Mini 773- Welcome to Lynchville! Perfection! (Over)

[BrianMcQueso]

/confirm

[BrianMcQueso]

vote: alexhans

for sucking up to the mod

[BrianMcQueso]

<3 Red Coyote for having my back on Cool Spot.

While I find it silly to vote for ppp based on his joke to vote for "the mafia", I'd like it a lot more if he'd at least try to contribute. While random votes on people doesn't provide much useful information, it's still

something

.

@ Kublai: PieisPopcorn has a point. I get the feeling you were trying to push that bandwagon without being on it. It's pretty minor as far as scumtells go, but combined with how snappy and defensive you're acting towards Pie in response, I think it's worth a vote switch.

unvote: alexhans

vote: KublaiKhan

[BrianMcQueso]

Snappy? Defensive? Holy leaping to conclusions, Batman! Don't you have to know me first before making that call? All I said was that I disagreed with PieIsPopcorn's early game tactics.

How am I supposed to get to know you without pushing your buttons? Besides, I still see you as being on the defensive if you hastily call my actions "jumping to conclusions". It seems like everyone who's made even the slightest claim against you has gotten a huge post reaction. That's the read I've got on you so far, and it's worth a single vote from me to bring attention to it. You act like I'm already stringing up the rope!

This is what "pushing a wagon without being on it" looks like:

I'll have a detailed post on the criticisms against me tomorrow after school, however I would like to say that I support the Kublai wagon.

I totally agree with you on this one, though. A post from Pie addressing criticisms against himself is all well and good, but the Kublai thing seems tacked on randomly.

[BrianMcQueso]

After reading that

phone book

post by PieIsPopcorn, I would withdraw my comment about his support of a Kublai wagon being "random".

Brian has a low percentage.

Precentage of...?

[BrianMcQueso]

Also... I don't like very much that people start cataloging others as town or townie because that doesn't help at all(IMHO) and is usually a trick by scum to befriend players or remove suspicion from them in a eventual death situation. And can make other people take that towniness for granted too.

Let's focus on finding scum, shall we?

I disagree completely. Making public your belief that "I think player A is town" or "I believe player B might be scum" is the very basic foundation of useful information to hunt scum. If we don't say who we suspect and who we don't suspect, how else are we to find the scum?

@ Light-kun: I don't quite get you. From what I understand, you read my first "real" vote as opportunistic, and you voted me because of that. I get that, that's fine. But then you say that PieIsPopcorn and Kublai Khan are both scummy, I'm "low percentage" (meaning less likely to be scum), and from what I read from your post 70, you find Pie's argument against Kublai to be a convincing one.

Is all the above accurate? I'm just trying to get a hold on what you've been posting, but you've been doing it in a confusing manner (IMO, maybe it's just me).

[BrianMcQueso]

No-lynch Day 1 is generally accepted as bad. Besides, we generally have lots of leads to go off of. Your suggestion of no-lynch doesn't lead me to believe you are mafia, though. Just new

And not wanting to be lynched isn't pro-town OR anti-town behavior. Nobody wants to be lynched, because it means you don't get to play any more.

[BrianMcQueso]

I disagree completely. Making public your belief that "I think player A is town" or "I believe player B might be scum" is the very basic foundation of useful information to hunt scum. If we don't say who we suspect and who we don't suspect, how else are we to find the scum?

I didn't say that we shouldnt say who is scum but not who is town so as to not give them so much info about how lost we can be. Not to let them strategize on who to kill or who to push (a lynch).

It's Day 1. We're 4 pages in. Of course we're lost! And it's not something that you should worry about the mafia taking advantage of, since this kind of thing happens every game. That's just how it is.

I'm not following how you propose we go about finding scum to lynch. Wild accusations and bold claims have worked before because they force people to react. When everyone sits back and is cautious and timid, everyone acts the same. When you start confronting people, you can see how they react. You can see what's important to them. You can learn their attitudes towards people. And then you can find scum.

