Open 156 - Friends and Enemies - Game Over before 816

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

/confirm

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Vote: Exalt

If he can't even pronounce my name correctly I don't think he'll be much of an asset to the town when it comes to more complicated things like finding scum.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Unless of course, I can find scum using uncomplicated matters such as voting for the guy with the name I can't pronounce!

See what I mean.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Vote Debonair

You seem quite jumpy as soon as you got some attention to you. I guessthat you have something to hide

Yep, you've completely broken the game wide open with your hilariously simple game view, well done.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Defensive? Jumpy? I was going for sarcastic jerk, seemingly I missed the target on that one.

I'm curious about Exalt's answer to Sho's question about policy lynches as well.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Oi~
It''s good to see some known faces again
Especially two of my previous lovers XD

Will read shortly and post some analysis.

You aren't going to leave me this time so KMD can trick the stupid replacement, are you?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

It was DDD that wanted Exalt to comment on policy lynches...so DDD, what do you think of Exalt's response?

He's doing his best to support a possible policy lynch of Sho without using the words "policy lynch" which is more than a little peculiar. Furthermore, I find it a bit odd that's he so willing to simply concede defeat and admit that there's no possible way he can get a read on him.

Anyways, Raivann is scum. We should all vote for her.

Unvote; Vote: Raivann

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@DDD: OK, I'll bite. Why Raivann?

I didn't say stop and ask questions, I said vote.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Sorry.

EBWOP: Anyways, Raivann is scum. We should all vote for him.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@DDD-Are you certain I'm scum?

With this setup, that would require me to be your scum partner, and since I'm not I'm not "certain".

~

Santos, I promise you'll get some reasons, but I'd like to at least have a few more people react before I do so.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Whether or not to believe if DDD just claimed cop or not.

Yes, I'm claiming cop in an open setup that doesn't feature a cop and with that a guilty result on Raivann on D1 of a game with a day start.

~

Reasons for voting Raivann:

1) Meta - I was working on a pet project of mine and compiling data from a recently completed Newbie game Raivann was involved in. In the first five pages he had nearly thirty posts and accounted for almost thirty percent of all game posts, he was a vanilla townie. So far in this game he has a total of six posts over a similar time span. And it's not as if this was an ineffective strategy, town won the game and Raivann was NKed N3. So why such a substantial change in style unless there's a change in role?

2) Vote on Exalt - It's a terrible vote and he jumps on someone else's bad logic to place it. It's a good vote for scum because Exalt has foot in mouth disease which means it's easy to sustain with an adequate chance of securing a mislynch.

3) Response to my vote - There are certain behaviors that might've persuaded me that he's town, I didn't see any of them. His asking if I was "certain" didn't help his case either in my eyes.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Mod: Thanks.

Raivann: I've looked at that other game DDD mentioned and you got stuck into playing

far

more quickly there. Do some of the following:

• Ask questions
  
• Look for scumtells
  
• Put pressure on people
  
• Voice your suspicions

So far all you have done is voice suspicion of Exalt.

So, do you always coach your scum buddies this blatantly ekiM?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Weak case.
Meta argument isn't valid. Reason 3 wasn't present yet when voted. Leaving only #2. Yet, he made already one post after ekiM complained about Raivann's vote. He had no comment. In his next post, he votes.
So three questions:
-When did you check his meta?
-Why did you check his meta?
-Why didn't you comment on Raivann's vote earlier?

I'm also interested in hearing why you voted without giving your reasons and asking others to vote with you.

Meta is perfectly valid, Zaz. Now, we're not dealing with a large sample size here so it could be mere coincidence but so far the trend suggests more postings = town, less postings = scum. Furthermore, you question my third point and ask why I'd vote without giving reasons? Reactions, specifically Raviann's to verify or run counter to my opinion.

When? Would've been Monday of this week.
Why? I was compiling data for a project I'm doing relating to newbie games. Raivann's name came up as a statistical outlier in my data at which time I realized I was playing with him in this game and his behavior was quite different.
Why no comment? Between Raivann's vote on Exalt and my vote of him I posted once which was a joke "hi" to you. So essentially I did comment on Raivann's vote with my next serious post.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

A) He's been ultra defensive and ultra aggresive so far this game.

B) He's started a bandwagon on Raivann with no concrete evidence on why we should lynch him.

C) I'm gettin' that scummy feeling from him.

