Mini 754 - Frogs Mafia Game, Set and Match.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I guess I could go with an MBF lync if necessary, but I really think we'd be better off lynching Gorrad scum.

I'll bet you could. Anyone other than you, right?

Also, Dahill, how would you expect a pro-town player to react to having their case proven wrong? Just curious.

Not anyone. Just anyone who could be scum.

[mikeburnfire]

I guess I could go with an MBF lync if necessary, but I really think we'd be better off lynching Gorrad scum.

I'll bet you could. Anyone other than you, right?

Also, Dahill, how would you expect a pro-town player to react to having their case proven wrong? Just curious.

Not anyone. Just anyone who could be scum.

So... anyone.

[Citizen Karne]

I apologize, I have my internet back, and am rereading.

[Citizen Karne]

I actually really like the MBF wagon that is going on. I'm going to refrain my case on Gorrad until later as I would hate to take away any of the steam of the wagon. I will instead analyze MBF:

0: Random votes scotmany12.
1: Jokes around with crywolf.
2: Agrees with TSQ but makes sure to qualify said agreement.
3: Fairly noncommittal post claiming a loose suspicion of crywolf.
4: Apologizes for lurking, giving the post the feel of one made by an active lurker. More noncommittal stuff concerning TSQ vs. Haterade. Claims there is nothing really to comment on.
5: Odd post in which he defends dahill1 and votes kloud for similar reasons to his suspicions of crywolf, saying he needs his vote somewhere. This action is straight out of the active lurker's handbook. Seeing as he just criticized someone's case earlier in the post, one would think MBF's vote would land upon them if needed to be anywhere, not someone random who he had not mention prior to this post.
6: Joke about lack of activity.
7: Asks TSQ who should be lynched. (note: seemingly obvious joke at first, but later he makes comments that makes this possibly a serious post.)
8: "Checking-in" post.
9: 3 days later, notices that there is a wagon on cry. Reminds us of his vague suspicion for her. Won't vote for her (although kloud got voted on basically the same grounds), but would like some flavor.

IMPORTANT

: If crywolf/DizzyIzzy comes up scum, this post could be scum MBF prompting her to dish out the fakeclaim.
10: Unvotes crywolf, as he had been accidentally replaced, trying to be safe, although cry is only at L-2 and he has now said repeatedly that he is vaguely suspicious of her. Seeing as his vote is already on her, it would give a scum-on-townie-wagon a perfect excuse to jump on and still appear somewhat noncommittal. This is definitely odd. Seems like scum trying at all costs to avoid bussing a partner (which makes sense if he wants her to continue undercover with her whole neighbor thing seeing as have a scum neighbor could be very valuable in the future).
11: Questions scotmany's recent actions involving Gorrad and crywolf.
12:

Agrees that crywolf's duck claim does not bother him, even though ducks are not frogs.

This directly contradicts recent statements. Also, his wording makes it sound like he was voting crywolf, when, in fact, he was not.
13: Attacks dahill1 for not looking at flavor. Wants prods. (If he is scum with cry/Izzy it makes sense that he would want more people to see recent vents and change wagons.)
14: Clarifies argument for voting dahill1. Looks very suspect, and he softclaims unnecessarily.
15: Makes logical points on why it would be unwise for a mafiosa to claim duck. Makes sense with the whole prompting-her-to-claim scenario.
16: Clarifies points for dahill1.
17: States that he believes the mafia to be made of frog-predators such as snakes. Has recently reaffirmed believe that mafia is made of frog-predators, but now considers ducks to be predators of frogs,

something he did not, apparently, believe when he made this post.

