by the way), I dislike his "safe lynch" comment regarding Xtoxm. It feels like an underhanded way of trying to get fence-sitters to just finish him off.


And finally, back to Corio:

because i believe we have better things to do than to run up xtoxm's wagon again and try for a lynch. perhaps i should have said "right now"; this day still has some juice, and if we're going to sacrifice it for xotxm wagon 2, i think it's a real shame. again, a xtoxm lynch is not simply going to go away. but i don't think it will be a cipher at all.

This is at least the second time you've preached about "having better things to do," yet

I DON'T SEE YOU DOING THESE "THINGS" THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

. You preach about wanting to hunt scum, then just sit around trying to derail a very good bandwagon. You preach about wanting to "get more out of the day," yet I don't see you actively promoting further discussion.

All I'm seeing from Corio is a lot of hand-waving. It's as if, by swearing a bunch and making generalizations about "what the town should be doing," he can look like a big player in the game. But if you look at what he's actually done, it's been VERY little. I'm willing to set aside the whole "alt or not" discussion, because I pretty much instigated it, but if you get right down to it, his real-time contributions to the game have amounted to a vote on dahill for sheeping, and now defending Xtox.

Unvote, Vote: Corio

Ironic that in voting Corio, I'm shrinking the Xtoxm wagon that he so dislikes, but this is obviously the right play.

[Glork]

Yos and Prim, you should vote for Corio. The Corio wagon (yea, it's gonna be a wagon) has punch and pie, and we will be holding a raffle for a BIG SCREEN TV later on!!!

[Glork]

ebwop: ass not prim

[Glork]

Well the point I'm getting that is that the point of a "safe lynch" in no way makes him any more likely to be scum, which should be far and away the primary reason somebody votes to lynch. I don't think it's "true and valid in this case," because I think that it's only true and valid in a VERY small percentage of cases, and "D1 claimed townie" does NOT fall into that category.

[Glork]

No, it's not a strong supporting reason. It is a terrible one.

[Glork]

but if you get right down to it, his real-time contributions to the game have amounted to a vote on dahill for sheeping, and now defending Xtox.

i have done more than simply write "vote dahill: for sheeping." but even if it was, i want to know how it is

inconsistent

with what i've been saying a townie should do. because here lies your argument: that i've been swaggering as a cover. so you've actually got to prove that assertion.

My contention is with the fact that you seem to be arguing that there are "more and better things to be done," but I hardly see you instigating discussion. I just looked over all of your posts in the game and found confirmation of this. Note that I'm omitting the random phase (i.e., the 1.5 or so pages -- basically, your first three posts).

You have interacted at reasonable lengths with me, dahill, xtoxm, and Yosarian2.

You have addresssed Tuberkulos and Erratus exactly once.

Unless I missed something, you have not ONCE mentioned or talked with Charter, Vincent, Incog, Pathetric, or Ass.

I am a firm believer that if you're going to ask for more discussion, more "juice," that you actually engage with other players. Note that I have instigated three discussions, that I'm actually

working

to get my hands dirty and actively and continually provoke fruitful debate. You seem to want everyone to do this, but you don't seem especially willing to practice what you preach.

I want to see you go out on a limb. I want to see some new inquiries from you. I do not believe that you are content to just sit around and defend a wagon and tell the rest of the town to do more while not helping them to do more.

i could also engage in oratorical gymnastics. but i'm not going to, because that's not what a fucking townie does.

The phrase "oratorical gymnastics" made me lol, but I absolutely take issue with your assertion that "that's not what a fucking townie does."
This post, this post, this post from this game are all good examples of me using rhetoric as a tool when protown. If you are dissatisfied with this, I can pull as many examples as you want until you're satisfied.

Point is, your flat assertion that "townies don't do X" is wrong. And I'm not saying this to get a point across to anybody but YOU. This is how I play at times, and you're going to have to deal with it. End of story. So don't go telling me that verbosity isn't useful to a protown player, because I guarantee you, you are DEAD wrong in that regard.

also, it's really stupid to call arguing against a wagon "useless".

Who is this directed at, and where did that person refer to the wagon as "useless"? Nowhere between pages 6 and 9 was that word ever used, aside from your post. For someone who just bitched to me about "oratorical gymnastics," you have chosen your misquote rather poorly.

[Glork]

which makes no sense, why can't Corio have been doing both those things?

That's exactly the point I'm trying to MAKE, Patrick. Corio seems to want to "get more out of the day," butj for the time he's spent in this thread, his actual, real-time scumhunting has been minimal, IMO.

[Glork]

Also, Ether, don't use Gold anymore. It is extremely difficult to read in mafsepia, and nigh-impossible in mafTigers.

[Glork]

I'd also like to know what's scummy about this.

It feels like Corio was going too far continuing his whole "dahill sheeping" thing (which, by the way, I don't find particularly abnormal for dahill), but fell upon "no, joke" when dahill pointed out the timestamps. It seemed insincere to me.

christmas drama is flaring up, so let me just respond to one thing:

Coriolanus got quite worked up in the alt-or-not discussion, but it's nothing that interests me. I don't understand his logic about letting Xtoxm live through the day if he is scum.
"Officer, we have reports on a violent man at Ceasars Palace."
"Okay, but let's go the Mirage instead."
"But Officer..."
"No butts! Let's go to the Mirage. Maybe there is a criminal there too?"
Makes no sense to me at all.

i have major issues with this analogy, in that the town doesn't use the same methods a police force would. let me try to use it anyway:
"Officer, we have reports on a violent man at Ceasars Palace."
"Okay, but let's also go the Mirage. There seems evidence that there is violent activity over there that may be connected."
"But Officer... Can't we put that criminal off until tomorrow? This one's easier."
"Awww shucks, alright. Caesers it is!"

That's still a terrible idea. You're going to let one criminal run amok for a while longer because there MIGHT be another criminal elsewhere?

[Glork]

which makes no sense, why can't Corio have been doing both those things?

That's exactly the point I'm trying to MAKE, Patrick. Corio seems to want to "get more out of the day," butj for the time he's spent in this thread, his actual, real-time scumhunting has been minimal, IMO.

I want to elaborate more on this, because apparently I didn't make myself clear enough, and because the more I think about it, the more it bothers me that both Ether and Patrick are failing to see what is wrong with Corio here.


We'll start here:

Corio, would you care to respond to my FoS?

don't give a shit, sorry. i meant what i said. if you think that's worth voting me for, just fucking do it, but i'm in the business of scumhunting not defending myself over one comment.

Here, Corio passes on making discussion, because he is not "in the buisness of... defending himself." He would rather "hunt scum."

His very next post:

the new xtoxm wagon is made up of stupid.

Well, that's not exactly scumhunting...

His next post:

Why is that?

why is xtoxm not a good lynch?

i'm starting to believe this is a post restriction

because i think his reactions, while being very bad, seem obviously townie to me, and as i said before there is absolutely no reason to rehash this wagon unless you genuinely want xtoxm dead today. xtoxm is a dead end unless you want the day to end now.

Okay, so he's indicating that he wants the day to continue. Tell me, Patrick, Ether... has he offered a SINGLE word that would contribute to his "business of scumhunting" at this point? No.

Also, what "new" xtoxm wagon?

this newest one, that came after the last.

Another post, another missed opportunity to actively hunt for scum.

it was a joke.

More of the same...

how could that possibly be a good reason to lynch him? you lynch someone for being anti-town because they would do more damage to the town than allowing them to live. xtoxm can't possibly do anything to further the damage done by the actions you cite, so there has to be a reason separate from the "anti-town" argument.

Again, he makes a post to defend Xtoxm. But he couldn't be arsed to defend

himself

earlier, and he's still not offering up anything to FIND AND CATCH SCUM.

His next post:

Town should never claim vanillia, at all, but scum tend to want to claim vanillia, so it's a scum tell.

unless you can prove that the scum are more likely to claim vanilla than town are, this is basically just pulled out of your ass.
also, you're using "scummy" now. why did you even use anti town before? what function did that term have?

Plus, he's a safe lynch now that he's a claimed vanillia (he's either a vanillia or a scum), and if he gets lynched no one else has to claim, which protects the power roles.

exactly why i think he shouldn't be lynched today (although when i tried to verbalize that before glork shit his pretty little panties). he's got absolutely no information benefit; he's a sinkhole. so unless you've got a great reason for why he's scum, i see no reason to lead a bandwagon on him now. unless, of course, you're planning on getting him lynched. which is something that i really don't foresee unless xtoxm does something monumentally stupid.

More defense of Xtoxm, more failure to hunt for scum.