I can't decide if the bolded statement is more ironic or more hypocritical, but either way it's a good source of lulz.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Meta is most of the time a valid argument, but in this case it isn''t. First of all, your sample is one. It would have meant that I was scum in my second game, which I wasn''t. One example doesn''t say much about it in the whole.
Secondly, it''s based upon activity. And activity has multiple factors that have an influence. Difference in allignment can be one, but isn''t the only one.

Actually it takes into account both his completed games. As scum Raivann had ~40 posts in a 20 page game, as town Raivann had ~115 posts in the same time span. And while I agree that this analysis isn't the end all, be all, it's as credible as anything that's been presented this game.

And you didn''t answer my third question. You only admitted that you first posted a random comment and after some time, a comment about the vote. Why didn''t you comment on the vote at the same time as the random comment?

Don't remember, was probably because I didn't have the time and/or inclination at that point in the space/time continuum to seriously analyze the last two pages.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Two things Exalt. First if you're a "postaholic" in general then lurking isn't a tell either way in meta terms. It indicates that you're not playing in your usual fashion as either scum or town and thus isn't a tell in either direction.

Second, that's where Raivann's response or lack thereof comes in. Raivann had the opportunity to explain his change in behavior if there is in fact a legitimate reason. He could've easily mentioned whether he's been busy in IRL or intentionally shifting strategy or some other point. Instead he chose to ignore the points presented and come back with a weak OMGUS vote.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

itacv2's latest post cements my vote for him. I'd like everyone to comment on posts 145 and 160.

I'm having a hard time figuring out whether he's a VI or scum. He's wishy washy as hell on Raivann reiterating some of my points against him, but then he backs away and comes back on me for the given reason that I seem like "Big Shot Scum".

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I've got to say that Toro's case is the absolute worst that's ever been presented against me. It's so bad he's got to be town because as mindlessly as he's pushing it he'd experience way too much blowback as scum if he actually got his lynch. However, his confidence seems like a perfect place for scum to hide behind and while I believe Raivann is that scum, I'm willing to pressure itacv2 to see if it's him as well/instead.

Unvote

Vote: itacv2

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I've got to say that Toro's case is the absolute worst that's ever been presented against me. It's so bad he's got to be town because as mindlessly as he's pushing it he'd experience way too much blowback as scum if he actually got his lynch. However, his confidence seems like a perfect place for scum to hide behind and while I believe Raivann is that scum, I'm willing to pressure itacv2 to see if it's him as well/instead.

Unvote

Vote: itacv2

And you're telling me your meta idea is better?

Gimme a break DDD.

Your case consists of junk playstyle arguments, the ironic argument that I'm pushing a lynch without any arguments, oh yes, and the incredibly compelling argument of you gut. Yeah, I'm sticking with my claim that you're running the worst arguments against me in any game I've played.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Too many people missing which means the same people are arguing the same thing in the same circles.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Too many people missing which means the same people are arguing the same thing in the same circles.

yup pretty much.

You could help by voting for someone who might actually be scum.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Unvote; Vote: Exalt

Till we get the promised analysis.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Thanks Mr. Mod. I think others should join me in voting for Exalt until he actually contributes.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Ifg you like to proceed, i claim to be mason, and even when this might end up in scums wanting me dead, i would like to point out that when i suggested that there were no powerroles id did it knowing that i had the only power role available.

If this is an outrageous scum gambit we need a mason counterclaim ASAP.

Furthermore, if he's un-counterclaimed is there any reason for his partner not to claim? The big use of the masons in this setup is basically having them as two confirmed pro-town players. If his partner isn't revealed, itacv2 is the obvious NK and we lose the other masons confirm-ability.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

If you and your partner claim, and one of you were to be NK'd, the other person is considered a cleared townie 100%. If you both don't claim, then you will end up being lynched, and then your partner would never be able to clear himself.

Not entirely true.

I believe it would be smarter for the two masons to claim rather than hide and let one of their fellow masons possibly get lynched as a fake claim. I do believe in that.

You said he should claim as well... so I'm wondering why you disagree?

We are not going to lynch itacv2 unless someone counterclaims, period. To suggest otherwise represents a huge disconnect from reality.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

We are not going to lynch itacv2 unless someone counterclaims, period. To suggest otherwise represents a huge disconnect from reality.

You might want to figure out what masons are first. There is almost never just one mason unless he is a recruiter... which he didn't claim.

He claimed to be a mason, and said he had a partner. I believe it would be smarter for his partner to also claim so that we have two confirmed townies. Even if one got NK'd, it would only confirm the other one even more. If we have masons then we also have a doc most likely, and I would assume the doc could also focus on one of them at night... thus scum have only a 50/50 shot of NKing them if they chose to take out either one of the confirmed townies.