I understand you don't want mafia to guide lynches, but we don't know who is mafia and who isn't (or else this game would be really, really easy). We don't have the luxury of knowing if a person voting for another player is "hey, I am a townsperson and I believe this guy is scum" or "hey, I am a Mafia and I'm trying to convince you this guy is scum even though I know otherwise".

In short, I can understand if you don't want to play aggressively, alexhans, but I find it to be the best way to get things done. And by trying to get everyone else to stop being aggressive, it comes off like you're trying to stifle any discussion at all. I know you're not deliberately trying to do that, but that's the impression I'm getting.

And on a separate note, the more I re-read ppp, the less helpful he appears. The silly-voting at the beginning, the no lynch thing, the claims that only mafia would be scared about being lynched... all individually, they just give me the impression that ppp is inexperienced. But... that's all he's been contributing the entire time. He's also drawing so much attention to himself that it doesn't seem like the actions of mafia. I really don't get the feeling he's scum, but he's very unhelpful as well.

[BrianMcQueso]

I'm guessing lurker hunt, since Cream hasn't posted in about a week.

Speaking of which, how's it going, cateraction? Glad you decided to show up, but I'd like to hear your opinion on a lot of the stuff that's been going down.

And Lester? Caught up yet?

[BrianMcQueso]

While I find it silly to vote for ppp based on his joke to vote for "the mafia", I'd like it a lot more if he'd at least try to contribute. While random votes on people doesn't provide much useful information, it's still something.

@ Kublai: PieisPopcorn has a point. I get the feeling you were trying to push that bandwagon without being on it. It's pretty minor as far as scumtells go, but

combined with how snappy and defensive you're acting

towards Pie in response, I think it's worth a vote switch.

(bolded by me)
This I found strange... How was his response snappy and defensive? I only saw it a bit contradictory when he first said that ppp should be lynched but later told pie that he wasn't sold by policy lynches (41).
Brian attacks him with no reason and mentioned that PiePop was sewing confusion and chaos.

Allow me to explain:

I have experience playing with ppp973. Voting for him is the best Day 1 action for town.

Looking at ppp's past game, I see your point. However, if you're for an early ppp bandwagon, why aren't you voting him?

Kublai Khan's next post (emphasis mine):

Yeah, but random stage is going to happen. Mind as well let people get it out of their system. Since PieIsPopcorn is starting the questioning in the opening 2 pages where people are still going to pop in with their random vote,

all he accomplishes is sewing confusion and chaos into the opening procedures

.

Better to let everyone show up, say their hellos, make their jokes, etc..,

and then leap in with pointed questions

. I just don't see the benefit in breaking with convention.

Pie asked a legitimate question in "why do you support this bandwagon but you're not on it?" Kublai Khan essentially ignores the question, then accuses Pie of sewing confusion as well as attacking people with pointed questions. I saw this as an overreaction. I state as such in my post 46:

@ Kublai: PieisPopcorn has a point. I get the feeling you were trying to push that bandwagon without being on it. It's pretty minor as far as scumtells go, but combined with how snappy and defensive you're acting towards Pie in response, I think it's worth a vote switch.

unvote: alexhans
vote: KublaiKhan

Kublai Khan's next post:

Snappy? Defensive? Holy leaping to conclusions, Batman! Don't you have to know me first before making that call? All I said was that I disagreed with PieIsPopcorn's early game tactics.

And as far as "pushing a (ppp973) wagon without being on it" goes. Did you notice I put a smiley? It was a rib at ppp973, and I think he got it. (Or he may not of, I don't know, I still can't read him very well).

This is what "pushing a wagon without being on it" looks like:

I'll have a detailed post on the criticisms against me tomorrow after school, however I would like to say that I support the Kublai wagon.

Hell, he even unvoted within the post without voting for me.

Because I placed my single, solitary vote on him, Kublai turns around and accuses me of jumping to conclusions and implies that I shouldn't make judgments because I don't "know him". I get the impression that he's nervous to even have any pressure on him whatsoever. I have noticed that Kublai Khan has also been somewhat hostile towards other players who have vocalized any sort of suspicion towards him:

Less commas and more sense, please.