And the smoking gun, if you will:

because i believe we have better things to do than to run up xtoxm's wagon again and try for a lynch. perhaps i should have said "right now"; this day still has some juice, and if we're going to sacrifice it for xotxm wagon 2, i think it's a real shame. again, a xtoxm lynch is not simply going to go away. but i don't think it will be a cipher at all.

Better things to do than to run him up and try for a lynch.

Yet Corio just made

SEVEN

posts between his "I'm in the business of scumhunting" and this one in which he not ONCE mentioned anything other than "lynching Xtoxm is bad." Not ONCE did he say "hey, let's hear more from Charter." Not ONCE did he apply more pressure to dahill. Not ONCE did he say "I could also vote for X or Y." Not ONCE did he provide an alternative to Xtoxm.

Has anything?

i agree. so why use them?

Here he takes a shot at meta... again, no scumhunting.


At this point I make my case against him, explaining that all he's doing is defending Xtoxm and posting nothing but FLUFF about scumhunting without ACTUALLY SCUMHUNTING.


Here is his response:

This is at least the second time you've preached about "having better things to do," yet

I DON'T SEE YOU DOING THESE "THINGS" THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

.

thanks for making me read two paragraphs. i guess writing superfluous sentences really makes the bullshit seem more official.

at the beginning of the game, i laid out two things a player could do: start a wagon or join one. i joined one. i've stated my reasoning for joining said wagon. better yet, i've responded to arguments to the contrary, and i commented on another wagon that seems to be gaining popularity.

i could also engage in oratorical gymnastics. but i'm not going to, because that's not what a fucking townie does. i might as well take pictures of me dancing a tango on my desk. i'm actually going to focus on the game and do what i think a townie does.

"Blah blah, you're just spewing words, I'm looking for scum." So, what, making one post to explain your stance on Dahill, then a couple of throwaway posts about Dahill is "finding scum"? You seem to have plenty of time to defend Xtoxm, so why haven't you bothered to explore more than ONE person whom you believe to be scummy?




I didn't have a problem with him defending Xtoxm, aside from the fact that I found both Xtoxm to be scummy, but when he says he wants to "get more out of the day" and that he's "in the business of hunting scum" but spends seven posts not hunting scum, that bothers me. I'm honestly stunned that both of you, Ether/Patrick, can feel so strongly against this. Corio was all bark and no bite, and it wasn't until I dragged him kicking and screaming back into the limelight that he actually followed up on this whole "I think we need to find scum" thing.

[Glork]

i'm glad glork has deemed me unworthy of responding to the things i actually said. or maybe he's so busy typing his own posts he forgot to read mine.

No, I sometimes read in reverse, so to speak, when catching up on posts, and the Pathetric transgression was something I had to respond to immediately.

i do suffer from tunnel vision. and maybe you're right; maybe i haven't engaged enough or have been aggressive enough. but i think that's an indication of a mistake, and not of being scummy. because the intent is certainly there.

But how does one distinguish between "honest mistake" and "scummy"? Why should I believe in your intent? That's why I've spent so much time purusing this, because I want to either confirm or debunk my suspicions.

to be honest, you haven't given me much of a chance to engage anybody.

I hate this so much. There is ZERO reason that you can't respond to me and say something like "man, Charter really needs to post more, it looks like he's just sliding by without doing much." (Incidentally, Charter -- I really do want to hear more from you.) Take, for example, Post 205 where yes, I spend most of my time fleshing out my case on you, but I also discuss things I don't like about Erratus and about Yos2, and I confirm that I'm still willing to go for an Xtox lynch if necessary. It's just that, if you say you're "focused on scumhunting," and you want the town to shake and move, then dammit, I expect you to be a shaker and a mover.

glork, THERE IS ANOTHER CRIMINAL. no "might" bullshit. there is. we know this, because the game hinges on there BEING another criminal (i can make capitals things too!). so i figure we might as well try to spend the day wisely, instead of lazily bumbling through what i consider to be a poorly conceived lynch.

I was assuming you meant "Mirage = Dahill" here. Of course there's another criminal SOMEWHERE, but your vote is sitting on Dahill, so I am assuming that's the "other place" you want us to look. And Dahill "might or might not" be a criminal. Am I mistaken?

[Glork]

ugh, a detailed pbpa. i'm not going to get through it before christmas. so may i just respond to one charge:
you act as if all of those pages covered a huge length of time. it happened in two or three days. i've got shit going on. why can't you understand that i'm not going to pick through the game? when i said give me time, i didn't mean time expressed in page numbers, meant time expressed in, well shit, actual

time.

why don't you apply any of these rigorous standards to anybody else? is it because i took away attention from your little wagon?

I feel like I've won this game already.

[Glork]

EBWOP: That was quoting Sim posting, not the content of his post. I haven't actually read the content of his post yet.

[Glork]

why don't you apply any of these rigorous standards to anybody else? is it because i took away attention from your little wagon?

Simple. Because you're the one who seemed too concerned with "scumhunting" to defend yourself against a point that I made.

Patrick: I see the point you're making, but I just hadn't seen it that way. It still reads more "defend Xtox" than "attack Yos" to me.

[Glork]

Ether, have you been revealed as scum (via death or end-of-game) in any games since I left the site?

[Glork]

Is Sim an alt of someone? He's not in this game.

Sim = Corio, for those keeping score at home.

[Glork]

Yeah, I'm working out the same thing. At least I have something to meta now. I'm thinking of going back to look at Communique if I have some time during the holidays.

[Glork]

Blah blah, on vacation, filler post.


Corio or Xtox are def the play today.

[Glork]

EBWOP: I'm still not really sure why there's a wagon on dahill -- it seems like the four votes currently on him are for things that I haven't thought to be a particularly big deal, though maybe I've just been tunnel-visioned on the two likely scumbaggoes. I'll check out dahill soon (as in, over N1 probably) and get back to you with a verdict.

[Glork]

I'm taken aback by the number of people who dismiss Dahill's scumminess without acknowledging this contradiction at al

That's probably because "unexplained votes can be awesome/useful" and "unexplained votes can be genuinely scummy" are

FAR

from mutually exclusive. I don't see a contradiction here, though I would be interested to hear why dahill found Tuber's vote to be scummy in that particular instance.

[Glork]

Furthemore, there is a distinct difference between "accusing X of being scum for no reason" and "voting for X without giving a reason." Again, I'll leave it up to dahill to justify that difference, but I think your attempt to meta this is entirely wrong.

[Glork]

Glork: the tone of "seemingly no reason" makes me think differently. What's more, Dahill's defense (reiterated here) doesn't correspond with yours. It was basically "I quoted Glork for the hell of it but I don't actually agree with him; I do find unexplained votes scummy." (Doublechecking this, he said that this wasn't the first time. I'll want the most recent link to this behavior.) What do you think about this defense?

Well, for one it shows how little I've paid attention to this whole dahill thing. I actually remember reading your linked "Terrible" post, and I had

assumed

that it linked back to dahill's prior unexplained vote without bothering to click on the link. In retrospect, I suppose that's why I never understood your ill will towards him.

That said, having known dahill from scumchat and having met him in person, you're saying you still find it unreasonable to believe that he quoted me to debunk the "unexplained votes suck" comment for the lulz?

(And I still maintain that there's a p vast difference between them being generally disliked and them being scummy, but this is probably getting off-track. Point is, I think you're looking for something that just isn't there.)

[Glork]

Incidentally, if you had an issue with dahill's

response

to your contradiction, then why did you ask us about the contradiction itself to begin with?

[Glork]

I want Ether to answer me first.

I am supposed to be traveling throughout most of the day tomorrow, but I will hammer from my phone later tonight if necessary.

[Glork]

I don't really understand Glork's question to Ether; hopefully she will.

When she first brought it up, she seemed to be trying to use the "contradiction" as a sticking point to me and Yos, rather than Dahill's response to said contradiction. If Dahill already responded to it and the reason she is upset is due to the response, why is she asking us about the contradiction instead of asking us about hill's response?



I will also point out that Xtoxm's apathy towards his apparent lynch reads MUCH more scum than town. If he were genuinely town and he were genuinely "leaning scum" on Dahill, he would be voting Dahill instead of me. Xtox + Corio + Pathetric + Tuber would be six on Dahill, and hill would be the lynch of the day.

[Glork]

I answered your question with a question.

[Glork]

EBWOP:

That said, having known dahill from scumchat and having met him in person, you're saying you still find it unreasonable to believe that he quoted me to debunk the "unexplained votes suck" comment for the lulz?