His partner claiming would be the very best case scenerio for town... since two confirms would dwindle the mafia list down on day 1.

That is assuming he isn't mafia claiming mason right now... and assuming his partner isn't made up. That being said... even if he was mafia claiming mason and another mafia claimed mason as well, them surviving til a late lylo situation would only help town decide that they are both mafia if everyone mass claimed.


If you think about the possible good that it could do compared to the bad... I think it far outweighs the bad and they should claim.

You're overthinking this so hard it's not even funny.

Fact: There are a pair of town masons in this game.
Fact: Itacv2 has claimed mason.
...1) Someone counterclaims mason, we lynch Itacv2
.......A) Itacv2 flips scum, yay scum is dead.
.......B) Itacv2 flips town, we lynch whoever counterclaimed the next day, yay scum is dead.
...2) No one counterclaims mason.
.......A) Itacv2's partner claims, we lynch someone besides those two.
.......B) Itacv2's partner doesn't claim, this is dumb and sub-optimum strategy, but we still don't lynch confirmed town Itacv2.

It's a very simple syllogism.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I fail to see the problem with having the masons claimed. It's far better than losing one to a NK before they can confirm each other. At this point I'd be fine with an Exalt lynch, but going back to my previous preference I'd be even happier with a Raivann lynch.

Unvote; Vote: Raivann

Vote Count #17

Bees.

Raivann (4) - ZazieR, ConfidAnon, Sho Minamimoto, Debonair Danny DiPietro
ZazieR (3) - itacv2, Raivann, Santos
Exalt (1) - ekiM
Toro (1) - muzzz
Santos (1) - Toro

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Better would have been using some super cryptic obvious breadcrumb that only the real mason would know how to explain because it was explained in their private thread.

How could a breadcrumb be both super cryptic and obvious? I don't follow.

Hm... if I said this is a hint:
155353169927

Can anyone figure that out?

Probably not. I would give the solution to my partner, and there is the precaution necessary for a game win.

Does your given number actually work?

I'll refute Exalt's case laughable case tonight when I have more time.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

This isn't going to be a great case, because I couldn't find damning evidence on anyone, but this is what I came up with after the reread.

Need I go on? Get him [Danny] out of here.

Try checking your arrogant bad play at the door

scum

So Exalt’s case isn’t great or even damning, but I’m apparently obv-scum. I’m not going to bother with his quoted section because to go quote for quote would fill a wall no one would actually read. I’ll break down his “points”.

1). DDD has REPEATEDLY gone after the perceived easy targets

I’ve gone after Raivann who four people are currently voting for his scummy behavior. I went after itacv2 who was clearly playing “follow Toro” before we knew both of them were masons and I cast a pressure vote on you for your lack of contributions. Frankly, I would make all my votes again. Easy or not they were the right votes at the right times.

2). DDD has tried to get THREE seperate players quicklynched. You newbs actually follow him too like sheep. He NEVER gives a case or good reasons, yet he isn't considered suspicious for saying "VOTE HIM, TRUST ME, SHUT UP, YOU ARE SCUM IF YOU DON'T" on day 1.

This has several slanderous distortion of my positions. Yes, I pushed for a quick bandwagon on Raivann, but I never implied let alone explicitly said that anyone who didn’t jump on was scum. The facts simply don’t back this assertion up; ZazieR opposed the Raivann wagon yet I never called him scum. Plus you state I tried to get you quick lynched when I cast a pressure vote on you for lack of contribution. So Exalt

lies

about me trying to quick lynch him (and frankly itacv2 as well) as well as

completely fabricating my position

on those who didn’t follow my votes.

3). He is now bandwagoning.

Yes, we have less than a week until deadline and the biggest wagon is on one of the two players I consider most likely to be scum, it seems very reasonable to be voting for him.

4). He refuses to answer any and all questions posed to him.

Another outright

lie

from Exalt. Above he quotes (Toro quoting) questions from ZazieR’s post 149 and claims I never answered them. Except I answered those questions in my post 167.

5). He has two specific players who follow him and defend him no matter what he does in Muzzz and Santos.

This point is nonsensical. Both itacv2 and Raivann were happy to play “follow Toro” earlier in this game and we now know both Toro and itacv2 are town so we know from this very game it’s not a reliable scumtell. Furthermore, even if we accept that muzz and Santos are playing “follow Danny” (which I’m sure they’d both argue is incorrect anyways) there’s only two scum in this setup. So that means if I were scum, I would either have one or two townies following me around agreeing with me. I’m not sure how this is a scumtell at all.

