Mini 839 -- Mafia Invasion! (Game Over)

[Sotty7]

I can agree with you on DRK.

[sigma]

tbh? don't know that one.

[Col.Cathart]

tbh = To be honest.

[sigma]

couldn't come up with the h-word....

@vi -- you seem pretty set on an imaginality lynch. Anything he's done on day 2 to contribute to that, or is it just residual day 1 scumminess?

[Vi]

Anything he's done on day 2 to contribute to that(...)?

The answer to this is more or less the same as

Anything he's done on day 2(...)?

[Porkens]

Oh. Ok.

unvote; Vote Imaginality

[Ojanen]

Read done. Phew.

Off the TMJ wagon, imaginality is my clear top suspect.
On the TMJ wagon, I have a HUGE scumread on jammer for about everything else he's done except that vote on the final wagon.
DRK is giving mixed signals. The case is not terrible, I should review her questionable stuff in iso later, but I also saw distinct patches of townish signals earlier and imaginality and jammer seem at the moment much superior lynches imo.
I have a stern opinion on Cruciare being probably town.

More in a bit.

[Cruciare]

I am very eager to hear your case on DRK. I am finding it extremely telling that you are now backing away from presenting one simply by saying “it's already out there.” You have promised this case several times and now you have said it has to disappear. It's one thing to be busy, it's quite another to disappear a case on someone you strongly believe to be scum.

Now you want me to look at day one as if I know DRK is scum... Isn't that a little backwards? Plus didn't you say that DRK opinions mirrored a lot of your own on day one? Does that mean your play is also scummy by your own admission?

1) The key points ARE already out there, in my own posts if that wasn't clear. Ignoring TMJ until the bottom of page 6, calling for quicklynch and then backing away after claim, etc.
2) I don't *strongly* believe him to be scum. I am uninformed, I'm still trying to figure it out myself. My reasoning is that his D1 play matches scum quite perfectly, albeit too perfectly which is why I'm starting to have doubts (note the order of progression: Vi starts Y.C. wagon, TMJ jumps on Y.C. wagon for no reason, DRK then also jumps on Y.C. wagon).
3) The case I speak of was not meant to convince you that DRK is definitely scum, rather it is the reason why I think he is scum. Again, I am always open to convincing otherwise, and I will not try to convince anyone of anything unless I am convinced of it myself. And I am nowhere near convinced that DRK is scum. When D2 started, after I reread DRK's D1 posts, the reason I didn't put out the case right there and then is probably the same reason why I'm holding back from putting it out now. Again, lack of effort. The case hasn't disappeared, I will just regurgitate it in bits if necessary. I say 'if necessary' because I myself am starting to have doubts about DRK. Please remember that my opinion can change. And again, I've already stated the key points.
4) Regardless of how backwards you think it is, it's a necessary viewpoint to adapt if you are to understand the reasoning behind why I think DRK is scum. Let me put that more clearly: It's how I came to the conclusion that DRK is most likely scum. I'm not one to analyse my own play, but the things I'm suspicious of DRK for are the bits in our opinion that don't match up. For example, if I too had ignored TMJ until the bottom of page 6, and I too called for a quicklynch on Y.C./Pops, and I too immediately backed off Pops's wagon when he claimed, and I too left my vote unused for a period of time after that, then yes, my play would be scummy by my own admission. But I didn't.

So if we're lynching off the TMJ wagon today you simply are ready to vote for anyone that isn't you? Good to know.

I'm

ready

to vote for anyone, yes, but I'd

prefer

to vote for the one that's actually, you know, scum?

My read is largely up in the air now, my suspicions of DRK weren't as strong as they were on the start if D2. People who aren't Porkens, Vi, Sigma, Col and Sotty need to talk more. Myself included technically, but I don't have much I feel I need to talk about until DRK/Imaginality/Ojanen say stuff. Or unless Sotty keeps me 'entertained', of course.

[Ojanen]

Jammer

This is post 47; TMJ sheeping Vi's vote, perhaps the post from him that was the blatantly questionable one early:

yay...

unvote

vote Y.C.

Post 48 jammer completely minds his own business and answers Porkens' questions to him, no comment about sheep vote or Vi's big post with pop case, a lurkervote instead.