I find it believable, and I was surprised you find it to be unreasonable, though now it appears as though you find it bad because he was "flaily" and still contradictory. Suffice to say, Ether, I don't understand what you're getting at all.


Anyway, Xtox is obv the play of the day, Dahill is probably the convenient distraction, which would be serious minus points for both Erratus and Pathetric.

Unvote
Vote: Xtoxm

[Glork]

Wait, I *REALLY* don't get what you're saying, and now I wished I hadn't hammered (except for the fact that I'm leaving in like five minutes and didn't want to chance forgetting to hammer later).

You say you don't like the Tubervote, presumably because it was contradictory to the post he made in MD.

Even though Hill provided an explanation for his other post which you say you find to be "extremely easy to believe," you consider the defense to be flimsy and a continuation of the afore-mentioned "contradiction."


This looks like an argument based off of a flawed assumption to me, because the only way you see Hill as being scummy is if he's being contradictory, and the only way you can see him being contradictory is if you reject his explanation (on the assumption that he is scummy/contradictory?).


Can you explain, start-to-finish, your entire train of thought from when you first disliked his vote, why you disliked it to begin with, why you don't like his response, and how you can find him to be contradictory in spite of accepting his response as "perfectly believable"?

[Glork]

EBWOP:

That said, having known dahill from scumchat and having met him in person, you're saying you still find it unreasonable to believe that he quoted me to debunk the "unexplained votes suck" comment for the lulz?

I find it believable, and I was surprised you find it to be unreasonable, though now it appears as though you find it bad because he was "flaily" and still contradictory. Suffice to say, Ether, I don't understand what you're getting at all.


Anyway, Xtox is obv the play of the day, Dahill is probably the convenient distraction, which would be serious minus points for both Erratus and Pathetric.

Unvote
Vote: Xtoxm

Lol, got worried at Ether's suggestion?

Don't be ridiculous. Six people weren't going to jump me in less than 24 hours after I've already announced that I'm going to be away tomorrow.


Now you're just taking potshots, and really bad ones at that.

[Glork]

Welcome to Day One of a deadlined game... but the point remainst that six out of nine (removing myself and dahill, who will be away, and you, who are already voting me) players will NOT bandwagon me because of one throwaway comment.

There was ZERO chance of that happening, so your accusation that I was "getting worried" that I might be lynched is, as I said, a

really bad potshot

.

[Glork]

As soon as Patrick made that "If I die, look at Glork" post, I pretty much knew they were going to get offed tonight.


Charter, have you "take[n] a closer look at EA and RV" yet? I find this:

I also don't see any scumhunting. There was that bit with Corio in the beginning, which I also didn't understand from him, and he later dropped that entirely too. Pretty much the only other person I've seen him give an opinion on is tuber, and I don't see how he got to his conclusions.

interesting considering A) Dahill posted that he was on major V/LA, and B) you've really only gone after Dahill and Corio at all D1, in spite of promising to go back and examine two other players. Calling the kettle black, are we?

(For the record, yes, I still firmly believe that dahill is protown.)

[Glork]

And actually, while I'm doing that, I do think Glork needs to respond to this as it was something I was curious about also:

Why the need to hammer before we heard from Assmaster?

Why the need to hammer before we heard from Assmaster? You were seriously worried you'd forget to do it later?

Yes. In fact, after I made my last post, I didn't visit Scum until Tuesday afternoon, when I arrived back home in Ohio.

Patrick's inquisition was close-minded enough, but your "curiosity" bothers me, Incog. I had posted in V/LA that I would have limited access over the holidays, posted that I was going to be away that evening and the next day, and given that I just returned to the site from a several-month hiatus because life got too busy for Mafia (something I'm almost certain you already know), I would expect you to understand that when things are going on -- especially during the holidays -- Mafia will be the last thing on my mind.

So yes, I hammered because I wanted to lynch Xtoxm, I wasn't convinced anybody else would get around to it, and I would honestly have given a significant chance that I'd have forgotten about it before the deadline hit, because I spent nine of those hours between Monday afternoon and Tuesday afternoon driving a third of the way across the country.

[Glork]

I ended up spending the last evening with the family and knew I would likely not be online or thinking about Mafia, and I wanted to ensure a lynch. Furthermore, Assmaster said he was ill, promised content on Saturday, and on Monday afternoon he hadn't posted. I couldn't reasonably expect him to keep his commitment and there was no chance of me waiting around to see if he showed up.

I called Patrick's comment closed-minded, because I expect that ANY reasonable mafia player would respect another player's out-of-game commitments. I changed my mind and hammered based on the commitments I had to spend time with my family. If you honestly think that's suspicious, you're a fucking idiot.

This is ridiculous. I will not argue this matter anymore.

[Glork]

I got upset because Incog is claiming that there is an in-game reason for me changing when I was going to hammer, when the reason was completely out-of-game, and he can't seem to accept that. I'm one of those people who believes that out-of-game circumstances are "sacred," if you will. You will never ever see me lie about out-of-game circumstances, there is evidence elsewhere on the site (namely V/LA) that I had limited access during the holidays.

It's a bullshit, illegitimate argument in my opinion. I've made my explanation, it had to do with out-of-game circumstances that caused me to change when I was going to hammer, and Incog's still going on about it.


Incidentally, Incog, two questions for you:
Given how little Assmaster has been here all thread, and given that he posted he had been ill, did you expect him to post that afternoon/evening?
If I had not hammered at the time, and failed to hammer later due to being away from the site, would your suspicion of me likely have grown, shrunk, or stayed the same?

[Glork]

(For the record, yes, I still firmly believe that dahill is protown.)

When did you firmly believe he was protown prior to this?

Vote: Glork

If I gave off any other impression, please point that out.

[Glork]

Pffft. Being "extra nervous" because I am renowned is bullshit and you know it, Yos.


Also, Yos, you really need to go back and read my posts again, if that's ALL you got out of my attacks. I'm going to assume this is an honest mistake, because I don't believe that you as scum, would so blatantly lie about that, but seriously. Terrible play.

[Glork]

Wow, you fail at context. The "still" refers to my vote for Xtoxm, when I had obviously decided that Xtox was scum, and Dahill was a distraction. What I was saying is "even though Xtoxm was town, I am still confident that Dahill is protown."


I asked Erratus to point out otherwise is because I assumed he thought I had wavered on Dahill.

[Glork]

Vote: Yosarian2

[Glork]

Vote: Yosarian2

Any reason for this?

I think so. I'm going to either elaborate or move my vote once I've re-read more thoroughly, but I wanted to have it somewhere.

[Glork]

Vote: Yosarian2

Any reason for this?

I think so. I'm going to either elaborate or move my vote once I've re-read more thoroughly, but I wanted to have it somewhere.

All right. I also still want you to explain exactally what I missed in your Coriolanus attacks, day 1, because I still don't get what it is you were doing there.

Fair enough. My first priority when I get back tonight will be setting up my new mini game, but right after that I'm going to delve into a re-read and see if my inklings are worth keeping my vote on you.

[Glork]

Is there a particular reason you can't post your own thoughts without consulting your partner first?

[Glork]

The kill is ridiculous. After Patrick said "If we die, seriously look at Glork no matter what," I instantly felt that any group containing Primate/Assmaster, Corio/Simenon, Incognito, or Yosarian2 (and possibly even Dahill) would have tried to off them. And while I won't deny that I would have if I were scum (believe me, it would have been a no-brainer), I can hardly believe that it points any more or less to me.



Seriously, that post is coming tonight. I didn't end up getting my modded thread up last night, because MeMe accidentally took away my permissions in Coney Island, and so I didn't get that done until today. But whenever I get out of the office, I'm eating dinner, going back to the hotel, and reading up on Yos (and answering to both Yos and Tuber). If I don't post tonight, feel free to lynch/kill/maim/ridicule/torture me.

[Glork]

A high-profile doublehead named another high-profile player to give serious attention to in the event that they die. While it puts us into a very serious WIFOM situation, there's little doubt in my mind that Pathetric's death and what they said will probably be in the back of everyone else's head, even if nobody explicitly mentioned it up until now.


I even SAID that they made themselves obvious targets in my first post today, and NOBODY batted an eye at my comment then... so why question it now all of a sudden?

[Glork]

(Still @ work, btw, hoping to get out within half an hour)

[Glork]

Because I know that they know and have played with Patrick/Ether and me before, and that we are considered "high-profile."

This is something I know you know. Why are you asking stupid questions?

[Glork]

To elaborate, briefly: There are a handful of known veterans, who know each other pretty well through games, scumchat, meets, what have you. I figured that attention would end up on me if they died, assumed that at least one other veteran / scumchatter / high-profile player is probably in a scumgroup, and that Pathetric would be an obvious kill for them. Thus, I assumed that Pathetric was an obvious or likely kill choice.