6). If he is attacked he gets extremely defensive and arrogant. He does not use logic, but he will trashtalk anyone who mentions his name (that is if he doesn't ignore them completely by not answering any questions).

Playstyle isn’t a scumtell; I’ve already said that before and Exalt continues to reiterate his

lies

about me.

I don’t usually promote Lynch All Liars, but the statements Exalt has made about me have been so egregiously untrue and coupled with his earlier lurking I now think he’s more likely to be scum than Raivann. If this goes nowhere then I’ll revote Raivann later this week, but we’ve got a little time to see about stringing up Exalt.

Unvote; Vote: Exalt

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

So no one agrees that it is scummy what DDD did in trying to get 3 quicklynch bandwagons going on 3 seperate players? No one thinks that? I find that quite odd.

So your strategy is to keep repeating the same lies as if I didn't just refute them. I guess if you keep repeating them then maybe someone will get confused and actually believe them. I guess you've got to do things like this when you don't have the truth on your side.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I think that after me taking a stance against Zazier it was best not to eliminate me but instead kill my partner.

Vote Zazier

again
I think that following DDD without evidence was a bad move. So i guess we should seek for the second scum in that list of Exalt votes

ConfidAnon is scum.

Got anything to back that up besides what appears to be "OMGUS"?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

You know what this game needs? For someone to throw a rock through it's front window...

Vote: Sho

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@Confid: what's the case against Raivann?

@Itacv: what's the case against Zazie?

Why didn't you ask me for the reasons for my vote?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@DDD: because I assumed your vote was intended as the rock through the window you mentioned. If there's more to it, then by all means, elaborate.

Well if I have reasons then surely you want to know them and you seemed to be giving me a pass that you weren't giving others. And if you assume I didn't have reasons then again it's curious that you're just letting me get away with voting someone for no particular reason.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD - got reasons or not? Don't be coy, now.

His early play defined the "middle" section of posters that I've taken to looking for scum in. Furthermore, I'm bothered by the fact that so many of his posts are littered with small compliments. They fill up space making him look busier than he is and they're designed to elicit good will towards himself. He quickly jumps Exalt to L-1 by simply quoting the argument of others and he's shown little desire to hunt for scum himself.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

/confirm

That's nice, now what thoughts can you provide us about the game.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Frankly I'm bored and think Raivann looks like scum again, so...

A'ight stop, it's hammer time.

Unvote; Vote: Raivann

Line to chew me out starts here
\/

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

This game is about as exciting as a box of wilted dandylions.

Vote: Sho

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@DDD: again?

My points agaisnt Sho didn't go away just because I made the mistake of switching over to Raivann.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD, what points are those?

See my ISO 34 for most of them.

Agree with Mike and Muazz about Kise's terrible arguments.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I don't think Kise' arguments are terrible, just sittuational. I have to run at the moment, but I will look at your iso DDD tomorrow.

They're situational in that they don't fit our situation at all maybe.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I see Zazie posting in other games.

I really wish this was a scumtell, except it's just a ZazieR tell as far as I've ever seen.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I think Santos is scum

, but why are you voting muzzz instead? (Or is the Santos stuff a side note and you really did investigate muzzz?)

Then why aren't you voting him?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Can we just lynch Kise already? His slot's been in on both mislynches, and he's spent today making two cases that're both built on him ignoring everything that happened.

I'm tempted, but how about you come over and help Mike and Me get Sho lynched.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Sho, why haven't you voted yet... still?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

It just looks scummy to me, ekim.

Also, game is flailing to me...boring...so zetta sad.

I am going to just continue to note that half the players in this game have been voting people randomly without even trying to give a case and the one on me is just observations without really being able to conclude I'm scum from it.
Then again, could just be me.

It's zetta sad that you're still not voting.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

should I bother to continue reading, guys? Give me some motivation.

I want to hear your thoughts. And then I went you to help us lynch Sho since he's scum.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

One (possibly both) of muzzz or Mike is scum.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@DDD: and why is that?

Because Santos and Shanba aren't scum together which is about the only pairing I've managed to rule out.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Am I assuming correctly that you're ruling out Santos + Shanba because of Santos vs. Zazie?

And then Shanba tossed some flack at him as well. All in all, with a game this slow and as off-target as we've been there's likely little reason to even attempt to bus your partner. Hence with that pairing ruled out all the possible scum teams feature you and/or Mike.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

One (possibly both) of muzzz or Mike is scum.

I'm glad Santos decided to punt the game away though at the end, that was convenient.