Nice blinders.

I'm not saying this is an airtight case against KK, because it's definitely not. But compared to the other players in the game, I'm more comfortable with a vote on him than anyone else at this point.

[BrianMcQueso]

I'm sorry, but where did I say you couldn't make judgements about me?

Snappy? Defensive? Holy leaping to conclusions, Batman!

Don't you have to know me first before making that call?

Why are you trying so hard to bend facts to make me look bad?

I am under the impression that you are scum (you might have noticed). When I find something you do that supports that theory, I am going to draw attention to it. Yes, it's coming from a skewed and biased viewpoint. But I'm not one to stand around and act neutrally towards everyone. I have an opinion, which is more than I can say for half the people in this town. Not a fan of all these lurkers.

[BrianMcQueso]

I have an opinion, which is more than I can say for half the people in this town.

Frustrated exaggeration, by the way.

[BrianMcQueso]

Sorry about the inactivity! Here's some catchup:

I'm feeling optimistic about ChiefSkye. She's calling people out on their crap, and I support that.

While Light-kun's "percentage" system is confusing, arbitrary, and needlessly complicated, I can't make up my mind if that makes him more pro-town or anti-town.

Cateraction's active defense of ppp has me concerned. While I'm against policy lynches, the way I would bring that up is vastly different. Compare the way ChiefSkye argued against a ppp lynch to Cat's:

Personally, can't stand policy lynches. It's a perfect hiding place for scum. But, ppp (for unpolicy reasons) is not an entirely bad lynch.

Honestly, I really don't think that ppp is scummy. I think he's annoying, yes, but that's no reason to lynch him. In my experience, the annoying players are very often town, who are trying to contribute but don't know how. Too often, scum can push for the lynch of these players by going for a policy lynch or painting their eagerness as scumminess.

I think Cat's laying the "ppp's probably innocent" on a little thick, considering you really can't know if he's innocent or not, regardless of ppp's behavior.

And as much as it pains me to say it, Kublai Khan is feeling better to me with time. Though I still think your early game play was suspect, your response to a lot of the accusations against you has been reasonable. Posts 147, 149, 153 and 155 are good posts.

unvote

[BrianMcQueso]

Woah, this game picked up.

RedCoyote makes a reasonable case against Light-kun, but I'm not sure if I would fully support it. I've said this a bunch of times before, but Light-kun's play has been utterly confusing to me. Combined with " trouble keeping track of names and identities", I get the read that he's unfocused or scatterbrained. That kind of behavior doesn't seem like something a mafioso would

intentionally

do to throw off the town. But then again, I'm not sure what to make of it at all.

And hey, because we need more humongous-sized posts addressing the Kublai Khan vs Archaist situation:

While I wasn't a fan of KK's joke of a policy lynch towards Archon, I think Archaist overreacted in post 186. KK, though, in typical fashion, jumps down the throat of a person bringing accusations against him, in post 192. It gets really interesting in post 197:

That's not the two options you presented. You said that I was either (1) serious or (2) pretending to be joking. Then you voted saying that either way I was anti-town.

I agree with this. As I said above, I think Archaist took this comment a little too far, and KK being "scummy" or "pretending to be joking" is looking at it in a black-or-white sense (or is it black-or-black), and blindly ignored other possibilities. However, in that same post:

No, you don't need my permission, but you didn't wait or even ask me to explain my comment. You saw ppp973 and LesterGroans make "WTF? This sounds scummy" comments, so you lept in with a vote hoping to start a bandwagon.

This I disagree with. It's not our responsibility to ask you to explain yourself. Your comment towards Archon was, at the very least, vague. But saying Archaist was opportunistic and trying to start a bandwagon is jumping to conclusions. I think Archaist has every right to vote you if he found something you said scummy.

And then, right after:

This seems to be kinda a pattern with you. You put up a case & vote against alexhans, then abandoned it without any follow-up because you couldn't get anyone to join you. You put up a case & vote against Light_kun, but then abandoned it without a follow-up because nobody was joining you. Now you put up a case & vote against me.

