Open 160 Bird 7P (GAME!) - before 823

[yabbaguy]

If the player's in your lucky spot, Octupis, why vote for them?

[yabbaguy]

I did confirm for the record, it's just that I did it about a 30 mins-hour ago. Did I faux-pas on a technical (not strategic) level by not waiting for the mod to asterisk me?

@muzzz-7: I'll answer that question legitimately.

I did it in my first newbie game, but to me, it seems that sometimes the point of a vote that fizzles out by page 3 at the latest is a concept I can do without. Last time, it got a hapless newbie to eventually spaz out and get himself lynched as vanilla D1.

Alternate method? Poking fun at another random vote.

[yabbaguy]

@muzzz-10: Late confirmation is null, it was midnight for me when the role PMs came out.

I already explained my case for not random voting. You have that answer. Truthfully, no, I was slightly exaggerating when I brought up the case of the flailing newbie.

Yes, I feel my RVS knowledge is sufficient. What I also don't like is that sometimes it can be construed for a serious vote. I can't really tell if your vote on me is joking or serious, morphing into a serious vote, whatever. It has me a bit on edge.

@muzzz-11: Do you find the lack of a random vote scummy?

@Baltar-19: Do you get annoyed if you have to answer an "obvious" question?

@hohum-20: This sounds like a post that was made without the Preview button hit.

-baltar did reply
-it's L-2 already... so i find it strange you're asking for more on the wagon.

What are the consequences of people trying to tear down a wagon? The way you're talking, I'm assuming these are drastic consequences, the fact that it's in exceedingly poor taste to do this, according to you.

[yabbaguy]

@hohum-24:
A) Our definitions of *respond* seem to be clashing. Baltar had an outright exchange with Charnel. I'm not sure what you mean.
B) Calm your emotions. A level-headed town is an efficient town.

@hohum-26: So soon? Let's analyze both.

Bloodcovenant >>> this could be for a few reasons.
a) he's scum who's trying to detract the town
b) he's misguided town
c) he's stirring up discussion. Mastin selfvotes during RVS consistently for this precise reason.

(I see post 37 now... just as I thought.)

Assuming a) automatically is jumping to conclusions.

Me >>> I'm puzzled. You got ticked at me because I asked what I believed to be legitimate questions. I've seen several games where people also get annoyed for wagoning at a rapid pace, and that's where my confusion came in.

Let's point out another crucial fact. You've called both of us out for ONE thing that you deemed scummy. That's impulsivity. I'm not going to say scumtell automatically, but jumping outright and saying that you've found top suspects after a single RL day is irking me simply from a strategic vantage, town or scum.

@BC-27: Claiming hohum had no reason is incorrect. He had it RIGHT there beneath his vote. If it were a snake, it'd have bit ya.

@muzzz-33: Scummy as hell? Please elaborate. You've been asking me why all game, but I haven't heard any points from you on why an RVS is the pro-town way to go.

Muzzz, you do have me a bit on edge at present, but again, we're VERY early in the game. I'm still trying to feel my way through. The fact your vote could kind of be construed as a kinda-maybe-sorta-random-but-may-be-serious vote is kind of loaded, as one could then pounce and say that I overreacted to a joke vote and call me defensive, or say that I'm ignoring a point if I construe it as a joke vote.

Speaking of, is your vote a joke vote? At this moment in time, are you going to stand by it?

Gotta rush to dinner, will elaborate later as needed. Did I miss anything?

[yabbaguy]

No vote is ever completely random.

I don't buy that. Random votes can completely be pointless, at least at first. By all means they can morph into serious votes. What I'm stating about muzzz's on me is that it actually could be construed as either joking or serious, IMO, which made me feel a little uneasy about replying to it.

If the vote's a joke vote, there's still a possibility you could have it stay up to this point.

@hohum-41: He DID reply. In 17 and 19. He was having a full-blown exchange. Does that not count as a response?

I tend to get very curious about other people's questions. I don't view it as opportunism at all. And again, VP had replied to Charnal's questions, so I'm thoroughly confused as to what you mean.

Now sometimes, wagons can have another effect. Sometimes you can see that some of the latecomers on the wagon come up with a lousy excuse, and then you vote them for being opportunistic. In that case, the wagon serves a different pro-town purpose. While I think claiming there was nonexistant reasoning was incorrect, sometimes that happens.

Throwing a vote around? Could be pegged as inconsistency, obviously depends.

@42: It's perfectly fine to say you're suspicious of people, but to say that you immediately have come up with top suspects after only assigning one scumpoint to a person is a little jumpy. It's all my vantage, but you sound like you have it all figured out so quickly.

[yabbaguy]

@muzzz-44: RVS, obviously. Voting for someone in the 7-spot is a, well yes, it is a pointless vote, I'd call it a joke vote.

@hohum-46: I need more input. Some people have yet to react to everything that's unfolded, and comparatively haven't posted as much as we have (and we've been online A LOT compared to some of the others). You are asking me to make a suspect list, really. I'm going to continue to call suspicions as I see them until people have weighed in enough for me to come to a conclusion. This is far too soon for a conclusion.

You know what's great? We've already sparked a great debate. We now have something for everyone else to talk about. And in turn, future discussions come out of that. Everything is going swimmingly. I can't wait to see what comes next. That's how you play the game. Set off some fireworks, and the chain reactions ensue from there.

Let's not rush ourselves. Keep your minds level, your emotions calm, continue to question everything like you have been, and the suspects will emerge. Then even more suspicions fly, then the fun begins. Process!

Questions?