[Glork]

I should also point out that they would be a very reasonable kill choice even if they didn't suspect me to the point where Patrick told everyone to look at me if he died, simply because they are one among a handful of good players.

[Glork]

After 10:00, still haven't made it out of the office... re-read will probably not come tonight, either. I'm really sorry, guys.

[Glork]

In Satin Doll Showdown, Ether was rather convinced that I was scum throughout much of D2. While this was in part because a player had claimed a bogus guilty result on me, I do believe you remember how strongly she both disliked and misread my assumption that everyone was some kind of dancing girl.

Additionally, in that very game, Patrick was not at all pleased with my gameplay on D1, and by the end of D1, I was right at the top of his suspicion list (behind you, Elmo), AND his last three posts of the game made it very clear that he thought I was scum. And you know what happened that night? I'm sure you remember, Elmo. You killed him on the very first night.

So don't you dare give me ANY of this bullshit about how either or even both of them suspecting me and being protown and dying N1 makes me any more likely to be scum. I could bring up examples where Thok, Yos, PJ, or anybody else have thought me to be scummy when I was protown, and I can find examples of me having completely snowed people I knew while scum.

If you want to know what I think about Patrick/Ether being "dead, town players who know me and thought I was scum," I'll tell you in three simple words.

They were wrong.



Now, you've stated in two separate posts that you believe me to be scum. I'd like to hear some reasons.

[Glork]

So, while ranting to somebody about how much of an idiot you are, Elmo, a thought occurred to me.

You see my title there? Burden of Proficiency typically refers to when a "good" player fails to have success in finding scum, and other players accuse him or her of being scum because of it.

The false premise behind such an argument is this: A good protown player has statistically been shown to be more accurate in finding scum. By applying that principle to a particular situation, this "good, protown player" can be made to seem more likely to be scum.

What you're doing here follows the same basic principle of "good protown player being more likely to find scum," although it differs in its in-game application.

Here, you're claiming that because Ether and Patrick are "good protown players who know me," that they are "statistically more likely to be accurate" in their reads on me, and you are trying to apply that assumption to this particular case to make it appear that I am more likely to be scum.

Yet it still follows the same flawed principle, so it is still a burden of proficiency.



So, to reiterate what I said in my last post: They were wrong. It happens. The assumption that I am more likely to be scum because X protown player said I am scum is flawed. If you believe me to be scum, I want to see some original thoughts. But you are not going to get away with heaping suspicion on me with bullshit tactics.


And that's all I have to say about that.

[Glork]

Des:
D1 of Face-to-Face, I defended Thesp very strongly (even though such defense originated in some early-game random banter).

In this post during D1 of Lights Out 2, I listed seven other players whom I believed to be at least 75% protown; turns out I was right on all seven of them. I don't recall specific defenses of individual players on this list, but I do recall standing by my list even though a number of people said they had issues with me calling people protown so early.

In D1 of LoudmouthLee's "New C9" I defended Guardian so staunchly that MBL noted my "hyper-defense" of him.

In D1 of Satin Dolls (linked to it in my earlier post), I went out of my way to defend Elmo, simply because there appeared to be a really awful bandwagon on him as the deadline approached. This one is especially interesting considering Elmo was actually scum.



So there are a handful of examples I came up with off the top of my head. I can't find the post because apparently the search function is broken, but I know that I've talked about the benefits of seeking out protown players and using that to aid someone in finding scum. I guess outright staunchly defending somebody because I believe them to be protown is somewhat rarer because it's not often that those people come under heavy scrutiny.

[Glork]

OK. Now it's time to re-read the game and kick some serious ass. I'm a bit fired up after these recent defenses, and I finally feel ready to get my hands dirtier.

[Glork]

Okay, a few thoughts.

I'm on Page 6 so far and haven't really found or felt anything that I didn't see or feel before. Maybe the first four pages bored me to death, except that I'm still glad I was able to see so clearly through Corio's altness.

I still don't see why a wagon was building on dahill. His behavior really doesn't differ from what I remember at Starkadium -- he didn't tend to say much unless it was to pipe up in agreement, until the games really got going.
I still think that Xtoxm's behavior was terrible, contradictory, and largely indicative of him being scum.

Page 7

Interesting to go back and see that the EA/Yos spat has been going on for a while. I have a theory on this, but I am going to hold my tongue on this matter for the time being, because I need a tiny bit more information.

--reiterate my "meh" feeling towards Dahill (that he hasn't done anything particularly out of the ordinary) in Post 155

Remind me to come back to 158, too.

I know Corio was trying to ruffle my feathers, but his blatant refusal to explain himself after my major FoS still bothers me a little -- not quite as much, now that I know he's Sim, but it's in the back of my head

In the face of a rising Dahill wagon, Incog brings us back to Xtoxm in Post 166. Possible Incog/Dahill connection noted.

The people i'm calling scummy are all voting me...

Um, that's because you call anyone who suspects you scummy.

Yos, did this post refer to Xtoxm in general, or in this game specifically?

Corio -- when you said the new xtoxm wagon was "full of stupid," did you just feel that Yos/Dahill were being dumb, or did/do you find either of those votes genuinely scummy?

Dahill - when you voted for xtox in 173, did you see Yos's vote (Post 170, 3 minutes earlier) before placing your vote or not?

Yos' arguing with Corio about the xtoxm being "new" or "the same" seems utterly pointless. Xtox went to 5, back down to 3, then back up to 5. Corio considers that a "new wagon" while Yos doesn't.

(phone call, posting this now so i have something)

[Glork]

So let me get this straight, Des. Out of a three-game set, you noted that in two games (one as scum, and one as town) I went out of my way to defend a player, and you're trying to use this as ammo to state that I "usually only go out of my way to defend players when scum"?

Secondly, could you explain the differences in my Guardian defense (which you said you "dig") and the one of Dahill here?

Thirdly, thank you for reminding me of my Xtoxm defense. The primary reason I concluded that Xtoxm was very likely non-SCAPE can be found in this post. Look at the post where I link to NivScum's 149, FaeScum's 159, and FaeScum's 165. All three are examples of where scumbags rail a townie with bad attacks in a short period of time. While my defense of Xtoxm was, in that game, much more of a slam dunk than my defense of Dahill here,

they both reveal the same underlying principle

. If I see a lot of people making bad/weak attacks on the same player in a short period of time, my kneejerk reaction is to conclude that the player being railed is more likely to be protown.

I would also challenge the difference you cite in defending Elmo and defending Dahill. I thought that the wagon/votes/attacks on Elmo were crap then. I thought that the votes against Dahill yesterday were crap. In both situations, I felt that there were multiple other, better targets to look at, and that the wagons which had formed on the defendants was weak, somewhat flawed, and awfully convenient. If you want to cite "significant differences" between my beahvior then and my behavior now you're going to have to explain yourself a lot more clearly. Because I'm not buying what you're selling.

At any rate, no two different game examples will be exactly parallel. I can hardly see why you would just throw out my defenses of Guardian, Xtoxm, and Elmo with a casual "there are significant differences" and continue to assert that "Glork is more likely to go out of his way to defend someone if he is scum" when the evidence very clearly indicates otherwise.

Also to Glork, what did you seriously think the town would gain out of the Coriolanus-alt discussion? I'm not asking for an essay, even dot points would be enough for now.

The town? Fie on the town, I already explained what I wanted to get out of the interrogation:

I don't know if this is what Yos means, but I personally have used this grilling of Corio to try to feel out his behavioral and thought processes as much as possible. I've probably gotten more out of these first four pages than most.

This quote very clearly explains what I was looking to get out of Corio, and it notes that I was well aware that the discussion probably wasn't all that useful for the rest of the town.
Another swing and a miss, Des. But feel free to keep trying.

[Glork]

EBWOP: And to more directly answer your second question:

What was different about Xtoxm's play in this game?

It wasn't so much Xtoxm's play, as the way that known scumbags had behaved towards him during my re-read. But I should think this is obvious based on the post to which I just linked.

[Glork]

I would argue that whatever definition you use for "uncalled for" is crap.

If I see players making crappy attacks on other players, I will go after those attacks, and I generally default to believing that the victims of the attacks are protown, unless I have prior reason to suspect distancing, or evidence comes up later to suggest that they were distancing.

