Open 164 - Bird 7P (Over) before 836

[PorkchopExpress]

Hi guys, please note that I'm running on Australian time so my posting will seem a little all over the place. Chronologically speaking.

Vote: Hiphop

There is nothing wrong with a few votes ending up on the same person. It's called pressure, it helps us find scum.

[PorkchopExpress]

And why is that a problem exactly, OGM?

[PorkchopExpress]

@Hiphop: At what time does it become acceptable for people to make "non-random votes"?

[PorkchopExpress]

Hiphop's last post rings false in light of post 42 and post 34.

[PorkchopExpress]

The issue is not with changing your vote, the issue is primarily with changing your vote to someone who already has one in the RVS stage.

I don't understand why you are making such a big fuss over two votes.

This statement doesn't really fly considering what you were posting in 34 and 42. The ones in which you make a fuss about two votes having the same reasoning.

[PorkchopExpress]

I was not complaining that they made two votes for the same person, but that one of the votes was not random.

So here he thinks non-random votes are something to complain about.

@Hiphop: At what time does it become acceptable for people to make "non-random votes"?

Whenever you feel like. You already did, so I don't know why you are asking that question.

Right. Considering he's already tried to disown this whole line of questioning in post 47, I'm thinking hiphop looks scummiest.

[PorkchopExpress]

EBWOP: "looks the scummiest at the moment" should be the end of that sentence. Posting pre-coffee is not recommended.

[PorkchopExpress]

Sorry, birthdays and tax returns have been taking up my time. I'll post real soon, people.

[PorkchopExpress]

Hey guys, I'm catching up right now. I'll post later today.

[PorkchopExpress]

Yeah, I'm not buying hiphop's story about an unwitting gambit. Going to do a reread of brothernature, and see if hohum's accustation stands up.

[PorkchopExpress]

@Baltar: Thoughts on hohum/Brothernature exchange?

[PorkchopExpress]

An isoread of brothernature and hohum, have left me really keen to hear from hohum. Currently, brothernature seems to be scumhunting. While I don't like some of his more aggressive play, and I don't think activity excuses it in the slightest, there is scumhunting in his posts. Hohum needs to post more. (He's soon due for a prod, I believe. Last post was the 29th).

hohum will be prodded if he doesn't post by tomorrow ~4:00PM EST.

[PorkchopExpress]

Vote:Hohum

It's pressure O'clock.

[PorkchopExpress]

@Hohum: I'd like a read of Zwet. On top of whatever you're working on, if you don't mind.

[PorkchopExpress]

Hard to work out who the scum are, if players don't feel the need to post.

[PorkchopExpress]

Once again, just using hohum as an example.

Once again, I don't see any town motivation for this.

Isn't there motivation for town to point out who is being inactive? Like pressure voting a lurker, for example.

[PorkchopExpress]

Nitpicking and trying to pass it off as scumhunting

Do you have any examples, Baltar?

[PorkchopExpress]

This is what bothers me, I don't think your questions were any more practical for moving the game forward than anyone else's, and yet you tried to classify them as such.

This is a fair point. You can't shut down other people for making mountain's out of mole hills that you happen to disagree with, and then excuse your own questionable nitpicking because it moved the discussion forward. It should be worthwhile, or it shouldn't.

[PorkchopExpress]

I'm a little concerned by the way that hohum turned discussion bn's way then disappears, only to have a case against bn presented by VP in his absence. That could be coordinated play.

[PorkchopExpress]

Wouldn't it be better to try and use the information we have Day 2, rather than policy lynch a lurker?

[PorkchopExpress]

@ Baltar:
Regarding the conjecture. The key part of that post was ‘little’. In the same way, I’m a little concerned about the way Zwet seems to have a tendency to piggyback your arguments. It’s not damning in and of itself, and might actually tell me more about the other players than about you, or nothing at all. In this case, ScumHohum could simply feel free to lurk since you offered a case against Townbn (regardless of your alignment).

I agree with some parts of your case against bn and I’m unconvinced by others. I think that bn was scumhunting earlier (the OGM stuff, for example). Some of your case strikes me as playstyle/personality differences as likely as scummy behaviour. Some players are aggressive and abrasive, I don’t always like it but that doesn’t necessarily determine their roles. That said, of late bn has been stuck on the defensive, and not providing much by way of questions or analysis. Considering how he feels about such play, I think that’s suspicious. If the wagon is headed his direction, I’ll join it. There are scummy parts to his play. However, he’s not my optimal lynch.

