Mini 749 - Antarctic Mafia [Game Over]

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Freeko, you don't deserve a response at this point. Instead here's that case I have been laying out all the while and everyone has pretended didn't exist.

1. He initially come after me on the contents of a joke post and claims of buddying based on a single post. Terrible arguments that I refuted.
2. He's ignored and invaded every counterpoint I've made and every argument I've made against him.
3. He's completely tunneled on me, while others like Drake and LK, have found time to at least analyze the actions of others, freeko only has eyes for me.
4. Now he's back and calling for my lynch again with nothing but appeals to emotion and riding the backs of everyone else who has done actual analysis on my posts.

So we've got a player with tunnel vision, who has weak argumentation at best and is riding the coattails of others and who ignores any inconvenient arguments I might make since his mind was seemingly made up from his vote. Yeah, that's a big box of suspicious activity wrapped in one person.

Why didn't you write me? Why? It wasn't over for me, I waited for you for seven years. But now it's too late.

Fishythefish - 1 (pacman281292)
Debonair Danny DiPietro - 4 (DraketheFake, freeko, JereIC, Fishythefish)
Light-kun - 1 (na85)
freeko - 3 (Debonair Danny DiPietro, HowardRoark, Light-kun)
pacman281292 - 2 (ZEEnon, Amished)


12 alive, 7 to lynch.

-Mod

(Vote Count accurate as of Post 230)

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Of course, I'm most concerned about getting out of suspicion. I have

one

piece of confirmed information. I win with the town. If I focus on getting someone else lynched there's a 20-35% "random" chance we lynch correctly and a 65-80% random chance we lynch a fellow pro-town player and that's assuming I somehow move the attention off me while spending more time examining other people. If I fail in moving suspicion off me and I'm lynched then there's a 100% chance a pro-town player has been lynched. It's simple math that I should dedicate the bulk of my time to not being lynched and yes, I have done some hunting in my defenses.

Do you think a mislynch is always detrimental to the town?

No, there's times a mislynch isn't bad and sometimes it's even optimum play. I know that. However, in this situation I see no clear benefit to the town from me being lynched.

[HowardRoark]

It appears that the player formerly playing was a quite the newbie and bit off more than could be swallowed. I want to assure you all that you won't get any tee-hee's from me. Since I am holding a vote from my predecessor, I shall

unvote

. I believe for now that ZEEnon is just an emotional player . . . even though I don't care for that.

vote freeko

im gonna be watching you, drake.

I see this as distancing since there has been no real interaction with DraketheFake even though there has been some questionable play from him. He even states that DraketheFake's play is at least as poor as Debonair Danny DiPietro . . .

you are quantifying your play thru Drake as being town because it is apparently terrible. I can agree that it is terrible.

Meanwhile they are both on the Debonair Danny DiPietro BW.

[ZEEnon]

I'm not sure how to explain this, but I feel that Debonair Danny DiPietro is town aligned. I know this may seems hard to accept, but for some reason his posts come off to me as a townie trying to defend themself.

Do you think a mislynch is always detrimental to the town?

How do you know that if Debonair Danny DiPietro is lynched, it will be a mislynch? If I weren't currently suspicious of pacman281292, I would definitely move my vote right back on to you. I will wait until pacman281292 actually answers my accusation however, as he still hasn't posted anything relatively purposeful in this game. For now, only

FOS: Nuwen

[freeko]

How do you know that if Debonair Danny DiPietro is lynched, it will be a mislynch?

First isnt this a circular logic statement? Think we went down this road before when I pointed out the WIFOM example early in the game. This is theoretical and partially fueled by my inexperience overall with this game, as personally I dont believe a damn thing DDD has been saying. If (and its a BIG IF) DDD turns over town, wouldnt that be a mislynch?

He certainly is making a case for himself by simply backpedaling at every opportunity he can and doing exactly 0 scumhunting on his own. Generally I would say when someone stops scumhunting, then thats a general tell that they are in fact scum. Problem here is that DDD never really started scumhunting in the first place. Even though he hasnt stopped per se, the signs are all similar to me that he is not interested in scumhunting (because he is one? time will tell if that is true or not) but instead only interested in qualifying his statements and play so far as being town. He is also trying real damn hard to do it. He is grasping at every straw he can and then some to try to qualify himself and his actions as being in the interests of the town.

[Light-kun]

Also, Nuwen, you unvoted this post, but (and this is assuming you unvoted DDD, if not, then ignore this) you only provided a reason for defensiveness not being scummy yet failed to refute JereIC's other points. Any reason for this? (Again, I am too lazy too look up who you were voting, and this only applies if you were voting DDD.)