[yabbaguy]

Usually I would never expose such iffy suspicions so soon. I only have a few:

(green = town, red = scum)

- muzzz put a vote on me for reasons I'm still iffy over. The fact he finds a lack of a random vote "scummy as hell" when I've seen a handful of people get away with it is probably nothing more than a theory debate, though. Saying he's suspicious is nothing more than OMGUS at this point.

- VP, not sure why he withheld sound logic when exchanging with Charnel. It wasn't out of frustration. Still, that's one thing.

- You hohum, I'm well in the green at the moment. You're very actively engaged in finding scum, and that's good. What I'm not a fan of is that your scumhunting is trying to get me to do things I would not ordinarily do, like post a suspect list NOW when I would rather just be silently collecting notes.

- BloodCovenent is tipping into the red at the moment. The fact he's blatantly cross-defending ME is scummy probably in that he's trying to get a townsperson lynched. Unfortunately, that's nothing but WIFOM to you, so again, I just gotta keep watching for more cohesive reasons like the question dodging issue at hand.

- Charnel, I'll state later down.

- Octupis, nothing significant.

But you see, I've only come up with 0-2 things for each. I'm doing it right, but this is as good as it gets after 1 RL day. This is why I've been really dodgy about putting my suspect list up, because I hate it when people throw me off my strategy. I had a plan going, and you decided to not only make me do it your way, but you *babied* me through the process, as if I was hapless scum. This isn't a good idea, because you're using personal and emotional degradation as a method of investigation, and that is NOT going to make a townsperson crack any differently from scum, if they do at all.

Now instead, I've come out with admittedly dodgy evidence, per your request. Instead of my first player-by-player analysis being reasons slowly accumulated over time the way I wanted them to be, now I come up with a crap list instead. This undermines my viability.

I know exactly what I'm doing.

Confirm No Vote

@muzzz-56: Have you tried the die rolling feature before?

@Charnel-57: Sorry, but that's a crap reason to vote for someone. Yes, he's talking about random voting, but he's also tying it into the issue with me. Saying that he's not scumhunting is inaccurate.

Also his vote is serious, as far as I can tell. I don't know if it was always that way, but I think he's made it clear it's deliberate.

@muzzz-62: Why is not doing RVS a scumtell? Are scum scared of voting?

That second bullet is not an accurate summary. Of course people can act scummy from the get-go. It's just that I'm not going to immediately jump on one scumtell off the bat. I'm the sort to let the facts pile up before I declare someone definitively suspicious.

I think the popular belief is that theory debates can cause scumslips. That's what you're claiming with me, right?

One thing I'm not doing is voting and FOSing as liberally, as I did last game. I did that a lot last game, and now I'm not doing it as much. I'd say that is probably because I've been pressed on the defensive, and again, throttled from my usual course of action.

I want to ask a few questions:

-BC, why are you blatantly defending me? Post 49 is really crappy, honestly. Where do you stand on hohum? Where do you stand on me?
-Charnel, you seem detached from the game a bit. Why did you still think after all the discussion that muzzz would be random voting?
-VP Baltar, why weren't you willing to share your reasons for voting for BC? It wasn't frustration, so I'm stumped.

[yabbaguy]

Oh when they (hohum, male or female?) posted "yabb and BC are scummiest"? It just took me a bit aback to see how some people can come up with a suspect list so quickly.

Different styles of play. You thought I flipped out?

Now if I didn't want to random vote, I could've also been one of those people who waited for the discussion to start. That's easy, the discussion got rolling extremely quickly (and I'm assuming it would have as quickly even if it hadn't been me). Instead, I outright "told" everyone I was not one to random vote.

However you twist what I said, if you're going off of that for a scumtell... it ends in nothing but . That's fact.

[yabbaguy]

@muzzz-66: Wrong word on my end. How you hypothetically interpret what I say.

What I'm saying is that you never know if the people who didn't random vote this game (whether they didn't get on fast enough or however) would actually random vote if given the chance. They could be dodgy people who wouldn't random vote either. In short what I'm saying is, are you going to peg scumpoints onto everyone who doesn't random vote? Does it make any difference that I outright stated that I didn't want to random vote?

[yabbaguy]

@BC-70: Did you see muzzz's vote? Somebody's gotta be the catalyst that gets the game going. One way you're handling this differently from Mastin, you're being a heck of a lot less cool about it. Somehow, I don't think being the shock jock is your desirable approach.

Thing is, if you always self-vote, NL vote, whatever, that means you do it scum or town. Thus, the skepticism is warranted.

You're second-highest on hohum's list apparently. I don't think that's indecisiveness. How is this a contradiction of the advice of throwing the vote around? And tunneling?????????? (?x100)

I will buy into your argument of picking apart wagons, especially the latecomers who come up with a lame excuse for hopping aboard. That should set off warning bells, red flags, etc. etc.

@All: Please don't ever use "you're so gay" (etc.) as a phrase in your posts, ever. It's truly disrespectful to the homosexual population.

I'm truly fascinated by your labelling me crappy town. You just blasted your lid instead of calmly responding to the comments. If they are as stupid as you claim they are, it's easy to intelligently shut down the comments instead of blowing your stack. I mean, look at yourself, you're compulsively using bold to get the point across, you've called stuff bullshit and called people stupid. And yet through all that, your emotion has caused you to spew comments that sometimes make no sense at all, as outlined above.

Get your head in the game. If you're not doing this seriously from start to finish, you might as well write "anti-town" on your forehead in permanent ink.

Question: Why am I crap town?