I really don't remember what I thought of Xtox prior to my re-read, and I cannot be arsed to go back and look at it right now. I went and grabbed that post because I remembered that the crux of my Xtoxm defense was "scumbags made bad attacks on him" and I wanted to draw that parallel to my defense of Elmo against bad attacks, my defense of Guardian against bad attacks, and my defense of Dahill against bad attacks.

Regarding Dahill in this game: If you want me to get BACK into the reasons that Ether's attacks were ass, I will do so, but honestly I don't think it's going to do all that much good. But as a quick recap:
-Ether claimed that his post was contradictory, even though she admitted she found his explanation for his behavior to be "very plausable."
-She was jumping all over the place, to the point where I had to as her to stop, sort out her thoughts start-to-finish, and post exactly how she felt about Dahill throughout the entire ordeal. Regretfully, I don't think she ended up doing this.
I went after Ether pretty hard towards the end of the day, because it was evident that she wasn't playing well.

Regarding your "difference" between me SDS and this game: Need I remind you that THIS game has a standing deadline, and that my interrogation of Ether came within 48 hours of that deadline, and that I didn't even say "I don't really understand where there's a wagon on dahill, I'll have to go back and look at this stuff"? If you don't think time was a factor there, with the holidays going on and player availability at a minimum, then I really don't know what to say here.

It looks like you are TRYING to make it look like my actions here are different from other games when I did similarly as protown, by pulling reasons out of your ass as you go along.
--You yourself brought up me going out of the way to defend Xtoxm, but kind kind of mentioned it in passing, and dismissed it in your analysis of "uncalled for" defenses.
--You haven't defined what you believe to be "uncalled for," forcing me to take stabs at defending myself against your phantom attack
--You just tried to bring up a difference between SDS and this game that was hardly a difference at all. Time concerns played a part in both instances. In both instances, a decision needed to be made between two rival wagons, and I supported one while attacking the other.

Unvote, Vote: El Destructo

You're full of shit. I think that if you honestly believed that my play was more consistent with me being scum than me being town, then you would have done your homework well ahead of time and been able to present a complete argument up front. Instead, you just threw out that feeling, and when I started to dig into it, you kept coming up with something new each post.

[Glork]

Why are you using it so vehemently on this page?

Oh fuck. I didn't even know that Des is traditionally anti-meta.


Fucking confirm vote, bitches.

[Glork]

--You yourself brought up me going out of the way to defend Xtoxm, but kind kind of mentioned it in passing, and dismissed it in your analysis of "uncalled for" defenses.

How the fuck do you see me raising this point in passing when I ask you to explain it? Why else would I ask you to explain it other than to compare your reasons there to your reasons with dahill?

You asked me to explain why I thought Xtoxm was protown then and not protown here. You only mentioned me going out of my way to defend Xtoxm in passing. Different things here, buddy.

--You haven't defined what you believe to be "uncalled for," forcing me to take stabs at defending myself against your phantom attack

How many things can uncalled for mean?

You had basically done all the talking for dahill.

Uncalled for means stepping in to answer for another player when their own response would be more informative and useful. I really thought this was obvious, Glork.

Wrong on multiple accounts.
First, Dahill explained himself separately. Secondly, if you go back and read carefully, I was basically critiquing Ether's attack (which claimed a clear and direct contradiction) than anything else. Thirdly, I would still argue that my defense was called for, because I was seeking to explore the afore-mentioned bad attack.

--You just tried to bring up a difference between SDS and this game that was hardly a difference at all. Time concerns played a part in both instances. In both instances, a decision needed to be made between two rival wagons, and I supported one while attacking the other.

For a start, I specifically mentioned 334-5, which WASN'T 48 hours before deadline and

absolutely incomparable

to the deadline scramble you made in SDS. You're either ignoring this on purpose or sloppy.

I'm not sure how you can possibly see this as the central part of my defense of Dahill.

Ether said she was amazed at how people could "overlook his scumminess without acknowledging his contradiction." I replied by pointing out that it didn't look like a contradiction to me. Ether's attack was just bad. Awful. And because her "contradiction" DID NOT FUCKING EXIST, that makes my post COMPLETELY CALLED FOR.

You're full of shit. I think that if you honestly believed that my play was more consistent with me being scum than me being town, then you would have done your homework well ahead of time and been able to present a complete argument up front. Instead, you just threw out that feeling, and when I started to dig into it, you kept coming up with something new each post.

Done my homework = metagame? If so, my questions were obviously me doing said homework.

No, doing your homework would be exploring the metagame fully, instead of taking Mars 3, CT:SF, and whatever that other game was as your entire sample set. Three games, one of which includes an out-of-the-way defense of a protown player with me as protown and undermines your own point, does not make for a good meta argument. It makes for a very bad one. That is why you did not do your homework.

So, Glork, are you OMGUSing me or using this as an excuse not to make a case on Yos? Quick, decide!

Neither, obviously. I know that I have to address Yos, but you have clearly gotten me focused elsewhere for the time being. You can't engage me in a lengthy debate then say I'm using said debate as a way to avoid posting about Yos. Plus, I said in my re-read of the first 8 pages that I need a little more info before I decide what to do about him.

[Glork]

To elaborate on the "do your homework" point. Here's the way I'm looking at it.


You presented a terrible meta argument and asked for additional examples. I presented two very reasonable examples, but I get the feeling that you asked for examples

specifically with the intent to separate them from your lone "glorkscum defending people" examples in Mars 3

, which would much more likely come from scum than from town. I think that a protown player would be far more likely to go "these circumstances aren't exactly the same, but I can see parallels which could feasably explain his behavior here."

[Glork]

If he could show me a game where he did something similar as town, I would have dropped it then and there.

This is exactly where your current argument fails. You say you're asking for something similar, yet you are finding any and every NIT to PICK in order to make them appear different.

[Glork]

Des, I've got another example, but I'm not sure how valid you're going to find it.


In Kingmaker II, bird1111 had been pretty useless throughout D1, then opened up D2 with a nice, lengthy analysis post (found here). A few posts later, MBL came up with an idea out of the blue, that bird1111's scumbuddies told him to shape up (behold). Now, the next ten days' worth of posts were lost in a site crash (which is why I'm not sure you're going to accept this), but an ENORMOUS amount of momentum, with an awful lot of pressure for me to execute bird1111. A number of people, including SpecrumVoid (scum), petroleumjelly (scum), and Pooky (scum) gave very real plausibilitiy to this wagon, and I know that at PJ and Pooky had outright joined the wagon. I was one of the players who vehemently argued against the notion and ensuing wagon. Yos actually agreed with me on this point, saying in Post 533 after the fact:

But anyway, like I was saying, MBL's "nutkick" theory dosn't seem scummy to me, but it's not very compelling either, so it seems very odd to me the way a very strong bandwagon very quickly appeared and gathered a lot of support based on just that.

After the argument settled down, I had stated that I wasn't completely sold on Bird's alignment, but that I hated the VERY strong and VERY fast wagon so much, that I was almost certain scum were on it. (See this post for details.)

So there.
Beginning of a day, no immediate pressure of him being executed.
Strong bandwagon on a completely unfounded theory pitched by one player.
I wasn't sure of Bird's alignment, but defended him vehemently in the face of such a bad bandwagon.


Now go ahead. Find some stupid difference between KM2 and this to say "no you still haven't found what I'm looking for" so we can start this whole stupid debate over yet again.

[Glork]

real plausibilitiy to this

thoery

proofread for the loss

[Glork]

I see you mentioning

about my defense of Xtoxm

"in passing." I am well aware that you intended to compare why I thought Xtox was town then with why I thought Xtox was scum here. But you sort of mentioned that you never understood how I could defend him so strongly, and that you thought he was a very good lynch candidate. You sort of hint that I defended Xtox in the face of a big wagon, but only briefly mention it in your discussion of Xtox in CT:SF.


I think I need to backtrack a bit and figure explain some timeline stuff.

When Ether first posted that link to MD ("Terrible."), I never bothered to click on the link. I had assumed it was in reference to one of dahills' earlier posts, and that's where the contradiction had come from.
Later, Ether asked about how other townspeople could have dismissed the contradiction so easily, and I said "because it's not really a contradiction." As indicated in this post, I hadn't really paid attention to the Ether/Dahill contradiction, so when Ether said "well what do you think about Dahill's response" I did a wtf of sorts.
That said, I still didn't think that the MD/game contradiction existed, because I found Dahill's defense to be plausible. I asked Ether if she found it to be plausible.
In her response, here, she said she found his explanation to be "extremely easy to believe," but that it's his vote for Corio that she doesn't like. She also calls his defense "flaily" (which I would really have liked her to flesh out) and an "extension" of the "original contradiction" (which he had already provided a believable explanation for?).