18: Votes ML for flushing out the other mason. If he wanted to keep cry around solely because of her having a neighbor who could be manipulated, it makes sense that he would not want the other neighbor to come out in the open, let alone come under fire.
19: Good post about mason/neighbor strategy.
20: Same as previous.
21: Reaffirms belief that mason/neighbor should not reveal.
22: Criticizes vote on him for fairly legitimate reasons. Ad hominem instead of defense.
23: Claims sarcasm (looking back, looks valid), agrees we need more activity, argues with ML over whether or not he quoted him out of context (looking back, ML is right and MBF did quote him out of context).
24: Puzzlingly votes No Lynch. Not only claims to trust Gorrad, but implies that earlier post towards TSQ may have been genuine. Very odd, very scummy.
25: Ponders voting Archon, but doesn't (probably still wants to save the other neighbor although now that he is out he is less useful).
26: Does not cite evidence when he should. I would like to see these several games in which the town nolynch day one. Smalltowns and shorter Dethys don't count.
27: Jokes about scummy no lynch vote. Provides no real defense.
28: Votes Gorrad, even though he trusted him earlier and agreed with his comprehensive post.
29: Accepts Gorrad's explanation without much question and votes crywolf (possibly taking a cue from his scumbuddy to begin bussing).
30: Says he doesn't want a second reveal because both neighbors could be town. However, he is voting one of the neighbors. Seems to be trying to keep up appearances in the transition between keeping alive both neighbors and bussing cry.
31: Votes DizzyIzzy.
32: Does not defend himself whatsoever, instead opting for joking.
33: Keeps up buddying routine to TSQ. Contradicts himself by saying ducks are more likely to be scum than frogs and saying Izzy acted as though she knew ducks were safeclaims, something he wrote off yesterday. Seems as though he is trying bus a scumbuddy who has a case against her because she has become a liability (no longer has any worth as a neighbor).
34: Contradicts himself by saying ducks eat frogs, something he could not have believed previously.
35: Makes a shoddy defense of what he said. Promises more stuff.
36: Misconstrues the case on Gorrad, and decides to keep his scumbuddy alive for another day, as he now has an (OMGUS-y) alternative, scotmany12.
37: Realizes how big of a fool he has made of himself with the whole flavor arguments. Retracts all statements instead of trying to rectify them. Scummy.
38: Seems to have knowledge that one of the neighbors is scum, even though this is not necessarily the case. Earlier, in his attack on Gorrad, he claimed that he thought the neighbor argument was "arbitrary."
39: Point one is circular logic, or he is starting with an assumption he can't prove (unless he is mafia). Either way, not a good start. Number two misconstrues the situation a little with cry, although it WAS scummy. Point three makes a somewhat relevant point which nevertheless contradicts his first point, or doesn't (depending on if his logic was circular or just based on unfounded assumptions). After placing an argument on Izzy, he says he is more than willing to lynch scotmany12 OMGUS-ly instead of the person he has been focused on for quite some time. Makes sense if they are partners. He will bus her if he needs to but is grasping for a viable alternative. scotmany's somewhat aggressive posting style seems like a good scapegoat, apparently.
40: Admits to being wishy-washy. Says he is having trouble justifying voting Izzy, which, ironically, I agree with. Goes after scotmany, who he has less evidence on than Izzy. Basically confirms my suspicions.
41: Votes scotmany12.
42: Angry that people think he is taking things out of context. Would probably have been more helpful had he actually tried to prove he did no take said things out of context.
43: Misconstrues case on Gorrad. Gorrad used a self-meta. scot meta'd cry. Those are tow VERY different things. Self-metas are not acceptable, while independent metas are. If you say you cannot see the the difference between these, you are either lying or a bad player. I don't think you are a bad player, so I'm going with you are lying.
44: Asks for a votecount check.
45: Tries to defend his case, but makes no sense whatsoever. Also seems to contradict himself when he says scotmany's case pointed out flaws in Gorrad's argument and made sense. I believe he may be trying to say that because scotmany was not suspicious enough of anyone to say anything earlier, that any case he makes ever is scummy and contradictory because earlier he said he did not want to voice his opinions, even if the case makes sense. Please explain to me how I am wrong.
46: Replies to Dizzy.

Look, it is blatantly obvious that MBF is scum. I'm pretty sure he is in league with DizzyIzzy and Gorrad, but that is more speculative.

Vote: mikeburnfire

even though I'm not hammering. That's how sure I am.

[Citizen Karne]

Anyone care to comment?

[dahill1]

i wouldn't mind a MBF claim

[Citizen Karne]

i wouldn't mind a MBF claim

Agreed.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I find Citizen Karne's case as to why MBF is scum pretty compelling, with the exception of his suspect conclusions as to who his scum partners might or might not be, and I also support his call for a claim.

vote: mikeburnfire

[Citizen Karne]

I find Citizen Karne's case as to why MBF is scum pretty compelling, with the exception of his suspect conclusions as to who his scum partners might or might not be, and I also support his call for a claim.

vote: mikeburnfire

Um…was that the hammer?