@Charnel-73: I think we're misinterpreting, I think muzzz said to BC "I still think Yabb's scummiest, but you're next." Am I reading that right?

[yabbaguy]

Wrong answer. If you were indeed town-aligned then you should find me at least somewhat suspicious

What does that mean? Nobody's found you suspicious really. I'm questioning a lot about you and some of your strategies, but really, I haven't derived a scumtell from it. I'm allowed to do that.

Your response indicates that you have some inside knowledge of the setup.

I'll confess, I know everything. I can truthfully tell you that there are 2 goons, a cop, a doc who can't save the cop, and 3 townies.

You were right, I knew it. Kudos.

[yabbaguy]

Now let's discuss something.

We've been doing laps around the other players in terms of post counts (Baltar says so himself in 81). You've been playing offense and been keeping me on the defense all game up to this point. However, as you're relentlessly staring me down, you seem to be forgetting that there are five other people with you. I'd say a good handful of them still have yet to contribute. And yet you're still merrily on your way to have me hanging from the gallows? Right now? Would you lynch me RIGHT NOW if you had it your way?

Slow down. Keep your vote if you want, but slow down. We still have a lot of game left, we've still got a lot to hear from some of the other, but contrary to your belief, you really are rushing this. You have several people around you that you haven't heard from yet. Hohum, please, I'm not trying to act superior, but please, do not say that I'm the right lynch until you've truly gotten a good taste of everyone else in play. I apologize if somehow my admittedly political statements are screwing with your head, but please, if you feel I haven't before, I am stating fact here, and that is something you cannot deny. I am not manipulating you, I do not have reason to manipulate you, and if you still think it's right after hearing everyone out thoroughly, I'll be right here.

I'll ask again, why do you think I should find you "somewhat suspicious"? Also, what do you mean by "inside knowledge" of the setup? I truly don't know what you mean.

[yabbaguy]

EBWOP:

I'd say a good handful of them

still haven't contributed as much as we have between us, through no fault of their own.

[yabbaguy]

I feel that yabba is doing this too, and it irritates me.

FOS: Bloodcovenent

(he's at L-2 already, if I counted correctly. If it's lower, I'll make it a vote.)

This is where I start to believe you're detached from the game on a level that seems scummy. First off, you're springboarding off a comment which made no mention to you, which is bizarrely opportunistic, and secondly, how in the world do you come up with that conclusion? Love me or hate me, saying that I've been coming up with nothing but fluff is completely incorrect.

Where am I just doing color commentary?

[yabbaguy]

@hohum-94: Let's also tie in muzz 99's post. My defense of BC when you pegged as top suspects was to further my point that you already calling out top suspects was a little strange. I was trying to show the point that you were a bit jumpy.

I hadn't had any full-blown suspicions of BC when I defended him. Really though, even in the sketchy suspicion list you asked me for, you see that I had a wary eye on him. At the moment, he's scummiest. He's not my scumbuddy.

@muzz-99: I don't want the Day to be over yet. That's why I don't want L-1.

One reason- Octupis. I haven't heard much from him in the way of suspicion lists. By this point, I think most of us have a suspect list, and I'm a little puzzled why his posts have been short, brief, and no real full-blown suspicions indicated. It could be RL issues, for all I know.

@VP-103: The fact that "top suspect" is such a volatile term in the early stages is what bothers me. Yes, you can have a top suspect, but really, it's not viable, and in the case of hohum, has led to him jumping to conclusions.

In terms of my advice, when hohum is investigating me, and

slowly

alarmingly quickly becoming more and more sure that I'm scum, my defense response was to make him realize that his *way* of approaching my investigation of me was incorrect, in addition to pointing out the flaws in his argument. That's how I decided to go at it. I tried to include self-defenses of myself, and if I didn't, well, I suck.

I really don't know how you quantify evidence. It's more a measure of time, but come to think, my measure of time is probably a bit warped, considering that I wanted this D1 to last a hell of a lot longer than it probably is going to realistically. So truthfully, I have no answer to that question. I think this is inexperience biting my ass here, since I've only played one game prior to this.

I guess "when I've heard enough from everyone" is the timer I use, upon self-analysis. And again, I want a little more out of Octupis, so I'm not in any hurry.

[yabbaguy]

@Charnel-112: I don't buy it either. I would expect a reply more like "I'm not new, I know exactly what I'm doing, so quit the superiority" or something like that.

Also, how is sarcastic defense relevant to me having inside knowledge? I don't see the connection.

@BC-116: I have never used gay as an insult. Ever.

Also, a lot of people have addressed several times that dodging a question is just that, you dodged a question. Maybe you overlooked it, but really, there's no way of knowing that. Fact of the matter, you got a response.

Having a second look, I don't see how scum would be this abrasive. Ironically enough, I'm now inclined to think that BC is towntelling, because usually I would think the scum would try to be a little more on the down-low instead of tripping everyone's wires. He's been a bit useless, but I think he's just weak-town, honestly.

@BC-120: I see no way VP and Charnel are scumbuddies.

@Charnel-121:

Can I order a lynch please?

Octupis has me on edge, but really, the crucial fact is if he was aware that Baltar wanted to press Charnel. I can't decipher that, but either way, Octupis has been suspiciously quiet.

Plus, this suspicion of Octupis hatched a moment ago, while meanwhile, people have been consistently suspicious of you Charnel. This sounds like scum trying to end the Day so that they get their votes wiped away.

---

After D1, my thoughts:

hohum >>> obvtown

Baltar >>> town

muzzz >>> leaning town

BC >>> speculating town

Charnel >>> scummy

Octupis >>> tilting scummy

Vote: Charnel

[yabbaguy]

@all: If you vote or unvote, can you put it at or near the end of your posts on a separate line?