A few pages later, after several people have questioned TMJ about the matter, jammer posts:

@TMJ, if it was not said before, your vote was quite blantently sheeping.
It is hypocrite to vote someone else to get them participate if you do little yourself. Besides I think there are others who did less.
As you keep your vote on YC now he is being wagoned, what is the main reason you keep this vote?

Unvote: afatchic; Vote: James Denholm

ALARM: votes someone unrelated to questioning for lurking. Originally ignores sheeping, now brings it up.

Also, Porkens having said in 84

I wouldn't be surprised if we've stumbled onto scum with this wagon, actually. So I encourage those of you voting for TMJ to switch to YC. Yes, TMJ joined an easy wagon. However, sometimes wagons are easy for a reason.

jammer replies to that something that just gives me a distinct tone of someone knowing TMJ is scum:

Porkens why are you so focused(tunneling) on YC?
You disregard other player actions and are completely focused on getting YC lynched.

Especially because jammer has himself stated earlier that he finds Y.C.(pops) to be the scummiest player. And expressed sentiment of being perfectly ok with Y.C lynched soon on the previous day in post 66.
Also contradiction to attacking solely Y.C. next, and soon inexplicably deciding it's not worth the wait after all to hear from the replacement because they can't explain Y.C's actions and votes pops to L-1. Iirc, Tmj was geting again more under pressure at this time.

And with Tjoe, his actions could be becouse he is newish(or something), as Cruciare said. I want to hear more from him.

Takes this stand on TMJ and makes sure to credit Cruciare for the scum-defending.

After pops claims doc, goes back to lurkerbandwagoning my slot for no reasons given. He's been using this policy for the whole day, except for the sudden L-1 vote, and I find it a way to stay non-committal, his lurkervotes rarely have else attached to them.

Then the last part. His commentary of TMJ has been few and far between.
Thye situation is pops 5 - Tjoe 3. Porkens goes aggressively against claimed doc lynch.
jammer votes tjoe and makes it 5-4. Original reasoning isn't given at all. Being timid in reasoning and slipping the vote through is something I often find a bussing charasteristic, scum wants the vote record but would like to avoid convincing others.

As for the pops vs. TMJ business. It seems those are becoming the lynch targets, I am fine with lynching any of those two. Thinking about it, I think TMJ is the best lynch.

Unvote: Sotty
Vote: TMJ

After pressed about it,

TMJ is well, TMJ. Looking at it, I doubt you could draw a solid conclusion out of him later. Is it part of his playing style or is it real scummy behaviour. If we don´t lynch him today, I think we are likely to lynch him at some point later in the game.

I am fully ready to move my vote on pops to get him lynched. I do prefer the one that is not a claimed doctor.

I am not solely voting TMJ becouse pops is doc. TMJ got scummy behaviour, at worst we lose a unhelpful and unreadable pro-town player with lynching TMJ. Who would always be a ¨What do we do with him?¨ if kept alive. Might be a playing style he looks so scummy, but lynching TMJ will likely continue being a gamble if that is the case.

I´d lynch pops and TMJ both at this instant if I could.

Tjoe is unreadable (not sure if scummy), then further pressed tjoe is after all scummy but jammer's ready to lynch pops.

I do not think it is unreasonable to think this could be bussing, especially because I think the tide was turning, several townies had been advocating pops hard or staying out of the wagon earlier, being seemingly bankable mislynches (my slot, and I currently think Cruciare and maybe also DRK if she's indeed town like my gut told me). Jammer was already doing groundwork on his vote on my slot today in the post he voted Tmj yesterday in.

Next post will be about imaginality. I need to catch a flight right now. I'll be back in the evening.

[RedCoyote]

I'm giving imaginality a little prod to remind him of his earlier post.

[Sotty7]

My read is largely up in the air now, my suspicions of DRK weren't as strong as they were on the start if D2. People who aren't Porkens, Vi, Sigma, Col and Sotty need to talk more. Myself included technically, but I don't have much I feel I need to talk about until DRK/Imaginality/Ojanen say stuff. Or unless Sotty keeps me 'entertained', of course.