[scotmany12]

I find Citizen Karne's case as to why MBF is scum pretty compelling, with the exception of his suspect conclusions as to who his scum partners might or might not be, and I also support his call for a claim.

vote: mikeburnfire

Um…was that the hammer?

It's six to a lynch. So no. He is at l-1 now I believe.

[Citizen Karne]

I find Citizen Karne's case as to why MBF is scum pretty compelling, with the exception of his suspect conclusions as to who his scum partners might or might not be, and I also support his call for a claim.

vote: mikeburnfire

Um…was that the hammer?

It's six to a lynch. So no. He is at l-1 now I believe.

Ok. Whew.

Claim please?

[mikeburnfire]

Ugh. Post this afternoon.

[MacavityLock]

Sorry, I've been quite busy, and it will only become more so over the next couple weeks. Right now, I'm checking in to say that I find Izzy's vote suspicious in that it a) entirely piggybacked onto someone else's case and b) was an L-1 vote without announcement of same.

Awaiting MBF's claim.

[curiouskarmadog]

I have only skimmed the last 2 pages, but see that MBF is at -1....good with my vote..also want to hear the claim.

will try to post something more in the next couple of days.

[Thestatusquo]

That wasn't a case, so much as it was a pbpa.

I hate pbpas. They're a really good way to fill a lot of space and look impressive while not actually saying anything. I would have much preferred if you had made points, and then cited specific posts to back them up. I don't have the time nor energy to read a very potentially biased summary of every post MBF has ever made.

[mikeburnfire]

Okay, I've already admitted I've been playing terribly. I don't know if it's just this game, or the fact that this is the first game I've played in 2 years, but I've just been screwing everything up. I didn't realize just how bad until CK put all my errors into one huge post. Some of the stuff in there is bullcrap (like scotmany OMGUS, scumlinks to Izzy, and claiming that independant metas are worth less than other metas), but I can see now just how badly I've screwed this up.

When Crywolf claimed Duck and people started to tear into him for being a not-frog, I defended him because I was also a pro-town non-frog. Specifically, a Toad (not a hairy toad, just a toad). But after Crywolf's suspicious behavior, I got it stuck in my mind that she was scum, and I tried to get her lynched. All the flavor nonsense I was spouting that didn't make any sense was just an excuse for getting Crywolf lynched. It's what scum do, I admit, but I had tunnel vision and wanted him dead. Some of the stuff held water (crywolf's poor behavior, and the neighbor-thing), but a lot of the stuff I spouted about flavor didn't make sense.

When I went on vacation I was still trying to check the game. I wanted to passively defend Archon's Toad claim and wanted to question Scotmany's seemingly contradicting statements, but my internet service ran out. Which is why it's so frustrating when people call my vote on scotmany OMGUS. I'd been suspicious of him since the end of Day 1, and just because he voted me first on Day 2 doesn't mean that MY vote doesn't count.

When I started in on scotmany, I thought I brought up some pretty good arguments, but EVERY SINGLE TIME I made an argument, he had a reasonable explanation for it. Well, I thought he was scum, so I was having none of that. I thought he was scum, so I just kept attacking him. As it is, I still think he's scum, but I should have acknowledged that he had explained all his suspicious behavior. All game long I've been assuming people are scum and trying to find evidence against them, instead of actually looking for scum. In a similar way, I've been ignoring Gorrad's scummy behavior for the most part. I thought he was town, so I really haven't been calling him out on his mistakes. I hope this explains all my actions this game so far. Let me know if there's anything in specific you want me to answer.

Speaking of Gorrad, where the hell is he? He once said of me "Generally good, intelligent posts. Likely town", but now that I'm about to be lynched, he hasn't said a damn thing. Hell, he hasn't said anything all day except "Vote Izzy, screw scot". It's like he's just sitting back and watching the town lynch one of their own.