Basically, at no point did my interpretation of Ether's attack make any sense to me. If you feel that her attack was and is still valid, I would absolutely love for you to re-explain it, because I still see nothing incriminating there. Because here is what I see across this timeline:
--Dahill calls an unfounded vote scummy.
--Ether points to MD, he says "yeah, but that's not actually how I feel about those votes in real games," and he points out that he basically did it for shits and giggles.
--Ether maintains that there is a contradiction
--I ask if she could find Dahill's "quoting Glork for the lulz" to be believable
--Ether says yes, but that she didn't like his Corio-vote, and that his defense was an extension of the contradiction
--I point out how flawed that is, because the contradiction only exists if she disbelieves his explanation, which she clearly said she found to be believable, and I wonder how she can call his defense an "extension" of a nonexistent contradiction

[Glork]

EBWOP: I am extremely interested to see what Elmo has to say about this entire discussion.

[Glork]

Is there anything important being said between Glork/destructo? I've just skipped over all of it because it seemed to be based off meta and I'm not going to read any other games.

To elaborate on the "do your homework" point. Here's the way I'm looking at it.


You presented a terrible meta argument and asked for additional examples. I presented two very reasonable examples, but I get the feeling that you asked for examples

specifically with the intent to separate them from your lone "glorkscum defending people" examples in Mars 3

, which would much more likely come from scum than from town. I think that a protown player would be far more likely to go "these circumstances aren't exactly the same, but I can see parallels which could feasably explain his behavior here."

[Glork]

I do loosely agree with what he's saying in general, that scum are more likely to defend townies purely to be seen to be defending them, at times when it's uncalled for.

So the assumption here is that Dahill is in fact protown?

[Glork]

Not sure of timezone stuff, but I think the deadline is like a day or two away.

Incog needs to tell us what he thinks of the case on Yos in his very next post. He should probably also tell what he thinks of dahill, since the lynch is likely to be one of those two.

I'm disappointed that Glork hasn't already gotten around to explaining his Yos vote. He hasn't posted anywhere on site since the 16th, though.

Mod:

What timezone is the deadline set in? Also, I think Glork needs a prod.

des

Yeah, I went unexpectedly absent this weekend. Looks like I have some reading and writing to do.

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Yos2

as a placeholder, cobbling together what I've read on Yos in the next half-hour or so...

[Glork]

Ok, so this whole Yos/EA thing had me thinking earlier in the day that they could be Scumbuddies, though I'm not sure how much I believe that or not.

My re-read of Pages 1-8 seem to confirm this. Yos and EA had a spat fairly early in D1 where they both went after each other (EA attacked Yos for his "contributions," Yos retorted by basically calling EA a hypocrite), then Yos and EA both very quickly changed the subject -- EA switching votes to RV, Yos unvoting Incog while expressing his general disapproval of Xtox.

I had remembered that this tiff stuck out to me during D1, when I commented on it (I believe I called it "interesting"), so when I saw Yos/EA going at it again during D2, it got me wondering about what Yos had actually done over the course of the game.

Sans-reread, this is how I had remembered Yos's D1:
--Yos jumps in on the Glork/Corio debate, wondering why Corio was being so defensive about being called an alt
--Spat with EA
--Jumps Xtox, rails Xtox pretty hard, doesn't say all that much for the rest of the day
--Debates with me over whether being "a safe lynch" is good, bad, neutral.


I still think it's pretty accurate, but a re-read reveals some more interesting tidbits.

First, the Corio thing. It looks like El Des just went over this, but in one post Yos said that whether Corio was an alt "wasn't that relevant," and in the very next post, he implies that he wants to know so he can possibly meta Corio, which makes Corio's identity extremely relevant. I guess Yos's defense is that his intentions changed. Any way you try to cut it, it looks flip-floppy to me.

Secondly, the whole Xtoxm "OMGUS" thing. I didn't notice it until just recently, but Yos grossly misrepresents the situation surrounding Xtoxm's OMGUS. What got me is that Yos was very careful to label Xtoxm's actions as "anti-town" rather than scummy, but when Xtoxm replied by saying "Sounds like someone knows I'm town," suddenly it was OMGUS. My understanding of OMGUS is that, by definition, it is attacking somebody for accusing you of being scum. I think if I had picked up on this at the time, it would have sent up a tiny red flag which would have caused me to back off Xtoxm a little bit and take a broader view (including scrutinizing Yos a bit more). Obivously that didn't happen, so all I'm left with is this feeling that Yos pulled a fast one on Xtox and the rest of us.

Third, Yos's behavior towards me has seemed weird. I don't like how he used Xtoxm's OMGUS against me as ammo to work Xtoxm, then said "I would suspect Glork except he's not scum with Xtoxm," then opened up D2 by defending my hammer while saying he "doesn't want to defend me" because he still thinks I'm suspicious. He also cites that in spite of only having issues with 30% of my play (by the way, Yos, I'd REALLY love to know where you pulled that number), he was "more worried" about that 30% with me than he would be with most people. I stated it at the time, but I hate comments like that, because they're largely bullshit. They don't make it any more or less worth suspecting somebody. After I call him on that, he blabs something about the difference in GlorkScum and GlorkTown being in the details of my post (which is odd, considering Pathetric seemed more concerend about my overall playstyle -- calling my Xtoxm vote "Space Monkey-like" or something), and ultimately settles for an IGMEOY.

One I just noticed while re-reading in the last ~20 mintues is this:

More to the point, why aren't more people voting Erratus Apathos? He is so obv scum if you just read his posts, that I can't understand why more people aren't voting him.

Deflecting for dahill now too are we?

Um...no, I don't think Dahill is scum, like I've said about a dozen times.

You might be perfectly happy blindly following a bandwagon on me, despite who is pushing it and the fact that none of them have even tried to give any kind of reason, but persoanlly, I'd rather lynch scum. You know, EA.

The closest you got to Dahill was when you said that you "didn't have a problem" with his play, which you uttered all of once, and only after Charter directly asked what you thought of him. For someone who made a big deal about Coro's overreaction to being called an alt, and my overreaction to getting heat for hammering, this doesn't look too good.

[Glork]

EBWOP: I think what I don't like about Yos' behavior towards me is that I would have expected him to have challenged me more directly. He seemed content to let Pathetric grill me D1 and simply nod his head in agreement, then on D2 he just kind of wimped out on the chance to drill me as well, just saying he thought my play was weird, a little suspicious, and that he had his eye on me.

[Glork]

you, for instance.

The sad thing is, if I were in your position, I'd probably be considering this, too. Not going to waste time with a defense now, but if Yos flips scum (which I'm assuming he will), rest assured I'll have a response prepared for tomorrow.

[Glork]

I'm still not 100% sure Glork is the third member of the scum team, but the first two are definatly EA and El Destructo. Lynch one of them tommorow, come hell or high water.

2. Multiple OMGUS attacks.

3. After OMGUSing both me and Glork for suspecting him, he made the comment "everyone I suspect is voting for me", which seemed like a really bad "oh the scum are out to get me" defense. (Which, by the way, is why I mentioned on day 1 that I didn't think it was likely Xtoxm and Glork were scum together.)

I'm just going to leave that there and call it a day.

[Glork]

I'm still not 100% sure Glork is the third member of the scum team, but the first two are definatly EA and El Destructo. Lynch one of them tommorow, come hell or high water.

2. Multiple OMGUS attacks.

3. After OMGUSing both me and Glork for suspecting him, he made the comment "everyone I suspect is voting for me", which seemed like a really bad "oh the scum are out to get me" defense. (Which, by the way, is why I mentioned on day 1 that I didn't think it was likely Xtoxm and Glork were scum together.)

I'm just going to leave that there and call it a day.

No, you're not.

Before I die, right now, I want to hear the excuse you're going to give for not voting either of the obvscums EA or El Destructo tommorow when I die and come up town.

Bzzt. Wrong answer.

I'll give you one more shot at reconciling the two quoted segments of post.

[Glork]

I like massclaim.

[Glork]

*Bump*


So who we gonna get this thing kicked off with?

[Glork]

Conspirator here as well.

[Glork]

Normally, playing Outguess the Mod is a pretty bad idea, but it seems to be extremely relevant here.


Straight-up 2:10 mountainous games have favored the scums pretty heavily based on past games. 2:9:1 would appear to favor the scums even more, so there must be something to account for the fact that we had a Survivor in the game as well.