I'll take that back handed insult and raise you a

We just don't agree. What I am finding funny is that yesterday I found you townie while others didn't and today that position has flipped. Maybe my scumdar needs recalibration when it comes to you. Time will tell I suppose.

Ojanen, is jammer your top suspect?

I don't support this imaginality wagon.

[sigma]

Sotty, would you still support a vi lynch over a Cruciare lynch?

[Sotty7]

Yes

[jammer]

Firstly, I'm sorry RC,

I request replacement

. Slowly getting bored with mafia overall, and less time left for this in the near future. Better to replace out now then accidentelly flake out of the game later.

Sorry to hear that, jammer. I will start looking for a replacement.

I'll anwser questions about my play. As I doubt my replacer is able to anwser those.
If there are any urgent questions a replacer is not likely to anwser, ask now.

@jammer:

Just playing around a little with the votes. Testing something out a little.

Please explain properly what you were testing, and what was the result.

Properly, I was randomly voting someone without much reason to test a response. The reason itself, the lurkervote should be obvious.

As for the result. afatchic pretty much didn't mind/ignored the vote(neutral). While James responded to the vote, and felt to ask why he was voted(somewhat scummy).

Unvote: afatchic; Vote: James Denholm

Say what? Just randomly vote <b>me why<b/> don't you.

Also I did not really mind the vote from TMJ that much at first. Looked at it, meh ok. It took some time before someone mentioned the (scummy) vote from TMJ. And then I found the latter reasoning TMJ gave worse then just sheeping from Vis reasoning, "getting Y.C. to talk more".

You're misunderstanding, I voted TMJ for, 1) Not being doc, 2) Not going to be a help as town 3) unreadable (with a nuture doing scummy things).
And no, I did not feel a strong feeling to get pushing for a TMJ lynch over pops.

[imaginality]

Hello again all. Apologies for my slack play. It transpires that starting new games around the same time as going V/LA for three days was not the smartest of moves. However, I've caught up now.

First of all: Vi's 'desperate measures' comment is fairly transparent. If I picked up on it on a cursory read-through I'm sure the scum has/have. Vi, I think you should explain exactly what you meant by that. This is fairly important.

Second: answers to questions

1.

@Imaginality: What do you think of Afatchic?

Didn't have much of a read on afatchic. Plus points for being against the pops lynch, but that's something of a wash with lurking around deadline. Still, I'd have thought scum, unless AWOL that whole time, would have come onto the pops wagon before deadline rather than let their teammate get lynched without even getting credit for being on the wagon. So I was leaning town on afatchic. Ojaren's play so far seems easier to read as being town.

2.

@imaginality, any particulair reason TMJ lost your attention yesterday?

I was focused on trying to decide if pops was lying with his doc claim and whether to lynch him given that he'd claimed, whether or not he was lying. I'd expressed suspicion of TMJ and he was the other wagon, it was pretty clear that's where my vote would have gone if I hadn't gone with the pops lynch.

3.

Also, looking at imaginality's iso... He voted for TMJ for active lurking in iso 2, and then switched to an L-1 vote for pops in iso 3. I don't think I've seen this mentioned yet, and honestly, that looks pretty suspicious to me.

The pops vote was based pretty much entirely on his play as a then-new replacement for YC, so it's hardly surprising that I hadn't expressed suspicion before that vote. I stand by my feeling then that his attitude/play at that point was well worth the L-1 vote. And since TMJ wasn't in major danger at that point I don't think my switch away from him is all that scummy compared to if it had been closer to deadline. (As I mentioned, I think it's scummier that Cruciare (and DRK) tried to lead the day in a pops / jammer direction rather than a pops / TMJ one.)

Also throwing imaginality's selective participation out there - only responding to direct questions and whatever would get pops lynched.

To the first part. Yes, I have been in the background this game. Though to be fair I often am as town. Not deliberately lurking, but rarely the most active poster. I think my D1 posts though later on D1 were not pleas/attempts to get pops lynched ASAP, so much as 'thinking out loud' as I tried to decide whether to lynch him post-doc-claim.

imaginality
My instinct is that he was on the TMJ wagon way too quickly to have been bussing. That might have been brilliant play though. He never did seemed to reticent to lynch the claimed doc. SS--

Not sure why lynching the claimed doc is a point against me rather than the others in your list equally so.