Yesterday while pondering this game over in my head, I theorized that maybe Gorrad and scotmany are scum together, and that scot was bussing Gorrad. It's been tunnelvision, like Gorrad said, but maybe it was planned. I don't think this is likely, since scotmany has been REALLY REALLY pushing Gorrad, but I need to keep all options open.

As for the likelyhood of people being scum, I still think it's quite possible that Izzy could be scum. Same thing for scotmany. And Gorrad and dahill. I haven't really been paying attention to everybody else due to my severe tunnelvision, but they could be scum too. The only people I have good vibes from so far are TSQ and CK. All of TSQ's posts have been solid, but he was completely absent Day 1, so I can't give him as much credit as I would like. And CK went through a lot of effort for that pbpa of me, which is something I wouldn't expect a scum to do especially as I'm close to lynch. However, as TSQ points out, it's pretty biased to me being scum, and it's still something that scum can do. So, I guess I'm not helping again.

I can't promise I'll be more useful in the future, but I promise to try harder if you don't lynch me now. But for now, I see that I'm at Lynch-1. I thought I was lynched too when Izzy voted me, so I would appreciate a little more wiggle room. I'll give you my role soon, but first I'd like to hear more from RR, Gorrad, and TSQ. None of them have really given their opinion on my wagon. TSQ just posted that he didn't like the pbpa on me, but he cleverly avoided giving his opinion on me in the process.

[dahill1]

i don't understand why you would continue to push a case that you knew was BS..
also I don't really get your case on scotmany. you said he provided a reasonable explanation for each point, but you still wish to lynch him. doesn't that make it just gut? also for the record, i'm not voting you because you're not useful. and you should claim in your next post i see no reason why you'd need to hear for others before claiming

[Citizen Karne]

My impression of pbpa is that you are looking for the person you are doing them on to be scum, and that should be taken into account. I was very nitpicky.

MBF, what you said is nice, but I'd still like a claim.

[mikeburnfire]

i don't understand why you would continue to push a case that you knew was BS..
also I don't really get your case on scotmany. you said he provided a reasonable explanation for each point, but you still wish to lynch him. doesn't that make it just gut? also for the record, i'm not voting you because you're not useful. and you should claim in your next post i see no reason why you'd need to hear for others before claiming

Yeah, I've been playing this by gut. Really no logic involved. I still think he's scum, even if there's only a scarce amount of evidence.

A claim is useful because it reveals information. Getting other peoples' opinions is another, more useful way to reveal information. There's really no need to rush this, as we aren't currently deadlined.

[dahill1]

that's true getting others' opinions are useful in getting information, but not combined with claiming. why would you need others' opinions before claiming? i'm not asking you to claim for the sake of time but you can't fakeclaim

[mikeburnfire]

I... wasn't planning on it..?

I just want some questions answered.

[Thestatusquo]

My impression of pbpa is that you are looking for the person you are doing them on to be scum, and that should be taken into account. I was very nitpicky.

MBF, what you said is nice, but I'd still like a claim.

Wrong.

If you go into a PBPA with a preconceived notion of that persons alignment, then you defeat the purpose of the PBPA, and basically reduce it to the definition of confirmation bias. If you enter a PBPA thinking that a player is scum, than you will be likely to upplay anything that makes them look scummy, and downplay anything that makes them look towny, and vice versa. A PBPA should be a tool to figure out how you feel about a player, not a method of attack.

[scotmany12]

When I went on vacation I was still trying to check the game. I wanted to passively defend Archon's Toad claim and wanted to question Scotmany's seemingly contradicting statements, but my internet service ran out. Which is why it's so frustrating when people call my vote on scotmany OMGUS. I'd been suspicious of him since the end of Day 1, and just because he voted me first on Day 2 doesn't mean that MY vote doesn't count.

I never voted you.

So, all I'm getting out of MBF's post, except for that he is voting for me for gut, and he suspects four people to be scum, is a whole lot of appeal to emotion.

[mikeburnfire]

Then maybe you should actually read it.

Still waiting for TSQ to give his opinion of me.

[scotmany12]

Then maybe you should actually read it.

Still waiting for TSQ to give his opinion of me.

I have read it. The whole thing about admitting to screw up, claiming to do scummy actions, and the whole thing of promising to try harder is all appeal to emotion.