The two most obvious balancing factors would be:
A) Charter's claim being true, thus giving us an opportunity to investigate one of the scums at some point; and
B) The scumgroup being weak somehow

Now, B has a number of sub-options. The only one that has been proposed (Caesar dying = town win) is like 99% out of the question, because that would mean that the town could win outright by D2 on just a lone investigation. Furthermore, the idea that the game is vengeful seems outright stupid, considering the nightkills. As far as I can tell, nobody suspected Pathetric or Corio when they died, and if Xtoxm had gotten a vig kill, I'm certain he would have killed me or Yos to begin with.

Limiting the scums' ability to kill (for example: limited number of total kills, one scumbag being unable to kill) don't appeal to me either if Charter's role exists as he describes.

One possibility that sticks out in my mind would be if Caesar doesn't know his scumbuddy, or the other way around, or both. If this is the case, I would expect there to be some mechanism against crosskilling (such as his buddy being a traditional traitor). This seems the most likely possibility, from what I can gather. If this is the case, though, it would change an awful lot about how each scumbag played.

If A) is wrong and B) is true, I would put upwards of 90% odds that Charter is Caesar's scumbuddy and is using this claim to look for him. Brutus is a very obvious/safe claim, and ironically enough, Brutus is the quintessential

traitor

, making it an excellent breadcrumb.

So I mostly have to decide whether I think Charter is full of shit or not. If so, the play is obvious. If not, I have to do some hard thinking.



Other thoughts/notes:
I glanced at the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinat ... ius_Caesar and Marc Antony seems to be the most logical choice for Caesar's scumbuddy.

I very much like ElDes' observation on the Pathetrick kill. It hadn't occurred to me, but it fits with the notion that there were only two scums who believed there to be no Doctor.

ElDes's immediate speculation of 2:9:1 with a weak-ish town bothers me, because when Corio flipped Survivor, I immediately assumed 3:8:1 with above-average power, because it seems to be far more common.

[Glork]

I think that Casesar is in the game regardless of whether Charter is lying or telling the truth. We are seeking to kill Caesar, so it makes sense to me that he would be a scumbag we have to kill. I've had that impression since the beginning of the game, though I couldn't be arsed to look more at the game's flavor until today.


As far as the flavor of Casear's death goes, I'm a bit surprised at you, Elmo. I am very explicitly stating that lynching Caesar probably won't end the game. But it as NOTHING to do with flavor. It has to do with the BALANCE of having the town win if CharterTown manages to make ONE successful investigation. That would be hideously unbalanced, IMO, and I would put much more weight on "the mod made some concessions on flavor" than "the mod made a really terrible setup." What about you?


Seriously, something does not add up with Elmo/Des at all. I like my

Vote: El Destructo

from yesterday.

[Glork]

In fact, Elmo, if you're so glued to flavor, how would you explain the flavor of nightkills?

[Glork]

Sample role PM

:

You are a

conspirator

in the plot to kill Julius Caesar.

You win when the imperial threat to the republic is ended.

Seriously. IT DOESN'T TAKE A FUCKING ROCKET SCIENTIST, PEOPLE.

[Glork]

Glork, I don't see your issue with us speculating about there being 2 scum, or why we'd bother to pretend to speculate about it. That's not WIFOM, it's more why the fuck would scum even start thinking to fake that? See my list of suspects from my first posts - Yos is town and for whatever reason, a scum team of dahill-Incog-Glork didn't feel right to me. Like Elmo, I thought we'd have a powerole claim by now and just the way things were going, particularly the Pathetric kill, made me start thinking mountainous. I dunno, like EVERYONE was hunting like they were vanilla.

Bothers was probably very poor word choice. Surprises would be more accurate. I guess I just thought that everyone else would assume more scums and more power. Honestly, I have no rational explanation for why that went through my head.


Incog:

If

Charter is a scum traitor, I didn't mean to imply that he was still Brutus. What I meant to imply was "If Charter is a scum traitor, claming Brutus is both safe, and is a breadcrumb to 'I am your ally' to whomever Ceasar may be."


I

REALLY

want to hear more from EA and Tuber as soon as humanly possible. Both have been VERY quiet as of late, and that bothers me.

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Charter

Excellent catch.

[Glork]

Actually,

Unvote, Vote: El Destructo

. I want to hear what Charter has to say for himself, first.

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: Charter

Excellent catch.

Er, no it isn't. I understand the reason you did it, but that's a tremendously shitty reason to be swayed. I'm dissapointed if you think that's legitimate. EA gets a bit more of a pass, you should you really know better.

In case you hadn't noticed, I rectified my knee-jerk reaction literally a minute later.

[Glork]

avoiding prod, will post tonight or tomorrow

[Glork]

I'm still baffled that El Des is on nobody else's list, apparently. Setting aside my pre-existing reasons for suspecting El Des, Elmo's flavor discussion is easily the biggest factor I have pointing to anybody being scum. Arguing that

flavor

takes precedence over

game balance

literally screams "I'm trying to make people believe something that probably isn't true." Add in the fact that there appears to be no rational explanation for the flavor behind the scums' nightkills, and it makes Elmo's "flavor takes precedence" argument look completely arbitrary.


Now, to answer some Glork-related things.

It should be clear why I asked Glork about Incog not commenting on the meaningfulness of my meta of him. That was something that really got to me. Incog decided to focus on my use of meta as opposed to how well I was actually applying it.

I thought his opinion of your meta (including its "meaningfulness," as you put it) was implied and apparent. Furthermore, the validity of your meta had already been throughly exhausted (via our discussion), as I contended that your examples were an inaccurate sampling of my play, and proceeded to provide a number of counterexamples, in spite of your best efforts to pull out minor differences and make them appear significant. The existence itself of a meta can be critical. In CT:San Francisco, MBL was going off on how my metagaming of him was all bullshit, and I used our game history to point out that the mere existence of "Glork is metagaming MBL" led immense credibility to "Glork is protown and is trying to discern MBL's alignment."


@ Tuber: I believe I covered this at some point or another, but I strongly felt that dahill was the easy run-up towards the end of D1, which put him in my "protown" category. At the start of D2, even though Xtoxm wasn't actually scum, I still felt that the Dahill wagon was bullshit, and largely a distraction, because he hadn't been playing any differently from what I had experienced or expected. A big, steamy wagon like the one on Dahill doesn't just go away -- and indeed, Dahill has been a topic of discussion literally all game. So even though my original reasoning of "dahill is a distraction for Xtox or Corio" was incorrect, the reasoning of "scums were railing on Dahill for being Dahill" to keep unwarranted pressure on him was valid as of the start of D2, and is still valid even today.

El Des, I would also like to know why you have talked about Assmaster and Tuber so little -- not only today, but in this game. Why aren't they possible scum? Do you (BOTH Elmo and Des) have a history of ignoring lurkers/inactives as possible scumbags? Do you think that scums would want to reduce associative tells between them in mountainous games?


@ Re:

However, since you clearly have read into those posts I've tried to analyze them. And the only interesting thing is this:

Also, the fact that I only FoSed Yos clearly indicates that I'm not convinced dahill is town.

Also, I'm smarter than the average bear.

I guess one could believe that Glork is trying to distance himself from Dahill1 and after that try to draw attention from everything with a joke post which screams, "Look what a bunch of random funny posts I've made!"

and

What I'm thinking about post 12-20:

I would have expected people to comment on your slip with Erratus and odd non-sequitur defense (the FoSed Yosarian part, not the bear part). I found it uncanny that no one noticed this at all, and instead wagoned Xtoxm to try and kick off the game without it.

There was definitely something odd about how it all went down. Specifically, 1. Glork's comment about only FOSing Yos "clearly indicating" that he wasn't convinced that dahill was town, which is questionable, and 2. EA backing off on the serious and decent FOS (considering the context) and upgrading to a jokey vote.

You guys are stupid. First of all, I answered a bullshit argument with a bullshit argument. So the "non sequitor" about which Ether spoke is explained by the fact that it was Page ONE of the game, and I was engaging in Page 1 meaningless, stupid banter. Nevermind that "Yosarian was joking, and Glork's implication that he was scum for trying to trick someone" is

just as stupid and meanlingess as the posts which ensued

.
Secondly, even if there WERE a slip regarding Dahill, it would not imply that I was his SCUMBUDDY. The "assumption" I made, which EA "called me on" was that Dahill was TOWN. If I were scum and I had actually slipped up there, that would be evidence that dahill is TOWN, not my scumbuddy.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Okay, so El Des posted while I was posting... Meh. At any rate, I still want to know if Ass/Tuber have done anything specific to make you believe that they are protown, or if it's more "they haven't been around to do anything wrong," and I would still like answers to my other questions.

Since Elmo is actually HERE, I demand that he answer my question about the flavor of nightkills.