This is an interesting observation from KK. This does look like bandwagon-hopping, or throwing votes around until something sticks. But where it really gets me is Archaist's response in the next post:

Obviously. My goal is to lynch the people I find scummy. It's kinda hard to do that when I'm the only one that sees something wrong with what they post. All three of you are suspicious to me, so I would gladly lynch any.

I know you can't lynch anyone by yourself, Archaist, but there's a reason for that. You have to take other people's opinions into consideration. It's a team game. If you see something scummy that nobody else sees, you have to stop and think that maybe you're seeing something that's not there. "I would gladly lynch any" makes you look bloodthirsty and desperate. Do you really believe in any of your votes? Or are you paranoid enough that you'll be happy lynching anyone because they "could" be scum?

Archaist seems really, really adamant about his post against KK being "true". All emphasis is Archaist's, not mine:

There is nothing incorrect about my first post against KK.

Someone please tell me how that is incorrect.

Because Light-kun's ignoring of my questions and KK's over reaction to my

true

statement are equally scummy in my opinion.

KK complimented me so I thanked him. Again, my original statement is

true

, so I didn't see any further need to explain it at the time.

How is this false?

How is this false?

Here's the answer to your question: you seeing KK's post as scummy is a matter of

opinion

, not fact. There is a difference. The fact that you so vehemently defend your overreaction is bad form.

vote: Archaist

This is vote #4 of a required 7.

[BrianMcQueso]

Just because your argument is logically sound does not mean it is correct. He was joking. The rest of us have gotten over that. Why is this so important to you?

[BrianMcQueso]

I'm so-so about giving Brian credit because his post 209 just seems like a lot of words that amount to saying, "Archaist is scum for jumping on KK disingenuously".

Everything looks bad when you summarize it

Lester's post 236 gets a hearty endorsement from me. Good logic and well phrased.

@alex: I would be one to say that we've had a mostly productive Day 1. Our deadline is a week from today, and I don't want to push the Archaist wagon just because we're under deadline, but it does have enough merits that I'm comfortable carrying it out.

[BrianMcQueso]

Archaist, which of the following best describes your role:

A) You select a player, and then you learn who that player targeted.
or
B) You select a player, and then you learn who targeted that player.

This is very important.

[BrianMcQueso]

unvote

I'm buying Archaist's claim. I just wanted to make sure we have all the details so we're clear, and things don't go changing later.

I like this hohum guy. But I don't think you've got the right idea about qwintz. Yes, he laid out a long elaborate case against KK, and then switched to Archaist, but (forgive me for putting words into your mouth, qwintz) I think he suspects both of them.

I'm liking Light-kun less. "Spastic" does seem to be a good word to describe his voting behavior. The latest vote on qwints, which seems to be little more than an OMGUS vote, is concerning at this point in the game. He's not the only one that's had quite a number of vote-switches (Lester and Coyote are the others that come to mind), but considering the rest of his behavior, I could see the motivation to single him out.

Light-kun: Who is your top suspect at this point in the game, and why? You only get one pick, and keep your explanation simple and clear. I know you and your "percentage" system.

[BrianMcQueso]

qwints, Hohum has a strong point. What happened to your case against me? You started out quoting everything I said and twisting it as scummy, then by the end (and after I pointed it out), you're reduced to agreeing that my case against Archaist had merit and that he was one of your top suspects.

In qwints' defense, you'll notice a similar trend with my play so far in this game. You started off looking really scummy to me, and over time, I've agreed with you more and more. Your case against Archaist

did

have merit, and I too voted for him.

Two players attacking someone for making a case they characterize as "easy" without explaining why it's invalid. The case is easy BECAUSE lightkun is the scummiest player.

That's why I switched to attacking him.