Next, my response to Cruciare's response to my points against him:

I think it's significant that midway through the day Cruciare tried to steer the lynch choice towards pops vs jammer rather than pops vs TMJ.

You misinterpreted me here. My stance D1 was to lynch Pops if possible, lynch Jammer if lynching Pops was not possible, and lynch TMJ if lynching Pops or Jammer was not possible. None of this A vs B thing. Also, it's not like I tried to seriously convince anyone of Jammer's suspiciousness, as I wanted to lynch Pops first before making a case on Jammer.

By AvB I mean that you were adding fuel to pops and jammer suspicion while trying to dampen somewhat the TMJ suspicion. Evidence below. Also, your last sentence is false, if anything you said you wanted to lynch pops before making a case on TMJ.

I'll wait and see what the replacement says about everything, until then my vote will stay on Jammer. I'm wary of his subtle defending of Y.C. and attempts to jump on a possible TMJ wagon whilst anti-tunneling on the Y.C one.... As for TMJ, coming from a guy who called Vi "dumb head" in his first (?) post, all I'm getting is a null read. I've seen players like him before, and in most cases (when they're not pretending), that kind of behaviour was not indicative of their alignment.

Basically, I won't be looking too deep into [TMJ's] words, because for players like him words aren't a great help. However, comments like 82 that stand out in a bad way I will consider if Pops flips town.

2) I 'd rather not comment too much on anyone until after Pops has been lynched and his alignment revealed, but I'll tell you the truth about what I think of Jammer: he's been an issue ever since his third post. Let's just say that if for some wacky reason we couldn't get Pops lynched, I would be fine with lynching Jammer instead.

I'm not sure what the optimal play for us is in this situation, but I'm not buying it. If however lynching Pops today is not going to happen, like I said I would be fine moving my vote to Jammer. Would someone with experience care to share a little wisdom as to how to proceed?

Later on, he softened his stance on pops to being based "more gut than logic" when pops looked likely to be lynched, while keeping his vote on pops. That seems like an attempt to position himself better for when pops flipped town.

My stance did not soften. My reasons for voting Pops before his claim were the same as my reasons for keeping my vote on him after the claim. The difference is that after his claim, it may be more logical to not lynch a claimed doctor D1 regardless of how suspicious I may be of him, yet my gut was telling me that my suspicions were right and I should follow through with them. Examples of logical reasons for keeping my vote on him would be if another person had counterclaimed doctor, if I myself were a doctor, or if I had some kind of investigation result on him (hypothetically), neither of which was the case. What ever it 'seemed like' to you, it was the truth.

My main evidence here

is

was:

Like I said, my wanting to lynch Pops is more gut than logic.

Where did you say that?

Later edit: Oh, I see, iso14. Okay, I'll withdraw this point.]

Also, several times he ducked giving his opinion on something or gave vagueish answers.

If you would be so kind as to point out where I have done this, I will be more than glad to correct it.

Some examples below. I'm not especially interested in you clarifying this comments now, unless you think a particular post I quoted

is in itself

clear and unambiguous in which case feel free to point that out. I'm more interested in pointing out that you fence-sat or ummed and ahhed back then and that that is scummy.

I'll tell you the truth about what I think of Jammer: he's been an issue ever since his third post.

What did you think of Jammer's second post? I've been watching him ever since then because I thought his answers sounded too much like he was trying not to step on any toes.

Haha, I didn't really pay much attention to people's survey answers (cause you know, that would be quite hypocritical of me). I only went back to read that after his next few posts didn't sit right with me, so I guess even if I did see some kind of careful treading on those grounds, it would be from a biased point of view. Maybe it's just my inability to properly interpret it, but I stand by my view that people's answers to surveys don't actually tell much. Only one particular question was worth noting people's answers to IMO, though I won't say which one yet.