@BC-151: You don't even factor in the possibility that hohum's town who just misread the topic. Like you. You missed the Unvote. I almost missed it myself. You're being hypocritical in that hohum could very well have made the same honest mistake you just admitted to.

Change:

BloodCovenent >>>

speculative town

tilting scummy

Still, my vote rests on Charnel because I want to know why he tried to ask for a lynch on someone else when he's under some pressure himself. I think he was in no position to do that. I'd rather have him over BC at present.

Also... I think I missed this:

@Charnel-131: I'm saying the link *between* you and VP as specifically a scumpair wasn't there. I really, really don't get how that even relates to me being scummy.

@hohum&BC: I disapprove of all of this ad-hom attacking crap. This is undisciplined scumhunting, and even anti-town, because it's distracting. Set your belligerence inside and focus.

Why do you think I went on about keeping a level head and cool emotions? You're a living example. If your sanity is lost, you completely lose sight of the game.

In short: Shut up and play the game.

[yabbaguy]

This isn't Survivor: Mafiascum, hohum. If you're voting based on the weakest player or whoever's "doing it wrong", well, you're doing it wrong.

Good night everyone.

[yabbaguy]

@Baltar+muzzz: I'm still confused. Do you not find it scummy Charnel did that?

@hohum: Why did you say "lynch BC or lynch me"?

[yabbaguy]

@VP-183: "That" = saying "Can I have a lynch please" when he's under pressure.

[yabbaguy]

Badaboom. We have a docclaim.

[quote=""Charkonian"-185"]no sorry, I won't. Being that the point you will likely read, I want to be able to place it where I want, to make you read my posts better.[/quote]

False. If anything, seeing a vote will make me read a post even more intensely to figure out the reasoning.

Hiding your vote is anti-town. It confuses people, and I don't see how any good can be intended out of it. You're also saying that you're doing this for a selfish purpose, so that people understand you better. Selfishness is also anti-town.

@muzzz-188: But the fact of the matter is that Charnel was *under pressure* whilst popping the question. I agree a lynch could come soon, but the fact that someone who's being pressed is asking the question sounds like Scum trying to accelerate the Day. (Scum love a short Day.)

Maybe he wasn't under as much pressure as I thought? I dunno.

@BC-189: Your way of approaching your role is very puzzling. You start the game with a shock, by voting No Lynch. And throughout the game, you have been tripping wires, drawing cases out of thin air, and flailing around with your vote, like on Charnel- oh nvm- hohum.

I can't see how you're a Doc. I envision the Doc to be a more low-lying person, not necessarily faithfully pro-town because a nightkill would be bad, but just being a little more subtle so that the attention is

@all: If a counterclaim exists, would you vouch for it? If it were me, I'd err on the safe side and have the doc counterclaim, simply because it's (barring a docsave) LyLo if we blow it here.

[yabbaguy]

@Charkonian-192: But if you hide your vote, it runs the risk of getting overlooked. How can that possibly have deliberate intent of helping the town?

I also don't see why you're putting the whole "split your messages" deal in here...

You voted for me because you're *annoyed* at me? I think that's how we define OMGUS.

Also, we could very well both be town just with different opinions. I am not deliberately giving wrong information with scummy intent. I gut-honestly believe that anyone trying to rush the Day when they stand to benefit from it is worth a mention. To say I'm stretching the truth is false. This is gut-honest truth. You're trying to end the Day, and yet you stand to individually benefit, seeing as you were under pressure.

@muzzz-191: I accused scumspects of "not playing the same game as the rest of us" constantly last game I played. Having constant suspicions is pro-town, but the fact that he "ordered the lynch" is a request I would gladly deny, seeing as he could very well be scum standing to benefit from having his lynch prolonged a Day.

Bird is basically a best-of-three. Scum can afford to lose one person, and most often, town can afford to mislynch only once. Whoever "loses" Day 1 (by having one of their own lynched) is at a serious disadvantage, seeing as they have to be flawless the next two Days.

Townies don't have an interest in trying to stop the Day because a) they want more discussion to happen and b) seeing as they're uninformed, if they try to ask for a lynch on another Townie, they run a high risk of getting lynched next day for leading a town lynch, causing them to lose. Scum can get away with this, because their loss isn't immediate. At worst, the game goes to MyLo/LyLo and nothing's really changed.

back to Charnel: In terms of pressing me for my counterclaim, I'll wait. If we mostly agree to go counterclaim hunting, I will go along with it.

I forgot to mention this earlier. In my experience, quick-lynching/-hammering is a towntell.

Why. muzzz?

[yabbaguy]

@Baltar-195: Did you read my chain of logic in 194, the "Bird is a best-of-three" point? Tell me what you think.

I was just making sure I wasn't going to annoy the town if for whatever reason people objected to having the doc counterclaim. Should I assume in the future that a counterclaim should happen by default no matter what?

Seeing as you started the process, let's do this. I'm not doc either.

BC >>> YES
Baltar >>> NO
yabb >>> NO

Passionate Plea: Last game I played, the doc REFUSED to counterclaim, even though the town mutually agreed it was the right thing. This led to disaster and his eventual game-ending lynch.

Don't be that guy. Please claim if you're it.

[yabbaguy]

Bringing in the table. One thing I'm assuming BC's not is stupid, so vanilla town is off of the chart.