Light-kun is a very swingy player at this point in the game. It's very easy to interpret his play as scummy, and it's very easy to write off his play as confused. But still, Light-kun has been drawing so much attention to himself with all his craziness, and acting so scummy that I have doubt that it's the kind of behavior a scum would exhibit. But it's totally WIFOM logic to say that someone this scummy couldn't possibly be scum. I think I've given LK the benefit of the doubt for too long. It was a mistake letting your confusing play leading me to ignore your bandwagon-hopping, quick vote changes, and flawed logic.

vote: Light-kun

(5/7)

And just because I was not voting for anyone, you shouldn't say that I need to be serious about my vote. I have believed in every vote I have made (except the first random one, of course).

[BrianMcQueso]

@L-K: We don't have a lot of time. I don't really need a detailed PBP analysis, but just some quick hits. You're at L-1 with less than a day left to play. Have you given up on trying to prevent your own lynch?

And just because I was not voting for anyone, you shouldn't say that I need to be serious about my vote. I have believed in every vote I have made (except the first random one, of course).

I'm assuming this is directed at me. I didn't mean to imply that you weren't taking your vote seriously, but rather that I have a vested interest in, one, getting a lynch to go through, and two, getting everyone to place down a vote today in order to see who they are siding with/against.

I was just overreacting. Thanks for the clarification, though.

[BrianMcQueso]

You are -->this<-- close to being lynched. All it takes is one more vote or a couple of hours. I think it's too late to change anything at this point, but nevertheless, I am requesting a claim.

[BrianMcQueso]

MOD:

Can we have an extension? Please? I know you've given us a boatload of extra time already, but I'm just asking for another... 24 hours. So much has developed recently.

Bah. Bah, bah, bah.

unvote Light-kun

I see doctor as the role least likely to want to claim, but pushing it that close to deadline is risky, risky business.

@hohum: No mass claim. Not Day 1. Regardless of how many PRs we flip. Just, no. We don't hand the Mafia a blueprint to the town for them to pick optimal nightkills.

I'm really not buying the case against cateraction. Everyone has the instinct for self-preservation, regardless of alignment. And unvoting the doctor without re-voting is not scummy play.

While Kublai Khan has gotten a lot more pro-town as the game has progressed, his early play is deciding my vote. I'd rather see him lynched than cateraction, at this point.

vote: Kublai Khan

[BrianMcQueso]

@cateraction: Are you really a power role? Or were you just being sarcastic. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if we have a stacked down with either a large scum group or a scum group with power.

[BrianMcQueso]

(Post 476 should read "stacked

t

own")

@ hohum: Gotcha. There's a lot of stuff going on, and with an hour left, I missed that. I'll be willing to discuss D2 mass claim later. Right now, we've got lynches to talk about.

@ cateraction: Are you claiming vanilla, or not claiming at all? Just trying to be clear.

[BrianMcQueso]

I'm not asking you to claim. I'm just verifying that you weren't claiming.

[BrianMcQueso]

@BrianMcQueso: You're looking pretty scummy for being the last voter and trying to push the lynch back away from cateraction. Do you want to take a moment to explain why unvoting without re-voting at deadline isn't a scummy play?

I think unvoting without re-voting is a much safer play, compared to voting for a candidate just for the sake of voting for someone. I don't make votes that I don't believe in. I had a case against KK, and I wasn't buying the wagon against Cat. Turns out, I was wrong.

@RedCoyote: I'm not sure I'm following your case against me.

This was an exaggeration, which Brian ended up recanting. The case that he and Pie pushed early on revolved mostly around KK's attitude and his sketchy position on the RVS. While I found a little merit in the latter reason (post 119), I was still liking Brian over KK. As I said, KK's stance would slowly improve over time, but not since an early vote was I really all that warm to the case against KK.

KK's stance

did

improve over time. That's why I had unvoted him. But compared to Cateraction, he was the scummier of the two wagons. I tried to change who would be lynched because I believed in that.

Brian's vote wouldn't be bad at all (both KK and alex voted and pushed Archaist as well), except for the fact that he follows KK's case with the vote. Brian would, as we know, later get back on the KK wagon after Archaist and Light-kun claimed. This is significant, I think, because if Brian thought KK was scum (which he did at the beginning and end of the day), he jumped on this wagon fairly quickly.