If Pops is town, my entire scumdar would have to be flipped upside down. Which means that TMJ would be more scummy, as would everyone who was quick to jump on the Y.C. wagon, but not necessarily scum. I've said this before, but if it weren't for 82, my read on TMJ would be completely null. At the time, I wasn't considering him because I believe Pops is scum, I believed that lynching Pops was the most important thing that had to be done before I started looking deeply into other people. By 'consider' I meant actually consider starting to look closer into TMJ. There is not enough substance out of him for me to take a definitive stance. Perhaps simply because of 82, he should logically be placed on the scum side of the meter. However Vi, my scumdar is telling me that Pops is scum, and now you are telling that same scumdar to function on the basis that Pops is not scum. I can only fully consider that should I see in green letters 'popsofctown, Doctor'.

I find Pops the most scummy, but the fact that he's claimed doc is an avalanche against my ability to convince other people to lynch him. Like I said, my wanting to lynch Pops is more gut than logic. Even logically, I am starting to have doubts about Pops, not because of Pops himself but because of how some other people are reacting to him. For example, the absence of notable objection to his claim. What do you think about this?

Can we get some thoughts from you on DRK, imaginality, and

Cruciare

afatchic

? seeing as how there's a good chance we'll be lynching one of those three today.

*Whistles*

3) The case I speak of was not meant to convince you that DRK is definitely scum, rather it is the reason why I think he is scum. Again, I am always open to convincing otherwise, and I will not try to convince anyone of anything unless I am convinced of it myself. And I am nowhere near convinced that DRK is scum. When D2 started, after I reread DRK's D1 posts, the reason I didn't put out the case right there and then is probably the same reason why I'm holding back from putting it out now. Again, lack of effort. The case hasn't disappeared, I will just regurgitate it in bits if necessary. I say 'if necessary' because I myself am starting to have doubts about DRK. Please remember that my opinion can change. And again, I've already stated the key points.

A point in Cruciare's favour however, which I noticed just while compiling these points, is his comment in iso14:

To be honest, the lack of notable objection to Pops' claim worries me, but my gut's still telling me that he's scumscumscum. A significant part of the reason being that he doesn't act like a doctor at all

That does sound like a genuine townie trying to get a read on someone. For that reason, I want to take a close look now at the points people have made against DRK.

Then my vote will likely go on DRK or Cruciare. Most of the people on TMJ's wagon were on it in a way which makes me doubt they were bussing.

(Vi is a possible exception, as I mentioned earlier. But I'll say more on Vi later, pending Vi's response to my comment above.)

[sigma]

Holy Wall of Text, Batman!

(As I mentioned, I think it's scummier that Cruciare (and DRK) tried to lead the day in a pops / jammer direction rather than a pops / TMJ one.)

Why is them going after jammer scummy? Obviously, focusing on pops instead of TMJ is a good reason to scrutinize them, but I don't understand the point you're making about jammer. What's your opinion of jammer right now? Do you agree with ojanen's case?

[imaginality]

My point is that rather than let the day come down to a wagon on a scumbuddy vs a wagon on a townie, they may have been trying to actively steer it towards becoming a wagon on townie vs wagon on townie end of day decision.

Obviously for this scenario to apply, jammer would have to be town. I don't know if that's the case. Early D1 his L-1 vote on YC struck me as suspicious. But I'm not as convinced as ojanen is that jammer's isoposts 16-18 were bussing as compared to genuine, so I'm regarding him as town for now.

[Ojanen]

Ojanen, is jammer your top suspect?

I'll tell you after I've iso-read imaginality properly tomorrow. Jammer just stuck out from the page to me a lot before the final wagon, I had most notes from him and he was completely left alone currently so I commented on him first.

@jammer, since your replacing reason doesn't seem exceedingly urgent, I really hope you're still around tomorrow. I have questions for you but no time to post before 12 hours from now - internet broke home and I'm in the middle of the night in an internet cafe right now.

[Vi]

First of all: Vi's 'desperate measures' comment is fairly transparent. If I picked up on it on a cursory read-through I'm sure the scum has/have. Vi, I think you should explain exactly what you meant by that. This is fairly important.

I'll pass on this for now.

[RedCoyote]

jammer is being replaced by charter. Thanks, charter! A vote count is forthcoming as well.

[RedCoyote]

"Howdy, pard'ner"
"How you doin'?"...