[col]Proceed With Counterclaim[col]Dry Lynch BC (Abandon Counterclaim) BC is Scum[col]Goon is lynched, Doc is NK'd[col]Goon is lost, Doc does not definitively die. BC is Doc[col]Doc is NK'd, but lynch could be put towards Scum. If a scum counterclaims, BC gets lynched, but at least we have Scum lynched the subsequent Day.[col]Doc dies in this scenario too, but this time, it's by lynch, so the Scum are free to use their NK as they damn well please. LyLo is inevitable.

A dry lynch has a tremendous amount of risk attached to it, but it's also the only way the Doc will survive.

It's really a matter of how much you value the Doc, but here's why I'm willing to have him sacrificed:

A) Like said, this is a very accelerated game. Neither side has much room for error, and the Town gains a very, very huge advantage by having a goon gone D1. Whoever strikes first is going to be very happy. A doc is a very fine, fine price to pay for getting halfway to your goal and keeping your mislynch available.
This is where I differ from you Veep, the bottom line is that having to be right TWICE in a row is a daring proposition. Statistically, you'll have to make two 50/50 gambles if we mislynch and there's no docsave, meaning a 25% chance of success. If you lynch a goon, that's a 1/4 gamble and a 1/2 gamble, but if you're right on the former, you win. That's a 5/8 chance (62.5%). Against 25%? Good deal.
B) I envision the doc as a weak role. While the pool of players is small, the Doc loses 2 targets, as the goon and cop are worthless. Then you've gotta *find* the right target. This is all opinionated, but I view the Doc as a weak powerrole. It's a good sacrifice, IMO.

BUT!

I think I screwed up cooperating with the docclaim process. I actually want to *delay* this and question BC further. Like wondering why his general attitude is good for a doc to have. If I continue to find myself at a standstill, for the reasons outlined above, I'll revert back. Either way, I'm not gonna step into a 1/3 gamble just willy-nilly.

[yabbaguy]

@VP-211: Agreed.

Unvote

[yabbaguy]

Please also consider my own stake in this. If BC flips town, I've basically aligned myself against him, and you can lynch me tomorrow satisfied that you KNOW you've caught scum.

That's CrapLogic. You could both just as easily be misguided town thinking each other is scum. Really, just because you're clashing doesn't mean one's right and one's wrong.

Heck, out of context, you could be distancing scum! (I doubt it.)

We can't lynch Town to prove a point. The game's way too small for that.

[yabbaguy]

But you're saying it's guaranteed when it's not. Ergo, you're the short-sighted one.

Again, you have ONE mislynch. (unless we get runner-runner Docsaves)

Start Game: 5 town v 2 scum D1
Sacrifice Town + No Docsave: 3 v 2 (LyLo) D2
Scum is Lynched 2 v 1 (LyLo, Game Ends Here) D3

Incorrect statistics are anti-town.

[yabbaguy]

EBWOP: guaranteed that if we lynch you, we'll definitively see BC's guilt/innocence

[yabbaguy]

Yabba isn't going to go along because he's BC's scum partner.

I am already, as I want the counterclaim process to be delayed. Read into posts and be less belligerent.

[yabbaguy]

Change:

BloodCovenent

??? >>> loser scum

[yabbaguy]

Charnel's defense of BCgruntz is suspect. The "sorry, try again" statement is irking me.

Seeing as now we *do* have to factor in town stupidity with our claim, my suggestion, lynch Char, investigate gruntz.

[yabbaguy]

Apologies for cop-direction. I guess I had everything a little too planned out.

It's anti-town for a VT to claim doc. What if we had done the counterclaim? Then we would have an outed doc but no scum outed. That's a town disaster.

Charnel, I'd rather see you pick reasons than bluntly state "You're all being mean to him"

You're saying I should've hopped on a BC wagon to lynch?

spell it "newbie". just looks cleaner

Charnel, I've had shifty opinions on BC, first thinking he was being abrasive, but then his docclaim made me much more suspect. A variety of circumstances has kept me off of actually voting BC, and I will have to look back and see what you're referring to, but I am not scumbuddies with BC, and he has done scummy things all game.

It's doubt that's kept my vote off, IIRC. Either that or unawareness of vote counts. Not scumbuddy inhibitions.

There was little wrong with this claim, and Egruntz did not need to make himself scummy by reclaiming.

Now hang on... if he's scum, the deed's done. Either he would've stuck with it and gotten counterclaimed, or he backtracks and looks scummy for it.

This could be scum passing advice under the table. "Egruntz, stop making yourself look like scum." This and claiming that "It's not fair, you're all picking on BCgruntz!" makes me suspect of a plausible scumpair. Like Baltar said, though, one of you has to flip first to see if that's even possible.

Charnel, I also want to see something, well, not necessarily PBPA quality, but some summary on why you think Baltar is scum. From my vantage, up there with hohum, Baltar is very, very pro-town at present.

@egruntz-252: You could still be scum trying to apologize for your former ego for playing poorly. If you're vanilla, duh, you're going to correct the falseclaim made by the preceding dumbass. However, we never forget that you could be scum backtracking on a scummy mistake made. And Charnel (who I deem scummy as well), has been acting shifty when it comes to the subject of you.

You come into a role which I am extremely suspicious of.

Now, I'd like you to reexamine hohum. Hohum, while he has his anti-town abrasive qualities to him, no matter what I think and say about how belligerent he is, has never been afraid to post (and often twice or thirce in succession), always states his mind, and is totally committed to scumhunting. He is not scum. He tunnel-visions and gets a little too passionate at times, but he's not scum.

@hohum-253:

I just really don't see charnel's flip as being quite as productive as egruntz/BC.