I would disagree with you saying that I followed KK. Archaist was playing scummily, and I laid out a case against him. In fact, I was one of the few that actually took the time to make a case against him instead of bandwagon-hopping.

This is coaching, without a doubt. Brian here is begging cater to claim a PR. I think Brian senses how flimsy the cater wagon is (e.g. hohum and alex together).

I wanted something definitive. I hate vague claims, or breadcrumbs of claims. If you recall, I acted the same way towards Archaist when I drilled him about the details of his role. And I even

told

cateraction I wasn't asking him to claim.

All in all, RC, you seemed to like me a lot more yesterday than you do today. You've completely changed gears... what about me changed? That I was wrong about Cateraction? Forgive me for not knowing who the scum are.

If LK were lying about his doc claim and the other doc were present would you want him or her to counter-claim?

If LK is lying, I wouldn't mind revealing the true doctor if it led to a second scum lynch.

I'd like to know who LK protected, and I see no reason for Albert to claim any information whatsoever.

[BrianMcQueso]

Hohum: This is *basic* Mafia principles, here. If there is another doctor, they should definitely come forward. The odds of having two legitimate doctors in a game of this size is

0%

.

[BrianMcQueso]

But compared to Cateraction, [KK] was the scummier of the two wagons.

Why?

I have said this already, but I can keep saying it as many times as you'd like me to. I suspected KK because his early play was highly questionable. You even agreed with me that KK was acting scummily.

Yesterday was D1, I don't so much as remember you ever addressing cater during the entire day

I did not address cateraction because he didn't have any play that was scummy. Before we were under deadline pressure, nobody accused cateraction of anything. Why do you single me out on this?

I don't get, especially as cater started to panic, how someone could've seen him as especially townie.

If you were being bandwagoned out of nowhere with less than 24 hours left in the day, you probably would have panicked too. I did not see the panic as a scum tell.

If LK is lying, I wouldn't mind revealing the true doctor if it led to a second scum lynch.

This is both false and misleading.

Why would you automatically assume Light-kun is lying if someone cc'd him?

Use some common sense, man. The mafia have no reason to counterclaim LK. If they do, and LK is lynched and flips doctor, then the doctor-claimed scum just got themselves lynched on the next day. More on our doctor situation in a moment.

RC, you're attacking me for a number of things you yourself are guilty of. You too thought KK's early behavior was scummy. You did not mention cateraction's name ONCE until you voted for him (go check your filtered posts, it's true). In that post you voted him, you also stated you would be OK with an Archon lynch, and implied that you'd be fine with lynching L-K. In your very next post, you said "If my hand is forced, I will vote KK", even though you kept saying over and over you felt he was town. You are a hypocrite, and your attack on me is filled with flawed logic. Do not act like you are King Scum Hunter here: you got

lucky

that cateraction came up scum. You had no case against him, you hopped on his bandwagon, and it ended up working out for you. If only I were so lucky.

---

Now, while I said that two doctors in a game of this size is impossible, it's because two doctors can cross-protect and live forever. With a jailkeeper (or whatever you want to call it), that synergy is not possible. Therefore it is possible (but still very unlikely) that both LK and hohum are telling the truth. The jailkeeper is a much stronger role than a doctor, because they are more likely to prevent a nightkill.

If I were in your shoes, hohum, I would have gladly protected archaist. Sure, he would have lost his tracking for the night, but you would have been preventing the night kill, and confirming archaist's innocence (it wasn't guaranteed just from his Day 1 claim). But I can see the logic behind your decision. It still just bothers me that neither of our claimed doctors bothered to protect our claimed tracker.

[BrianMcQueso]

Tell me about it

[BrianMcQueso]

Fack. I filtered RC, searched for "cateraction", and jumped to conclusions without looking for "cat" or "cater". That was just plain dumb beyond belief.