Since you asked for some scumhunting, sure thing.
Hohum: Judging from his actions hohum has repeatedly chosen to continue playing without participating. Any way you look at it, hohum turned suspicions toward bn and has since avoided having any hand in scrutinising him. He has not provided a satisfactory reason for this. I’m of the opinion that this is now scummy lurking through and through, and he is ranking high in my suspicions until he starts contributing. I’m also of the opinion that if people are going to policy lynch in a 7 Man game, then Day 1 would have to be the time. If the lurking continues, I think that we lynch hohum today and keep bn around until tomorrow. At the very least, that affords bn a chance to start scumhunting again.

Hiphop: I’ve yet to come up with a townie rationale behind planning to lynch a lurker on Day 2.

My instinct is to call Zwet on opportunistic wagoning, but I have a feeling that this is more or less par for the course from him.

[PorkchopExpress]

With only 5 days to the deadline, hohum's brand of lurking is only getting scummier. He's a very competitive lynch candidate in my opinion.

@bn: While I can appreciate that there is only so much to glean from Day 1, currently you have no suspects at all, IIRC. The closest thing you have to a counter-case is that hohum is lurking (and even that looks half-hearted from where I'm sitting). It's hard to see this as pro-town.

[PorkchopExpress]

@hiphop: To answer your question, context. Do you really not see the difference between using a policy lynch on Day 1 (where evidence is slight and there will be more one Day 2) and policy lynching a lurker on Day 2 when we should be using the aforementioned evidence? Do you not see how it would be a bad idea to hold onto a policy lynch for Day 2 regardless of how Day 1's lynch turns out?

As for choosing between hohum and bn. Well, sure, hohum could start contributing in a big way, but there has been nothing to suggest that he will do so. Similarly, he could be replaced and they could be immensely helpful but since hohum does just enough to avoid replacement, this doesn't seem likely. On the other hand, brothernature has contributed eariler and so I have at least some basis for hoping that he can contribute more later.

[PorkchopExpress]

Well, hohum is posting at least.

Unvote

. I still have the same quibble I had about Baltar's argument seeming more personality based than alignment based. I like the

LA Confidential

quote and I think that the deflection call is spot on. This post is damning in my opinion. As is bn's tendency to do no more than insinuate scumminess.

Vote:brothernature

[PorkchopExpress]

While we wait.

@Baltar: What do you think of hohum not voting bn earlier, despite levelling his accusation?

[PorkchopExpress]

I think I know which part Far Cry is talking about. It's just a shame I'm almost willing to look past the claim, because bitchy posts like 244 really deserve to be flung back in his teeth. Don't want to get lynched? Try not sucking so much.

[PorkchopExpress]

@Baltar: Yeah, I don't see how bn's claim makes Zwet look less guilty. Also, hiphop is at the top of the list. I think he's had some real flashes of anti-town behaviour today. Hmm, Far Cry is lingering in my peripheral. Zwet rounds it out with his minimalist approach.

@hiphop: Keep in mind that neither Zwet or hohum have responded since the claim has been made. We may yet have a counter-claim (which'll be interesting this close to deadline). If you believe the claim, your next step is to return to whoever you felt was 2nd scummiest.

Re: bn's claim

This whole thing should more or less straighten itself out. If he's telling the truth then it'll be an unopposed claim. If he's lying, well then the doc merely counterclaims so we can lynch this scumbag and move on.

[PorkchopExpress]

@hohum: Are you still vying for a bn lynch? If not, who's your preferred lynch now?

[PorkchopExpress]

@Baltar: I'm pretty sure what Far Cry was referencing is the post where bn talks about trying a different playing style for a different role. I wasn't buying bn's claim because he may have breadcrumbed with a partially vague statement, it's more important that it went unchallenged. Still wanting a hiphop lynch.

Unvote. Vote: hiphop

[PorkchopExpress]

@hiphop: Can you articulate the difference? We're short on time, so this might be very important for you.

[PorkchopExpress]

Ok, perhaps the greatest end to a Mafia game ever. Since they all lived happily ever after, and let Town make its win condition.

Well it was nice to be on the winning team for once, but sadly I wasn't a big factor. I completely missed the boat on Zwet (I'm not sure I even made it to the pier) and never really got around to Hohum. It was nice to see the game clean up a bit after the early shenanigans, though.

@VP: You played a very good game and was right onto the scum. Top marks. I think it says a lot that I (and others) were willing to believe your meta read despite you not really being able to discuss it.

@bn: Who did you protect?

@Far_Cry: Investigating bn was a bad call, since the open set up pretty much guaranteed his claim's validity. Still, it proved a little matter and you handled pressure well when it was on.

@hiphop: This was your first game on MS, right? Well, it must have been a baptism by fire. You made it to endgame and wasn't really a big suspect at that stage, so you did pretty well.

@hohum: I Pm'd an /in for Last Man Standing, I'll repeat it here. I loves me some western theme.

[PorkchopExpress]

Plus you were killed N1, that's the frustrating mark of a true champion .

This is why mafia is a cruel mistress.