She was voting for Mizz.mafia.

Ah, thank you. In that case, as stated, Nuwen, ignore the questions as they are unnecessary. Now for that solo post look at Debonair.

Unvote; Vote Freeko

I believe his last post is scumhunting, thus your post is a lie.

[Fishythefish]

Fish, I will only respond to you at the moment: You seem to have indicated, either subconsciously or unintentionally, something that I feel should be considered a bit of an assumption. It could, also, be a jest, but this mark is one of the few telling comments I've seen. I'm not going to comment on it just yet as I need to reread that post to decide and look at your play in isolation.

How's the rumination going?

freeko's last post is unimpressive. He should at the very least acknowledge the arguments made against him in 225, and not doing so adds enormously to the "freeko is ignoring my arguments" statement from DDD. As well as totally ignoring the attack against him, he also says nothing new, but parrots arguments already put forward by other players and himself. This looks particularly bad because one of them- lack of scumhunting- has now been to some extent invalidated. To my mind, this post looks as if freeko decided to post against DDD, then scraped around for some arguments, rather than attacking DDD because he has some arguments against him. This could be motivated either by a desire to be seen to be making arguments (anti-town, as it leads to bad arguments), by tunnel vision on DDD (anti-town) or by a desire for a quick lynch (scummy). Whichever it is, I don't like it.

[JereIC]

I don't see a similar blanket statement in 109. I'd like to know what turn of phrase you're using as your claim here.

Yeesh, another screw-up. I meant post 103, where you say we should look at people hammering a townie.

Of course, I'm most concerned about getting out of suspicion. I have

one

piece of confirmed information. I win with the town. If I focus on getting someone else lynched there's a 20-35% "random" chance we lynch correctly and a 65-80% random chance we lynch a fellow pro-town player and that's assuming I somehow move the attention off me while spending more time examining other people. If I fail in moving suspicion off me and I'm lynched then there's a 100% chance a pro-town player has been lynched. It's simple math that I should dedicate the bulk of my time to not being lynched and yes, I have done some hunting in my defenses.

My main concern wasn't that you did it or why, it was the fact that you were not explicit about it. Instead of saying "I've thought about my post X, and on reflection I don't think it was correct," you seemed to just be saying whatever your accusers wanted to hear, regardless of what you actually believed and said in the past. I can understand making misstatements or changing your views of scumtells, but because of the way you acted it seemed like you weren't really changing your views, you were just saying whatever it took to slip out of suspicion.

I'm going to review freeko's posts, but you, HowardRoark, and Fishythedelishy have made some good points about him.

[freeko]

freeko (122) wrote:
you are quantifying your play thru Drake as being town because it is apparently terrible. I can agree that it is terrible.

Meanwhile they are both on the Debonair Danny DiPietro BW.

At least this is totally out of context. This was aimed at DDD not drake. Pay attention numbunts. Way to just jump on, and for a messed up reason no less,

I believe his last post is scumhunting, thus your post is a lie.

Of course it is. The entirety of his last post is yet another qualifying statment to his horrible play. The entirety of his post is as follows:

No, there's times a mislynch isn't bad and sometimes it's even optimum play. I know that. However, in this situation I see no clear benefit to the town from me being lynched.

All he is doing is more floundering in the post before that where he cries more that he is caught scum and again offers nothing to the game except that we bask in his stupidity. I dont have time to rip him apart further right now. I certainly will do so when I am back on Friday ( I may be able to get on sporadically between then, but unlikely)

Since there was snow and my flight was delayed until today, I am on V/LA until Friday.

[DraketheFake]

So we've got a player with tunnel vision, who has weak argumentation at best and is riding the coattails of others and who ignores any inconvenient arguments I might make since his mind was seemingly made up from his vote. Yeah, that's a big box of suspicious activity wrapped in one person.

I find it a little schizophrenic for a player who's been making one case on the same player for ~6 pages to accuse that same player of tunneling. Your attempt to buddy up to me and L-k is noted also.

Of course it is. The entirety of his last post is yet another qualifying statment to his horrible play. The entirety of his post is as follows:

L-k is referring to the post above the one you quoted, which is 225. And your continued refusal to address anything DDD says is not any better on the spectrum of response than DDD's strategy of replying in detail to most everything, something you've labeled as "defensive."

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

So we've got a player with tunnel vision, who has weak argumentation at best and is riding the coattails of others and who ignores any inconvenient arguments I might make since his mind was seemingly made up from his vote. Yeah, that's a big box of suspicious activity wrapped in one person.

I find it a little schizophrenic for a player who's been making one case on the same player for ~6 pages to accuse that same player of tunneling. Your attempt to buddy up to me and L-k is noted also.