Look, I'm not going to say I didn't defend cateraction on yesterday's lynch, because I did. I totally did. I completely understand it makes me look scummy. RC says I did it because I wanted to keep the godfather alive, but I think I've made it

very

clear that I just thought KK was the better choice. I saw cateraction's behavior at the end of Day 1 as panicked.

Even if I were to concede you this point, it doesn't explain why you had an interest in stonewalling the cater wagon on D1 after you were on the record saying that KK had looked more and more townie to you.

I think you're overstating my 'forgiveness' of KK. I highly suspected him, and then he improved from that. I did not call him guaranteed town.

Heck, I even found you criticizing cater's activity.

Speaking of which, how's it going, cateraction? Glad you decided to show up, but I'd like to hear your opinion on a lot of the stuff that's been going down.

Me asking an inactive player to participate in the game is not the same as me accusing him of being a member of the mafia. I feel like I keep being asked to defend cateraction even after he's been lynched and confirmed scum. This isn't something I'm comfortable with. I did not suspect him Day 1, and I am going to leave it at that.

Qwints: We shouldn't limit ourselves to the people not voting cateraction, otherwise you give the scum plenty of room to hide. And putting yourself on the list of "choices for today's lynch" is just... facepalm.

Hohum: I think alex raises some legitimate points against you. You are acting paranoid and defensive. You're resorting to personal attacks and profanity, and you really do need to calm down.

[BrianMcQueso]

I don't recall you ever calling cater guaranteed town either.

Um, yeah. That's because I didn't. What's your point?

This could be a scumslip. I "learned" of two roles yesterday (cater/Archaist). Who is the third?

Glad to see I'm not the only one not paying attention to every single detail in this game.

In other words, the first lynch is, in my opinion, more or less about just getting someone who isn't a power role lynched. You staying on KK and not ever considering (I know you never considered our points against cater because you just tried to argue that no one mentioned cater during D1) the things we had to say about cater (not just his deadline behavior but the other things people brought up) shows me that you were absolutely against a cater lynch rather than just more supportive of a KK lynch, as you claim.

I was against a cater lynch because I was more supportive of a KK lynch. They are tied together. I picked a side. I'm not going to sit back and remain ambiguous "oh, I vote this guy, but I'll totally support this other bandwagon if that's what goes down". That's bad.

The more you talk to me the worse you look.

Not surprised. You have a very biased opinion at this point. I'm not sure anything I could say would magically make you like me again. Am I just wasting my time responding to you, since my words fall on deaf ears?

I also want to make it clear that I'm "attacking" (others words, not mine) RC not because I think he is a mafia, but because his argument against me is flawed. He accuses me of many things he himself is guilty of. That's the definition of hypocrisy, isn't it? I don't think you're scum, RC, just wrong.

[BrianMcQueso]

I'll do an analogy. Let's say John is lactose intolerant, but he also hates apple juice. His buddy, Jeff, knows that John hates apple juice, but doesn't know he's lactose intolerant. When he tries to hand John a glass of milk and John insists that he will drink apple juice, Jeff is obviously going to be confused.

I'll play along with this, mostly because it entertains the hell out of me. Sure, let's say I'm lactose intolerant and don't like apple juice. But I give apple juice a try, and say "I guess it's not that bad". Obviously, KK is the apple juice in this metaphor. But cateraction isn't milk.* Cateraction is mango juice. Do I like mango juice or not? I never said anything about mango juice. I didn't say if I did or didn't like it.

Now, I'm given the choice between apple juice (KK) and mango juice (cat). I know I don't like apple juice, but I guess I would tolerate it, but I've never had mango juice. And I'd rather take my chances with the unknown over something I know I didn't like.

*I think that would make LK the milk. I don't like it at all, but at least I know it's good for you.

[BrianMcQueso]

Like you said, maybe we're at an impasse. You say you decided your vote purely based on KK's early play, right? I can't accept that. I can't accept that you, as townie, were that uninterested in understanding why cater was the alternative lynch. It's not like you were alone, Light-kun was in your same position. Light-kun asked why cater was chosen, and I tried to give him quick summary of why. I have to think you ignored that, not because you made a "dumb mistake" or whatever reason you gave us, but because you had a reason to not look over cater's activity.