That's very, very true. A little scum manipulation can be a dangerous thing. I'm all for ending the theory debate to avoid manipulation.

Charnel, you're next. For now:

Vote: egruntz

[yabbaguy]

L-1.

Didn't I say that?

[yabbaguy]

There is no deadline, and

I'd prefer it that way.

[yabbaguy]

Oh wait, we already have a deadline:

8) Each day will have a deadline equal to the number of players multiplied times 3. This will be days=3n, where n=number of players.

Day started on July 22nd. Deadline's not for another 16 days.

[yabbaguy]

Charnel: A Point-By-Point Analysis
Written by yabbaguy

Gentlemen, I would like to submit that on counts of connecting himself with and defending proven scum, contradictions, OMGUSing, and hollow voting and arguments, among other reasons, I submit that Charnel has proven himself scummy, and is our ideal candidate for a lynch this the Second Day of our investigation.

Please, at this moment in time, open a new tab or window in your browser with this topic. Then in that new tab, set the filter to All Days- posts by Charnel- Oldest First. I shall reference all post numbers by what is given in this filter. Remember, clicking the white piece of paper to the left of the timestamp will show you the post in context.

Let us begin.

Posts 0-2: This is his initial tussle with VP Baltar. Often I find that the scum votes early, but often with serious intent. In addition, note his chain of what I would deem “stupid” questions. As you recall, it had been pretty obvious as to Baltar’s main reasoning behind the vote. To me, this is scum trying to derive discussion when all he is really doing is trying to ask a pointless question to look like he is.

Post 4: As we have now deduced, Charnel is an alt for an experienced player. Charnel, with deliberate intent, gave the connotation that he was a new guy, when this is false. A deliberate lie like that should be seen as nothing less but scummy, and his subsequent defense amplifies the fact.

Post 5: Another vote, but saying that “spewing out too much theory” is a reason is cruddy. Here, he tries to draw an Information Instead of Analysis scumtell, if I’m using the term correctly, but in fact, muzzz has stated that this theory discussion is for the purpose of scumhunting. Ergo, no foul, and the vote is errant.

Post 8: Here he confesses his detachment from the game. I am not inclined to believe that it’s honest misreading in the face of all the evidence I have seen. Not playing the same game as the rest of the town is scummy as in the long run, it’s easier for a true townie to act town than it is for scum to attempt to act town. Anyone who has a noticeably different stance on the game should be called out.

Post 9: Charnel is bringing in irrelevant theory. We’re playing an Open game, and he brings in the possibility of a Mason-Vig nobody knows about. We’re playing fucking Bird. This is easy. Complicating matters is useless to the town.

Post 14: First off, he cites sarcasm as a reason for voting me when the question was how I had inside knowledge of the setup. He went off-topic. Detachment from the game.
He mentions “wanting to improve his town game” for playing an alt, when he could just as easily be assigned to scum. He’s trying to slip some manipulation in.
He also feels like he was being treated like a newbie, but from my vantage, I still don’t see how “Sorry for being the new one” could be construed as anything other than “I’m a newbie”

Post 15: I really don’t know how hohum could’ve done the research Charnel describes here.
Also, this was the post where I called Charnel out for asking for a lynch when he was under pressure. He was at one point at L-2, Octupis had unvoted but still had an FOS aimed his way. Yet Charnel at this point bluntly said “Can we lynch Octupis” without the town having significant discussion on the matter. To me, this is Scum trying to accelerate the Day, and we never forget that a short Day is always pro-Scum, as discussion is truncated, and the risk of an errant lynch becomes so much greater.

Post 16: He uses and tags sarcasm. He stated earlier he hated sarcasm. Hypocrisy.

Post 19: Draws an EXTREMELY vapid conclusion based on me saying how I didn’t see the specific link between VP and Charnel. He immediately jumps to “So you’re scum?” without making the connection apparent. Totally drawing a case out of nowhere.

For this next post, please hit the piece of paper on post 25, then scroll to post 192 which Main Mykonian made.

myko Post 192: There is nothing beyond OMGUS about the vote. He explictly said that he voted for me because he is annoyed at me. Voting for your attacker out of emotional frustration is the epitomy of OMGUS, and is extremely weak.

He also cites me making a case out of nothing, when I am right on the money. This is the point I made about having votes not be hidden in the middle of nowhere, and his refusal to do so is something I see as anti-town and scummy.

Please hit your back button and return to the filter.

Post 25: Bandwagoning is not a scumtell, and as far as I can tell, Baltar had good reasoning behind hopping on the wagons. I also notice how Charnel only cites the BC wagon, something I take note of as a possible slip.

Post 26: “Sorry, try again.” That’s the scummy message Charnel conveys here as he completely overlooks the point that egruntz was trying to distance himself from all scumminess that happened before he dropped in, which is inherently scummy in itself. As it turns out, the town is correct, and now the point remains that Charnel has defended flipped scum, trying to deflect hohum away from what I believe to be his scumbuddy.

Post 27: Now he accuses me of being OFF wagons too much, as opposed to his case of VP being ON wagons in scummy fashion. This is a contradiction.
He also vauntlessly claims that BC is “just a target” which is basically just hollow whining. It’s one thing to be wrong, it’s another thing to be wrong with no defense for why you’re wrong.
How am I directing mislynches which never happened? I’ve been suspicious of BC (I’m right), and Charnel (which he wishes wasn’t true). But my friend, it is all too true, and it is going to stop here.