A) I have touched on you early in the game for twisting my words, I have questioned LK on hypocrisy, and I made note of Pacman's lack of analysis.

Furthermore, this is hypocritical of you as when I did bring up Pacman's lack of content in passing you claimed it "Is REALLY cute. The suspicion of pacman has nothing whatsoever to do with you." So when I was trying to get a reaction and information from another player, it's distracting, but when I don't I'm purely defensive or tunneling, you're setting me up to fail.

B) As I covered before with freeko, a single post does not indicate buddying, buddying is a series of actions, a trend if you will and a single post would only be the beginning of such actions. If, however, you jump in like you did, you lose the needed secondary information to prove buddying and you're stuck with just a possibility. In this case a false one since I was merely using you and LK as a contrast to freeko's prior behavior.

[freeko]

freeko's last post is unimpressive. He should at the very least acknowledge the arguments made against him in 225

Ok, I will show you what I see. Here is what I see in that post.

O: blah blah blah
M: blah blah blah
G: blah blah blah
U: blah blah blah
S: blah blah blah

His summary is slightly off. And by slightly, I actually mean completely. Guess I will at the last tear that apart as I wait for my connecting flight.

So we've got a player with tunnel vision, who has weak argumentation at best and is riding the coattails of others and who ignores any inconvenient arguments I might make since his mind was seemingly made up from his vote. Yeah, that's a big box of suspicious activity wrapped in one person.

Tunnel vision? ok I might see how that is, yet you are offering NOTHING that is making me want to look elsewhere right now. As far as I see it. You are caught scum floundering about.

Riding coattails? Ok, I outright fail to see this one,

Ignoring arguments you make? Yeah, let me know when you actually make one. All I have seen so far is a pretty large assortment of WIFOM, and OMGUS out of you. The only argument you have made, that I agree with, is that you are a terrible player. Everything else is just you trying to flounder about. I think other than your OMGUS on me everything you have done so far is argue inwards about why you are town. You have done nothing to scumhunt within the game so far.

My vote? Ok, again, you have done nothing but tankgle yourself in your web of lies since I voted for you. Try doing something productive for once that doesnt involve a nice WIFOM qualifier statement or an OMGUS attack on someone. That is the entirety of your game so far.

...you're setting me up to fail.

I think you dont need anyone else to help really. You are doing such a good job of that yourself.

And your continued refusal to address anything DDD says is not any better on the spectrum of response

Anything he does post is a WIFOM trap, qualifier for his play, or an omgus attack. I see absolutely no reason to indulge any of those things from him. Its clear that he needs to stop with that and actually scumhunt for once.

...you were just saying whatever it took to slip out of suspicion.

He said it better than I ever could most likely. That just about sums up DDD in a nutshell. So far its the entirety of his game.

For you to think that I am tunneled in on you would be a safe bet for you. Dont think though that I am not taking into consideration other things that are happening. You stick out like a sore thumb, to the point that you want everyone to notice you and believe you. I certainly notice you, but i cannot believe you.

[DraketheFake]

Furthermore, this is hypocritical of you as when I did bring up Pacman's lack of content in passing you claimed it "Is REALLY cute. The suspicion of pacman has nothing whatsoever to do with you." So when I was trying to get a reaction and information from another player, it's distracting, but when I don't I'm purely defensive or tunneling, you're setting me up to fail.

A) I have touched on you early in the game for twisting my words, I have questioned LK on hypocrisy, and I made note of Pacman's lack of analysis.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Were you "making note of pacman's lack of analysis," or were you "trying to get a reaction and information from another player?" I don't have a problem with you noting pacman's lack of contribution - hell, it's not like it's all that much of a secret. But for you to couch your suspicion or note-making or reaction-soliciting or whatever you want to call it in the context of more defense of your own actions makes your own "contribution" seem like one of: an aside, or, you throwing things out there to avoid having people accuse you of focusing only on one player.

Which you have been.

[Light-kun]

freeko's last post is unimpressive. He should at the very least acknowledge the arguments made against him in 225

Ok, I will show you what I see. Here is what I see in that post.

O: blah blah blah
M: blah blah blah
G: blah blah blah
U: blah blah blah
S: blah blah blah

The fish said this.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Furthermore, this is hypocritical of you as when I did bring up Pacman's lack of content in passing you claimed it "Is REALLY cute. The suspicion of pacman has nothing whatsoever to do with you." So when I was trying to get a reaction and information from another player, it's distracting, but when I don't I'm purely defensive or tunneling, you're setting me up to fail.