I am sorry that you can not accept something I have said. It hasn't been the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

I was not interested in a Cateraction lynch. Light-kun claimed doctor with literally less than 24 hours until deadline. At that point, I really wasn't interested in lynching or even paying attention to cateraction. Kublai Khan had set off my scumdar before. I was not the only one voting for him at that point. I saw a good lynch, and I wanted to make sure someone other than one of our two claimed power roles would be lynched.

Yes, I really wasn't interested in the cateraction wagon. I had a perfectly good alternative.

Brian 614: As I've said. Brian suspecting KK along the game and after voting for me is consistent. It would've been suspicious if he voted Cater and cater flipped town. Anyway, in this case, being wrong throws suspicion on you because you NEVER interacted with cater and that could be you avoiding links with your partner.

I am aware being wrong throws suspicion on me, I know how Mafia works. I'm not disagreeing that my actions yesterday make me look bad today. But cateraction

lurked

. I never interacted with him. Here, for your reference, is a list of all the people I haven't significantly interacted with (you can go ahead and read my ISO)

Albert B. Rampage
Archon
ChiefSkye4
Cream147
LesterGroans

If you'll notice, that's also a list of our least active people. When people don't talk a lot, I don't talk about them.

[BrianMcQueso]

I'm here, but I'm sortof at a loss as to what to say. Not much has developed since my last post. We're at a lull, but I am hopeful that the lull will be remedied when some of our new replacements re-read and give us stuff to talk about. And if that doesn't happen, then... blarg.

I know that it's bad to let people sit and not address them, but I've typically found that inactivity is not linked with scumminess. And what can I really say to a person who's inactive? "Hey, start posting." "No, seriously, start posting". It's just easier responding to players who are saying things. *shrug*

I've read most of a very recent game where Archon was lynched on D1 an was scum... He was very talkative at first wich got him in trouble and he was finally lynched (I'm still missing 5 pages so I don't know what were everyone's motives for the lynch but he sure looked some scumm from the beginning). Later he replaced into this game (I think timelines are correct) and he posts very little content... like if he was dissapointed with his role and didnt want to throw suspicion upon him....

Or maybe he deduced that being talkative gets him lynched. Drawing "disappointed with role" is a little bit of a stretch, but I have seen that trend with other players in the past.

[BrianMcQueso]

Brian was vigorously fighting for a KK lynch over a cater lynch.

Yes, yes I was. Congratulations on figuring that one out. So here's my summary of Day 2, so far:

Town: Brian, you supported a KK lynch over a Cateraction lynch.
BMQ: Yes, I realize that. I thought KK was scummier. Sucks for me.
Town: Brian, your support for Cateraction makes you look bad.
BMQ: I know.
Town: Brian, you know you supported Cateraction, right?
BMQ: I guess I did.
Town: You defended someone who is scum!
BMQ: I am aware.
Town: Brian, you defended cateraction! He was a member of the mafia!
BMQ: ...
Town: Why aren't you addressing our concerns? Why do you ignore my case against you?!
BMQ: I'm sorry. I did think KK was more likely to be scum. My bad.
Town: But you realize that you defended cateraction, right? He was scum! That makes you look scummy!

[BrianMcQueso]

The prod seems a little unnecessary, considering I posted

on this page

and four others haven't even posted since my last post, but... eh, what's done is done.

@LK: You've spent a lot of time defending me for a bizarre switch like that. And "Crossing your fingers for scum blood"? You're acting like I've already been lynched! That's pretty bold for a second vote.

You're implying that you made a choice, when you've already admitted to us that you didn't choose.

Pardon me? I was capable of voting for either cateraction or KK (or, well anyone else). I voted for KK. How, in any way, is that not a choice?

[BrianMcQueso]

Hey guys,

I just wanted to come in and apologize for going missing. I got laid off, and have had a lot more important things to worry about. Sorry I wasn't able to hang around and try to convince you not to lynch me.

Love,
BMQ