---

Vote Count 2.3

• Not Voting

  (DeathRowKitty - Ojanen)
  
  
  DeathRowKitty

  (Cruciare - Col.Cathart -

  Porkens

  )
  
  
  Ojanen

  (sigma - charter)
  
  
  imaginality

  (Vi - Porkens)
  
  
  Vi
  (Sotty7)
  
  
  Cruciare
  (imaginality)

With ten alive, it takes six to lynch.
The current deadline is

September 30th

.

[Cruciare]

By AvB I mean that you were adding fuel to pops and jammer suspicion while trying to dampen somewhat the TMJ suspicion.

I admit I was trying to dampen the TMJ suspicions - I did not believe he was the right lynch D1, especially considering the reasons for which people were suspicious of him (like I said, I've seen that kind of play before and it was largely non-indicative of alignment). However as for my posts regarding Jammer, I don't know if it looks that way to you, but they were not in any way intended to add fuel to his suspicion. I just stated my own suspicions, and I don't think I actually made any real effort to convince anyone else of anything regarding Jammer.

Also, your last sentence is false, if anything you said you wanted to lynch pops before making a case on TMJ.

I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to here, could you clarify which of my sentences you interpreted to be false? And a small correction on that second part: I said that I'd consider TMJ if Pops flipped town.

Some examples below. I'm not especially interested in you clarifying this comments now, unless you think a particular post I quoted is in itself clear and unambiguous in which case feel free to point that out. I'm more interested in pointing out that you fence-sat or ummed and ahhed back then and that that is scummy.

They aren't offendingly unclear when I'm the one reading them (maybe that's because I wrote them), but I may understand where you're coming from. I can see that in Iso 9 and Iso 21 I intentionally

held back

certain points, was that what you meant? I can also see in Iso 11 and Iso 31 how you may have interpreted me as having 'ducked giving my opinion', and if that's what you're talking about then I have no excuse; I didn't have much of an opinion on TMJ at that time (blinded by my suspicion of Pops), and I made a promise about DRK I couldn't keep, which is fully my fault. The part of Iso 30 you quoted was a joke, by the way. I did indeed umm and ahh a bit, were you expecting an uninformed player to so easily come to a decision as to the fate of a claimed doctor? I may also have to contest your claim that I fence-sat depending on what exactly you mean by 'fence-sat'.

@Col: Actually, can I get your opinion on people apart from DRK?

[Ojanen]

Aww, he's replaced already.
I dunno, I don't like to hold replacing out timings against people but kinda sucks that jammer avoided all interaction with me.

@jammer:

Just playing around a little with the votes. Testing something out a little.

Please explain properly what you were testing, and what was the result.

Properly, I was randomly voting someone without much reason to test a response. The reason itself, the lurkervote should be obvious.
As for the result. afatchic pretty much didn't mind/ignored the vote(neutral). While James responded to the vote, and felt to ask why he was voted(somewhat scummy).

At the time of saying the first quoted comment jammer had lurkervoted my slot and J.D. After unvoting pops because of the doc claim, he lurkervoted both my slot and J.D.

again

. While there were coincidentally at the same time throughout the day the YC and TMJ wagons (both if not always with many votes, at least consistently as talking points/near the top of the scummy list of most of everyone), I see this as non-committally scummy.

Also I did not really mind the vote from TMJ that much at first. Looked at it, meh ok. It took some time before someone mentioned the (scummy) vote from TMJ. And then I found the latter reasoning TMJ gave worse then just sheeping from Vis reasoning, "getting Y.C. to talk more".

Since you chose to pick out this argument I'll still reply: it's just that voting behaviour was first brought up by 3 people, then Tjoe answers, col votes him for the answer and

then

you bring it up (repeat col's argument+another question to him while unrelatedly randomly lurkervoting again), and use language that appears to not know if it was repeating. ("@TMJ, if it was not said before, your vote was quite blantently sheeping." )
Post about other things coming as promised soon.

[Col.Cathart]

@Col: Actually, can I get your opinion on people apart from DRK?

I'm in the middle of the analysis right now. You'll have the result later today/early tomorrow.

[charter]

Hey, I'll read up tonight hopefully.

unvote