One real interesting thing is that Glork appears to have a double standard; he went from pretty neutral on RV to OMG DIE on us over Des not using a large sample of games when meta-ing, yet he's pretty much ignored Incognito doing the same with EA. I don't like that. It's possible there's something with the timing since he hasn't posted in a while, but it looks sketchy to me. I don't think it necessarily makes Incog more likely to be scum with Glork, though, I think Glork just wanted to pull a reason to accuse us out of his ass.

Firstly, RV wasn't really around and didn't really do anything. The reason I went from "nothing" to disliking you is because an inactive player who got replaced became a player who tried to push a bogus attack against me.
Furthermore, Destructor's whole "nope, this doesn't fit exactly with my perfect idea of the context/situation" rejection of every counterexample I provided was at least as important as his failure to do his homework, and I believe I made that very clear. I'm not sure there EXISTS a situation exactly like the one in Mars 3 - Weasel Mafia, because every mafia game is so incredibly different. As I had already stated, Des' behavior when I attempted to defend myself made it look like he was just finding excuses to push his point, regardless of what was actually going on.
Thirdly, I would probably put OMGUS as a factor in my reaction, but I would (obviously) assert that it is the protown kind of OMGUS, where I look at a player who I feel should know better and go "there's no way you can be legitimiately making an argument THIS bad against me." You know how egocentric I am as a mafia player, and that would perfectly explain the "double standard" you pose.

[Glork]

One more thing regarding Dahill:

Yeah, sorry. What was your intent in posting what you did in Mafia Discussion?

mainly because everyone else was arguing the opposite point and i wanted to show the other point of view. and i as EA said i just wanted to own animorph, basically. if you look through my games, you'll see that i don't actually follow that practice or even necessarily agree with it.[/quote]I find it very interesting that people are still discussing the "contradiction" from MD without actually acknowledging this. Here, dahill asserts that in past games, he has gone against what he posted in MD, which would reject Pathetric's "contradiction" outright, and confirm Dahill's explanation.

[Glork]

My vote was primarily a reaction to this:

Glork, would you agree that if charter is town, Caesar is in the game? If so, what do you think would happen if we lynched Caesar? Logically, if Charter is town, you're saying lynching Caesar wouldn't end the game - why is the 'imperial threat' not ended with the death of Caesar? This is the part I don't understand. I agree that something feels 'off' about the game possibly ending on day 2,

but I can't find a logical argument against it.

Emphasis mine.

While you acknowledge that you feel that it would mess with game balance, you assert that IN SPITE OF THAT, you can't find a logical argument against "Caesar's death ends the game." Is this not what you meant there?

[Glork]

Oh, and my question about nightkills is this: If you think that Casesar's death ending the game is valid due to flavor reasons, then what is the flavor reason behind "Casear is stabbing people at night"? The conspirators stabbed Caesar to death on the senate floor, remember? Why would Caesar be killing people off under the cover of nightfall?

[Glork]

There is NOTHING in the wording of the win condition to indicate anything one way or another.

The ONLY way I can see you going from "Imperial threat" to "Caeser dying implies a town win" is through a flavor connection.

Furthermore, the part you quoted isn't saying "I don't know one way or another" -- the context implies that you are criticizing me for NOT agreeing with you that Casear's death would mean the end of the game. Look at what you said:

you're saying lynching Caesar wouldn't end the game - why is the 'imperial threat' not ended with the death of Caesar? This is the part I don't understand.

"Glork is saying that the 'imperial threat' does not end with Casear. Why would that not be the case? This I do not understand."

You are completely full of shit, and we both know it.



My question about flavor of nightkills stemmed from this post as well. My point was that if you are arguiing that you can interpret Caesar to be "the imperial threat," then how would you explain Casear killing people if, historically, that was not the case.

[Glork]

Okay, Elmo, if I'm not being articulate enough, let me make my question PERFECTLY clear:

How exactly did you get from the observation of "imperial threat" in the town win condition to "Casear's death means the end of the game"? Does your reasoning draw from flavor or not?

[Glork]

By the way, if I absoltuely have to jump to EA to get a lynch today, I probably will (though truth be told, I wouldn't be adverse to no lynching and getting to an odd number of players), but you can bet your ass I'll be right back on El Des tomorrow. I have almost zero doubt in my mind at this point that El Des is scum.


Also, I currently suspect that El Des' scumbuddy is among {Assmaster, Tuber} mainly because he has avoided interacting with either of them as muchas possible. If it's not one of them, I'd put my money squarely on EA.


And Elmo, you didn't answer my questions about Ass/Tuber, lurkers, and mountainous scum interactions. Des, feel free to answer as well, if you get here before the deadline.

[Glork]

Mod:

Assmaster hasn't posted since January 28, and was prodded on February 2. Have you begun looking for a replacement for him? Is there any chance whatsoever of you extending the deadline while you look for a replacement?

[Glork]

Unvote, Vote: EA

, since I probably won't be able to get online before the deadline tonight.

[Glork]

I was so sloppy on days one and two, it wasn't even funny.

But honestly, the town has nobody to blame but themselves. Xtoxm imploded Day One, and Yos led the charge against him, for the most part. Then Yos imploded on Day Two. And that made Day Three mostly elementary.


The one thing about my playstyle -- namely my defense of Dahill. I

hate, hate, hate, HATE

going out of my way to defend scumbuddies. I've never even come CLOSE to defending one as hard as I defended Dahill, but the fact that he was our only source of nightkills made it imperative that he stayed alive. My hope was that somebody would run me up at some point, then any of the half dozen players who know me would go "if Glork is going to go balls to the walls defending someone, that someone would almost certainly be protown."

I made some assumptions about the game setup before we even got started. I had initially projected that the town was either entirely vanilla, or that there were a couple of weak (I suggested one-shot) roles. We figured that there wasn't a regular Cop, Vig, or Roleblocker, which left very little as far as standard roles went. During Night Two, we decided to gamble on it being a vanilla town, and we took out Corio. Once he flipped Survivor, and Charter said that he wanted to claim last, I nearly crapped my pants, because I thought my assumptions were hideously wrong... but things worked out about as well as we could have hoped. We figured that the town would assume two scums (and thus not LyLo) and were just trying to see where we could find two (or more) townies with the same suspect.

[Glork]

you guys are morons

Seriously, town was really bad this game. I would have won, too, if the bastards didn't dick me over: either I would have helped push a dahill lynch, which would have given the town a great chance, or I would have won with the scum.

Also, Incog was *incredible*. Best performance by a scum in a while.

In all fairness, if you had given us any reason to believe that you were a survivor, we wouldn't have touched you.


Patrick: I had considered claiming masons with Dahill on D2 when Dahill was in trouble, but after re-reading my own posts on D1, decided it would have been too inconsistent.

Also, the chief purpose in all of us claiming vanilla was to ensure that, even if there was a power role, that the town would believe there to be only two scums, thus making our ability to quicklynch much easier. Though Tuber actually dropped the hammer, I think our claiming strategy accomplished exactly what we set out to do.

And your comment absolutely affected who we killed. To quote myself in the QuickTopic:

Pathetric dies, definitely... I would have been very hesitant to kill them up until Ether basically said "if we die tonight, seriously look at Glork."

I accidentally said Ether instead of Patrick, but that completely changed my mind about who to kill, because up until that post I was mentally gearing up to take you head-on throughout Day Two.

[Glork]

I can't say that I would have tossed Dahill under the bus, but I certainly would not have gone way out of my way to defend him like I did.

[Glork]

Elmo, I'm still 100% confused as to how you could possibly have thought that the "Imperial Threat" equated to Caesar without bringing flavor into the equation.

[Glork]

But you're still pulling from out-of-game, theme-centered sources to draw this connection, which is still a

flavor argument

. I would also argue that, even if I agreed that "Imperial" is synonymous with "Casear," that "the Imperial threat" would not be, due to a number of political ties, including Caesar's self-chosen successor. I think that if Casesar's death meant the end of the game, that it would explicitly have said that we won when Casear died, and not when "the Imperial threat" had ended.

[Glork]

It's in your assumption that the "Imperial threat"

stops

with Casear. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, because I feel like I'm talking in circles.

[Glork]

One suggestion I have might be to make specific people talk about specific aspects of your suspect.

"Charter, what do you think of X and Y that Glork said? How do you think this relates to Glork's position here?"

Forcing people to pay attention to what you want to talk about is a good way of opening eyes and ears, and if they try to blow it off or answer in a way you don't expect, you keep grilling to seek more information.

[Glork]

Yeah, not reading any of that anytime soon.