A) I have touched on you early in the game for twisting my words, I have questioned LK on hypocrisy, and I made note of Pacman's lack of analysis.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Were you "making note of pacman's lack of analysis," or were you "trying to get a reaction and information from another player?" I don't have a problem with you noting pacman's lack of contribution - hell, it's not like it's all that much of a secret. But for you to couch your suspicion or note-making or reaction-soliciting or whatever you want to call it in the context of more defense of your own actions makes your own "contribution" seem like one of: an aside, or, you throwing things out there to avoid having people accuse you of focusing only on one player.

Which you have been.

Becuase it's obviously impossible for it to be both a note of his play and a probe for more information. Your either/or situation is busted and you're conveniently overlooking the other people I addressed before Pacman when you're coming to your conclusion of me trying to avoid suspicion by tossing names out there. It's not like I've tossed out a single name to try and get myself off the hook; I've built a case on one person and questioned or noted at least three more people when their play warranted it.

[DraketheFake]

Becuase it's obviously impossible for it to be both a note of his play and a probe for more information.

Your either/or situation is busted and you're conveniently overlooking the other people I addressed before Pacman when you're coming to your conclusion of me trying to avoid suspicion by tossing names out there.

But is it really either of those things if you start off a longer post that has nothing to do with pacman with a little jab at his play? The answer, is no. Especially considering the wealth of other posters actually addressing him in serious form.

And I'm not overlooking them. Your note on L-k was another jab in passing, and aside from your early vote on/suspicion of ZEEnon (which, I note, you've dropped entirely) you've been freeko freeko freeko. Which is not to say that we should throw that on the heap of evidence by any means. Just that for you to accuse a player of tunneling is not the most weighty accusation of all time.

[Nuwen]

No, there's times a mislynch isn't bad and sometimes it's even optimum play. I know that. However, in this situation I see no clear benefit to the town from me being lynched.

I spy a softclaim?

Do you believe there's scum propelling your wagon, besides Feeko?

Do you think a mislynch is always detrimental to the town?

How do you know that if Debonair Danny DiPietro is lynched, it will be a mislynch? If I weren't currently suspicious of pacman281292, I would definitely move my vote right back on to you. I will wait until pacman281292 actually answers my accusation however, as he still hasn't posted anything relatively purposeful in this game. For now, only

FOS: Nuwen

I don't. However, DDD has said,

1. "I win with the town."
2. "Mislynches can be beneficial."
3. "I am the incorrect lynch today."

These statements add up to any of the following:

1. A false (vanilla?) town claim made by scum.
2. A true (vanilla?) claim, made by someone more interested in remaining alive than providing the town with a scum-powered wagon to pick apart on day 2.

Either way, DDD's primary prerogative is to remain alive. This goal matches that of scum, a power role, or a vanilla who's convinced that he's one of the better scumhunters in the game.

[freeko]

3. "I am the incorrect lynch today."

I dont like this. This implies that on a different game day he would potentially be the right lynch? If you are the incorrect lynch one day, how could you not be the correct lynch another day? Seems like a circular argument could be made here, but its pretty worthless aside from that semantic point. Maybe its just another statement that DDD can flounder about trying to correct later I suppose as well.

Either way, DDD's primary prerogative is to remain alive. This goal matches that of scum, a power role,

or a vanilla who's convinced that he's one of the better scumhunters in the game.

First off he has done 0 scumhunting so far, so the last part is striken from the record. Maybe its a bit of a stretch, and I admit this outright. I think I smell 3rd party here with him. Most 3rd party roles I have encountered would share many of these traits. Its pure speculation, but it shouldnt be ignored as a possibility. And I would still be ok with lynching 3rd party on D1. Its most likely a threat to the town that goes down, so I cant complain about that.

Of the other 2 points, the first is the generic "I win with the town" fodder. I call that a null-tell. Everyone would say they win with the town if you asked them right now I suppose. The second is also null from my point of view. Its truly only to be determined a mislynch after the fact. So it would remain to be seen if this is true about his lynch. The signs , at least for me, all point to DDD being not town aligned. I am convinced now that he is not a town aligned player, but he may not be scum. Instead I consider it more plausible for him to be either 3rd party or scum at this point.

[Nuwen]

I dont like this. This implies that on a different game day he would potentially be the right lynch? If you are the incorrect lynch one day, how could you not be the correct lynch another day?

Yes. If there are limited vanilla roles in a game (and the first day's lynch hit town), lynching claimed vanillas on day 2 and/or 3 and then massclaiming can out some, if not all, scum buddies. If the only remaining players are power roles, scum, or have third party alignments, scum are left with few options to claim - most scum will have spoiled their claim options at this point too.