Conclusion: So what can we summarize from all this? Charnel has consistently defended proven scum, placed votes and drawn reasoning for what turns out to be no reason at all, contradicts himself, and makes statements that are so outlandish that it makes readily apparent that he is not a fellow townsperson. In light of all the plainly put evidence, analyses that I faithfully believe to be true and am willing to be questioned on, and basic common sense, I urge you to vote and lynch Charnel with all due speed. He has stuck out as a player who has not been contributing positively to the town from the start, and has acted scummy all game.

May I answer any questions you may have? If not, I would like to declare this the best move for the town to make this, the Second Day of our ongoing investigation.

---

I don't want to quicklynch either, so my vote remains off for now. A separate post reacting to 317 among others will come shortly.

[yabbaguy]

@Charnel-317:

Yes, I was strongly advocating for bullet c. One must never forget that I was still trying to find my way around suspects, and I was stating fact here, that BC could very well have had intention to just stir up discussion. Obviously later, he shrunk in the face of this attention, but that's how I saw it at the time.

Sarcasm, eh, not one of my glorious moments. The point was getting across here, that by claiming "inside knowledge" of the setup, I was demonstrating that there is no such fact. In retrospect, I was a little short-sighted because I didn't take into account that it could've meant who was scum and who was town. I apologize for that.

Again though, I wasn't sure at the time what he meant. It was dumb of me, but that's nothing more, it's just stupidity, not a lie.

If you'd look, I wasn't sure of the votecount, and I didn't want the Day to end considering there were quite a few other people who hadn't made as much noise. I would have voted otherwise.

At one point, I got myself tangled in a knot by thinking that abrasiveness was a towntell. It's obviously null now, especially with his subsequent docclaim to come.

Charnel, you dismiss trying to accelerate the Day as a crap reason. We never forget that scum want the Day to be short, and you did just that. I was putting pressure on you, and you decided to ask for a lynch on someone else whilst I was trying to pressure you. That is something that is legitimate, and I don't understand why you deny it.

I was telling hohum that his *reasoning* for voting BC was bad. You can still be suspicious of someone and yet call someone else's reasoning bad. That's not chainsaw.

and this would help scum in this case... Yabba is trying to direct the game so he gets a little advantage for scum.

I don't get this.

And when egruntz unclaimed, I knew he was just trying to distance himself from all prior scumminess. That's when the vote came down.

---

Everything I have said is legitimate, and what I believe to be true. You have demonstrated contradictory and hypocritical behavior.

[yabbaguy]

There is one flaw. If scum shifts to a vanillaclaim, we have THREE suspects, when a lynch of 2 is all we can afford.

Here's my advice.

ONLY Vanillas claim first.

>>>If 2 claim, powerroles claim at this point, and whichever powerrole is claimed twice, lynch both of them.
>>>If 3 people claim vanilla, the scum is in the bunch.

If the latter occurs, ONLY if the cop has an innocent on one of the three should he yap up. Otherwise, everyone else says the blunt statement "I am not a cop with any innocent on the three."

If the cop does claim and call an innocent, first off, wait for a counterclaim, and if not counterclaimed, lynch the two townies not named innocent.

If he is counterclaimed, we can lynch the real cop and the faker.

The reason for this is because if the cop has NO innocent, we should let him stay silent. If we lynch a townie, we gamble on the cop staying alive (ergo, the doc is killed instead), and if he does, he investigates one of the two remaining people in the Vanilla crowd, and it becomes obvious which is which.

This is a heavily town-favored game right now.

[yabbaguy]

First off, whatever we're doing, I think

Claim Vanilla

is the best thing I can do at this point.

There's STILL a disaster possible. If Charnel claims doc and isn't countered, we have ourselves a 3-VT pool (really 1 scum and 2 VTs) AND no way for the cop to live. Baltar, you are either an idiot or scum desperate to break up the process that's going to kill you. Take it as a compliment, I'm banking on the latter.

At this point, we might as well massclaim. *sigh*

[yabbaguy]

Hang on:

VP claimed cop
claims Charnel is innocent in the process

That's the only public knowledge, right?

[yabbaguy]

(aside from me claiming vanilla, too)

Did I miss something?

[yabbaguy]

NO!

I'm VT!

You should've had doc claim, and THEN lynch the two claimed VTs that remained other than Charnel. You had THREE suspects. THREE!

Hohum hasn't claimed, so I'm assuming he's doc. In that case, you may pull it off just yet. But man, people, you're scaring me.

[yabbaguy]

and if he is, Octupis is scum.

[yabbaguy]

Well, you're wrong. Either way, town wins, so lynch Octupis.

[yabbaguy]

Yea, yea. You, Oct, and Char all did me in. Somehow, I knew I'd be favored for a lynch over Octupis, but it's a town victory either way.

I just wish someone had told me hohum had claimed doc. STILL I don't see where he claimed, and if he did, I would've liked to have been enlightened about that.

[yabbaguy]

Wow, that's a REALLY subtle docclaim.

I would've been a hell of a lot less upset with my lynch. To me, the possibility of Char claiming doc was still there. If that had happened, you would've had disaster on your hands.

Believe me when I say your gamble to outright claim cop was very, very gutsy. If Char was doc, this would not have been a guaranteed victory.

[yabbaguy]

At least it didn't turn out that way, so yea, it's over.

[yabbaguy]

He said "confirmed town". Not "vanilla" or "townie".

Also, Char was speculating. He was thinking "Oh, I was so problematic that obviously the cop investigated me." That's how he was so sure.

[yabbaguy]

That's Charnel thinking Oct was cop, if you ask me.

Mod

, does the investigation subject know they're investigated?