Policy lynches are also more 'correct' on day 1. Each player has the least possible role-based information that he'll have all game, thus meta-shaping lynches based solely on policy can carry more weight. Late game policy lynches, excluding LAL, tend to be detrimental.

I'm less concerned about DDD being a third party. The standard canon of third party roles is impotent - Jester (would you be that cruel to your fellow penguins, mod?), survivor, lyncher. An SK speculation can wait for night kill confirmation. It's too early for cult tells.

[Light-kun]

I call "I win with town" as a plea to majority, which is scummy in my book.

I was getting a slight "survivor" vibe off of him, but if he were, I'm pretty sure claiming it would result in his lynch anyway. And...

Hm... You still lie, you still say he did zero scum hunting. I see some.

Vote Freeko

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Becuase it's obviously impossible for it to be both a note of his play and a probe for more information.

Your either/or situation is busted and you're conveniently overlooking the other people I addressed before Pacman when you're coming to your conclusion of me trying to avoid suspicion by tossing names out there.

But is it really either of those things if you start off a longer post that has nothing to do with pacman with a little jab at his play? The answer, is no. Especially considering the wealth of other posters actually addressing him in serious form.

And I'm not overlooking them. Your note on L-k was another jab in passing, and aside from your early vote on/suspicion of ZEEnon (which, I note, you've dropped entirely) you've been freeko freeko freeko. Which is not to say that we should throw that on the heap of evidence by any means. Just that for you to accuse a player of tunneling is not the most weighty accusation of all time.

I disagree with the main thrust of this, but it's not worth going over line by line because even if I am tunneling it doesn't refute my contention that freeko is and that's just a piece of the case I built against him.

I did get distracted by defending myself and didn't really explain my thoughts on ZEEnon. I've still got him towards the middle-top of my list, but his actions are so confusing and generally poor it's hard to tell if he's scum or just terrible town.

He opened the game by flipping his wig about random votes and nearly gave up under the slightest pressure. He then immediately reversed field and posted a huge block of text with no solid argumentation and basically seemed to OMGUS both Nuwen and Mizz/Roark. He went missing for a while and then his latest post completely misunderstands the point Nuwen was getting at, I think.

All told I think his actions have been fairly anti-town, but I'm not yet sure whether they're scummy or not.

[Nuwen]

Also,

Hi pacman.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

No, there's times a mislynch isn't bad and sometimes it's even optimum play. I know that. However, in this situation I see no clear benefit to the town from me being lynched.

Do you believe there's scum propelling your wagon, besides Feeko?

Not sure, not evidence enough to build a solid case on any of them. I have Drake near the middle-top, he's twisted my words in the past and often seems to focus on trivial parts of my arguments to score points instead of looking at the bigger picture. JereIC is somewhere in the middle, not enough information for me to think I've got a good read either way. I've liked everything I've seen from Fishy other than the vote on me.

These statements add up to any of the following:

1. A false (vanilla?) town claim made by scum.
2. A true (vanilla?) claim, made by someone more interested in remaining alive than providing the town with a scum-powered wagon to pick apart on day 2.

Wouldn't a better option than providing the town with a potentially scum-powered wagon would be to provide the town with a correct lynch? Furthermore, if someone else is lynched and it is still a mislynch isn't there a distinct possibility it could still be scum-driven or likely having scum contribute significantly?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

And freeko continues much the same trend as before. He actually tried to counter my points this time. Unfortunately, his idea of refuting my arguments is to say "nuh uh" or OMGUS. Besides being an exceedingly predictable response, OMGUS doesn't really apply since I laid out clear reasons why I was voting for him and you'll have to excuse me is "nuh uh" doesn't appear to be the most persuasive argument I've ever seen.

He adds nothing new to his arguments, repeats the same falsehoods again, and tries to dismiss my arguments simply on the basis of who is making them.

[ZEEnon]

I don't. However, DDD has said,

1. "I win with the town."
2. "Mislynches can be beneficial."
3. "I am the incorrect lynch today."

These statements add up to any of the following:

1. A false (vanilla?) town claim made by scum.
2. A true (vanilla?) claim, made by someone more interested in remaining alive than providing the town with a scum-powered wagon to pick apart on day 2.

Or perhaps 3. A true claim made by someone that could very well be innocent
and wants to prove that while alive instead of helping find scum while he is dead.

Either way, DDD's primary prerogative is to remain alive. This goal matches that of scum, a power role, or a vanilla who's convinced that he's one of the better scumhunters in the game.

Unless the scum part is true, none of the other things are detrimental to the town. Therefore, the fact that you want to take the chance on lynching him to help 'find scum' is extremely suspicious.