[yabbaguy]

Nope.

[yabbaguy]

I mean, again, you're wrong about me, but at least Oct is obvscum.

Octupis, you played scum very well either way, you just ran into bad luck and a bad scum partner. I'll have more postgame comments once the game really ends.

[yabbaguy]

That was certainly an interesting game. Here's what I make of everything:

For myself, it seems as though I started the exact same way as last game, got off to a very slow start in terms of proving myself pro-town, and this time it took even longer. When I reacted to hohum's initial suspicions of having a suspect list off the bat, I was hit with a fear that the Day might end well sooner than it should have, and that's why I reacted so strongly.

I'm not prepared to give up on the experiment of abandoning my random vote just yet. We'll see how that goes.

@VP Baltar: Very strong overall, and congratulations on surviving as cop. One thing I think nearly damned you was your focus towards the endgame, as I don't think Charnel had claimed vanilla, and yet you jumped on the copclaim. Then you supported my lynch almost jokingly "he's so obvscum it hurts" without realizing that I had just made a simple misunderstanding.

Keep it up though, man. By the way, what were those anti-town reasons you were withholding at the outset?

@Charnel: It's probably not much more than bad luck on your part for choosing me as a suspect. However, a lot of your comments seem to have a wise-ass tone of voice to them which often is an off-put and could fall under scummy sarcasm. That and keeping focused, as like I said, your vote on me was because you were annoyed at me, and you said statements that just outright made no sense or contradicted yourself.

Remember, if you're town, most of the people are on your side. Speak the truth, be honest, and be courteous above all.

@BloodCovenent: Please, don't take hohum's advice and quit. However, I will say that there's a lot left to be said for how you handled scum. You damned yourself with a combination of shrinking away from negative attention you deliberately brought upon yourself (Which isn't always all bad, but shrinking is bad) and generally getting on everyone's nerves, which didn't help your docclaim. I'd expect a doc to be a little less attention-grabbing and abrasive. (Although hohum was quite extrovert the whole game)

@egruntz: Distancing yourself from a predecessor's scumminess isn't a Get Out of Jail Free card by any means. Muzzz was right on the money, BC isn't stupid, and at least he made a claim that may have helped his team had hohum caved in.

Hard situation to dig yourself out of though, and a good effort.

@muzzz: Compliments to you for drawing an NK on a vanilla. You have a very strong grasp on the game. I think your posts being lengthened a bit would serve you better, as sometimes selective responses can be scummy to me, but the pro-town vibes were there from the get go. Well done.

@hohum: Congratulations on holding your firm ground as the real doctor whilst getting the faker out of the nest. However, it seems as though often your emotional passion for the game sometimes impeded your progress, as often I find the phrase "Moar __ lynching plz" to be quite suspicious. While it didn't matter, I notice your belligerence and short-sightedness overlooked the point that I had completely missed your docclaim, and was asking for that information, and yet you told me to "use my head" instead of providing the information I wanted.

Allow me to transition unsubtly to a self-plug, try my new Roleclaimer GIFs! They're a great way to make sure nobody misses your claim ever again!



Overall, well done. Just remember that if you're ever *not* sure about a suspect, but pursue them passionately, and they get lynched and flip town, you're in a lot of trouble. Also, you seem to be a habitual EBWOPer, and I don't know if that's due to not thinking things through or forgetting something consistently, but maybe some more pre-planning before you hit Submit might be a good idea? I don't know how you think, so I really don't know on that last point.

@Octupis: Overall, you did very well. It's really a shame that your scumpartner couldn't handle the full-on force of the investigations and that the odds just didn't break for you, but luck definitely counts. I think a few more posts would've helped maybe in case anyone calls you for lurking, but overall fine.

One thing I would've done differently: NK Baltar night 1. I think his "Divulging my reasons are not pro-town at the moment" clause is implying a powerrole, and that set off an alarm in my head.

Overall, though, well done.

---

One last observation, I noticed that for the most part, between me, hohum, and Baltar, probably mostly our fault, we outpaced the others by a ratio that I'd even deem dangerous. Often, when some vantage points aren't factored in enough, we often lead to cases where the town only goes off of those limited points and merrily heads on their way to a misguided lynch. I think some balancing issues were threatening, but luckily, it didn't matter for town.

Good game overall, guys.

[yabbaguy]

When you voted for BC (?) at the outset and Charnel started wondering "so if you're so pro-town, why don't you tell me your reasons?"

[yabbaguy]

What did you think my sig was linking to, a porn GIF collection?

I see where you're going with that, and indeed pursuit is something that's needed. I'm just saying that somehow a townie lynch which you were clearly leading is going to end that wagon's party in a snap, and you're cleaning up.

@VP-429 + hohum: So why was I assigned scumpoints for wanting to withhold my scumlist?

[yabbaguy]

Sometimes, BC, you opportunistically jumped on points, like when hohum mentions that Charnel is doing color commentary, and you immediately hop in and opportunistically aim the same argument at me. That struck me as opportunistic scum somewhat, but it really wasn't a viable reason that anyone would believe outright.

I'm assuming you did the NL vote to stir attention. It worked, but what didn't work for you was that you basically proceeded to insult and weakly argue against everyone who (unsurprisingly) turned their attention towards that. Somehow, I don't think that's the vehicle you want to use.

Mostly I wanted you to piss off

You failed. :)

I think I also have a lousy sense of when it's okay to lynch somebody, which is probably what restrained my vote on BC. That's probably going to be my failing point, not swinging my vote in the clutch. I'm always afraid that I'm going to be picked on for voting way too fast.